Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.
CMS-9402358 and the U.S. Geological Survey under Award No. 1434-95-G-2634. Any
opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are
those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science
Foundation and the U.S. Geological Survey. The authors are grateful to Dr. Clifford J.
Astill of the National Science Foundation and Dr. John D. Sims of the U.S. Geological
Survey for their support and encouragement.
i
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ix
SUMMARY xvii
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Motivation......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Research Objectives......................................................................................... 4
1.3 Dissertation Outline ........................................................................................ 8
2 DYNAMIC BEHAVIOR OF SOILS ........................................................................9
2.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................9
2.2 A Survey on Modeling Soil Behavior.......................................................... 10
2.2.1 Overview............................................................................................ 10
2.2.2 The Continuum Mechanics Approach ......................................... 10
2.2.3 The Discrete Mechanics Approach............................................... 13
2.3 Phenomenological Modeling of Soil Behavior.......................................... 15
2.4 Experimental Observations.......................................................................... 16
2.4.1 Overview............................................................................................ 16
2.4.2 Threshold Strains ............................................................................. 16
2.4.3 Stiffness Degradation and Entropy Production.......................... 20
2.5 Constitutive Modeling and Model Parameters.......................................... 26
2.5.1 Overview............................................................................................ 26
2.5.2 Linear Viscoelastic Constitutive Models....................................... 26
2.5.3 Low-Strain Kinematical Properties of Soils (LS-KPS)............... 35
2.5.4 Experimental Measurements of LS-KPS ..................................... 50
3 RAYLEIGH WAVES IN VERTICALLY HETEROGENEOUS MEDIA ... 57
3.1 Introduction.................................................................................................... 57
3.2 Rayleigh Eigenvalue Problem in Elastic Media ......................................... 58
3.2.1 Solution Techniques ........................................................................ 63
3.3 Effective Rayleigh Phase Velocity in Elastic Media.................................. 67
3.4 Rayleigh Green’s Function in Elastic Media.............................................. 71
3.5 Rayleigh Variational Principle in Elastic Media......................................... 76
3.5.1 Modal Rayleigh Phase Velocity Partial Derivatives..................... 78
3.5.2 Effective Rayleigh Phase Velocity Partial Derivatives ................ 83
3.5.3 Attenuation of Rayleigh Waves in Weakly Dissipative
Media.................................................................................................. 87
iii
3.6 Rayleigh Eigenvalue Problem in Viscoelastic Media.................................90
3.6.1 A Solution Technique ......................................................................91
3.7 Effective Phase Velocity and Green’s Function in Viscoelastic
Media ................................................................................................................99
3.8 Modal and Effective Partial Derivatives in Viscoelastic Media .............101
4 SOLUTION OF THE RAYLEIGH INVERSE PROBLEM...........................105
4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................105
4.2 Ill-Posedness of Inverse Problems ............................................................106
4.3 Coupled Versus Uncoupled Analysis ........................................................107
4.4 Inversion Strategies ......................................................................................108
4.5 Occam’s Algorithm ......................................................................................110
4.6 Uncoupled Inversion ...................................................................................118
4.6.1 Overview ..........................................................................................118
4.6.2 Uncoupled Fundamental Mode Analysis ....................................120
4.6.3 Uncoupled Equivalent Multi-Mode Analysis..............................121
4.6.4 Uncoupled Effective Multi-Mode Analysis.................................122
4.7 Coupled Inversion........................................................................................123
4.7.1 Overview ..........................................................................................123
4.7.2 Coupled Fundamental Mode Analysis.........................................126
4.7.3 Coupled Equivalent Multi-Mode Analysis ..................................126
4.7.4 Coupled Effective Multi-Mode Analysis .....................................127
5 RAYLEIGH PHASE VELOCITY AND ATTENUATION
MEASUREMENTS ..................................................................................................129
5.1 Overview........................................................................................................129
5.2 Conventional Measurements Techniques.................................................130
5.2.1 Phase Velocity Measurements.......................................................131
5.2.2 Attenuation Measurements ...........................................................134
5.3 New Measurements Techniques ................................................................138
5.3.1 Uncoupled Measurements .............................................................138
5.3.2 Coupled Measurements..................................................................142
5.4 Statistical Considerations.............................................................................143
5.4.1 Overview ..........................................................................................143
5.4.2 Statistical Aspects of Conventional Measurements...................145
5.4.3 Statistical Aspects of New Measurements Techniques.............147
5.4.3.1 Uncoupled Analysis ........................................................147
5.4.3.2 Coupled Analysis.............................................................148
5.4.4 Statistical Aspects of Uncoupled Rayleigh Inversion ................152
5.4.5 Statistical Aspects of Coupled Rayleigh Inversion.....................154
6 VALIDATION OF THE ALGORITHMS..........................................................157
6.1 Overview........................................................................................................157
6.2 Lamb’s Problem............................................................................................157
6.3 Numerical Simulations.................................................................................162
iv
6.3.1 Uncoupled Analyses....................................................................... 171
6.3.1.1 UFUMA Inversion Algorithms.................................... 171
6.3.1.2 UEQMA Inversion Algorithms................................... 178
6.3.2 Coupled Analyses ........................................................................... 188
6.3.2.1 CFUMA Inversion Algorithms .................................... 188
6.3.2.2 CEQMA Inversion Algorithms ................................... 192
6.3.3 Results and Discussion .................................................................. 199
7 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS............................................................................... 207
7.1 Overview ....................................................................................................... 207
7.2 Treasure Island Naval Station Site ............................................................ 207
7.3 Uncoupled Inversion................................................................................... 209
7.4 Coupled Inversion ....................................................................................... 216
7.5 Results and Discussion................................................................................ 217
8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................... 221
8.1 Conclusions................................................................................................... 221
8.2 Recommendations for Future Research................................................... 227
APPENDIX A - Elliptic Hysteretic Loop in Linear Viscoelastic Materials ................. 229
A1 Harmonic Constitutive Relations ......................................................................... 229
A2 Energy Dissipated in Harmonic Excitations ...................................................... 230
A3 Principal Axes of the Elliptic Hysteretic Loop .................................................. 231
APPENDIX B - Effective Rayleigh Phase Velocity Partial Derivatives ........................ 233
APPENDIX C - Description of Computer Codes ........................................................... 241
C1 UFUMA (Uncoupled-Fundamental-Mode-Analysis)....................................... 241
C2 UEQMA (Uncoupled-Equivalent-Multi-Mode-Analysis)................................ 243
C3 CFUMA (Coupled-Fundamental-Mode-Analysis)............................................ 244
C4 CEQMA (Coupled-Equivalent-Multi-Mode-Analysis) .................................... 245
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 247
v
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
vii
viii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Number Page
ix
3.3 Rayleigh Displacement Eigenfunctions in Vertically Heterogeneous
Media...................................................................................................................................66
3.4 Geometric Spreading Function for Different Types of Media..................................75
3.5 Partial Derivatives of Rayleigh Phase Velocity with Respect to VP and VS
for an Homogeneous Medium........................................................................................82
3.6 Rayleigh Waves in Viscoelastic Multi-Layered Media..................................................91
3.7(a) Roots of Rayleigh Secular Function in the Region C of the wR-Plane......................95
3.7(b) Roots of Rayleigh Secular Function in the Region D of the zR-Plane ....................95
4.1 Algorithms for the Solution of the Rayleigh Inverse Problem ................................109
4.2 Flow-Chart of Rayleigh Simultaneous Inversion Using Occam’s
Algorithm..........................................................................................................................117
4.3 Algorithms for the Solution of the Uncoupled Rayleigh Inverse Problem ...........119
4.4 Algorithms for the Solution of the Strongly Coupled Rayleigh Inverse
Problem.............................................................................................................................125
5.1 Typical Configuration of the Equipment Used in SASW Testing...........................131
5.2 Source-Receivers Configuration in SASW Phase Velocity
Measurements ..................................................................................................................132
5.3(a) SASW Arrangement Using Common Receiver Midpoint Array .............................133
5.3(b) SASW Arrangement Using Common Source Array..................................................133
5.4(a) Attenuation Coefficient Computation at Treasure Island Site.................................136
5.4(b) Attenuation Coefficient Computation at Treasure Island Site.................................137
5.5(a) Geometrical Interpretation of Effective Rayleigh Phase Velocity ..........................140
5.5(b) Geometrical Interpretation of Effective Rayleigh Attenuation
Coefficient ........................................................................................................................141
6.1(a) Comparison of Solutions for the Elastic Lamb’s Problem (Case 1)........................159
6.1(b) Comparison of Solutions for the Elastic Lamb’s Problem (Case 2)........................160
6.1(c) Comparison of Solutions for the Elastic Lamb’s Problem (Case 3)........................160
6.2(a) Comparison of Solutions for the Viscoelastic Lamb’s Problem (Case 1)...............161
6.2(b) Comparison of Solutions for the Viscoelastic Lamb’s Problem (Case 2)...............161
6.2(c) Comparison of Solutions for the Viscoelastic Lamb’s Problem (Case 3)...............162
6.3 Rayleigh Dispersion Curves for Case 1 Soil Profile....................................................164
6.4 Rayleigh Effective Dispersion Curve for Case 1 Soil Profile ....................................165
6.5 Rayleigh Attenuation Curves for Case 1 Soil Profile ..................................................166
x
6.6 Rayleigh Dispersion Curves for Case 2 Soil Profile ................................................... 166
6.7 Rayleigh Effective Dispersion Curve for Case 2 Soil Profile.................................... 168
6.8 Rayleigh Attenuation Curves for Case 2 Soil Profile ................................................. 168
6.9 Rayleigh Dispersion Curves for Case 3 Soil Profile ................................................... 169
6.10 Rayleigh Effective Dispersion Curve for Case 3 Soil Profile.................................... 170
6.11 Rayleigh Attenuation Curves for Case 3 Soil Profile ................................................. 170
6.12 Fundamental Mode Theoretical and Synthetic Dispersion Curves
