Spatial continuity measures for probabilistic and deterministic geostatistics

Geostatistics has traditionally used a probabilistic framework, one in which expected values or ensemble averages are of primary importance. The less familiar deterministic framework views geostatistical problems in terms of spatial integrals. This paper outlines the two frameworks and examines the issue of which spatial continuity measure, the covarianceC (h) or the variogram (h), is appropriate for each framework. AlthoughC (h) and (h) were defined originally in terms of spatial integrals, the convenience of probabilistic notation made the expected value definitions more common. These now classical expected value definitions entail a linear relationship betweenC (h) and (h); the spatial integral definitions do not. In a probabilistic framework, where available sample information is extrapolated to domains other than the one which was sampled, the expected value definitions are appropriate; furthermore, within a probabilistic framework, reasons exist for preferring the variogram to the covariance function. In a deterministic framework, where available sample information is interpolated within the same domain, the spatial integral definitions are appropriate and no reasons are known for preferring the variogram. A case study on a Wiener-Levy process demonstrates differences between the two frameworks and shows that, for most estimation problems, the deterministic viewpoint is more appropriate. Several case studies on real data sets reveal that the sample covariance function reflects the character of spatial continuity better than the sample variogram. From both theoretical and practical considerations, clearly for most geostatistical problems, direct estimation of the covariance is better than the traditional variogram approach.This paper was presented at MGUS 87 Conference, Redwood City, California, 14 April 1987.     

Estimating Variogram Uncertainty

The variogram is central to any geostatistical survey, but the precision of a variogram estimated from sample data by the method of moments is unknown. It is important to be able to quantify variogram uncertainty to ensure that the variogram estimate is sufficiently accurate for kriging. In previous studies theoretical expressions have been derived to approximate uncertainty in both estimates of the experimental variogram and fitted variogram models. These expressions rely upon various statistical assumptions about the data and are largely untested. They express variogram uncertainty as functions of the sampling positions and the underlying variogram. Thus the expressions can be used to design efficient sampling schemes for estimating a particular variogram. Extensive simulation tests show that for a Gaussian variable with a known variogram, the expression for the uncertainty of the experimental variogram estimate is accurate. In practice however, the variogram of the variable is unknown and the fitted variogram model must be used instead. For sampling schemes of 100 points or more this has only a small effect on the accuracy of the uncertainty estimate. The theoretical expressions for the uncertainty of fitted variogram models generally overestimate the precision of fitted parameters. The uncertainty of the fitted parameters can be determined more accurately by simulating multiple experimental variograms and fitting variogram models to these. The tests emphasize the importance of distinguishing between the variogram of the field being surveyed and the variogram of the random process which generated the field. These variograms are not necessarily identical. Most studies of variogram uncertainty describe the uncertainty associated with the variogram of the random process. Generally however, it is the variogram of the field being surveyed which is of interest. For intensive sampling schemes, estimates of the field variogram are significantly more precise than estimates of the random process variogram. It is important, when designing efficient sampling schemes or fitting variogram models, that the appropriate expression for variogram uncertainty is applied.     

The 2D Steady Hydraulic Head Field Surrounding a Pumping Well in a Finite Heterogeneous Confined Aquifer

We present a second-order analytic solution [in terms of a heterogeneous log-transmissivity Y(r) = ln T(r)] for the hydraulic head field in a finite 2D confined heterogeneous aquifer under steady radial flow conditions assuming fixed head boundary conditions at the well and at a circular exterior boundary. The solution may be used to obtain the gradient used in calculation of solute transport to a well in a heterogeneous transmissivity field. The solution, obtained using perturbation methods coupled with Green's function techniques, leads us to postulate a more general form of the head for arbitrarily large-variance fields and may be used to obtain moment relations between the log-transmissivity and head under convergent flow conditions when Y(r) is expressed as a random space function. We present expressions for the mean head field when the log-transmissivity is Gaussian and conditioned on the transmissivity value at the well for an arbitrary ln T covariance. Finally, we look at the effect of parameter variations on the mean head behavior and present numerical simulations verifying the second-order mean head expressions.