Application of the Coupled Local Minimizers Method

to the Optimization Problem in the Spectral Analysis

of Surface Waves Method
Geert Degrande1; Sayed Ali Badsar2; Geert Lombaert3; Mattias Schevenels4; and Anne Teughels5

Abstract: The spectral analysis of surface waves 共SASW兲 method aims to determine the small strain dynamic soil characteristics of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

shallow soil layers. The method involves an in situ experiment, the determination of an experimental dispersion curve, and the solution
of an inverse problem, formulated as a nonlinear least squares problem. The latter is usually solved with a gradient-based local optimi-
zation method, which converges fast, but does not guarantee to find the global minimum of the objective function. The method of coupled
local minimizers 共CLM兲 combines the advantage of gradient-based local algorithms with the global approach of genetic algorithms. A
cooperative search mechanism is set up by simultaneously performing a number of local optimization runs that are coupled by pairs of
synchronization constraints. A synthetic example with two design variables 共the shear wave velocity of two top layers of a layered
half-space consisting of three layers on a half-space兲, demonstrates that the CLM method succeeds in finding the global minimum of an
objective function with multiple minima and can successfully be used to solve the inverse problem in the SASW method. This is further
illustrated by a complete inversion of the shear wave velocity profile accounting for seven design variables 共the thickness and shear wave
velocity of the three layers and the shear wave velocity of the underlying half-space兲. The inversion algorithm based on the CLM method
is subsequently applied to invert the experimental dispersion curve derived from in situ data collected at a test site in Saluggia, Italy,
consisting mainly of alluvial sediments. Up to a depth of about 25 m, the results show a reasonably good correspondence with crosshole
test results.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2008兲134:10共1541兲
CE Database subject headings: Shear waves; Layered soils; Optimization; Velocity; Half space.

Introduction
The spectral analysis of surface waves 共SASW兲 method is a non-
invasive geophysical prospection method to determine the dy-
namic soil characteristics 共dynamic shear modulus and material
damping ratio兲 of shallow soil layers. The method is based on the
dispersive characteristics of surface waves in a layered medium
共Nazarian and Desai 1993; Yuan and Nazarian 1993兲 and is well
developed for determination of the shear strain modulus. It has
also more recently been applied to the determination of the ma-
terial damping ratio 共Rix et al. 2000; Lai et al. 2002兲.
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, K.U.Leuven, Kasteelpark
Arenberg 40, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium 共corresponding author兲. E-mail:
geert.degrande@bwk.kuleuven.be
2
Doctoral Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, K.U.Leuven,
Kasteelpark Arenberg 40, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium.
3
Postdoctoral Researcher, FWO Flanders, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
K.U.Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 40, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium.
4
Postdoctoral Researcher, Dept. of Civil Engineering, K.U.Leuven,
Kasteelpark Arenberg 40, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium.
5
Post-Doctoral Researcher, Dept. of Civil Engineering, K.U.Leuven,
Kasteelpark Arenberg 40, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium; presently, Tractebel
Engineering International, B-1200 Brussels, Belgium.
Note. Discussion open until March 1, 2009. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. The manuscript for this paper was
submitted for review and possible publication on January 31, 2007; ap-
proved on February 6, 2008. This paper is part of the Journal of Geo-
technical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 10,
October 1, 2008. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2008/10-1541–1553/$25.00.
The SASW method consists of three steps. The first step in-
volves an in situ experiment where vibrations are generated at the
soil’s surface using a falling weight, an instrumented impact ham-
mer, or a hydraulic shaker and measured with geophones or ac-
celerometers up to a distance from the source of typically 50 m. A
common source-receiver configuration is most often used. In the
second step, an experimental dispersion curve is determined from
the response at the surface by repeatedly applying a classical
two-station analysis on different receiver pairs 共Nazarian and
Desai 1993兲 or by using a multistation approach, transforming the
results of a shot gather from the time-space domain to the
frequency-wave number domain 共Park et al. 1998, 1999兲. It is
assumed that the response at a sufficiently large distance from the
source is dominated by dispersive surface waves. In order to iden-
tify the dynamic soil characteristics, an inverse problem is finally
formulated as an optimization problem where the objective func-
tion is defined as the squared difference between the experimental
and a computed theoretical dispersion curve. The latter corre-
sponds to the first or fundamental mode of a layered half-space
or to the effective dispersion curve 共a combination of multiple
modes兲 in the case of inverse layering where stiff layers are
underlain by softer layers 共Gucunski and Woods 1991; Tokimatsu
et al. 1992兲.
The 共constrained兲 optimization problem is usually solved with
a gradient-based local optimization method 共Nazarian and Desai
1993兲, by iteratively changing the layer thicknesses and elastic
characteristics of a layered soil profile. These local optimization
methods, such as the Gauss–Newton method, converge fast, but
do not guarantee to find the global minimum of the objective

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008 / 1541

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1541-1553.

