Journal of Geochemical Exploration 122 (2012) 9–19

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Geochemical Exploration

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jgeoexp

Application of fractal models to outline mineralized zones in the Zaghia iron ore
deposit, Central Iran
Behnam Sadeghi a, Parviz Moarefvand b, Peyman Afzal a, c,⁎, Amir Bijan Yasrebi c, Lili Daneshvar Saein d
a
Department of Mining Engineering, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
b
Amirkabir University of Technology, Mining and Metallurgy Faculty, Tehran, Iran
c
Camborne School of Mines, University of Exeter, Penryn, UK
d
Department of Geology, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Available online 15 May 2012 Recognition of different mineralized zones in an ore deposit is important for mine planning. This study aims
to separate the different mineralized zones and the wall rock in the Zaghia iron ore deposit situated in central
Keywords: Iran using the number–size (N–S) and concentration–volume (C–V) fractal methods. The N–S model reveals
Number–size (N–S) three geochemical zones defined by Fe thresholds of 24% and 40%, with zones b 24% Fe representing weakly
Concentration–volume (C–V)
mineralized zones and wall rocks. The C–V model reveals four geochemical zones defined by Fe thresholds of
Fractal models
18%, 30% and 35%, with zones b 18% Fe representing non-mineralized wall rocks. Both the N–S and C–V
Iron ore
Zaghia
models indicate that high grade mineralization is situated in the northern part of the ore deposit. The results
Iran of validation of the fractal models with the geological model show that the N–S fractal model of highly
mineralized zones is better than the C–V fractal model of highly mineralized zones. However, results obtained
by means of the C–V fractal model for weakly and moderately mineralized zones are more accurate than the
zones obtained by means of the N–S fractal model.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Definition and delineation of mineralized zones from barren wall
rocks are essential in mineral exploration, resource evaluation and
mine planning. Conventional methods for identification and mapping
of variously enriched zones in iron ore deposits, for example, are based
on geological and mineralogical studies considering variations in the
proportions of magnetite, hematite, and apatite, such as in Kiruna-
type iron deposits (Cox and Singer, 1986; Hitzman et al., 1992;
Shayestehfar et al., 2006). The Kiruna-type iron ores are generally
dominated by iron oxides, either magnetite or hematite, which are
known to occur in the Kiruna-Gällivare iron province in northern
Sweden and in the Bafq-Saghand iron district in central Iran (Bonyadi
et al., 2011; Cliff et al., 1990; Forsell and Godin, 1980; Frutos and
Oyarzún, 1975; Shayestehfar et al., 2006). In this type of iron deposit,
magnetite is found at deeper levels compared to hematite. Variations
of geochemistry and alterations are other useful parameters for iden-
tification of variously mineralized zones in Kiruna-type iron deposits
(Hitzman et al., 1992; Laznicka, 2005; Samani, 1988).
Fractal geometry (Mandelbrot, 1983), which is an important
branch of nonlinear mathematical sciences, has been applied in
⁎ Corresponding author. Department of Mining Engineering, South Tehran Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
E-mail address: P_Afzal@azad.ac.ir (P. Afzal).
different fields of geosciences since the 1980s. Bolviken et al. (1992)
and Cheng et al. (1994) have shown that geochemical patterns of
various elements have fractal dimensions. Several fractal models
have been developed and applied to geochemical exploration for
separating various geochemical (including mineralized) populations,
e.g., concentration–area (C–A) by Cheng et al. (1994), concentration–
distance (C–D) by Li et al. (2003), concentration–volume (C–V) by Afzal
et al. (2011) and number–size (N–S) by Agterberg (1995), Deng et al.
(2010), Mandelbrot (1983), Turcotte (2002) and Wang et al. (2010).
Fractal analysis assists in describing relationships of geological,
geochemical, and mineralogical settings with spatial information
derived from analysis of mineral deposit occurrence data (Afzal et al.,
2011; Carranza, 2008, 2009, 2010; Carranza and Sadeghi, 2010;
Carranza et al., 2009; Cheng, 1999, 2007; Goncalves et al., 2001; Wang
et al., 2011; Zuo et al., 2009). Various geochemical processes can
be explained based on differences in fractal dimensions obtained
from analysis of relevant geochemical data. Log–log plots in fractal
analysis are proper tools for delineation and classification of geological
populations in geochemical data because threshold values can be
recognized as breakpoints in those plots (Afzal et al., 2011).
The application of fractal methods for analysis of mineralized zones
was based on relationships between metal grades and volumes or
tonnages (Afzal et al., 2011; Agterberg et al., 1993; Cheng, 2007; Sim
et al., 1999; Turcotte, 1986). Afzal et al. (2011) proposed and tested
the C–V fractal method for delineation of different porphyry-Cu
mineralized zones and barren wall rocks. In this paper, N–S and C–V

