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 Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Search for Related Content

Questionnaire Results

A total of 16 people responded, comprising 7 from Europe, 6 from North America and 3 from Asia-Australia. Only 2 were purely commercial operators, with 13 from research institutions and one person doing both. Of course, a larger, more balanced commercial versus academic participation would have been desirable. Both commercial operators purchased both hardware and software. Of the researchers, all but two developed their own analysis and inversion software, but only one developed both hardware and software in-house. Selected results are now presented statistically and verbatim in tables.

Tables 1 to 3 show the comments received with respect to the questions on practical applications and limitations. Table 1 shows the broad range of field methods and depth penetration achieved with surface wave surveys. In Table 2, it appears that gross, site stiffness evaluation, down to about 20 m maximum depth, is the most common successful application of seismic surface waves. As seen in Table 3, half of the contributors preferred not to give figures on estimated model accuracy with depth, suggesting the strong site-dependency of results.