for Case 1 Soil Profile ..................................................................................................... 171
6.13 Shear Wave Velocity Profile from UFUMA Inversion Algorithm
for Case 1 Soil Profile ..................................................................................................... 172
6.14 Convergence of UFUMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 1 Soil
Profile ............................................................................................................................... 172
6.15 Shear Damping Ratio Profile and Theoretical Attenuation Curve
from UFUMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 1 Soil Profile..................................... 173
6.16 Attenuation Curves RMS Misfit Error using UFUMA Inversion
Algorithm for Case 1 Soil Profile.................................................................................. 173
6.17 Fundamental Mode Theoretical and Synthetic Dispersion Curves
for Case 2 Soil Profile ..................................................................................................... 174
6.18 Shear Wave Velocity Profile from UFUMA Inversion Algorithm
for Case 2 Soil Profile ..................................................................................................... 175
6.19 Convergence of UFUMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 2 Soil
Profile ............................................................................................................................... 175
6.20 Shear Damping Ratio Profile and Theoretical Attenuation Curve
from UFUMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 2 Soil Profile..................................... 176
6.21 Attenuation Curves RMS Misfit Error using UFUMA Inversion
Algorithm for Case 2 Soil Profile.................................................................................. 176
6.22 Fundamental Mode Theoretical and Synthetic Dispersion Curves
for Case 3 Soil Profile ..................................................................................................... 177
6.23 Shear Wave Velocity Profile from UFUMA Inversion Algorithm
for Case 3 Soil Profile ..................................................................................................... 177
6.24 Non-Convergence of UFUMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 3 Soil
Profile ............................................................................................................................... 178
6.25 Shear Damping Ratio Profile and Theoretical Attenuation Curve
from UFUMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 3 Soil Profile..................................... 179
6.26 Attenuation Curves RMS Misfit Error using UFUMA Inversion
Algorithm for Case 3 Soil Profile.................................................................................. 179
xi
6.27 Effective Theoretical and Synthetic Dispersion Curves for Case 1
Soil Profile ........................................................................................................................180
6.28 Shear Wave Velocity Profile from UEQMA Inversion Algorithm
for Case 1 Soil Profile......................................................................................................180
6.29 Convergence of UEQMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 1 Soil
Profile................................................................................................................................181
6.30 Shear Damping Ratio Profile and Theoretical Attenuation Curve
from UEQMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 1 Soil Profile ....................................181
6.31 Attenuation Curves RMS Misfit Error using UEQMA Inversion
Algorithm for Case 1 Soil Profile ..................................................................................182
6.32 Effective Theoretical and Synthetic Dispersion Curves for Case 2
Soil Profile ........................................................................................................................183
6.33 Shear Wave Velocity Profile from UEQMA Inversion Algorithm
for Case 2 Soil Profile......................................................................................................183
6.34 Convergence of UEQMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 2 Soil
Profile................................................................................................................................184
6.35 Shear Damping Ratio Profile and Theoretical Attenuation Curve
from UEQMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 2 Soil Profile ....................................184
6.36 Attenuation Curves RMS Misfit Error using UEQMA Inversion
Algorithm for Case 2 Soil Profile ..................................................................................185
6.37 Effective Theoretical and Synthetic Dispersion Curves for Case 3
Soil Profile ........................................................................................................................185
6.38 Shear Wave Velocity Profile from UEQMA Inversion Algorithm
for Case 3 Soil Profile......................................................................................................186
6.39 Convergence of UEQMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 3 Soil
Profile................................................................................................................................186
6.40 Shear Damping Ratio Profile and Theoretical Attenuation Curve
from UEQMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 3 Soil Profile ....................................187
6.41 Attenuation Curves RMS Misfit Error using UEQMA Inversion
Algorithm for Case 3 Soil Profile ..................................................................................187
6.42 Fundamental Mode Theoretical Dispersion and Attenuation
Curves for Case 1 Soil Profile ........................................................................................188
6.43 Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Damping Ratio Profile from
CFUMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 1 Soil Profile................................................189
6.44 Convergence of CFUMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 1 Soil
Profile................................................................................................................................189
xii
6.45 Fundamental Mode Theoretical Dispersion and Attenuation
Curves for Case 2 Soil Profile........................................................................................ 190
6.46 Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Damping Ratio Profile from
CFUMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 2 Soil Profile............................................... 191
6.47 Convergence of CFUMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 2 Soil
Profile ............................................................................................................................... 191
6.48 Fundamental Mode Theoretical Dispersion and Attenuation
Curves for Case 3 Soil Profile........................................................................................ 192
6.49 Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Damping Ratio Profile from
CFUMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 3 Soil Profile............................................... 193
6.50 Convergence of CFUMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 3 Soil
Profile ............................................................................................................................... 193
6.51 Effective Theoretical Dispersion and Attenuation Curves for Case 1
Soil Profile........................................................................................................................ 194
6.52 Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Damping Ratio Profile from
CEQMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 1 Soil Profile .............................................. 195
6.53 RMS Error Misfit of CEQMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 1 Soil
Profile ............................................................................................................ .................. 195
6.54 Effective Theoretical Dispersion and Attenuation Curves for Case 2
Soil Profile........................................................................................................................ 196
6.55 Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Damping Ratio Profile from
CEQMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 2 Soil Profile .............................................. 196
6.56 RMS Error Misfit of CEQMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 2 Soil
Profile ............................................................................................................................... 197
6.57 Effective Theoretical Dispersion and Attenuation Curves for Case 3
Soil Profile........................................................................................................................ 197
6.58 Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Damping Ratio Profile from
CEQMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 3 Soil Profile .............................................. 198
6.59 RMS Error Misfit of CEQMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 3 Soil
Profile ............................................................................................................................... 198
6.60 Inverted Shear Wave Velocity Profiles for Case 1 Soil Stratigraphy ....................... 199
6.61 Inverted Shear Damping Ratio Profiles for Case 1 Soil Stratigraphy...................... 200
6.62 Inverted Shear Wave Velocity Profiles for Case 2 Soil Stratigraphy ....................... 201
6.63 Inverted Shear Damping Ratio Profiles for Case 2 Soil Stratigraphy...................... 201
6.64 Inverted Shear Wave Velocity Profiles for Case 3 Soil Stratigraphy ....................... 203
6.65 Inverted Shear Damping Ratio Profiles for Case 3 Soil Stratigraphy...................... 203
xiii
7.1 Treasure Island National Geotechnical Experimentation Site (After
Spang, 1995) .....................................................................................................................207
7.2 Soil Profile and Properties at the Treasure Island NGES
(After Spang, 1995) .........................................................................................................208
7.3 Fundamental Mode Theoretical and Experimental Dispersion
Curves at Treasure Island NGES .................................................................................210
7.4 Shear Wave Velocity Profile from UFUMA Inversion Algorithm at
Treasure Island NGES ...................................................................................................210
7.5 Convergence of UFUMA Inversion Algorithm at Treasure Island
NGES................................................................................................................................211
7.6 Shear Damping Ratio Profile and Theoretical Attenuation Curve
from UFUMA Inversion Algorithm at Treasure Island NGES ..............................212
7.7 Attenuation Curves RMS Misfit Error using UFUMA Inversion
Algorithm at Treasure Island NGES ...........................................................................212
7.8 Effective Theoretical and Experimental Dispersion Curves at
Treasure Island NGES ...................................................................................................213
7.9 Shear Wave Velocity Profile from UEQMA Inversion Algorithm at
Treasure Island NGES ...................................................................................................213
7.10 Convergence of UEQMA Inversion Algorithm at Treasure Island
NGES................................................................................................................................214
7.11 Shear Damping Ratio Profile and Theoretical Attenuation Curve
from UEQMA Inversion Algorithm at Treasure Island NGES .............................214
7.12 Attenuation Curves RMS Misfit Error using UEQMA Inversion
Algorithm at Treasure Island NGES ...........................................................................215
7.13 Fundamental Mode Theoretical and Experimental Dispersion and
Attenuation Curves at Treasure Island NGES...........................................................215
7.14 Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Damping Ratio Profile from
CFUMA Inversion Algorithm at Treasure Island NGES ........................................216
7.15 Convergence of CFUMA Inversion Algorithm at Treasure Island
NGES................................................................................................................................217
7.16 Comparison at Treasure Island NGES of Shear Wave Velocity
from Surface Wave Test Results with Other Independent
Measurements ..................................................................................................................218
7.17 Comparison at Treasure Island NGES of Shear Damping Ratio
from Surface Wave Test Results with Other Independent
Measurements ..................................................................................................................219
xiv
SUMMARY
Surface wave tests are non-invasive seismic techniques that can be used to determine
the low-strain dynamic properties of a soil deposit. In the conventional interpretation of
these tests, the experimental dispersion and attenuation curves are inverted separately to
determine the shear wave velocity and shear damping ratio profiles at a site. Furthermore,
in the inversion procedure, the experimental dispersion and attenuation curves are matched
with theoretical curves, which include only the fundamental mode of propagation.
