ARTICLE

Using stacked generalization ensemble method to estimate shear wave velocity based on downhole seismic data: a case study of Sarab-e-Zahab, Iran

SAIRAN ALIZADEH1 RASHED POORMIRZAEF2* RAMIN NIKROUZ1 SIAMAK SARMADEY3
Show Less
1 Faculty of Science, Geophysics group, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran.,
2 Department of Mining Engineering, Faculty of Environment, Urmia University of technology, Urmia, Iran.,
3 Department of Information Technology and Computer Engineering, Faculty of Industrial Technologies, Urmia University of Technology, Urmia, Iran.,
JSE 2021, 30(3), 281–301;
Submitted: 9 June 2025 | Revised: 9 June 2025 | Accepted: 9 June 2025 | Published: 9 June 2025
© 2025 by the Authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Abstract

Alizadeh, S., Poormirzaee, R., Nikrouz, R. and Sarmady, S., 2021. Using stacked generalization ensemble method to estimate shear wave velocity based on downhole seismic data: a case study of Sarab-e-Zahab, Iran. Journal of Seismic Exploration, 30: 281-301. The proper estimation of shear wave velocity (Vs), because of its direct relation to the soil dynamic properties, for the study of Site effects is an important task in the engineering geophysics. Because of the direct travel of waves from sources to receivers, the downhole seismic method, among others, is suitable for accurate estimation of shear wave velocity. However, the main challenge is the high cost of borehole surveys, which limits the amount of downhole seismic data when studying a large area. In order to tackle this problem, an ensemble system is proposed that estimates the shear wave velocity using a limited amount of data. For this purpose, the downhole seismic data at 4 points were collected in Sarab-e-Zahab area, Iran. Then, the data were processed and the shear wave velocity profile was obtained for each borehole. Finally, using an ensemble of neural networks, a 3- and 2-dimensional model of Vs was constructed for the study area. Feed-forward neural networks were used as the base classifiers in an ensemble system and two methods, namely averaging and stacked generalization were employed to combine the results of base classifiers. The performances of the two methods were compared and the shear wave velocity was estimated as a function of depth. The results of the ensemble neural networks method in the study area were compared with Kriging geostatistical method. The results show the ensemble neural networks in the Vs modeling in comparison to the Kriging method has better performance. Also, the findings showed that the stacked generalization method outperformed the averaging method in the estimation of shear wave velocity.

