See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330270504

Uncertainty Quantification and Reduction in the Characterization of

Subsurface Stratigraphy Using Limited Geotechnical Investigation Data

Article  in  Underground Space · January 2019

DOI: 10.1016/j.undsp.2018.10.008

CITATIONS READS

0 112

1 author:

Xiangrong Wang
University of Dayton
15 PUBLICATIONS   67 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

External corrosion and integrity assessment of underground pipeline systems based on in-line inspection data, in-situ soil survey and environmental data View project

Bayesian Machine Learning for Geological Modeling and Geophysical Segmentation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Xiangrong Wang on 25 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Underground Space xxx (xxxx) xxx
www.elsevier.com/locate/undsp

Uncertainty quantification and reduction in the characterization

of subsurface stratigraphy using limited geotechnical investigation data
Xiangrong Wang
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, The University of Dayton, Dayton, OH 45469-0243, USA

Received 25 June 2018; received in revised form 20 September 2018; accepted 5 October 2018

Abstract

Subsurface stratigraphy is critical to the design, construction, and subsequent performance of geotechnical structures. However, in
practice it is impossible to identify the stratigraphy of a subsurface geological domain with absolute certainty, due to the limitations
imposed by geotechnical investigation techniques and project budgets. This paper presents a subsurface stratigraphic modeling and
uncertainty quantification approach, which is established based on an improved and extended geological modeling technique previously
established by the author and others, for simulating the stratigraphy of both two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) cases
with more complex geological features. Furthermore, this approach provides quantitative evaluation of the amount of stratigraphic
uncertainty in the current interpretation and enables the systematic reduction of stratigraphic uncertainty through the investigation
of additional targeted borehole drilling locations. Illustrative examples, including artificial cases as well as two real cases from existing
geotechnical projects, are presented in this study to demonstrate the use of the proposed analysis approach.
Ó 2019 Tongji University and Tongji University Press. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Owner. This is an open access article
under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Site investigation; Stratigraphy; Stochastic modeling; Uncertainty quantification; Borehole drilling

1 Introduction Moreover, it is widely recognized that there is a tradeoff

Obtaining an adequate and accurate understanding of
subsurface stratigraphy is an essential first task in solving
many geotechnical engineering problems. However,
regardless of the extent of field geotechnical investigations
and the resulting information from borehole logs, in situ
testing, and geophysical surveys, it is typically impossible
to make direct and continuous observations across an
entire subsurface domain. Therefore, the inference of sub-
surface stratigraphy unavoidably involves various degrees
of uncertainty (Juang, Jiang, & Christopher, 2001; Li, Qi,
et al., 2016; Liao, Druss, Neff, & Brenner, 1996; Wang,
Wang, Liang, & Liu, 2018; Wang, Wang, Liang, Zhu, &
Di, 2018; Wang, Wellmann, Li, Wang, & Liang, 2017).
E-mail address: xwang5@udayton.edu
between the cost invested in geotechnical site investigation
and the additional benefits derived from the resulting geo-
logical information that can be used in subsequent phases
of geotechnical design and construction. Therefore, design-
ers and site engineers face a challenge in obtaining a suffi-
ciently accurate description of a site’s stratigraphy at the
minimum cost (Jaksa et al., 2005). To address this chal-
lenge, there is a need for novel interpretation approaches
that can not only generate possible stratigraphic configura-
tions but also provide quantification of uncertainty accord-
ing to field observations and suggest further drilling and
sampling locations that can reduce the uncertainty to the
greatest extent.
To interpret soil stratification in a subsurface geological
domain with sparsely distributed observational data, sev-
eral approaches have been developed that are based on
interpolation methods (Auerbach & Schaeben, 1990;