The only approach available in the literature that accounts for multi-mode wave
propagation is based on the use of Green’s functions where the partial derivatives of
Rayleigh phase velocity with respect to the medium parameters required for the solution of
the inverse problem are computed numerically, and therefore very inefficiently.
This study presents a new approach to the interpretation of surface wave testing. The
new approach is developed around three new ideas. First, the definition of the low-strain
dynamic properties of soils and the Rayleigh wave eigenproblem are revisited and
reformulated within the framework of the linear theory of viscoelasticity. Secondly, an
explicit, analytical expression for the effective Rayleigh phase velocity has been derived.
The effective phase velocity concept forms the basis for the development of a new
surface wave inversion algorithm based on multi-mode rather than modal dispersion and
attenuation curves. Closed-form expressions for the partial derivatives of the effective
Rayleigh phase velocity with respect to the medium parameters have also been obtained by
employing the variational principle of Rayleigh waves.
xv
xvi
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Motivation
Geotechnical earthquake engineering is a well-established discipline concerned with
understanding the role-played by soils in the effects induced by earthquakes. An essential
part of geotechnical earthquake engineering is ground response analysis. The objective of
ground response analysis is the prediction of the free-field site response induced by a
catastrophic event, which may be an earthquake or an explosion, occurring in the interior
of the earth’s crust. A correct implementation of a ground response analysis requires a
proper modeling of several aspects of the problem including the rupture mechanism at the
source and all the phenomena associated with the propagation of seismic waves from the
source to the desired site at the free-surface. The latter includes transmission of seismic
energy within the continental and oceanic structures of the earth, as well as wave
propagation within the soil mass overlaying the bedrock. Figure 1.1 is a schematic
representation of the spread of seismic energy once it is released from the source. Ground
response analysis has important applications in several areas of geotechnical earthquake
engineering and soil dynamics. Some of the most common include local site response
t
&&y L ( t )
Source
&&y F ( t )
t
Figure 1.1 Seismic Energy Path in Ground Response Analysis (Modified from EPRI,
1993)
1
2 Introduction
analyses for the development of design ground motions and response spectra, studies of
soil liquefaction potential, seismic stability analyses of slopes and embankments, and studies
of dynamic soil-structure interaction.
The following example illustrates the crucial role played by the very small-strain
dynamic properties of a soil deposit in controlling the amplification or de-amplification of
an input motion applied at the bedrock. Figure 1.2 and Figure 1.3 illustrate the results of a
local site response analysis performed using the computer program SHAKE91 (Idriss and
Sun, 1991). This code solves the initial-boundary value problem associated with the one-
1.6
1.4
1.2
Gmax = 67.0 MPa
1.0 ζ=5%
Gmax = 16.8 MPa
0.8 Input Motion
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Period [sec]
Figure 1.2 Influence of Gmax on the Acceleration Response Spectrum
Introduction 3
Figure 1.2 shows the influence of the initial tangent shear modulus Gmax (or the shear
wave velocity VS ) on the acceleration response spectrum. As expected, the maximum
response of the spectrum is attained at periods close to the fundamental period of the site,
calculated with the well-known expression 4H / VS .
The influence of the initial shear damping ratio DSmin (value of shear damping ratio
associated with a strain level below the linear cyclic threshold strain) on the acceleration
response spectrum is shown in Figure 1.3. Low values of damping ratio results in a large
amplification of the input motion at the bedrock, particularly at periods close to the natural
period of the site. In both response spectra the structural damping ξ was assumed equal to
5%.
1.8
1.0
0.8
ζ=5%
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Period [sec]
Figure 1.3 Influence of DSmin on the Acceleration Response Spectrum
The above figures illustrate the important role played by the low-strain dynamic
properties of a soil deposit in determining the dynamic response of a single degree of
freedom system. The low-strain dynamic properties of soil deposits can be measured with a
variety of techniques. They are generally classified into laboratory techniques and in-situ or
4 Introduction
field techniques. At the end of Chapter 2, will be presented a summary with the most
important advantages and disadvantages of these techniques.
The main focus of this research effort was on the determination of the very small-
strain dynamic properties of a soil deposit from the interpretation of the results of surface
wave tests. The use of surface (Rayleigh) waves for geotechnical site characterization has
several advantages over more conventional seismic methods such as cross-hole and down-
hole tests. The most attractive feature of surface wave tests is that they are non-invasive
and hence they do not require the use of boreholes, which permits the tests to be
performed more rapidly and at lower cost than most invasive methods.
One of the goals of this study was to present a different approach to the problem,
where Rayleigh wave phase velocity and attenuation measurements are inverted
simultaneously. The simultaneous inversion of Rayleigh wave phase velocity and
attenuation measurements has two major advantages over the corresponding uncoupled
analysis: it is an elegant procedure to account for the coupling existing between phase
velocity of seismic waves and material damping and the simultaneous inversion is a better-
posed mathematical problem (in the sense of Hadamard).
The numerical solution of a non-linear inverse problem is obtained in most cases from
the iterative solution of the corresponding forward problem, which in this case is the
boundary value problem of Rayleigh waves in dissipative media. In developing the solution
of the Rayleigh forward problem, extensive use was made of the powerful and elegant
methods of complex variable theory, more precisely of the theory of analytic functions.
Introduction 5
Subsequent chapters of this dissertation will provide a description of the theoretical basis
of the simultaneous inversion and will illustrate its applications to some experimental data.
The second objective was, in a sense, motivated by the first objective of this
dissertation. The problem of determining the very small-strain dynamic properties of soils
raises fundamental questions about the meaning of words like “properties of soils”. Implicit to
the definition of such a term is assumptions of material behavior to which ascribe certain
behavioral properties. As a result, different idealizations of material behavior will require the
definition of different types of material properties. It is unfortunate that often in the
geotechnical literature, it is customary to take for granted certain definitions of material
behavior without ever questioning the validity or the appropriateness of these definitions.
One remarkable example is constituted by the so-called dynamic properties of soils a term used
to collectively denote stiffness and material damping ratio of soils. Chapter 2 of this
dissertation attempts to revisit the definition of these parameters within the framework of
a consistent theory of mechanical behaviour. It is shown that whereas it is not a trivial task
to construct a mathematical model describing the behavior of complex materials such as
soils, it is still possible to formulate relatively simple and accurate phenomenological
models by restricting the formulation to the low strain spectrum. These and other issues
related with constitutive modeling of soils are addressed in this chapter, from a perspective
that is relevant to problems of geotechnical earthquake engineering.
Finally, the third objective of this research effort was developing a better understanding
of the theoretical aspects associated with the interpretation of surface wave measurements.
