1887
Volume 71, Issue 8
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

Abstract

Ground‐penetrating radar full‐waveform inversion is a high‐resolution method for inverting permittivity and conductivity; however, the issue of multi‐parameter crosstalk during the inversion process, in which perturbations of permittivity and conductivity can produce nearly identical observed data, poses a challenge. Additionally, full‐waveform inversion is highly nonlinear and computationally expensive. In this study, we conducted a sensitivity analysis based on permittivity and conductivity perturbations, which demonstrates that their sensitivities vary with frequency. Specifically, conductivity perturbation has a larger impact on low‐frequency data, whereas permittivity perturbation increasingly affects high‐frequency data. Based on the sensitivity analysis, we propose a modified stepped inversion strategy to mitigate multi‐parameter crosstalk. We also employed wavefield reconstruction inversion, which relaxes the wave‐equation constraint as a penalty term and, thus, can help us avoid local minima of the objective function. In contrast, full‐waveform inversion is more prone to get stuck owing to mismatches between modelled and measured data during the inversion process. Finally, we tested the proposed approach on crosshole synthetic data, which achieved significant computational savings and higher inversion efficiency for fewer forward simulations. Our results demonstrate that the proposed approach is a promising method for inverting subsurface structures and has the potential for practical applications in the future.

© 2023 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2023 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13400
2023-09-22
2025-11-12

