1887
Volume 19, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Full‐waveform inversion has proved to be an effective and robust approach for near‐surface site characterization. Past full‐waveform inversion studies have mostly focused on Rayleigh wave, with only a few studies focussing on SH‐ and Love‐waves. Compared with Rayleigh waves, the main advantages of using SH‐ and Love‐waves are that they are more sensitive to mass density of materials and require much less computing time for simulation. In this study, we present an efficient SH‐ and Love‐wave full‐waveform inversion method to extract both S‐wave velocity and mass density of soil and rock. The method is based on the solution of 2D elastic SH‐wave equations and the adjoint‐state gradient approach with an implementation of Tikhonov regularization. We use synthetic and field experiments to test the capability of the method. The synthetic experiment indicates that the presented method can accurately characterize a challenging soil profiel represented by the presence of a velocity reversal along with variable layers of high and low S‐wave velocity and density. Variable layer interfaces, true S‐wave velocity and density values are well recovered. The field experiment successfully characterizes the subsurface structure to a depth of 18 m, that includes a soil layer underlain by limestone bedrock. Two invasive standard penetration tests were conducted to verify the inverted seismic results. The trend in depth of the standard penetration test N‐values generally agrees with the inverted results, including identification of a soft soil layer.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12137
2021-05-11
2021-06-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aki, K. and Richards, P.G. (1980) Quantitative Seismology. W.H. Free‐man and Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aster, R.C., Borchers, B. and Thurber, C.H. (2013) Parameter Estimation and Inverse Problems. Boston: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Busch, S., van der Kruk, J., Bikowski, J. and Vereecken, H. (2012) Quantitative conductivity and permittivity estimation using full‐waveform inversion of on‐ground GPR data. Geophysics, 77(6), H79–H91.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Dokter, E., Köhn, D., Wilken, D., De Nil, D. and Rabbel, W. (2017) Full waveform inversion of SH‐ and Love‐wave data in near‐surface prospecting. Geophysical Prospecting, 65, 216–236.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Ernst, J.R., Maurer, H., Green, A.G. and Holliger, K. (2007) Application to the encoded multisource waveform inversion. Geophysics, 72, J53–J64.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Fathi, A., Poursartip, B. and Kallivokas, L.F. (2015) Time‐domain hybrid formulations for wave simulations in three‐dimensional PML‐truncated heterogeneous media. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 101(3), 165–250.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Forbriger, T., Groos, L. and Schäfer, M. (2014) Line‐source simulation for shallow seismic data. Part 1: Theoretical background. Geophysical Journal International, 198, 1387–1404.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Groos, L., Schӓfer, M., Forbriger, T. and Thomas, B. (2017) Application of a complete workflow for 2D elastic full‐waveform inversion to recorded shallow‐seismic Rayleigh waves. Geophysics, 82(2), R109–R117.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Komatitsch, D. and Martin, R. (2007) An unsplit convolutional perfectly matched layer improved at grazing incidence for the seismic wave equation. Geophysics, 72(5), 155–167.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Köhn, D., Wilken, D., De Nil, D., Wunderlich, T., Rabbel, W., Werther, L., et al. (2019) Comparison of time‐domain SH waveform inversion strategies based on sequential low and bandpass filtered data for improved resolution in near‐surface prospecting. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 160, 69–83.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Levander, A. (1988) Fourth‐order finite‐difference P‐SV seismograms. Geophysics, 53(11), 1425–1436.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Li, J., Hanafy, S., Liu, Z. and Schuster, G. (2019) Wave‐equation dispersion inversion of Love waves. Geophysics, 84, R693–R705.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Mirzanejad, M. and Tran, K.T. (2019) 3D viscoelastic full waveform inversion of seismic waves for geotechnical site investigation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 122, 67–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Nguyen, T.D., Tran, K.T. and Gucunski, N. (2016) Detection of bridge‐deck delamination using full ultrasonic waveform tomography. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 23, 04016027.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Nguyen, T.D. and Tran, K.T. (2018) Site characterization with 3‐D elastic full waveform tomography. Geophysics, 83(5), R389–R400.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Nocedal, J. and Wright, S.J. (2006) Numerical Optimization. New York: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Pan, Y., Xia, J., Xu, Y., Gao, L. and Xu, Z. (2015) Love‐wave waveform inversion in time domain for shallow shear‐wave velocity. Geophysics, 81, R1–R14.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Pan, Y., Gao, L. and Bohlen, T. (2018) Time‐domain full‐waveform inversion of Rayleigh and Love waves in presence of free‐surface topography. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 152, 77–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Plessix, R.‐E. (2006) A review of the adjoint‐state method for computing the gradient of a functional with geophysical applications. Geophysical Journal International, 167(2), 495–503.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Schӓfer, M., Groos, L., Forbriger, Y. and Bohlen, T. (2012) On the effects of geometrical spreading corrections for a 2D full waveform inversion of recorded shallow seismic surface waves. 74th EAGE Conf. and Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC.
  21. Schäfer, M. (2014) Application of full‐waveform inversion to shallow‐seismic Rayleigh waves on 2D structures. Ph.D. thesis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology.
  22. Safani, J., O'Neil, A., Matsuoka, T. and Sanada, Y. (2005) Applications of Love wave dispersion for improved shear‐wave velocity imaging. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 10(2), 135–150.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Smith, J.A., Borisov, D., Cudney, H., Miller, R.D., Modrak, R., Moran, R., et al. (2019) Tunnel detection at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, USA. Part 2: 3D full‐waveform inversion experiments. Geophysics, 84(1), B95–B108.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Tikhonov, A. and V.Arsenin. (1977) Solution of Ill‐Posed Problems. Washington, DC: Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Tran, K.T. and Hiltunen, D.R. (2008) A comparison of shear wave velocity profiles from SASW, MASW, and ReMi techniques. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV, ASCE, Reston, VA.
  26. Tran, K.T. and McVay, M. (2012) Site characterization using Gauss–Newton inversion of 2‐D full seismic waveform in time domain. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 43, 16–24.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Tran, K.T., McVay, M., Faraone, M. and Horhota, D. (2013) Sinkhole detection using 2‐D full seismic waveform tomography. Geophysics, 78(5), 175–183.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Tran, K.T. and Sperry, J. (2018) Application of 2‐D full waveform tomography on land‐streamer data for assessment of roadway subsidence. Geophysics, 83(3), EN1–EN11.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Tran, K.T., Mirzanejad, M., McVay, M. and Horhota, D. (2019) 3D Time‐domain Gauss–Newton full waveform inversion for near‐surface site characterization. Geophysical Journal International, 217, 206–221.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Virieux, J. (1984) SH wave propagation in heterogeneous media: Velocity‐stress finite‐difference method. Geophysics, 49, 1933–1957.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Virieux, J. and Operto, S. (2009) An overview of full‐waveform inversion in exploration geophysics. Geophysics, 74(6),WCC127–WCC152.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Wittkamp, F., Athanasopoulos, N. and Bohlen, T. (2019) Individual and joint 2‐D elastic full‐waveform inversion of Rayleigh and Love waves. Geophysical Journal International, 216, 350–364.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Xia, J., Xu, Y., Luo, Y., Miller, R.D., Cakir, R. and Zeng, C. (2012) Advantages of using multichannel analysis of Love waves (MALW) to estimate near‐surface shear‐wave velocity. Survey in Geophysics, 33, 841–860.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Zeng, C., Liang, Q. and Chen, C. (2007) Comparative analysis on sensitivities of Love and Rayleigh waves, Technical Program with Biographies, SEG, 77th Annual Meeting, 1138–1141.
  35. Zhang, Z., Huang, L. and Yin, Y. (2012) Double‐difference elastic‐waveform inversion with weighted gradients for monitoring EGS reservoirs. In Thirty‐Seventh Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering. Stanford, California: Stanford University.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12137
Loading
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12137
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Geotechnical , inversion and Seismic
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error