Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Park, C. B. Articles by Miller, R. D. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Roadside Passive Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW)

¹ Park Seismic LLC 2 Balsam Circle, Shelton, CT 06484 choon{at}parkseismic.com
² Kansas Geological Survey, University of Kansas 1930 Constant Avenue, Lawrence, Kansas 66047-3726 rmiller{at}kgs.ku.edu

A 2-D receiver array, such as a cross or circular type, should be used in a passive surface wave survey to provide the most accurate results. It is often not possible to secure such a spacious area, however, especially if the survey has to take place in an urban area. A passive version of the multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) method is described that can be implemented with the conventional linear receiver array deployed alongside a road. Offline, instead of inline, nature of source points on the road is accounted for during dispersion analysis by scanning recorded wavefields through 180-deg azimuth range to separate wavefields from different azimuths and propagated with different phase velocities. Next, these wave fields are summed together along the azimuth axis to yield the azimuth-resolved phase velocity information for a given frequency. In addition, it is attempted to account for the cylindrical, instead of planar, nature of surface wave propagation that often occurs due to the proximity of source points, by considering the distance between a receiver and a possible source point. Performance of the processing schemes is compared to performance of the scheme that accounts for inline propagation only. Comparisons made with field data sets showed that the latter scheme resulted in overestimation of phase velocities up to 30 percent, whereas the overestimation could be reduced to less than 10 percent if these natures are accounted for according to the proposed schemes.