0375-6742/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.gexplo.2012.04.011
10 B. Sadeghi et al. / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 122 (2012) 9–19
 B. Sadeghi et al. / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 122 (2012) 9–19 11

a 3497200
c
361900
361200

3498720
1170

900

b d

Fig. 2. 3D modeling of drillcore geological data in the Zaghia deposit: (a) geological model of the deposit; (b) low grade ores; (c) high grade ores; (d) metasomatic units; (e) a rep-
resentative cross-section.

fractal methods were applied for delineating variously enriched zones
and rocks in the Zaghia iron ore deposit, Central Iran.
2. Fractal models
2.1. Number–size fractal model
The N–S model, which was originally proposed by Mandelbrot
(1983), can be utilized to describe the distribution of geochemical
populations without pre-processing of data. The model shows that
there is a relationship between desirable attributes (e.g., ore element
in this paper) and their cumulative numbers of samples. Based on
the model, Agterberg (1995) proposed a multifractal model named
size-grade for determination of the spatial distributions of giant and
super-giant mineral deposits. Monecke et al. (2005) used the N–S
fractal model to characterize element enrichments associated with
metasomatic processes during the formation of hydrothermal ores
in the Waterloo massive sulfide deposit, Australia. A power-law fre-
quency model has been proposed to describe the N–S relationship
according to the frequency distribution of element concentrations

Fig. 1. Location map of the Bafq iron ore deposits and the Zaghia deposit (modified from Jami, 2005) and simplified geological map of the Zaghia deposit with location of drillcores
(modified from IMECO, 2010).
12 B. Sadeghi et al. / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 122 (2012) 9–19

Table 1
Distribution number of samples among drillcores in the Zaghia deposit.

Drillcore name BH01 BH02 BH03 BH04 BH06 BH07 BH08 BH13 BH14 BH15

Number of samples 7 5 7 6 10 23 8 18 5 13

Drillcore name BH16 BH17 BH18 BH19 BH20 BH21 BH22 BH23 BH28

Number of samples 10 10 8 19 2 10 7 5 4

and cumulative number of samples with those attributes (Li et al.,
1994; Sanderson et al., 1994; Shi and Wang, 1998; Turcotte, 1996;
Zuo et al., 2009). The model is expressed by the following equation
(Deng et al., 2010; Mandelbrot, 1983):
D
Nð ≥ ρÞ ¼ Fρ
where ρ denotes element concentration, N(≥ρ) denotes cumulative
number of samples with concentration values greater than or equal to
ρ, F is a constant and D is the scaling exponent or fractal dimension of
the distribution of element concentrations. According to Mandelbrot
(1983) and Deng et al. (2010), log–log plots of N(≥ρ) versus ρ show
straight line segments with different slopes −D corresponding to dif-
ferent concentration intervals.
2.2. Concentration–volume fractal model
The C–V fractal model, which was proposed by Afzal et al. (2011)
for separation of mineralized zones and wall rocks in porphyry-Cu
deposits, can be expressed as:
a –a
Vðρ≤υÞ∝ρ 1 ; Vðρ≥υÞ∝ρ 2
where V(ρ ≤ υ) and V(ρ ≥ υ) denote two volumes with concentration
values less than or equal to and greater than or equal to the contour
value ρ; υ represents the threshold value of a zone (or volume);
and a1 and a2 are characteristic exponents. Threshold values in
this method represent boundaries between different mineralized
zones and wall rocks of mineral deposits. To calculate V(ρ ≤ υ) and
V(ρ ≥ υ), which are the volumes enclosed by a contour level ρ in a
3D model, the borehole data of ore element concentrations were
interpolated by using geostatistical estimation.
Frequency
3. Geological setting of the Zaghia iron ore deposit
The Zaghia iron deposit is situated in the Bafq district and is lo-
cated 120 km east of Yazd in central Iran (Fig. 1). The Bafq district
is located in a metallogenic area in Iran with other mines such as
ð1Þ Choghart (iron), Esfordi (phosphate-magnetite), Koushk (lead and
zinc) and Chadormalu (iron and apatite). In this district, there are
also Precambrian complexes with mineralizations of U, Th, V, Mn,
Mo, Ti, Ba, apatite, rare earth elements (REE), stratiform Pb-Zn mas-
sive sulphides and different types of Fe ore (Bonyadi et al., 2011;
Daliran and Heins-Guenter, 2005; Förster and Jafarzadeh, 1994;
Jami, 2005; Jami et al., 2007; Samani, 1988). The Zaghia deposit is
a Kiruna-type Fe-P oxide deposit in the Bafq district and of the same
type as the Choghart, Mishdavan and North Anomaly iron ores
(IMECO, 2010). It is one of the Fe deposits hosted by a sequence of
pre-Cambrian and Cambrian rhyolitic volcanic rocks and intercalated
shallow-water sediments. The zoned and strata-bound ore deposit
has a prominent Fe-oxide‐rich core and an overlying body of
metasomatite and breccia that is rich in magnetite and hematite.
There are three major paragenetic stages of apatite mineralization,
which are mainly associated with Fe-oxide-rich (magnetite) ore or
ð2Þ metasomatic Fe-poor ore characterized by vein-style assemblage of
hematite and pyrite (IMECO, 2010; Sadeghi et al., 2011). Outcrops of
metasomatic units exist in the northern and southern parts of the de-
posit (Fig. 1).
Most parts of this studied area have been covered by alluvium and
therefore there are just small mineralized outcrops on the surface
based on field geology observations and mineralogical data from
four trenches, especially in the SE part of the deposit (Fig. 1).
Based on geological data (which include collar coordinates of each
drillcore, azimuth and dip (orientation), lithology and mineralogy)
recorded from 19 drillcores in the deposit, major rock types in depth

