0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

3 просмотров16 страницmodelamiento

Aug 02, 2018

GEO-2017-0040_AUTHOR_1

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

modelamiento

© All Rights Reserved

0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

3 просмотров16 страницGEO-2017-0040_AUTHOR_1

modelamiento

© All Rights Reserved

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16

net/publication/320645774

DOI: 10.1190/geo2017-0040.1

CITATIONS READS

0 265

4 authors:

Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur

13 PUBLICATIONS 32 CITATIONS 94 PUBLICATIONS 667 CITATIONS

Ankara University Norges geologiske undersøkelse

22 PUBLICATIONS 127 CITATIONS 37 PUBLICATIONS 181 CITATIONS

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Radon risk mapping using airborne gamma-ray spectrometry data View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anand Singh on 03 January 2018.

GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 83, NO. 1 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2018); P. 1–14, 10 FIGS., 1 TABLE.

10.1190/GEO2017-0040.1

Anand Singh1, Shashi Prakash Sharma1, İrfan Akca2, and Vikas Chand Baranwal3

ABSTRACT 2010; Solberg et al., 2016); marine research (Loke and Lane,

2004; Rucker et al., 2011); and mineral/hydrocarbon exploration

We evaluate the use of a fuzzy c-means clustering pro- (White et al., 2001; Bauman, 2005; Legault et al., 2008; Mohanty

cedure to improve an inverted 2D resistivity model within et al., 2011; Mandal et al., 2015; Adhikari et al., 2016; Biswas and

the iterative error minimization procedure. The algorithm Sharma, 2016). It provides information about subsurface conduc-

is coded in MATLAB language for the Lp-norm inversion tors by injecting the electric current into the earth and measuring

of 2D direct current resistivity data and is referred to as fuzzy the injected current and potential differences at various locations

constrained inversion (FCI). Two additional input parame- using various electrode configurations. The electrodes could be lo-

ters are required to be provided by the interpreter: (1) the cated at the surface and/or in boreholes. Inverse modeling provides

number of geologic units in the model (i.e., the number of a mathematical framework to obtain a reliable resistivity model of

clusters) and (2) the mean resistivity values of each geologic the subsurface, responsible for the measured data in the field. Be-

unit (i.e., cluster center values of the geologic units). The cause the number of measured ERT data is less than the number of

efficacy of our approach is evaluated by tests carried on the resistivity blocks, the inverse problem is intrinsically nonunique and

synthetic and field electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) ill posed (Tarantola, 2005). Thus, there exist numerous subsurface

data. Inversion results from the FCI algorithm are presented resistivity models of which response can fit the measured resistivity

for conventional L1- and L2-norm minimization techniques. data sets equally well.

FCI indicates improvement over conventional inversion ap- Over the past 30 years, there have been lots of developments in

proaches in differentiating the geologic units if a proper DC resistivity interpretation techniques. The list is huge, and only

number of the geologic units is provided to the algorithm. some of them are mentioned here, e.g., 1D interpretation (Sharma,

Inappropriate clustering information will affect the resulting 2012), 2D interpretation (Loke and Barker, 1996; Boonchaisuk

resistivity models, particularly conductive geologic units et al., 2008; Rücker and Günther, 2011), and 3D interpretation

existing in the model. We also determine that FCI is only (Jackson et al., 2001; Günther et al., 2006; Pidlisecky et al., 2007).

effective when the observed ERT data can recognize the par- The modeling techniques mentioned above have their merit and

ticular geologic units. demerits regarding inversion approach, computation time, storage

space, customization, and visualization in various dimensions. How-

ever, there are two major problems associated with inversion of

ERT data sets: (1) Most of the inversion algorithms are based on the

INTRODUCTION L2-norm minimization and produce smooth resistivity images, and

(2) recovered resistivity values are lower or higher than the actual

Direct current (DC) resistivity imaging or electrical resistivity resistivity in the subsurface as a consequence of the inversion algo-

tomography (ERT) is an effective tool to obtain the subsurface re- rithms. Because of these two major problems, boundaries of the geo-

sistivity image with high resolution and has been used in various logic units are not clearly seen in such approaches because of low

applications, e.g., delineation of groundwater/aquifers (Johnson contrasts in the smoothed resistivity models. This causes a difficulty

et al., 2010); archaeological exploration (Akca, 2016); medical im- in the geologic interpretation of smooth resistivity images in which a

aging (Holder, 2004); environmental, geotechnical, and engineering sharp boundary is expected. Yi et al. (2003) use an active constraint

Manuscript received by the Editor 18 January 2017; revised manuscript received 23 July 2017; published ahead of production 25 October 2017.

1

Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Department of Geology and Geophysics, Kharagpur, India. E-mail: anand@gg.iitkgp.ernet.in; spsharma@gg.

iitkgp.ernet.in.

2

Ankara University, Department of Geophysical Engineering, Ankara, Turkey. E-mail: irfan.akca@eng.ankara.edu.tr.

3

Geological Survey of Norway (NGU), Trondheim, Norway. E-mail: vikas.baranwal@ngu.no.

© 2018 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved.

1

2 Singh et al.

balancing technique to overcome extreme smoothing in the models. Knight, 2008). In the present work, we use the finite-element 1

There are other inversion approaches based on L1-norm minimiza- method to solve equation 1 to calculate the potential difference, and

tion to generate blocky structures in the subsurface (Farquharson and then the apparent resistivity is calculated using the general approach

Oldenburg, 1998; Loke et al., 2003). Akca and Başokur (2010) de- of Marescot et al. (2006). Later, the apparent resistivity values

velop a technique to depict structure-based resistivity sections using are transformed into pseudodepth sections using the approach by

hybrid genetic algorithms. However, they did not show their result Edwards (1977). The solution of equation 1 can be written in dis-

when abrupt lateral variations in lithology could be present. Rücker crete form as

(2011) incorporates a priori information of structural constraints from

seismic and borehole data. Zhou et al. (2014) dug out the structural

dpre ¼ FðmÞ; (2)

orientation from the geologic sections and enforce this structural ori-

entation to the inversion through a model covariance matrix.

In the DC resistivity method, the most common approach to iden- where F is the forward-modeling operator, dpre is the computed or

tify the boundary between geologic units is based on gradient and predicted ERT data, and m ¼ ½log σ 1 ; log σ 2 ; : : : ; log σ M T is the

Laplacian methods (Sass, 2007; Hsu et al., 2010; Chambers et al., model parameter vector. The term σ k is the conductivity of the kth

2012).The gradient-based approach detects the boundaries of a con- block/cell and M is the total number of blocks in the model. In the

ductive/resistive structure by finding the maximum of the first deriv- present study, model discretization and forward modeling are per-

atives of the resistivity model, whereas the Laplacian searches for formed by following the details given by Akca (2016). The Jacobian

the curvature of the resistivity model. Wilkinson et al. (2012) show matrix S is formulated according to Tripp et al. (1984), Sasaki

that this approach might not be efficient due to the gradational (1994), and Spitzer (1998).

nature of smoothness constraints in the DC resistivity inversion and

also due to low resolution at depth because of the larger interspatial Fuzzy clustering

distances of the electrodes. Often, some a priori geologic informa-

tion is known to us. In some of the geologic scenarios, different The clustering procedure is an arrangement of data into groups of

geologic units have a distinct range of resistivity values. Therefore, similar objects. Each cluster comprises items that are similar to each

such geologic structures can be classified by their resistivity values other and dissimilar to objects of the other groups. There are nu-

so that statistically similar resistivity values are grouped in one unit merous clustering techniques available in the literature (Macqueen,

or cluster (Doetsch et al., 2010; Ward et al., 2014; Ishola et al., 1967; Bezdek, 1981). Fuzzy c-means is a strategy for clustering that

2015). Doetsch et al. (2010) and Ward et al. (2014) use the cluster- permits one piece of data to belong to two or more groups. It has been

ing technique in postinversion processing to improve the resistivity broadly used in geosciences, e.g., in remote sensing image segmen-

images significantly. However, Infante et al. (2010) combine geo- tation (Fan et al., 2009; Ghaffarian and Ghaffarian, 2014; Sarkar et al.,

spectral and geophysical signatures in the joint inversion of electri- 2016), geochemistry (Fatehi and Asadi, 2017), soil-landscape mod-

cal and seismic data to get a better separation between two different eling and soil mapping (Bragato, 2004; Goktepe et al., 2005; Wang

geologic units. Ishola et al. (2015) combine multiple arrays in their et al., 2012), determination of aquifer parameters and groundwater

ERT problem using a k-means clustering technique. In the present study (Ayvaz, 2007; Ayvaz et al., 2007; Güler et al., 2012), subsur-

study, we develop an inversion algorithm for the 2D DC resistivity face zonation and petrophysical parameter estimation (Paasche et al.,

inverse problem using the Lp-norm. We use the fuzzy c-means 2006, 2010; Sun and Li, 2015), and cooperative inversion (Paasche