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.10.008
2467-9674/Ó 2019 Tongji University and Tongji University Press. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Owner.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: X. Wang, Uncertainty quantification and reduction in the characterization of subsurface stratigraphy using limited geotechnical
investigation data, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.10.008
2 X. Wang / Underground Space xxx (xxxx) xxx
Blanchin & Chilès, 1993; Calcagno, Chilès, Courrioux, &
Guillen, 2008; Chilès, Aug, Guillen, & Lees, 2004; Zhu &
Zhang, 2013). However, most of these methods can only
provide point estimation as the maximum likelihood esti-
mate (MLE), without taking the uncertainty of modeling
outcomes into consideration. In other words, although
the most likely deterministic stratigraphic configuration
can be obtained, its probability and variability are not esti-
mated; thus, the credibility or confidence in the accuracy of
such interpretations is not known. Several existing stochas-
tic modeling techniques—including the Markov chain
model (Elfeki & Dekking, 2001; Li, Qi, et al., 2016), the
conditional Gaussian random field (Li, Zhang, & Li,
2015) and multiple-point geostatistics (Caers & Zhang,
2004; Hu & Chugunova, 2008; Toftaker & Tjelmeland,
2013)—can provide multiple possible geological modeling
results. However, few of these techniques manage to quan-
tify the uncertainty associated with intrinsic nonstationary
stochastic subsurface conditions. In fact, compared with
simulating a deterministic geological configuration, quanti-
fying modeling uncertainty imposes higher demands on the
adopted modeling method since such quantification of
variability is meaningful only if each of the stochastic real-
izations generated by the modeling method is in accor-
dance with the inherent characteristics of the subsurface
geological structures. However, some implicit assumptions
(or strong prior knowledge in some contexts) in the existing
modeling methods, such as the fixed correlation structures
in Gaussian random fields, the stationary transition proba-
bility matrixes in Markov chain models, and the predefined
data templates in training image methods, may impose cer-
tain restrictions on the ability to reproduce the inherent
anisotropic and non-stationary nature of geological
structures.
Recently, a geological modeling method based on the
Markov random field (MRF) for simulating complex
stratigraphic structures has been developed (Li, Wang,
Wang, & Liang, 2016). Specifically, the MRF-based mod-
eling method and the Markov chain model share the same
underlying assumption that the subsurface stratigraphic
structures involve Markovian possesses and can be
described using Markov priors. It is worth noting that this
assumption has been widely recognized and persistently
utilized for modeling subsurface stratigraphy and sedimen-
tary layering structures (Carle & Fogg, 1996, 1997, Dai,
Ritzi, & Dominic, 2005, Li, Li, & Shi, 1999; Wang,
Wang, & Liang, 2017; Wang, Wang, Liang, Zhu, et al.,
2018). The difference is that the framework of the MRF
model provides a more flexible and intuitive way to specify
the Markovian spatial correlation, which enables the reflec-
tion and reproduction of the heterogeneous and nonsta-
tionary characteristics of subsurface geological structures.
The developed modeling method is illustrated by applying
it to both artificial and real-world examples. For the sake
of clarity and conciseness, in this work, the previously
developed modeling method will be briefly introduced, with
an emphasis on some new extensions for generating 3D
Please cite this article as: X. Wang, Uncertainty quantification and reduction in the characterization of subsurface stratigraphy using limited geotechnical
investigation data, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.10.008
realizations and simulating common stratigraphic struc-
tures. In addition, examples are presented to illustrate the
capability of the workflow in generating reasonable realiza-
tions using available borehole logs and geological knowl-
edge, as well as guiding geotechnical site investigation
processes through uncertainty quantification.
This paper is organized in the following manner. In Sec-
tion 2, an introduction of the workflow is provided. In Sec-
tion 3, the procedure for generating stratigraphic
realizations and quantitatively measuring the associated
stratigraphic uncertainty is provided. In Section 4, artificial
examples are used to illustrate the generation of common
stratigraphic structures in accordance with available geo-
logical knowledge. In Section 5, two real-world projects
are used to demonstrate the capability of the approach
for assessing the confidence level or associated risk of the
interpretation of subsurface stratigraphy, as well as for
guiding geotechnical site investigations. In Section 6, the
conclusions are presented.
2 Stochastic geological modeling framework
2.1 Overview of the modeling workflow
Unlike common segmentation or recognition problems
that focus on extracting the latent field from a complete
observation at all spatial points (e.g., all pixels in an image)
in a random field, available information is sparsely located
in the test field in the geotechnical site investigation pro-
cess. Therefore, modeling stratigraphy is essentially a task
to reasonably infer the subsurface characteristics (i.e., soil
labels) of the unobserved regions, according to the avail-
able site investigation data and the geological knowledge
of the stratigraphic structures. An inferred possible stratig-
raphy can be regarded as realistic only if both the trend or
large-scale characteristics (i.e., the general shape of the ani-
sotropic and nonstationary stratigraphic profile) and the
noise or local characteristics (i.e., small patches and fluctu-
ations of the local boundary between different soil types)
are reasonably reflected. Specifically, the former is gener-
ally derived from the available observations, such as bore-
hole logs, outcrops and known (or inferenced from
geophysical data) stratigraphic dips, whereas the latter is
based on the assumption that the stratigraphic or sedimen-
tary processes are formed by material transitions in space,
and a probabilistic description for this phenomenon is trea-
ted as the MRF prior (Wang, Wellmann, et al., 2017).
Compared with other interpolation methods, random
field-based models are more intuitive in providing physical
meaning. Since the local and the large-scale characteristics
closely interact with each other, it is difficult to implement
a modeling procedure in which both aspects are simultane-
ously satisfied. Therefore, we decompose the stochastic
simulation process into two stages. Details are described
in the following sections.
In the first stage, a Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) using
the single-side Markov property is employed to generate
 X. Wang / Underground Space xxx (xxxx) xxx
initial stratigraphic configurations, using the information
obtained from borehole logs and known stratigraphic ori-
entation. To be more specific, the simulation is quite simi-
lar to the common interpretation process, where
boundaries of different soil formations are formed via
sequential random field sampling at one borehole location
to start, and are then extended to other borehole locations
based on prior knowledge of stratigraphic orientation. The
only difference is that the stratigraphic uncertainty is spon-
taneously considered in the MCS process due to its
stochastic nature. During this stage, large-scale characteris-
tics (i.e., anisotropic layered structures indicated by bore-
hole logs and the nonstationary stratigraphic orientation
indicated by geophysical test results or knowledge of local
geology) are completely considered, whereas the local char-
acteristics governed by MRF prior are only partially con-
sidered, as the prior energy in an initial configuration of
stratigraphy is not optimized.
In the second stage, spatial points in the generated initial
configuration, other than those at the borehole locations,
are optimized using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo
(MCMC) algorithm to satisfy the local characteristics gov-
erned by the MRF prior. It is worth mentioning that over-
correction by the MRF prior can damage the large-scale
characteristics in the initial configuration, as the large-
scale trend is formed by complicated physical processes
and hence will not perfectly follow a mathematical random
field model. One of the known negative impacts of overcor-
rection is oversmoothing (Tolpekin & Stein, 2009). To
avoid such overcorrection, the initial stratigraphic configu-
ration in stage #1 should be considered as a constraint dur-
ing the subsequent optimization process in stage #2.
Therefore, a likelihood function (see Section 2.4) is used
as a similarity measure between the initial configuration
and the optimized configuration in terms of energy. Com-
bining the two aforementioned modeling stages, the gener-
ated stratigraphic realizations can reasonably reflect both
the large-scale and local characteristics according to both
available observations and knowledge of local geology,
and thereby can be regarded as qualified modeling results
of the real stratigraphy. A flow chart showing the above-
mentioned modeling procedure is provided in Fig. 1, and
the final step ‘‘Stratigraphic uncertainty quantification‘‘
will be explained in Section 3.
2.2 Markov random field and equivalent Gibbs distribution
A complete introduction to MRFs and the equivalence
between an MRF and the corresponding Gibbs distribu-
tion can be found in the existing literature (Geman &
Geman, 1984; Li, 2001). In the following sections, only
the basic concepts necessary for understanding the
employed modeling technique in the present work are
introduced. In the case where the subsurface geological
domain of interest is discretized by a certain mesh scheme
(square lattices for 2D sections and cubic lattices for 3D
bodies in this study), the finite set of elements is denoted
Please cite this article as: X. Wang, Uncertainty quantification and reduction in the characterization of subsurface stratigraphy using limited geotechnical
investigation data, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.10.008
3
by R. Each element r 2 R and any of its adjacent elements
s 2 R are regarded as neighbors, denoted as
s 2 @r () r 2 @s. Next, a label xr 2 L (representing the
set of all soil/rock types in the modeled geological domain)
is associated with each element r 2 R, and we let
x ¼ ðxr jr 2 RÞ 2 X represent a subsurface stratigraphic
configuration, where X is the set of all possible configura-
tions. Under these definitions, x is said to be an MRF with
respect to a given neighborhood system if the prior joint
probability P ðxÞ > 0 for all x 2 X, and the conditional
probability are fulfilled with the following term:
P ðxr jxr Þ ¼ P ðxr jx@r Þ ð1Þ
We further denote the likelihood of measuring the sim-
ilarity between an initial configuration xi and an updated
configuration x as P ðxi jxÞ. A simple way to understand
the likelihood function is that an updated configuration
may have a higher chance to occur if it agrees more with
the large-scale characteristics; the posterior probability
for stratigraphic configuration x, given the initial estimate
xi , is denoted as P ðxjxi Þ. According to the Bayes theorem,
there exists a relationship among these probabilities as
follows:
P ðxjxi Þ / P ðxÞP ðxi jxÞ ð2Þ
Due to the equivalence of MRF and Gibbs functions
(Clifford, 1990), P ðxÞ and P ðxi jxÞ can be further specified
by means of the following energy functions:
1
P ðxÞ ¼ expfU ðxÞg ð3Þ
Zp
1
P ðxi jxÞ ¼ expfU ðxi jxÞg ð4Þ
Zl
in which Z p and Z l are normalizing constants, and U ðxÞ
and U ðxi jxÞ are referred to as the prior energy and likeli-
hood energy, respectively.
2.3 Prior energy
We model the prior energy as the sum of pairwise inter-
actions between elements as follows:
X
U ðxÞ ¼ V c ðxÞ ð5Þ
c2C
where c represents a clique containing soil labels (xr , xs ) of a
pair of neighboring elements (r, s), C is the set of all cliques
in the MRF, and V c is referred to as the prior potential for
each clique c. A classical Potts model (Wu, 1982) is then
employed for V c as follows:

