1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 19, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 19, Issue 4
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604
PDF

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Surface‐wave inversion is a non‐linear and ill‐conditioned problem usually solved through deterministic or global optimization approaches. Here, we present an alternative method based on machine learning. Under the assumption of a local one‐dimensional model, we train a residual neural network to predict the non‐linear mapping between the full dispersion image and the model space, parameterized in terms of shear wave velocity and layer thicknesses. On the one hand, compared to standard convolutional neural networks, the residual network prevents the vanishing gradient problem when training a deep network. On the other hand, the use of the full dispersion image avoids the time‐consuming and often ambiguous picking procedure and allows considering higher modes in the inversion framework. One key aspect of any machine learning inversion strategy is the definition of an appropriate training set. In this case, the models forming the training and validation examples are uniformly drawn from previously defined ranges that cover a wide range of possible near‐surface layered models. The reflectivity method constitutes the forward modelling operator that converts the model parameters into the observed shot gathers. The inversion also includes a Monte Carlo simulation strategy that propagates onto the model space the uncertainties related to noise in the data and the modelling error introduced by the network approximation. We first discuss synthetic inversions to assess the applicability of the proposed method and to analyse the effect of erroneous model parameterizations. The inversion results are also benchmarked with those provided by a more standard approach in which the particle swarm optimization algorithm inverts the fundamental mode only. Then, we discuss a field data application. Our tests confirm that the residual neural network inversion provides accurate model estimations and reliable uncertainty appraisals. One of the main benefits of the proposed approach is that once the network is trained it provides the near‐surface shear wave velocity profile in near real‐time.

© 2021 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2021 The Authors. Near Surface Geophysics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12163
2021-07-16
2024-04-20

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12163
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/nsg/19/4/nsg12163.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12163&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Aleardi, M., Salusti, A. and Pierini, S. (2020) Trans‐dimensional and Hamiltonian Monte Carlo inversions of Rayleigh‐wave dispersion curves: A comparison on synthetic datasets. Near Surface Geophysics, 18(5), 515–543.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aleardi, M. (2020) Combining discrete cosine transform and convolutional neural networks to speed up the Hamiltonian Monte Carlo inversion of pre‐stack seismic data. Geophysical Prospecting, 68(9), 2738–2761.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Aleardi, M., Ciabarri, F. and Gukov, T. (2018) A two‐step inversion approach for seismic‐reservoir characterization and a comparison with a single‐loop Markov‐chain Monte Carlo algorithm. Geophysics, 83(3), R227–R244.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Aleardi, M. and Salusti, A. (2021) Elastic pre‐stack seismic inversion through discrete cosine transform reparameterization and convolutional neural networks. Geophysics, 86(1), R129–R146.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Aster, R.C., Borchers, B. and Thurber, C.H. (2018) Parameter Estimation and Inverse Problems. Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Araya‐Polo, M., Jennings, J., Adler, A. and Dahlke, T. (2018) Deep‐learning tomography. The Leading Edge, 37(1), 58–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Boiero, D., Bergamo, P., Bruno Rege, R. and Socco, L.V. (2011) Estimating surface‐wave dispersion curves from 3D seismic acquisition schemes: Part 1 – 1D models. Geophysics, 76(6), G85–G93.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Cercato, M. (2011) Global surface wave inversion with model constraints. Geophysical Prospecting, 59(2), 210–226.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Cercato, M., De Donno, G., Di Giulio, A., Lanzo, G. and Tommasi, P. (2020) Dynamic characterization of the hill of Civita di Bagnoregio (Viterbo, Central Italy) for seismic response analysis. Engineering Geology, 266, 105463.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Cheng, X., Liu, Q., Li, P. and Liu, Y. (2019) Inverting Rayleigh surface wave velocities for crustal thickness in eastern Tibet and the western Yangtze craton based on deep learning neural networks. Nonlinear Process in Geophysics, (2), 61–71.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Cox, B.R. and Teague, D.P. (2016) Layering ratios: A systematic approach to the inversion of surface wave data in the absence of a priori information. Geophysical Journal International, 207(1), 422–438.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Dai, T., Xia, J., Ning, L., Xi, C., Liu, Y. and Xing, H. (2020) Deep learning for extracting dispersion curves. Surveys in Geophysics, 42(1), 69–95.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Dal Moro, G., Pipan, M. and Gabrielli, P. (2007) Rayleigh wave dispersion curve inversion via genetic algorithms and marginal posterior probability density estimation. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 61, 39–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Di Giulio, G., Punzo, M., Bruno, P.P., Cara, F. and Rovelli, A., (2019) Using a vibratory source at Mt. Etna (Italy) to investigate the wavefield polarization at Pernicana fault. Near Surface Geophysics, 17(4), 313–329.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Farrugia, D., Paolucci, E., D'Amico, S. and Galea, P. (2016) Inversion of surface wave data for subsurface shear wave velocity profiles characterized by a thick buried low‐velocity layer. Geophysical Journal International, 206(2), 1221–1231.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Feng, S., Sugiyama, T. and Yamanaka, H. (2005) Effectiveness of multimode surface wave inversion in shallow engineering site investigations. Exploration Geophysics, 36, 26–33.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Fernandez Martinez, J.L., Fernandez Muniz, M.Z. and Tompkins, M.J. (2012) On the topography of the cost functional in linear and nonlinear inverse problems. Geophysics, 77(1), W1–W15.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Foti, S., Hollender, F., Garofalo, F., Albarello, D., Asten, M., Bard, P.Y., et al. (2018) Guidelines for the good practice of surface wave analysis: A product of the InterPACIFIC project. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 16(6), 2367–2420.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Garofalo, F., Foti, S., Hollender, F., Bard, P.Y., Cornou, C., Cox, B., et al.(2016) InterPACIFIC project: Comparison of invasive and non‐invasive methods for seismic site characterization. Part II: Inter‐comparison between surface‐wave and borehole methods. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 82, 241–254.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Glorot, X. and Bengio, Y. (2010) Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks. In Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, 249–256.
  21. Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y. and Courville, A. (2016), Deep Learning. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Hahnloser, R.H., Sarpeshkar, R., Mahowald, M.A., Douglas, R.J. and Seung, H.S. (2000) Digital selection and analogue amplification coexist in a cortex‐inspired silicon circuit. Nature, 405(6789), 947–951.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Hansen, T.M. and Cordua, K.S. (2017) Efficient Monte Carlo sampling of inverse problems using a neural network‐based forward – applied to GPR crosshole traveltime inversion. Geophysical Journal International, 211(3), 1524–1533.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Haskell, N.A. (1953) The dispersion of surface waves on multi‐layered media. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 43, 17–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S. and Sun, J. (2016) Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 770–778.
  26. He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S. and Sun, J. (2015) Delving deep into rectifiers: Surpassing human‐level performance on imagenet classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 1026–1034.
  27. Hu, J., Qiu, H., Zhang, H. and Ben‐Zion, Y. (2020) Using deep learning to derive shear‐wave velocity models from surface‐wave dispersion data. Seismological Research Letters, 91(3), 1738–1751.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Kennett, B.L.N., (1983), Seismic Wave Propagation in Stratified Media. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I. and Hinton, G.E. (2017) Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 84–90.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Lai, C.G. (2005) Surface waves in dissipative media: Forward and inverse modelling. In Surface Waves in Geomechanics: Direct and Inverse Modelling for Soils and Rocks. Springer, Vienna, pp. 73–163.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y. and Hinton, G. (2015) Deep learning. Nature, 521(7553), 436–444.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Lewis, W. and Vigh, D. (2017) Deep learning prior models from seismic images for full‐waveform inversion. 87th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1512–1517.
  33. Luo, Y., Xia, J., Miller, R.D., Xu, Y., Liu, J. and Liu, Q. (2009) Rayleigh‐wave mode separation by high‐resolution linear Radon transform. Geophysical Journal International, 179(1), 254–264.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Maraschini, M. and Foti, S. (2010) A Monte Carlo multimodal inversion of surface waves. Geophysical Journal International, 182(3), 1557–1566.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Meier, U., Curtis, A. and Trampert, J. (2007) Global crustal thickness from neural network inversion of surface wave data. Geophysical Journal International, 169(2), 706–722.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Moghadas, D. (2020) One‐dimensional deep learning inversion of electromagnetic induction data using convolutional neural network. Geophysical Journal International, 222(1), 247–259.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Monajemi, H., Donoho, D.L. and Stodden, V. (2016) Making massive computational experiments painless. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Big Data, 2368–2373.
  38. Othman, A., Iqbal, N., Hanafy, S.M. and Waheed, U.B. (2021) Automated event detection and denoising method for passive seismic data using residual deep convolutional neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2021.3054071.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Park, C.B., Miller, R.D. and Xia, J. (1999) Multichannel analysis of surface waves. Geophysics, 64(3), 800–808.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Park, M.J. and Sacchi, M.D. (2020) Automatic velocity analysis using convolutional neural network and transfer learning. Geophysics, 85(1), V33–V43.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Puzyrev, V. (2019) Deep learning electromagnetic inversion with convolutional neural networks. Geophysical Journal International, 218(2), 817–832.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Rahman, M.Z., Kamal, A.M. and Siddiqua, S. (2018) Near‐surface shear wave velocity estimation and Vs 30 mapping for Dhaka City. Bangladesh. Natural Hazards, 92(3), 1687–1715.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Richardson, A. (2018) Seismic full‐waveform inversion using deep learning tools and techniques. arXiv preprint:1801.07232.
  44. Sambridge, M. and Mosegaard, K. (2002) Monte Carlo methods in geophysical inverse problems. Reviews of Geophysics, 40(3), 3–1.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Santurkar, S., Tsipras, D., Ilyas, A. and Madry, A. (2018) How does batch normalization help optimization?. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31, 2483–2493.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Sajeva, A. and Menanno, G. (2017) Characterisation and extraction of a Rayleigh‐wave mode in vertically heterogeneous media using quaternion SVD. Signal Processing, 136, 43–58.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Schmidhuber, J. (2015) Deep learning in neural networks: An overview. Neural networks, 61, 85–117.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Serdyukov, A.S., Yablokov, A.V., Chernyshov, G.S. and Azarov, A.V. (2017) The surface waves‐based seismic exploration of soil and ground water. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 53(1), 012010.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Socco, L.V. and Strobbia, C. (2004) Surface‐wave method for near‐surface characterization: A tutorial. Near‐Surface Geophysics, 2(4), 165–185.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Socco, L.V., Boiero, D., Foti, S., Maraschini, M., Piatti, C., Bergamo, P., et al. (2010) Surface wave analysis for S‐wave static correction computation. In SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 1929–1933.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Socco, L.V. and Boiero, D. (2008) Improved Monte Carlo inversion of surface wave data. Geophysical Prospecting, 56(3), 357–371.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Strobbia, C., Vermeer, P., Laake, A., Glushchenko, A. and Re, S. (2010) Surface waves: Processing, inversion and removal. First Break, 28(8),85–91.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Sun, J., Slang, S., Elboth, T., Larsen Greiner, T., McDonald, S. and Gelius, L.J. (2020) A convolutional neural network approach to deblending seismic data. Geophysics, 85(4), WA13–WA26.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Tarantola, A. (2005) Inverse problem theory and methods for model parameter estimation. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Waldeland, A.U., Jensen, A.C., Gelius, L.J. and Solberg, A.H.S. (2018) Convolutional neural networks for automated seismic interpretation. The Leading Edge, 37(7), 529–537.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Wang, B., Zhang, N., Lu, W. and Wang, J. (2019) Deep‐learning‐based seismic data interpolation: A preliminary result. Geophysics, 84(1), V11–V20.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Wang, L., Meng, D., Wu, B. and Liu, N. (2020) Seismic inversion via closed‐loop fully convolutional residual network and transfer learning. Society of Exploration Geophysicists. In SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2020, 1521–1525.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Wu, Y. and McMechan, G.A. (2019) Parametric convolutional neural network‐domain full‐waveform inversion. Geophysics, 84(6), R881–R896.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Xia, J., Miller, R.D., Park, C.B. and Tian, G. (2003) Inversion of high frequency surface waves with fundamental and higher modes. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 52(1), 45–57.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Xing, Z. and Mazzotti, A. (2019) Two‐grid full‐waveform Rayleigh‐wave inversion via a genetic algorithm – Part 2: Application to two actual data sets. Geophysics, 84(5), R815–R825.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Yablokov, A. and Serdyukov, A. (2020) Inversion of surface waves dispersion curves using artificial neural network. In 82nd EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition, 1–5.
  62. Yang, L., Chen, W., Liu, W., Zha, B. and Zhu, L. (2020) Random noise attenuation based on residual convolutional neural network in seismic datasets. IEEE Access, 8, 30271–30286.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12163
Loading
A hybrid residual neural network–Monte Carlo approach to invert surface wave dispersion data
Near Surface Geophysics 19, 397 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1002/nsg.12163
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12163
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12163
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Inversion; Near‐surface; Surface wave

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

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