Journal of Applied Geophysics 72 (2010) 254262

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Applied Geophysics

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / j a p p g e o

Zonal cooperative inversion of crosshole P-wave, S-wave, and georadar traveltime data sets
Steffen Linder a, Hendrik Paasche a, Jens Tronicke a,, Ernst Niederleithinger b, Thomas Vienken c
a b c

Universitt Potsdam, Institut fr Erd- und Umweltwissenschaften, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24, 14476 Potsdam, Germany BAM Bundesanstalt fr Materialforschung und -prfung, Fachabteilung VIII.2, Unter den Eichen 87, 12205 Berlin, Germany UFZ Helmholtz-Zentrum fr Umweltforschung, Department Monitoring- und Erkundungstechnologien, Permoserstr. 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
In this study, we use and extend a recently developed zonal cooperative inversion approach and apply it to the inversion of three independent geophysical eld data sets. We invert crosshole P-wave, S-wave, and georadar data sets acquired in sand and gravel dominated unconsolidated sediments to detect and characterize different sedimentary units relevant for an engineering or hydrological site characterization. The zonal cooperative inversion of the three traveltime data sets results in a single subsurface model, which is a geophysical three-parameter model (P-wave, S-wave, and georadar velocity) outlining the major subsurface zonation while explaining all input data sets. Comparing our zonal model to direct push (DP) logging data (tip resistance, sleeve friction, and dielectric permittivity) shows good agreement; i.e., the zones in our geophysical model largely correspond to major DP parameter changes. Furthermore, we demonstrate how the sparse DP data can be inter- and extrapolated to the entire tomographic plane which allows for further geotechnical and hydrological interpretations. This study illustrates that the zonal cooperative inversion approach is highly exible and an excellent tool to characterize a variety of environments in terms of multiple physical parameters. 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 29 December 2009 Accepted 17 October 2010 Keywords: Seismic Georadar Direct push techniques Crosshole tomography Cooperative inversion Site characterization

1. Introduction In a variety of engineering and environmental applications, the usefulness of geophysical surveying approaches has been acknowledged (e.g., Butler, 2005; Kndel et al., 2007). For detailed characterization of near-surface environments, crosshole traveltime tomography based on either seismic or georadar data, is an increasingly popular method. In such tomographic surveys, a transmission experiment is performed between existing boreholes and the rst break arrival times of a variety of source-receiver combinations are inverted for the velocity structure within the inter-borehole plane. While seismic velocities reect the elastic properties of the probed material, georadar velocities are primarily controlled by the dielectric permittivity. However, translating such velocity models into the target parameters typically needed in engineering and environmental site characterization studies is a challenging task because both elastic and dielectric properties usually show complex dependencies on a variety of rock and soil properties (Schn, 1998). Depending on the sitespecic petrophysical relations, the goal of the study, and the available background information (e.g., from boreholes), tomographic seismic and/or georadar velocity images can be interpreted, for example, in

Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 331 977 5815; fax: +49 331 977 5700. E-mail address: jens@geo.uni-potsdam.de (J. Tronicke). 0926-9851/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jappgeo.2010.10.003

terms of lithological zonations, fracture zones, degree of water saturation, porosity, and other parameters relevant for an engineering or hydrological site characterization (e.g., Hyndman and Harris, 1996; Maurer and Green, 1997; Hubbard and Rubin, 2000; Tronicke et al., 2001, 2002; Ellefsen et al., 2002; Becht et al., 2004). More recently, there is a growing interest in combining different crosshole methods; e.g., the results of P-wave and georadar (Hubbard et al., 2001; Paasche et al., 2006) or P- and S-wave experiments (Angioni et al., 2003; Daley et al., 2004; Dietrich and Tronicke, 2009). The advantage of such multi-method exploration strategies lies in its potential to reduce ambiguities and uncertainties in data analysis and interpretation. For example, in the vadose zone P-wave and georadar tomograms would provide complementary information. While Pwave velocity is rather insensitive to the degree of water saturation and is usually controlled by the composition of the soil material, variations in georadar velocity are typically dominated by changes in water saturation. In addition, such multi-method approaches might allow for a more quantitative interpretation; e.g., to estimate the spatial variability of elastic moduli from colocated P- and S-wave velocity models (Angioni et al., 2003; Dietrich and Tronicke, 2009). Commonly, crosshole and also surface colocated tomographic data sets are separately inverted and the reconstructed parameter elds (such as P-wave, S-wave, and georadar velocity models) are interpreted manually by delineating regions characterized by similar parameter ranges. As an alternative to such a subjective interpretation