Keywords
shear waves
downhole seismic data
ensemble systems
Kriging method
References
  1. Abdideh, M.. 2012. Estimation of permeability using artificial neural networks and
  2. regression analysis in an Iran oil field. Internat. J. Physic. Sci.. 7: 5308-5313.
  3. Agha Nabati, A.. 1995. Description of the Geological Map of Kermansa. Geological
  4. Survey of Iran (GSI).
  5. Ansal. A.. Kurtulus. A. and Tontik. G.. 2010. Seismic microzonation and earthquake
  6. damage scenarios for urban areas. Soil Dynam. Eartha. Engineer., 30: 1319-1328.
  7. Araya-Polo, M.. Dahlke. T.. Frogner, C.. Zhang. C.. Poggio. T. and Hohl, D.. 2017.
  8. Automated fault detection without seismic processing. The Leading Edge, 36:
  9. 208-214.
  10. Borcherdt. R.D.. 1994. Estimates of site-denendent response spectra for design
  11. (methodology and justification). Eartha. Spect.. 10: 617-617.
  12. Calderén-Macias. C.. Sen. M.K. and Stoffa. P.L.. 2000. Artificial neural networks for
  13. parameter estimation in geophysics. Geophys. Prosp., 48: 21-47.
  14. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthauake resistance-part 1: general rules. seismic
  15. actions and rules for buildings, 2005. Brussels: European Committee for
  16. Standardization.
  17. Dasarathy. B.V. and Sheela. B.V.. 1979. A composite classifier system design: concepts
  18. and methodology. Proc. IEEE, 67: 708-713.
  19. Hansen, L.K. and Salamon, P.. 1990. Neural network ensembles. IEEE Transact. Pattern
  20. Analys. Mach. Intellig.. 10: 993-1001.
  21. Haykin, S. and Haykin, S.S.. 2009. Neural networks and learning machines. Vol. 3,
  22. Pearson, Upper Saddle River. NJ.
  23. Hunter, J.A.. Beniumea, B.. Harris. J.B.. Miller, R.D.. Pullan, S.E.. Burns, R.A. and
  24. Good, R.L.. 2002. Surface and downhole shear wave seismic methods for thick
  25. soil site investigations. Soil Dynam. Eartha. Engineer., 22: 931-941.
  26. Hvorslev. M.J.. 1949. Subsurface exploration and sampling of soils for civil engineering
  27. purposes. Waterways Experiment Station, 521.
  28. Internat. Soc. Soil Mechan. Foundat. Engineer. (ISSMGE). Technical Comm. Eartha.
  29. Geotechn. Engineer., 1993. Manual for Zonation on Seismic Geotechnical
  30. Hazards.
  31. Jacobs. R.A.. Jordan, M.L Nowlan, S.J. and Hinton, G.E., 1991. Adaptive mixtures of
  32. local experts. Neural Computat.. 3: 79-87.
  33. Kanli. A.I, Tildy. P.. Pronay, Z.. Pinar. A. and Hermann, L.. 2006. VS30 mapping and
  34. soil classification for seismic site effect evaluation in Dinar region, SW
  35. Turkey. Geophys. J. Internat., 165: 223-235.
  36. Liu. Y.. Wang. Y.. Li, Y.. Zhang. B. and Wu, G.. 2004. Earthquake prediction by RBF
  37. neural network ensemble. Abstracts, Internat. Symp. Neural Networks, ISNN.
  38. Mavko, G.. 2005. Conceptual overview of rock and fluid factors that impact seismic
  39. velocity and impedance. Retrieved, 11: 2012.
  40. Nvyein, C.Y.. Hamada, G.M. and Elsakka, A.. 2018. Artificial Neural Network (ANN)
  41. prediction of porosity and water saturation of shaly sandstone reservoirs.
  42. Abstracts. AAPG Asia Pacific Region, 4th AAPG/EAGE/MGS Oil and Gas
  43. Conf., Myanmar.
  44. Polikar, R.. 2006. Ensemble based systems in decision making. IEEE Circuits Systems
  45. Magaz.. 6: 21-45.
  46. Earley, K.H. and Rudenko, D.. 1988. Use of geophysical methods in a geotechnical
  47. investigation. Abstr., 2nd Internat. Conf. Case Hist. Geotechn. Engineer.,
  48. St.Louis, Missouri.
  49. Shimshoni. Y. and Intrator. N.. 1998. Classification of seismic signals by integrating
  50. ensembles of neural networks. IEEE Transact. Sign. Process., 46: 1194-1201.
  51. Van der Baan, M. and Jutten, C.. 2000. Neural networks in geophysical applications.
  52. Geophysics. 65: 1032-1047.
  53. Wolpert. D.H.. 1992. Stacked generalization. Neural Netw.. 5: 241-259.
  54. Zaharia, B.. Radulian, M., Popa, M.. Grecu. B., Bala, A. and Tataru. D.. 2008. Estimation
  55. of the local response using the Nakamura method for the Bucharest area. Roman.
  56. Rep. Phys.. 60: 131-144.
  57. Zhou, Z.H.. Wu, J. and Tang, W., 2002. Ensembling neural networks: many could be
  58. better than all. Artif. Intellig., 137: 239-263.
Share
Back to top
Journal of Seismic Exploration, Electronic ISSN: 0963-0651 Print ISSN: 0963-0651, Published by AccScience Publishing