Geology topics

Alan Yong

Publications and source records attributed to Alan Yong.

24 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

USGS2018

Application of microtremor horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio (MHVSR) analysis for site characterization: State of the art

Nakamura (Q Rep Railway Tech Res Inst 30:25–33, 1989) p opularized the application of the horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio (HVSR) analysis of microtremor (seismic noise or ambient vibration) recordings to estimate the predominant frequency and amplification factor of earthquake shaking. During the following quarter century, popularity in the microtremor HVSR (MHVSR) method grew; studies have verified the stability of a site’s MHVSR response over time and validated the MHVSR response with that of earthquake HVSR response. Today, MHVSR analysis is a popular reconnaissance tool used worldwide for seismic microzonation and earthquake site characterization in numerous regions, specifically, in the mapping of site period or fundamental frequency and inverted for shear-wave velocity depth profiles, respectively. However, the ubiquity of MHVSR analysis is predominantly a consequence of its ease in application rather than our full understanding of its theory. We present the state of the art in MHVSR analyses in terms of the development of its theoretical basis, current state of practice, and we comment on its future for applications in earthquake site characterization.

Surveys in Geophysics↗

USGS2018

A proposed seismic velocity profile database model

We describe the data model that we intend to use in a publicly available site profile database under development for the United States. The initial implementation of the database contains data from California. Currently, our prototype data model consists of JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format files for storing metadata and data. For a site to be included in the database, the minimum metadata requirements are geodetic coordinates and elevation values, and the minimum data requirement is a shear-wave velocity profile. The JSON files are structured in a hierarchal manner to store metadata and data using a nested structure consisting of location, velocity profiles, dispersion curve data (for surface-wave methods), geotechnical data, and horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratios. The database schema at the current stage of the project, and as we continue to develop the data model we will consider including other relevant data, as well as evaluate other file formats to increase the efficiency of data storage and querying. In the current data model, location information includes site geodetic values (latitude, longitude, and elevation) and various site descriptors related to surface geology, geomorphic terrain category, slope gradient at various resolutions, and a geotechnical site category. Velocity data include the geophysical method(s) used to obtain the shear-wave velocity profile, type of data recorded, modeled primary- and shear-wave velocity as a function of depth, modeled profile maximum depth, and the calculated VS30 value. In the case of surface-wave based data, dispersion curve data can be recorded in data structure as phase velocity versus either wavelength or frequency. Geotechnical data includes boring logs penetration resistance, cone penetration test sounding logs, and laboratory index test results. Horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio plots are given as a function of frequency.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2017

Geophysical characterization of seismic station sites in the United States – The importance of a flexible, multi-method approach

Noninvasive geophysical site characterization methods were used in two recent projects to obtain shear-wave velocity (VS) profiles to a minimum depth of 30 m and the time-averaged VS of the upper 30 meters (VS30) at seismic station sites. These projects include the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funded U.S. Geological Survey site characterization project for 191 sites in California and the Central-eastern United States (CEUS), and the 2012 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) funded project for 33 additional CEUS sites. These sites are located in rural to urban settings with topographic conditions ranging from relatively flat sedimentary basins to mountaintop ridges. About 60 percent of the ARRA sites and 80 percent of the EPRI sites are located on rock or have thin sediment cover over rock, including Quaternary volcanic rock, Tertiary sediments and sedimentary rock, and Mesozoic (or older) crystalline or sedimentary rock. The remaining sites consist of thick sequences of Quaternary sediments overlying older sediments and rock. ARRA sites were characterized using non-invasive active and passive surface-wave methods, including the horizontal-tovertical spectral ratio (HVSR) method and one or more of the following: spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW), multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW; Rayleigh and Love waves) and, occasionally, array microtremor (linear and 2-D arrays) methods. P-wave seismic refraction data were also acquired at rock and shallow-rock sites. S-wave seismic refraction and/or Love-wave MASW methods were applied at sites where characterization proved difficult with Rayleighwave methods. Based on our experience from the ARRA project, we acquired Rayleigh- and Love-wave based MASW and P- and S-wave refraction data for the EPRI project at CEUS sites. The HVSR method was found to be useful for identifying shallow-rock sites and for evaluating the relative variability of the depth-to-rock interface beneath the seismic station and the testing array(s). The fundamental mode modeling assumption was generally valid at most of these sites; nevertheless, multi-mode or effective-mode modeling routines were occasionally required, particularly in the case of shallow high-velocity layers. Deep sediment sites were characterized using active and, when appropriate, passive surface-wave based methods. Rock and shallow sediment sites were generally more challenging to characterize than deep sediment sites. About 10 percent of rock sites could not be characterized using surface wave methods, thus these sites were characterized using body-wave refraction methods. Love wave methods were found to be more effective than Rayleigh wave methods at some rock and shallow-rock sites (e.g., sites with shallow rock and sites with a thin low-velocity, highly attenuating surface layer). Lateral velocity variability was found to be very common at rock and shallow-rock sites, often causing significant scatter in the surface-wave dispersion data. Seismic refraction models have demonstrated that it may not be unusual for VS30 to vary by 20 percent, or more, over small distances (several tens of meters) at such sites. Based on these experiences, it is important to consider the application of combinations of methods when using noninvasive geophysical approaches to characterize seismic site conditions.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2016