S. Linder et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 72 (2010) 254262

255

approach, statistical tools (e.g., cluster analyses) can be used to analyze and fuse the information of the different separately inverted models in a more objective manner (Tronicke et al., 2004; Paasche et al., 2006; Bedrosian et al., 2007). Furthermore, joint or cooperative inversions have been proposed to efciently combine different geophysical data sets. Here, the basic idea is to fuse various data sets during the inversion procedure. If the data sets contain complementary information, this may help to reduce uncertainties and non-uniqueness issues inherent to most inverse problems in geophysics (e.g., Vozoff and Jupp, 1975). Ideally, this results in a single subsurface model, which is consistent with all considered data sets (Lines et al., 1988). Different approaches have been developed to perform such cooperative or joint inversions of disparate geophysical data sets (e.g., Lines et al., 1988; Haber and Oldenburg, 1997; Bosch, 1999; Musil et al., 2003; Gallardo and Meju, 2004; Paasche and Tronicke, 2007). Since relations between different physical properties measured by different geophysical methods are usually complex, nonunique, and site-specic (Schn, 1998), the most exible approach is to introduce a structural link between the individual data sets; i.e., data mists and differences between structures detected by the considered data sets are minimized. Up to now, in most applications of structurally linked 2D cooperative or joint inversion strategies only two data sets are taken into account; e.g., magnetic and gravimetric data (Bosch, 1999), apparent resistivities and P-wave traveltimes (Gallardo and Meju, 2004), or georadar and seismic P-wave traveltimes (Paasche et al., 2008). Recently, Gallardo (2007) generalized the cross-gradient approach of Gallardo and Meju (2004) and applied it to jointly invert 2D seismic P- and S-waves, DC resistivity and magnetic data sets. However, most cooperative or joint inversion approaches result in two (or more) parameter models, which, comparable to single data set inversions, have to be interpreted in terms of structural features characterized by similar parameter ranges and contrasts, respectively. On the other hand, the recently introduced zonal cooperative inversion approach of Paasche and Tronicke (2007) produces a single zoned multi-parameter model outlining the dominant subsurface units detected by all considered data sets. Up to now, the applicability and the potential of this approach have only been demonstrated for the cooperative inversion using two data sets. In a synthetic study (Paasche and Tronicke, 2007) and a small scale non-destructive testing experiment for cavity detection under laboratory conditions (Paasche et al., 2008), the approach has been successfully used to cooperatively invert P-wave and georadar traveltime data sets. In this study, we use the zonal cooperative inversion framework of Paasche and Tronicke (2007) and, for the rst time, apply it to cooperatively invert three geophysical eld data sets. We invert crosshole P-wave, S-wave, and georadar traveltime data sets acquired in ~ 16 m deep boreholes penetrating sand and gravel dominated unconsolidated sediments and present a workow to link the resulting zoned tomographic model to a variety of direct push parameter logs. In the following, we provide the methodological background used to cooperatively invert our traveltime data sets. After describing the eld site, our data base, and the experimental setup of our P-wave, S-wave, and georadar experiments, we discuss the resulting zoned three-parameter model. This model is compared and interpreted together with the results of direct push experiments available at two selected locations along the tomographic prole. Thereby, we demonstrate how our nal tomographic model can be used to estimate the spatial distribution of various target parameters, which usually can only be measured by corresponding borehole logging or direct push techniques. 2. Methodology The ow diagram in Fig. 1 illustrates the key elements of the twodimensional (2D) zonal cooperative inversion (ZCI) approach.

Fig. 1. Flow diagram illustrating the key elements of the zonal cooperative inversion procedure (modied after Paasche and Tronicke, 2007). c denotes the number of clusters, NCE the normalized classication entropy and rms the root-mean-square error.

Following Paasche and Tronicke (2007), the basic idea of this approach is to combine conventional single input data set inversion algorithms (e.g., Aster et al., 2005) with fuzzy c-means (FCM) cluster analysis. Before discussing the inversion ow in more detail, we introduce the basic concept of the FCM clustering technique as it provides the core of the ZCI procedure. Fuzzy cluster analysis techniques (Hppner et al., 1999) are powerful tools for exploring multidimensional data bases with no need of a priori knowledge of the nature of interrelations between the data. The FCM technique is based on iteratively minimizing an objective function which is based on a Euclidian distance measure. For a given number of clusters c, it yields the degree of membership m of the clustered data points to the c cluster centers and the optimum location of the cluster centers. In comparison to other clustering techniques (e.g., k-means cluster analysis), this concept allows for partial memberships; i.e., a data point may be mostly a member of a certain cluster, but it may be also a partial member of other clusters. m varies between zero and one (the higher the membership value, the closer the data point to the corresponding cluster center) and, for a given data point, the sum of all memberships is unity. The optimum number of c, which is often not known a priori, may be obtained by statistical measures such as the widely used normalized classication entropy (NCE; Bezdek, 1981; Roubens, 1982). The NCE describes the degree of disorder in a system and minimum NCE values indicate the