(FCM) clustering technique directly in the inversion framework to and Tronicke, 2007; Nair and Kandpal, 2010).

improve the interpretation of the subsurface resistivity structures. The FCM clustering procedure assigns blocks to clusters using

We also show the effect of the clustering in the inversion result. fuzzy memberships. Let m ¼ ½m1 ; m2 ; : : : ; mM T denote the M

The developed methodology is tested with three synthetic data sets numbers of resistivity blocks to be partitioned into c numbers of

and a field data set. The field data were collected from a sensitive geologic units (i.e., the number of cluster centers). To realize this,

clay site at Esp, Trondheim, Norway. The objective of the survey we can iteratively minimize the following objective function (Bez-

was to identify sensitive clay zones. dek, 1981):

METHODOLOGY

M X

X c

ϕc ¼ μqik kmk − ui k22 ; (3)

2D forward modeling and sensitivity calculation k¼1 i¼1

where μik is the respective cluster membership of the kth resistivity

rithm. In 2D DC resistivity forward modeling, the following elliptic

partial differential equation of Poisson’s type (Günther, 2004) is block with respect to the ith cluster. The function ui is the resistivity

solved to calculate the potential distribution Vðx; y; zÞ over a 2D value of the ith cluster (i.e., mean resistivity value of the ith geologic

conductivity structure ðσÞ due to a current source ðIÞ: unit). Weighting exponent q and kk22 are the fuzzification parameter

and the squared L2-norm, respectively. Wade et al. (2014) note that 2

−∇½σðx; zÞ∇Vðx; y; zÞ ¼ Iðx; y; zÞ: (1) FCM clustering will not provide unique results upon repeated appli-

cation and introduce a method called guided FCM clustering. They

There are many numerical approaches to solve equation 1, e.g., the compute predefined cluster centers with the help of the observed DC

finite-difference method (Mufti, 1976; Dey and Morrison, 1979), data sets using kernel density estimation (Botev et al., 2010). There-

finite-element method (Coggon, 1971; Rijo, 1977; Queralt et al., fore, we introduce a priori cluster centers vi into our FCM clustering

1991; Xu et al., 2000), and finite-volume method (Pidlisecky and formulation (Sun and Li, 2015):

Fuzzy constrained inversion 3

M X

X c X

c minϕtotal ¼ ϕd þ λ1 ϕm ; ϕd ≤ ϕ ; (6)

ϕc ¼ μqik kmk − ui k22 þ wci kui − vi k22 ; (4) m

k¼1 i¼1 i¼1

where ϕ is the target misfit. The regularization term λ1 controls the

where wci is the weight corresponding to a priori cluster center vi. trade-off between model regularization and data misfit function. A

Writing equation 4 in matrix form results in proper value of the regularization parameter is derived from expe-

rience or trial-and-error method. Constable et al. (1987) and Meju

X

c X

c (1992) use a line search method, whereas Loke and Barker (1996)

ϕc ¼ μqi km − ui k22 þ wci kui − vi k22 : (5) start with a higher value and further decrease it at subsequent itera-

i¼1 i¼1 tions. Yi et al. (2003) use a spatially variable regularization param-

eter, calculated it using the spread function and model parameter

We perform an iterative minimization of the objective function in

resolution matrix. There are other methods as well to choose an ap-

equation 5 to obtain the optimum value of the cluster centers and

propriate value of λ1 ; e.g., the L-curve method, discrepancy method,

their respective membership values (μ). The cluster centers are up-

and generalized cross-validation method (Hansen, 1998; Günther 3

dated iteratively based on the new membership values (μ).This pro-

et al., 2006). Farquharson and Oldenburg (2004) compare different

cedure is continued until termination criteria (εc ) are satisfied. The

selection criteria and suggest a cooling-type method of decreasing the

weighting exponent q is assigned with a value of two in this study.

Minimization of the FCM objective function in an iterative manner is regularization parameter. In this work, starting value of the regulari-

summarized below from a well-known algorithm of Bezdek (1981): zation parameter λs1 is calculated as in Akca (2016):

where std stands for the standard deviation and dobs represents the

observed apparent resistivity data. Furthermore, the value of the regu-

Repeat for l ¼ 1; 2; : : :

larization parameter is reduced to half in successive iterations until it

Step 1: Calculate the centers: reaches a minimum of 0.01. Data misfit is a measure of disagreement

PM ðl−1Þ q

between the observed apparent resistivity data dobs and predicted

ðlÞ k¼1 ðμik Þ mj þ wci vi apparent resistivity data dpre . Predicted data are the response of a

ui ¼ PM ðl−1Þ q

; 1 < i < c:

k¼1 ðμik Þ þ wci model m, derived through forward modeling as shown in equations 1

and 2. Mathematical representation of the data misfit function can be

given as

Step 2: Compute the distance matrices:

ϕd ¼ kWd ðFðmÞ − dobs Þkpp ; (8)

ðlÞ ðlÞ

D2ik ¼ ðmk − ui ÞT ðmk − ui Þ; 1 ≤ i ≤ c; 1≤k≤M

where Wd ¼ diagfς12 ; ς12 ; : : : ; ς12 g and ςi is the standard deviation of

1 2 N

Step3: Update the partition matrix: known, then weights can be computed by following Akca (2016) as

for 1 ≤ k ≤ M; 1 1 1

Wd ¼ diag p ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

ﬃ ; p ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

ﬃ ; : : : ; p ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

ﬃ : (9)

for 1 ≤ i ≤ c;

4

dobs

1

4

dobs

2

4

dobs

N

1

μik ¼ P 2 The model regularization parameter is calculated according to Li and

c Dik q−1 Oldenburg (1996) as

i¼1 Djk

X

4

Until kμðlÞ − μðl−1Þ k < εc . ϕm ¼ kα1 Wm ref p

s ðm − m Þkp þ kαi Wm p

i mkp ; (10)

i¼2

Start with resistivity model m; choose the number of clusters where mref is the reference model (i.e., a priori resistivity model) and

1 < c < M; termination tolerance εc (usually 10−5 ). Initialize the the matrix Wm s is the diagonal matrix containing model parameter

partition matrix randomly such that μð0Þ ∈ Mfk (i.e., it belongs weights. Weighting matrices Wm i ði ¼ 2; 3; 4Þ are first-order x-direc-

to the fuzzy partitioning space). tion gradient, z-direction gradient, and Laplace’s differential compo-

nent, respectively (Li and Oldenburg, 1996; Pidlisecky et al., 2007)

Inversion approach 8∂

>

< ∂x ; i¼2

∂

The 2D DC resistivity inverse problem is a highly underdeter-

Wi ¼

m ; i ¼ 3:

mined problem; therefore, an additional term Tikhonov parametric >

∂z (11)

: 1 ∂22 þ ∂2

; i¼4

functional or model regularization parameter, ϕm ðmÞ (Tikhonov 4 ∂x ∂z2

and Arsenin, 1977) is used together with the data misfit function

ϕd ðmÞ. These two terms are weighted by a regularization term Constants αi ði ¼ 2; 3; 4Þ are the respective weights. The first term of 4

λ1 and yield the objective function: equation 10 will give us a measure of the closeness of the current

4 Singh et al.

model to a reference model (Li and Oldenburg, 1998). In the present the previous section. Additional inputs to this step are (1) the num-

study, we use a modified version of the Lp-norm (Ekblom, 1987; also ber of cluster centers and (2) values of the cluster centers (the mean

see Appendix A for different types of norms) as resistivity value of each geologic unit). Fuzzy weighting terms wci

p

(equation 5) are based on our confidence level to find the value of a

lp ðeÞ ¼ ðe2 þ ε2 Þ 2 : (12) priori cluster centers vi . If the a priori information of any particular

cluster center is not known to us, then the weighting term is as-

The minimization of the objective function shown in equation 6 at the signed as zero. We minimize two objective functions (equations 5

(k þ 1)th iteration using the Ekblom (1987) norm in an iteratively and 6) together.

reweighted least-squares (IRLS) strategy requires the solution for After obtaining the resistivity model mjþ1 at the (j þ 1)th iter-

the model update(see Appendix A) as ation, we compute the ith cluster centers ujþ1 i and its corresponding

2 3−1 membership values μijþ1 separately as explained in the fuzzy-

ðSk ÞT ðWd ÞT Rd Wd Sk clustering section. Furthermore, the resistivity model mjþ1 is par-

6 7

Δmkþ1 ¼ 4 α1 ðWm

s Þ R s Ws

T m

5 titioned into c clusters using cluster centers and the maximum

þλ1 P4 membership value of the FCM to compute the model parameters

þ i¼2 αi ðWi Þ Ri Wi

m T m

2 k T d T 3 (modified resistivity model) for the (j þ 1)th iteration as

ðS Þ ðW Þ Rd Wd ðdobs − dk Þ

6 ref 7; X

c

×4 α1 ðWm s Þ Rs Ws ðm − m Þ

T m k

5 (13) mjþ1 ¼ ujþ1 jþ1

−λ1 P4 k i μik : (16)