Compilation of V S 30 Data for the United States

V S 30 , the time-averaged shear-wave velocity ( V S ) to a depth of 30 meters, is a key index adopted by the earthquake engineering community to account for seismic site conditions. V S 30 is typically based on geophysical measurements of V S derived from invasive and noninvasive techniques at sites of interest. Owing to cost considerations, as well as logistical and environmental concerns, V S 30 data are sparse or not readily available for most areas. Where data are available, V S 30 values are often assembled in assorted formats that are accessible from disparate and (or) impermanent Web sites. To help remedy this situation, we compiled V S 30 measurements obtained by studies funded by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and other governmental agencies. Thus far, we have compiled V S 30 values for 2,997 sites in the United States, along with metadata for each measurement from government-sponsored reports, Web sites, and scientific and engineering journals. Most of the data in our V S 30 compilation originated from publications directly reporting the work of field investigators. A small subset (less than 20 percent) of V S 30 values was previously compiled by the USGS and other research institutions. Whenever possible, V S 30 originating from these earlier compilations were crosschecked against published reports. Both downhole and surface-based V S 30 estimates are represented in our V S 30 compilation. Most of the V S 30 data are for sites in the western contiguous United States (2,141 sites), whereas 786 V S 30 values are for sites in the Central and Eastern United States; 70 values are for sites in other parts of the United States, including Alaska (15 sites), Hawaii (30 sites), and Puerto Rico (25 sites). An interactive map is hosted on the primary USGS Web site for accessing V S 30 data ( https://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/vs30/us/ ).

Data Series↗

USGS2013

ARRA-funded V S30 measurements using multi-technique approach at strong-motion stations in California and central-eastern United States

Funded by the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), we conducted geophysical site characterizations at 191 strong-motion stations: 187 in California and 4 in the Central-Eastern United States (CEUS). The geophysical methods used at each site included passive and active surface-wave and body-wave techniques. Multiple techniques were used at most sites, with the goal of robustly determining VS (shear-wave velocity) profiles and V S30 (the time-averaged shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 meters depth). These techniques included: horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio (HVSR), two-dimensional (2-D) array microtremor (AM), refraction microtremor (ReMi™), spectral analysis of surface wave (SASW), multi-channel analysis of surface waves (Rayleigh wave: MAS R W; and Love wave: MAS L W), and compressional- and shear-wave refraction. Of the selected sites, 47 percent have crystalline, volcanic, or sedimentary rock at the surface or at relatively shallow depth, and 53 percent are of Quaternary sediments located in either rural or urban environments. Calculated values of VS30 span almost the full range of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Site Classes, from D (stiff soils) to B (rock). The NEHRP Site Classes based on V S30 range from being consistent with the Class expected from analysis of surficial geology, to being one or two Site Classes below expected. In a few cases where differences between the observed and expected Site Class occurred, it was the consequence of inaccurate or coarse geologic mapping, as well as considerable degradation of the near-surface rock. Additionally, several sites mapped as rock have Site Class D (stiff soil) velocities, which is due to the extensive weathering of the surficial rock.

California↗

USGS2011

Seismic zonation of Port-Au-Prince using pixel- and object-based imaging analysis methods on ASTER GDEM

We report about a preliminary study to evaluate the use of semi-automated imaging analysis of remotely-sensed DEM and field geophysical measurements to develop a seismic-zonation map of Port-au-Prince, Haiti. For in situ data, V S 30 values are derived from the MASW technique deployed in and around the city. For satellite imagery, we use an ASTER GDEM of Hispaniola. We apply both pixel- and object-based imaging methods on the ASTER GDEM to explore local topography (absolute elevation values) and classify terrain types such as mountains, alluvial fans and basins/near-shore regions. We assign NEHRP seismic site class ranges based on available V S 30 values. A comparison of results from imagery-based methods to results from traditional geologic-based approaches reveals good overall correspondence. We conclude that image analysis of RS data provides reliable first-order site characterization results in the absence of local data and can be useful to refine detailed site maps with sparse local data.

Port-au-Prince↗