Fe (%)

Fig. 3. Histogram of Fe concentrations in lithogeochemical samples from the Zaghia deposit.

 B. Sadeghi et al. / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 122 (2012) 9–19
are metasomatite, conglomerate, limestone, tuff, magnetite and hema-
tite (Fig. 2). The presence of the Fe minerals magnetite and hematite
are used to classify “high grade” and “low grade” ores, respectively.
The terms of “high-low” have been utilized in order to explain the Fe
minerals, within the deposit.
Low grade ores (hematite) are situated in the northern parts of the
deposit. High grade ores (magnetite) occur in the northern, eastern
and central parts of the deposit. Metasomatic rocks are located and
occur extensively in many parts of the deposit (Fig. 2).
4. N–S and C–V fractal modeling
From 19 drillcores in the deposit, 177 lithogeochemical samples
have been collected at 2 m intervals. The distribution of number of
samples among 19 drillcores is presented in Table 1. The samples
have been analyzed by XRF for various elements related to Fe miner-
alization. However, only Fe data were investigated in this paper. The
distribution of Fe data illustrates multi-modal nature with Fe mean
value of 30.49% (Fig. 3). The experimental semi-variogram for the Fe
data in this deposit exhibits a range and nugget effect of 22 m and
87, respectively (Fig. 4). Based on the semi-variogram, a 3D model
of the distribution of Fe in the Zaghia deposit was generated with
ordinary kriging using the Datamine software (Sadeghi et al., 2011).
Ordinary kriging was used because it is compatible with a stationary
model; it only involves a variogram, and it is in fact the form of
kriging used most (Chilès and Delfiner, 1999). The method estimates
values in un-sampled locations based on moving average of the
variable of interest satisfying different dispersion forms of data, e.g.,
sparse sampling points (Goovaerts, 1997). Ordinary kriging is a spa-
tial estimation method where the error variance is minimized.
This error variance is called the kriging variance. It is based on the
configuration of the data and on its variogram (Yamamoto, 2005).
The derived block models were used as input to the C–V model. The
deposit was modeled by 50 m × 50 m × 10 m voxels, which were deter-
mined based on the geometrical properties of the deposit and grid
drilling dimensions (David, 1970). The Zaghia deposit is modeled
with 280,445 voxels. The terms of “highly”, “moderately” and “weakly”
have been used to classify mineralized zones based on fractal modeling
and accordance with the classification of in terms of ore grades within
the deposit.
4.1. N–S fractal modeling
The N–S method was applied to the Fe data (Fig. 5). The selection
of breakpoints as threshold values appears to be an objective decision
400
350
300
Semi-variance
250
200
150
100
50
0 100 200 300 400
Distance
Fig. 4. Semi-variogram of Fe data in Zaghia deposit.
13
2.5
2
1.5
Log No.
1
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Log Fe
Fig. 5. N–S log–log plot for Fe concentrations in the Zaghia deposit.
because geochemical populations are defined by different line seg-
ments in the N–S log–log plot. The straight fitted lines were obtained
based on least-square regression (Agterberg et al., 1996; Spalla et al.,
2010). In other words, the intensity of element enrichment is
depicted by each slope of the line segment in the N–S log–log plots
(Afzal et al., 2010; Bai et al., 2010). Accordingly, there are three
populations in the Fe data. The first Fe threshold is 24%, and values
of b24% Fe pertain to wall rocks and weakly mineralized zones
(Table 2) which can be included in the low grade hematite ores.
The second Fe threshold is 40%, and values of 24%–40% Fe pertain to
moderately mineralized zones (representing a combination of low
and high grade ores), whereas values of >40% Fe pertain to highly
mineralized zone (magnetite ore).
The various mineralized zones were distinguished by a mathe-
matical filter called “Boolean data type” in RockWorks software. As
a result, the studied mineralized zones in the 3D model are allocated
with binary codes (zero or one) such that zones with the code num-
ber of zero are removed and zones with the code number of one are
retained in the 3D model. Based on classification of the 3D model
of the Fe data and based on the thresholds obtained from the N–S
fractal model, highly mineralized zones are situated in the northern
part of the deposit (Fig. 6). Moderately mineralized zones are
disposed in a NW–SE trend. Weakly mineralized zones and wall rocks
are situated in marginal parts of the deposit.
4.2. C–V fractal modeling
Based on the 3D model of the deposit, volumes corresponding to
different Fe grades were calculated to derive a C–V fractal model.
Threshold values of Fe were recognized in the C–V log–log plot
(Fig. 7), which reveals a power‐law relationship between Fe concen-
trations and volumes occupied. Depicted arrows in log–log plot show
threshold values as three breakpoints corresponding to 18%, 30% and
35% Fe. Based on the log–log plot, highly mineralized zones are
considered to have >35% Fe (Table 3) which can be included in
high grade ores. The range of Fe concentrations between 30% and
Table 2
Zones in the Zaghia deposit based on two thresholds of Fe contents defined
from the N–S fractal model.
Mineralized zones Range Fe%
500 600
Wall rocks and weakly mineralized b24
Moderately mineralized 24–40
Highly mineralized >40
14 B. Sadeghi et al. / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 122 (2012) 9–19