 function. Global optimization methods, such as genetic algo-
rithms 共Holland 1975; Pezeshk and Zarrabi 2005兲 and simulated
annealing 共Kirkpatrick et al. 1983; Beaty et al. 2002兲, are more
robust and more likely to detect the global minimum. Their main
drawback, however, is that they require a large number of func-
tion evaluations since they are based on a random search without
the use of gradient information. Techniques have also been pro-
posed that are based on a combination of local and global search,
such as the neighborhood algorithm 共Sambridge 1999兲.
The method of coupled local minimizers 共CLM兲 can be con-
sidered as a valuable alternative that combines the advantages of
local gradient-based algorithms 共relatively fast convergence兲 with
the global approach of genetic algorithms 共parallel strategy and
information exchange兲. The CLM method was originally con-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ceived by Suykens et al. 共2001兲 and Suykens and Vandewalle
共2002兲 and was implemented with first-order search methods,
using first-order derivatives. In the context of finite-element
model updating and structural health monitoring, Teughels 共2003兲
and Teughels et al. 共2003兲 have implemented the CLM method as
an iterative optimization method that generates discrete steps in
the design space instead of continuous time variations of the de-
sign variables. A cooperative search mechanism is set up by si-
multaneously performing a number of local optimization runs that
are coupled by pairs of synchronization constraints. The global
search process is directed by the gradients in each search point.
Moreover, the second-order Newton based algorithm accelerates
the convergence speed considerably and has a favorable effect on
the convergence 共Teughels et al. 2003兲. The CLM method imple-
mented in this way is especially convenient for the solution of
low-dimensional optimization problems.
In the following, the SASW method is briefly reviewed, with
emphasis on the definition of the inverse problem. The CLM
method is introduced next and is developed such that it can be
used for the current optimization problem. A synthetic example
demonstrates that gradient-based local optimization methods may
converge to a local minimum of the objective function, whereas
the CLM method successfully converges to the global minimum
of the objective function. Additional comments are made on the
proper definition of the inverse problem. Finally, the CLM
method is employed to determine the soil profile of a test site in
Saluggia, Italy; results are compared with results obtained with
the crosshole test 共CHT兲.
Inverse Modeling in SASW Method
In the SASW method, an inverse problem is formulated as a
nonlinear least squares problem. The objective function f共x兲 is
defined as
1
f共x兲 = 2 r共x兲Tr共x兲
where each element ri共x兲 共i = 1 , . . . , m兲 of the m-dimensional
residual vector r共x兲 = nonlinear function of the n-dimensional
vector x with soil parameters x j 共j = 1 , . . . , n兲. At each frequency
f i 共i = 1 , . . . , m兲, the residue ri共x兲 is defined as the difference be-
tween the phase velocity CEi corresponding to an experimental
dispersion curve and the computed phase velocity CTi 共x兲 of the
soil profile with parameters x
ri共x兲 = CEi − CTi 共x兲 i = 1, . . . ,m
The theoretical dispersion curve CTi 共x兲
of the soil profile is
usually calculated as the fundamental solution, corresponding to
1542 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1541-1553.
the first surface wave mode, of a transcendental eigenvalue prob-
lem, formulated using the direct stiffness method or an equivalent
approach as the thin layer method 共Kausel and Roësset 1981兲.
This methodology can be used if the layering of the soil is regu-
lar, in a sense that the stiffness of the layers increases with depth.
It can lead to erroneous results, however, if the soil contains soft
layers overlain by stiffer layers. In such cases, higher-mode Ray-
leigh waves may affect the surface displacements and the disper-
sion curve derived from the experimental data may differ from the
fundamental Rayleigh wave dispersion curve 共Gucunski and
Woods 1991; Tokimatsu et al. 1992兲. Several authors have at-
tempted to tackle this problem 共Gabriels et al. 1987; Gucunski
and Woods 1992; Beaty et al. 2002; Ganji et al. 1998; Levshin
et al. 2005兲. In the present paper, a methodology similar to the
approach used by Zomorodian and Hunaidi 共2006兲 and Ryden and
Park 共2006兲 is followed. An effective theoretical dispersion curve,
accounting for the dominance of higher modes, is calculated as
CTi 共x兲 = ␻ / kTi 共x兲, where kTi 共x兲 is the horizontal wave number kr
where the modulus of the Green’s function ũzz G
共kr , ␻i兲 at the fre-
quency ␻i = 2␲f i reaches its absolute maximum. The Green’s
function ũzz G
共kr , ␻兲 represents the vertical displacements due to a
vertical harmonic point load at the soil’s surface and is calculated
in the frequency-wave number domain by means of the direct
stiffness method.
The nonlinear least squares problem aims to minimize the ob-
jective function f共x兲 in Eq. 共1兲 for the soil parameters x, where
the dimension m of the residual vector r共x兲 is larger than the
dimension n of the vector x. This problem can be viewed as an
optimization problem and iterative methods are applied to solve
it.
The Newton-based trust region method 共Nocedal and Wright
1999兲 is a local optimization method where a model function
mk共p兲 is constructed of the objective function f共x兲 in the vicinity
of the current point xk. A candidate for the new iterate xk+1 is
computed by approximately minimizing mk共p兲 in the trust region
min mk共p兲, such that 储p储 艋 ⌬k 共3兲
p
where p = step vector from the current approximation xk; 储 · 储 de-
notes the Euclidean vector norm, and ⌬k = trust region radius at
the iteration k. The model mk共p兲 is usually defined as a quadratic
function
1
mk共p兲 = f共xk兲 + pT ⵜ f共xk兲 + 2 pTBkp 共4兲
where f共xk兲 and ⵜf共xk兲 = objective function value and gradient at
the current iterate xk, respectively, and Bk is equal to the Hessian
ⵜ2 f共xk兲 or an approximation to it.
For large-scale problems, the Matlab optimization toolbox
共Matlab 2006兲 applies an approximate strategy to solve the opti-
共1兲 mization problem defined by Eqs. 共3兲 and 共4兲 that is known as the
two-dimensional subspace minimization method. The trust region
subproblem is restricted to a two-dimensional subspace, spanned
by the direction of the gradient ⵜf共xk兲 and by either the Newton
direction −B−1k ⵜ f共xk兲 of the quadratic model 共when Bk is positive
definite兲 or a direction of negative curvature 共when Bk is indefi-
nite兲. The latter is calculated approximately by a truncated pre-
conditioned conjugate gradient method. In the former case, the
trust region subproblem becomes
共2兲
min mk共p兲, such that 储p储 艋 ⌬k, p 苸 span关ⵜf共xk兲,B−1
k ⵜ f共xk兲兴
p
共5兲
 Local optimization methods, such as the Newton-based trust
region method, converge fast, but do not guarantee to find the
