Geophysical Methods for Site Characterization

Short Course 23rd of February 2014
Geophysical Methods for Geotechnical Site Characterization
Surface Wave methods

VS (m/s)
Sebastiano Foti
Email: sebastiano.foti@polito.it
(ITALY) www.soilmech.polito.it/people/foti_sebastiano
Surface wave methods
Recalling some basic: Harmonic waves
Variables separation technique u = U ( x )T (t )

2u 2U 2u 2T
=T 2 =U 2
x 2
x t 2
t
2u 1 2u U&& T&&
= 2 2 = 2 (=cost)
x 2
VB t U VB T
U&& T&& U ( x ) = Ae ikx
= 2 = k 2
U VB T T (t ) = Be it = k VB
u ( x, t ) = A e i ( kx t ) + B e i ( kx +t )
u = B1 sin (kx + t ) + B2 sin (kx t ) + B3 cos(kx + t ) + B4 cos(kx t )
kx t = Phase of the harmonic function

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014 SEBASTIANO FOTI POLITECNICO DI TORINO
Recalling some basic: Harmonic waves u = B2 sin (kx t )

x = cost t=cost
k = 2
Symbol Quantity Dimensions SI Unit
A Amplitude various various T = 2
Radial frequency [1/time] [rad/s]
f Frequency (ciclic) [cicles/time] [Hz=1/s] = kVB
Wavelength [length] [m] VB
k Wavenumber [1/length] [1/m] =
f
V Phase velocity [length /time] [m/s]
2f
T Period [time] [s] VB =
k
Rayleigh Waves
z/R
VR
R =
f Animation courtesy of Prof. Braile
In a linear elastic isotropic homogenous medium VR 0.9 VS

VR
Rayleigh Wave Particle motion R =
f
VR
R =
(after Richart et al., 1970)
f

Wave field generated by a point source

acting on the surface of an elastic halfspace
% of total
W ave Type
energy
R ayleigh 67
Shear 26
(After Woods, 1968) C om pression 7

Summary of main properties of R-waves
Easily generated and detected on the ground surface

2/3 of the total energy released by a vertical harmonic
point source acting on the surface of a homogeneous
halfspace;
Reduced geometrical attenuation (1/r) compared to
other waves;
The propagation involves only a limited depth (~ 1
wavelength);
In homogenous linear elastic media: velocity of
propagation is almost equal to VS and it is not frequency
dependent
In vertically heterogeneous media: dispersive behaviour,
i.e. phase velocity is function of frequency
Geometric Dispersion
Particle motion Phase velocity VR

VR
VS1
?
Wavelength
VR = f
VS2> VS1
VS3> VS2
Z Z Frequency f
Stiffness Short Long

profile wavelength wavelength
Experimental
INVERSE PROBLEM

Surface Wave Methods
Seismograph or Signal Analyser
Controlled or
impact
source frequency components
Low frequency vertical geophones
1 2 3 n
VS1
VS2
VS3
Testing depth 1/2 survey length

Resolution decreases at depth (problems in identifying thin layers)

Surface wave testing

Acquisition
Detection of motion on the ground surface
Processing
VR
Experimental dispersion curve: Phase velocity
of Rayleigh waves vs frequency

Inversion
VS G0
Variations of Shear Wave velocities with depth
G0 = VS2
Small Strain Stiffness profile (G0 vs depth)
Z

Acquisition
Processing
VR

Inversion
VS G0
G0 = VS2
Z
SWM techniques for near surface characterization
1 2 3 n
Multistation:
Active methods
f-k, -p, MASW, D X X
Two-station (SASW)
Passive methods
Spatial Array:
Spatial Autocorrelation
(SPAC, ESAC), f-k spectra
(FDBF, MLM, Music), ...
1 2 3 n
Linear array (ReMi) ?
X X

Testing
Equipment
The equipment necessary for a seismic survey is:

a) sources;
b) geophones;
c) Seismic cables;
d) Seismographs;
e) Trigger and trigger cable;
Impact Sources

Energy comparison between different impact sources
14
hammer
13 sledge hammer
w eight drop
autopow er spectrum (log)
12
11
10
7
0 50 100 150
frequency, Hz

