1887
Volume 8 Number 1
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Three sites of the Italian Strong Motion Network (RAN) have been selected for detailed S‐wave profiling, using both borehole and surface wave seismic methods. At these sites, the presence of stiffness contrasts within the soil column is found to influence the surface wave propagation profoundly. Advanced aspects in surface wave inversion such as resolution, accuracy and higher‐mode interpretation must be properly taken into account to obtain realistic results from the surface wave dispersion observations. The possibility of mode misidentification and the loss of resolution with depth in surface wave interpretation are explored using synthetic modelling together with active and passive seismic data sets. With high stiffness contrasts, the possibility of mode jumps and higher mode dominance over specific frequency ranges is very probable. This is true also for normally dispersive sites, where the shear velocity increases with depth, though higher mode dominance is recognized as more common in the case of a shear‐wave velocity inversion within the soil column and the sensitivity of the dispersion curves with respect to those layers beneath the low‐velocity zone may be significantly reduced. Pitfalls in the inversion resulting from mode misidentification can be avoided by investigating the effective phase velocity distribution, using active data sets and full waveform seismic modelling. When an unambiguous modal identification is achieved, the results obtained by surface wave inversion are very satisfactorily consistent with borehole data.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2009053
2009-09-01
2020-01-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AstenM.W., StephensonW.R. and DavenportP.N.2005. Shear‐wave velocity profile for Holocene sediments measured from microtremor array studies, SCPT and seismic refraction. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics10, 235–242.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. ASTM
    ASTM2007. D4428/DD482M‐07 Standard test methods for crosshole seismic testing.ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA (www.astm.org).
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BindiD., ParolaiS., CaraF., Di GiulioG., FerrettiG., LuziL., MonachesiG., PacorF. and RovelliA.2009. Site amplification observed in the Gubbio Basin, Central Italy: hints for lateral propagation effects. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America99, 741–760.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bonnefoy‐ClaudetS., CornouC., BardP.Y., CottonF., MozcoP., KristekJ. and FähD.2006. H/V ratio: a tool for site effects evaluation. Results from 1‐D noise simulations. Geophysical Journal International167, 827–837.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BooreD.M. and AstenM.W.2008. Comparisons of shear‐wave slowness in the Santa Clara Valley, California, using blind interpretations of data from invasive and noninvasive methods. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America98, 1983–2003.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BrownL.T., BooreD.M. and StokoeK.H.2002. Comparison of shear wave slowness profiles at ten strong‐motion sites from non‐invasive SASW measurements and measurements made in boreholes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America92, 3116–3133.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. CaponJ.1969. High‐resolution frequency‐wavenumber spectrum analysis. Proceedings of the IEEE57, 1408–1418
    [Google Scholar]
  8. CEN
    CEN2003. EuroCode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance.Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Draft 6.European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. CercatoM.2007. Computation of partial derivatives of Rayleigh‐wave phase velocity using second‐order subdeterminants. Geophysical Journal International70, 217–238.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. CercatoM.2009. Addressing non‐uniqueness in linearized surface wave inversion. Geophysical Prospecting57, 27–47.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. ForbrigerT.2003. Inversion of shallow‐seismic wavefields: II. Inferring subsurface properties from wavefield transforms. Geophysical Journal International153, 735–752.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. HunterJ.A., BenjumeaB., HarrisJ.B., MillerR.D., PullanS.E., BurnsR.A. and GoodR.L.1998. Surface and downhole seismic methods for thick soil site investigations. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering22, 931–941.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. IngberL.1989. Very fast simulated re‐annealing. Mathematical and Computer Modelling12, 967–973.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. IvanovJ., ParkC.B, MillerR.D. and XiaJ.2005. Analyzing and filtering surface wave energy by muting shot gathers. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics10, 307–322.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. KonnoK. and OmachiT.1998. Ground motion characteristics estimated from spectral ratio between horizontal and vertical components of microtremor. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America88, 228–241.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. LevshinA.L. and PanzaG.F.2006. Caveats in multi‐modal inversion of seismic surface wavefields. Pure and Applied Geophysics163, 1215–1233.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. LiangQ., ChenC., ZengC., LuoY. and XuY.2008. Inversion stability analysis of multimode Rayleigh‐wave dispersion curves using low‐velocity‐layer models. Near Surface Geophysics6, 157–165.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. LiuH.P., BooreD.M., JoynerW.B., OppenheimerD.H., WarrickR.E., ZhangW., HamiltonJ.C. and BrownL.T.2000. Comparison of phase velocities from array measurements of Rayleigh waves associated with microtremor and results calculated from borehole shear‐wave velocity profiles. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America90, 666–678.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. MalagniniL., HerrmannR.B., MercuriA., OpiceS., BiellaG. and De FrancoR.1997. Shear‐wave velocity structure of sediments from the inversion of explosion‐induced Rayleigh waves: Comparison with crosshole measurements. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America87, 1413–1421.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. McMechanG.A. and YedlinM.J.1981. Analysis of dispersive waves by wave field transformation. Geophysics46, 869–874.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. MüllerG.1985. The reflectivity method: a tutorial. Journal of Geophysics58, 153–174.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. NoletG. and PanzaG. F.1976. Array analysis of seismic surface waves: limits and possibilities. Pure and Applied Geophysics114, 775–790.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. PacorF., BindiD., LuziL., ParolaiS., MarzoratiS. and MonachesiG.2007. Characteristics of strong ground motion data recorded in the Gubbio sedimentary basin (Central Italy). Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering5, 27–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. ParkC.B. and MillerR.D.2005. Multichannel analysis of passive surface waves – Modelling and processing schemes.ASCE Geo‐Frontiers Congress 2005, Austin, Texas, USA, Expanded Abstracts, GSP13818.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. ParkC.B., MillerR.D., RydenN., XiaJ. and IvanovJ.2005. Combined use of active and passive surface waves. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics10, 323–334.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. ParkC.B., MillerR.D., XiaJ. and IvanovJ.2007. Multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) – active and passive methods. The Leading Edge26, 60–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. PressW.H., TeukolskyS.A., VetterlingW.T. and FlanneryB.P.1997. Numerical Recipes in C.Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521431085.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. SenM.K. and StoffaP.L.1995. Global Optimization Methods in Geophysical Inversion.Elsevier. ISBN 0444817670.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. SoccoL.V. and StrobbiaC.2004. Surface‐wave method for near‐surface characterization: A tutorial. Near Surface Geophysics2, 165–185.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. SongY.Y., CastagnaJ.P., BlackR.A., and KnappR.W.1989. Sensitivity of near‐surface shear‐wave velocity determination from Rayleigh and Love waves.59th SEG meeting, Dallas, Texas, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 509–512.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. StephensonW.J., LouieJ.N., PullammanappallilS., WilliamsR.A. and OdumJ.K.2005. Blind shear‐wave velocity comparison of ReMi and MASW results with boreholes to 200 m in Santa Clara Valley: Implications for earthquake ground‐motion assessment. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America95, 2506–2516.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. WangC.Y. and HerrmannR.B.H.1980. A numerical study of P‐, SV‐, and SH‐wave generation in a plane layered medium. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America70, 1015–1036.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. XiaJ., MillerR.D. and ParkC.B.1999. Estimation of near‐surface shear‐wave velocity by inversion of Rayleigh waves. Geophysics64, 691–700.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. XiaJ., MillerR.D., ParkC.B., HunterJ.A., HarrisJ.B. and IvanovJ.2002. Comparing shear waves velocity profiles inverted from multichannel surface wave with borehole measurements. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering22, 181–190.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. XiaJ., XuY. and MillerR.D.2007. Generating an image of dispersive energy by frequency decomposition and slant stacking. Pure and Applied Geophysics164, 941–956.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2009053
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2009053
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error