Advertisement

New Trends: HS, MAAM and Beyond

  • Giancarlo Dal MoroEmail author
Chapter
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter focuses on two state-of-the-art techniques for the analysis of surface wave dispersion: HS (Holistic analysis of Surface waves) and MAAM (Miniature Array Analysis of Microtremors). HS is based on the analysis of active data recorded by a single 3-component (3C) geophone deployed at a fixed distance (offset) from the source. MAAM is a passive methodology aimed at the determination of the Rayleigh-wave dispersion curve from the data collected by very few geophones (4 or 6) deployed symmetrically around a circle with a radius of just few (2–3) meters. From a practical point of view, MAAM and HS have in common the fact that the field equipment is extremely simple and the acquisition procedures extremely straightforward. HS and MAAM data can be easily integrated with the HVSR and provide a well-constrained (i.e. robust) subsurface model. Since the HS methodology also allows to analyze the actual Rayleigh-wave Particle Motion (RPM), a series of facts and case studies are presented in order to make the reader familiar with this observable (to include in the data joint inversion both in case of single- and multi-offset data).

References

  1. Albarello D, Lunedei E (2010) Alternative interpretations of horizontal to vertical spectral ratios of ambient vibrations: new insights from theoretical modeling. Bull Earthq Eng 8:519–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhattacharya SN (1983) Higher order accuracy in multiple filter technique. Bull Seismol Soc Am 73:1395–1406Google Scholar
  3. Bonnefoy-Claudet S, Köhler A, Cornou C, Wathelet M, Bard P-Y (2008) Effects of Love waves on microtremor H/V ratio. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:288–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown RJ, Stewart RR, Lawton DC (2002) A proposed polarity standard for multicomponent seismic data. Geophysics 67:1028–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cercato M (2018) Sensitivity of Rayleigh wave ellipticity and implications for surface wave inversion. Geophys J Int 213:489–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cho I, Tada T, Shinozaki Y (2006a) New methods of microtremor exploration: the centerless circular array method and two-radius method. In: Proceedings of the third international symposium on the effects of surface geology on seismic motion, Grenoble (France), 30 Aug–1 Sept, pp 335–344Google Scholar
  7. Cho I, Tada T, Shinozaki Y (2006b) Centerless circular array method: inferring phase velocities of Rayleigh waves in broad wavelength ranges using microtremor records. J Gophys Res 111:B09315.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JB004235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cho I, Senna S, Fujiwara H (2013) Miniature array analysis of microtremors. Geophysics 78:KS13–KS23Google Scholar
  9. Dal Moro G (2010) Insights on surface-wave dispersion curves and HVSR: joint analysis via Pareto optimality. J Appl Geophys 72:29–140Google Scholar
  10. Dal Moro G (2014) Surface wave analysis for near surface applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 252 pp. ISBN 978-0-12-800770-9Google Scholar
  11. Dal Moro G (2019a) Surface wave analysis: improving the accuracy of the shear-wave velocity profile through the efficient joint acquisition and Full Velocity Spectrum (FVS) analysis of Rayleigh and Love waves. Explor Geophys.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08123985.2019.1606202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dal Moro G (2019b) Effective active and passive seismics for the characterization of urban and remote areas: four channels for seven objective functions. Pure appl Geophys 176:1445–1465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dal Moro G, Ferigo F (2011) Joint inversion of Rayleigh and Love wave dispersion curves for near-surface studies: criteria and improvements. J Appl Geophys 75:573–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dal Moro G, Pipan M (2007) Joint inversion of surface wave dispersion curves and reflection travel times via multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. J Appl Geophys 61:56–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dal Moro G, Puzzilli LM (2017) Single- and multi-component inversion of Rayleigh waves acquired by a single 3-component geophone: an illustrative case study. Acta Geodyn Geomater 14 (4, 188):431–444.  https://doi.org/10.13168/agg.2017.0024
  16. Dal Moro G, Keller L, Poggi V (2015a) A comprehensive seismic characterization via multi-component analysis of active and passive data. First Break 33:45–53Google Scholar
  17. Dal Moro G, Ponta R, Mauro R (2015b) Unconventional optimized surface wave acquisition and analysis: comparative tests in a perilagoon area. J Appl Geophys 114:158–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dal Moro G, Moura RM, Moustafa SR (2015c) Multi-component joint analysis of surface waves. J Appl Geophys 119:128–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dal Moro G, Moustafa SR, Keller L, Al-Arifi N, Moustafa SR (2016) Shear-wave velocity profiling according to three alternative approaches: a comparative case study. J Appl Geophys 134:112–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dal Moro G, Al-Arifi N, Moustafa SR (2017a) Improved holistic analysis of Rayleigh waves for single- and multi-offset data: joint inversion of Rayleigh-wave particle motion and vertical- and radial-component velocity spectra. Pure Appl Geophys 175:67–88.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-017-1694-8 (open access)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dal Moro G, Al-Arifi N, Moustafa SR (2017b) Analysis of Rayleigh-wave particle motion from active seismics. Bull Seismol Soc Am 107:51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dal Moro G, Weber T, Keller L (2018) Gaussian-filtered Horizontal Motion (GHM) plots of non-synchronous ambient microtremors for the identification of flexural and torsional modes of a building. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 112:243–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dal Moro G, Al-Arifi N, Moustafa SR (2019) On the efficient acquisition and holistic analysis of Rayleigh waves: technical aspects and two comparative case studies. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 125. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267726118310613
  24. Dziewonski A, Bloch S, Landisman N (1969) A technique for the analysis of transient seismic signals. Bull Seismol Soc Am 59:427–444Google Scholar
  25. Fang L, Wu J, Ding Z, Panza GF (2010) High resolution Rayleigh wave group velocity tomography in North China from ambient seismic noise. Geophys J Int 181:1171–1182Google Scholar
  26. Ikeda T, Matsuoka T, Tsuji T, Hayashi K (2012) Multimode inversion with amplitude response of surface waves in the spatial autocorrelation method. Geophys J Int 190:541–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Karray M, Lefebvre G (2008) Significance and evaluation of Poisson’s ratio in Rayleigh wave testing. Can Geotech J 45:624–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levshin AL, Pisarenko VF, Pogrebinsky GA (1972) On a frequency-time analysis of oscillations. Ann Geophys 128:211–218Google Scholar
  29. Malischewsky PG, Scherbaum F, Lomnitz C, Tuan TT, Wuttke F, Shamir G (2008) The domain of existence of prograde Rayleigh wave particle motion for simple models. Wave Motion 45:556–564.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wavemoti.2007.11.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Natale M, Nunziata C, Panza GF (2004) FTAN method for the detailed definition of Vs in urban areas. In: 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, p 2694Google Scholar
  31. Nguyen XN, Dahm T, Grevemeyer I (2009) Inversion of Scholte wave dispersion and waveform modeling for shallow structure of the Ninetyeast ridge. J Seismol 13:543–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pan L, Chen X, Wang J, Yang Z, Zhang D (2019) Sensitivity analysis of dispersion curves of Rayleigh waves with fundamental and higher modes. Geophys J Int 216:1276–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pardalos PM, Migdalas A, Pitsoulis L (eds) (2008) Pareto optimality, game theory and equilibria. Springer, New York. ISBN 978-0-387-77247-9Google Scholar
  34. Ritzwoller MH, Levshin AL (1998) Eurasian surface wave tomography: group velocities. J Geophys Res 103:4839–4878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ritzwoller MH, Levshin AL (2002) Estimating shallow shear velocities with marine multi-component seismic data. Geophysics 67:1991–2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ritzwoller MH, Shapiro NM, Barmin MP, Levshin AL (2002) Global surface wave diffraction tomography. J Geophys Res 107:B12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tada T, Cho I, Shinozaki Y (2007) Beyond the SPAC method: exploiting the wealth of circular-array methods for microtremor exploration. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97:2080–2095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tanimoto T, Rivera L (2005) Prograde Rayleigh wave motion. Geophys J Int 162:399–405.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2005.02481.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tokimatsu K, Tamura S, Kojima H (1992) Effects of multiple modes on Rayleigh wave dispersion characteristics. J Geotech Eng ASCE 118:1529–1543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Trifunac MD (2009) The role of strong motion rotations in the response of structures near earthquake faults. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29:382–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Urban L, Cichowicz A, Vaccari F (1993) Computation of analytical partial derivatives of phase and group velocities for Rayleigh waves with respect to structural parameters. Stud Geophys Geod 37:14–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Veldhuizen DA, Lamont GB (2000) Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: analyzing the state-of-the-art. Evolut Comput 8:125–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yang Y, Ritzwoller MH, Levshin AL, Shapiro NM (2007) Ambient noise Rayleigh wave tomography across Europe. Geophys J Int 168:259–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhou Y, Dahlen FA, Nolet G (2004) 3-D sensitivity kernels for surface-wave observables. Geophys J Int 158:142–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Rock Structure and MechanicsAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicPragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.EliosoftUdineItaly

Personalised recommendations