a b
3497200
361900 361900 3497200

361200
361200

3498720 3498720
1170
1170

900 900

c d
361900 3497200

361200

3498720
1170

900

Fig. 6. Zones in the Zaghia deposit based on thresholds defined from the N–S fractal model of Fe data: (a) highly mineralized zones; (b) moderately mineralized zones; (c) weakly
mineralized zones and wall rocks; and (d) a representative cross-section of the mineralized zones.

35% represent moderately mineralized zones consist of hematite and
magnetite ores (representing a combination of low and high grade
ores). Weakly mineralized zones contain between 18% and 30% Fe
(which can be included in low grade ores). Iron concentrations of
b18% represent wall rocks.
Based on the C–V fractal model of Fe, highly mineralized zones
are situated in the northern part of the deposit (Fig. 8). However,
small highly mineralized zones are located in the eastern part of
the deposit. Moderately mineralized zones occur in the northern
and central parts of the deposit. Weakly mineralized zones exist in
many parts of the deposit and are disposed along the NW–SE trend.
Wall rocks are situated in marginal parts of the deposit.
5. Comparison of fractal models and geological model of the
deposit

Results of N–S and C–V modeling of the deposit are compared and
6 correlated to the 3D geological model of the deposit constructed by
using RockWorks™ v. 15 software and drillcore data (Fig. 2).
5
Highly mineralized zones defined by means of N–S and C–V
Log Volume

4 modeling are apparently well-correlated with zones of high grade

2 Table 3
Zones in the Zaghia deposit based on three thresholds of Fe contents defined from the
1 C–V fractal model (Fig. 6).

Mineralized zones Range Fe%

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Wall rocks b 18
Weakly mineralized 18–30
Log Fe (%)
Moderately mineralized 30–35
Highly mineralized > 35
Fig. 7. C–V log–log plot for Fe concentrations in the Zaghia deposit.
 B. Sadeghi et al. / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 122 (2012) 9–19 15

a 3497200
b
361900 361900 3497200

361200 361200

3498720 3498720
1170 1170

900 900

c 361900 3497200
d
361900 3497200

361200
361200
3498720
1170 3498720
1170

900
900

Fig. 8. Zones in the Zaghia deposit based on thresholds defined from the C–V fractal model of Fe data: (a) highly mineralized zones; (b) moderately mineralized zones; (c) weakly
mineralized zones; (d) wall rocks; and (e) a representative cross-section of the mineralized zones.

