GSP 133 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

Multichannel Analysis of Surface Wave (MASW) Method for Geotechnical Site

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 01/23/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Characterization

Dayakar Penumadu1 and Choon B. Park2

1
Member ASCE, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Tennessee, 109 Perkins Hall, Knoxville, TN 31996-2010, PH (865)
974-2355, FAX (865) 974-2669, email:dpenumad@utk.edu
2
Assistant Scientist, Exploration Services Section, Kansas Geological Survey, 1930
Constant Avenue, Lawrence, KS 66047-3726, PH (785) 864-2162, FAX (785) 864-
5317, email: park@kgs.ku.edu

Abstract

A surface wave method is often used to map shear wave velocity variation of soil
with depth. However, measured seismic wave field usually contains such unfavorable
waves as higher modes of surface waves, body waves, and ambient noise. These
waves can significantly influence results of the analysis if not properly handled. Since
the conventional surface wave method of spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW)
is based on the two-receiver acquisition and processing scheme, these complications
are usually not effectively accounted and the field procedure tends to be labor
intensive. In an attempt to increase confidence in the interpreted Vs profile as a result
of the ambiguity in the analyzed dispersion characteristics, multichannel method is
used in this research to characterize a test site on the campus of University of
Tennessee, Knoxville that is seismically active. The multichannel analysis of surface
waves (MASW) method originated from the traditional seismic exploration approach
that employs multiple (twelve or more) receivers placed along a linear survey line.
Main advantage is its capability of recognizing different types of seismic waves based
on wave propagation characteristics such as velocity and attenuation. The MASW
method utilizes this capability to discriminate the fundamental-mode Rayleigh wave
against all other types of surface and body waves generated not only from the seismic
source but also from the ambient site conditions. Dispersive characteristics of seismic
waves are imaged from an objective 2-D wavefield transformation. Since the
multichannel pattern-recognition ability can tolerate certain extent of adverse
influence from the near-field effects as well as from the noise waves, data acquisition
procedure is also a simple task, being insensitive to such field factors as seismic
source, receiver spacing, and distance from source. In this way, the MASW method
can produce a 2-D cross section map of Vs distribution within soil in accurate and

Copyright ASCE 2005 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics
 GSP 133 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

efficient manner. The present paper indicates results from MASW survey at a site
along the Tennessee river with relatively shallow bed rock. Both SASW and MASW
techniques will prove to be important tools for evaluating liquefaction potential for
future geophysical and geotechnical engineering community and this paper presents
important aspects of MASW technique and its effectiveness in geophysical site
characterization.

Introduction
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 01/23/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

In most surface seismic surveys, more than two-thirds of the total seismic energy
generated is imparted into Rayleigh waves (Richart et al., 1970), the principal
component of ground roll. Assuming vertical velocity variation, each frequency
component of a surface wave has a different propagation velocity (called phase
velocity, Cf ) at each unique frequency (f) component. This unique characteristic
results in a different wavelength ( f ) for each frequency propagated. This property is
called dispersion. Although ground roll is considered noise on body-wave surveys
(i.e., reflection or refraction profiling), its dispersive properties can be utilized to infer
near-surface elastic properties (Nazarian et al., 1983; Stokoe et al., 1994; Park et al.,
1998a). Construction of a shear (S)-wave velocity (Vs) profile through the analysis of
plane-wave, fundamental-mode Rayleigh waves is one of the most common ways to
use the dispersive properties of surface waves (Bullen, 1963). This type of analysis
provides key parameters commonly used to evaluate near-surface stiffness—a critical
property for many geotechnical and engineering-geology projects (Stokoe et al.,
1994).

The multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) method (Park et al., 1999) is a
non-destructive (NDT) seismic method to evaluate shear-wave velocity (Vs) (or
stiffness) of the ground (Figure 1). It analyzes dispersion properties of seismic
surface waves (fundamental-mode Rayleigh waves) propagating horizontally along
the surface of measurement directly from impact point to receivers. It gives this Vs
information in either 1-D (depth) or 2-D (depth and surface location) format in a cost-
effective and time-efficient manner. The main advantage of the MASW method is its
ability to take a full account of the complicated nature of seismic waves that always
contain harmful noise waves such as higher modes of surface waves, body waves,
scattered waves, traffic waves, etc (Figure 2). These noise waves may often take a
significant portion of recorded data to result in dubious survey results if not properly
accounted for. The fundamental framework of the MASW method is based on the
multichannel recording and analysis approach long used in seismic exploration
surveys (Telford et al., 1976) that can discriminate useful signal against all other
types of noise by utilizing pattern-recognition techniques.