qðr; sÞ if xr ¼ xs
V c ðx r ; xs Þ ¼ ð6Þ
0 if xr –xs
It is worth mentioning that Eqs. (1)–(6) actually show a
commonly used procedure to define an MRF. However,
the specific spatial correlation in the defined MRF,
which directly determines the structure of the modeled
4 X. Wang / Underground Space xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 1. Flowchart of the modeling and uncertainty quantification approach.

stratigraphy, is highly dependent on the formation of the
prior potential function qðr; sÞ. Therefore, encoding our
prior knowledge of spatial correlation by specifying
qðr; sÞ is the core of the established model, since it is aimed
at reflecting the inherent characteristics of stratigraphic
structures. Three main characteristics of stratigraphic
structures are taken into consideration in the employed
model: (1) heterogeneity, which indicates that the modeled
region consists of multiple soil/rock formations; (2)
anisotropy, which indicates that the strength of the spatial
correlation is directionally dependent; and (3) nonstation-
arity, which indicates that the direction of the preponder-
ant correlation strength (i.e., the stratigraphic dip) differs
from one location to another. To incorporate these desired
characteristics into the proposed model, the spatial correla-
tion between soil/rock labels of a pair of neighboring
elements (r; s) is designed to be related to two features:
(1) the label of the neighboring element xs and (2) the rela-
tive direction of element s to element r. For a 2D model,
the relative direction is represented by a polar angle hs!r
from the centroid of element r to the centroid of element
s in a given global polar coordinate system O-XY, as shown
in Fig. 2(a). Similarly, two polar angles hs!r , us!r in a given
global spherical coordinate system O-XYZ, as illustrated in
Fig. 2(b), can uniquely determine the relative direction of
neighboring elements in a 3D model.
First, we consider only the spatial correlation of soil
labels between a pair of neighboring elements (r; s). For a
2D model, an ellipse centered at the centroid of element r
is used to describe the strength of the spatial correlation
between the soil label of element r and the soil labels of
neighboring elements in different relative directions. The
major axis of the ellipse has a polar angle Hr 2 ð p2 ; p2 in
the defined global polar coordinate system O-XY. Under
this condition, the radius length qðr; sÞ along the polar
angle hs!r is defined as the strength of the spatial correla-
tion between the soil label of element s and the soil label
of the neighboring element r, as shown in Fig. 3(a). The
anisotropy of the developed spatial correlation model is
reflected by the unequal lengths of the axes of the ellipse.
The direction of the minor axis indicates the normal direc-
tion of the interfaces between soil formations, and the
direction of the major axis indicates the tangential direc-
tion of the interface between soil formations (i.e., the local
stratigraphic dip). Typically, the length of the minor axis
rmin is set to 1.0; the length of the major axis r1 , denoted
as the correlation strength parameter, determines the
degree of anisotropy in the model. Hence, qðr; sÞ can be cal-
culated using the following equation:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
qðr; sÞ ¼ r1 = cos2 ðhs!r  Hr Þ þ r21 sin2 ðhs!r  Hr Þ ð7Þ
Furthermore, the nonstationarity of the model is repre-
sented by the various polar angles Hr of each element,
which are referred to as orientation parameters and cause
the local stratigraphic dips to vary from one location to
another. In this model, the orientation parameters are
regarded as deterministic inputs rather than variable model
parameters. In practice, such orientation information can
be obtained or interpreted using geological maps, geophys-
ical measurements and local experience. Typically, such
measurements or interpretation can be regarded as soft
data, which can only provide a general trend of the strati-
graphic dips in the subsurface region but may not accu-
rately specify the exact dips at certain local points.
Different from hard data, such as borehole logs, which
need to be satisfied completely, soft data could be partially
satisfied with respect to the uncertainty associated with the
measurement or estimation. However, it has been reported
that incorporating such soft data can significantly improve

Please cite this article as: X. Wang, Uncertainty quantification and reduction in the characterization of subsurface stratigraphy using limited geotechnical
investigation data, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.10.008
 X. Wang / Underground Space xxx (xxxx) xxx 5

Fig. 2. (a) Geometric condition of neighboring element pairs in the 2D model; (b) geometric condition of neighboring element pairs in the 3D model.