ore defined by 3D modeling of geological drillcore data (Fig. 9).
Moderately mineralized zones defined by means of N–S and C–V
modeling are apparently larger than zones of moderate and low
grade ores defined by 3D modeling of geological drillcore data
(Fig. 10). There is spatial coincidence between moderately mineral-
ized zones defined by means of the C–V and N–S modeling and
low grade ore zones defined by 3D modeling of geological drillcore
data in the northern and eastern parts of the deposit (Fig. 10).
Therefore, it can be concluded that the metasomatic units host
Fe concentrations in mineralized zones that are located in the SE
and central parts of this deposit. Geological investigations show that
some parts of Fe mineralization occurred within metasomatic units
(Fig. 10).
Carranza (2011) has shown an analysis for calculation of overlaps
or spatial correlations between two binary models. Using the miner-
alization model depicted in Figs. 9 and 10, an intersection operation
between a fractal mineralized zone model and different zones in the
geological ore model (Fig. 2) was performed to obtain numbers of
voxels corresponding to each of the four classes of overlap zones as
shown in the Table 4. Using the obtained numbers of voxels, Type I
16 B. Sadeghi et al. / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 122 (2012) 9–19
Fig. 9. Highly mineralized zones in the Zaghia deposit: (a) based on 3D modeling of drillcore geological data; (b) C–V modeling of Fe data; and (c) N–S modeling of Fe data. Rep-
resentative cross-sections: (d) based on 3D modeling of drillcore geological data; (e) C–V modeling of Fe data; and (f) N–S modeling of Fe data.
error (T1E), Type II error (T2E), and overall accuracy (OA) of the
fractal models were estimated with respect to the geological ore
model. Of the two errors, a lower T2E is more important than a lower
T1E because the former could entail a decision to mine (i.e., spend
effort, time, and money) for ‘nothing’ (Carranza, 2011). In addition,
for each of the fractal models, the values for OA of the N–S and C–V
fractal models of mineralized zones were compared with one another
as follows.
Comparison between high grade zones obtained from 3D geolog-
ical modeling and highly mineralized zones from fractal modeling
shows that the C–V fractal model is better than the N–S model be-
cause the fact that the number of overlapped voxels (A) in the C–V
model (1453 voxels) is higher than in the N–S model (253 voxels),
as depicted in Table 5. In addition, the T2E of the C–V model is
higher grade than that of the N–S model in terms of high grade
ore zone in the 3D geological model. Overall accuracies of the C–V
and N–S fractal models with respect to high grade ore zone of the
geological model are 0.867 and 0.960, respectively, which indicate
that the N–S model gives better results to identify highly mineral-
ized zones in the deposit. On the other hand, correlation (from OA
results) between high grade zone obtained from N–S modeling and
high grade ore zone is higher than the C–V model because of a
strong proportional relationship between extension and positions
of voxels in the N–S model and high grade ore zone in the 3D geo-
logical model.
A comparison between moderately mineralized zones based on
the fractal models and the metasomatic zone in the 3D geological
model shows that there is a similarity between the two fractal
models. Overall accuracies for the C–V and N–S models are 0.791
and 0.737, respectively (Table 6). Overall accuracy of moderately
mineralized zone obtained from C–V modeling is higher than the
mineralized zone obtained from N–S modeling (Table 7). On the
other hand, moderately mineralized zone defined by C–V modeling
has overlap with the metasomatic and low grade ore zones in the
3D geological model. However, the outcomes which results of the
C–V model are more accurate than those of the N–S model with re-
spect to low grade ore and metasomatic zones in the 3D geological
model.
6. Conclusions
In the many cases, drillcore logging in the field is dealing with the
lack of proper diagnosis of geological phenomenon can undermine
delineation of mineralized zones because it depends on interpretation
of individual loggers, which is subjective and no two loggers usually
have the same interpretations. However, conventional geological
modeling based on drillcore data is fundamentally important for ore
body spatial structure understanding and mathematical applications.
Grades of the ore elements are not observed in conventional methods
of geological ore modeling while the variations in ore grades in a
mineral deposit is an obvious and salient feature. Given the problems
as mentioned above, using a series of newly established methods
based on mathematical analyses such as fractal modeling seems to
be inevitable.
In this paper, the number–size (N–S) and concentration–volume
(C–V) fractal models were used to investigate and delineate various
Fe‐mineralized zones in the Zaghia iron ore deposit in the Bafq dis-
trict (Iran). Both the N–S and C–V fractal models reveal high grade
Fe-mineralized zones in the northern part of the deposit. The thresh-
old Fe values for highly mineralized zone are 40% and 35% based on
the N–S and C–V fractal models, respectively. Models of moderately
mineralized zones in the central and SE parts of the deposit contain
 B. Sadeghi et al. / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 122 (2012) 9–19 17

Fig. 10. Moderately mineralized zones in the Zaghia deposit based on: (a) 3D modeling of drillcore geological data; (b) C–V modeling of Fe data; (c) N–S modeling of Fe data; and
(d) 3D modeling of metasomatic units from drillcore data.