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13400
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alkhalifah, T. (2016a) Research note: Insights into the data dependency on anisotropy: an inversion prospective. Geophysical Prospecting, 64, 505–513.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Alkhalifah, T. & Song, C. (2019) An efficient wavefield inversion: using a modified source function in the wave equation operator inversion. Geophysics, 84, R909–R922.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Alkhalifah, T.A. (2016b) Full waveform inversion in an anisotropic world: Where are the parameters hiding?Earthdoc.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Alkhalifah, T.A. (2020) Linear wavefield optimization using a modified source. Communications in Computational Physics, 28, 276–296.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Berenger, J.P. (1994) A perfectly matched layer for the absorption of electromagnetic waves. Journal of Computational Physics, 114, 185–200.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Binley, A., Winship, P., Middleton, R., Pokar, M. & West, J. (2001) High‐resolution characterization of vadose zone dynamics using cross‐borehole radar. Water Resources Research, 37, 2639–2652.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Buursink, M.L., Johnson, T.C., Routh, P.S. & Knoll, M.D. (2008) Crosshole radar velocity tomography with finite‐frequency fresnel volume sensitivities. Geophysical Journal International, 172, 1–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Cai, J. & McMechan, G.A. (1999) 2‐D ray‐based tomography for velocity, layer shape, and attenuation from GPR data. Geophysics, 64, 1579–1593.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Carcione, J.M. & Cavallini, F. (1995) On the acoustic‐electromagnetic analogy. Wave Motion, 21, 149–162.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Ernst, J.R., Maurer, H., Green, A.G. & Holliger, K. (2007) Full‐waveform inversion of crosshole radar data based on 2‐D finite‐difference time‐domain solutions of Maxwell's equations. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 45, 2807–2828.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Feng, D., Ding, S. & Wang, X. (2021) Wavefield reconstruction inversion in the frequency domain of on‐ground GPR data. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 660, 1–7.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Feng, D., Ding, S., Wang, X. & Wang, X. (2021) Wavefield reconstruction inversion of GPR data for permittivity and conductivity models in the frequency domain based on modified total variation regularization. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60, 1–14.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Feng, X., Ren, Q., Liu, C. & Zhang, X. (2017) Joint acoustic full‐waveform inversion of crosshole seismic and ground‐penetrating radar data in the frequency domain. Geophysics, 82, H41–H56.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Huai, N., Zeng, Z., Li, J., Yan, Y. & Lu, Q. (2019) Model‐based layer stripping FWI with a stepped inversion sequence for GPR data. Geophysical Journal International, 218, 1032–1043.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Irving, J. & Knight, R. (2006) Numerical modeling of ground‐penetrating radar in 2‐D using MATLAB. Computers and Geosciences, 32, 1247–1258.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Klotzsche, A., Vereecken, H. & Van Der Kruk, J. (2019) Review of crosshole ground‐penetrating radar full‐waveform inversion of experimental data: recent developments, challenges, and pitfalls. Geophysics, 84, H13–H28.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Lavoué, F., Brossier, R., Métivier, L., Garambois, S. & Virieux, J. (2014) Two‐dimensional permittivity and conductivity imaging by full waveform inversion of multioffset GPR data: a frequency‐domain quasi‐Newton approach. Geophysical Journal International, 197, 248–268.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Liu, D.C. & Nocedal, J. (1989) On the limited memory BFGS method for large scale optimization. Mathematical Programming, 45, 503–528.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Malinowski, M., Operto, S. & Ribodetti, A. (2011) High‐resolution seismic attenuation imaging from wide‐aperture onshore data by visco‐acoustic frequency‐domain full‐waveform inversion. Geophysical Journal International, 186, 1179–1204.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Meles, G., Greenhalgh, S., van der Kruk, J., Green, A. & Maurer, H. (2012) Taming the non‐linearity problem in GPR full‐waveform inversion for high contrast media. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 78, 31–43.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Meles, G.A., Van Der Kruk, J., Greenhalgh, S.A., Ernst, J.R., Maurer, H. & Green, A.G. (2010) A new vector waveform inversion algorithm for simultaneous updating of conductivity and permittivity parameters from combination crosshole/borehole‐to‐surface GPR data. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 48, 3391–3407.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Nocedal, J. & Wright, S. (1996) Numerical optimization. Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial Engineering, volume 17. New York: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Nocedal, J. & Wright, S.J. (2006) Numerical optimization. 2nd ed. Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial Engineering, volume 17. New York: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 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, 495–503.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Pratt, R.G., Shin, C. & Hicks, G.J. (1998) Gauss‐Newton and full Newton methods in frequency‐space seismic waveform inversion. Geophysical Journal International, 133, 341–362.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Schmidt, M., Van Den Berg, E., Friedlander, M.P. & Murphy, K. (2009) Optimizing costly functions with simple constraints: a limited‐memory projected quasi‐Newton algorithm. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 5, 456–463.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Silva, C.D. & Herrmann, F. (2019) A unified 2D/3D large‐scale software environment for nonlinear inverse problems. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 45, 1–35.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Sirgue, L., & Pratt, R. G. (2004). Efficient waveform inversion and imaging: A strategy for selecting temporal frequencies. Geophysics, 69, 231‐248.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Song, C. & Alkhalifah, T. (2020) An efficient wavefield inversion for transversely isotropic media with a vertical axis of symmetry acoustic VTI inversion. Geophysics, 85, R195–R206.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Song, C., Alkhalifah, T. & Li, Y. (2020) A sequential inversion with outer iterations for the velocity and the intrinsic attenuation using an efficient wavefield inversion. Geophysics, 85, R447–R459.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Tarantola, A. (1984) Inversion of seismic reflection data in the acoustic approximation. Geophysics, 49, 1259–1266.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Tronicke, J. & Hamann, G. (2013) Vertical radar profiling: combined analysis of traveltimes, amplitudes, and reflections. Geophysics, 79, H23–H35.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. van Leeuwen, T. & Herrmann, F.J. (2013) Mitigating local minima in full‐waveform inversion by expanding the search space. Geophysical Journal International, 195, 661–667.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. van Leeuwen, T. & Herrmann, F.J. (2016) A penalty method for PDE‐constrained optimization in inverse problems. Inverse Problems, 32, 015007.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Virieux, J. & Operto, S. (2009) An overview of full‐waveform inversion in exploration geophysics. Geophysics, 74, WCC1–WCC26.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Yang, X., Kruk, J., Klotzsche, A. & Vereecken, H. (2014) GPR full‐waveform inversion using a combined frequency‐ and time‐domain approach. Geophysical Research Abstracts, 16, EGU2014‐14046.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13400
Loading
Frequency‐domain wavefield reconstruction inversion of ground‐penetrating radar based on sensitivity analysis
Geophysical Prospecting 71, 1655 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13400
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13400
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13400
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Inverse problem; multi‐parameter crosstalk; parameter estimation; sensitivity analysis; wavefield reconstruction inversion

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