Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70023199

Comparison of phase velocities from array measurements of Rayleigh waves associated with microtremor and results calculated from borehole shear-wave velocity profiles

Abstract

Shear-wave velocities (V S ) are widely used for earthquake ground-motion site characterization. V S data are now largely obtained using borehole methods. Drilling holes, however, is expensive. Nonintrusive surface methods are inexpensive for obtaining V S information, but not many comparisons with direct borehole measurements have been published. Because different assumptions are used in data interpretation of each surface method and public safety is involved in site characterization for engineering structures, it is important to validate the surface methods by additional comparisons with borehole measurements. We compare results obtained from a particular surface method (array measurement of surface waves associated with microtremor) with results obtained from borehole methods. Using a 10-element nested-triangular array of 100-m aperture, we measured surface-wave phase velocities at two California sites, Garner Valley near Hemet and Hollister Municipal Airport. The Garner Valley site is located at an ancient lake bed where water-saturated sediment overlies decomposed granite on top of granite bedrock. Our array was deployed at a location where seismic velocities had been determined to a depth of 500 m by borehole methods. At Hollister, where the near-surface sediment consists of clay, sand, and gravel, we determined phase velocities using an array located close to a 60-m deep borehole where downhole velocity logs already exist. Because we want to assess the measurements uncomplicated by uncertainties introduced by the inversion process, we compare our phase-velocity results with the borehole V S depth profile by calculating fundamental-mode Rayleigh-wave phase velocities from an earth model constructed from the borehole data. For wavelengths less than ~2 times of the array aperture at Garner Valley, phase-velocity results from array measurements agree with the calculated Rayleigh-wave velocities to better than 11%. Measurement errors become larger for wavelengths 2 times greater than the array aperture. At Hollister, the measured phase velocity at 3.9 Hz (near the upper edge of the microtremor frequency band) is within 20% of the calculated Rayleigh-wave velocity. Because shear-wave velocity is the predominant factor controlling Rayleigh-wave phase velocities, the comparisons suggest that this nonintrusive method can provide V S information adequate for ground-motion estimation.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 33.62999° to 33.677531° latitude; -116.709005° to -116.646886° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Hsi-Ping Liu, David M. Boore, William B. Joyner, David H. Oppenheimer, Richard E. Warrick, Wenbo Zhang, John C. Hamilton, Leo T. Brown. 2000. Comparison of phase velocities from array measurements of Rayleigh waves associated with microtremor and results calculated from borehole shear-wave velocity profiles. https://doi.org/10.1785/0119980186

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