þ i¼2 αi ðWi Þ Ri Wi m

m T m k i¼1

where Sk is the Jacobian matrix at the kth iteration and Δmkþ1 is the This method is known as hard classification or defuzzification in the

model update at the (k þ 1)th iteration. Equation 13 has additional literature (Miyamoto et al., 2008). By performing the inversion in

matrices Rd ; Rs , and Ri compared with the general system of equa- this way, three parameters, namely, resistivity model m, cluster cen-

tion for L2-norm-based minimization. It is important to highlight that ters u, and membership values μ, are iteratively optimized together.

matrices Rd ; Rs , and Ri are also dependent on mk and Δmkþ1 and Therefore, the goal of the presented FCI is to satisfy the additional a

are updated at each iteration (see equations B-12 and B-14). If we priori information of geologic units together with observed apparent

consider the L2-norm (i.e., p ¼ 2 and ε ¼ 10−6 ), these diagonal ma- resistivity data sets in the inversion. Hence, FCI resistivity images

trices (Rd ; Rs , and Ri ) will become identity matrices, and equation 13 will be more reliable than the general resistivity images obtained

will be reduced to using only observed apparent resistivity data sets. A flowchart of

2 3−1 FCI is shown below:

ðSk ÞT ðWd ÞT Wd Sk

6 7

Δmkþ1 ¼ 4 α1 ðWm

s Þ Ws

T m

5

þλ1 P4

þ i¼2 αi ðWi Þ Wi

m T m

2 k T d T d obs 3

ðS Þ ðW Þ W ðd − dk Þ Flowchart of FCI

6 ref 7:

×4 α1 ðWm s Þ Ws ðm − m Þ

T m k

5 (14) 1) Choose the size of measure (i.e., norm p and ε) and inversion

−λ1 P4 parameters α.

þ i¼2 αi ðWi Þ Wi m

m T m k

2) Choose a starting model m0 , number of lithologic units c, cluster

centers vi , and weights wi .

Equation 14 is used to compute the model update at the first iteration

because the diagonal matrices Rd ; Rs , and Ri cannot be computed 3) Set j ¼ 0. Compute dpre0 ¼ Fðm0 Þ using equation 2,

Δd0 ¼ dobs − dpre0 , and compute the sensitivity matrix S .

0

due to the unavailability of model update Δm. Once Δm is obtained

and the matrices Rd ; Rs , and Ri can be computed, Δm is obtained by 4) while kW d ðF½mj − dobs Þk2 ≥ tolð≃ 1%Þ and j < jmax do

solving equation 13 for the rest of the iterations. Logarithmic values 4) If j ¼¼ 0,

of resistivity are used as model parameters; therefore, the model will Compute model perturbation Δmj using equation 14

be updated as (Baranwal et al., 2011) 5) else j >¼ 1,

Compute the diagonal matrices Rd ; Rs , and Ri .

mkþ1 ¼ mk expðΔmkþ1 Þ: (15)

Compute model perturbation Δmjþ1 using equation 13.

It is important to highlight that the data error in observed ERT data is 6) Update model parameter vector mjþ1 ¼ mj expðΔmjþ1 Þ.

generally approximated by a Gaussian distribution; however, the Rd 7) Compute the sensitivity matrix Sjþ1 and predicted data

matrix (equation B-12) will provide a non-Gaussian distribution. dpre

jþ1 ¼ Fðmjþ1 Þ.

Therefore, Rd is used as an identity matrix throughout the study. 8) Update the cluster centers uijþ1 at ðj þ 1Þth iteration.

ðjþ1Þ

9) Update the partition matrix μik at the ðj þ 1Þth iteration.

Fuzzy constrained inversion 10) Compute new model parameters using equation 16

The basic idea of the fuzzy constrained inversion (FCI) is to im- mjþ1 ¼ ujþ1 μjþ1 .

prove the 2D resistivity model within the iterative minimization dur- 11) j ¼ j þ 1.

ing the inversion. For this purpose, we have used an additional step 12) end.

of optimizing the cluster centers during the inversion as explained in

Fuzzy constrained inversion 5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION to 1 and 15 (Table 1) to recover the synthetic model. It is also seen

that the boundaries of the geologic units are better recovered by FCI

To demonstrate the efficacy of FCI, synthetic apparent resistivity compared with general inversion without clustering. The conver-

data are generated for different types of electrode configurations for gence pattern of the inversion algorithms (Figure 2) shows that all

three different 2D models. L1- and L2-norm-based resistivity inver- the inversions converge to almost the same rms error.

sions of the synthetic data are performed using the general inversion

approach described in the “Inversion approach” section. Later, the Synthetic model 2

same data are inverted using our FCI. All the parameters used in this

study are summarized in Table 1. We performed another synthetic model inversion using a two-

block model with a sharp resistivity contrast (Boonchaisuk et al.,

Synthetic model 1 2008) as shown in Figure 3a. Two blocks having resistivity of 100

and 1 Ωm were located next to each other in a homogeneous half-

The first synthetic model is a single 10 Ωm block in a 100 Ωm space of 10 Ωm resistivity. The response of the model was calcu-

background as shown in Figure 1a. The synthetic apparent resistiv- lated for the dipole-dipole array configuration. Gaussian noise of

ity response of the first test model was calculated for the Wenner 5% was added to the synthetic data set (Figure 3b). The whole

array (details are given in Table 1). The model region was discre- model region was discretized into 28 × 19 blocks. The model con-

tized in 1020 resistivity blocks (60 in the x-direction and 17 in the sists of three geologic units with mean resistivity values of 1, 10,

z-direction). Gaussian noise of 5% was added to the synthetic model and 100 Ωm (the histogram plot in Figure 3a). If resistivities of geo-

as shown in Figure 1b to generate noisy synthetic data. We started logic units are known from priori measurements of rock samples or

the inversion with a homogeneous resistivity model, i.e., the aver- from other geophysical surveys (e.g., boreholes), then we can recon-

age of the noisy synthetic data. The data were first inverted using an struct the resistivity model more accurately using the presented FCI.

L2-norm by assigning p ¼ 2 and ε ¼ 1.0 × 10−6 , and the test re- We set c as 3 and vk as [1, 10, and 100] Ωm for k ¼ 1 − 3. The

sults are shown in Figure 1c. We inverted the same data using an resistivity model reconstructed from general inversion without fuzzy

L1-norm (p ¼ 1 and ε ¼ 1.0 × 10−6 ), and the results are shown in clustering constraints are shown in Figure 3c and 3d for L2- and

Figure 1d. All the inversion parameters were kept exactly the same L1-norms, respectively. Figure 3e and 3f shows the recovered resis-

except the value of p for L1- and L2-norm inversions. Finally, we tivity models by FCI using L2- and L1-norms, respectively. It is ob-

inverted the same synthetic data with our FCI strategy as detailed in vious that the interfaces of the blocks are much clearer in Figure 3e

the FCI section. The inversion was performed by setting c ¼ 2, and 3f obtained by FCIs than in Figure 3c and 3d by general inver-

v1 ¼ logð100Þ Ωm, v2 ¼ logð10Þ Ωm, and ε ¼ 1.0 × 10−6 for sion. Both of the above synthetic examples show the efficacy of the

L2-norm (p ¼ 2) and L1-norm (p ¼ 1). The results of L2- and presented FCI. We would like to highlight that the FCI inversion with

L1-norm minimization with FCI are shown in Figure 1e and 1f, the L1-norm (Figures 1f and 3f) in comparison with the FCI inversion

respectively. We show histogram plots of the cell resistivities for with the L2-norm (Figures 1e and 3e) recovers boundaries better to

all the models to their right side to highlight the ranges of the re- resemble the true model, specifically in the vertical direction. We note

sistivities in the models. In the present test, fuzzy weights were set that the resistivity ranges in the L2-norm FCI model are fewer than in

Table 1. Summary of all the parameters (general, inversion, and clustering) used in the present study.