Fig. 3. (a) Elliptical spatial correlation model for the 2D model; (b) ellipsoidal spatial correlation model for the 3D model.

geostatistical simulation processes and outcomes (Poeter &
McKenna, 1995; Wang, Wang, et al., 2017; Wang,
Wellmann, et al., 2017). As will be shown in the following
sections, such partial incorporation of soft data is automat-
ically implemented in the proposed stochastic modeling
process since strata orientation parameters only impact
the probability of the label assignment instead of affecting
the assigned label directly.
The spatial correlation model for a 3D model is similar
to the 2D case, except that the strength of the spatial cor-
relation is represented by the radius length qðr; sÞ of an
ellipsoid, as shown in Fig. 3(b). The only differences are
(1) the ellipsoid has two major axes and corresponding cor-
relation strength parameters (r1 and r2 ) and (2) two orien-
tation parameters (Hr and Ur ) are needed to determine the
major extension direction of the soil layer at the location of
element r. Given these parameters, the correlation strength
qðr; sÞ in the 3D model can be calculated using the follow-
ing equation:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2
qðr; sÞ ¼ r1 r2 = r1 2 sin2 hsin2 u þ r2 sin2 hcos2 u þ r1 2 r2 2 cos2 h
ð8Þ
in which h ¼ hs!r  Hr þ p=2, u ¼ us!r  Ur .
2.4 Likelihood energy
As mentioned in the previous section, unrestrained use
of MRF prior may lead to overcorrection of the initial con-
figurations xi , thereby deterioration of the large-scale char-
acteristics of the modeled stratigraphy. Therefore, we
introduce the likelihood energy U ðxi jxÞ to prevent such
overcorrection. As a measure of similarity between the ini-
tial configuration xi and its corresponding updated realiza-
tion, U ðxi jxÞ can be represented as the accumulation of the
likelihood potential V r relating to the soil label assignment
of each element r in the current configuration x and the ini-
tial estimate xi as follows:

Please cite this article as: X. Wang, Uncertainty quantification and reduction in the characterization of subsurface stratigraphy using limited geotechnical
investigation data, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.10.008
6 X. Wang / Underground Space xxx (xxxx) xxx
X
U ðxi jxÞ ¼ V r ðx; xi Þ
r2R
Since the soil labels are discrete variables, the following
form of V r is employed in the proposed model:
 the initial stratigraphic configurations and its correspond-
  l if xr ¼ xir
V r xr ; xir ¼ ð10Þ
0 if xr –xir
in which l is referred to as a smoothing factor. In this
study, l is set as 0.2, and a detailed parametric study of
l can be found in (Wang, Li, Wang, Rong, & Liang,
2016). It can be noted from Eqs. (3)–(4) and (9)–(10) that
the amendment of soil label assignments in the initial con-
figuration xi that results in an increase of prior probability
P ðxÞ accordingly leads to a decrease of likelihood probabil-
ity P ðxi jxÞ. In other words, during the MCMC process for
maximizing the posterior probability P ðxjxi Þ in Eq. (2) in
the second modeling stage, a balance is achieved between
the prior part and the likelihood part. Such balance allows
local amendments to increase prior probability with rea-
sonably smoothed local boundaries but rejects global
changes that contradict the overall shape of the stratigra-
phy determined by borehole logs and local geologic
information.
3 Uncertainty quantification procedure
3.1 Generating stratigraphy realizations
Given the definition of posterior probability/energy, a
commonly used Gibbs sampler is employed to conduct
the conditional sampling process in the first modeling stage
as well as the conditional updating process in the second
modeling stage. To avoid redundancy, detailed modeling
procedures, including issues regarding the algorithm of
the Gibbs sampler, the sampling sequence, the convergence
criteria, and the optimal number of generated stratigraphic
realizations, are not discussed in this paper; interested read-
ers are referred to the authors’ previous publications, such
as (Li, Wang, et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016). Herein, we
provide an artificial example to illustrate the aforemen-
tioned two-stage modeling procedure.
The subsurface domain of interest in the artificial exam-
ple is a 2D section with a length of 40 meters and a height
of 20 meters. The entire region is discretized with square
lattices into 12 800 elements (the element size is
0.25 m  0.25 m). Three synthetic vertical boreholes are
located at positions with horizontal distances of 5 m,
20 m and 35 m from the left boundary. It can be noted
from these borehole logs that three soil formations exist
in the modeled region. The dimensions of the modeled sub-
surface domain, as well as the adopted synthetic borehole
logs and surface information, are shown in Fig. 4(a). We
first set the orientation parameters hr for each element to
0 and the strength parameter r1 to 3.0, which represents
the case of a moderately layered soil deposit based on
our existing studies (Li, Wang, et al., 2016; Wang et al.,
Please cite this article as: X. Wang, Uncertainty quantification and reduction in the characterization of subsurface stratigraphy using limited geotechnical
investigation data, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.10.008
ð9Þ 2016). A total of 1 000 initial stratigraphic configurations
were generated by the MCS process; their corresponding
optimized stratigraphic realizations were further obtained
through the MCMC process. As a demonstration, one of
ing optimized realization are shown in Figs. 4(b) and (c).
It can be noted that the large-scale characteristics of the ini-
tial configuration are maintained while the smoothing of
local boundaries is implemented.
3.2 Stratigraphic uncertainty quantification
After a sufficient number of stratigraphic realizations
are generated, the possible soil labels for each element
and their corresponding probabilities of being assigned
can be obtained. For instance, pl ðrÞ (l 2 L, r 2 R) can be
calculated according to the frequency of assigning element
r with soil label l. According to the computed probabilities,
we can mark those elements that have a probability of
being assigned with one soil formation greater than a given
confidence level (e.g., 95%) as elements with confident label
assignments. The ratio of the number of these elements to
the number of total elements in the domain is then defined
as the confidence ratio. For those elements with unconfi-
dent soil labels, we further employ the concept of informa-
tion entropy and compute its value for each element in the
modeled geological domain according to the following
form:
X
H r ¼  l2L pi ðrÞLnðpi ðrÞÞ ð11Þ
A detailed introduction to the application of informa-
tion entropy for measuring geological uncertainty can be
found in Wellmann and Regenauer-Lieb (2012). As shown
in Fig. 4(d), the map of information entropy can provide us
with a clear view of the uncertainties associated with each
element in the modeled subsurface region. It can be noted
that the stratigraphic uncertainty of the elements located
close to the observational data (i.e., ground surface or
boreholes) is negligible since the observational data has a
strong influence on the soil label assignment of the nearby
elements. In contrast, for those elements far from the bore-
holes, the locations of contact surfaces between soil forma-
tions become more uncertain. Such results are in
accordance with our intuition and common sense since
borehole information can only provide a limited constraint
on the label assignment within a certain distance from the
borehole location.
4 Examples for modeling common stratigraphic structures
In this section, using the example provided in the previous
section as a reference case, we further provide a series of 2D
artificial examples to demonstrate and validate the capabil-
ity of the developed modeling workflow to reproduce some
 X. Wang / Underground Space xxx (xxxx) xxx 7

