113
Figure 8. Realization map through SGS for Fe (%) (a) and realization map for Si (%).
Figure 9. The semivariogram models for Fe (%) in the major range (a) and minor range (b).
Figure 10. The semivariogram models for Si (%) in the major range (a) and minor range (b).
ergodic fluctuations of the SGS realizations and the Fe (%) experimental variogram (obtained
through the sparse data). Figure 10 shows the semivariogram extracted from the Si (%) CT
along the major anisotropy direction in comparison with the ergodic fluctuations of the SGS
realizations and the experimental variogram Si (%). In both cases the CT and results are very
close from the experimental variogram, indicating the robust methodology proposed.
"
" 20 ,.
SGS realization Fe
-7500
. ' t .
fl
East
~ ·i· ! ~ ' " 70
60
..
..
:c ..
-,:: ,.
,.
,.
20
,.
10
0 o 100200300.:00~000/00ti00900 100C
0~10 1~20~XI»tO~:l0:6
w
~
~
~
(a)
160
100
1 .,
,.
120
110
100
:c"'
;; oo
10
.. .. .,
"' 20
'
m
0 0
100 200 300 .400 !100 000 100 800 QOO 100::
Lags
(b)
10
,. "'
., "'
Lags
-2500
~_:_~mples
• SGSCT
I
.. 10 00