256

S. Linder et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 72 (2010) 254262

optimum number of clusters. Further details regarding FCM cluster analysis are provided in the Appendix A. Before starting the actual inversion procedure (Fig. 1), we guess a reasonable maximum number of clusters cmax, and set the initial minimum number of clusters to cmin = 2. Then, the inversion is performed using P-wave, S-wave, and georadar traveltime data in combination with a xed number of clusters c. For the three colocated data sets, equally discretized initial velocity models are generated using uniform grid cells. To perform the following separated single parameter inversion step (i.e., to invert P-wave, S-wave, and georadar traveltimes), we use one iteration of a conventional smoothness and damping constrained algorithm based on a nite-difference eikonal solver (Paasche et al., 2008). It should be noted that varying the smoothness and damping constraints within reasonable ranges has no signicant impact on the nal results. After this inversion step, FCM cluster analysis is applied to integrate the three conventionally inverted colocated velocity models and, thus, to ensure exchange of structural information between the different data sets. For a given number of clusters c, the FCM cluster analysis yields the degree of membership of the clustered data points (model cells characterized by three velocity parameters) to the c clusters as well as the optimum location of the c cluster centers. This information is used to generate a new zonal model as well as three updated velocity models for the next iteration. Thereby, we assume that a new parameter value pk at a model cell j is a mixture of the corresponding cluster centers weighted with mij, i.e., the degree of membership of the jth model cell to the ith cluster (see also Paasche et al., 2006): pkj = mij pki ;
i=1 c

zonation dened by the three velocity parameters reects, at least to some degree, the major variations in the target parameters. However, it should be emphasized that no theoretical or empirical petrophysical model is assumed, which is a major advantage compared to more conventional approaches relying on explicit petrophysical parameter relations. 3. Field site and data base The German Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing (BAM) maintains a former military training ground 30 km south of Berlin for testing and approving explosives, re safety and safety containments (BAM-TTS; Niederleithinger, 2009). Since 2004, this area also comprises a test site for non-destructive testing (NDT) of foundations. Here, several concrete pile foundations have been constructed (Fig. 2). These foundations have a diameter of 0.60 m and reach depths down to ~ 10 m. In addition, ve PVC-cased boreholes with an inner diameter of 80 mm have been installed reaching down to ~ 17 m depth (Fig. 2). The local geology is characterized by glacial and glaciouvial sediments of prominent sand and gravel composition. According to available drilling results of nearby boreholes (~50 m apart from the NDT test site), the nearsurface underground consists of a thin top soil layer followed by layers of medium, partly silty, sands to ne gravels with interbedded thin layers of medium gravel and organic deposits in depths below ~ 8 m. The groundwater table is ~3 m below surface. To explore the local geology and characterize the subsurface in terms of seismic and georadar velocities, we acquired crosshole Pwave, S-wave, and georadar data between boreholes BH2 and BH3 as well as between BH3 and BH5 (Fig. 2). These two acquisition planes were considered to be minimally affected from the presence of the concrete pile foundations. In BH2, BH3, and BH5, the borehole trajectory was measured using a magnetic deviation logging tool. Maximum deviations from verticality were found to be lower than 4 cm at ~ 16 m depth. Thus, we assumed vertical boreholes when inverting the traveltimes from our crosshole experiments. Direct push (DP) experiments were performed at two selected locations approximately in the center of the inter-borehole planes (Fig. 2). A standard piezocone probe with a diameter of 4.4 cm was pushed into the underground with a controlled force and constant speed of 2 cm/s. Thus, cone penetration tests (CPT) have been performed, i.e., the probe measured the cone tip resistance, dened as the force acting on the cone divided by the projected area of the cone, and the sleeve friction, dened as the frictional force acting on the friction sleeve divided by its surface area (Lunne et al., 1997). In addition, the used probe measured the dielectric permittivity at a frequency of 30 MHz. These DP logs (Fig. 3) provided critical information to evaluate our zonal tomographic model and, in addition, were used to further interpret the detected zonation.

where k = 1,..., 3 denotes the number of data sets and p ki is the mean value of parameter pk for the ith cluster. The discussed inversion procedure (inner loop in Fig. 1) is repeated until a pre-dened stopping criterion is reached. Because the optimum value of c is usually not known a priori, we have to repeat the inversion using several reasonable values of c (outer loop in Fig. 1). Consequently, we obtain an ensemble of possible models (each with different numbers of clusters c). The nal model is found by analyzing root-mean-square (rms) errors for the three different data sets and NCE values to evaluate the appropriateness of c. Minimum rms errors and minimum NCE values indicate the optimum solution. Thus, it is straightforward to employ the inversion approach of Paasche and Tronicke (2007) for the 2D inversion of three colocated crosshole traveltime data sets. It should be noted that the exibility of this approach further allows for cooperatively inverting other combinations, or more than three data sets, provided that an appropriate forward solver is available and the considered data sets cover the same subsurface region. Further details of this cooperative inversion approach as well as synthetic examples using two different data sets can be found in Paasche and Tronicke (2007) and Paasche et al. (2008). The inversion result is a three-parameter geophysical model outlining the major zonation of the subsurface. In this model, each zone is characterized by similar or consistent relationships between P-wave, S-wave, and georadar velocity. Furthermore, the nal tomographic model can be used to estimate the spatial distribution of further target parameters (e.g., porosity, hydraulic conductivity, or various geotechnical parameters), which usually can only be measured by corresponding borehole logging or direct push techniques at selected locations. Following Paasche et al. (2006), a mean value of the target parameter is assigned to each cluster by averaging along the borehole or direct push trajectories. Using a mixing model comparable to Eq. (1), we calculate the target parameter for each grid cell of the tomographic model. In doing so, we basically use the zoned tomographic model to guide the inter- and extrapolation of the sparse logging data. In this procedure, we assume that the subsurface

Fig. 2. Plan view of the eld site showing locations of boreholes, concrete pile foundations, and direct push (DP) experiments.

S. Linder et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 72 (2010) 254262

257

Fig. 3. Available DP logs of tip resistance, sleeve friction, and dielectric permittivity measured at (a)(c) location DP 1 and (d)(f) location DP 2 (see Fig. 2).

4. Crosshole data acquisition P-wave seismic energy was generated using a sparker source and recorded employing a 24-channel hydrophone string with spacings between the individual hydrophones of 1 m. We employed the source in the water saturated zone in BH2 and BH5 and the hydrophones were placed in BH3 (see also Fig. 2). We repeatedly measured each source location lifting the hydrophone chain three times by 0.25 m to ensure a dense coverage of the probed subsurface region. Table 1 summarizes the acquisition parameters and signal characteristics of the survey. The presence of correlated noise in the form of refracted waves traveling vertically through the surrounding concrete piles required manual picking of the direct arrivals. Fig. 4a shows a typical shotgather from our P-wave survey with the sparker source placed in BH2 at 4.5 m depth. To avoid effects from interfering refracted waves, we only consider source-receiver pairs with a deviation from horizontality lower than 30. After checking data quality and consistency by using different plotting schemes (e.g., source-receiver pick images, Harris et al., 1995; traveltime error maps, Mathisen et al., 1995), we obtained the traveltime data set considered for inversion. S-wave seismic data were acquired using an electrodynamic borehole impacter source (BIS; Geotomographie GmbH, Neuwied, Germany) which generates SH-waves. The corresponding waveelds were recorded using two ve-component borehole geophones with a xed spacing of 2 m. Source and geophones are pneumatically coupled
Table 1 Acquisition parameters and signal characteristics of our P-wave, S-wave, and georadar surveys with a sampled depth range from 4.5 m to 16 m, respectively. Dominant wavelengths rely on dominant frequencies and average velocity values of the respective parameter. P-wave Source spacing Receiver spacing Sample interval Recording time Dominant frequency Dominant wavelength 0.25 m 0.25 m 0.021 ms 50 ms ~ 750 Hz ~ 2.5 m S-wave 0.5 m 0.5 m 0.021 ms 200 ms ~ 200 Hz ~ 1.3 m Georadar 0.25 m 0.25 m 0.04 ns 700 ns ~ 60 MHz ~1 m

Fig. 4. Typical trace normalized shotgathers of our (a) P-wave, (b) S-wave, and (c) georadar crosshole surveys. For all gathers, source position is in BH2 at 4.5 m depth and the receivers are located in BH3. Gray crosses indicate picked rst break traveltimes.

to the borehole casing. The source was azimuthally controlled, whereas the borehole geophones were installed in a directionally uncontrolled manner. Each of the borehole geophones contained four horizontal components with an azimuth spacing of 45 and one vertical component. The vertical spacing of these 5 components was 0.05 m. The source was operated in BH2 and BH5 and the geophones were installed in BH3. Table 1 lists the acquisition parameters and signal characteristics of our S-wave survey. To enable a reliable identication of rst arriving S-waves, we blast two shots perpendicular to the inter-borehole plane at each source position. Rotating the BIS by 180 between both shots enables the generation of reversely polarized S-wave energy. The polarization of generated P-wave energy remains unaffected by rotating the source direction. Hence, the rst onsets of the S-waves can be identied in the recorded traces by comparing the signal polarity observed in both shots according to the same source location (Fig. 5a). Alternatively, reversing the polarity of one shot, prior to stacking it with the other one, enhances S-wave and reduces P-wave energy (Fig. 5b). Since S-waves and P-waves differ signicantly in their frequency content (see also Table 1), we applied a zero phase low-pass lter with an upper plateau frequency of 250 Hz and an upper cutoff frequency of 330 Hz to further enhance the Swaves and to enable accurate picking of these arrivals. The S-wave arrivals were picked manually employing the stacked and ltered traces (Fig. 5b). Afterwards, we compiled trace normalized shotgathers overlain by the picked traveltimes to check the consistency of the picked arrival times (Fig. 4b). Similar to the P-wave data, correlated noise caused by refracted waves traveling through the surrounding concrete piles complicated picking of S-wave arrivals for large vertical shot-receiver offsets (Fig. 4b), and we only consider source-receiver pairs with a deviation from horizontality lower than

258

S. Linder et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 72 (2010) 254262

Fig. 5. Typical trace gather from our S-wave data set recorded with a ve-component geophone, i.e., four horizontal components (h1h4) with 45 azimuthal spacings and one vertical component (v1). The source is placed in BH2 at 4.5 m depth and the geophone is located in BH3 with its midpoint at 4.5 m depth. (a) Raw data acquired for two shots perpendicular to the inter-borehole plane with opposite source impact direction (black and gray wiggle traces, respectively). (b) The two shots from (a) after reversing polarity of the gray shot, stacking, and moderate zero phase low-pass ltering.

Fig. 7. Final six cluster zonal model obtained from cooperative inversions of P-wave, Swave, and georadar data. Primary colors denote the identied subsurface zones. Color saturation corresponds to the degree of membership of a model cell to a distinct cluster.

30. We also check the quality and consistency of the S-wave traveltime data by different plotting schemes. Georadar data were acquired employing two dipole borehole antennas with a nominal center frequency of 100 MHz. The receiver antenna was operated in BH3, and the transmitter antenna was employed in BH2 and BH5. Acquisition parameters and signal characteristics are listed in Table 1. Fig. 4c shows a typical transmitter gather with the source antenna in BH2 at a depth of 4.5 m. Because of excellent data quality, the rst arrivals of the georadar waves were determined using an automatic picking routine based on the Akaike information criterion (Tronicke, 2007). Comparable to seismic data analysis, different plotting schemes are used for quality and consistency control. We also limit the angular coverage to 30 from horizontality, which results in resolution capabilities similar to our seismic surveys. It should be noted that limiting the angular coverage in such layered subsurface environments usually has no critical impact on the inversion results but rather helps to reduce artifacts associated with high-angle traveltime data (Irving et al., 2006; Tronicke, 2007).

5. Inversion results Our three traveltime data sets were inverted using the ZCI approach outlined before. We repeated the inversion varying the number of clusters c from 2 to 9. The inversion was stopped after 25 iterations, which was sufcient to ensure convergence for all data sets and all chosen c. To evaluate the success of the ZCI and to identify the model with the optimal number of clusters c, we calculated the rms errors and the NCE values for the entire ensemble of solutions (Fig. 6). For c N 5, the rms errors remain almost constant indicating that all models with six or more clusters allow explaining the three data sets. The minimum NCE value is found for c = 6 indicating the optimum number of clusters. Consequently, we identify the six cluster solution as our nal model. The nal 2D subsurface model is shown in Fig. 7. It shows an overall horizontal to sub-horizontal layering as expected for the geological settings at our eld site. In Fig. 7, primary colors denote the subsurface zones found by our cooperative inversion. The color
Table 2 Mean, minimum, and maximum velocities of P-, S-, and georadar waves for the clusters of the nal zonal three-parameter model shown in Fig. 6. Cluster Mean Minimum 1879.91 1861.14 2090.73 1803.99 1854.89 1999.85 Maximum 1889.77 1862.14 2095.69 1809.89 1856.73 2007.32

P-wave velocity (m/s) 1 1889.32 2 1861.36 3 2094.48 4 1804.80 5 1855.94 6 2005.41 S-wave velocity (m/s) 1 224.36 2 253.83 3 313.49 4 180.14 5 186.61 6 186.02 Georadar velocity (m/ns) 1 0.062203 2 0.058762 3 0.066833 4 0.057063 5 0.059975 6 0.067699

216.38 252.11 311.52 179.85 185.68 185.25

224.76 254.29 314.13 181.82 188.18 187.87

Fig. 6. rms errors for (a) P-wave, (b) S-wave, and (c) georadar traveltime data sets from zonal cooperative inversion for 2 c 9. (d) Normalized classication entropy (NCE) for 2 c 9.

0.061351 0.058736 0.066740 0.057022 0.059898 0.067380

0.062268 0.058858 0.066863 0.057332 0.060002 0.067814

S. Linder et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 72 (2010) 254262

259

Fig. 8. Mean (a) P-wave, (b) S-wave, and (c) georadar velocities (Table 2) for the clusters of the nal three-parameter model in Fig. 6. Colors equal those in Fig. 7.

saturation is proportional to the membership values; e.g., high color saturation indicates a high membership of a pixel to a distinct cluster. This information can be used to evaluate the reliability of the nal zonation, i.e., the result of the used fuzzy classication approach. The nal model is a zonal three-parameter model where each zone is characterized by similar relationships between P-wave, S-wave, and georadar velocity. The inverted velocities are typical for water saturated unconsolidated sediments mainly consisting of sand and gravel (Schn, 1998). Table 2 lists mean, minimum, and maximum velocity values for each cluster of the nal model and Fig. 8 visualizes the mean velocities for each cluster. For example, cluster 3 outlines a high-velocity zone for the three velocity parameters, and cluster 6 is characterized by low S-wave velocities paired with relatively high P-wave and georadar velocities. It may happen that two clusters have almost identical velocities for one parameter, but differ signicantly in the other two parameters (e.g., clusters 5 and 6). This indicates the benet of using more than one tomographic data set to characterize the subsurface at this site. 6. Interpretation and discussion To check the quality and consistency of the 2D structures delineated by our zonal subsurface model (Fig. 7), we rst visually