Copyright ASCE 2005 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics
 GSP 133 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 01/23/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 1. A schematic of a typical MASW configuration.

Since the first introduction of the MASW method in late 90's, there have been many
case studies of its applications to diverse projects in geophysical, geological, and
geotechnical engineering projects. Miller et al. (1999) successfully applied the
MASW to map weak spots in bedrock. A 3-D Vs mapping was also accomplished
with the MASW method at a military weapon test site in Arizona (Miller et al., 2003).
Ivanov et al. (2003) and Park et al. (1998b) used the method to detect underground
anomalies. It was also used to evaluate the effectiveness of a compaction operation
conducted as a soil remediation tool at a construction site (Park et al., 2003). More
case histories can be found at a web site of Kansas Geological Survey
(www.kgs.ku.edu).

The conventional surface-wave method (Nazarian et al., 1983) introduced in the early
1980's uses the spectral analysis of ground roll generated by an impulsive source and
recorded by a pair of receivers. This method has been widely and effectively used in
many geotechnical engineering projects (Stokoe et al., 1994). The single pair of
receivers is configured and reconfigured (based on wavelength calculations made
during acquisition) as many times as necessary to sample the desired depth range.
Data are analyzed in the frequency domain to produce a dispersion curve by
calculating the phase difference between each deployment of receiver pairs. The
inclusion of noise during measurements occasionally can be controlled using a set of
empirical criteria tailored for each site investigated (Gucunski and Woods, 1991;
Stokoe et al., 1994). Optimizing these criteria is challenging because of other types of
seismic waves introduced simultaneously into measurements (Figure 2) and also
because of the degree of changes possible in near-surface materials. The necessity of
recording repeated shots with multiple field deployments for a given site increases the
time and labor requirements. The MASW method tries to overcome these drawbacks
of the conventional method by making multiple measurements in synchronized and
controlled manner so that the complicated interplay of seismic waves can be

Copyright ASCE 2005 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics
 GSP 133 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

accurately identified and therefore the signal-extraction process can become most
robust (Figure 2). Therefore, the MASW can expand areas of possible applications
with the surface-wave method.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 01/23/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 2. An illustration depicting the main advantage of the MASW

method. Complicated nature of seismic waves is carried over without
averaging into the measurement (multichannel record). Then, dispersion
nature of different types of waves is accurately imaged through a 2-D
wavefield transformation. Certain noise wavefields such as back- and
side-scattered surface waves and several types of body waves are
automatically filtered during this transformation.

Copyright ASCE 2005 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics
 GSP 133 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

General Procedure with MASW Method

A multiple number of receivers (usually 24 or more) are deployed with even spacing
along a linear survey line with receivers connected to a multichannel recording device
(seismograph) (Figure 1). Each channel is dedicated to recording vibrations from one
receiver. One multichannel record (commonly called a shot gather) consists of a
multiple number of time series (called traces) from all the receivers in an ordered
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 01/23/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

manner.

Figure 3. A 3-step scheme for MASW data processing illustrated by an

actual field data set acquired near Yuma, Arizona.

Data processing consists of three steps (Figure 3): 1) preliminary detection of surface
waves, 2) constructing the dispersion image panel and extracting the signal dispersion
curve, and 3) back-calculating Vs variation with depth. All these steps can be fully
automated. The preliminary detection of surface waves examines recorded seismic
waves in the most probable range of frequencies and phase velocities. Construction
of the image panel is accomplished through a 2-D (time and space) wavefield
transformation method that employs several pattern-recognition approaches (Park et
al., 1998b). This transformation eliminates all the ambient cultural noise as well as
source-generated noise such as scattered waves from buried objects (building
foundations, culverts, boulders, etc.). The image panel shows the relationship
between phase velocity and frequency for those waves propagated horizontally and
directly from the impact point to the receiver line. These waves include fundamental
and higher modes of surface waves as well as direct body (compressional) waves
(Figure 3). The necessary dispersion curve, such as that of fundamental-mode
Rayleigh waves, is then extracted from the energy accumulation pattern in this image
panel (Figure 3). The extracted dispersion curve is finally used as a reference to

Copyright ASCE 2005 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics
 GSP 133 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

back-calculate the Vs variation with depth below the surveyed area. This back-
calculation is called inversion and the process can also be automated (Xia et al.,
1999).