Minibang

Controlled Sources
Electromechanical
shaker

Large controlled sources (Vibroseis)
Un. Texas at Austin Un. Arkansas

Transducers
Seismic waves are detected by sensors which

transform the mechanic vibration into an electric
signal proportional to the velocity or to the
acceleration of the soil particles.
The electric signal is then digitalised and recorded.
(Courtesy L.V. Socco)

Geophones
(Doyle, 1995)
Acquisition
Geophones
2Hz
4.5Hz
2Hz 10Hz

Idrophones and accelerometers

Seismic cables: take-outs

Seismographs
Seismographs are digital data loggers that transform the electric

signal coming from each geophone into a vector which is recorded
and processed by a p.c.
The seismograph can have a variable number of input channels
(one for each geophone). The needed number of channels
depends on the kind of survey. (3, 6, 12, 24, 48, 96, 120...).
Channel 1
+ 18
A/D 10
- 16
Mplx. S&H Conv.
+

-

Channel n

Seismographs
Main characteristics:
Recording window - usually (0.25 - 2 s).
Sampling rate typically (25 - 1000 s).
amplification of the signal (A.G.C. - automatic gain control).
dynamic ratio between max measurable value and sensitivity,
expressed in number of bit (18 24 bits).
stacking during acquisition to improve S/N ratio
Displaying of acquired signals
trigger
noise level test
memory
Weight and power
(Courtesy L.V. Socco)

Seismographs

Signal Analysers

Home made
cheaper
specific software
not easy
NI PCI Dynamic signal

acquisition board (8 channel,
24bit, simultaneous
acquisition, antialias filter)
(Foti & Fahey, 2003)

Portable acquisition devices
Useful for testing in difficult logistic condition

Allow all the equipment to be carried along in a single backpack

Trigger


Acquisition
Processing
VR

Inversion
VS G0
G0 = VS2
Z
The SASW (Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves) Method

Signal Analyzer (Nazarian & Stokoe, 1984)
x=D
Harmonic Source
Near Receiver Far Receiver
D X
x=D+X
Usually D=X
Phase Velocity
VR () =X/ t
t
Fourier Transform
T=1/f

The SASW (Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves) Method

5 (a) 5
x 10 x 10 (b)
Signal Analyzer 2 2
geophone 1 output
1 1
0 0
-1 -1
-2 -2
0 1 2 3 4 1.8 1.82 1.84 1.86 1.88 1.9
5 5
x 10 x 10
Impulsive, Sinusoidal or 2 2
geophone 2 output
1 1
Random Noise Source 0 0
Near Receiver Far Receiver -1 -1
-2 -2
0 1 2 3 4 1.8 1.82 1.84 1.86 1.88 1.9
time, s time, s
Fast Fourier Transform

D X
Y1()=FFT(y1(t))
Usually D=X Y2()=FFT(y2(t))
Phase Velocity Time Delay Cross Power Spectrum
VR () =X/ t() t() = phase(Gy1y2 (f)) / Gy1y2 = Y1()* Y2()
Frequency range of acceptable data function of D (near field effects)

SASW two station procedure
200
Im(G12 ( ))
CPS Phase
12 ( ) = tan 1
Re(G12 ( ))
(a)
0
-200
0 50 100 150
1
G12 ( ) G12 ( )
Coherence
0.5 (b) 12
2
( ) =
G11 ( ) G22 ( )
0
150 50 100 150
10
APS 1
G11 ( ) = Y1 ( ) Y1 ( )
10 (c)
10
5
10
15
0 50 100 150
10
G22 ( ) = Y2 ( ) Y2 ( )
APS 2
10 (d)
10
5
10
0 50 100 150
frequency, Hz

Near field and far field
D
< < 2D
3

SASW: rules for testing geometry
Common source array
Common receiver
midpoint array
Heavy sources are used with larger spacing to obtain low
frequency (long wavelength) information
SASW: Assembling experimental data