common stratigraphic structures according to available
measurements or local geologic information.
4.1 Modeling of faults
Herein, we look at a special case where a fault structure
with a known location and orientation exists in the subsur-
face domain of interest. The fault structure can be regarded
as embedding two parallel free boundaries into an other-
wise continuous domain so that the spatial correlation of
soil labels on the opposite sides of the fault is disconnected.
The fault structure can be modeled by adjusting the local
neighborhood system at the location of the faults using
the developed modeling workflow. Herein, we use the same
input data from borehole logs in the reference case but
place a cut in the neighborhood to divide adjacent elements
so that they will be located on opposite sides of the mod-
eled fault. The location of the fault interface is marked
on one of the generated realizations as well as on the infor-
mation entropy map, as shown in Fig. 5. From both the
information entropy map and the illustrative stratigraphic
realization, it can be noted that the assigned soil labels are

Fig. 4. (a) Available borehole logs; (b) one of the initial configurations for the reference case; (c) one of the stratigraphic realizations for the reference case;
(d) information entropy map for the reference case.

Please cite this article as: X. Wang, Uncertainty quantification and reduction in the characterization of subsurface stratigraphy using limited geotechnical
investigation data, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.10.008
8 X. Wang / Underground Space xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 4. (continued)

continuous on the same side of the fault interface, but they
exhibit strong discontinuity between the two different sides
of the fault. Therefore, the presented case demonstrates
that the developed modeling workflow can reproduce the
fault structure and reflect the corresponding uncertainty,
given sufficient knowledge of the location of the fault
interface.
4.2 Modeling of folding and uplift
On the basis of the reference case described above, we
now attempt to incorporate the prior knowledge of the
stratigraphic dips by setting the orientation parameters
hr . A group of sinusoids shown in Fig. 6(a) is used to rep-
resent the stratigraphic dips in the modeled subsurface
domain. The orientation parameter hr for each element is
specified as the polar angle of the local tangent of these
sinusoids. Following the same procedure as described in
the previous section, a sufficient number of stratigraphic
realizations are generated according to the new orientation
parameters. A typical realization and the information
entropy map are illustrated in Figs. 6(b) and (c), respec-
tively. From these figures, it can be noted that the gener-
ated stratigraphic realizations exhibit a similar trend to
the predefined stratigraphic dip that is seen in Fig. 6(a).
Such agreement in the trend of the stratigraphy can
be attributed to the elliptical and ellipsoidal spatial
correlation models (introduced in Section 2), which result

Please cite this article as: X. Wang, Uncertainty quantification and reduction in the characterization of subsurface stratigraphy using limited geotechnical
investigation data, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.10.008
 X. Wang / Underground Space xxx (xxxx) xxx 9

Fig. 5. (a) One of the stratigraphic realizations for the case considering fault structure; (b) information entropy map for the case considering fault
structure.

in anisotropic correlation strength in different directions.
Such anisotropic correlation enables representing the
known stratigraphic dips and generate stratigraphic real-
izations accordingly. Therefore, the developed workflow
possesses the capability to model stratigraphy under com-
plex geological conditions, including uplift and folding.
4.3 Modeling of different layered structures
To demonstrate the effect of the correlation strength
parameter r1 in the 2D case (or r1 , r2 in the 3D case) on
the generated subsurface stratigraphic realizations, a group
of modeling cases using the same borehole information as
the reference case but with different correlation strength
parameters (r1 = 1.0, 3.0, 5.0) are discussed in this section.
The information entropy map for each modeling case is
shown in Fig. 7. According to the definition of the correla-
tion strength parameters, a parameter r1 equal to 1.0 indi-
cates isotropic correlation strength in all directions.
Without a dominant extension direction in the soil layer,
beyond a certain distance of the borehole locations, the lay-
ered structure may not be maintained, and the locations of
contact surfaces between soil formations will become
highly uncertain. Therefore, in a case where the correlation
strength parameter r1 is equal to 1.0, the regions in between
boreholes will exhibit a higher degree of uncertainty than
the regions close to the borehole locations. On the other
hand, parameter r1 >1.0 provides anisotropic correlation

Please cite this article as: X. Wang, Uncertainty quantification and reduction in the characterization of subsurface stratigraphy using limited geotechnical
investigation data, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.10.008
10 X. Wang / Underground Space xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 6. (a) The adopted synthetic orientation information; (b) one of the stratigraphic realizations for the case considering orientation information; (c)
information entropy map for the case considering orientation information.

Please cite this article as: X. Wang, Uncertainty quantification and reduction in the characterization of subsurface stratigraphy using limited geotechnical
investigation data, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.10.008
 X. Wang / Underground Space xxx (xxxx) xxx 11

Fig. 7. (a) Information entropy map usingr1 = 1.0; (b) information entropy map usingr1 = 3.0; (c) information entropy map usingr1 = 5.0.

Please cite this article as: X. Wang, Uncertainty quantification and reduction in the characterization of subsurface stratigraphy using limited geotechnical
investigation data, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.10.008
12 X. Wang / Underground Space xxx (xxxx) xxx
strength; the larger the parameter r1 becomes, the stronger
the anisotropy will be. Hence, a large parameter r1 can
exert a strong extension tendency of the soil layer along
the tangential direction of the interfaces between the two
contacting soil formations. Consequently, in a case where
the correlation strength parameter r1 is equal to 5.0, a very
stable layered structure of soil formation can be preserved.
The possible locations of the interfaces between the con-
tacting strata are limited to a much smaller area.
Adjusting correlation strength parameters allows for
modeling stratigraphy with various aggregation character-
istics, from a clustered structure to a highly layered one.
For a specific case, a Bayesian inferential framework can
be implemented to determine the appropriate values for
correlation strength parameters, which make the generated
subsurface stratigraphic realizations compatible with the
available observations. The discussion of this aspect of
the framework is outside the scope of this paper; the details
can be found in Li, Wang, et al. (2016) and Wang,
Wellmann, et al. (2017).
5 Uncertainty quantification and reduction in site
characterization for real projects
In this section, we apply the proposed stratigraphic
modeling method and uncertainty quantification frame-
work to two real-world highway construction projects to
illustrate the use of the proposed methodology in engineer-
ing practice.
5.1 Geology and observations of the projects
5.1.1 2D case
The 2D case is a project to replace an existing four-span
bridge over Interstate 90 in Sheffield, Ohio. The construc-
tion area is located within the Erie Lake Plain, which is
characterized by low relief terrain. A drilling report consist-
ing of five borehole logs indicates the composition of over-
burden soils as a mixture of lacustrine sand, silt, and clay,
and the overburden soils are underlain by shale and sand-
stone. The location of the available boreholes is marked in
Fig. 8(a). Corresponding borehole logs can be found in
Fig. 8(b). The stratigraphic profile connecting the available
boreholes is converted into a 2D domain of interest, as
shown in Fig. 8(c).
5.1.2 3D case
The 3D case is a project to reconstruct the Interstate 77/
Interstate 76 interchange in Akron, Ohio. Soil samples
obtained from drilling operations show that subsurface
soils consist of approximately 2.6–8.5 m of overburden
material underlain by shale. The overburden material is
variable—it contains sand, clay, silt, gravel, and mixtures
of these materials. A 3D subsurface region of the project
containing nine boreholes is studied using the developed
analysis approach. The locations of the boreholes, the cor-
Please cite this article as: X. Wang, Uncertainty quantification and reduction in the characterization of subsurface stratigraphy using limited geotechnical
investigation data, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.10.008
responding borehole logs, and the created 3D model for the
subsurface domain in this project can be found in Fig. 9.
Since the depth of the investigated region in both the 2D
and the 3D projects is shallow, and the relief is low to mod-
erate, the orientation parameters for both cases are set to
zero to represent horizontal sedimentary conditions. Fur-
thermore, the correlation strength parameters are set to
3.0 to represent a moderately layered aggregation style
under conditions of normal soil deposition.
5.2 Interpreting the interface between soil and bedrock (top
of rock elevation)
In this section, we focus on estimating the location of
the interface between the soil and rock for the investigated
subsurface regions since such interpretation results are crit-
ical for designing an adequate foundation to support the
structural loads. Hence, we divide the subsurface region
into two main categories: overburden soil and bedrock.
The ground surface of both projects, according to the field
observations, contains no outcrops.
For the 2D case, we present modeling results for three
scenarios with different combinations of borehole log data
as input:
Case #1: Borehole #1 + Borehole #5
Case #2: Borehole #1 + Borehole #3 + Borehole #5
Case #3: Borehole #1 + Borehole #2 + Borehole #3
+ Borehole #4 + Borehole #5.
Figure 10(a) shows the confidence ratio of these three
cases under a confidence level of 90%. It can be noted
that with the increase in the number of borehole logs used
as input, the confidence ratio values exhibit a significant
upward trend from 46.16% (Case #1) to 89.19% (Case
#3). Such changes indicate that uncertainty in the loca-
tion of the soil-rock interface in the modeled domain
decreases with an increase in the number of available
borehole logs. We can draw a similar conclusion by com-
paring the confident label assignments and the informa-
tion entropy maps of the three cases shown in Fig. 11.
It can be noted from the results of Case #1 that its area
of the uncertain region, as well as the area associated with
high information entropy values, are the largest. This is
because two borehole logs located far away from each
other cannot provide enough constraint to ascertain the
location of the interface in the region between them.
However, the uncertain region in Case #3 is limited to
a much smaller area. This result indicates that additional
boreholes drilled in highly uncertain regions can eliminate
the uncertainty in the soil-rock interface near the borehole
locations. Meanwhile, the distance between boreholes is
closer, so a stronger constraint can be exerted to prevent
the soil/rock labels from varying greatly. More impor-
tantly, by comparing the modeling results of Case #1,
Case #2 and logs of Borehole #2–4, it can be found that
the soil-rock interfaces detected by the newly added
 X. Wang / Underground Space xxx (xxxx) xxx 13

Fig. 8. (a) Available boreholes in the 2D project; (b) borehole logs for the 2D project; (c) MRF created for the 2D project.

borehole logs exactly locate at the regions with high infor-
mation entropy values in the previous modeling cases,
which are the most likely locations of the interface indi-
cated by the developed approach. Such results can be
regarded as a validation process, which demonstrates that
the generated stratigraphic realizations using the
approach developed herein are realistic.
In the modeling of the 3D case, we also use different
groups of borehole logs to establish three modeling cases:
Case #4: Borehole #6 through Borehole #9 (a total of
four boreholes)
Case #5: Borehole #6 through Borehole #13 (a total of
eight boreholes)

Please cite this article as: X. Wang, Uncertainty quantification and reduction in the characterization of subsurface stratigraphy using limited geotechnical
investigation data, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.10.008
14 X. Wang / Underground Space xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 10. (a) Confidence ratios of different modeling cases for interpreting
the soil-rock interface in the 2D project; (b) confidence ratios of different
modeling cases for interpreting the soil-rock interface in the 3D project.

to the 2D modeling cases, the results show that more con-

Fig. 9. (a) Available boreholes in the 3D project; (b) borehole logs for the
3D project; (c) MRF created for the 3D project.
Case #6: Borehole #6 through Borehole #14 (a total of
nine boreholes)
From the analysis results shown in Fig. 10(b), the uncer-
tainty in the location of the soil-rock interface decreases
with the increasing number of borehole logs used in the
model, manifested as a rise in the confidence ratio under
a confidence level of 90% from 42.16% to 69.84%. The con-
fident label assignment for each case is illustrated in
Fig. 12. Furthermore, Fig. 13 shows the contour of infor-
mation entropy on the cross section of y = 15 m. Similar
fident interpretation results can be obtained by inputting
additional borehole logs.
The above examples are intended to show how strati-
graphic uncertainty can be evaluated using the established
stratigraphic modeling and uncertainty quantification
workflow. For situations where existing borehole logs are
available, the developed approach can provide a quantita-
tive measurement of the stratigraphic uncertainty, in terms
of confidence ratios, as well as its spatial distribution, in
terms of information entropy maps. Such quantitative
measurements enable the assessment of the confidence of
interpretations of the stratigraphy, for the entire subsurface
region or for local zones, in accordance with the demands
of individual projects. In a case where additional geotech-
nical site investigation (i.e., new borehole drillings) is

Please cite this article as: X. Wang, Uncertainty quantification and reduction in the characterization of subsurface stratigraphy using limited geotechnical
investigation data, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.10.008
 X. Wang / Underground Space xxx (xxxx) xxx 15

Fig. 11. (a) Information entropy map for interpreting the soil-rock interface in the 2D project; (b) map of confident label assignments for interpreting the
soil-rock interface in the 2D project.

Please cite this article as: X. Wang, Uncertainty quantification and reduction in the characterization of subsurface stratigraphy using limited geotechnical
investigation data, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.10.008
16 X. Wang / Underground Space xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 12. Maps of confident label assignments for interpreting the soil-rock interface in the 3D project using (a) four boreholes; (b) eight boreholes; and (c)
nine boreholes.

needed to obtain a more confident interpretation, the
developed workflow can also provide suggestions regarding
the locations the additional borehole drilling should be
conducted—namely, the borehole drilled at the location
with the thickest uncertain region or the highest informa-
tion entropy value should be able to provide data that
would reduce the stratigraphic uncertainty to the greatest
extent. With the aid of the established workflow, the newly
obtained borehole logs can be used as input for updating
the model and the stratigraphic uncertainty quantification,
and the cycle of model interpretation and new borehole site
suggestion can be continued until the desired confidence
ratio is achieved.
5.3 Interpreting the stratigraphic structure
In this section, the samples of overburden soil obtained
from boreholes in the 2D project are classified into multiple
categories according to the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) soil
classification system, as shown in the borehole logs in
Fig. 8(b). Thus, the stratigraphic structure of the geological
domain in this project can be updated for a more compli-
cated case to verify the application of the proposed work-
flow with practical problems requiring a refined
classification of soil formations. To obtain the best result
possible, all five available borehole logs in this project are
used for modeling the subsurface stratigraphy. Following
the same analysis procedure, stratigraphic realizations
can be generated, and one of them is illustrated in
Fig. 14(a). The map of confident label assignment under
a confidence level of 75% and the resulting information
entropy map are shown in Figs. 14(b) and (c), respectively.
The computed confidence ratio for the modeled case is
72.23%.
Compared to the location of the soil-rock interface,
given the same observation information, reproducing
stratigraphy consisting of multiple soil categories and inter-
faces is much more uncertain, as indicated by the lower
confidence ratio even under a less strict confidence level.
However, this does not affect the application of the devel-
oped approach to generate reasonable stratigraphic realiza-
tions and to estimate the stratigraphic uncertainty,
conditional on the available borehole logs. As shown in
the analysis results, to obtain a more confident understand-
ing of this complicated stratigraphic structure, additional
boreholes need to be drilled. Furthermore, it is worth men-
tioning that, in such a complex case, the drilling locations
for additional boreholes suggested by the developed
approach (i.e., the most uncertain region between two
existing boreholes) may no longer be located at the mid-
point of existing boreholes, as shown by the uncertain area
between Borehole #1 and Borehole #2 in Figs. 14(b) and
(c). Therefore, it seems that the commonly used site inves-
tigation strategy that uses equal spacing between drilling
locations may not always be the most optimized.
6 Summary and concluding remarks
The tradeoff between the cost of conducting a thorough
geotechnical site investigation and the acquired geological
knowledge for implementing a cost-effective yet reliable

Please cite this article as: X. Wang, Uncertainty quantification and reduction in the characterization of subsurface stratigraphy using limited geotechnical
investigation data, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.10.008
 X. Wang / Underground Space xxx (xxxx) xxx 17

Fig. 13. Contours of information entropy along the cross section of y = 15 m for interpreting the soil-rock interface in the 3D project using (a) four
boreholes; (b) eight boreholes; and (c) nine boreholes.

design and construction is an issue that almost every
geotechnical engineer must confront. To address this prob-
lem, in this paper, we have presented an extended and more
versatile geological modeling approach and workflow,
which can assist in the uncertainty quantification of inter-
preted stratigraphy as well as guide additional site investi-
gation in an objective and quantitative manner.
The modeling technique and procedure, including a new
extension for modeling 3D structures and a two-stage sam-
pling process, were briefly introduced in this paper. Major
effort was spent on illustrating the significance and effec-
tiveness of the established workflow using both artificial
and real-world examples.
As demonstrated in the artificial cases shown in Sec-
tion 4, the developed modeling approach is able to simulate
common subsurface stratigraphic structures conditioned
on borehole logs and prior knowledge. Such capability
makes the established workflow a flexible and versatile tool
for interpreting complex stratigraphy in engineering
practice.
Furthermore, the developed analysis approach is cap-
able of providing stochastic realizations of possible subsur-
face stratigraphy with corresponding uncertainty
quantification. The ‘‘confidence ratio” is adopted as a
direct indicator of the confidence concerning the inter-
preted stratigraphy. The information entropy map further
provides an intuitive visual description of the stratigraphic
uncertainty.
Studies of two real geotechnical projects demonstrate
that the developed analysis approach is adequate in both

Please cite this article as: X. Wang, Uncertainty quantification and reduction in the characterization of subsurface stratigraphy using limited geotechnical
investigation data, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.10.008
18 X. Wang / Underground Space xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 14. (a) One of the stratigraphic realizations for the case considering multiple soil formations; (b) Information entropy map for interpreting the
stratigraphic structure in the 2D project; (c) Map of confident label assignments for interpreting the stratigraphic structure in the 2D project.

the 2D and 3D domains. A reasonable assessment of the
confidence of the current interpretation of the subsurface
stratigraphy can be obtained using the developed approach
based on existing data from borehole logs and local geo-
logic information. Furthermore, based on the uncertainty
quantification results, the developed approach can be used
to optimize the locations of additional boreholes to reduce
uncertainties.
Conflict of interest
The author confirms there is no conflict of interest.
References
Auerbach, S., & Schaeben, H. (1990). Computer-aided geometric design of
geologic surfaces and bodies. Mathematical Geology, 22(8), 957–987.
Blanchin, R., & Chilès, J. P. (1993). The Channel Tunnel: Geostatistical
prediction of the geological conditions and its validation by the reality.
Mathematical Geology, 25(7), 963–974.
Caers, J., & Zhang, T. (2004). Multiple-point geostatistics: A quantitative
vehicle for integrating geologic analogs into multiple reservoir models,
integration of outcrop and modern analog data in reservoir models.
AAPG Memoir, 80, 383–394.
Calcagno, P., Chilès, J. P., Courrioux, G., & Guillen, A. (2008).
Geological modelling from field data and geological knowledge: Part
I. Modelling method coupling 3D potential-field interpolation and
geological rules. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 171(1–4),
147–157.
Carle, S. F., & Fogg, G. E. (1996). Transition probability-based indicator
geostatistics. Mathematical Geology, 28(4), 453–476.
Carle, S. F., & Fogg, G. E. (1997). Modeling spatial variability with one
and multidimensional continuous-lag Markov chains. Mathematical
Geology, 29(7), 891–918.
Chilès, J. P., Aug, C., Guillen, A., & Lees, T. (2004). Modelling the
geometry of geological units and its uncertainty in 3D from structural
data: The potential-field method. In Proceedings of international
symposium on orebody modelling and strategic mine planning
(pp. 22–24).

Please cite this article as: X. Wang, Uncertainty quantification and reduction in the characterization of subsurface stratigraphy using limited geotechnical
investigation data, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.10.008
 X. Wang / Underground Space xxx (xxxx) xxx
Clifford, P. (1990). Markov random fields in statistics. Disorder in physical
systems: A volume in honour of John M. Hammersley. USA: Oxford
University Press (pp. 19–32). USA: Oxford University Press.
Dai, Z., Ritzi, R. W., & Dominic, D. F. (2005). Improving permeability
semivariograms with transition probability models of hierarchical
sedimentary architecture derived from outcrop analog studies. Water
Resources Research, 41(7), W07032.
Elfeki, A., & Dekking, M. (2001). A Markov chain model for subsurface
characterization: Theory and applications. Mathematical Geology, 33
(5), 569–589.
Geman, S., & Geman, D. (1984). Stochastic relaxation, Gibbs distribu-
tions, and the Bayesian restoration of images. IEEE Transactions on
Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, PAMI-6(6), 721–741.
Hu, L., & Chugunova, T. (2008). Multiple-point geostatistics for modeling
subsurface heterogeneity: A comprehensive review. Water Resources
Research, 44(11), W11413.
Jaksa, M. B., Goldsworthy, J. S., Fenton, G. A., Kaggwa, W. S., Griffiths,
D. V., Kuo, Y. L., & Poulos, H. G. (2005). Towards reliable and
effective site investigations. Geotechnique, 55, 109–121.
Juang, C., Jiang, T., & Christopher, R. (2001). Three-dimensional site
characterisation: Neural network approach. Geotechnique, 51(9),
799–809.
Li, S. Z. (2001). Markov random field modeling in computer vision (2nd ed.).
Berlin: Spinger-Verlag.
Li, W., Li, B., & Shi, Y. (1999). Markov-chain simulation of soil textural
profiles. Geoderma, 92(1–2), 37–53.
Li, D. Q., Qi, X. H., Cao, Z. J., Tang, X. S., Phoon, K. K., & Zhou, C. B.
(2016). Evaluating slope stability uncertainty using coupled Markov
chain. Computers and Geotechnics, 73, 72–82.
Li, Z., Wang, X., Wang, H., & Liang, R. Y. (2016). Quantifying
stratigraphic uncertainties by stochastic simulation techniques based
on Markov random field. Engineering Geology, 201, 106–122.
Li, X., Zhang, L. M., & Li, J. (2015). Using conditioned random field to
characterize the variability of geologic profiles. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 142(4), 04015096.
Liao, S. S., Druss, D. L., Neff, T. L., & Brenner, B. R. (1996). Just One
More Boring, and We’ll Know for Sure! Uncertainty in the geologic
Please cite this article as: X. Wang, Uncertainty quantification and reduction in the characterization of subsurface stratigraphy using limited geotechnical
investigation data, Underground Space, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.10.008
View publication stats
19
environment: From theory to practice. New York: ASCE (pp. 119–133).
New York: ASCE.
Poeter, E. P., & McKenna, S. A. (1995). Reducing uncertainty associated
with ground-water flow and transport predictions. Groundwater, 33(6),
899–904.
Toftaker, H., & Tjelmeland, H. (2013). Construction of binary multi-grid
Markov random field prior models from training images. Mathemat-
ical Geosciences, 45(4), 383–409.
Tolpekin, V. A., & Stein, A. (2009). Quantification of the effects of land-
cover-class spectral separability on the accuracy of Markov-random-
field-based superresolution mapping. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience
and Remote Sensing, 47(9), 3283–3297.
Wang, X., Li, Z., Wang, H., Rong, Q., & Liang, R. Y. (2016).
Probabilistic analysis of shield-driven tunnel in multiple strata consid-
ering stratigraphic uncertainty. Structural Safety, 62, 88–100.
Wang, X., Wang, H., & Liang, R. Y. (2017). A method for slope stability
analysis considering subsurface stratigraphic uncertainty. Landslides,
15(5), 925–936.
Wang, X., Wang, H., Liang, R. Y., & Liu, Y. (2018). A semi-supervised
clustering-based approach for stratification identification using bore-
hole and cone penetration test data. Engineering Geology, 248,
102–116.
Wang, X., Wang, H., Liang, R. Y., Zhu, H., & Di, H. (2018). A hidden
Markov random field model based approach for probabilistic site
characterization using multiple cone penetration test data. Structural
Safety, 70, 128–138.
Wang, H., Wellmann, J. F., Li, Z., Wang, X., & Liang, R. Y. (2017). A
segmentation approach for stochastic geological modeling using
hidden Markov random fields. Mathematical Geosciences, 49, 145–177.
Wellmann, J. F., & Regenauer-Lieb, K. (2012). Uncertainties have a
meaning: Information entropy as a quality measure for 3-D geological
models. Tectonophysics, 526–529, 207–216.
Wu, F. Y. (1982). The potts model. Reviews of Modern Physics, 54(1),
235–268.
Zhu, H., & Zhang, L. M. (2013). Characterizing geotechnical anisotropic
spatial variations using random field theory. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 50(7), 723–734.