Key Parameters of Data Acquisition

Unlike other types of seismic methods (e.g., reflection or refraction), acquisition

parameters for MASW surveys have quite a wide range of tolerance. This is because
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 01/23/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the multichannel processing schemes employed in the wavefield transformation

method (Park et al., 1998b) have the capability to automatically account for such
otherwise adverse effects as near-field, far-field, and spatial aliasing effects (Park et
al., 1999). Nevertheless, two types of parameters are considered to be most
important: the source offset (x1) and the receiver spacing (dx) (Figure 1). The source
offset (x1) needs to change in proportion to the maximum investigation depth (zmax).
A rule of thumb is x1 zmax. The receiver spacing (dx) may need to be slightly
dependent on the average stiffness of near-surface materials. A rule of thumb is dx
1 m in most surveys over soil sites. Table 1 summarizes optimum ranges of all the
acquisition parameters (Park et al., 2002).

Table 1: Optimum Acquisition Parameters — Rules of Thumb

Material Type * Optimum Optimum Recording Sampling

x1 dx xM Geophone Source
+ Time Interval
(vs in m/sec) (m) (m) (m) (Hz) (ms) (ms)
(Kg)

Very Soft 1–5 0.25 – 0.5 20 4.5 5.0 1000 1.0

(v s < 100)

Soft 5 – 10 0.5 – 1.0 30 4.5 5.0 1000 1.0

(100 < vs < 300)
Hard 10 – 20 1.0 – 2.0 50 4.5 – 10.0 5.0 500 0.5
(200 < vs < 500)
Very Hard 20 – 40 2.0 – 5.0 100 4.5 – 40.0 5.0 500 0.5
(500 < v s )

* Average properties within about 30-m depth range

+
Weight of sledge hammer

Copyright ASCE 2005 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics
 GSP 133 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

2-D Shear-Velocity (Vs) Mapping

A 2-D Vs map is constructed from the acquisition of multiple records (Figure 4) with
a fixed source-receiver configuration and a fixed increment (dC) of the configuration
(Figure 5). A source-receiver configuration indicates a setup of given source offset
(x1), receiver spacing (dx), and total number of channels (N) used during a survey.
The increment dC depends on the degree of horizontal variation in Vs along the entire
survey line. A small increment would be necessary if a high degree of horizontal
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 01/23/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 4. Overall procedure to construct a 2-D Vs map from the MASW

variation is expected. In most cases where total receiver spread length (xT) is set in
such a way that horizontal variation within xT can be ignored, an increment of half the

Copyright ASCE 2005 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics
 GSP 133 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

spread would be sufficient: dC 0.5 xT. Therefore, determination of optimum xT has

to be made before optimum dC is determined. In theory, a shorter xT would ensure a
higher accuracy in handling the horizontal variation. However, on the other hand, it
would impede the accurate assessment of dispersion curves (Park et al., 2001).
Therefore, it needs to be a trade-off. In most soil-site applications, xT in the range of
10-30 m is most optimal and this gives the optimal dC in the range of 5-15 m.

Once a multiple number (> 5) of records are acquired by regularly moving the source-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 01/23/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

receiver configuration, one 1-D Vs profile is obtained from each record through
surface wave processing. Each Vs profile also has the appropriate horizontal
coordinate (i.e., station number) to represent the vertical Vs variation. Naturally, the
midpoint of the receiver spread is used for this purpose. Multiple 1-D Vs profiles

Figure 5. A source-receiver configuration and its increment

obtained are then used for a 2-D (x and z) interpolation to create the final 2-D map as
shown in Figure 4.

MASW Case-Study: University of Tennessee Site in Knoxville, TN

A test site that belongs to the University of Tennessee, Knoxville was chosen for this
paper to present results from a MASW characterization study. This site is shown in
Figure 6 and is in close proximity to the Tennessee River. This site also lies above a
known fault (Figure 7) and is of interest to study its dynamic soil properties. The
motivation of this study was to perform a site-specific earthquake hazard analysis
using the computer program SHAKE and compare the response spectrum with the
suggested design spectrum using the new international building code (IBC) that was
recently adopted for the state of Tennessee. MASW was used to evaluate its potential
for reliably characterizing the site for obtaining shear wave velocity as a function of
depth and the soil variability. The results obtained from MASW technique were
compared with a number of bore-hole results for stratigraphy, and down-hole shear
wave velocity values using a seismic cone penetration (SCPTU) truck. A direct

Copyright ASCE 2005 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics
 GSP 133 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

comparison of data from various techniques is beyond the scope of this paper and will
be presented elsewhere. It is sufficient to say that MASW provided shear wave
velocities (Figure 8) very similar to SCPTU for depths 2 meters and below. There
was a considerable variation for the two techniques in the top 2 meters. It is the
author’s belief that MASW (or SASW) yields reliable results for obtaining shear
wave velocities at shallow depths when compared to seismic cone testing. Figure 8
shows MASW survey results for 2 lines (20-50 meters and 50-80 meters). Interpreted
shear wave velocities from the inversion of dispersion curves using the procedures
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 01/23/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

described earlier show a very uniform site in the horizontal direction with an
excellent overlap at 50 meter overlapping zone. Figure 8 also indicates the existence
of a softer layer with average shear wave velocity of 200 m/s for 2 to 4.5 meters
below the ground surface, which could prove to be a problem layer related to site
amplification for vertically propagating shear waves under earthquake conditions.

