Engineering Geology 107 (2009) 67–76

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Geotechnical modeling at the city scale using statistical and geostatistical tools:
The Pessac case (France)
A. Marache a,⁎, D. Breysse a, C. Piette b, P. Thierry c
a
Université de Bordeaux, GHYMAC, Av. des Facultés, 33405 Talence cedex, France
b
Ville de Pessac, Service Aménagement Urbain, 33604 Pessac cedex, France
c
BRGM, 3 Av. Cl. Guillemin, BP 36009, 45060 Orléans cedex 2, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the context of the RIVIERA project, the building of a 3D geotechnical model at the city scale (Pessac,
Received 29 September 2008 France) has been undertaken, from several hundreds of boreholes and geotechnical tests. It is first shown
Received in revised form 27 March 2009 how the combination of the lithological information and of geotechnical results can improve thanks to
Accepted 26 April 2009
Bayesian statistics the knowledge of mechanical characteristics in the various alluvial terraces which can be
Available online 14 May 2009
encountered in this area. Secondly the upper and lower limits of the 3D model at the city scale are computed
by improving an initial digital elevation model for the upper limit and by kriging under inequality constraints
Keywords:
Urban geology
for the lower limit. These limits border Quaternary formations which are of interest for geotechnical
Risk management applications. In a third stage, it is focused on the spatial modelling of the pressuremeter modulus. The
Bayesian statistics sequential indicator simulation method enables to obtain the spatial probability of occurrence of a given
Geostatistics pressiometer modulus class. Coupled with other information, the analysis of these statistical and
3D model geostatistical models makes possible to develop decision support tools such as to localise, for instance,
areas more prone to the clay shrinkage–swelling hazard.
© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
A lot of problems in major urban centers are directly or indirectly
related to the geological, geotechnical and hydrogeological conditions
beneath and around the city (Mc Call et al., 1996). For example,
problems of differential settlement affecting buildings are directly
linked to geological or geotechnical conditions (Boscardin and
Cording, 1989; Fenton and Griffiths, 2002; Breysse et al., 2005;
Chrétien et al., 2007). When planning new surface or underground
infrastructures it is vital to anticipate what geological conditions are
likely to be encountered, even before taking any specific survey or
investigative work (Chilès and Blanchin, 1995; El Gonnouni et al.,
2005; ITIG, 2006). In a similar way, the design or management of
underground sewer networks can be improved with an appropriate
knowledge of the soils which are likely to be surrounding the network.
An improved assessment of geometry and mechanical properties of
underground layers would minimize project risks from an economical
point of view as well as from a technological point of view. It would
also help to justify decisions regarding works or urban planning and
⁎ Corresponding author. Université Bordeaux 1, GHYMAC, Av. des Facultés, 33405
Talence cedex, France. Tel.: +33 5 40 00 88 27; fax: +33 5 40 00 31 13.
E-mail addresses: a.marache@ghymac.u-bordeaux1.fr (A. Marache),
d.breysse@ghymac.u-bordeaux1.fr (D. Breysse), christophe.piette@mairie-pessac.fr
(C. Piette), p.thierry@brgm.fr (P. Thierry).
would help in assessing their impact on the natural environment. This
is why a 3D (3 dimensional) geological model integrating various geo-
engineering parameters is a key component of city management.
Building a geological model in an urban context remains a difficult
task because of several factors. In an urban environment, one can find
many borehole descriptions when he prospects among various
companies (builders, contactors) and technical services. However
these data result from successive and uncorrelated investigation
programs, lacking any global strategy. The disordered accumulation of
data does not provide a homogeneous view (in terms of nature,
quality or spatial distribution) of the city undergrounds. This points
the question of controlling the consistency of data, as well as that of
storing and easily displaying available information. Furthermore, the
quality of this information, gathered along city history, is very
heterogeneous. Available geological descriptions can range from the
highest to the lowest quality, and do not always use a consistent
lexicon because the data had not been gathered for a common
purpose. As a consequence, any data have to be reinterpreted prior to
any use. Finally, geotechnical and hydrogeological parameters are
generally available at a much lower density than the geological
information, which is a problem for 3D models of these parameters.
Despite experience provided by several urban-geological models
realized or attempted in the past (Ellison et al., 1993; Maurenbrecher
and Herbschleb, 1995; Morfeldt and Persson, 1997; Bozzano et al.,
1999; Thierry et al., 2000; Auvinet et al., 2001; Thierry et al., 2004)
there is still a need for methods aiming to combine data of different

0013-7952/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.04.003
68 A. Marache et al. / Engineering Geology 107 (2009) 67–76
quality coming from different sources, and for procedures helping the
automation of data management and control.