Electrode array Wenner Dipole-dipole Wenner Gradient

Unit spacing (m) 10 5 1 5

No. of observed data 345 669 408 2155

Number of blocks 60 × 17 58 × 19 50 × 14 120 × 22

Inversion parameters α1 10−6 10−6

α2 0.02 0.002

α3 0.02 0.002

α4 0.02 0.002

Number of iteration 10 10

λ1 (initial value) Using equation 7 Using equation 7

λ1 (minimum value) 0.01 0.01

λ1 (damping factor) 0.55 0.55

Clustering parameters Number of cluster 2 3 2 4

Cluster centers ½2; 1T ½0; 2; 1T ½2; 1T ½0.88; 1.64; 2.26; 3T

wci ½1; 15T ½15; 5; 1T ½20; 20T ½20; 15; 10; 0T

6 Singh et al.

the L1-norm FCI model. This is the reason that L1-norm FCI in com- ities well, but L1-norm FCI (Figure 4e) recovers appropriate boun-

parison with L2-norm FCI took fewer numbers of iterations in recov- daries than L2-norm FCI (Figure 4d).

ering the true model (Figure 2). In the next examples (Figure 4f and 4g), we assumed three

(c ¼ 3) and four (c ¼ 4) model units instead of actual two model

Synthetic model 3 units to demonstrate the effect of choosing the wrong number of

clusters and cluster centers for the same synthetic model (Figure 4a).

The third synthetic model (Figure 4a) was designed to demon- Histogram plots of the recovered resistivities in right side images of

strate the effect of choosing an incorrect number of clusters in the Figure 4f and 4g show three and four geologic units, respectively, in

model than the actual number of possible geologic units present in the recovered models. Only two model units are present in the true

the model. The fuzzy clustering constrained inversion was applied models, and the rest are artifacts generated by the wrong assumption

on synthetic responses of resistivity model 3 representing a vertical of the extra geologic units in the fuzzy clustering. This example

fault-like model (the boundary of the true model is shown by black demonstrates that it is quite important to choose the correct number

lines in Figure 4a). The resistivities of the blocks are 100 and

10 Ωm. The response of the model was calculated for a Wenner

array of 51 electrodes with 1 m electrode spacing. Gaussian noise

of 5% was added to synthetic apparent resistivity data to approxi-

mate it with noisy field measurements. The model region was dis-

cretized in 700 cells (50 × 14). Models shown in Figure 4b and 4c

were obtained by L2- and L1-norms general inversions, respec-

tively. The black lines in each figure show the boundary between

two contrasting units in the true model. We inverted the synthetic

apparent resistivity data with 5% Gaussian noise using FCI and as-

suming the actual number of model units (i.e., c ¼ 2) and vi as

[log (100) and log (10)] Ωm for k ¼ 1 − 2. These results of FCI

with L2- and L1-norms as shown in Figure 4d and 4e, respectively, Figure 2. Convergence pattern of data misfit ϕd during the itera-

depict that both the models recovered the boundaries and resistiv- tions for different inversions performed for synthetic model 1.

Figure 1. Inversion results for the single block model. (a) Synthetic model simulating a single dike type body and (b) the perturbed model with

5% Gaussian variation of the cell resistivities. Models obtained after inversion of the synthetic data are shown in (c) using L2-norm, (d) using

L1-norm, (e) using FCI with L2-norm, and (f) using FCI with L1-norm. The second and fourth columns represent histogram plots of the

resistivity models to their left.

Fuzzy constrained inversion 7

Figure 3. Inversion results for two blocks models with high resistivity contrasts. (a) True resistivities of the model, and (b) same model with 5%

Gaussian noise. Models obtained after inversion of the synthetic data are shown in (c) using L2-norm, (d) using L1-norm, (e) using FCI with L2-

norm, and (f) using FCI with L1-norm. The second and fourth columns represent histogram plots of corresponding resistivity models to their left.

Figure 4. Inversion results for a fault model with high resistivity contrasts and the effect of the inappropriate number of clustering information

on FCI. Synthetic model and histogram plot of resistivities are shown in (a). Models obtained after inversion of the synthetic data are shown in

(b) using L2-norm, (c) using L1-norm, (d) using FCI with L2-norm and (e) using FCI with L1-norm. Inverted resistivity models using L1-norm

FCI are shown in (f) when three clusters were assumed and in (g) when four clusters were assumed. The second and fourth columns represent

histogram plots of corresponding resistivity models to their left. Black-colored solid lines in the resistivity models show the boundaries of the

synthetic model.

8 Singh et al.

of the clusters from a priori information. The recovered extra units inverted model (Figure 6a) is modified after Figure 8a of Solberg

share the model space of the neighboring clusters and produce the et al. (2016). This resistivity model was obtained using RES2DInv

artifacts. software and robust L1-norm inversion (Loke and Barker, 1996). Sol-

berg et al. (2016) interpret four different geologic units along this 2D

Inappropriate selection of the cluster centers in FCI ERT profile namely (1) unleached clay deposits (1 − 10 Ωm),

(2) leached clay deposits or possible quick clay (10 − 100 Ωm),

We further explored the effect of the inappropriate selection of (3) dry crust clay deposits and coarse sediments (>100 Ωm), and

the cluster centers assuming that the selection of several clusters (4) bedrock (> 500 Ωm) as shown in Figure 6a. The classification

is accurate. To test this, we perturbed the cluster center values from used by Solberg et al. (2016) is based on several geophysical and

the actual cluster center values for all the synthetic model examples geotechnical data from different studies in Scandinavia and Canada

1–3 (Figures 1a, 3a, and 4a). These perturbed cluster centers (Solberg et al., 2008; Long et al., 2012; Solberg et al., 2012). A new

were assumed as ½100; 20T , ½5; 50; 10T , and ½300; 10T instead of inverted resistivity model using the same general L1-norm (as de-

½100; 10T , ½1; 100; 10T , and ½100; 10T for synthetic models 1–3,

scribed in the “Inversion approach” section) is shown in Figure 6b.

respectively. Inversion results using L1-norm FCI for three synthetic

Figure 6a and 6b reveal that the boundaries across the different geo-

models with perturbed cluster centers (Figure 5) clearly show that the

logic units are not well-separated and resolved. The subsurface resis-

shapes of the geologic units do not change, whereas the boundaries of

tivity was also measured by a resistivity cone penetration test unit

the geologic units shift in all the synthetic models. Examples from

(RCPTU) at two locations B1 and B2. Locations of B1 and B2 with

Figures 4 and 5 clearly demonstrate that FCI is highly dependent on

respect to the ERT profile and the 2012 landslide site are shown in

the selected number of the clusters and their respective cluster cen-

Figure 7a. B1 (Hundal, 2014) was located at 150 m west of the pro-

ters. However, selection of the appropriate number of clusters is a

file, and B2 (Montafia, 2013) was located directly on the ERT profile.

vital input for FCI to recover a reasonably true model.

RCPTU is a small-scale, four-electrode sounding technique to per-

form in situ electrical resistivity measurements by pushing the unit

Field example vertically in the soft soil (NIFS, 2014). Resistivity variations at these

To examine the efficiency of our inversion algorithm on field data, two locations are similar as shown in Figure 7b. Figure 7c (y-axis

we inverted a 2D ERT profile data from the published work of Sol- labeling on the left) shows the histogram plot of the resistivity mea-

berg et al. (2016). The data were collected with 5 m electrode spacing sured at B1 and B2. To identify the different resistivity boundaries

using a gradient array from a quick-clay landslide area at Esp, Trond- present at locations B1 and B2, a kernel density estimation function

heim, Norway. Various geophysical and geotechnical surveys have (Botev et al., 2010) is used, and the resulting plot is shown in Fig-

been previously carried out on this site after a landslide in 2012 (Bar- ure 7c (y-axis labeling on the right). Three major peaks are identified

anwal et al., 2015; Solberg et al., 2015; Baranwal et al., 2017). The at 7.6, 44.2, and 180 Ωm corresponding to unleached clay, leached

clay, and dry crust clay, respectively. These values would serve as

mean resistivity values of the classified clay materials inferred from

the borehole information. In this way, we got additional a priori in-

formation to use in FCI of the 2D ERT data.

FCI. Inversion results from (a) synthetic model 1, (b) synthetic Figure 6. Interpreted 2D resistivity section of ERT data from Esp,

model 2, and (c) synthetic model 3. Black solid lines (a and b) and Trondehim, Norway using (a) RES2DINV software (modified after

white solid lines (c) in the resistivity models show the boundaries of Figure 8a of Solberg et al., 2016) and (b) presented L1-norm general

the synthetic models. Each resistivity model has been plotted using inversion. Solberg et al. (2016) has identified four main types of

the same colorbar as in their respective synthetic examples lithologic units in the study region.

Fuzzy constrained inversion 9

We inverted measured 2D ERT data using two clustering infor- gravel, i.e., c ¼ 4, and (2) the mean resistivity values of these geo-

mation: (1) four geologic units as unleached marine clay, leached logic units as 8, 44, 180, and 1000 Ωm. Considering the fact that

marine clay (possible quick clay), dry crust clay, and bedrock or there are four geologic units and only values for three cluster cen-

ters, i.e., v1 , v2 , and v3 are known, and v4 is un-

known, we put zero weight to the fourth geologic

rock unit (bedrock). In this situation, the cluster

center for the fourth geologic rock unit will be

governed by conventional FCM clustering. The

resulting resistivity model after L1-norm FCI

is shown in Figure 8a. The histogram plot (Fig-

ure 8b) depicts that L1-norm FCI-inverted resis-

tivity model (Figure 8a) has sharper boundary

contrasts compared with the general L1-norm in-

verted models (Figure 6a and 6b). According to

the resistivity ranges proposed by Solberg et al.