Figure 6: Site Location Figure 7: The Proximity to a Sub-Surface Fault

Figure 8: Two Dimensional Shear Wave Velocity Predictions Using MASW Approach

Copyright ASCE 2005 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics
 GSP 133 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the help of Michael Parham and Randy Rainwater from the
University of Tennessee, Jacob Sheehan from Oak Ridge National Laboratories, and
contributions from Kansas Geological Survey related to a software license (SurfSeis) to the
first author for Seismic Processing.

References
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 01/23/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Bullen,K.E., 1963, An introduction to the theory of seismology, 3rd Ed.; Cambridge

University Press, London, 381 pp.
Gucunski,N., and Woods,R.D., 1991, Instrumentation for SASW testing, in Bhatia, S. K., and
Blaney, G. W., Eds., Recent advances in instrumentation, data acquisition and testing in
soil dynamics: Am. Soc. Civil Eng., 1–16.
Ivanov, J., R.D. Miller, C.B. Park, and N. Ryden, 2003, Seismic search for underground
anomalies [Exp. Abs.]: Soc. Expl. Geophys., NSG3.2.
Mari, J. L., 1984, Estimation of static corrections for shear-wave profiling using the
dispersion properties of Love waves: Geophysics, 49, 1169–1179.
Miller, R.D., T.S. Anderson, J. Ivanov, J.C. Davis, R. Olea, C.B. Park, D.W. Steeples, M. L.
Moran, and J. Xia, 2003, 3-D characterization of seismic properties at the Smart Weapons
Test Range, YPG [Exp. Abs.]: Soc. Expl. Geophys., NSG2.3.
Miller, R.D., Xia, J., Park, C.B., and Ivanov, J., 1999, “Multichannel analysis of surface
waves to map bedrock,” The Leading Edge, 18(12), 1392-1396.
Nazarian, S., Stokoe,K. H., II, and Hudson,W. R., 1983, Use of spectral analysis of surface
waves method for determination of moduli and thicknesses of pavement systems:
Transport. Res. Record, 930, 38–45.
Park, C.B., and R.D. Miller, 2003, MASW for shear wave velocity evaluation of soil before
and after deep dynamic compaction operations: Kansas Geological Survey Open-file
Report 2003-64.
Park, C.B., Miller, R.D., and Miura, H., 2002, Optimum field parameters of an MASW
survey [Exp. Abs.]: SEG-J, Tokyo, May 22-23, 2002.
Park, C.B., Miller, R.D., and Xia, J., 2001, Offset and resolution of dispersion curve in
multichannel analysis of surface waves (MSW): Proceedings of the SAGEEP 2001,
Denver, Colorado, SSM-4.
Park, C.B., Miller, R.D., and Xia, J., 1999, “Multi-channel analysis of surface waves,”
Geophysics, 64(3), 800-808.
Park, C. B., Xia, J., and Miller, R. D., 1998a, Ground roll as a tool to image near-surface
anomaly: 68th Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 874–877.
Park, C. B., Xia, J., and Miller, R. D., 1998b, Imaging dispersion curves of surface waves on
multi-channel record: 68th Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts,
1377–1380.
Richart, F. E., Hall, J. R., and Woods, R. D., 1970, Vibrations of soils and foundations:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 414 pp.
Stokoe II, K. H., Wright, S.G., Bay, J.A., and Roesset, J.M., 1994, Characterization of
geotechnical sites by SASW method, in Geophysical characterization of sites, ISSMFE
Technical Committee #10, edited by R. D. Woods, Oxford Publishers, New Delhi.
Telford, W.M., Geldart, L.P., Sheriff, R.E., and Keys, D.A., 1976, Applied Geophysics,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 860 pp.
Xia, J., Miller, R.D., and Park, C.B., 1999, “Estimation of near-surface shear-wave velocity
by inversion of Rayleigh wave,” Geophysics, 64(3), 691-700.

10

Copyright ASCE 2005 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics