Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics Don't get GSW? Talk to your librarian.
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics; June 2005; v. 10; issue. p. 185-201; DOI: 10.2113/JEEG10.2.185
© 2005 Environmental & Engineering Geophysical Society
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (15)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by O'Neill, A.
Right arrow Articles by Matsuoka, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Dominant Higher Surface-wave Modes and Possible Inversion Pitfalls

Adam O'Neill* and Toshifumi Matsuoka

Department of Civil and Earth Resources Engineering, Kyoto University, KYOTO, 606-8501, Japan
* * Email: adam{at}earth.kumst.kyoto-u.ac.jp
matsuoka{at}earth.kumst.kyoto-u.ac.jp

Dominant higher modes of surface waves are known to be generated at sites with large stiffness contrasts and/or reversals between layers. At many engineering sites, quite often all modal energy is transferred to successively higher modes with increasing frequency. These ‘jumps’ may occur at low (20 Hz) to high (60 Hz) frequencies, and, more than once over the recorded bandwidth, but the common features are that the jumps are in amounts exceeding 50% of the phase velocity, and dispersion does not return to the fundamental mode at high frequency. A nonlinear geophone spacing helps to resolve these modes more uniquely.

Full-wavefield synthetic seismogram modelling reinforces the effect to be due to a steep, nonlinear stiffness gradient in the uppermost 1–2 meters of soil. If a high-velocity substrate at depth is not present, the ‘effective’ phase velocity of the higher modes can exceed that of the maximum shear-wave velocity of the model, where leaky modes persist. When this happens, conventional modal dispersion modelling cannot be applied in the inversion. If an artificial stiff layer is added at depth, jumps across several modal boundaries can occur, which is also generated in a Gibson half-space, both at very low and high frequencies. This is a major pitfall, where mode-misidentification, especially at low frequency, can lead to errors in the estimated shear wave velocity models of over 50%. Guided P-waves also manifest as large dispersion discontinuities, but usually at higher frequency and phase velocities, with buried explosive sources. Although Poisson's ratio has a strong influence of the generation of—and frequencies of transitions to—dominant higher modes, the higher-mode phase velocities themselves are relatively independent of shallow P-wave velocity.







JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Environmental & Engineering Geophysical Society