This paper regards the geological and geotechnical parameters
modeling at the city scale and it is focused on the case of the town of
Pessac, suburb of Bordeaux city (France). This work is a part of a larger
project, the RIVIERA project (French acronym for “Risks in the city:
amenities, networks, archaeology”; Thierry et al., 2006), aiming at the
building of 3D models for various parameters (lithological and
geotechnical) at the city scale. These models would be used as a
decision support tool for urban planning, in relation with under-
ground properties (even if a detailed on site investigation will be
required at further stage of any urban project). For the Pessac's study
presented in this paper, a large amount of data has been gathered from
various geological and geotechnical reports. After the first checking
and correction stage, a database has been built in order to code all data
in a common referential with an automatic transcription from the log
description into the defined referential (Bourgine et al., 2006;
Marache et al., in press).
In this paper, after the presentation of the site of study and of
available data, a statistical analysis of collected data will be performed,
based on Bayesian methods in order to link geotechnical parameters
with depth or lithological information. Then, it will focus on the
Quaternary formation; the upper limit (topographical surface) and
the lower one (top of the substratum) of the model being
reconstructed by geostatistical methods. Finally, it will show how to
obtain a 3D geostatistical model of the pressuremeter modulus by
using sequential indicator simulations. Geostatistical methods are
well-known to study the spatial variability of geotechnical parameters
and a lot of applications can be found for liquefaction potential for
example (Dawson and Baise, 2005; Lenz and Baise, 2007; Sitharam
and Samui, 2007). These simulations will provide information helping
to localize sensitive zones during the decision stage of an urban
infrastructure project.
2. Presentation of the studied site and available data
2.1. Site of study
The town of Pessac, located in the southern/western part of
Bordeaux area, covers 38.82 km2 (Fig. 1). The city is divided into two
parts by the circular motorway. Population is dense in the northern-
eastern part (boundary with Bordeaux city) and slightly decreases
when going south-west, which will explain the small quantity of data
in this area. Fig. 1 shows Pessac's geological map. The subsurface
geology can be summarized by Quaternary formations resting on a
Fig. 1. Pessac's geological map.
Tertiary substratum. Cenozoic deposits include for the Oligocene
sandstone and marls (Sannoisian), locally karstified limestones
(Stampian) and marls (Chattian) and, for the Miocene, two levels of
sand or sandstone linked to two marine transgressions. At the end of
Miocene, the area has been subjected to important erosion. On Pessac,
sparse outcrops of substratum appear in the eastern part of the town.
For the Quaternary formations, the eastern part of the town is
composed of two staircase alluvial terraces (Fxa-b and Fxb1 composed
of clay, sand and gravel) separated with colluviums. Most of the data
are localized within these two terraces due to the higher urban
density. It should also be noted that the different terraces and
colluviums can be mistaken with each other when interpreting
cuttings of a drill hole, if they are not carefully interpreted by a
geologist, because they are composed of similar materials. Moreover,
the sand of the terraces can be mistakenly attributed to Miocene sand
by non-specialists. This is why, despite the absence of tectonics, the
interpretation of drill holes is not easy. For the western part of the
town, Plio–Quaternary formations are clay and sand deposits belong-
ing to the Landes complex (Castets, Belin and Brach formations). The
topography is smooth, with a downward slope in the eastern part
approximately equal to 1/200, while the western part being in Landes
complex is roughly horizontal.
2.2. Available data
The boreholes of the dataset are located inside Pessac's perimeter
(Fig. 2a). Available data in neighboring cities have also been used to
improve accuracy on model bounds. A total of 2050 boreholes have
been gathered for this area. In Pessac, data are mainly concentrated in
the eastern part of the town as explained in the previous section. A
special effort has been done to recover additional geotechnical data
(penetrometer or pressuremeter) by specific prospecting among the
town hall technical services, several contractors and consultants. In
the following, the results for the geotechnical 3D model will be
illustrated with the pressuremeter modulus example (see Section 3.3):
the Fig. 2b locates the 127 available pressuremeter boreholes which
are mainly located in the eastern part of Pessac.
From this database a 3D geotechnical model at the city scale can be
built. Because most of the data is located in the eastern part of the city,
the modelling results will be more accurate in this zone whereas they
will have to be taken with caution in the western part.
3. 3D geotechnical model at city scale
The construction of the model follows different stages. First, a
global statistical analysis is performed on data by identifying relations
between geological and geotechnical data. Then the model sensu
stricto is built by geostatistical methods.