(2008, 2012), leached marine clay will have a

resistivity between 10 and 100 Ωm. Solberg et al.

Figure 7. (a) Location of the boreholes B1 and B2 (black dot circle) with respect to the (2016) confirm that marine clay is leached be-

chosen ERT profile (Black solid line). (b) Resistivity variation at B1 and B2 measured tween 2 and 14 m at location B1 from the geo-

from RCPTU. (c) Histogram (y-axis labeling on the left) and relative density (y-axis technical drills and soil samples. Figure 8a

labeling on the right) plot of resistivity.

depicts that the resistivity value falls down to

10 Ωm less than 14 m at B1 suggesting that

unleached marine clay is reached and that matches well with

RCPTU resistivity interpretation from this location (Figure 7b).

The FCI section describes that geologic units can also be distin-

guished uniquely by assigning each block to the cluster of the high-

est membership values μik (i.e., defuzzification) after solving for the

model update in each iteration. Figure 8c presents the identification

of four different geologic units based on maximum membership val-

ues after the final iteration. Figure 9 shows a similar convergence

patterns for general L1-norm and fuzzy L1-norm inversions. The

observed apparent resistivity pseudo-section and computed appar-

ent resistivity pseudosection for the inverted model (Figure 6b) after

L1-norm inversion are shown in Figure 10a and 10b, respectively.

Figure 10c shows the difference of the observed and computed data

as presented in Figure 10a and 10b. Figure 10d shows the computed

apparent resistivity pseudosection for the resistivity model pre-

sented in Figure 8a after fuzzy L1-norm inversion. The difference

between the observed (Figure 10a) and computed (Figure 10d) ap-

parent resistivity data is shown in Figure 10e. Figure 10c and 10e

shows almost similar level of data fitting in most of the regions;

however, L1-norm FCI seems better fitting at few locations. There-

fore, FCI is quite efficient to decipher different geologic units in the

model region, if the correct number of geologic units is provided by

the user. It is important to highlight that for field data interpretation,

Figure 8. (a) Inverted resistivity section using L1-norm FCI for the

same profile as shown in Figure 6a and (b) corresponding histogram

plot of inverted resistivity. (c) Geologic separation results by provid-

ing maximum membership values μik with respect to each geologic

unit. Four cluster centers were assumed based on the resistivity ranges Figure 9. Convergence pattern of data misfit ϕd during the itera-

described by Solberg et al. (2016) and kernel density estimation (Fig- tions for general L1-norm inversion and fuzzy constrained L1-norm

ure 7c). inversion for the field ERT data from Esp, Trondheim, Norway.

10 Singh et al.

sented FCI is an efficient tool to differentiate be-

tween two or more geologic units if the correct

number of the geologic unit is provided to FCI.

We also observe that the resistivity images ob-

tained from L1-norm FCI define the resistivity

boundaries better than those obtained from L2-

norm FCI. Inversion for synthetic models also re-

veals that inappropriate clustering information

would affect primarily the conductive geologic

units instead of the resistive geologic units. Syn-

thetic examples show that L1-norm converges

faster. A priori information of the correct number

of cluster centers and the correct value of these

cluster centers are very important inputs for a

successful FCI; however, the correct number of

cluster centers is of higher importance. A field

data example establishes the efficacy of the pre-

sented FCI in differentiating boundaries of the

possible quick clay zones from other geologic

units. The FCI resistivity model successfully in-

cludes the parametric information provided by

other geophysical and geotechnical surveys and

maintains the same degree of fitting between ob-

served and computed data as shown by the general

inversion.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Figure 10. Measured and computed data after L1-norm and fuzzy constrained L1-norm We thank X. Garcia (associate editor), R.

inversions for the field ERT data of Esp, Trondheim, Norway. (a) Measured apparent Schaa, and two anonymous reviewers for their

resistivity, (b) computed apparent resistivity using L1-norm inversion (for resistivity comments and suggestions which helped to im-

model shown in Figure 6b), (c) difference between the data shown in (a and b, d) com- prove the quality of the manuscript. A. Singh

puted apparent resistivity using fuzzy constrained L1-norm inversion (for resistivity

model shown in Figure 8a), and (e) the difference between the data shown in (a and d). thanks the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT)

Kharagpur and the Ministry of Human Resources

and Development (MHRD) India for financial as-

we have a general idea of the number of different geologic units sistance of a research fellowship. Geological Survey of Norway

present in the study area as a priori information. This a priori in- (NGU) is thanked for providing the 2D ERT data. This work is a

formation helped the FCI to select the number of clusters for the part of the doctoral dissertation of A. Singh.

ERT data inversion. However, there could be geologic scenarios in

which we may not have such a priori information. In those geologic

scenarios, one can obtain the optimal number of cluster centers based APPENDIX A

on statistical analysis of clustering results (Milligan and Cooper,

1985; Halkidi et al., 2001).

MEASURES OF THE LENGTH OF VECTORS

Misfit error between observed ERT and computed ERT data can

be calculated using various norms. Let us assume following data

CONCLUSION error vector:

Application of any clustering algorithm as a postinversion proc-

e ¼ dobs − dpre : (A-1)

ess may vary from the actual model obtained from inversion of the

measured data. Therefore, an approach for delineating geologic

The measure of equation A-1 in general Lp-norm is defined as

units from the geoelectrical resistivity models by incorporating a

clustering process within the inversion algorithm is proposed. The X

N

method is based on incorporating FCM clustering to the 2D inver- kekpp ¼ jek jp ; (A-2)

sion of the ERT data. FCI fulfills two needs: (1) obtaining a resis- k¼1

tivity model in which the response minimizes the data misfit

function and (2) the recovered resistivity model will be guided by where N is the number of observed ERT data. The variable p can be

additional a priori parametric information. We demonstrate with the ≥ 1 depending on the chosen norm. In the present study, we have

help of synthetic examples that the boundaries between geologic used a modified version of Lp-norm (Ekblom, 1987; Farquharson

units are less pronounced in models obtained from conventional and Oldenburg, 1998; Sun and Li, 2014) defined as

Fuzzy constrained inversion 11

p 8

lðeÞ ¼ ðe2 þ ε2 Þ 2 ; (A-3) < Wd ðdk þ Sk Δmkþ1 − dobs Þ j ¼ d

Lj¼ðd;s;iÞ ¼ Wm ðmk þ Δmkþ1 − mref Þ j ¼ s ; (B-5)

: sm k

Wi ðm þ Δmkþ1 Þ j¼i

X

N

p will lead to

⇒ lðeÞ ¼ ðe2k þ ε2 Þ 2 ; (A-4)

k¼1

∂ϕ ∂½ϕd fLd g − ϕ

¼

where ε is a small positive scalar quantity (10−6 in the present study). ∂ðΔm Þ

kþ1 ∂ðΔmkþ1 Þ

P

APPENDIX B þ λ1 : (B-6)

∂ðΔmkþ1 Þ

MINIMIZATION FOR THE INVERSE PROBLEM

USING GENERAL MEASURES Differentiating the right side of equation B-6 by the chain rule and

putting the value of Ld , Ls , and Li from equation B-5 result in

Considering the minimization of model regularization parameter

along with data misfit function and using Tikhonov parametric ∂½ϕd fLd g − ϕ ∂ϕd ðLd Þ ∂ðWd ðdk þ Sk Δmkþ1 − dobs ÞÞ

function (same as equation 6) in the present study: ¼ ;

∂ðΔmkþ1 Þ ∂ðLd Þ ∂ðΔmkþ1 Þ

ϕtotal ðmÞ ¼ kW d ðFðmÞ − dobs Þkpp þ λ1 fjjα1 Wm ref p

s ðm − m Þjjp ∂½ϕd fLd g − ϕ ∂ϕ ðL Þ

¼ ðSk ÞT ðWd ÞT d d ; (B-7)

X

4 ∂ðΔm Þkþ1 ∂ðLd Þ

p

þ jjαi Wm

i mjjp g; s:t: ϕ < ϕ ; (B-1)

i¼2 where superscript T is the transpose of the matrix. Similarly, putting

the values of all the differential terms in equation B-6 results in

where ϕ is the target misfit. Using the same nomenclature of Far-

quharson and Oldenburg (1998), the objective function to be mini- ∂ϕ ∂ϕ ðL Þ

mized can be written as ¼ ðSk ÞT ðWd ÞT d d

∂ðΔm Þ

kþ1 ∂ðLd Þ

X ∂ϕm2 ðLi Þ

T ∂ϕd ðLs Þ þ

4

ϕ ¼ ϕd fWd ðFðmÞ − dobs Þg − ϕ þ λ1 ½ϕm1 þ λ1 α1 ðWms Þ α i ðW m ÞT :