24–40% Fe according to the N–S model, and 30–35% Fe according to geological model. In addition, parts of the moderately mineralized
the C–V model. The N–S model reveals weakly mineralized zones zones obtained from the fractal models correlate with metasomatic
and wall rocks containing b24% Fe. In contrast, the C–V method re- units in the SE and central parts of the Zaghia deposit.
veals that wall rocks contain b18% and weakly mineralized zones
contain 18–30% Fe.
According to the correlation between results driven by fractal Table 5
modeling and geological logging from drillcores in Zaghia iron ore de- Overall accuracy (OA), Type I and Type II errors (T1E and T2E, respectively) with re-
posit, Highly mineralized zones generated by fractal models, especial- spect to high grade ore zone resulted from geological model of highly mineralized
ly the N–S model, have a strong correlation with high grade iron ores zones obtained through C–V and N–S fractal modeling of Fe data with respect to high
grade ore zones defined by 3D geological modeling of drillcore data.
according to the 3D geological model, and moderately mineralized
zones correlate with low grade iron ores in the northern and eastern High grade ore zones of geological
parts of the Zaghia deposit. There is a strong relationship between model
moderately mineralized zones derived by the C–V model and the Inside zones Outside zones
metasomatic zone with low grade iron ore according to the 3D C–V fractal model of Inside zones A 1453 B 21971
highly mineralized Outside zones C 1471 D 151775
zones
Table 4 T1E 0.503 T2E 0.126
Matrix for comparing performance of fractal modeling results with geological model. OA 0.867
A, B, C, and D represent numbers of voxels in overlaps between classes in the binary
geological model and the binary results of fractal models (Carranza, 2011). High grade ore zones of geological
model
Geological model
Inside zones Outside zones
Inside zone Outside zone
N–S fractal model of Inside zones A 275 B 4508
Fractal model Inside zone True positive (A) False positive (B) highly mineralized Outside zones C 2649 D 170416
Outside zone False negative (C) True negative (D) zones
Type I error = C/(A + C) Type II error = B/(B + D) T1E 0.906 T2E 0.026
Overall accuracy = (A + D)/(A + B + C + D) OA 0.960
18 B. Sadeghi et al. / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 122 (2012) 9–19

Table 6
Overall accuracy (OA), Type I and Type II errors (T1E and T2E, respectively) with respect to moderately mineralized zones obtained through C–V and N–S fractal modeling of Fe data
with respect to moderately grade ore zones defined by 3D geological modeling (metasomatic units) of drillcore data.

Metasomatic units of geological model

Inside geological units Outside geological units

C–V fractal model of moderately mineralized zones Inside zones A 46531 B 25279
Outside zones C 14455 D 103353
T1E 0.237 T2E 0.196
OA 0.791

Metasomatic units of geological model

Inside geological units Outside geological units

N–S fractal model of moderately mineralized zones Inside zones A 46497 B 35305
Outside zones C 14489 D 93361
T1E 0.237 T2E 0.274
OA 0.737

Table 7
Overall accuracy (OA), Type I and Type II errors (T1E and T2E, respectively) with respect to moderately mineralized zones obtained through N–S and weakly and moderately min-
eralized zones of C–V fractal modeling of Fe data with respect to low grade ore zones defined by 3D geological modeling of drillcore data.

Low grade ore zones of geological model

Inside zones Outside zones

C–V fractal model of weakly and moderately mineralized zones Inside zones A 6839 B 64971
Outside zones C 1155 D 103390
T1E 0.144 T2E 0.386
OA 0.625

Low grade ore zones of geological model

Inside zones Outside zones

N–S fractal model of moderately mineralized zones Inside zones A 6547 B 75255
Outside zones C 1447 D 93398
T1E 0.181 T2E 0.446
OA 0.566