In the current procedure the shear wave velocity and shear damping ratio profiles are
determined from the application of an inversion algorithm to an experimental dispersion
and attenuation curve. Minimization of the distance (specified by an appropriate definition
of norm) between these curves and those predicted theoretically from an assumed profile
of model parameters is the most common criterion used for the solution of the inverse
problem of surface waves. This procedure has an important limitation: the simulated
(theoretical) dispersion and attenuation curves are defined as modal response functions, i.e. they
are referred to a specific mode of propagation of Rayleigh waves. Conversely, the
experimental dispersion and attenuation curves reflect, in general, the contributions of
several modes of Rayleigh wave propagation and also of body waves in the near field.
There are currently two procedures used to overcome this limitation. The first and
most common one is based on comparing the experimental dispersion and attenuation
curves with those of the fundamental mode obtained theoretically. This method is referred
to in the literature as a 2-D analysis of surface waves (Roësset et al., 1991;). The results
provided by the 2-D analysis are generally satisfactory for normally dispersive (i.e. regular)
shear wave velocity profiles (Gucunski and Woods, 1991; Tokimatsu, 1995). The second
method of interpretation of surface wave data referred in the literature as a 3-D analysis
consists of reproducing with a numerical simulation the actual set-up of the experiment.
The theoretical phase velocities, for instance, are computed from the phase differences
6 Introduction
between theoretical displacements, and the latter are calculated at locations that emulate
receivers spacings used in the experiment. This method is exact, however it has the
disadvantage of requiring the use of a Green’s function program for computing the
displacement field, which is difficult and time-consuming if one wants to include the body
wave contributions in the near field. Furthermore, in this approach the partial derivatives
required for the solution of the non-linear inverse problem of determining an unknown
shear wave velocity profile that corresponds to a given experimental dispersion curve, are
computed numerically. Computation of numerical partial derivatives is notoriously an ill-
conditioned problem, and in this case is also computationally expensive (if compared with
other methods).
Closed-form analytical expressions for the partial derivatives of the effective phase
velocity with respect to the medium parameters (shear and compression wave velocities)
were also obtained by employing the variational principle of Rayleigh waves. These partial
derivatives are essential for an efficient and accurate solution of the Rayleigh inverse
problem.
In their efforts to identify the structure of the Earth, seismologists use time history
records combined with digital signal processing techniques to obtain modal dispersion and
attenuation curves generated by seismic events. Geotechnical engineers use the dispersive
properties of surface waves generated by active sources for near-surface site
characterization. In attempting to find a solution to their respective problems,
seismologists and geotechnical engineers face similar problems and difficulties, therefore it
is natural that they often come up with similar solution strategies. However, there are two
major differences that profoundly distinguish the problems faced by seismologists and
geotechnical engineers.
The first and most important difference is the scale factor. Whereas for seismologists
the layer thickness of their stratified Earth is on the order of kilometers, geotechnical
engineers deal with layers whose size is two or even three order of magnitude smaller. Also
the frequencies involved in seismology and geotechnical engineering are very different.
Most of the energy contained in a seismic record has a frequency range on the order of 0.1
to 10 Hz. Geotechnical engineers analyze surface waves having frequencies up to 200 Hz
or more. Furthermore, there is a substantial difference in seismology and geotechnical
engineering, concerning the distances over which surface waves are detected and recorded
with seismometers and geophones.
The second difference between the problems faced by seismologists and geotechnical
engineers is that seismologists do not have control over the source of wave energy:
earthquakes occur at times, locations and with characteristics (duration, frequency content,
source mechanism, etc.) that to this date are not predictable. Conversely, not only can
geotechnical engineers select the source type, but they can also choose its spatial location.
As a result, the task of geotechnical engineers in interpreting surface wave data is
enormously simplified if compared with that of seismologists, as long as the former can
turn to their advantage their ability of control over the source.
In summary, the objectives of this research effort were to reformulate the conventional
interpretation of surface wave tests by developing a technique to simultaneously invert
Rayleigh phase velocity and attenuation data, while accounting for the multi-mode nature
8 Introduction
of Rayleigh wave propagation in vertically heterogeneous media. These goals were achieved
by first constructing a consistent model of soil dynamic behavior at very-small strain levels.
2.1 Introduction
“ Scientific understanding proceeds by way of constructing and analyzing models of the segments or
aspects of reality under study. The purpose of these models is not to give a mirror image of reality, not to
include all its elements in their exact sizes and proportions, but rather to single out and make available for
intensive investigation those elements which are decisive. We abstract from non-essentials, we blot out the
unimportant to get an unobstructed view of the important, we magnify in order to improve the range and
accuracy of our observation. A model is, and must be, unrealistic in the sense in which the word is most
commonly used. Nevertheless, and in a sense, paradoxically, if it is a good model it provides the key to
understanding reality. “ (From Baran and Sweezy, 1968).
Another feature that adds its contribution to the complexity of soil behavior, is the
coupling effect of soil responses. Thermomechanical coupling is one example of a response
interaction effect, which is usually negligible in soils. However, soils may exhibit other
coupling effects, which may be more important including piezo-electric and chemico-
mechanical coupling (Fam and Santamarina, 1996). Accounting for these response
interaction phenomena may lead to unexpected consequences such as the reformulation of
the principle of effective stress of classical soil mechanics. Newer formulations of this
principle (Mitchell, 1976) recognize that mechanical effects (i.e. change of the effective
stress) may be obtained not only by variations of the gravitational fields (i.e. total stress
and/or hydrostatic pressure), but also by means of electro-chemical perturbations (double
layer theory).
This is true in many other engineering disciplines and applied sciences, and echoing the
preface of Baran and Sweezy, (1968), it may be said that the art of good engineering often
identifies with the ability of transforming a difficult problem into a simpler one by
attentively discerning what is important from what is superfluous or unessential.
9
10 Dynamic Behavior of Soils
However, classical mixture theories are based on the fundamental postulate that a
mixture is represented by “ a sequence of continuous bodies all of which occupy the same
regions of space simultaneously ” (Truesdell, 1957). This assumption of intermiscibility may
be appropriate to model mixtures of fluid-like components; however there are physical
situations where this assumption is not appropriate. A few examples include soils, porous
rocks, granular materials, and multiphase suspensions where the “ mixture ” consists of
identifiable solid particles or a matrix surrounded by one or more fluids. These types of
Dynamic Behavior of Soils 11
materials lead to the important distinction between multiphase immiscible mixtures and
miscible mixtures (Goodman and Cowin, 1972). The continuity assumption may still be used
but an additional continuous field variable must be introduced: the volume fraction which
corresponds to the proportion of volume occupied by each component of the mixture.
This scalar field reflects important microstructural features of the mixture subjected to a
thermomechanical process.
Applications of the theory developed by Goodman and Cowin (1972) to model the
behavior of particulate materials have produced interesting results. In their formulation the
balance laws are essentially the same as those proposed by Truesdell (1957) with the
exception that a new equation of balance is included to account for the role-played by
volume fraction changes. This equation is called the balance of equilibrated forces and it
describes the distribution of microstructural forces which is effective in a multiphase
mixture. In essence, the balance of equilibrated forces states that the internal distribution of
forces among the constituents of the mixture is directly related to the changes of their
volume fractions. It can be viewed as a generalization of the principle of effective stress of
classical soil mechanics. One of the most attractive features of this theory is its ability to
model dilatancy, a phenomenon that cannot be modeled with classical continuum
mechanics. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that although volume fraction is an
important field variable, it is not sufficient to discriminate between two mixtures with
uniform distributions of grains, one with large grains and the other with small grains of the
same material density. In other words, volume fraction alone cannot take into account the
grain size distribution of the constituents (Passman, Nunziato and Walsh, 1984) and in this
sense is a scaleless theory. An interesting new approach to the construction of a multi-
component theory of immiscible mixtures has been proposed recently by Wilmanski (1996).
One of the main features of this theory is the replacement of the equation of balance of
equilibrated forces of Goodman and Cowin with a balance equation for porosity. The
introduction of this new law of balance is motivated by microscopic considerations of the
time rate of change of the geometry of the solid phase of the mixture with respect to the
fluid phase.
A different line of thought for modeling particulate materials within the realm of
continuum mechanics was developed during the late 1970’s and early 1980’s by Oda (1978),
Rothenburg (1980), Nemat-Nasser (1982), and Satake (1982), just to mention few of the
early investigators. Their approach was to supplement classical continuum mechanics with
12 Dynamic Behavior of Soils
As the studies in this area of micromechanics continued, it became apparent the need
for introducing a new quantity able to describe the spatial arrangements of particulate
materials. This new quantity was introduced with the name of fabric tensor (Oda, 1978), and
since then the use of the fabric tensor as a descriptor of the packing of granular materials
has increased. The fabric tensor is defined as a second rank symmetric tensor and it
describes a continuous field variable. Its use in the mechanics of granular materials has lead
to the important definitions of solid phase and void phase fabric tensors.