compare it to the available DP logging data. In doing so, we overlay the DP logs on our 2D model. Exemplary, Fig. 9 shows such an overlay using the tip resistance data. Considering the difference in resolution between our tomographic and DP data (approximately one order of magnitude), the DP logs conrm the inverted 2D zonation; i.e., major changes in log data patterns correspond to changes in the clustered model at the DP locations. To further quantify this observation, we calculate mean values and the rst and third quartiles of the tip resistance, sleeve friction, and the dielectric permittivity logs for each cluster along the DP trajectories (Fig. 10). In Figs. 9 and 10 we see that, for example, cluster 1 is characterized by high tip resistances and sleeve frictions both with minor variability as well as intermediate permittivity values with relative low variability. Meanwhile, cluster 6 (underlying cluster 1 in the upper part of the model) shows intermediate tip resistances with minor variability, intermediate sleeve frictions with intermediate variability, and low permittivity values with low variability. A further example is the central part of the model, where clusters 4 and 5 are clearly separated from each other in tip resistance, sleeve friction, and dielectric permittivity. Our data base provides two independent measures of dielectric permittivity, which can be used to cross-validate our subsurface

Fig. 9. Final six cluster zonal model (Fig. 6) with overlain tip resistance logs. Locations of DP soundings are indicated by vertical lines at a prole distance of ~ 2.5 m and ~ 8 m, respectively.

Fig. 10. Mean (a) tip resistance, (b) sleeve friction, and (c) dielectric permittivity including the distance between the rst and third quartiles (vertical lines) calculated for each cluster of the nal three-parameter model in Fig. 8. Colors equal those in Fig. 9.

260

S. Linder et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 72 (2010) 254262

Fig. 11. Crossplot of mean dielectric permittivity values calculated for each cluster of the nal zonal model (Fig. 7) using the corresponding DP logs and the tomographic georadar velocities, respectively. For the values derived from DP data, the distance between the rst and third quartiles is indicated by vertical lines. Corresponding error bars for the values derived from georadar velocity are not shown because they are beyond symbol size.

model. In Fig. 11, we compare permittivity values derived from the DP logs with permittivities calculated from the tomographic georadar velocity eld (Fig. 7 and Table 2) assuming low loss materials (i.e., the dielectric permittivity is calculated by dividing the squared speed of light in free space by the squared georadar velocity). Considering the different spatial scales of the two experiments and potential frequency dependence of the physical parameters, we observe an excellent agreement between the two data sets. This exercise provides further condence in our workow. Overall, we conclude that the DP data conrm the zonation found by the cooperative inversion and we now can use these data to further interpret and characterize our zoned geophysical model. In Fig. 12, we show the results of linking our nal tomographic model to the available DP data; i.e., we estimate the spatial distribution of these parameters using the averaged DP values from Fig. 10 and a mixing model as outlined above (Eq. (1)). When comparing Fig. 12 with Fig. 7, we see that the individual clusters are characterized by distinct DP parameter values. Tip resistance, sleeve friction, and parameters deduced from these measurements (such as friction ratio and soil behavior type index) are widely accepted and used within the geotechnical and engineering communities to describe and evaluate the mechanical characteristics of the shallow subsurface (Lunne et al., 1997). For example, increased tip resistances in Fig. 12a might be related to increased compaction and increased relative density values, respectively, of the sediments. However, as most of these relations are purely empirical and dependent on the site-specic settings, a detailed geotechnical interpretation of our CPT data is beyond the scope of this study. In water saturated sediments, dielectric permittivity is usually closely related to porosity (e.g., Topp et al., 1980). Thus, increased values in our permittivity logs (as detected for clusters 2 and 4; see Fig. 12c) point towards increased porosities and might also be an indicator for increased hydraulic conductivities as we often observe a linear relation between porosity and the logarithm of hydraulic conductivity. In Fig. 3, we see that the maximum permittivity values are primarily related to sequences of thin (~ 10 cm thick) layers in depths N 10 m. Considering the results of the nearby borehole, these high-porosity layers can be interpreted as sequences of organic deposits (peat or lignite) and, thus, clusters 2 and 4 are interpreted as sands with interbedded thin, high-porosity organic layers. To establish a more quantitative and reliable relation between dielectric permittivity and porosity or hydraulic conductivity, we would need

Fig. 12. 2D parameter elds generated by combining the zonal geophysical model (Fig. 6) with the available DP logs (Fig. 3). (a) Tip resistance, (b) sleeve friction, and (c) dielectric permittivity.