∂ðLs Þ i

∂ðLi Þ

X

4

i¼2

× fα1 Wm (B-8)

s ðm − m Þg þ ϕm2 α i Wm

ref

i m : (B-2)

i¼2

Differentiation of equation A-3 will result in

Let us assume that model at kth iteration is mk , predicted data are

dk for this model and model update at k þ 1th iteration is ∂lðeÞ p

mkþ1 ¼ mkþ1 − mk . Writing equation B-2 for mkþ1 using Taylor’s ¼ pðe2 þ ε2 Þ 2 −1 e: (B-9)

∂e

series expansion of FðmÞ and discarding the second and higher or-

der derivatives result in Following the analogy of equation B-9,

∂F ∂ϕd ðLd Þ

ϕðmkþ1 Þ¼ ϕd Wd Fðmk Þþ Δmkþ1 −dobs −ϕ p

¼ pððLd Þ2 þ ε2 Þ 2 −1 ðLd Þ; (B-10)

∂m ∂ðLd Þ

þλ1 α1 ϕm1 fWm

s ðm þΔm

k kþ1

−mref Þg

4

∂ϕd ðLd Þ

þ αi ϕm2 fWm

i ðm þΔm

k kþ1 Þg ; (B-3) ¼ Rd Ld ; (B-11)

i¼2

∂ðLd Þ

using equations B-10 and B-5 as follows:

⇒ ϕðmkþ1 Þ ¼ ½ϕd fWd ðdk þ Sk Δmkþ1 − dobs Þg − ϕ 0 1

2 2 −1 p

p½ðWd1 ðdk1 þ Sk Δmkþ1 − dobs

1 ÞÞ þ ε

2

þ λ1 α1 ϕm1 fWms ðm þ Δm

k kþ1

− mref Þg B k Δmkþ1 − dobs ÞÞ2 þ ε2 p2 −1 C

B p½ðW ðd

d k

þ S C

Rd ¼ diagB C:

2 2 2

B .. C

X

4 @ . A

þ αi ϕm2 fWm ðm k þ Δmkþ1 Þg : (B-4) p½ðWdN ðdkN þ Sk Δmkþ1 − dobs 2 2 −1 p

N ÞÞ þ ε

i 2

i¼2

(B-12)

Now differentiating equation B-4 with respect to Δmkþ1 and

assuming Similarly,

12 Singh et al.

∂ϕm1 ðLs Þ genetic algorithm: Journal of Hydrology, 343, 240–253, doi: 10.1016/j.

¼ Rs Ls ; (B-13) jhydrol.2007.06.018.

∂ðLs Þ Baranwal, V. C., A. Franke, R. U. Börner, and K. Spitzer, 2011, Unstruc-

tured grid based 2-D inversion of VLF data for models including topog-

raphy: Journal of Applied Geophysics, 75, 363–372, doi: 10.1016/j.

where Rs is a diagonal matrix of which elements can be expressed jappgeo.2011.07.011.

as Baranwal, V. C., J. S. Rønning, E. Dalsegg, I. L. Solberg, J. F. Tønnesen, A.

Rodionov, and H. Dretvik, 2015, Mapping of marine clay layers using

0 p

1 airborne EM and ground geophysical methods at Byneset, Trondheim

2 2 −1

s ðm1 þ Δm1 − mref

1 ÞÞ þ ε p

k kþ1 municipality: Report, Geological Survey of Norway (NGU).

p½ðWm1 2

B C Baranwal, V. C., J. S. Rønning, I. L. Solberg, E. Dalsegg, J. F. Tønnesen, and

B p½ðWs ðm2 þ Δm2 − m2 ÞÞ þ ε2 2 −1

m2 k kþ1 ref 2

C M. Long, 2017, Investigation of a sensitive clay landslide area using fre-

Rs ¼ diagB

B .. C:

C quency-domain helicopter-borne EM and ground geophysical methods,

@ . A landslides in sensitive clays: Advances in Natural and Technological Haz-

2 −1 p ards Research, 46, 475–485, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-56487-6.

s ðmM þ ΔmM − mM ÞÞ þ ε 2

k kþ1

p½ðWmM ref 2

Bauman, P., 2005, 2-D resistivity surveying for hydrocarbons — A primer:

CSEG Recorder, 30, 25–33.

(B-14) Bezdek, J. C., 1981, Pattern recognition with fuzzy objective function algo-

rithms: Plenum Press.

The last term ð∂ϕm2 ðLi ÞÞ∕ð∂ðLi ÞÞ can be written as Biswas, A., and S. P. Sharma, 2016, Integrated geophysical studies to elicit

the subsurface structures associated with uranium mineralization around

South Purulia Shear Zone, India: A review: Ore Geology Reviews, 72,

∂ϕm2 ðLi Þ 1307–1326, doi: 10.1016/j.oregeorev.2014.12.015.

¼ Ri Li ; (B-15) Boonchaisuk, S., C. Vachiratienchai, and W. Siripunvaraporn, 2008, Two-

∂ðLi Þ dimensional direct current (DC) resistivity inversion: Data space Occam’s

approach: Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 168, 204–211, doi:

where Ri is a diagonal matrix of which elements can be expressed in 10.1016/j.pepi.2008.06.022.

Botev, Z., J. Grotowski, and D. Kroese, 2010, Kernel density estimation via dif-

similar way as shown in equation B-14. Now putting the values fusion: The Annals of Statistics, 38, 2916–2957, doi: 10.1214/10-AOS799.

from equations B-5, B-11, B-13, and B-15 in equation B-8 and Bragato, G., 2004, Fuzzy continuous classification and spatial interpolation

in conventional soil survey for soil mapping of the lower Piave plain: Geo-

equating it to zero results in derma, 118, 1–16, doi: 10.1016/S0016-7061(03)00166-6.

Chambers, J. E., P. B. Wilkinson, D. Wardrop, A. Hameed, I. Hill, C. Jeffrey,

M. H. Loke, P. I. Meldrum, O. Kuras, M. Cave, and D. A. Gunn, 2012,

ðSk ÞT ðWd ÞT Rd Wd ðdk þ Sk Δmkþ1 − dobs Þ Bedrock detection beneath river terrace deposits using three-dimensional

electrical resistivity tomography: Geomorphology, 177, 17–25, doi: 10

.1016/j.geomorph.2012.03.034.

α1 ðWm

s Þ Rs Ws ðm þ Δm

T m k kþ1 − mref Þ

Coggon, J. H., 1971, Electromagnetic and electrical modeling by the finite

þ λ1 P4 ¼ 0; element method: Geophysics, 36, 132–155, doi: 10.1190/1.1440151.

þ i¼2 αi ðWm i Þ Ri Wi ðm þ Δm

T m k kþ1 Þ

Constable, S. C., R. L. Parker, and C. G. Constable, 1987, Occam’s inversion:

A practical algorithm for generating smooth models from electromagnetic

(B-16) sounding data: Geophysics, 52, 289–300, doi: 10.1190/1.1442303.

Dey, A., and H. F. Morrison, 1979, Resistivity modeling for arbitrarily

shaped two dimensional structures: Geophysical Prospecting, 27, 106–

136, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.1979.tb00961.x.

2 3−1 Doetsch, J., N. Linde, I. Coscia, S. A. Greenhalgh, and A. G. Green, 2010,

Zonation for 3D aquifer characterization based on joint inversions of multi

ðSk ÞT ðWd ÞT Rd Wd Sk method cross hole geophysical data: Geophysics, 75, no. 6, G53–G64,

6 7

⇒ Δmkþ1 ¼ 6 7 doi: 10.1190/1.3496476.

4 þλ α1 P ðWm s Þ R s Ws

T m

5 Edwards, L. S., 1977, A modified pseudo section for resistivity and IP: Geo-

1 physics, 42, 1020–1036, doi: 10.1190/1.1440762.

þ i¼2 αi ðWi Þ Ri Wi

4 m T m

Ekblom, H., 1987, The L1-estimate as limiting case of an Lp- or Huber-es-

2 3 timate, in Y. Dodge, ed., Statistical data analysis based on the L1-norm

ðSk ÞT ðWd ÞT Rd Wd ðdobs − dk Þ and related methods: Elsevier, 109–116.

6 7

ref 7:

Fan, J., M. Han, and J. Wang, 2009, Single point iterative weighted fuzzy C-

×64 −λ α1 P ðWm s Þ Rs Ws ðm − m Þ

T m k

5 (B-17) means clustering algorithm for remote sensing image segmentation: Pat-

1 tern Recognition, 42, 2527–2540, doi: 10.1016/j.patcog.2009.04.013.