3.1. Geotechnical data analysis at the town scale
The aim of this study is to look for a tool enabling to provide added
value to geological and geotechnical data, either adding information
on the probable lithology (similar to what can be done with Robertson
charts for penetrometric data for instance (Robertson and Wride,
1998)) or estimating the value of geotechnical properties where and
when they are not directly available (this is useful when samples exist,
but without mechanical testing). In order to achieve this, probabilistic
methods, based on Bayesian inference, have been used.
3.1.1. Methodology
If we look at a unique borehole, we can obtain information like: “at
a given depth Z one finds the L lithology with mechanical properties
M”. If we consider several boreholes, the information is different: “at
a given depth Z, the probability of finding the L lithology is p. Knowing
that, one also knows that the probability of having the mechanical
 A. Marache et al. / Engineering Geology 107 (2009) 67–76 69

Fig. 2. Localization of all available boreholes (a) and of pressuremeter tests (b).

properties M is p.” This method can be used for any mechanical data or, at least, poor representativity of the prior statistical
property, pressuremeter tests or cone strength for instance. For information based on small samples.
pressuremeter, one has usually both a lithological description from the
cuttings or from the boring mud, and mechanical properties
(modulus, creep pressure, limit pressure). In the case of penetrometer, 3.1.2. Application to the dataset
lithology is not available, and it must be assessed from nearby borings In a first time, the method is applied for the estimation of lithology
or assumed, with some uncertainties, relying on empirical relations knowing the mechanical properties without other constraints (see Eq.
like Robertson charts (Robertson and Wride, 1998). (3)). Fig. 3 distinguishes between the cumulative frequencies of the
The Bayesian inference comes from Eq. (1): pressuremeter modulus E for the whole dataset and for each lithology
separately. From these curves the P(M) and P(M/L) probabilities can
P ð X = Y Þ = P ðY = X Þ × P ð X Þ = P ðY Þ ð1Þ be derived. It can be seen that the pressuremeter modulus
significantly varies according to the lithology: marls have respectively
which can be used: the highest properties whereas clays have the lowest ones. The
- either to estimate the mechanical properties M from the lithological properties of clays, sands and gravels have the same magnitude,
description L: however they are slightly different. For Pessac's dataset, if we only
consider the most common soils, Fig. 4 shows what kind of results can
P ðM = LÞ = P ðL = MÞ × P ðM Þ = P ðLÞ ð2Þ be provided by conditional probabilities. It compares the probability of
finding a specific lithology without any mechanical information and
- or to estimate the lithology from mechanical properties: that of finding it knowing the mechanical property (here the
pressuremeter modulus E) in the surroundings. One can see that the
P ðL = M Þ = P ðM = LÞ × P ðLÞ = P ðMÞ ð3Þ a posteriori probabilities are significantly different from the a priori
probabilities. For example, without any mechanical information, the
P(M) and P(L) can be inferred from the statistical analysis of the probability to find clay in Pessac is about 18%; with knowledge on the
whole coded dataset. P(L/M) and P(M/L) values are inferred from the modulus, the probability increases to about 35% if the modulus is
analysis on selected subsets for which both properties (L and M) are lower than 2.5 MPa and is close to 0% for a modulus larger than
known. 80 MPa.
In fact, this first analysis, even if it brings some information, as we
will see in the next subsection, is too rough, since it ignores the
influence of several important factors.
Firstly, because of the terrain weight and because all lithologies
have not the same statistical distribution in depth for purely obvious
geological reasons, the influence of depth must be taken into account.
To account for these facts, it is possible to constrain more Bayesian
statistics by combining information on lithology and depth; for
example, we can calculate the probability to obtain a given mechanical
parameter M knowing the lithology L and the depth Z of the sample:
P(M/[L∩Z]).
Secondly the geometrical spatial fabric of layers can also be taken
into account because it can be hypothesized that a given lithology
does not correspond to identical mechanical properties whether the
layer belongs to one or another geological formation. Again, Bayesian
statistics can be more constrained by adding criterion on geological
formation F (P(M/[L∩Z∩F]) for example). However, since the addition
of new criteria in Bayesian statistics will reduce the size of the relevant Fig. 3. Cumulative frequency distributions of the pressuremeter modulus E for the
sample, practical limits will be quickly encountered, due to the lack of whole dataset and for each lithology separately.
70 A. Marache et al. / Engineering Geology 107 (2009) 67–76
Fig. 4. Probability of finding a specific lithology without any mechanical information
and that of finding it knowing the pressuremeter modulus E.
In a second time the information about the depth of the sample has
been introduced to constrain probability computations. Fig. 5 shows
the “statistical lithology” (probability P(L/Z) of finding a given
lithology at a given depth). It confirms that substratum lithology is
more frequent below 10 m depth, but gives no clues as how to
distinguish between sands, clays and gravels. From this information
we can compute P(M/[L∩Z]) as explained in the previous section.