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Mr. Gholamreza Hashemi as man-
ager of Iranian iron exploration project in Iran Minerals Production
& Supply Co. (IMPASCO) and Dr. M. R. Mahvi as Executive manager
of International minerals engineering consultant Co. (IMECO) for
authorizing the use of Zaghia exploration data. The authors would
like to thank the editors and reviewers of this paper for their com-
ments and valuable remarks.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2012.04.011.
References
Afzal, P., Khakzad, A., Moarefvand, P., Rashidnejad Omran, N., Esfandiari, B., Fadakar
Alghalandis, Y., 2010. Geochemical anomaly separation by multifractal modeling
in Kahang (Gor Gor) porphyry system. Central Iran. Journal of Geochemical Explo-
ration 104, 34–46.
Afzal, P., Fadakar Alghalandis, Y., Khakzad, A., Moarefvand, P., Rashidnejad Omran, N.,
2011. Delineation of mineralization zones in porphyry Cu deposits by fractal
concentration–volume modeling. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 108, 220–232.
Agterberg, F.P., 1995. Multifractal modeling of the sizes and grades of giant and super-
giant deposits. International Geology Review 37, 1–8.
Agterberg, F.P., Cheng, Q., Wright, D.F., 1993. Fractal modeling of mineral deposits. In:
Elbrond, J., Tang, X. (Eds.), 24th APCOM symposium proceeding, Montreal, Canada,
pp. 43–53.
Agterberg, F.P., Cheng, Q., Brown, A., Good, D., 1996. Multifractal modeling of fractures in
the Lac du Bonnet Batholith, Manitoba. Computers and Geosciences 22, 497–507.
Bai, J., Porwal, A., Hart, C., Ford, A., Yu, L., 2010. Mapping geochemical singularity using
multifractal analysis: application to anomaly definition on stream sediments data
from Funin Sheet, Yunnan, China. Journal of Geochernical Exploration 104, 1–11.
Bolviken, B., Stokke, P.R., Feder, J., Jossang, T., 1992. The fractal nature of geochemical
landscapes. Journal of Geochernical Exploration 43, 91–109.
Bonyadi, Z., Davidson, G.J., Mehrabi, B., Meffre, S., Ghazban, F., 2011. Significance of
apatite REE depletion and monazite inclusions in the brecciated Se–Chahun
iron oxide–apatite deposit, Bafq district, Iran: insights from paragenesis and
geochemistry. Chemical Geology 281, 253–269.
Carranza, E.J.M., 2008. Geochemical Anomaly and Mineral Prospectivity Mapping in
GIS. Handbook of Exploration and Environmental Geochemistry, Vol. 11. Elsevier,
Amsterdam. 351 pp.
Carranza, E.J.M., 2009. Controls on mineral deposit occurrence inferred from analysis of
their spatial pattern and spatial association with geological features. Ore Geology
Reviews 35, 383–400.
Carranza, E.J.M., 2010. From predictive mapping of mineral prospectivity to quantita-
tive estimation of number of undiscovered prospects. Resource Geology 61, 30–51.
Carranza, E.J.M., 2011. Analysis and mapping of geochemical anomalies using logratio-
transformed stream sediment data with censored values. Journal of Geochemical
Exploration 110, 167–185.
Carranza, E.J.M., Sadeghi, M., 2010. Predictive mapping of prospectivity and quantita-
tive estimation of undiscovered VMS deposits in Skellefte district (Sweden). Ore
Geology Reviews 38, 219–241.
Carranza, E.J.M., Owusu, E.A., Hale, M., 2009. Mapping of prospectivity and estimation
of number of undiscovered for lode gold, southwestern Ashanti Belt, Ghana.
Mineralium Deposita 44, 915–938.
Cheng, Q., 1999. Spatial and scaling modelling for geochemical anomaly separation.
Journal of Geochemical Exploration 65, 175–194.
Cheng, Q., 2007. Mapping singularities with stream sediment geochemical data for
prediction of undiscovered mineral deposits in Gejiu, Yunnan Province, China.
Ore Geology Reviews 32, 314–324.
Cheng, Q., Agterberg, F.P., Ballantyne, S.B., 1994. The separation of geochemical anomalies
from background by fractal methods. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 51, 109–130.
Chilès, J.P., Delfiner, P., 1999. Geostatistics: Modeling Spatial Uncertainty. Wiley, New
York. 695 pp.
Cliff, R.A., Rickard, D., Blake, K., 1990. Isotope systematic of the Kiruna magnetite ores,
Sweden, Part 1. Age of the ore. Economic Geology 85, 1770–1776.
Cox, D., Singer, D., 1986. Mineral Deposits Models. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin.
1693 pp.
Daliran, F., Heins-Guenter, S., 2005. Geology and metallogenesis of the phosphate and
rare earth element resources of the Bafq iron-ore district, central Iran. Proceedings
of the 20th World Mining Congress, Iran, pp. 357–361.
 B. Sadeghi et al. / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 122 (2012) 9–19
David, M., 1970. Geostatistical Ore Reserve Estimation. Elsevier, Amsterdam. 283 pp.
Deng, J., Wang, Q., Yang, L., Wang, Y., Gong, Q., Liu, H., 2010. Delineation and explana-
tion of geochemical anomalies using fractal models in the Heqing area, Yunnan
Province, China. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 105, 95–105.