global minimum of the objective function, as will be demon-
strated in a numerical example. In the following section, it is
noted that the CLM method offers a valuable alternative as it
combines the advantage of the local gradient-based algorithms
共relatively fast convergence兲 with the global approach of genetic
algorithms 共parallel strategy and information exchange兲.
CLM Method
Outline of Method
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Consider the minimization of an objective function f共x兲 with mul-
tiple local minima, among which the global minimum has to be
found. In the CLM method, a population of t search points is
used, at which the following average objective function 具f典 共and
its derivatives兲 is calculated and minimized:
t
1
具f典 = 兺
t l=1
f共x共l兲兲
共l兲
where x denotes the lth 共l = 1 , . . . , t兲 search point in the
population.
Instead of performing separate independent searches from
each of the search points as in a multistart local optimization, the
set of optimizers are coupled in order to create an interaction so
that the population generates a minimum that is better than the
best result that would be obtained from all individual local pro-
cesses. Hence, a cooperative search mechanism is set up which is
realized by minimizing the average objective function 具f典. During
the minimization process the search points are coupled pairwise
by the following synchronization constraints that force them to
end at the same final point:
x共l兲 − x共l+1兲 = 0, l = 1,2, . . . ,t
resulting in the following equality constrained minimization
problem:
min 具f典 with x共l兲 − x共l+1兲 = 0, l = 1,2, . . . ,t
x共l兲苸Rn
The boundary condition x共t+1兲 = x共1兲 is applied on the average ob-
jective function 具f典.
The CLM technique is implemented with the augmented La-
grangian method 共Rao 1996兲 in which the augmented Lagrangian
function LA is defined by the average objective function 具f典 of the
population together with synchronization constraints between the
individual local minimizers
t t
␩ x共t+1兲 = x共1兲.
LA共x,⌳,␥,␩兲 =
t l=1
兺
f共x共l兲兲 + 兺
l=1
关␭共l兲兴T关x共l兲 − x共l+1兲兴
t
␥ forced by the use of a trust region strategy. The CLM algorithm,
+
2 l=1
兺
储x共l兲 − x共l+1兲储2
The vector x = 关x共1兲 ; . . . ; x共t兲兴 collects all search vectors x共l兲, while
the vector ⌳ = 关␭共1兲 ; . . . ; ␭共t兲兴 contains all vectors ␭共l兲 with
Lagrange multipliers. ␩ = weighting factor on the average objec-
tive function and ␥ = penalty parameter. The augmented Lagrange
method is related to the quadratic penalty method, but it reduces
the possibility of ill-conditioning of the subproblem 共due to very
high values of the penalty parameter ␥兲 by introducing explicit
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008 / 1543
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1541-1553.
Lagrange multiplier estimates at each step into the penalty func-
tion. If the parameters ␩ and ␥ are chosen appropriately, an im-
proved solution is obtained which in the best case corresponds to
the global minimum.
Augmented Lagrange methods are based on successive 共ap-
proximate兲 minimization of LA共x , ⌳ , ␥ , ␩兲 with respect to x only,
with updates of the Lagrange multipliers ⌳k 共and, possibly, the
penalty parameter ␥兲 between the main iterations. The minimizer
x*k 共or a good estimate of it兲 in the main iteration k is obtained by
minimizing LA共x , ⌳k , ␥兲 with the Lagrange multipliers ⌳k and the
penalty parameter ␥ kept fixed. The Lagrange multipliers ⌳k are
updated before starting the next iteration
共l兲 共l兲 共l+1兲
␭k+1 = ␭共l兲
k + ␥关xk − xk
* * 兴 共10兲
In this way the Lagrange multipliers ⌳k become a reasonable
estimate of the optimum ⌳*, at which the minimum of LA共x , ⌳
= ⌳* , ␥兲 with respect to x generates the global minimum of
LA共x , ⌳ , ␥ , ␩兲 with respect to x and ⌳.
共6兲
Implementation with Trust Region Newton Method
In the implementation of the CLM algorithm 共Teughels et al.
2003兲, the trust region Newton method 共Nocedal and Wright
1999兲 is used to minimize LA共x , ⌳ , ␥ , ␩兲 with respect to x. In
each subiteration s, a quadratic approximation m共p兲 of LA at the
current population xs has to be minimized within a trust region
⌬s. The quadratic model m共p兲 is defined by the truncated Taylor
series of LA
1
min m共p兲 = LA + 关ⵜLA兴Tp + 2 pT关ⵜLA兴p 共11兲
p
where the step vector p from xs is subject to 储p储 艋 ⌬s and where
ⵜLA and ⵜ2LA = gradient and Hessian of LA at xs.
Assuming that the value of the objective function in each
search point is independent of all other search points, the follow-
共7兲 ing expressions are valid for l = 1 , . . . , t 共Teughels 2003兲:
␩
ⵜ x共l兲L A = ⵜ f共x共l兲兲 − ␭共l−1兲 + ␭共l兲 − ␥关x共l−1兲 − x共l兲兴 + ␥关x共l兲 − x共l+1兲兴
t
共8兲 共12兲
2 ␩ 2 共l兲
ⵜ x共l兲x共l兲L A = ⵜ f共x 兲 + 2␥I 共13兲
t
2 2
ⵜx共l兲x共l−1兲LA = − ␥I = ⵜx共l兲x共l+1兲LA 共14兲
where I denotes the n by n identity matrix. These expressions
need to be included in the gradient vector and the band-structured
Hessian matrix. The boundary constraints are x共0兲 = x共t兲 and
As a Newton-based method is used, the search process in the
CLM method has a high convergence rate. Convergence is en-
共9兲 as described above, is implemented in the optimization toolbox of
Matlab, by specifying the proper equations for LA, ⵜLA, and
ⵜ2LA. The minimization problem in each main iteration k is
solved with the trust region Newton method.
Choice of CLM Parameters and Normalization
The number t of search points needed to achieve a good perfor-
mance depends on the shape of the objective function and is
 chosen by trading off robustness of the algorithm and computa- Table 1. Properties of Soil Profiles P1 and P2
tional cost. If t is too small, however, the exploration of the search Layer thicknesses Shear wave velocities
space may be poor and the global minimum may be missed.
The search process is also influenced by the tuning parameters d1 d2 d3 Cs1 Cs2 Cs3 Cs4
␥ and ␩. Increasing ␥ gives more weight to the quadratic penalty Profile 共m兲 共m兲 共m兲 共m/s兲 共m/s兲 共m/s兲 共m/s兲
terms in LA. If ␥ is too high, the search points will first approach P1 3.0 4.0 8.0 160.0 185.0 200.0 400.0
each other and then search together for the nearest local mini- P2 3.0 4.0 8.0 183.0 146.5 200.0 400.0
mum. A low value of ␥ results in a wide exploration of the search
domain by each search point, which can be useful when few
search points are used. If the relative weight of the constraints is calculated with a direct stiffness formulation. The first mode var-
too low, the optimization process may not converge. The param- ies from the Rayleigh wave velocity of the underlying half-space
eter ␩ is used to tune the weight of the average objective function to the Rayleigh wave velocity that would prevail in a half-space
term to the Lagrange terms in LA. General guidelines for the a with the top layer’s material. Higher modes start at discrete fre-
priori determination of the parameters t, ␥, and ␩ cannot be given quencies and have a phase velocity that varies between the shear
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