Averaging over frequency segments
D=12m
D=6m
D
D ===
D=3m
D = 12m
D=30m
D=18m
D 6m
3m
30m
18m
Dispersion curve
700
700
sledge-hammer(D=3m)
sledge-hammer(D=3m)
sledge-hammer(D=6m)
sledge-hammer(D=6m)
600 weight-drop(12m)
weight-drop(12m)
600
weight-drop(18m)
weight-drop(18m)
weight-drop(30m)
m/s
velocity, m/s
500
500
phase velocity,
400
400
phase
300
300
200
200
100
100
100
00
0 10
10
10 20
20
20 30
30
30 40
40
40 50
50
50 60
60 70
70 80
80 90
90 100
100
frequency, Hz
Phase unwrapping
200
0
CPS phase, degrees
-200
-400
-600
-800
wrapped
unwrapped
-1000
0 50 100 150
frequency, Hz
If the range of available frequency is narrow or in presence of noise,

it can be difficult to properly recognize the phase jumps for unwrapping

Example of problems with unwrapping
Same dataset 2 interpretations

Analysis in the fk domain

Using a 2D Fourier transform data are taken in the fk domain.
Such transform is often used
in Geophysics to filter out
ground roll components
(mainly Rayleigh waves) that
dominate the spectrum
(from Doyle, 1995)
It can be shown that maxima 2 f

in the spectra correspond to vR ( f ) = f = const
k P=P
the dispersion curve max
To ensure a sufficient resolution in the wavenumber domain a very high

number of detection point would be necessary.
This can be avoided adding zero-traces or using high resolution
techniques for spectra estimation.

Transform-based Methods: fk
Hz
frequency,Hz
frequency,
time (s)
2D FFT
experimental dispersion curve

receiver offset (m) wavenumber,rad/m
wavenumber, rad/m
MAXIMA
phase velocity, m/s

2 f experimental dispersion curve
vR ( f ) = each f
k A= A
max
NB: 2DFFT requires

equispaced sensor frequency, Hz
Transform-based Methods: fp (MASW)
slowness, s/m
time (s)
p +
FFT
receiver offset (m) frequency, Hz
MAXIMA
phase velocity, m/s

experimental dispersion curve
1
vR ( f ) = each f
p A= A
max
frequency, Hz
Transform-based Methods
frequency- Experimental data

wavenumber
600 fk multistation
frequency- fp multistation
slowness 500
phase velocity, m/s

400
Equivalent 300
procedures
200
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
frequency, Hz
(Foti, 2000)

fk analysis results
1 2 3 24 1 2 3 24
1m 1m 1m 3m 3m 3m
700
sledge-hammer (1m)
600
weight-drop (3m)
phase velocity, m/s
500
400
300
200
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
frequency, Hz
fk vs. SASW dispersion curve
700
SASW
fk analysis
600
phase velocity, m/s
500
400
300
200
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
frequency, Hz


Acquisition
Processing
VR

Inversion
VS G0
G0 = VS2
Z
particle motion
Approximate Inversion (SSRM) 0
1
depth/wavelength
0.8
0.5 0.6
V/Vs
S-wave
0.4
Mapping rule 0.2
R-wave
1
experimental estimated 0 0.5
dispersion stiffness 1.5 Poisson Ratio
curve profile Example with experimental data
VR VS Vs (m/s)
VR* 1.1 VR*
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0
*R
5
3
*R 10
Depth (m)
15
20
25
R Depth 30
35

FORWARD PROBLEM
Vertical particle motion Phase velocity VR

VR
VS1
Numerical
Wavelength
?
VR = f
VS2> VS1
VS3> VS2
Z Z Frequency f
Stiffness Short Long Dispersion Curve

profile wavelength wavelength
High Low Experimental
frequency frequency
INVERSE PROBLEM

The forward problem

Solution of the homogeneous eigenvalue problem
model
(free Rayleigh modes)
H1 1 G1 1 460
H2 2 G2 2 440
phase velocity, m/s

420
H3 3 G3 3
400
Frequent assumption:
4 G4 4 380
the fundamental mode
360
is dominant
340
Stack of linear elastic layers
320
300
0 50 100 150
frequency, Hz
Considering an active source: mode superposition
For simple stratigraphies (stiffness increasing with depth) the fundamental mode is
dominant and mode superposition can be neglected