These quantities, in particular the void phase fabric tensor, have played a major role in
the applications of the concepts of micromechanics to critical state soil mechanics
(Muhunthan and Chameau, 1996), particularly because it has been shown how to determine
them experimentally (Muhunthan, 1991; Frost and Kuo, 1996; Kuo and Frost, 1997). The
work in this area of soil modeling has been very intense in the recent years, and realistic
constitutive equations relating micro-scale variables and the macro-scale variables have been
proposed for both granular materials (Christoffersen et al., 1981) and cohesive soils (Masad
et al., 1997). The results obtained thus far are encouraging, but more research is required for
a definitive validation of these theories.
This brief survey of the use of a continuum mechanics framework to model soil
behavior is concluded with a short introduction to the so-called polar or generalized theories of
continuum mechanics. It is an interesting subject, which is appealing for its inherent capabilities
of modeling continua having an inner microstructure. The first theory on polar continua
was that of the Cosserat brothers in 1907 who laid down the foundations of what today is
known as Cosserat’s elasticity to be distinguished from the classical theory of elasticity also
called Cauchy’s elasticity. Since then, there have been a large number of contributors (Green
and Rivlin, 1964; Eringen and Suhubi, 1964, Mindlin, 1964, Eringen, 1976).
Polar materials are defined as those that admit the existence of couple stresses and body
couples (Truesdell and Noll, 1992). Such a possibility, which is disregarded in classical
continuum mechanics, leads to the construction of an “alternative” continuum mechanics
where the geometrical points of the continua may possess properties similar to those of
rigid or deformable particles. Thus the geometrical points of classical continuum mechanics
which possess three degrees of freedom are extended to include additional degrees of
freedom which may be the three independent rotations (micropolar continua). In practice this
generalization may continue by simply ascribing additional degrees of freedom to the
material point (Eringen, 1976). Micromorphic continua are defined as media having geometrical
Dynamic Behavior of Soils 13
points with a total of twelve degrees of freedom: three translations, three rotations, and six
microdeformations. Now the material point not only can translate and rotate like a rigid
particle, but it may behave as if it were a deformable particle.
Obviously, the kinematics of polar continua is inherently much more complicated than
the kinematics of classical continuum mechanics, particularly in the case of micromorphic
continua. Non-locality is the peculiar feature of polar continuum mechanics, which essentially
means that this theory is able to account implicitly for the scale effects induced by the inner
microstructure of the continua (Granik and Ferrari, 1993). In this sense classical continuum
mechanics is clearly a scaleless theory.
Polar continuum mechanics is not the only type of non-local continuum theory of
mechanics. Others include the so called materials of grade N (Ferrari et al. 1997) which are
defined as those deformable media whose kinematics are described not only by the
deformation gradient of classical continuum mechanics, but also by higher gradient
measures (Truesdell and Noll, 1992).
Recently, DEM has also been applied to study the constitutive behavior of water-
saturated cohesive soils (Anandarajah, 1996). The essential feature of DEM is modeling a
soil element as a discrete assemblage of interacting rigid or deformable particles. The
14 Dynamic Behavior of Soils
interaction among particles is governed by appropriate constitutive laws, which specify the
magnitude and the direction of the contact forces. The overall system is subjected to the
laws of dynamics with forces and moments due to the self-weight of the particles and to
particle-to-particle interaction.
A theory that has been recently proposed and that, in view of the authors (Ferrari et al.,
1997; Granik and Ferrari, 1993), should bridge the gap between continuum and discrete
mechanics (DEM) is Doublet Mechanics (DM). The essential feature of DM is its building
block, which is constituted by a pair of geometric points separated at a finite distance (a
doublet). This elementary unit replaces the differential volume element of continuum
mechanics and the discrete particle or grain of DEM. In the kinematics of DM, the
geometrical points or nodes of a doublet have the following degrees of freedom: they can
move relative to each other in both the axial and the normal directions to their common
axis; moreover, they may rotate about their common axis. DM can be constructed with
different degrees of approximation (Ferrari et al., 1997).
This section was not intended to be a comprehensive review of the theories and the
methods currently used to model the mechanical behavior of soils or more in general of
solids. The ones briefly mentioned here are a subset of a much broader class of theories in
continuum and discrete mechanics. However, it is the writer’s belief that some of the
models presented in this section are of a significative interest in the problem of modeling
soil behavior.
Dynamic Behavior of Soils 15
An appropriate assessment of the spatial scales of a problem may show for instance,
that even if there are profound differences between the theories of continuum and discrete
mechanics, the discrepancies between their predictions may be irrelevant for practical
purposes. In seismology, where most of the seismic energy propagates within the frequency
range of about 0.001-100 Hz (Aki and Richards, 1980), the discrete nature of the medium
has no role to play when compared with the lengths of the propagating seismic waves.
Sometimes however, multi-scale phenomena may complicate the analysis of a problem. For
instance in a composite medium characterized by the presence of randomly distributed local
inhomogeneities (scatterers) whose size is comparable with the wavelength of the seismic
waves, a continuous model may be inadequate to represent the scattered wave field.
Throughout this study the mechanical behavior of soils was modeled using the
phenomenological approach of classical one-constituent continuum mechanics. The
constitutive model used to simulate soil response to dynamic excitations at very small strain
16 Dynamic Behavior of Soils
levels was linear-isotropic viscoelasticity. One of the purposes of the next section is to
justify this choice by illustrating some experimental results.
These variables and factors can be broadly divided into two categories according to their
origin: “external variables“ and “intrinsic variables“. The external variables correspond to
externally applied actions and include the stress/strain path, stress/strain magnitude,
stress/strain rate, and stress/strain duration depending on the nature of the applied action
(i.e., stress-controlled versus strain-controlled tests). The intrinsic variables correspond to
the inherent characteristics of soil deposits and include the soil type, the size of soil
particles, and the state parameters. The latter include the geostatic effective stress tensor
(which is a measure of the current state of in-situ effective stress), some measure of the
arrangement of soil particles (e.g., the fabric tensor or at least the void ratio, which however
is scale-dependent), and some measure of the stress-strain history (e.g., the yield surface or
at least the preconsolidation pressure). Figure 2.1 summarizes the relationships between
causes and effects in the response of soils to dynamic excitations.
As described in the previous section, soil behavior may be studied using either a
phenomenological or a micromechanical approach. In the phenomenological approach the
main concern is understanding the relationship between causes and effects from a
macroscopic point of view, without attempting an explanation of the observed phenomena
at a microscopic level. This microscopic interpretation is the objective of the
micromechanical approach, which can be implemented by using the framework of either
continuum or discrete mechanics. As already mentioned the approach used in this work to
model the dynamic behavior of soils is phenomenological, and coincides with that of
classical, one-constituent continuum mechanics.
Soil Response
• Soil Type
• Size of Soil Particles
• Soil Natural State Intrinsic
- Geostatic Stresses Causes
- Void Ratio/Fabric
Phenomenological
- Stress/Strain History
strain controlled tests. This quantity is a measure of the level of shear strains that were
induced in the soil mass during the dynamic excitation. Based on these findings, it was then
possible to define a shear strain spectrum for simple shear conditions where four distinct
types of soil behaviors were identified (EPRI, 1991; Vucetic, 1994).
The very small strain region is defined for values of shear strain in the range 0 < γ ≤ γ t l
where γ t l is the so-called linear cyclic threshold shear strain (Vucetic, 1994). Within this region
soil response to cyclic excitation is linear, but not elastic since energy dissipation occurs
even at these very small strain levels (Lo Presti et al., 1997; Kramer, 1996). Although no
stiffness reduction is observed in the soil response for γ ≤ γ t l (linear behavior), the
hysteretic loop in the stress-strain plane is characterized by a non-null area. The
phenomenon of energy dissipation at very small strain levels is caused by the existence of a
time-lag between say, a driving cyclic strain and the driven cyclic stress in a strain-controlled
test (the word hysteresis comes from the ancient Greek and means lag or delay). This time
lag between cyclic stress and strain is responsible for energy losses over a finite period of
time, which is typical of a viscoelastic behavior. There is little experimental evidence to
support the existence of appreciable phenomena of instantaneous energy dissipation for
γ ≤ γ t l , which would be typical of an elastoplastic behavior.
Another important feature of soil behavior at very small strain levels is that soil
properties do not degrade as the number of cycles increases, and, as a result, the shape of
18 Dynamic Behavior of Soils
the hysteretic loop does not change with the continued loading (EPRI, 1991; Ishihara,
1996). The value of γ t l varies considerably with the soil type. For example, γ t l for sands is
on the order of 10-3%, whereas for normally consolidated clays with a plasticity index (PI) of
50, γ t l is on the order of 10-2% (Lo Presti, 1987; Lo Presti, 1989).