as they are problem dependent. wave velocity of the half-space and the top layer. Superimposed
The objective function and the synchronization constraints in on the same graph is the effective dispersion curve, calculated
LA are normalized as follows: using a methodology similar to the approach of Zomorodian and
Hunaidi 共2006兲 and based on the maximum of the modulus of the
f+T G
Green’s function ũzz 共kr , ␻兲 of the layered half-space. The effective
f̄ = such that 0 艋 f̄ 艋 1 共15兲
Rf dispersion curve follows the fundamental mode, demonstrating
that the surface response is indeed dominated by the first mode
for a soil profile where the stiffness increases with depth.
⌬x共l兲
⌬x共l兲 such that 0 艋 兩⌬x共l兲
j
j = j 兩艋1 共16兲
Rcj
Inversion with Local Optimization Method
The inequalities Eqs. 共15兲 and 共16兲 should only hold on that part
of the search space that will be explored. The translation param- A synthetic inverse problem of low dimension n = 2 is first con-
eter T and the factors R f and Rcj are not unique and can only be sidered, allowing for a visualization of the objective functions.
estimated. As only their order of magnitude is important, the fol- The shear wave velocities Cs1 and Cs2 共or the Young’s moduli兲
lowing estimations can be used: T = 兩min共0 , f min兲兩, R f = f max + T, of the two top layers are selected as the unknown design variables
and Rcj = 兩xmax and collected in a vector x with dimension n = 2, while all other
j 兩, where f
− xmin min
j and f max = minimum and maxi-
mum value of the average objective function and xmax and material characteristics are constant. The residual vector r共x兲
j
xmin = upper and lower boundary of the design variable x . As f min is defined at frequencies ranging from 5 to 30 Hz with a step
j j
and f max
are not known in advance, they are determined itera- of 5 Hz and from 40 to 100 Hz with a step of 10 Hz, so that
tively. Due to the normalization, the relative weights of the dif- m = 13. The shear wave velocity of each layer is allowed to vary
ferent terms in LA are less dependent on the characteristics of between 120 and 250 m / s.
each particular minimization problem. Fig. 2 shows the objective function f共x兲 as a function of the
shear wave velocities Cs1 and Cs2 of both top layers, computed on
The initial estimates of the Lagrange multipliers ␭共l兲 j are ran- a grid with sampling interval ⌬Cs = 2.5 m / s. Apart from the glo-
domly chosen in the interval 关−1 ; 1兴 in order to promote a wide
bal minimum at 160 and 185 m / s, the objective function also has
exploration of the search space. Similarly, the initial population of
a local minimum at 183 and 146.5 m / s.
search points xk=0s=0
= 关x共1兲 ; . . . ; x共t兲兴k=0
s=0
is well spread in the search
A local optimization algorithm, as the Newton-based trust re-
domain within the range of physically meaningful values.
gion method, may iterate to this local minimum when an initial
The strength of the CLM method is that it is likely to find the
profile is chosen in the vicinity of the local minimum or when the
global minimum in relatively few iterations. The method requires
search path is approaching the local minimum. This is illustrated
the evaluation of the gradient and Hessian, however. Conse-
in Fig. 3, where the starting point at 200 and 170 m / s is relatively
quently, it is appropriate for low-dimensional functions for which
close to the local minimum; the algorithm iterates to this local
the computation of the derivatives in the current search points
minimum, corresponding to a dispersion curve that is different
only represents a marginal cost in comparison with the evaluation
of the function in additional search points.

