Sorry for the empty first post. My question is how to project the calculate and project a drill hole density onto a wireframe (e.g. a mineralised structure or grade shell). I'd like an easy way to see where are holes in the drilling coverage at a given spacing. Leapfrog has a way of doing it but I can't figure it out in MM.
Try this - in MM 2021 use Drillhole|Calculations|Pierce Points.
You need to have a dhdb setup , e.g. at a drillhole spacing (you could have multiple spaceing on proposed dhdb and then just filter, say, on a 20x20, or 40x40 or whatever. Below I have not filtered):
and an output:
then you can plot that output as ponts which will lie on the wireframe surface.
thanks for your reply. Yeah, I thought already about pierce points, but the result is not very satisfying given the complex grade shell and the amount of historic drilling - all the pierce points ended up to confuse me more in finding areas with low drilling.
Anyway, I had an idea which I try at the moment, but my computer is a bit slow in running it.
1. Convert the historic drill holes into strings
2. Convert the strings into solids with Xm diameter (that's where my machine struggles at the moment)
3. Cut the drill hole solids with the wireframe of the mineralised structure / grade shell
4. The resulting wireframe should show which parts of your mineralised structure are drilled out to less than Xm and where are holes in the coverage
It should work if my machine ever finishes the drill hole solids.
Another idea - create a IDW block model and feed it your dhdb. Make the search small (say, proposed dh spacing) and isotropic. This will estimated only blocks X meters away (your choice) from the hole. Any unestimated blocks are where there are 'gaps in drilling'.
Block model would be the approach I would use. To make for more intuitive viewing of result, create a blank model, run the IDW then keep only the unestimated blocks to display.
The other option is to convert the DH trace to strings and then to wireframes using the centreline option like you are and then creating a Wireframe set that groups them. Then to export the wireframe vertices to a points file (Wireframe/export/Micromine), and do a distance to wireframes calculation onto the WF points using the Distance to Wireframes calc, writing the distance to the point file (This might be a "leave it running overnight" job...). Then you can display the wireframe vertices points coloured by distance to drill holes (as below - I have only selected 4 drill holes to speed up the processing). Of course, it requires a fair density of vertice points - no problem if you use Implicit modelling like I do but might be a bit sparse if you use explicit shells.
It would be good if we could run it as a distance to strings instead of wireframes (perhaps there is an option I do not know about?) and then write these distances on the WF vertices to the wireframe itself so we can colour/contour up the wireframe - but perhaps the points will work...
Create wireframe solids representing the drill trace. Note the this can be done in one step using the new Wireframe | Calculations | Drillhole Cones of Uncertainty function
Now run the Wireframe | Calculations | Compare Wireframes function. The Reference Wireframe Set will be the drill traces and the WF to Compare will be the Grade Shell. This will create a Distance Attribute in the Grade Shell wireframe (could take a bit of time - my example, below ran for about 30 minutes)
You can now colour code the Grade Shell based on the Distance Attribute
It does require your Grade Shell wireframe to have plenty of vertices (as per one created by Implicit Modelling)
I can't find the Drillhole Cones of Uncertainty function you mentioned. Is that included in an upcoming release or is it part of of module I may not have? Anyway, it worked with the drill strings to solids I created before.
Question
Sorry for the empty first post. My question is how to project the calculate and project a drill hole density onto a wireframe (e.g. a mineralised structure or grade shell). I'd like an easy way to see where are holes in the drilling coverage at a given spacing. Leapfrog has a way of doing it but I can't figure it out in MM.
Hey Martin,
Try this - in MM 2021 use Drillhole|Calculations|Pierce Points.
You need to have a dhdb setup , e.g. at a drillhole spacing (you could have multiple spaceing on proposed dhdb and then just filter, say, on a 20x20, or 40x40 or whatever. Below I have not filtered):
and an output:
then you can plot that output as ponts which will lie on the wireframe surface.
Luke B
Hi Luke,
thanks for your reply. Yeah, I thought already about pierce points, but the result is not very satisfying given the complex grade shell and the amount of historic drilling - all the pierce points ended up to confuse me more in finding areas with low drilling.
Anyway, I had an idea which I try at the moment, but my computer is a bit slow in running it.
1. Convert the historic drill holes into strings
2. Convert the strings into solids with Xm diameter (that's where my machine struggles at the moment)
3. Cut the drill hole solids with the wireframe of the mineralised structure / grade shell
4. The resulting wireframe should show which parts of your mineralised structure are drilled out to less than Xm and where are holes in the coverage
It should work if my machine ever finishes the drill hole solids.
Cheers,
Martin
that is a possible way, may work.
Another idea - create a IDW block model and feed it your dhdb. Make the search small (say, proposed dh spacing) and isotropic. This will estimated only blocks X meters away (your choice) from the hole. Any unestimated blocks are where there are 'gaps in drilling'.
Block model would be the approach I would use. To make for more intuitive viewing of result, create a blank model, run the IDW then keep only the unestimated blocks to display.
Hi Gary and Luke,
thanks for the suggestion. I'll give it a shot.
Cheers,
Martin
Hi Martin,
The other option is to convert the DH trace to strings and then to wireframes using the centreline option like you are and then creating a Wireframe set that groups them. Then to export the wireframe vertices to a points file (Wireframe/export/Micromine), and do a distance to wireframes calculation onto the WF points using the Distance to Wireframes calc, writing the distance to the point file (This might be a "leave it running overnight" job...). Then you can display the wireframe vertices points coloured by distance to drill holes (as below - I have only selected 4 drill holes to speed up the processing). Of course, it requires a fair density of vertice points - no problem if you use Implicit modelling like I do but might be a bit sparse if you use explicit shells.
It would be good if we could run it as a distance to strings instead of wireframes (perhaps there is an option I do not know about?) and then write these distances on the WF vertices to the wireframe itself so we can colour/contour up the wireframe - but perhaps the points will work...
Hi Martin,
Something similar to Ron's suggestion.
You can now colour code the Grade Shell based on the Distance Attribute
It does require your Grade Shell wireframe to have plenty of vertices (as per one created by Implicit Modelling)
Cheers
Paul
And that Paul is exactly what I was trying to do but couldn't remember how to colour code the wireframe - so I did the points instead!!
Thank you Paul, that worked! Exactly what I was after. Also many thanks to everyone else who chipped in.
Cheers,
Martin
Hi Paul,
I can't find the Drillhole Cones of Uncertainty function you mentioned. Is that included in an upcoming release or is it part of of module I may not have? Anyway, it worked with the drill strings to solids I created before.
Martin
In with Wireframing
The search option (above ribbon on RHS) is good for finding things
No, I don't have that. Searched for it already. Maybe I have to check for a new update.
In current (21.5) release
Thanks again. Downloading it now. Was still in 21.0