Fig. 6 shows the probability of finding a range of pressuremeter
modulus E knowing the lithology L for a sampled depth Z ranging
from 2 m to 10 m. For example, if we sample clay in this depth range,
the probability to have a pressuremeter modulus between 2.5 MPa
and 12 MPa is equal to 56% and this probability decreases to 13% if the
sample is a marl. However for sands, clays and gravels, a preliminary
statistical analysis has shown that the pressuremeter properties are
not significantly correlated with depth. Conversely, for marls, a
significant effect has been found, with a slight and regular increase
of modulus and limit pressure with depth (in average, the modulus is
doubled and the limit pressure increased by 50% between 10 m and
20 m).
Finally, the information about the geological formation is studied.
The outcrops limits of the terraces are known in the domain (cf. Fig. 1).
This is illustrated on Fig. 7 which shows the cumulative frequency
Fig. 5. Probability of finding a given lithology at a given depth.
Fig. 6. Probability of finding a range of pressuremeter modulus E knowing the lithology
L for a sampled depth Z ranging from 2 m to 10 m.
distributions of the pressuremeter modulus for the clay lithology for
the Fxa-b and the Fxb1 terraces. One can see that, for the same
lithology, the distributions are clearly separated with a factor of about
five in moduli ranges. It can be reminded that if the clay properties are
analyzed in the whole dataset, one obtains the curve “2” on Fig. 3
which exhibits a high range of variation. One of the main conclusions
is that the differences between terraces prevail over differences
between lithologies: in the example, the observed differences of Fig. 7
are greater than the differences between clay and sand for example
(curves “2” and “3” on Fig. 3).
This first statistical analysis has allowed improving the geotechni-
cal knowledge of the city by linking geotechnical parameters to
lithology, depth or geological formation. However, if we want to
develop decision tools for urban projects, the spatial dimension must
also be taken into account. That is why we have developed a 3-
dimensional model of geotechnical parameters at the city scale.
3.2. Upper and lower limits of the model
The first step in the 3D modeling is to define the upper and lower
limits of the model. Because urban projects are essentially concen-
trated inside Quaternary formations in Pessac, the upper limit will be
the topographical surface and the lower surface the top of the Tertiary
substratum.
Fig. 7. Cumulative frequency distributions of the pressuremeter modulus for the clay
lithology for the Fxa-b and the Fxb1 terraces.
 A. Marache et al. / Engineering Geology 107 (2009) 67–76 71

Fig. 8. Upper limit of the 3D model.

3.2.1. Upper limit
For the upper limit, a digital elevation model from the National
Geographical Institute (IGN) is made commercially available on the
site on a 25 × 25 m2 grid scale and with a vertical precision of 1 m.
However, in our database, the borehole heads are located with a better
accuracy than that of the digital model. So we have constrained the
digital elevation model by using the available boreholes in order to fit
this upper surface (all boreholes heads must be exactly on the upper
surface). For this purpose, the difference between the initial digital
elevation model and each borehole has been calculated. It has to be
noted that this checking has also enabled to identify few suspicious
boreholes which had not been identified previously. This variable
“difference” has then been interpolated by kriging and the interpola-
tion result has been added to the initial digital elevation model to
produce the final upper surface (Fig. 8).
3.2.2. Lower limit
The lower limit of the model is the top of the substratum (Cenozoic
formations). In the dataset, some boreholes encounter the limit
between Quaternary formations and the Tertiary substratum and
other boreholes remain in the Quaternary. The first ones are named
“hard data” since they provide exact information about the depth of
the interface while the second ones are named “soft data” since they
only provide a unilateral information: the real interface is below the
basis of the log. To fulfill this condition, the kriging under inequality
constraints has been employed (Isatis® software; Geovariances,
2008).
3.2.2.1. Methodology: kriging under inequality constraints. The mo-
delling methodology is described in the case of a geometrical
parameter, such as the elevation of a surface S separating two layers
with hard and soft data. The first step is to compute the experimental
variograms (see Eq. (4)) in various directions with hard data only. The
variogram represents the evolution of the spatial correlation when the
distance between points increases.
1 X h   i2
γ̂ðhÞ = z xj −zðxi Þ ð4Þ
2Nh xj − xi ≈h
where z is the elevation, xi and xj are the points locations (in 2D), h is
the lag vector separating xi and xj, and Nh is the number of pairs of
points, the distance apart of which is approximately equal to lag h in
the studied direction.

Fig. 9. Variographical map (a) and experimental (continuous line) and fitted (dotted line) variograms in the main directions of anisotropy (b) for the lower limit of the 3D model.