Synthetic Example

Problem Outline
A soil profile P1 is considered that consists of l = 3 layers on a
half-space. Each layer i is characterized by its thickness di and
shear wave velocity Csi 共i = 1 , . . . , l = 3兲; the half-space has a shear
wave velocity Csi 共i = l + 1兲 共Table 1兲. The other soil characteristics
are constant for all layers and the half-space and have the follow-
ing values: the Poisson’s ratio is equal to 1 / 3, the density is equal
to 1,750 kg/ m3, and the hysteretic material damping ratio in volu-
metric and deviatoric deformation is equal to 0.025. Fig. 1. Dispersion curves of soil profile P1 共solid lines兲 and effective
Fig. 1 shows the dispersion curves of the lowest seven modes, dispersion curve 共dashed line兲

1544 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1541-1553.

 Fig. 4. Dispersion curve of first surface mode corresponding to
global 共dashed line兲 and local 共solid line兲 minimum of objective
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

function

the interval 关−1 ; 1兴 in order to promote a wide exploration of the

Fig. 2. Objective function based on fundamental surface mode
search space. A penalty factor ␥ = 0.5 results in a good compro-
mise between a wide exploration of the search space and a rea-
sonable computation time.
from the target dispersion curve 共Fig. 4兲. The solution of the
Fig. 5 illustrates how the three search points explore the search
inverse problem with the local optimization method involved five
domain and finally arrive in the global minimum of the objective
function evaluations and took 36 s on a PC with a 1.86 GHz
function; Fig. 6 shows how the shear wave velocity in the top and
Pentium M CPU.
the second layer converge to values of 160 and 185 m / s, respec-
The local minimum at 183 and 146.5 m / s corresponds to a
tively, for the three search points in the population. The shear
soil profile P2 where the second layer is softer than the top layer
wave velocity of the top layer converges faster than that of the
共Table 1兲. In this medium, the assumption that the first surface
second layer, as the objective function is more sensitive to varia-
wave dominates the response along the surface is not valid, as
tions of the shear wave velocity of the top layer. The resulting
will be discussed in a following subsection. First, the CLM
dispersion curve almost perfectly matches the target dispersion
method will be applied to the inverse problem defined with the
curve 共Fig. 7兲. The solution of the inverse problem with the CLM
fundamental surface mode.
method involved 15 function evaluations and took 135 s on a PC
with a 1.86 MHz Pentium M CPU.
Inversion with CLM Method
The CLM method is applied to the optimization problem as Alternative Objective Function
explained above. Three 共t = 3兲 two-dimensional starting vectors
The solution of the optimization problem, that was denoted as soil
共n = 2兲 are considered, corresponding to the points 180 and
profile P2 共Table 1兲 and identified as a local minimum on Fig. 3,
220 m / s; 200 and 170 m / s; and 220 and 200 m / s. The transla-
can be avoided if the effective dispersion curve instead of the
tion factor T on the average objective function in Eq. 共15兲 is equal
fundamental mode is used in the definition of the inverse prob-
to zero, while a scaling factor R f = 10,000 is used, as to fulfill the
lem. The effective dispersion curve of soil profile P2 does not
inequality Eq. 共16兲. The normalization factors Rcj on the synchro-
correspond to the first surface mode in the frequency range under
nization constraints for both shear wave velocities are equal to
consideration, but also follows dispersion curves of higher modes
180 m / s, which is a good estimate of the maximum variation of
that affect the surface response 共Fig. 8兲. If a SASW test would
the shear wave velocity in the search domain. The weighting fac-
have been performed on a site with soil profile P2, the experi-
tor ␩ on the average objective function is equal to 5.0. The initial
mental dispersion curve would correspond to the effective disper-
estimates of the Lagrange multipliers ␭共l兲j are randomly chosen in

Fig. 5. CLM optimization starting from points 180 and 220 m / s; 200
Fig. 3. Local optimization starting from point 200 and 170 m / s for and 170 m / s; and 220 and 200 m / s for objective function based on
objective function based on theoretical dispersion curve of first mode theoretical dispersion curve of first mode

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008 / 1545

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1541-1553.

 Fig. 6. History of shear wave velocity in top layer 共solid lines兲 and
second layer 共dashed lines兲 for three search points used in CLM
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
optimization
sion curve rather than the first surface mode employed in the
definition of the objective function. Soil profile P2 is therefore
not a feasible solution as its effective dispersion curve is different
from the target curve.
This problem can be solved by a proper reformulation of the
inverse problem. A first choice is to use the first surface mode in
the residual vector, together with a constraint on both shear wave
velocities, excluding soil profiles where soft layers are overlain
by stiff layers. A second choice is to use the effective dispersion
curve, allowing to account for soil profiles where soft layers are
overlain by stiffer layers.
Fig. 9 shows a contour plot of the objective function, using the
effective dispersion curve instead of the first surface mode. The
objective function now exhibits a single minimum at 160 and
185 m / s, corresponding to soil profile P1. Superimposed on this
graph is the path followed by the Newton-based trust region
method from the starting point 200 and 170 m / s to the global
minimum. This minimum has also been found with the CLM
method with three two-dimensional starting vectors at 180 and
220, 200 and 170, and 220 and 200 m / s. The CLM method re-
mains useful in practice, as it can never be excluded that the
objective function has local minima; this is the case for optimi-
zation problems of higher dimension as will be demonstrated in
the following subsection.
500
Phase velocity [m/s]
400
300
200
100
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Frequency [Hz]
Fig. 7. Dispersion curve of first surface mode corresponding to
global minimum of objective function 共dashed line兲 and after CLM
optimization 共solid line兲
1546 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1541-1553.
Fig. 8. Dispersion curves of soil profile P2 共solid lines兲 and effective
dispersion curve 共dashed line兲
Complete Inversion of Synthetic Soil Profile
An inverse problem with a higher dimension is considered next.
The thickness and the shear wave velocity of the three layers and
the underlying half-space of soil profile P1 are considered as
the design variables and collected in a vector x with dimension
n = 7, while all other material characteristics are constant as intro-
duced before. The residual vector r共x兲 is defined using the effec-
tive dispersion curve at frequencies between 1 and 30 Hz with a
step of 1.0 Hz and between 35 and 100 Hz with a step of 5 Hz, so
that m = 44. The thickness of each layer is allowed to vary be-
tween 0.2 and 15 m, while the shear wave velocity may vary
between 100 and 500 m / s.
First, the constrained optimization problem is solved three
times with a local Newton-based trust region method, using the
initial soil profiles I1–I3 summarized in Table 2 and Fig. 10共a兲,
with corresponding dispersion curves depicted in Fig. 10共b兲. The
three local optimization runs result in the soil profiles F1 – F3
shown in Table 2 and Fig. 11共a兲. Although the corresponding
dispersion curves match the target dispersion curve very well
关Fig. 11共b兲兴, the identified soil profiles differ from the target soil
profile; the third profile F3 corresponds to a profile where a soft
layer is between two stiffer layers. These results are a manifesta-
tion of the nonuniqueness of the inverse problem 共Schevenels
et al. 2008兲. Depending on the initial soil profile, the solution of
the inverse problem with a local optimization method involved
11–21 function evaluations and took between 37 and 72 s on a PC
with a 1.86 MHz Pentium M CPU.
The inversion is also performed with the CLM method using
t = 3 search points. The translation factor T on the average objec-
tive function is equal to zero and a scaling factor R f = 1 is used.
Fig. 9. Local optimization starting from point 200 and 170 m / s for
objective function based on effective theoretical dispersion curve
 Table 2. Initial 共l1–l3兲, Target 共P1兲, and Final Soil Profiles for
Application of Local Optimization Method 共F1–F3兲 and CLM Method
共F兲 共t = 3兲
Layer thicknesses Shear wave velocities
d1 d2 d3 Cs1 Cs2 Cs3 Cs4
Profile 共m兲 共m兲 共m兲 共m/s兲 共m/s兲 共m/s兲 共m/s兲
I1 2.0 3.0 5.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0
I2 1.0 5.0 10.0 140.0 190.0 220.0 300.0
I3 3.0 3.0 3.0 110.0 130.0 250.0 450.0
P1 3.0 4.0 8.0 160.0 185.0 200.0 400.0
F1 3.87 4.46 5.17 160.8 203.4 177.7 397.7
F2 2.17 4.49 8.80 159.2 176.7 206.4 402.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