Forsell, P., Godin, L., 1980. Geology of the Kiruna Area. 26th International Geological
Congress, Guidebook, pp. 143–150.
Förster, H.J., Jafarzadeh, A., 1994. The Bafq mining district in Central Iran — a highly
mineralized Infracambrian volcanic field. Economic Geology 89, 1697–1721.
Frutos, J.J., Oyarzún, M.J., 1975. Tectonic and geochemical evidence concerning the gen-
esis of El Laco magnetite lava flow deposits, Chile. Economic Geology 70, 988–990.
Goncalves, M.A., Mateus, A., Oliveira, V., 2001. Geochemical anomaly separation by
multifractal modeling. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 72, 91–114.
Goovaerts, P., 1997. Geostatistics for Natural Resources Evaluation. Oxford University
Press, New York. 496 pp.
Hitzman, M.W., Oreskes, N., Einaudi, M.T., 1992. Geological characteristics and tectonic
setting of Proterozoic iron oxide (Cu-U-Au-REE) deposits. Precambrian Research
58, 241–287.
IMECO, 2010. General Exploration of Zaghia (IIC) Iron Ore Deposit Report. International
Minerals Engineering Consultant Company (IMECO).
Jami, M., 2005. Geology, Geochemistry & Evolution of Esfordi Phosphate (Iron Deposit,
Bafq Area - Central Iran), Unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of New South Wales,
384 pp.
Jami, M., Dunlop, A.C., Cohen, D.R., 2007. Fluid inclusion and stable isotope study of the
Esfordi apatite-magnetite deposit, Central Iran. Economic Geology 102, 1111–1128.
Laznicka, P., 2005. Giant Metallic Deposits Future Sources of Industrial Metals. Springer-
Verlag. 732 pp.
Li, C., Xu, Y., Jiang, X., 1994. The fractal model of mineral deposits. Geology of Zhejiang
10, 25–32 (In Chinese with English Abstract).
Li, C., Ma, T., Shi, J., 2003. Application of a fractal method relating concentrations and
distances for separation of geochemical anomalies from background. Journal of
Geochemical Exploration 77, 167–175.
Mandelbrot, B.B., 1983. The Fractal Geometry of Nature. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco,
CA. Updated and Augmented Edition.
Monecke, T., Monecke, J., Herzig, P.M., Gemmell, J.B., Monch, W., 2005. Truncated
fractal frequency distribution of element abundance data: a dynamic model for
the metasomatic enrichment of base and precious metals. Earth and Planetary
Science Letters 232, 363–378.
19
Sadeghi, B., Moarefvand, P., Afzal, P., 2011. Determination of Fe grade distribution by
using of concentration-number fractal method in boreholes of Zaghia iron ore de-
posit, Bafq. Earth and Resources Journal 3, 51–60 (In Persian with English abstract).
Samani, B.A., 1988. Metallogeny of the Precambrian in Iran. Precambrian Research 39,
85–106.
Sanderson, D.J., Roberts, S., Gumiel, P., 1994. A Fractal relationship between vein thick-
ness and gold grade in drill core from La Codosera, Spain. Economic Geology 89,
168–173.
Shayestehfar, M.R., Zarrabi, A., Sharafi, A., Yazdi, A., 2006. Petrology, petrography and
mineralographical studies of “Choghart Iron Ore Mine”, Bafgh area, Iran. Geochimica
et Cosmochimica Acta 70, A578.
Shi, J., Wang, C., 1998. Fractal analysis of gold deposits in China: implication for giant
deposit exploration. Earth Sciences Journal of China University of Geosciences 23,
616–618 (In Chinese with English Abstract).
Sim, B.L., Agterberg, F.P., Beaudry, C., 1999. Determining the cutoff between back-
ground and relative base metal contamination levels using multifractal methods.
Computers & Geosciences 25, 1023–1041.
Spalla, M.I., Morotta, A.M., Gosso, G., 2010. Advances in interpretation of geological
processes: refinement of multi-scale data and integration in numerical modelling.
Geological Society, London. 240 pp.
Turcotte, D.L., 1986. A fractal approach to the relationship between ore grade and
tonnage. Economic Geology 18, 1525–1532.
Turcotte, D.L., 1996. Fractals and Chaos in Geophysics, second ed. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge UK, pp. 81–99.
Turcotte, D.L., 2002. Fractals in petrology. Lithos 65, 261–271.
Wang, Q.F., Deng, J., Liu, H., Yang, L.Q., Wan, L., Zhang, R.Z., 2010. Fractal models for ore
reserve estimation. Ore Geology Reviews 37, 2–14.
Wang, Q.F., Deng, J., Liu, H., Wang, Y., Sun, X., Wan, L., 2011. Fractal models for estimating
local reserves with different mineralization qualities and spatial variations. Journal of
Geochemical Exploration 108, 196–208.
Yamamoto, J.K., 2005. Comparing Ordinary Kriging Interpolation Variance and Indicator
Kriging Conditional Variance for Assessing Uncertainties at Unsampled Locations.
In: Dessureault, S., Ganguli, R., Kecojevic, V., Girard-Dwyer, J. (Eds.), Application of
Computers and Operations Research in the Mineral Industry. Balkema.
Zuo, R., Cheng, Q., Xia, Q., 2009. Application of fractal models to characterization of ver-
tical distribution of geochemical element concentration. Journal of Geochemical
Exploration 102, 37–43.