72 A. Marache et al. / Engineering Geology 107 (2009) 67–76
Fig. 10. Lower limit of the 3D model.
This process thus enables the two principal directions of aniso-
tropy to be defined, if such an anisotropy exists.
The next step is to fit a variogram model to the experimental one in
both main directions of anisotropy. The quality of the model is
quantified by cross-validation, which is achieved by iteratively
eliminating each data point from the dataset and, comparing the
predicted value at this point using the model with the real value.
Then, at each soft data location, an elevation value is simulated. For
this, the data must be transformed with an anamorphosis in order to
achieve a normal statistical distribution to avoid biases in simulation
results, and the variogram model is also transformed into this new
space. Values are simulated in this space, in accordance with the
variogram model, and are then back transformed into the raw data
space. Finally, from hard data and simulated data, the geostatistical
reconstruction is implemented using kriging.
3.2.2.2. Application to the reconstruction of the lower limit. To illustrate
the variographical analysis of the dataset of the lower surface elevation,
Fig. 9a shows the variographical map of the raw hard data. This circular
diagram represents on a grey scale the variogram values for all
directions with a lag of 100 m up to a maximum range equal to
6000 m. From it, the two main directions of anisotropy can be identified:
N70 and N160. The N70 direction corresponds to the larger variance
with a non-stationary behavior emphasizing the successive erosions of
the substratum by the Garonne river and the terraces formations. The
N160 direction, which is quite parallel to the Garonne river direction,
shows the lowest elevations differences for a given couple of points.
Fig. 11. Thickness of the Quaternary formations on Pessac city.
From this diagram, the variograms in the two main anisotropic
directions are computed with an angular tolerance of 10°, thus allowing
pairs of points to be considered, even when they are not exactly lined up
in the required direction. The Fig. 9b shows the experimental
(continuous line) and modeled (dotted line) variograms in both
directions up to a distance equal to 1500 m, which is the maximum
size of the neighborhood used for the estimation process. The
neighborhood can be defined as the area around a non-sampled
location where experimental data will be taken into account for the
estimation at this location, so the variograms have to be accurately fitted
up to the maximum distance of the neighborhood. The experimental
variograms show in both directions a nugget effect, emphasizing
variability at small scales, and a range equal to about 400 m. Beyond
this distance, the non-stationary behavior is obvious, mainly in the N160
direction. In order to take into account all these observations in the
variogram model, the model is the sum of a nugget effect plus a
spherical component plus a power component. The resulting surface
after all geostatistical steps described in the previous section is shown in
Fig. 10. As it has been shown in the variographical analysis (Fig. 9), the
top of the substratum deepens towards ENE whereas it is almost
horizontal in the N160 direction.
3.2.3. Thickness of the Quaternary formations
The difference between the upper and lower limits of the model
gives the Quaternary formations thickness (Fig. 11). One can see a
thicker formation in the central part than in the eastern part of the
town. From a geological point of view, these two areas correspond to
 A. Marache et al. / Engineering Geology 107 (2009) 67–76 73

the two distinct alluvial terraces (Fxa-b and Fxb1) presented in is only an approximation of indicator cosimulation (which takes into
Section 2 whose outlines, coming from the geological map, are drawn account the other indicators when estimating one particular
in Fig. 11. An alternative method would have been to consider the indicator).
Quaternary formations thickness as the variable to be modeled
through variographical analysis. This method has also been used and 3.3.2. Application to the pressuremeter modulus modeling
the results show only small differences to those obtained in Fig. 11. The 12 MPa cutoff has been chosen to define the variogram model.