þ 4i¼2 αi ðWm i Þ Ri Wi m

T m k Farquharson, C. G., and D. W. Oldenburg, 1998, Nonlinear inversion using

general measures of data misfit and model structure: Geophysical Journal

International, 134, 213–227, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-246x.1998.00555.x.

Farquharson, C. G., and D. W. Oldenburg, 2004, A comparison of automatic

techniques for estimating the regularization parameter in non-linear in-

verse problems: Geophysical Journal International, 156, 411–425, doi:

REFERENCES 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004.02190.x.

Fatehi, M., and H. H. Asadi, 2017, Application of semi-supervised fuzzy c-

5 Adhikari, P. K., P. K. Yadav, S. Srivastava, V. P. Maurya, S. Singh, A. Tri- means method in clustering multivariate geochemical data, a case study

from the Dalli Cu-Au porphyry deposit in central Iran: Ore Geology Re-

pathi, R. K. Singh, and A. K. Bage, 2016, Near surface high resolution views, 81, 245–255, doi: 10.1016/j.oregeorev.2016.10.002.

imaging of a metallogenic zone in the northern fringe of Dalma volcanics

in eastern India using electrical resistivity tomography: Exploration Geo- Ghaffarian, S., and S. Ghaffarian, 2014, Automatic histogram-based fuzzy C-

physics, doi: 10.1071/EG15078. means clustering for remote sensing imagery: ISPRS Journal of Photogram-

Akca, I., 2016, ELRIS2D: A MATLAB package for the 2D inversion of DC metry and Remote Sensing, 97, 46–57, doi: 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2014.08.006.

Goktepe, A. B., S. Altun, and A. Sezer, 2005, Soil clustering by fuzzy c-

resistivity/IP data: Acta Geophysica, 64, 443–462, doi: 10.1515/acgeo- means algorithm: Advances in Engineering Software, 36, 691–698, doi:

2015-0071.

Akca, I., and A. T. Başokur, 2010, Extraction of structure-based geoelectric 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2005.01.008.

models by hybrid genetic algorithms: Geophysics, 75, no. 1, F15–F22, Güler, C., M. A. Kurt, M. Alpaslan, and C. Akbulut, 2012,Assessment of the

doi: 10.1190/1.3273851. impact of anthropogenic activities on the groundwater hydrology and

chemistry in Tarsus coastal plain (Mersin, SE Turkey) using fuzzy clus-

Ayvaz, M. T., 2007, Simultaneous determination of aquifer parameters and tering, multivariate statistics and GIS techniques: Journal of Hydrology,

zone structures with fuzzy c-means clustering and meta-heuristic harmony 414, 435–451, doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.11.021.

search algorithm: Advances in Water Resources, 30, 2326–2338, doi: 10 Günther, T., 2004, Inversion methods and resolution analysis for the 2D/3D

.1016/j.advwatres.2007.05.009.

Ayvaz, M. T., H. Karahan, and M. M. Aral, 2007, Aquifer parameter and reconstruction of resistivity structures from DC measurements: Ph.D. the-

zone structure estimation using kernel-based fuzzy c-means clustering and sis, Technische Universitaet Bergakademie.

Fuzzy constrained inversion 13

Günther, T., C. Rucker, and K. Spitzer, 2006, Three-dimensional modeling Nair, R. R., and S. C. Kandpal, 2010, Effect of co-operative fuzzy c-means

and inversion of dc resistivity data incorporating topography-II. Inversion: clustering on estimates of three parameters AVA inversion: Journal of

Geophysical Journal International, 166, 506–517, doi: 10.1111/j Earth System Science, 119, 137–145, doi: 10.1007/s12040-010-0013-x.

.1365-246X.2006.03011.x. NIFS (Naturfare, Infrastruktur, Flom og Skred), 2014, Detektering av

Halkidi, M., Y. Batistakis, and M. Vazirgiannis, 2001, On clustering valida- sprøbruddmateriale ved hjelp av R-CPTU: NIFS report 47/2014, 2013.12.06

tion techniques: Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 17, 107–145, (in Norwegian).

doi: 10.1023/A:1012801612483. Paasche, H., and J. Tronicke, 2007, Cooperative inversion of 2D geophysical

Holder, D. S., 2004, Electrical impedance tomography: Methods, history data sets: A zonal approach based on fuzzy c-means cluster analysis: Geo-

and applications: CRC Press. physics, 72, no. 3, A35–A39, doi: 10.1190/1.2670341.

Hsu, H. L., B. J. Yanites, C. C. Chen, and Y. G. Chen, 2010, Bedrock detection Paasche, H., J. Tronicke, and P. Dietrich, 2010, Automated integration of

using 2D electrical resistivity imaging along the Peikang River, central Tai- partially colocated models: Subsurface zonation using a modified fuzzy

wan: Geomorphology, 114, 406–414, doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.08.004. c-means cluster analysis algorithm: Geophysics, 75, no. 3, P11–P22, doi:

Hundal, E., 2014, CPTU med målt total sonderingsmotstand — nye muligh- 10.1190/1.3374411.

eter for å detektere kvikkleire?: Master thesis, Norwegian University of Paasche, H., J. Tronicke, K. Holliger, A. G. Green, and H. Maurer, 2006,

Science and Technology (in Norwegian). Integration of diverse physical-property models: Subsurface zonation and

Infante, V., L. A. Gallardo, J. C. Montalvo-Arrieta, and I. N. de León, 2010, petrophysical parameter estimation based on fuzzy c-means cluster analy-

Lithology classification assisted by joint inversion of electrical and seis- ses: Geophysics, 71, no. 3, H33–H44, doi: 10.1190/1.2192927.

mic data at a control site in northeast Mexico: Journal of Applied Geo- Pidlisecky, A., E. Haber, and R. Knight, 2007, RESINVM3D: A 3D resis-

physics, 70, 93–102, doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2009.11.003. tivity inversion package: Geophysics, 72, no. 2, H1–H10, doi: 10.1190/1

Ishola, K. S., M. N. M. Nawawi, and K. Abdullah, 2015, Combining multiple .2402499.

electrode arrays for two-dimensional electrical resistivity imaging using the Pidlisecky, A., and R. Knight, 2008, FW2 5D: A MATLAB 2.5-D electrical

unsupervised classification technique: Pure and Applied Geophysics, 172, resistivity modeling code: Computers and Geosciences, 34, 1645–1654,

1615–1642, doi: 10.1007/s00024-014-1007-4. doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2008.04.001.

Jackson, P. D., S. J. Earland, and G. J. Reece, 2001, 3D resistivity inversion Queralt, P., J. Pous, and A. Marcuello, 1991, 2-D resistivity modeling: An

using 2D measurements of the electric field: Geophysical Prospecting, 49, approach to arrays parallel to the strike direction: Geophysics, 56, 941–

26–39, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2478.2001.00241.x. 950, doi: 10.1190/1.1443127.

Johnson, T. C., R. J. Versteeg, A. Ward, F. D. Day-Lewis, and A. Revil, Rijo, L., 1977, Modeling of electric and electromagnetic data: Ph.D. thesis,

2010, Improved hydro geophysical characterization and monitoring University of Utah.

through high performance electrical geophysical modeling and inversion: Rücker, C., 2011, Advanced electrical resistivity modelling and inversion

Geophysics, 75, no. 4, WA27–WA41, doi: 10.1190/1.3475513. using unstructured discretization: Ph.D. thesis, Leipzig University.

Legault, J. M., D. Carriere, and L. Petrie, 2008, Synthetic model testing and Rücker, C., and T. Günther, 2011, The simulation of finite ERT electrodes

distributed acquisition dc resistivity results over an unconformity uranium using the complete electrode model: Geophysics, 76, no. 4, F227–F238,

target from the Athabasca Basin, northern Saskatchewan: The Leading doi: 10.1190/1.3581356.

Edge, 27, 46–51, doi: 10.1190/1.2831679. Rucker, D., J. B. Fink, and M. H. Loke, 2011, Environmental monitoring

Li, Y., and D. W. Oldenburg, 1996, 3D inversion of magnetic data: Geophys- of leaks using time lapsed long electrode electrical resistivity: Journal

ics, 61, 394–408, doi: 10.1190/1.1443968. of Applied Geophysics, 74, 242–254, doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2011.06

Li, Y., and D. W. Oldenburg, 1998, 3D inversion of gravity data: Geophys- .005.

ics, 63, 109–119, doi: 10.1190/1.1444302. Rucker, D., M. H. Loke, M. T. Levitt, and G. E. Noonan, 2010, Electrical

Loke, M., and R. Barker, 1996, Rapid least-squares inversion of apparent resistivity characterization of an industrial site using long electrodes: Geo-

resistivity pseudo section by a quasi-Newton method: Geophysical Pro- physics, 75, no. 4, WA95–WA104, doi: 10.1190/1.3464806.

specting, 44, 131–152, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.1996.tb00142.x. Sarkar, S., S. M. Parihar, and A. Dutta, 2016, Fuzzy risk assessment mod-

Loke, M. H., I. Acworth, and T. Dahlin, 2003, A comparison of smooth and elling of East Kolkata Wetland area: A remote sensing and GIS based

blocky inversion methods in 2D electrical imaging surveys: Exploration approach: Environmental Modelling and Software, 75, 105–118, doi:

Geophysics, 34, 182–187, doi: 10.1071/EG03182. 10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.10.003.

