Performance of Different Transformation Techniques for MASW Data Processing Considering Various Site Conditions, Near-Field Effects, and Modal Separation

被引:28
作者
Rahimi, Salman [1 ]
Wood, Clinton M. [1 ]
Teague, David P. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Arkansas, Dept Civil Engn, Fayetteville, AR 72701 USA
[2] ENGEO Inc, 2010 Crow Canyon Pl,Suite 250, San Ramon, CA 94583 USA
关键词
MASW; Dispersion curve; Transformation techniques; Near-field effects; Multi-mode detection; Velocity reversal; SHEAR-WAVE VELOCITY; SURFACE-WAVE; MULTICHANNEL ANALYSIS; INVERSION; DISPERSION; DAM;
D O I
10.1007/s10712-021-09657-1
中图分类号
P3 [地球物理学]; P59 [地球化学];
学科分类号
0708 ; 070902 ;
摘要
Multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) has received increasing attention in many disciplines in recent years. However, there are still issues with this method, which require further investigation. The most common issues include a potentially poor-resolution experimental dispersion image, near-field effects, and modal misidentification. Therefore, this paper examines the performance of four common wavefield transformation methods for MASW data processing. MASW measurements were performed using Rayleigh and Love waves at sites with different stratigraphy and wavefield conditions. For each site, dispersion curves were generated using the four transformation methods. For sites with a very shallow and highly variable bedrock depth with a high-frequency point of curvature (> 20 Hz), the phase shift (PS) method leads to a very poor-resolution dispersion image for approximately half the experimental datasets compared to other transformation methods. When a velocity reversal was present, the slant stack (tau p) method failed to resolve the dispersion image for frequencies associated with layers located below the velocity reversal layer. For sites where multiple modes are present, it was observed that the four transformation techniques have different sensitivities to higher modes. The cylindrical frequency domain beamformer (FDBF-cylindrical) method was determined to be the best method under most site conditions. This method allows for a stable, high-resolution dispersion image for different sites and noise conditions over a wide range of frequencies, and it mitigates the near-field effects by modeling a cylindrical wavefield. Overall, the best practice is to use the composite dispersion approach that combines all transformation methods or at least use two different transformation methods (FDBF-cylindrical and one of the other methods) to enhance the data quality, particularly for complex stratigraphy environments.
引用
收藏
页码:1197 / 1225
页数:29
相关论文
共 54 条
[21]  
Martin A, 2017, P 16 WORLD C EARTHQ, P9
[22]   ANALYSIS OF DISPERSIVE WAVES BY WAVE FIELD TRANSFORMATION [J].
MCMECHAN, GA ;
YEDLIN, MJ .
GEOPHYSICS, 1981, 46 (06) :869-874
[23]  
Moro G.D., 2003, Society of Exploration Geopgysicsts, P1247, DOI DOI 10.1190/1.1817508
[24]   ARRAY ANALYSIS OF SEISMIC SURFACE-WAVES - LIMITS AND POSSIBILITIES [J].
NOLET, G ;
PANZA, GF .
PURE AND APPLIED GEOPHYSICS, 1976, 114 (05) :775-790
[25]   Tool for analysis of multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) field data and evaluation of shear wave velocity profiles of soils [J].
Olafsdottir, Elin Asta ;
Erlingsson, Sigurdur ;
Bessason, Bjarni .
CANADIAN GEOTECHNICAL JOURNAL, 2018, 55 (02) :217-233
[26]  
Park C. B., 2010, GEOFLORIDA 2010 1303, DOI DOI 10.1061/41095(365)130
[27]   Multichannel analysis of surface waves [J].
Park, CB ;
Miller, RD ;
Xia, JH .
GEOPHYSICS, 1999, 64 (03) :800-808
[28]  
Park CB., 1998, SEG Tech. Program Expand. Abstracts, DOI [10.1190/1.1820161, DOI 10.1190/1.1820161]
[29]   The MHVSR technique as a rapid, cost-effective, and noninvasive method for landslide investigation: case studies of Sand Gap and Ozark, AR, USA [J].
Rahimi, Salman ;
Wood, Clinton M. ;
Bernhardt-Barry, Michelle .
LANDSLIDES, 2021, 18 (08) :2705-2720
[30]  
Rahimi S, 2020, GEOTECH SP, P622