F3 4.08 4.05 5.51 161.2 206.8 179.4 398.1

F 3.05 4.65 7.37 160.2 186.4 202.3 401.2

The normalization factors Rcj on the synchronization constraints

are equal to 180 m / s for the shear wave velocities and 1 m for
the layer thicknesses. The weighting factor ␩ on the average ob-
jective function is equal to 1.0, while the penalty factor ␥ is equal
to 3. The initial estimates of the Lagrange multipliers ␭共l兲 j are
randomly chosen in the interval 关−1 ; 1兴.
Fig. 12共a兲 shows the final soil profiles obtained with the CLM
method with t = 3 points, using the same initial profiles I1-I3 as
previously applied with the local optimization method. The dis-
persion curves corresponding to these three profiles are shown in
Fig. 12共b兲 and are in very close agreement with the dispersion
curve of the target soil profile P1. This good correspondence was
also observed when a local optimization algorithm was repeatedly
applied on three search points 关Fig. 11共b兲兴, although in the latter
case, the three identified soil profiles differed more from the tar-
get soil profile 关Fig. 11共a兲兴. The three soil profiles are averaged to
Fig. 11. 共a兲 Target 共thick grey line兲 and final 共solid lines兲 soil profiles
obtained with separate local optimization calculations 共t = 3兲; 共b兲
corresponding effective dispersion curves
obtain a single profile F 共Table 2兲, which is in very good agree-
ment with the target soil profile P1. These results demonstrate the
good performance of the cooperative search algorithm imple-
mented in the CLM method when compared with the repeated
application of local optimization algorithms. The solution of the
inverse problem with the CLM method and t = 3 search points
involved 87 function evaluations and took 307 s on a PC with a
1.86 MHz Pentium M CPU. Comparable results have been ob-
tained with an increased number of search points 共t = 10兲, result-
ing in a larger number of 470 function evaluations and a higher
computation time of 1,599 s.
Based on the previous synthetic examples, it is concluded that
the CLM method is a versatile gradient-based method that can
find the global minimum of objective functions in a reasonable
amount of iterations. It is therefore very useful to solve problems
of higher dimension that may exhibit local minima.

Example Based on In Situ Experiments

The inversion algorithm based on the CLM method is subse-

quently used to invert an experimental dispersion curve derived
from in situ data collected by Foti 共2000兲.

Description of Test Site and In Situ Tests

Fig. 10. 共a兲 Initial 共t = 3兲 共solid lines兲 and target 共thick grey line兲 soil
profiles; 共b兲 corresponding effective dispersion curves
The test site is located in Saluggia 共northern Italy兲 close to the
Dora Baltea river and is mainly composed of fluvial sediments.
Borehole logs on the site revealed that the shallow sediments
consist of gravels and gravelly sands with fine sand and clayey
silt in the form of lenses 共Foti 2000; Lai et al. 2005兲, while bore-
hole logs and seismic refraction tests at the test site have demon-

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008 / 1547

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1541-1553.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. 共a兲 Target 共thick grey line兲 and final 共solid lines兲 soil profiles Fig. 13. Time history of velocity as function of distance from
obtained with CLM method 共t = 3兲; 共b兲 corresponding effective source during single impact with: 共a兲 drop weight 共setup 1兲; 共b兲
dispersion curve sledge-hammer 共setup 2兲 at test site in Saluggia

receivers 共Nazarian and Desai 1993兲. The average cross power

strated that the inclination of the layers is negligible 共Foti 2000兲. spectral density Ŝij共␻兲 between receivers i and j is computed as
The groundwater table was found at shallow depth with seasonal
N
variations between 2 and 3 m. 1
Several multistation impact tests have been performed using Ŝij共␻兲 = 兺 k
v̂k共␻兲v̂ j *共␻兲
N k=1 i
共17兲
different source 共sledgehammers, drop weight, and minibang兲 and
receiver configurations, using a multichannel seismograph and 24 where N = number of events; v̂ki 共␻兲 denotes the frequency content
vertical geophones 共4.5 Hz兲. A complementary crosshole test was k
of the velocity vki 共t兲 at receiver i for event k; and v̂ j *共␻兲 denotes
also performed to enable a verification of the results.
the complex conjugate of v̂ j 共␻兲. The transfer function Ĥij共␻兲
k
In the present paper, two setups are used, covering a relatively
from receiver i to receiver j is estimated as
wide frequency range and allowing for a profiling depth up to
30 m. In setup 1, a weight of 80 kg was repeatedly dropped from
Ŝ ji共␻兲
a height of 3 m, and the geophones were arranged in a linear Ĥij共␻兲 = 共18兲
array with a receiver spacing of 3 m. In setup 2, a 6 kg sledge- Ŝii共␻兲
hammer was used and the receiver spacing was equal to 1 m.
Fig. 13 shows a shot gather 共a wiggle plot with the time his- The coherence ⌫ˆ ij共␻兲 of the signals at receivers i and j is defined
tory of the vertical velocity versus the distance from the source兲 as
during a single impact with a drop weight and a sledgehammer;
these results clearly reveal the propagation of dispersive Rayleigh Ŝij共␻兲Ŝij*共␻兲
waves. ⌫ˆ ij共␻兲 = 共19兲
Ŝii共␻兲Ŝ*jj共␻兲

Determination of Experimental Dispersion Curve
Two methods are used to extract an experimental dispersion curve
from the results of the multistation impact tests. First, the classi-
cal SASW analysis based on the response of two receivers is
repeatedly applied on different receiver pairs 共Nazarian and Desai
and is a measure for the data quality as a function of the fre-
quency. A unit value indicates a perfectly linear relation between
the signals in receivers i and j. A smaller value may indicate noise
disturbing the measurements or nonlinear behavior of the soil. For
each receiver pair, the phase velocity of the surface wave is esti-
mated as