The small strain region corresponds to shear strain levels in the range γ t l < γ ≤ γ t v
where γ t v is the so-called volumetric threshold shear strain (Vucetic, 1994). The name for this
threshold strain is suggested from the experimental observation that soil response to cyclic
excitation for values of γ exceeding γ t v is characterized by irrecoverable changes in
volume in drained tests and development of pore-water pressure in undrained tests
(Vucetic, 1994). This region of the shear strain spectrum is characterized by a non-linear,
inelastic soil response. However, the material properties do not change dramatically with
increasing shear strain, and very little degradation of these properties is observed as the
number of cycles increases (soil hardening or softening). Values of γ t v , the upper limit for
this region of behavior, are on the order of 5.10-3% for gravels, 10-2% for sands, and 10-1%
for normally consolidated, high plasticity clays (Bellotti et al., 1989; Lo Presti, 1989; Vucetic
and Dobry, 1991).
Finally, values of γ t pf < γ ≤ γ t f identify the region of large strains (EPRI, 1991; Vucetic,
1994) where soil response to cyclic excitation is highly non-linear and inelastic. This is the
state of soils preceding the condition of failure, which is postulated to occur at the failure
threshold shear strain γ t f . Table 2.1 shows the shear strain spectrum with the four postulated
types of soil response to cyclic excitation.
Among the four threshold shear strains previously defined, namely γ t l , γ t v , γ t pf , and
γ t f , two of them are particularly meaningful: the linear cyclic threshold shear strain γ t l and
the volumetric threshold shear strain γ t v . The threshold strain γ t l is important because it
separates the linear (even though inelastic) response from the non-linear response of soils
subjected to cyclic excitations. The volumetric threshold shear strain γ t v instead, is a
Dynamic Behavior of Soils 19
The threshold shear strains γ t l and γ t v were defined by considering simple shear strain
paths. Soil response to both static and dynamic loadings is strain/stress-path dependent and
hence, different values of γ t l and γ t v (and also of γ t pf , and γ t f ) would be obtained if
different strain/stress-paths had been used. However the relevance of these concepts and
their implications in understanding the dynamic behavior of soils would be unchanged.
Another factor that affect the values of the threshold shear strains γ t l and γ t v is the
mean effective confining pressure which is a measure of the state of effective stresses.
Several studies have shown (Iwasaki et al., 1978; Kokoshu, 1980; Ishibashi and Zhang, 1993;
Ishihara, 1996) that both values of γ t l and γ t v increase with increasing confining pressure,
particularly the linear cyclic threshold shear strain γ t l .
Concerning the influence of the intrinsic properties of soils on the response of these
materials to harmonic excitations, a gradual change has occurred in recent years on how to
approach the problem. Early works (Seed and Idriss, 1970; Hardin and Drnevich, 1972;
Hardin, 1978; Dobry and Vucetic, 1987) treated fine-grained and coarse-grained soils
20 Dynamic Behavior of Soils
separately, and independent correlations were developed for each of these classes. In recent
years (Dobry and Vucetic, 1987; Vucetic and Dobry, 1991; Jamiolkowski et al., 1991;
Vucetic, 1994), it has been recognized that this distinction is unnecessary once variables
such as soil type and size of soil particles are replaced with the plasticity index (PI). The
ability of this index parameter to capture the essential features of soil behavior has been
recognized since the early days of soil mechanics (Casagrande, 1932; Lambe and Whitman,
1969). In the case of the threshold strains, recent research (Vucetic, 1994) has shown that
the plasticity index (PI) plays an important role in determining the magnitude of γ t l and
γ t v . Figure 2.2 shows the dependence of γ t l and γ t v on the plasticity index.
60
50
Small Strains
30
e
e
Lin
Lin
γt l
γt v
20
ge
Intermediate to
ge
era
era
Large Strains
Av
Av
10
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1.0
Cyclic Shear Strain Amplitude, γ(%)
Figure 2.2 Dependence of Threshold Shear Strains from Plasticity Index (After
Vucetic, 1994)
The magnitude of both threshold shear strains γ t l and γ t v increases with the plasticity
index of the soil. The advantage of using the plasticity index as an independent parameter is
apparent. It provides a unified description of soil properties where the explicit distinction
between fine-grained and coarse-grained becomes unnecessary. It should be remarked
however, that the description of soil properties via the plasticity index is inadequate when
attempting to describe non-plastic soils constituted by large size particles.
Dynamic Behavior of Soils 21
Figure 2.3(a) Effect of Mean Effective Confining Stress on Modulus Reduction Curves
for Non-Plastic Soils (After Ishibashi, 1992)
It is apparent from these figures that the effect of confining pressure may be significant,
particularly in soils of low plasticity. Entropy density production is also affected by the
effective confining pressure (Ishibashi and Zhang, 1993). Experimental evidence shows that
the energy dissipated in a soil mass decreases as the mean effective confining stress
increases, particularly in low plasticity soils. With regard to the influence of soil type on
stiffness reduction and entropy density production, recent studies (Dobry and Vucetic,
22 Dynamic Behavior of Soils
Figure 2.3(b) Effect of Mean Effective Confining Stress on Modulus Reduction Curves
for Plastic Soils (After Ishibashi, 1992)
1987; Vucetic and Dobry, 1991) have shown that the plasticity index (PI) is a significant soil
parameter. This is consistent with the strong influence of the PI on the values of the
threshold strains noted above. Figure 2.4 shows the dependence of shear modulus reduction
curves obtained from cyclic laboratory data (Vucetic and Dobry, 1991) on the cyclic shear
strain amplitude and plasticity index of soils. The effects of these parameters on entropy
density production are illustrated in Figure 2.5. Here the amount of energy dissipated within
the soil mass was measured using a different parameter called damping ratio. A rigorous
definition of this quantity will be given later in this chapter.
Other intrinsic soil properties affecting stiffness reduction and entropy density
production include some measure of the initial soil fabric and of the stress/strain history of
the soil deposit. The effect of soil fabric has been quantified only in terms of the initial void
ratio and for very small strain levels (Hardin, 1978; Jamiolkowski et al., 1991). It has been
found that an increase of the void ratio of a soil deposit is accompanied by a decrease of the
stiffness and an increase of the entropy density production at very small strain levels.
The results of laboratory experiments indicate also that the stress/strain history, as
reflected for instance by the yield surface (as a side note, we remark that the overconsolidation
ratio OCR, is a very poor measure of the soil stress history since it corresponds only to one
point of the overall yield surface), affects soil response only at very small strains, where it
Dynamic Behavior of Soils 23
has a moderate influence on soil stiffness of high plasticity soils (Hardin and Drnevich,
1972; Dobry and Vucetic, 1987; Jamiolkowski et al., 1994).
Figure 2.4 Modulus Reduction Curves for Soils of Different Plasticity (After Vucetic
and Dobry, 1991)
Figure 2.5 Dependence of Energy Dissipated within a Soil Mass on Cyclic Shear Strain
for Soils of Different Plasticity (After Vucetic and Dobry, 1991)
24 Dynamic Behavior of Soils
The stress/strain path and the magnitude of the deviatoric strain tensor induced in the
soil mass are the most important external variables, which affect soil response to dynamic
excitations. Other important factors affecting the dynamic behavior of soils include the time
rate of change at which the excitation (stress or strain) is applied and its duration (number
of equivalent cycles). An increasing number of studies (Dobry and Vucetic, 1987; Vucetic
and Dobry, 1991; Shibuya, 1995; Lo Presti et al., 1996; Malagnini, 1996) have investigated
this issue known as the strain-rate effect (in strain-controlled tests). Results from these
studies indicate that the influence of strain-rate effects on soil response is strongly
controlled by the strain level. In particular for clayey soils, the volumetric threshold shear
strain γ t v increases with increasing strain-rate (Lo Presti et al., 1996).
The stiffness at very small strains ( γ ≤ γ t l ) does not seem to be affected by the strain-
rate in low-plasticity soils; however, plastic soils show an increase of the stiffness at very
small strain with increasing strain-rate (Dobry and Vucetic, 1987). At higher strain levels,
experimental evidence shows that the stiffness reduction curves are affected by the strain-
rate (Dobry and Vucetic, 1987; Lo Presti et al., 1996); soil stiffness generally increases with
increasing strain rate.