After the construction of the upper and lower limits of the model, Experimental variograms computed in the three main directions of
in the next section we will show how to fill it by modeling the anisotropy which are N0, N90 (slightly different from the directions
pressiometer modulus spatial distribution. found for the top of the substratum, cf. Section 3.2.2.2) and the vertical
direction are shown in Fig. 12. For the lateral directions, a lag equal
3.3. Geostatistical modeling of the pressuremeter modulus to 25 m has been used to compute the variograms and this lag is
equal to 1 m for the vertical direction. As often for in situ geotechnical
3.3.1. Choice of the geostatistical method parameters, the variograms in the lateral directions show an erratic
The aim here is to model the spatial distribution of geotechnical behavior and are not easy to fit (Baise et al., 2008). However, in our
parameters. To illustrate the methodology, we have chosen to focus on dataset, a lot of pressuremeter tests are close one to the others, what
the pressuremeter modulus E. A lot of geostatistical methods are allows to have a quite big number of pairs to compute the variogram at
available to perform such a model (kriging or simulations methods short distances. The variogram points plotted on Fig. 12 have been
with many variants) by using only one parameter or auxiliary computed with a number of pairs greater than 5. Furthermore, the
parameters too (Raspa et al., 2008). In order to choose the most majority of points on the variogram have been computed with a
appropriate method, first and foremost we must think of the final aim: number of pairs greater than 20–30. Ranges equal to 300 m, 200 m
we want to obtain a model which could be used as a decision support and 2.4 m can be emphasized respectively in N0, N90 and the vertical
framework. So it is important to be able to evaluate a geotechnical direction. These ranges correspond to the maximal distances of
parameter value at a location, but we also want to localize zones with correlation between two points of the area and should be considered
poor geotechnical characteristics in order to assess risks, for instance for the location of future pressuremeter tests for instance. Further-
due to excessive settlements or to anticipate over-costs because of more the sill observed for N90 is greater than the sill for N0. This
deep foundations. confirms one of the main conclusions of the Section 3.1.2: the
In a first approach, a classical kriging has been realized. However, differences between terraces prevail over differences between
this method is not the most appropriate one for three main reasons: lithology; indeed when the distance h increases in N90 direction,
both points of a pair are located in different terraces.
• the pressuremeter modulus is known as a noised parameter with
The sequential indicator simulation procedure can then be
quick variation in space (as a lot of geotechnical parameters (Phoon
performed by using a moving neighborhood in accordance with
and Kulhawy, 1999)). So it is difficult to find a good variographical
variograms models and we obtain as many results as simulations, each
model, especially in lateral directions (Moussouteguy, 2002),
• kriging gives a smoothed image of the reality, thus underestimates
the proportion of extreme values. In our case, extreme low values
are very important to define zones with poor geotechnical
parameters for example,
• we want to obtain results in terms of probability of occurrence of a
geotechnical parameter value, which is very important for the future
use of the model at the design stage of a project. We do not want a
model with a parameter value which could be considered as the
“exact” value at a given location. Thus results in terms of probability
are both more representative of the real state of knowledge and best
fitted to engineering purposes.
In order to satisfy these three remarks, we have chosen to use the
sequential indicator simulation method (Journel, 1982) which can
work with parameter classes (and so to reduce the consequences of
noisy measurements). This method better describes natural variability
which is attenuated when using kriging methods. Finally it provides
results in terms of probability by post-processing simulations. The
method is based (as it is well-known in mining engineering) on the
coding of the variable into a series of indicators by defining several
cutoffs. These cutoffs have been chosen here in agreement with the
usual geotechnical classes for the pressuremeter modulus; cutoffs
values are 0 MPa, 4 MPa, 12 MPa and 36 MPa (Philipponnat and
Hubert, 2000). For each interval a parameter is coded at 1 if it belongs
to the interval and at 0 if it does not. The genuine technique requires a
multivariate model (as many variables as there are cutoffs) which can
be tedious to establish. We have used a bundled version which
requires defining only a generic model for a representative indicator
variable and tune its sill for all the indicators of interest (Geovariances,
2008). This could be the median one or any variogram of good quality.
A single model is then used for all the indicators. This technique is
implemented in Isatis® software (which has been used) and is also
mentioned in Journel (1983) or in Chilès and Delfiner (1999). Fig. 12. Experimental (continuous line) and modeled (dotted line) variograms for the
Indicator variables being necessarily correlated, indicator simulation 12 MPa cutoff in lateral and vertical directions.
74 A. Marache et al. / Engineering Geology 107 (2009) 67–76

Fig. 13. Cross-sections of the spatial distribution of pressuremeter modulus classes for two simulations.

Fig. 14. Location of zones where the probability to obtain a pressuremeter modulus lower than 4 MPa is larger than 80%.
 A. Marache et al. / Engineering Geology 107 (2009) 67–76
result being a simulated field of the pressuremeter class value in the
entire 3D domain. The block dimension used for simulation is equal to
25 × 25 × 1 m3. Two simulation results are shown in Fig. 13 for a south-
west/north-east cross-section, in the eastern part of the city; the
figure shows the spatial distribution of the pressuremeter modulus
classes between the upper and lower surfaces of the model.
After a series of 100 simulations, these results can be translated in
terms of probability, by post-processing the simulation results to
obtain a 3D model of probabilities, which is useful in terms of support
decision framework. At each {x,y,z} point one obtains the probability
for the modulus to belong to each of the four classes. As an illustration,
Fig. 14 shows the location of areas with a high probability to encounter
low modulus values; here are mapped the zones where the
probability to obtain a modulus smaller than 4 MPa is larger than
80%. It has to be noticed it was impossible to estimate probabilities in
some areas because of lack of information, mainly in the western part
of the city. To improve this aspect, other statistical or geostatistical
tools could be used such as multivariate tools, which enable to use
information from other sources, like coupling several geotechnical
parameters between them (Marache et al., in press) or using lithology
(as in Section 2).