冏 冏
1993兲. Second, a multistation approach is used, transforming the
results of a shotgather from the time-space domain to the ␻⌬rij
frequency-wave number domain 共Park et al. 1998, 1999兲. CER共␻兲 = 共20兲
␪ij共␻兲
In the classical two-station analysis, the phase velocity CER共␻兲
of the surface wave or the experimental dispersion curve is deter- where ⌬rij = r j − ri = distance between the receivers i and j; and
mined from the phase of the transfer functions between pairs of ␪ij共␻兲 = unfolded phase of the transfer function Ĥij共␻兲. For a fixed

1548 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1541-1553.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 14. Experimental dispersion points obtained with two-station
analysis using: 共a兲 eight drops of drop weight 共setup 1兲; 共b兲 seven
impacts with sledgehammer 共setup 2兲
frequency ␻, the estimated phase velocity CER共␻兲 is withheld if the
following criteria are met:
⌫ˆ ij共␻兲 艌 ⌫ˆ min 共21兲
and
⌬rij
r̄min 艋 艋 r̄max 共22兲
␭ER共␻兲
Eq. 共21兲 imposes a threshold on the coherence function to
limit the influence of incoherent noise. Eq. 共22兲 ensures that the
ratio of the distance ⌬rij and the estimated surface wavelength
␭ER共␻兲 = 2␲CER共␻兲 / ␻ is within certain bounds. The lower bound
r̄min acts as a high-pass filter and limits the contribution of body
waves, while the upper bound r̄max serves as a low-pass filter to
remove the high-frequency components contaminated by coherent
noise 共Nazarian and Desai 1993兲.
Fig. 14共a兲 shows the experimental dispersion points as derived
from a classical two-station SASW analysis for eight drops of
the falling weight 共setup 1兲, considering 12 receiver pairs with a
receiver distance ⌬rij ranging from 3 to 36 m, equal to the
distance ri between the source and the first receiver i. Values
⌫ˆ min = 0.95, r̄min = 0.4, and r̄max = 3.0 have been used in the filter
criteria Eqs. 共21兲 and 共22兲. Fig. 14共b兲 shows similar results de-
rived from seven impacts with a 6 kg sledgehammer 共setup 2兲,
considering 12 receiver pairs with a receiver distance ⌬rij ranging
from 1 to 12 m. In setup 1, lower frequencies in the range be-
tween 10 and 50 Hz are excited; the largest wavelength of
the corresponding surface wave is estimated as 60 m, correspond-
ing to a profiling depth of about 30 m; in setup 2, larger fre-
quencies in the range between 20 and 75 Hz are excited,
corresponding to shorter wavelengths and sampling of shallower
layers. Both setups are highly complementary, as can also be
appreciated from Fig. 15 where the dispersion points derived
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008 / 1549
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1541-1553.
Fig. 15. Experimental dispersion points obtained from both
setups and resulting experimental dispersion curve 共thick grey line兲,
estimated as seventh-order polynomial fit
from both tests are gathered. The resulting experimental disper-
sion curve is determined as a seventh-order polynomial fit
through all dispersion points and will be used in the subsequent
inversion process.
The phase-velocity spectrum can alternatively be obtained
from multichannel surface wave data using the plane-wave trans-
formation technique 共Park et al. 1998, 1999; Ryden and Park
2006兲. The multichannel record of the velocity v共x , t兲 is trans-
formed to the frequency-phase velocity domain using
ˆ
V̂共C,␻兲 = 冕
−⬁
+⬁
冉 冊
V̂共x,␻兲exp − i
␻
C
dx 共23兲
where V̂共x , ␻兲 = normalized complex spectrum 共in both the x and
␻ dimensions兲 obtained from the Fourier transform v̂共x , ␻兲 of the
ˆ
velocity; and V̂共C , ␻兲 = slant-stack amplitude for each angular fre-
quency ␻ and phase velocity C 共Ryden and Park 2006兲. Disper-
sion curves can be identified as high amplitude bands in the phase
ˆ
velocity spectrum V̂共C , ␻兲.
Fig. 16共a兲 shows the phase velocity spectrum obtained from a
single event for setup 1 using the drop weight. The slant-stack
ˆ
amplitude V̂共C , ␻兲 is maximum along the dispersion curves of the
layered soil medium. Superimposed on the graph are the disper-
sion points from Fig. 14共a兲 determined with the classical two-
station analysis. Fig. 16共b兲 presents similar results based on the
analysis of a single event for setup 2 using the sledgehammer. For
both setups, the dispersion points correspond well with the fre-
quency band where the phase velocity spectrum has a high am-
plitude. It can therefore be concluded that, for the soil profile
under consideration, both methods result in a comparable experi-
mental dispersion curve. The seventh-order polynomial curve de-
rived in Fig. 15 using a classical two-station analysis will
therefore be used as the experimental dispersion curve in the fol-
lowing inversion step.
Inversion with Local Optimization Method
The dynamic soil characteristics on the site in Saluggia are deter-
mined by formulating an inverse problem, that is first solved by
means of a constrained Newton-based trust region method. The
design variables are the thickness and the shear wave velocity of
each layer and the underlying half-space, resulting in n = 2l + 1
unknown soil parameters, with l the number of layers on top of
the half-space. Other soil characteristics are assumed to be known
and kept constant during the inversion process: a Poisson’s ratio
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 16. Phase velocity spectrum obtained from shot gathered in
24-channel setup using: 共a兲 drop weight 共setup 1兲; 共b兲 sledgehammer
共setup 2兲. Superimposed on graphs are corresponding experimental
dispersion points derived in Fig. 14 共black dots兲.
␯ = 0.45, a density ␳ = 1,900 kg/ m3, and a hysteretic material
damping ratio ␤ = 0.025 in volumetric and deviatoric deformation
are used for all layers and the underlying half-space 共Foti 2000;
Lai et al. 2005兲.
Following Foti 共2000兲, an initial shear wave velocity profile is
estimated assigning a shear wave velocity equal to 1.1CER to a
depth of ␭R / 2.5, with CER the experimental phase velocity and ␭R
the estimated Rayleigh wavelength. Fig. 17 shows the estimated
shear wave velocity profile corresponding to every dispersion
point, as well as a polynomial approximation that will be used in
the following.
An initial profile with eight layers on a half-space is randomly
generated. In each layer, the shear wave velocity is constant and
equal to the mean value of the velocities at the top and the bottom
of the layer as derived from the estimated shear wave velocity
Fig. 17. Estimate of variation of shear wave velocity with depth
1550 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1541-1553.
Fig. 18. 共a兲 Estimated shear wave velocity profile 共thick grey line兲
and initial profile 共solid line兲; 共b兲 experimental dispersion curve
共thick grey line兲 and dispersion curve corresponding to initial profile
共solid line兲
profile. This approach is followed in an attempt to exploit the
prior knowledge that the soil profile is close to the estimated
profile shown in Fig. 17.
The resulting optimization problem has n = 17 unknowns. The
objective function f共x兲 is defined as the squared difference be-
tween the experimental dispersion curve 共i.e., the seventh-order
polynomial derived in the previous subsection兲 and the theoretical
dispersion curve, corresponding to the effective mode of a layered
half-space. The residual vector r共x兲 is defined at frequencies be-
tween 8 and 16 Hz with a step of 0.1 Hz, between 16.3 and 25 Hz
with a step of 0.3 Hz and between 26 and 68 Hz with a step of
1 Hz, so that m = 154. The thickness of each layer is allowed to
vary between 0.3 and 15 m, while the shear wave velocity may
vary between 30 and 1,000 m / s. The constrained optimization
method is solved with a 共local兲 Newton-based trust region
method.
Fig. 18共a兲 shows the estimated and the initial shear wave ve-
locity profile, while Fig. 18共b兲 shows the experimental dispersion
curve CER共␻兲, together with the dispersion curve corresponding to
the initial profile. Fig. 19共a兲 shows the final shear wave velocity
profile, as well as the profile reported by Foti 共2000兲 and the
crosshole test results. The final shear wave velocity profile is also
summarized in Table 3. The results obtained with the SASW
method correspond well with the crosshole results up to a depth
of 25 m, but reveal higher values below this depth. This discrep-
ancy may be related to the limited penetration depth and spatial
resolution of the SASW method, which is based on the analysis of
signals recorded along the surface of the soil medium, whereas
the crosshole test records travel times of seismic waves at differ-
ent depths. Furthermore, in the SASW method, the forward model
used for the inversion of the dispersion curve assumes that the
soil medium is horizontally stratified. This may smooth the effect
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 19. 共a兲 Estimated shear wave velocity profile 共thick grey line兲, Fig. 20. 共a兲 Estimated shear wave velocity profile 共thick grey line兲
profile computed with the local optimization method 共solid line兲, and 20 initial profiles 共solid lines兲; 共b兲 experimental dispersion curve
profile reported by Foti 共2000兲 共dashed line兲, and crosshole test 共thick grey line兲 and dispersion curves corresponding to 20 initial
results 共dots兲; 共b兲 target experimental dispersion curve 共thick gray profiles 共solid lines兲
line兲, dispersion curve corresponding to profile computed with local
optimization method 共solid line兲, and dispersion curve reported by
Foti 共2000兲 共dashed line兲 Inversion with CLM Method
The CLM method described above is subsequently employed to
invert the experimental dispersion curve. A relatively high num-
of inclined layers on the dispersion characteristics of surface ber of 20 search points 共t = 20兲 is used in order to enable a wide
waves. Fig. 19共b兲 confirms that the dispersion curve of the soil exploration of the search domain. Twenty profiles of dimension
profile obtained with the local optimization method corresponds n = 17, corresponding to a layered half-space with l = 8 layers on a
well with the experimental dispersion curve. The dispersion curve half-space, have been randomly generated according to the pro-
reported by Foti 共2000兲 is also shown and deviates from the ex- cedure explained in the previous subsection 关Fig. 20共a兲兴. In this
perimental dispersion curve in the low-frequency range. The so- way, the search points will primarily explore the neighborhood of
lution of the inverse problem with the local optimization method the estimated soil profile. Fig. 20共b兲 shows the experimental dis-
involved 27 function evaluations and took about 1,500 s on a PC persion curve CER共␻兲, together with the dispersion curves corre-
with an Opteron 252 2.6 GHz CPU. sponding to the 20 initial soil profiles.
The residual vector for each search point is defined at the same
154 frequencies as in the previous subsection. The translation
Table 3. Final Shear Wave Velocity Profile Computed with Local factor T on the average objective function in Eq. 共16兲 is equal to
Optimization Method and CLM Method Using Three and 20 Search zero, while a scaling factor R f = 10,000 is used. A preliminary
Points study has demonstrated that parameters ␩ = 5.0 and ␥ = 0.5 result
in a comparable relative contribution of the different terms par-
Local method CLM method
ticipating in the augmented Lagrangian function Eq. 共9兲. The con-
共t = 1兲 共t = 20兲
vergence of the search process is largely influenced by these
d Cs d Cs parameters and the calculation time may become prohibitively
Layer 共m兲 共m/s兲 共m兲 共m/s兲 high when the number of search points is relatively high. The
1 1.17 126.6 1.25 129.6 penalty factor ␥ has therefore been increased to a value of 2,
2 1.21 221.2 4.01 232.0 giving a relatively higher weight to the penalty terms. The nor-
3 2.03 232.9 3.38 349.8 malization factors Rcj on the synchronization constraints are equal
4 1.82 278.9 3.12 400.4
to 100 m / s for the shear wave velocities and 1 m for the layer
5 3.32 353.8 4.27 493.7 thicknesses. The initial estimates of the Lagrange multipliers ␭共l兲j
6 5.92 460.5 5.29 554.1
are randomly chosen in the interval 关−1 ; 1兴.
The solution of the inverse problem with the CLM method
7 6.50 559.3 3.06 582.3
using 20 search points involved 340 function evaluations and took
8 5.45 589.1 4.57 650.5
about 14,000 s on a PC with a Dual Core Opteron 875 2.2 MHz
9 ⬁ 812.9 ⬁ 810.3
CPU, which is about ten times longer than the computation with