Less is known about the influence of the strain-rate effects on the entropy density
production. Even though several studies have attempted to clarify this issue (Dobry and
Vucetic, 1987; Shibuya et al., 1995; Malagnini, 1996; Lo Presti et al., 1997), it is difficult to
draw any general, definitive conclusions. A key parameter controlling entropy density
production is the frequency of excitation. It is observed that at certain frequency bandwiths
the amount of energy dissipated in a soil mass during cyclic excitation is frequency
dependent; experimental evidence also shows the existence of frequency ranges where the
entropy density production is frequency or rate independent (Hardin and Drnevich, 1972;
Shibuya et al., 1995; Lo Presti et al., 1997).
Within this context it is interesting to note that the seismic bandwith, namely the
frequency range (0.001-100 Hz) where most of the seismic energy released during the
earthquakes is concentrated, coincides with the observed zone of frequency independence
of entropy density production (Aki and Richards, 1980; Ben-Menahem and Singh, 1981;
Shibuya et al., 1995). Although it might be expected to observe different frequency
dependence laws at different strain levels, the currently available data do not support this
expectation (Shibuya et al., 1995).
Figure 2.6 shows a conceptual diagram where the amount of energy dissipated
(measured by the material-damping ratio) is plotted as a function of frequency (Shibuya et
al., 1995).
Finally, a factor that may affect soil response to dynamic loads significantly is the
duration of the excitation. In cyclic tests this duration corresponds to the number of
loading cycles. In clayey soils and dry sands, experimental results show that at very small
Dynamic Behavior of Soils 25
γmax increases
Figure 2.6 Frequency Dependence of the Energy Dissipated within a Soil Mass
(After Shibuya et al., 1995)
strain levels ( γ ≤ γ t l ), the duration effect on stiffness and entropy density production is
negligible (Shibuya et al., 1995; Lo Presti et al., 1997). As the magnitude of shear strain
increases, material degradation phenomena begin to occur, and the importance of loading
duration becomes more apparent (Lo Presti et al., 1997).
In general it is observed that at large values of shear strains ( γ > γ t v ) an increase of the
number of loading cycles yields an acceleration of material deterioration effects such as
stiffness degradation and entropy density production. There are differences, however,
between drained and undrained responses. In sandy soils, stiffness may even increase with
the increase of the number of cycles in drained conditions, whereas the opposite
phenomenon is observed under undrained conditions (Dobry and Vucetic, 1987).
Several other factors may affect stiffness reduction and entropy production during
dynamic excitations. Some of these include cyclic prestraining, creep and relaxation,
anisotropy (structural and stress induced), geological age, diagenetic processes (e.g.
cementation), degree of saturation, and drainage conditions. For most of these factors it is
very difficult to evaluate their effects on stiffness degradation and energy dissipation of soils.
An exception is constituted by anisotropy, where some interesting results can be found in
the literature (Kopperman et al., 1982; Jamiolkowski et al., 1994).
26 Dynamic Behavior of Soils
Since the primary objective of this research work was the determination of the very
small-strain dynamic properties of soil deposits from the results of surface wave tests, it is
of interest to study the dynamic behavior of soils at strain levels γ ≤ γ t l . Experimental
evidence shows that in this region of the strain spectrum soils subjected to dynamic
excitations have both the ability to store strain energy (elastic behavior), and to dissipate
strain energy over a finite period of time (viscous behavior). The mechanical behaviour of
such materials can be accurately described from the phenomenological point of view by the
theory of linear viscoelasticity. The following sections illustrate the main features of linear
viscoelastic constitutive models, which include a definition of the general three-dimensional
stress-strain relationships, and of their associated model parameters. The chapter ends with
a section dedicated to the experimental determination of these model parameters.
In the theory of linear viscoelasticity the current state of stress, which is specified by the
stress tensor σ ij ( t ) , is considered to be related to the past strain history via the following
linear functional (Christensen, 1971) (the summation convention is implied on repeated
indices):
d ε kl ( τ )
∫
t
σ ij ( t ) = G ijkl ( t − τ ) dτ (2.1)
−∞ dτ
Dynamic Behavior of Soils 27
where ε kl is the infinitesimal strain tensor and G ijkl is a fourth order tensor-valued function
called the relaxation tensor function of the material. In deriving Eq. 2.1 it was assumed that
the strain history is continuous, however discontinuous strain histories may be represented
as well if the integral appearing in Eq. 2.1 is intended in the Stieltjes sense (Fung, 1965).
Another important assumption required for the derivation of Eq. 2.1 is the time
translation invariance hypothesis, which states that the material response is independent of
any shift along the time axis. The constitutive relationship described by Eq. 2.1 is also called
Boltzmann’s equation since it can also be derived by applying the Boltzmann’s
superposition principle. The relaxation tensor function G ijkl ( t ) has 81 components;
however, only 21 are independent due to the symmetry of the stress and strain tensors in a
general anisotropic material. Equation 2.1 can be inverted to yield:
d σ kl ( τ )
∫
t
ε ij ( t ) = J ijkl ( t − τ ) dτ (2.2)
−∞ dτ
where J ijkl ( t ) is a fourth order tensor-valued function called the creep tensor function of
the material. For an isotropic, linear, viscoelastic material the creep and relaxation tensor
functions have only two independent components and they are sufficient to completely
describe the mechanical response of the material. In this case the constitutive relationships
(Eq. 2.1) can be rewritten as:
de ij ( τ )
∫
t
s ij ( t ) = 2G S ( t − τ ) dτ (2.3a)
−∞ dτ
dε kk ( τ )
∫
t
σ kk ( t ) = 3G B ( t − τ ) dτ (2.3b)
−∞ dτ
1 1
where s ij = σ ij − δ ij σ kk and e ij = ε ij − δ ij ε kk are the components of the deviatoric
3 3
stress and strain tensors, respectively, and δ ij is the Kronecker symbol. The scalar functions
G S ( t ) and G B ( t ) are the shear and bulk relaxation functions, respectively. As expected,
shear and volume deformations of viscoelastic isotropic materials are uncoupled, mimicking
a well-known fact of linear isotropic elasticity. From Eq. 2.2 it is possible to obtain
relationships analogous to Eq. 2.3 with the relaxation functions G S ( t ) and G B ( t ) replaced
by the creep functions J S ( t ) and J B ( t ) .
The creep and relaxation functions are material response functions. They are analogous
to the elastic constants in linear elasticity. The important difference is that the creep and
28 Dynamic Behavior of Soils
relaxation functions are no longer constants but time-dependent functions. They both have
an important physical interpretation. The relaxation function G S ( t ) represents the shear
stress response of a material subjected to a shear strain (in a strain-controlled test) specified
as a unit step function (the Heaviside function).
G(t) J(t)
Time Time
Figure 2.7 Typical Relaxation and Creep Functions for a Viscoelastic Solid
The creep function J S ( t ) can be viewed as the shear strain response of a material
subjected to a shear stress (in a stress-controlled test) specified as a unit step function.
Analogous interpretations holds for the bulk relaxation and creep functions G B ( t ) and
J B ( t ) . Figure 2.7 illustrates qualitatively the typical shape of a relaxation and a creep
function of a viscoelastic solid.
G χ ( t ) = k χ ⋅ H ( t ) + c χ ⋅ δ( t ) (2.4a)
H (t) − ⋅t
kχ
J χ ( t) = ⋅ 1 − e χ
c
(2.4b)
kχ
Dynamic Behavior of Soils 29
where the index χ = S, B is a subscript denoting the shear and the bulk mode of
deformation, respectively. The constant k χ is the stiffness of the elastic spring whereas the
constant c χ is the coefficient of the viscous dashpot. Finally, H(t) and δ(t) are the Heaviside
and the Dirac generalized functions. The Kelvin-Voigt model offers a very simplistic and
therefore poor representation of material behaviour. Because J χ ( 0 + ) = 0 it cannot
represent the instantaneous elastic response that every solid material exhibits when it is
subjected to a suddenly applied stress. Furthermore, although the Kelvin-Voigt model is
able to describe creep, it cannot describe stress relaxation because of the presence of the
Dirac delta function in the expression of the relaxation function G χ ( t ) .
t
−
+ G g χ − G e χ ⋅ e
τχ
G χ (t) = G eχ (2.5)
k 1χ ⋅ k 2 χ
where G e χ = G χ ( t → ∞) = , and G g χ = G χ ( t = 0 + ) = k 1 χ are the limiting
k1χ + k 2 χ
values of G χ ( t ) known as the equilibrium and glassy responses, respectively (Pipkin, 1986);
the terms k 1 χ and k 2 χ are the spring constants of the standard linear solid. Finally
cχ
τχ =
( )
is the relaxation time and it represents the time required by the stress in
k 1χ + k 2 χ
the model to reach the equilibrium state represented by G e χ .