Loke, M. H., and J. W. Lane, 2004, Inversion of data from electrical resis- Sasaki, Y., 1994, 3-D resistivity inversion using the finite-element method:

tivity imaging surveys in water-covered areas: Exploration Geophysics, Geophysics, 59, 1839–1848, doi: 10.1190/1.1443571.

35, 266–271, doi: 10.1071/EG04266. Sass, O., 2007, Bedrock detection and talus thickness assessment in the

Long, M., S. Donohue, J. S. L’ Heureux, I. L. Solberg, J. S. Rønning, R. European Alps using geophysical methods: Journal of Applied Geophys-

Limacher, P. O’ Connor, G. Sauvin, M. Rømoen, and I. Lecomte, 2012, ics, 62, 254–269, doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2006.12.003.

Relationship between electrical resistivity and basic geotechnical param- Sharma, S. P., 2012, VFSARES — A very fast simulated annealing

eters for marine clays: Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 49, 1158–1168, FORTRAN program for interpretation of 1-D DC resistivity sounding data

doi: 10.1139/t2012-080. from various electrode array: Computer and Geosciences, 42, 177–188, doi:

Macqueen, J. B., 1967, Some methods for classification and analysis of 10.1016/j.cageo.2011.08.029.

multivariate observations: Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium Sharma, S. P., K. Anbarasu, S. Gupta, and A. Sengupta, 2010, Integrated

on Mathematical Statistics and Probability 1, 281–297. very low-frequency EM, electrical resistivity, and geological studies on

Mandal, A., W. K. Mohanty, S. P. Sharma, A. Biswas, J. Sen, and A. K. the LantaKhola landslide, North Sikkim, India: Landslides, 7, 43–53,

Bhatt, 2015, Geophysical signatures of uranium mineralization and its doi: 10.1007/s10346-009-0187-y.

subsurface validation at Beldih, Purulia District, West Bengal, India — Solberg, I. L., V. C. Baranwal, E. Dalsegg, H. Dretvik, D. Gasser, J. S.

A case study: Geophysical Prospecting, 63, 713–726, doi: 10.1111/ Rønning, and J. F. Tønnesen, 2015, Geologi på Byneset: En sammenstil-

1365-2478.12205. ling av geologiske, geofysiske og geotekniske data: Geological Survey of

Marescot, L., S. Rigobert, S. P. Lopes, R. Lagabrielle, and D. Chapellier, Norway report (in Norwegian).

2006, A general approach for DC apparent resistivity evaluation on arbi- Solberg, I. L., L. Hansen, J. S. Rønning, E. D. Haugen, E. Dalsegg, and J. F.

trarily shaped 3D structures: Journal of Applied Geophysics, 60, 55–67, Tønnesen, 2012, Combined geophysical and geotechnical approach for

doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2005.12.003. ground investigations and hazard zonation of a quick-clay area, Mid Nor-

Meju, M. A., 1992, An effective ridge regression procedure for resistivity way: Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 71, 119–133,

data inversion: Computers and Geosciences, 18, 99–118, doi: 10.1016/ doi: 10.1007/s10064-011-0363-x.

0098-3004(92)90079-7. Solberg, I. L., M. Long, V. C. Baranwal, A. S. Gylland, and J. S. Rønning,

Milligan, G. W., and M. C. Cooper, 1985, An examination of procedures for 2016, Geophysical and geotechnical studies of geology and sediment prop-

determining the number of clusters in a data set: Psychometrika, 50, 159– erties at a quick-clay landslide site at Esp, Trondheim, Norway: Engineer-

179, doi: 10.1007/BF02294245. ing Geology, 208, 214–230, doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2016.04.031.

Miyamoto, S., H. Ichihashi, and K. Honda, 2008, Algorithms for fuzzy clus- Solberg, I. L., J. S. Rønning, E. Dalsegg, L. Hansen, K. Rokoengen, and R.

tering: Methods in c-means clustering with applications: Springer. Sandven, 2008, Resistivity measurements as a tool for outlining quick clay

Mohanty, W. K., A. Mandal, S. P. Sharma, S. Gupta, and S. Misra, 2011, extents and valley fill stratigraphy: Feasability study from Buvika, Central

Integrated geological and geophysical studies for delineation of chromite Norway: Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 45, 210–225, doi: 10.1139/

deposits: A case study from Tangarparha, Orissa, India: Geophysics, 76, T07-089.

no. 5, B173–B185, doi: 10.1190/geo2010-0255.1. Spitzer, K., 1998, The three-dimensional DC sensitivity for surface and sub-

Montafia, A., 2013, Influence of physical properties of marine clays on surface sources: Geophysical Journal International, 134, 736–746, doi: 10

electric resistivity and basic geotechnical parameters: Master thesis, Nor- .1046/j.1365-246x.1998.00592.x.

wegian University of Science and Technology. Sudha, K., M. Israil, S. Mittal, and J. Rai, 2009, Soil characterization

Mufti, I. R., 1976, Finite-difference resistivity modeling for arbitrary using electrical resistivity tomography and geotechnical investigations:

shaped two dimensional structures: Geophysics, 41, 62–78, doi: 10 Journal of Applied Geophysics, 67, 74–79, doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo

.1190/1.1440608. .2008.09.012.

14 Singh et al.

Sun, J., and Y. Li, 2014, Adaptive Lp inversion for simultaneous recovery of raphy images for interface detection: Geophysical Journal International,

both blocky and smooth features in a geophysical model: Geophysical 197, 310–321, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggu006.

Journal International, 197, 882–899, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggu067. White, R. M. S., S. Collins, R. Denne, R. Hee, and P. Brown, 2001, A new

Sun, J., and Y. Li, 2015, Multidomain petrophysically constrained inversion survey design for 3D IP modelling at Copper hill: Exploration Geophys-

and geology differentiation using guided fuzzy c-means clustering: Geo- ics, 32, 152–155, doi: 10.1071/EG01152.

physics, 80, no. 4, ID1–ID18, doi: 10.1190/geo2014-0049.1. Wilkinson, P. B., M. H. Loke, P. I. Meldrum, J. E. Chambers, O. Kuras, D.

Tarantola, A., 2005, Inverse problem theory and methods of model param- A. Gunn, and R. D. Ogilvy, 2012, Practical aspects of applied optimized

eter estimation: SIAM. survey design for electrical resistivity tomography: Geophysical Journal

Tikhonov, A. N., and V. Y. Arsenin, 1977, Solution of ill-posed problems: International, 189, 428–440, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05372.x.

Wiley. Xu, S., B. Duan, and D. Zhang, 2000, Selection of the wave number k using

Tripp, A. C., G. W. Hohmann, and C. M. Swift, 1984, Two-dimensional re- an optimization method for the inverse Fourier transform in 2.5D electrical

sistivity inversion: Geophysics, 49, 1708–1717, doi: 10.1190/1.1441578. modeling: Geophysical Prospecting, 48, 789–796, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-

Wang, D. C., G. L. Zhang, X. Z. Pan, Y. G. Zhao, M. S. Zhao, and G. F. 2478.2000.00210.x.

Wang, 2012, Mapping soil texture of a plain area using fuzzy-c- Yi, M. J., J. H. Kim, and S. H. Chung, 2003, Enhancing the resolving power

means clustering method based on land surface diurnal temperature of least-squares inversion with active constraint balancing: Geophysics,

difference: Pedosphere, 22, 394–403, doi: 10.1016/S1002-0160(12) 68, 931–941, doi: 10.1190/1.1581045.

60025-3. Zhou, J., A. Revil, M. Karaoulis, D. Hale, J. Doetsch, and S. Cuttler, 2014,

Ward, W. O. C., P. B. Wilkinson, J. E. Chambers, L. S. Oxby, and L. Bai, Image-guided inversion of electrical resistivity data: Geophysical Journal

2014, Distribution-based fuzzy clustering of electrical resistivity tomog- International, 197, 292–309, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggu001.

Fuzzy constrained inversion 15

Queries

1. Pidlisecky et al., 2008 has been changed to Pidlisecky and Knight, 2008 per the reference list. Please check.

2. Please provide full reference information for the citation Wade et al. (2004), or may we delete the citation?

3. Please provide full reference information for the citation Hansen, 1998, or may we delete the citation?

i " and "W i ".

5. Please provide the volume and page range of Adhikari et al., 2016.

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.