Usual assumptions
Horizontally layered medium (no lateral

variation)
Only plane Rayleigh waves (far field: body
waves contribution negligible)
Fundamental mode is dominant
It is very important to verify they are consistent with reality

Assumption can be relaxed

The inverse problem

Objective: to find the set of model parameters such that the difference between
numerical and experimental dispersion curve is the least
700
experimental
H1 =? Vs1=? 600 numerical
phase velocity, m/s

H2 =? Vs2=? 500
H3 =? Vs3=? 400
Vs=? 300
200
Usually i and i are fixed 100
and Hi and Gi (or VSi) are 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
the unknowns frequency, Hz
Critical aspect: illposedness of mathematical inverse problems

Inversion algorithms
Inversion Strategies
Trial and error Least Square Global Search
Damped Neuronal Network

Weighted Genetic Algorithms
Occam's algorithm Simulated Annealing

Shear wave velocity profile
Shear Wave Velocity (m/s) Damped Weighted Least

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Square Algorithm
5
Dispersion curve fitting
10 700
experimental
Depth (m)
600
phase velocity, m/s

15
500
20 400
25 300
200
30
100
CHT 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
35
frequency, Hz
Comparisons with Borehole Methods

Vs (m/s) Vs (m/s) Vs (m/s)
0 400 800 0 400 800 0 100 200 300
0 0 0
Castelnuovo Saluggia Pisa
5 5
5 10 10
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
15 15
10 20 20
Down Hole
25 Cross Hole 25 Cross Hole
SASW-fk
SASW-fk SASW-fk
15 30 30
Vs (m/s) Vs (m/s) Vs (m/s)
0 400 800 0 400 800 1200 0 400 800 1200 1600
0 0 0
Pontremoli Pontremoli Pontremoli
site 1 site 2 site 3
5 5 5
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
10 10 10
Down Hole Down Hole Down Hole
SASW-fk SASW-fk SASW-fk

15 15 15

Investigation depth z max

max
2
Vs (m/s) 700
0 400 800 VR 620experimental
ms
max = = 70m z max 35m
0 H1 =? Vs1=? 600 f f max
8.5 Hz
numerical
phase velocity, m/s

H2 =? Vs2=? 500
5
H3 =? Vs3=? 400
10
Depth (m)
Vs=? 300
15
200
Usually i and i are fixed
20
and Hi and Gi (or Vsi) are 100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
25 theCross Hole
unknowns
SASW-fk frequency, Hz
30
Need for heavy sources (high energy) for deep characterization

Active+Passive - SW Tests
Passive Active
Processing
VR

Passive Active
Inversion
VS
Active
Passive
Z
Passive source - SW Tests
Frequency Domain Beamformer
(Foti et al., 2007)

Example: La Salle (site E)
(Foti et al., 2007)

Seismic reflection vs. SWM (A+P)

Quota [m]
1100 DHT
SW
1050
SW
1000
950 SW
900
850
800
750
700
(Socco et al., 2008)
VS [m/s]
Surface waves confirm that second reflection is the bedrock.

Comparison with Borehole Methods

Velocit delle onde di taglio, Vs (m/s) Velocit delle onde di taglio, Vs (m/s)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0 0
MASW ( 1 )
MASW ( 1 )
5 MASW ( 2 )
MASW ( 2 ) 5
DH
DH SDMT
10
SDMT 10
15
15
20
25 20
Profondit, z (m)
Profondit, z (m)
30
25
35
30
40
45 35
50 40
55 LAquila 45 LAquila
60 Roio Piano Pianola
50
65
70 55
(Foti et al., 2009)

SWM vs Invasive Methods
UBC EC8
30
VS ,30 =
hi
V
i =1.. N S ,i
Seismic site classification

(Louie, 2001)
ReMi (Refraction Microtremors)
= Passive Surface Wave Tests with linear arrays
Seismograph or Signal Analyzer
Note: It is assumed a uniform spatial

distribution of sources all around the site
Low frequency vertical geophones
Localised sources not in line with the
1 2 3 n
array may cause overestimation of VS profile
X X
(Stephenson et al., 2005)

Microtermors arrays
Experimental data at La Salle test site
2D array ReMi linear array
apparent
true
v=f
(Foti et al., 2007)

apparent>true vapparent>vtrue
Active vs. Passive
Be careful it is not
the bedrock!
(Parolai et al., 2007)

How to check the uniform distribution of the sources?