4. Conclusions and perspectives
Infrastructures are more and more often built on complex geo-
logical sites. Poor field exploration can lead to damage. This paper has
presented tools and methods to analyze classical available site
investigation data. The analysis of geological and geotechnical
information has been undertaken at the city scale by statistical
(Bayesian statistics) and geostatistical tools (kriging under inequality
constraints, sequential indicator simulation). For the statistical
analysis, we have seen that it is possible to build the statistical
distribution of the various formations, regarding depth, location in the
{x,y} domain and geotechnical properties. Furthermore, knowing
lithology provides additional information, since it seems possible to
improve the a priori knowledge on mechanical properties. These
properties can be then modelled in 3D by geostatistics, such as to
obtain results in terms of probability and models which can be used
later in decision support tools. A better knowledge of the underground
will provide a better guidance, for instance, with a more reliable
estimate of requested depth to reach the substratum or layers with
good characteristics or to outline areas which can be a source of risks
or over-costs for civil engineering projects.
The perspectives of this work are to improve our models by
combining various geotechnical parameters (multivariate geostatis-
tics) or by coupling geotechnics and lithology. For this last purpose, a
lithological model can be built (plurigaussian simulations or multi-
point geostatistics tools), like it has already been done for hydro-
geological properties concerning another geographical area in this
same project (Rivet et al., 2006). The analysis of these geostatistical
models could allow us to define areas as being sensitive to the clay
shrinkage–swelling hazard for example.
If a global model is available, it must be considered as a dynamic one,
in the sense of its iterative improvement through continuous data
gathering. It seems thus important to develop a strategy in which the
many actors playing a role in urban planning and building operations
cooperate to maintain and improve a common database. This will
probably never exempt from designing specific geotechnical investiga-
tion programs, but it will provide a best a priori picture, on the basis of
which one can rely for designing the best appropriate investigation
program.
Acknowledgements
This work has been undertaken in the frame of the RIVIERA project,
which is a research action sponsored by the RGC&U network, funded
75
by the Ministries of Research and of Public Works. The authors thank
the project partners for their help (BRGM Orléans, Pessac Munici-
pality, LRPC Bordeaux, DRAC Aquitaine, Lyonnaise des Eaux) and the
Communauté Urbaine de Bordeaux, for providing access to the data.
References
Auvinet, G., Juarez, M., Medina-Cetina, Z., 2001. Geostatistical interpretation of soil
exploration in lacustrine clays. Proceedings of the XIII Conference of the
International Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Engineering, Istanbul.
Baise, L.G., Lenz, J.A., Thompson, E.M., 2008. Discussion of “Mapping liquefaction
potential considering spatial correlations of CPT measurements” by Chia-Nan Liu
and Chien-Hsun Chen. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
134 (2), 262–263.
Boscardin, M.D., Cording, E.G., 1989. Building response to excavation-induced settle-
ment. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 115 (1), 1–21.
Bourgine, B., Dominique, S., Marache, A., Thierry, P., 2006. Tools and methods for
constructing 3D geological models in the urban environment: the case of Bordeaux.
Proceedings of the 10th IAEG Congress, 6–10 September, Nottingham, paper n°72.
Bozzano, F., Anderucci, A., Gaeta, M., Salucci, R., 1999. A geological model of the buried
Tiber River valley beneath the historical center of Rome. Engineering Geology and
the Environment 59 (1), 1–21.
Breysse, D., Niandou, H., Elachachi, S.M., Houy, L., 2005. A generic approach to soil-structure
interaction considering the effects of soil heterogeneity. Géotechnique 55 (2), 143–150.
Chilès, J.P., Blanchin, R., 1995. Contribution of geostatistics to the control of the geological risk
in civil-engineering projects: the example of the Channel Tunnel. In: Lemaire, M., Favre,
J.L., Mébarki, A. (Eds.), Applications of Statistics and Probability — Civil Engineering
Reliability and Risk Analysis, vol. 2. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 1213–1219.
Chilès, J.P., Delfiner, P., 1999. Geostatistics — Modeling spatial uncertainty. Wiley-
Interscience Publication.
Chrétien, M., Fabre, R., Denis, A., Marache, A., 2007. Recherche des paramètres
d'identification géotechnique optimaux pour une classification des sols sensibles
au retrait-gonflement. Revue Française de Géotechnique 120–121, 91–106.
