Skip to main content
Log in

Subsurface mapping: selection of best interpolation method for borehole data analysis

  • Published:
Spatial Information Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Selection of the best interpolation method as well as the appropriate software parameters that give the closest approximation to known geology is usually a difficult task. This is because geologic factors such as lithologic and structural feature occurrences are not easily predictable, especially where outcrop occurrences are fortuitous. Borehole data provides an alternative to sparse outcrops especially in areas where the borehole occurrence is well-distributed. However, most boreholes were drilled for exploration purposes and may not be well-distributed over all the study areas. Getting information in-between boreholes becomes a big challenge, especially in areas where we have very large volume of borehole data that are randomly distributed. The use of interpolation technique to estimate in-between borehole points becomes imperative. Comparison of interpolation techniques was carried out with borehole log data so as to determine the best interpolation method output that is closest to known geology. The test area is located in the southwestern part of the Western Bushveld Complex and the northeastern part of the Eastern Bushveld Complex in South-Africa. Eight interpolation tools available in Rockworks® 15 were evaluated and utilized in contouring the major stratigraphic peaks within the area. The best results were achieved with Kriging and trend surface analysis interpolation methods. The resultant maps were interpreted and compared with geology and structures inferred from existing geological and geophysical records and a good correlation is present.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

References

  1. Wu, Q., Xu, H., & Zou, X. (2005). An effective method for 3D geological modeling with multi-source data integration. Computers & Geosciences, 31(1), 35–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mei, S. (2009). Geologist-controlled trends versus computer-controlled trends: Introducing a high-resolution approach to subsurface structural mapping using well-log data, trend surface analysis, and geospatial analysis. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 46, 309–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bamisaiye, O. A., Eriksson, P. G., Van Rooy, J. L., Brynard, H. M., Foya, S., & Nxumalo, V., et al. (2014). Three dimensional geometry of the Rustenburg Layered Suite, South Africa. Canadian Journal of Tropical Geography/Revue canadienne de géographie tropicale [Online]. Vol. (2) 1. pp. 1–15. http://laurentian.ca/cjtg. Accessed 5 May 2015.

  4. Wang, G., & Huang, L. (2011). 3D geological modeling for mineral resources assessment of the Tongshan Cu deposit, Heilongjiang Province, China. Geosciences Frontiers, 3(4), 483–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Muzik, J., Vondrackova, T., Sitanyiova, D., Plachy, J., & Nyvlt, V. (2015) Creation of 3D geological model using interpolation methods for numerical modelling. In World multidisciplinary earth sciences symposium, WMESS 2015 (Vol. 15, pp. 25–30). Procedia Earth and Planetary Science.

  6. Dag, A., & Ozdemir, A. C. (2013). A comparative study for 3D surface modeling of coal deposit by spatial interpolation approaches. Resource Geology, 63(4), 394–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mei, G. (2014). Summary on several key techniques in 3D geological modeling. The Scientific World Journal. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/723832.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kaufmann, O., & Martin, T. (2008). 3D geological modelling from boreholes, cross-sections and geological maps, application over former natural gas storages in coal mines. Computers & Geosciences, 34, 278–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chilès, J. P., Aug, C., Guillen, A., & Lees, T. (2004). Modelling the geometry of geological units and its uncertainty in 3D from structural data: the potential-field method. In Proceedings of international symposium on orebody modelling and strategic mine planning, Perth, Australia (Vol. 22, p. 24).

  10. Calcagno, P., Chilès, J. P., Courrioux, G., & Guillen, A. (2008). Geological modelling from field data and geological knowledge part I. Modelling method coupling 3D potential-field interpolation and geological rules. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 171, 147–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. McInerney, P., Goldberg, A., Calcagno, P., Guillen, R., & Seikel, R. (2007). Improved 3D geology modelling using an implicit function interpolator and forward modelling of potential field data. In Milkereit, B. (Ed.), Proceedings of exploration 07: Fifth decennial international conference on mineral exploration (pp. 919–922).

  12. Aguilar, F. J., Agüera, F., Aguilar, M. A., & Carvajal, F. (2005). Effects of terrain morphology, sampling density, and interpolation methods on grid DEM accuracy. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 71, 805–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Handcock, M. S., & Wallis, J. R. (1994). An approach to statistical spatial-temporal modeling of meterological fields. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 84(426), 368–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Weng, Q. (2006). An evaluation of spatial interpolation accuracy of elevation data. In A. Riedl, W. Kainz, & G. A. Elmes (Eds.), Progress in spatial data handling (pp. 805–824). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Li, J. & Heap, A. D. (2008). A review of spatial interpolation methods for environmental scientists. Geoscience Australia, Record 2008/23, Canberra.

  16. Guarneri, J. C., & Weih, R. C., Jr. (2012). Comparing methods for interpolation to improve raster digital elevation models. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 66, 77–81.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Journel, A. G. (1989). Fundamentals of geostatistics in five lessons. In Bibliography: P. 1. Geology-statistical methods. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union.

  18. Tobler, W. R. (1970). A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography, 46, 234–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Li, J., & Heap, A. D. (2011). A review of comparative studies of spatial interpolation methods in environmental sciences: Performance and impact factors. Ecological Informatics, 6(6), 228–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2010.12.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Isaaks, E. H., & Srivastava, R. M. (1989). An introduction to applied geostatistics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bamisaiye, O. A. (2015). Geo-spatial mapping of the Western Bushveld Rustenburg Layered Suite (Rls) in South Africa. Journal of Geography and Geology, 7(4), 88–107. https://doi.org/10.5539/jgg.v7n4p88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bamisaiye, O. A., Eriksson, P. G., Van Rooy, J. L., Brynard, H. M., Foya, S., & Nxumalo, V. (2017). Subsurface mapping of Rustenburg Layered Suite (RLS), Bushveld complex, South Africa: Inferred structural features using borehole data and spatial analysis. Journal of African Earth Sciences, 132, 139–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afrearsci.2017.05.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gringarten, E., & Deutsch, C. V. (2001). Teacher’s aide variogram interpretation and modeling. Mathematical Geology, 33(4), 28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Chilès, J. P., & Delfiner, P. (1999). Geostatistics: Modeling spatial uncertainty. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Rockware. (2016). Rockworks17 software help. Boulder, CA.

  26. Wackernagel, H. (2013). Multivariate geostatistics: An introduction with applications. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Clark I., Harper W.V. (2000) Practical geostatistics: Alloa. In Escocia. Geostokos Limited.

  28. Goovaerts, P. (1997). Geostatistics for natural resources evaluation (p. 512). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Stark, P. B. (1997). Earthquake prediction: The null hypothesis. Geophysical Journal International, 131, 495–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246x.1997.tb06593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to O. A. Bamisaiye.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of the author, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 760 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bamisaiye, O.A. Subsurface mapping: selection of best interpolation method for borehole data analysis. Spat. Inf. Res. 26, 261–269 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41324-018-0170-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41324-018-0170-6

Keywords

Navigation