Uniform distribution of the source
implies a symmetric fk spectrum
Example of non symmetric

fk spectrum
(Strobbia & Cassiani, 2011)

Some critical issues
Spatial resolution
A-priori hypothesis
Non-uniqueness
Higher modes
1D model pseudo 2D

Limited resolution at depth
(Jamiolkowski et al., 2008)

Spatial resolution
A-priori hypothesis
Non-uniqueness
Higher modes
1D model pseudo 2D

Soil Model
Layered Linear Elastic Medium

4n-1 parameters
H11 1 G
H G11 1
Layer Thickness Hi
H22 2 G
H G22 2
Soil Density i
H33 3 G
H G33 3
Two elastic constants (e.g.
H G
G4
Poisson Ratio i & Shear
Modulus Gi )
In standard practice i and i (or VPi) are fixed a-priori while Hi and VSi=
(Gi/ i) are the unknowns (2n-1) [Stokoe et al., 1984]
This choice is justified on the basis of the limited range of variation in

soils and on the small influence that these parameters seem to have on
the dispersion curve (sensitivity analysis by Nazarian, 1984)

Water Table Influence
Dry Soil Sat Soil
Undrained behavior at low

Poisson
0.10.3 0.49 frequency (f<100Hz)
Ratio
no volumetric strain
Soil Density 1.2 2.0 1.8 2.3 Weight of water filling the voids

Experimental Data
Shear Wave Velocity (m/s)
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 Hp#1 Water table from P-wave refraction
starting profile Hp#2 No water table
inversion #1
inversion #2 Hp#3 Water table deeper than Hp #1
5
inversion #3
cross-hole test
700
experimental
Depth (m)
10
inversion #1
600 inversion #2
phase velocity, m/s

inversion #3
15 500
400
20
300
200
25
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
30 frequency, Hz

Spatial resolution
A-priori hypothesis
Non-uniqueness
Higher modes
1D model pseudo 2D

Inverse methods
From the measurement along a boundary we want to estimate

the properties inside the medium
Experimental data
Model
fit
parameters
Numerical simulation
(forward problem) (solution of the inverse problem)
Solution non-uniqueness
(equivance of several possible solutions with respect to the experimental data)

Example: solution non uniqueness in surface wave analysis
Equivalent profiles from

Monte Carlo Inversion
Additional information can help in contraining the solution

Numerical simulations of seismic site response

Terremoto El Centro 1940
0.6
Terremoto El Centro 1940
acceleration (g)
0.5
0.4
0.6
top
acceleration (g)
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.3 outcrop
0.1
0
0.2
-0.1
0.1
0
-0.2
-0.1
-0.3
-0.2
-0.4
-0.3
-0.5
-0.4
-0.6
0 20 40 60 80
-0.5
te mpo (s) -0.6
time (s) 0 20 40
tempo (s)
60 80
time (s)
Site characterization:
Shear wave velocity model
1D Vs profile
2D/3D Vs models to simulated
S-wave
complex situation (e.g. valley
edges)

Consequences of non-uniqueness
Soil Profile
Experimental Data Local Site Response
(Foti et al., 2009)
Limited Consequences on seismic site response

Equivalent profiles with respect to surface wave propagation are
equivalent also for seismic site response (1D model !)
SWM vs Invasive Methods
UBC EC8
30
VS ,30 =
hi
V
i =1.. N S ,i
Seismic site classification

Mitigating non-uniqueness: external constrains

Site: Castelnuovo Garfagnana, Italy
But:
Top soil
sand
?
claystone


Site: Castelnuovo Garfagnana, Italy Constrained inversion
Top soil
sand
claystone


Unconstrained inversion Constrained inversion
Top soil
sand
claystone

Spatial resolution
A-priori hypothesis
Non-uniqueness
Higher modes
1D model pseudo 2D