S. Linder et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 72 (2010) 254262

261

further data for a site-specic calibration (e.g., from laboratory tests using cored material). However, such data are not available and, thus, a more detailed interpretation would be speculative. Overall, Figs. 912 illustrate that our cooperative inversion procedure results in a meaningful model which is in good agreement with independent DP data. Furthermore, the 2D tomographic structures can be linked to DP parameters relevant for a detailed engineering or hydrological site characterization, i.e., the 2D zonal model can be used to inter- and extrapolate our DP logs. 7. Conclusion We have used a recently proposed zonal cooperative inversion approach (ZCI) for the inversion of three crosshole traveltime data sets. It has been demonstrated that the original FCM based ZCI approach can be easily employed to handle three independent data sets. The exibility of the approach allows, without major modications, for inverting other combinations of geophysical data or more than three data sets provided that an appropriate forward solver is available and the used data sets cover the same subsurface region. In a case study, we have used the ZCI approach to invert P-wave, S-wave, and georadar traveltime data which results in a single zonal three-parameter model outlining subsurface units on the basis of P-wave, S-wave, and georadar velocity. Using available background information (DP logs at two selected locations along the prole), we have evaluated and interpreted our obtained model. By overlaying selected DP data on the inversion result we have shown that tomographically detected structures correspond largely to layers and boundaries detected by the DP logs. Furthermore, by averaging the DP data for each cluster along the DP trajectories we have demonstrated that the detected zones are also signicantly separated in the DP data space and, thus, these data can be used to further interpret our zonal model in view of geotechnical or hydrological characteristics. This study illustrates the exibility and applicability of the FCM based ZCI approach to invert disparate geophysical data sets under the assumption that a structural link between the individual data sets exists. We see the potential of this approach especially in applications where the subsurface can be approximated by a limited number of distinct units. This, for example, is typical for sedimentary settings as surveyed in this study, where the petrophysical parameters tend to cluster within certain lithologies (e.g., Hyndman and Harris, 1996; Heinz et al., 2003). However, further experience with different combinations of geophysical data sets acquired in a variety of geological settings is needed to evaluate the full potential of the approach. Appendix A In the zonal cooperative inversion (ZCI) approach employed in this study, we use fuzzy c-means (FCM) cluster analysis to integrate the different velocity models after performing one iteration of conventional single parameter inversion (see also Fig. 1). It should be emphasized that this is the major methodological innovation of the ZCI approach originally proposed by Paasche and Tronicke (2007) because each data set is inverted separately using conventional inversion algorithms and the FCM technique is used to calculate the model updates using Eq. (1). This FCM based model updating procedure ensures structural information exchange between the different data sets. The FCM algorithm is a partitioning clustering method which groups n data points in a t-dimensional space into a specied number of c subsets or clusters. This is done by iteratively minimizing the following objective function J:
c n

where mij denotes the degree of membership of data point dj to cluster i dened by its center vi. The weighting exponent f controls the degree of fuzziness in the resulting memberships and must be selected from the interval 1 b f b . For f = 1, Eq. (A.1) corresponds to a crisp k-means cluster algorithm while increasing f results in increased fuzziness of the memberships. In this study, we use f = 2, which is widely accepted as a suitable choice (Hathaway and Bezdek, 2001). To nd the optimum number of clusters, we make use of a widely accepted statistical measure known as normalized classication entropy (NCE; Bezdek, 1981; Roubens, 1982). The NCE value is calculated by 1 n mij log mij NCE =
i=1 j=1 c n

logc

A:2

where mij log(mij) is dened to equal zero when mij = 0. After performing the cooperative inversion approach for different values of c (outer loop in Fig. 1), we analyze the obtained NCE values together with the nal rms errors for each data set to nd the optimum solution. References
Angioni, T., Rechtien, R.D., Cardimona, S.J., Luna, R., 2003. Crosshole seismic tomography and borehole logging for engineering site characterization in Sikeston, MO, USA. Tectonophysics 368, 119137. Aster, R.C., Borchers, B., Thurber, C.H., 2005. Parameter Estimation and Inverse Problems. Elsevier. Becht, A., Tronicke, J., Appel, E., Dietrich, P., 2004. Inversion strategy in crosshole radar tomography using information of data subsets. Geophysics 69, 222230. Bedrosian, P.A., Maercklin, N., Weckmann, U., Bartov, Y., Ryberg, T., Ritter, O., 2007. Lithology-derived structure classication from the joint interpretation of magnetotelluric and seismic models. Geophysical Journal International 170, 737748. Bezdek, J.C., 1981. Pattern Recognition with Fuzzy Objective Function Algorithms. Plenum Press. Bosch, M., 1999. Lithologic tomography: from plural geophysical data to lithology estimation. Journal of Geophysical Research 104, 749766. Butler, D.K., 2005. Near-surface geophysics. Society of Exploration Geophysicists. Daley, T.M., Majer, E.L., Peterson, J.E., 2004. Crosswell seismic imaging in a contaminated basalt aquifer. Geophysics 69, 1624. Dietrich, P., Tronicke, J., 2009. Integrated analyses and interpretation of crosshole P- and S-wave tomograms: a case study. Near Surface Geophysics 7, 101109. Ellefsen, K.J., Hsieh, P.A., Shapiro, A.M., 2002. Crosswell seismic investigation of hydraulically fractured bedrock near Mirror Lake, New Hampshire. Journal of Applied Geophysics 50, 299317. Gallardo, L.A., 2007. Multiple cross-gradient joint inversion for geospectral imaging. Geophysical Research Letters 34, L19301. doi:10.1029/2007GL030409. Gallardo, L.A., Meju, M., 2004. Joint two-dimensional DC resistivity and seismic travel time inversion with cross-gradient constraints. Journal of Geophysical Research 109, B03311. doi:10.1029/2003JB002716. Haber, E., Oldenburg, D., 1997. Joint inversion: a structural approach. Inverse Problems 13, 6377. Harris, J.M., Nolen-Heksema, R.C., Langan, R.T., Van Schaack, M., Lazaratos, S.K., Rector, J.W., 1995. High-resolution crosswell imaging of Texas carbonate reservoirs: part 1Project summary and interpretation. Geophysics 60, 667681. Hathaway, R.J., Bezdek, J.C., 2001. Fuzzy c-means clustering of incomplete data. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics 31, 735744. Heinz, J., Kleineidamm, S., Teutsch, G., Aigner, T., 2003. Heterogeneity patterns of quaternary glaciouvial gravel bodies (SW-Germany): application to hydrogeology. Sedimentary Geology 158, 123. Hppner, F., Klawonn, F., Kruse, R., Runkler, T., 1999. Fuzzy cluster analysis: methods for classication. Data Analysis and Image Recognition. Wiley & Sons Inc. Hubbard, S.S., Rubin, Y., 2000. Hydrogeological parameter estimation using geophysical data: a review of selected techniques. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 45, 334. Hubbard, S.S., Chen, J., Peterson, J.E., Majer, E.L., Williams, K.H., Swift, D.J., Mailloux, B., Rubin, Y., 2001. Hydrogeological characterization of the south oyster bacterial transport site using geophysical data. Water Resources Research 37, 24312456. Hyndman, D.W., Harris, J.M., 1996. Traveltime inversion for the geometry of aquifer lithologies. Geophysics 61, 17281737. Irving, J.D., Knoll, M.D., Knight, R.J., 2006. Improving crosshole radar velocity tomograms: a new approach to incorporating high-angle traveltime data. Geophysics 72, J31J41. Kndel, K., Lange, G., Voigt, H., 2007. Environmental Geology: Handbook of Field Methods and Case Studies. Springer. Lines, L.R., Schultz, A.K., Treitel, S., 1988. Cooperative inversion of geophysical data. Geophysics 53, 820. Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K., Powell, J.J.M., 1997. Cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice. Spon Press.