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008 / 1551

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1541-1553.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 21. 共a兲 Estimated shear wave velocity profile 共thick grey line兲,
profile computed with CLM method 共t = 20兲 共solid line兲, profile re-
ported by Foti 共2000兲 共dashed line兲, and crosshole test results 共dots兲;
共b兲 target experimental dispersion curve 共thick gray line兲, dispersion
curve corresponding to profile computed with CLM method 共t = 20兲
共solid line兲, and dispersion curve reported by Foti 共2000兲 共dashed
line兲
the local optimization method. The relatively moderate increase
of the solution time is partly due to the fact that the exploration of
the search domain has been limited by a relatively higher value of
the penalty parameter ␥.
At the end of the iterative optimization process, the 20 soil
profiles are very close; Fig. 21共a兲 and Table 3 show the final
profile obtained as the average of these 20 profiles. This profile
corresponds well to the crosshole results in the top 25 m, but
reveals higher values below this depth. Fig. 21共b兲 demonstrates
that the dispersion curve of the final soil profile corresponds very
well to the experimental dispersion curve.
Fig. 22共a兲 compares the shear wave velocity profiles calculated
with the local optimization method and the CLM method with 20
search points. Despite the fact that the corresponding dispersion
curves 关Fig. 22共b兲兴 all correspond well to the experimental dis-
persion curve, the identified shear wave velocity profiles are
slightly different. This indicates that the solution of the inverse
problem is nonunique and that different, though very similar, soil
profiles exhibit almost the same dispersive characteristics in the
frequency range considered, resulting in close minima of the ob-
jective function. As the CLM method simultaneously considers
different search points, there is a higher probability of finding a
global minimum. In general, there is a good correspondence be-
tween the identified shear wave velocity profiles and the profile
identified by the crosshole test up to a depth of 25 m; beyond this
depth, the crosshole test reveals lower values of the shear wave
velocity.
1552 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1541-1553.
Fig. 22. 共a兲 Estimated shear wave velocity profile 共thick grey line兲,
profile computed with local optimization method 共dash-dotted line兲,
profile computed with CLM method 共t = 20兲 共solid line兲, profile re-
ported by Foti 共2000兲 共dashed line兲, and crosshole test results 共dots兲;
共b兲 target experimental dispersion curve 共thick gray line兲, dispersion
curve corresponding to profile computed with local optimization
method 共dash-dotted line兲 and CLM method 共t = 20兲 共solid line兲, and
dispersion curve reported by Foti 共2000兲 共dashed line兲
Conclusion
The method of coupled local minimizers has been successfully
applied to the solution of the inverse problem as it is formulated
in the third step of the SASW method. This has been demon-
strated by considering a synthetic example of a layered half-space
with three layers on a half-space, for which a two-dimensional
inverse problem is solved. The example demonstrates that
gradient-based local optimization methods may converge to a
local minimum of the objective function. This problem can be
solved by proper reformulation of the inverse problem using ap-
propriate constraints or using the effective theoretical dispersion
curve instead of the fundamental mode.
In all cases, the CLM method offers a valuable alternative to
local gradient-based algorithms as it can find the global minimum
of objective functions exhibiting local minima with a reasonable
number of function evaluations.
The CLM method is further applied to inverse problems of
higher dimension. First, the full inversion of a soil profile with
seven design variables has been considered. Second, the inversion
algorithm based on the CLM method has been successfully ap-
plied to invert the experimental dispersion curve derived from in
situ data collected at a test site in Saluggia, Italy, mainly consist-
ing of alluvial sediments. Up to a depth of about 25 m, the results
show a reasonably good correspondence with crosshole test re-
sults. Beyond this depth, the crosshole test reveals lower values of
the shear wave velocity. This discrepancy may be related to the
limited profiling depth and spatial resolution of surface wave
methods.
 Acknowledgments
The results presented in this paper have been obtained within the
frame of Project No. G.0595.06 “In situ determination of material
damping in the soil at small deformation ratios” funded by the
Research Foundation Flanders and Project No. OT/05/41” A ge-
neric methodology for inverse modelling of dynamic problems in
civil and environmental engineering,” funded by the Research
Council of K.U.Leuven. The third writer is a Postdoctoral Fellow
of the Research Foundation—Flanders 共FWO兲. The support of the
FWO is gratefully acknowledged. The fourth writer is a Postdoc-
toral researcher supported by the Research Council of K.U.Leu-
ven. This financial support is gratefully acknowledged. The
writers are very grateful to Professor Sebastiano Foti 共Department
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of Civil Engineering, Politecnico di Torino兲 who made the surface
wave data set collected on the site in Saluggia available for the
present investigations. This has been particularly useful to dem-
onstrate the practical applicability of the CLM method to experi-
mental data with sufficient profiling depth.
References
Beaty, K., Schmitt, D., and Sacchi, M. 共2002兲. “Simulated annealing
inversion of multimode Rayleigh wave dispersion curves for geologi-
cal structure.” Geophys. J. Int., 151, 622–631.
Foti, S. 共2000兲. “Multistation methods for geotechnical characterization
using surface waves.” Ph.D. thesis, Politecnico di Torino, Torino,
Italy.
Gabriels, P., Snieder, R., and Nolet, G. 共1987兲. “In situ measurements of
shear-wave velocity in sediments with higher-mode Rayleigh waves.”
Geophys. Prospect., 35, 187–196.
Ganji, V., Gucunski, N., and Nazarian, S. 共1998兲. “Automated inversion
procedure for spectral analysis of surface waves.” J. Geotech. Geoen-
viron. Eng., 124共8兲, 757–770.
Gucunski, N., and Woods, R. 共1991兲. “Inversion of Rayleigh wave dis-
persion curve for SASW test.” Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering, Karlsruhe, Germany, Elsevier Applied
Science, London, 127–138.
Gucunski, N., and Woods, R. 共1992兲. “Numerical simulation of the
SASW test.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 11, 213–227.
Holland, J. 共1975兲. Adaptation in natural and artificial systems, Univer-
sity of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Kausel, E., and Roësset, J. 共1981兲. “Stiffness matrices for layered soils.”
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 71共6兲, 1743–1761.
Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt, C. D., and Vecchi, M. P. 共1983兲. “Optimization by
simulated annealing.” Science, 220, 671–680.
Lai, C., Foti, S., and Rix, G. 共2005兲. “Propagation of data uncertainty in
surface wave inversion.” J. Environ. Eng. Geophys., 10共2兲, 219–228.
Lai, C., Rix, G., Foti, S., and Roma, V. 共2002兲. “Simultaneous measure-
ment and inversion of surface wave dispersion and attenuation
curves.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 22共9–12兲, 923–930.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008 / 1553
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1541-1553.
Levshin, A., Ritzwoller, M., and Shapiro, N. 共2005兲. “The use of crustal
higher modes to constrain crustal structure across Central Asia.” Geo-
phys. J. Int., 160, 961–972.
Matlab. 共2006兲. “Matlab optimization toolbox.” 具www.mathworks.com典.
Nazarian, S., and Desai, M. 共1993兲. “Automated surface wave method:
Field testing.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 119共7兲, 1094–1111.
Nocedal, J., and Wright, S. 共1999兲. Numerical optimization, Springer,
New York.
Park, C., Miller, R., and Xia, J. 共1998兲. “Imaging dispersion curves of
surface waves on multi-channel record.” Proc., 68th Annual Int. Meet-
ing, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Expanded Abstracts, New
Orleans, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 1377–1380.
Park, C., Miller, R., and Xia, J. 共1999兲. “Multichannel analysis of surface
waves.” Geophysics, 64共3兲, 800–808.
Pezeshk, S., and Zarrabi, M. 共2005兲. “A new inversion procedure for
spectral analysis of surface waves using a genetic algorithm.” Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Am., 95共5兲, 1801–1808.
Rao, S. 共1996兲. Engineering optimization—Theory and practice, 3rd Ed.,
Wiley, New York.
Rix, G., Lai, C., and Spang, A., Jr. 共2000兲. “In situ measurement of
damping ratio using surface waves.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
126共5兲, 472–480.
Ryden, N., and Park, C. 共2006兲. “Fast simulated annealing inversion of
surface waves on pavement using phase-velocity spectra.” Geophys-
ics, 71共4兲, 49–58.
Sambridge, M. 共1999兲. “Geophysical inversion with a neighbourhood
algorithm—I: Searching a parameter space.” Geophys. J. Int., 138,
479–494.
Schevenels, M., Lombaert, G., Degrande, G., and François, S. 共2008兲. “A
probabilistic assessment of resolution in the SASW test and its impact
on the prediction of ground vibrations.” Geophys. J. Int., 172共1兲,
262–275.
Suykens, J., and Vandewalle, J. 共2002兲. “Coupled local minimizers: Al-
ternative formulations and extensions.” Proc., 2002 World Congress
on Computational Intelligence—International Joint Conf. on Neural
Networks IJCNN 2002, Honolulu, 2039–2043.
Suykens, J., Vandewalle, J., and De Moor, B. 共2001兲. “Intelligence and
cooperative search by coupled local minimizers.” Int. J. Bifurcation
Chaos Appl. Sci. Eng., 11共8兲, 2133–2144.
Teughels, A. 共2003兲. “Inverse modelling of civil engineering structures
based on operational modal data.” Ph.D. thesis, K.U.Leuven, Leuven,
Belgium.
Teughels, A., De Roeck, G., and Suykens, J. 共2003兲. “Global optimization
by coupled local minimizers and its application to FE model updat-
ing.” Comput. Struct., 81共24–25兲, 2337–2351.
Tokimatsu, K., Tamura, S., and Kosjima, H. 共1992兲. “Effects of multiple
modes on Rayleigh wave dispersion characteristics.” J. Geotech.
Engrg., 118共10兲, 1529–1143.
Yuan, D., and Nazarian, S. 共1993兲. “Automated surface wave method:
Inversion technique.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 119共7兲, 1112–1126.
Zomorodian, S., and Hunaidi, O. 共2006兲. “Inversion of SASW dispersion
curves based on maximum flexibility coefficients in the wave number
domain.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 26, 735–752.