Influence of higher modes

460
440
H1 1 G1 1
phase velocity, m/s

420
H2 2 G2 2 400
380
H3 3 G3 3 360
4 G4 4
340
320
300
0 50 100 150
frequency, Hz
Higher modes can be often retrieved but are difficult to be included in the
inversion because they can hardly be numbered.
Even when a single continuous curve is retrieved and assumed to be the
fundamental mode, higher modes can be present and this can drive the
inversion into sever pitfalls.
Higher modes contain further information can therefore contribute to better
constraints the results.
Relevance of higher modes

Synthetic data (Maraschini et al, 2010)
f(Hz)
t(s)
k(1/m)
x(m)
Seismogram fk spectrum

Fundamental mode inversion
Synthetic data: apparent dispersion curve

Fundamental mode inversion
classical inversion
** synthetic
synthetic data
data
classical inversion
classical
classical inversion
inversion synthetic profile
theoretical modal curves

Synthetic data 2 modes

Synthetic data: apparent dispersion curve
Determinant approach: multimodal inversion
determinant inversion
* synthetic data determinant
synthetic profile inversion
determinant inversion
theoretical modal curves
(Maraschini et al, 2010)

RAN stations - Genova (Bergamo et al, 2011)
Subsoil category A* A
z [m] Vs z [m] Vp[m/s]

[m/s]
2,7 715
2,2 330
5,5 1500
4,2 700
- 3300
- 1230
Vs
Vs
Vp

Multimodal Montecarlo inversion
Italian Accelerometric Network (RAN)

Sestri Levante
(Maraschini and Foti, 2010)

Examples: sites having stiffness decreasing with depth

Dispersion curve Dispersion curve
850 numerical - caprock 300

experimental - caprock
750 numerical - no caprock
phase velocity [m/s]
experimental - no caprock
phase velocity [m/s]

numerical
650
experimental
550
200
450
350
250
150 100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
frequency [Hz] frequency [Hz]
shear wave velocity [m/s] shear wave velocity [m/s]
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 100 200 300 400

0
0
4
caprock
depth [m]
depth [m]
no caprock
6
6
SASW
SCPT1 left
8
9 SCPT1 right
SCPT2 left
10 SCPT2 right
SCPT2 left long beam

12

Spatial resolution
A-priori hypothesis
Non-uniqueness
Higher modes
1D model pseudo 2D

Pseudo-2D (3D)
Local approximation of submerged structure with 1D profiles
\
VS1
VS2
VS3

Independent Inversions
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
VR VR VR VR
f f f f

Laterally Constrained Inversion
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
VR VR VR VR
f f f f

The Laterally Constrained Inversion

[Auken and Christiansen, 2004]; [Wisn and Christiansen, 2005]
Full model built up of a number of 1D shear wave velocity models, model

parameters are shear wave velocities and depths;
Lateral constraints couple the different 1D-models. The constraints consist of
the spatially dependent covariance between the model parameters
... and can be considered as a priori information on the geological variation
in the area;
LCI allows for smooth transitions in model parameters along the profile;
All data are inverted simultaneously as one system

LINE 1 shear wave velocity model from groundroll
Shear wave velocity profiles
Misfit
(Socco, Boiero, Comina, Wisen, Foti 2008)

Data Integration Vs model and seismic reflection
Vs [m/s]

Experimental data
Surface wave and

P-refraction array
Microtremors 2D
SW surveys
borehole logs (available)
Cross-Hole test (1980)
Laterally Constrained Inversion

[Auken and Christiansen, 2004]
Spatially distributed local

dispersion curves
A-priori information
Bedrock position as reconstructed from boreholes logs and previous studies

m s.l.m.
(Piatti et al., 2013)

VS profiles from LCI

3D VS model
VS (m/s)
1000
800
600
400
200

References for SWM

Foti S., Parolai S., Albarello D., Picozzi M. (2011) Application of Surface wave methods for
seismic site characterization, Survey in Geophysics, 32 (6), 777-825, DOI:
10.1007/s10712-011-9134-2
Socco L.V., Foti S., Boiero D. (2010) Surface wave analysis for building near surface velocity
models: established approaches and new perspectives, Geophysics, SEG, 75, A83-
A102
Foti S., 2000. Multistation Methods for Geotechnical Characterization using Surface Waves.
PhD dissertation, Politecnico di Torino, Italy
Okada, H., 2003. The Microtremor Survey Method. Geophys, Monograph Series, SEG, 129
pp.
Tokimatsu K., 1995 Geotechnical Site Characterisation using Surface Waves. Proc. IS Tokyo
1995, Balkema, 1333-1368
Stokoe K.H. II, Wright S.G., J.A. Bay, J.M. Roesset., 1994. Characterization of geotechnical
sites by SASW method. Geophysical Characterization of Sites. R.D. Woods Ed.: 15-25.
Park C.B., Miller R.D., Xia J., 1999. Multichannel analysis of surface waves. Geophysics 64:
800-808
List of top ten papers on surface wave methods on the

geoengineer.com website
References for SWM
Foti S., Lai C.G., Rix G.J., Strobbia C.L.

Surface Wave Methods for Near-
Surface Site Characterization,
CRC Press, EXPECTED ON
BOOKSHELVES IN AUGUST 2014

Geophysical Methods for Site Characterization

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Geophysical Methods for Site Characterization

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Short Course 23rd of February 2014

Geophysical Methods for Geotechnical Site Characterization

Surface Wave methods

Recalling some basic: Harmonic waves

Variables separation technique u = U ( x )T (t )

kx t = Phase of the harmonic function

Recalling some basic: Harmonic waves u = B2 sin (kx t )

In a linear elastic isotropic homogenous medium VR 0.9 VS

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014 SEBASTIANO FOTI POLITECNICO DI TORINO

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014 SEBASTIANO FOTI POLITECNICO DI TORINO

Wave field generated by a point source

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014 SEBASTIANO FOTI POLITECNICO DI TORINO

Summary of main properties of R-waves

Easily generated and detected on the ground surface

Particle motion Phase velocity VR

Stiffness Short Long

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014 SEBASTIANO FOTI POLITECNICO DI TORINO

Surface Wave Methods

Seismograph or Signal Analyser

Testing depth 1/2 survey length

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014 SEBASTIANO FOTI POLITECNICO DI TORINO

Surface wave testing

Surface wave testing

SWM techniques for near surface characterization

f-k, -p, MASW, D X X

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014 SEBASTIANO FOTI POLITECNICO DI TORINO

The equipment necessary for a seismic survey is:

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014 SEBASTIANO FOTI POLITECNICO DI TORINO

Energy comparison between different impact sources

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014 SEBASTIANO FOTI POLITECNICO DI TORINO

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014 SEBASTIANO FOTI POLITECNICO DI TORINO

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014 SEBASTIANO FOTI POLITECNICO DI TORINO

Large controlled sources (Vibroseis)

Un. Texas at Austin Un. Arkansas

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014 SEBASTIANO FOTI POLITECNICO DI TORINO

Seismic waves are detected by sensors which

The electric signal is then digitalised and recorded.

(Courtesy L.V. Socco)

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014 SEBASTIANO FOTI POLITECNICO DI TORINO

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014 SEBASTIANO FOTI POLITECNICO DI TORINO

Idrophones and accelerometers

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014 SEBASTIANO FOTI POLITECNICO DI TORINO

Seismic cables: take-outs

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014 SEBASTIANO FOTI POLITECNICO DI TORINO

Seismographs are digital data loggers that transform the electric

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014 SEBASTIANO FOTI POLITECNICO DI TORINO

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014 SEBASTIANO FOTI POLITECNICO DI TORINO

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014 SEBASTIANO FOTI POLITECNICO DI TORINO

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014 SEBASTIANO FOTI POLITECNICO DI TORINO

NI PCI Dynamic signal

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014 SEBASTIANO FOTI POLITECNICO DI TORINO

Portable acquisition devices

Useful for testing in difficult logistic condition

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014 SEBASTIANO FOTI POLITECNICO DI TORINO

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014 SEBASTIANO FOTI POLITECNICO DI TORINO

Surface wave testing

The SASW (Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves) Method

Near Receiver Far Receiver

Geocongress 2014 23rd February 2014 SEBASTIANO FOTI POLITECNICO DI TORINO

The SASW (Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves) Method

Near Receiver Far Receiver -1 -1

Fast Fourier Transform