J = mij dj vi ;
i=1 j=1

A:1

262

S. Linder et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 72 (2010) 254262 Roubens, M., 1982. Fuzzy clustering algorithms and their cluster validity. European Journal of Operational Research 10, 294301. Schn, J.H., 1998. Physical Properties of Rocks: Fundamentals and Principles of Petrophysics. Pergamon Press. Topp, G.C., Davis, J.L., Annan, A.P., 1980. Electromagnetic determination of soil water content: measurements in coaxial transmission lines. Water Resources Research 16, 574582. Tronicke, J., 2007. The inuence of high frequency uncorrelated noise on rst-break arrival times and crosshole traveltime tomography. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics 12, 173184. Tronicke, J., Tweeton, D.R., Dietrich, P., Appel, E., 2001. Improved crosshole radar tomography by using direct and reected arrival times. Journal of Applied Geophysics 47, 97105. Tronicke, J., Dietrich, P., Wahlig, U., Appel, E., 2002. Integrating surface georadar and crosshole radar tomography: a validation experiment in braided stream deposits. Geophysics 67, 14951504. Tronicke, J., Holliger, K., Barrash, W., Knoll, M.D., 2004. Multivariate analysis of crosshole georadar velocity and attenuation tomograms for aquifer zonation. Water Resources Research 40, WO1519. doi:10.1029/2003WR002031. Vozoff, K., Jupp, D.L.B., 1975. Joint inversion of geophysical data. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomic Society 42, 977991.

Mathisen, M.E., Vasiliou, A.A., Cunningham, P., Shaw, J., Justice, J.H., Guinzy, N.J., 1995. Time-lapse crosswell seismic tomogram interpretation: implications for heavy oil reservoir characterization, thermal recovery process monitoring, and tomographic imaging technology. Geophysics 60, 631650. Maurer, H., Green, A.G., 1997. Potential coordinate mislocations in crosshole tomography: results from the Grimsel test site, Switzerland. Geophysics 62, 16961709. Musil, M., Maurer, H., Green, A.G., 2003. Discrete tomography and joint inversion for loosely connected or unconnected physical properties: application to crosshole seismic and georadar data sets. Geophysical Journal International 153, 389402. Niederleithinger, E., 2009. The BAM site for non-destructive testing methods (NDT) in civil engineering. International Foundation Congress & Equipment Expo 2009, Expanded Abstracts. 8 pp. Paasche, H., Tronicke, J., 2007. Cooperative inversion of 2D geophysical data sets: a zonal approach based on fuzzy c-means cluster analysis. Geophysics 72, A35A39. Paasche, H., Tronicke, J., Holliger, K., Green, A.G., Maurer, H., 2006. Integration of diverse physical-property models: subsurface zonation and petrophysical parameter estimation based on fuzzy c-means cluster analyses. Geophysics 71, H33H44. Paasche, H., Wendrich, A., Tronicke, J., Trela, C., 2008. Detecting voids in masonry by cooperatively inverting P-wave and georadar traveltimes. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering 5, 256267.