Dawson, K.D., Baise, L.G., 2005. Three-dimensional liquefaction hazard analysis using
geostatistical interpolation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (5),
369–381.
El Gonnouni, M., Riou, Y., Hicher, P.Y., 2005. Geostatistical method for analysing soil
displacement from underground urban construction. Géotechnique 55 (2), 171–182.
Ellison, R.A., Booth, S.J., Strange, P.J., 1993. Geological mapping in urban areas, the BGS
experience in London. Episodes 16 (3), 383–388.
Fenton, G.A., Griffiths, D.V., 2002. Probabilistic foundation settlement on spatially
random soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 128 (5),
381–390.
Geovariances, 2008. Isatis v8 software manual.
ITIG, 2006. A joint code of practice for risk management of tunnel works. InInternational
Association of Engineering Insurers, Münich, p. 28.
Journel, A.G., 1982. The indicator approach to estimation of spatial distributions.
Proceedings of the 17th APCOM International Symposium. InSociety of Mining
Engineers of the AIME, New York, pp. 793–806.
Journel, A.G., 1983. Nonparametric estimation of spatial distributions. Journal of the
International Association for Mathematical Geology 15 (3), 445–468.
Lenz, J., Baise, L.G., 2007. Spatial variability of liquefaction potential in regional mapping
using CPT and SPT data. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (7),
690–702.
Marache, A., Dubost, J., Breysse, D., Denis, A., Dominique, S., in press. Understanding
subsurface geological and geotechnical complexity at various scales in urban soils
using a 3D model. Georisk. doi:10.1080/17499510802711994.
Maurenbrecher, P.M., Herbschleb, J., 1995. Investigating the sub-surface in urban areas
for underground spaces with special reference to Amsterdam. Proceedings of
the 6th Conférence Internationale « Espace et Urbanisme souterrain », 26–29
September, Paris.
Mc Call, G.J.H., De Mulder, E.F.J., Marker, B.R., 1996. Urban Geoscience. A.A. Balkema-
Brookfield, Rotterdam.
Morfeldt, D., Persson, L., 1997. Research and documentation on the importance of
engineering geology in some underground projects in Stockholm. Tunneling and
Underground Space Technology 12, 473–477.
Moussouteguy, N., 2002. Utilisation combinée des essais pressiométriques et diagraphies
instantanées pour mieux évaluer le risque géotechnique en reconnaissance des sols.
Thèse de l'Université Bordeaux 1, p. 238.
Philipponnat, G., Hubert, B., 2000. Fondations et Ouvrages en Terre. Eyrolles.
Phoon, K.K., Kulhawy, F.H., 1999. Characterization of geotechnical variability. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 36, 612–624.
Raspa, G., Moscatelli, M., Pio Stigliano, F., Patera, A., Marconi, F., Folle, D., Vallone, R.,
Mancini, M., Cavinato, G.P., Milli, S., Coimbra Leite Costa, J.F., 2008. Geotechnical
characterization of the upper Pleistocene–Holocene alluvial deposits of Roma
(Italy) by means of multivariate geostatistics: cross-validation results. Engineering
Geology 103 (3–4), 251–268.
Rivet, F., Bourgine, B., Rodière, B., Marache, A., Maronne, G., 2006. Etude des impacts des
variations de la nappe phréatique sur le réseau d'assainissement. Journées Nationales
de Géotechnique et de Géologie de l'ingénieur, 27–29 June, Lyon, pp. IV–49–IV-56.
Robertson, P.K., Wride, C.E., 1998. Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone
penetration test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 35, 442–459.
Sitharam, T.G., Samui, P., 2007. Geostatistical modelling of spatial and depth variability
of SPT data for Bangalore. Geomechanics and Geoengineering 2 (4), 307–316.
76 A. Marache et al. / Engineering Geology 107 (2009) 67–76

Thierry, P., Bourgine, B., Vairon, J., Vinet, P., 2000. Methods and tools for constructing a Thierry, P., Breysse, D., Vanoudheusden, E., Marache, A., Dominique, S., Rodière, B.,
3D geological model in an urban environment: an example from the west of Greater Bourgine, B., Régaldo-Saint Blancard, P., Piette, C., Rivet, F., Fabre, R., 2006. Le Projet
Lyons: 2nd Decision Making in Urban and Civil Engineering, 20–22 November, RIVIERA: Risques en Ville: Equipements, Réseaux, Archéologie. Final report, BRGM
Lyon, vol. 1, pp. 525–537. Report RP-55085-FR, p. 247.
Thierry, P., Raucoules, D., Felenc, J., King, C., 2004. Vertical movements in Paris: coupling
3D geological model and SAR interferometry results. Proceedings of the 32nd
International Geological Congress, Firenza.