Real materials and in particular soils exhibit more than a single relaxation time, and
therefore the standard linear solid is inadequate to represent their behaviour accurately.
More complicated networks of linear springs and dashpots are required to simulate complex
behaviors characterized by a series of relaxation times. A generalized Maxwell model is
composed of a group of N Maxwell elements in parallel (Malvern, 1969) and the relaxation
function G χ ( t ) of such a model is given by the following expression:
30 Dynamic Behavior of Soils
t
N −
G χ ( t) = G e χ + ∑ G χi ⋅ e
τ χi
(2.6)
i =1
This equation could be used as a basis for a model fitting procedure (Ferry, 1980) where an
experimental stress relaxation curve ( G χ ( t ) ) is fitted with the model represented by the
right hand side of Eq. 2.6. The model parameters are the N relaxation times τ χ i and the N
amplitudes G χi .
+∞
G χ ( t ) = G e χ + ∫ H χ (τ) ⋅ e
− tτ
⋅ dτ (2.7)
−∞
The function H χ ( τ) is called the relaxation spectrum and it provides important information
about the dissipation mechanisms that may be associated to a spectrum of relaxation times.
The mechanical properties of a viscoelastic material may alternatively be specified by the
relaxation spectrum rather than by the ordinary creep or relaxation functions. However,
solution of the inverse problem represented by Eq. 2.7 may be difficult since the solution of
a Fredholm integral equation of the first kind is a notoriously ill-posed problem (Tikhonov
and Arsenin, 1977).
When the prescribed strain or stress history is a harmonic function of time, the
constitutive relationships of the viscoelastic material assume a very simple form. Suppose
for instance that the strain history in Eq. 2.1 is specified by ε kl ( t ) = ε 0 kl ⋅ e iωt where ε 0 kl is
Dynamic Behavior of Soils 31
the amplitude of the strain component, i = − 1 and ω is the angular frequency; then the
integral equation (Eq. 2.1) reduces to the following algebraic equation:
where G *ijkl ( ω ) is called the complex tensor modulus and its components are related with
the Fourier sine and cosine transforms of the relaxation tensor function via the following
relations (Christensen, 1971):
∞
G ( 1 ) ijkl (ω ) = G ( e ) ijkl + ω ⋅ ∫ G ijkl (τ ) sin ωτ ⋅ d τ (2.9a)
0
∞
G ( 2 ) ijkl (ω ) = ω ⋅ ∫ G ijkl ( τ ) cos ωτ ⋅ d τ (2.9b)
0
where G ( 1) ijkl (ω) and G ( 2 ) ijkl (ω) are the real and the imaginary parts of the complex
modulus tensor, respectively, i.e.:
[ ]
G*ijkl (ω) = G( 1) ijkl (ω) + i ⋅ G( 2 ) ijkl (ω) (2.10)
In Eq. 2.9 it is understood that the relaxation tensor function G ijkl (t ) subtracted from
the equilibrium response G ( e ) ijkl = G ijkl ( t → ∞ ) is bounded as t → ∞ in such a way that the
improper integral converges.
From Eq. 2.9 it is clear that the real and the imaginary parts of the complex tensor
modulus are not independent. Their relationship can be easily found to be (Christensen,
1971):
2 ∞ G ( 2 ) ijkl ( τ ) ⋅ ω
2
This equation is known in the literature (Tschoegl, 1989) as one form of the Kramers-
Krönig relations. It is important because Eq. 2.11 in essence states that viscoelastic materials
are inherently dispersive. Material dispersion is the phenomenon by which the velocity of
propagation of mechanical waves in dissipative media is frequency dependent. It can be
shown (Tschoegl, 1989) that the Kramers-Krönig relation in the form of Eq. 2.11 simply
states that the real and the imaginary part of the complex tensor modulus are the Hilbert
transforms of each other. It can also be proven (Bracewell, 1965) that this result constitutes
the necessary and sufficient condition for the response function G *ijkl (ω) to satisfy the
fundamental principle of causality.
If the material is isotropic the constitutive relationship (2.8) can be rewritten as follows:
σ kk ( t ) = 3G *B ( ω ) ⋅ ε 0 kk ⋅ exp( iω t ) (2.12a)
where e 0 ij and ε 0 kk are the amplitudes of the deviatoric and volumetric strains, respectively,
and G *S ( ω) and G *B (ω) are the complex shear and bulk moduli. One important feature of
the constitutive relationships of linear viscoelastic materials undergoing a steady state
harmonic motion is that stress and strain states are in general out of phase. The amount by
which the stress lags behind the strain is measured by the argument of the complex
modulus, which is also a measure, as shown in the following section, of the amount of
energy dissipated by the material during harmonic excitations. The reciprocal of a complex
modulus is called complex compliance and it is denoted by J * (ω) .
The complex moduli or complex compliances are the fundamental material properties
that need to be specified for the solution of any linear viscoelastic boundary value problem
where all field variables are harmonic functions of time. However, because of the
relationship existing between the complex moduli and the relaxation function (Eq. 2.9 and
its inverse), the complex moduli may also be considered, more generally, as alternative
definitions of mechanical properties of linear viscoelastic materials. Experimental
measurements of the complex moduli may be accomplished by direct observation of the
phase and amplitude relations existing between stress and strain of a material sample
undergoing a cyclic excitation (Ferry, 1980).
period may be obtained by using low frequency tests. However, it should be recognized
that, in principle, knowledge of the relaxation function over a limited time period is not
equivalent to knowing (according to Eq. 2.9) the complex modulus over a finite frequency
range (Christensen, 1971).
In linear elasticity the difference in response between two materials is simply that one
material is stiffer than the other, either in bulk or in shear or in both modes of deformation.
On the other hand, the mechanical behaviour of a viscoelastic material is more difficult to
characterize. Although the material properties of a linear isotropic viscoelastic material are
uniquely specified by two response functions (say G S ( t ) and G B ( t ) or G *S ( ω) and G *B ( ω) ),
they may however be constructed in infinitely many ways. In other words, the theory of
linear viscoelasticity allows the construction of a variety of viscoelastic models, with or
without using networks of linear springs and dashpots.
Each of these models has its own features, which may or may not be desirable for
modeling a specific material. Like in any other problem of constitutive modeling, the
selection of a viscoelastic model for fitting the experimental data must be guided by the
material behaviour that the model tries to represent. For example, it has been shown in the
previous section that the amount of energy dissipated by soils during cyclic excitations is
independent from the frequency of excitation, at least within certain frequency bandwidths.
A viscoelastic constitutive model that is intended to simulate soil behaviour under cyclic
loading should be able to reproduce this important feature.
Even though a constitutive model should be as simple as possible, but still able to
reproduce the essential aspects of a material's behavior. A very common viscoelastic model
used to simulate soil behaviour in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics is
the Kelvin-Voigt model (Dobry, 1970; EPRI, 1991; Kramer, 1996). Although very simple,
this model fails to reproduce important features of soil or even solid behaviour. It was
shown early in this section that the Kelvin-Voigt model is not able to describe the
instantaneous elastic response displayed by a solid subjected to a suddenly applied stress or
the important phenomenon of stress relaxation.
34 Dynamic Behavior of Soils
A more reasonable approach to the problem of modeling the dynamic behavior of soils
at very small strains would be to assume a material response function (say the relaxation or
the creep function) that is able to capture the essential aspects of the experimental results.
This assumed material response function would in general depend on parameters, which will
be the equivalent of the elastic constants of linear elasticity. These parameters will be
determined by a model fitting procedure applied to some experimental data in a manner
identical to that used when soils are assumed to behave as elastic materials.
Examples of application of this approach to geologic materials include the work of Liu
et al. (1976) who assumed a hyperbolic distribution of the relaxation spectrum, and that of
Kjartansson (1979) who adopted a power law time dependence for the creep response
function. Both models are able to predict several features of the behavior of geologic
materials quite accurately including the frequency independence of energy losses in the
seismic band and material dispersion effects.
Dynamic Behavior of Soils 35
Even though the three types of response functions are in a sense equivalent, meaning
that they all contain the same information, it is often advantageous to specify the
mechanical properties of a viscoelastic material by means of the complex moduli. In the
frequency domain, the constitutive relationships of linear viscoelasticity (Eqs. 2.8 and 2.12)
become simple and compact algebraic equations, which resemble those of linear elasticity.
Moreover, in many geotechnical earthquake engineering problems, the dependent variables
are assumed to have an harmonic time dependence or they can be reduced to this case by
using the Fourier transform.
It is a simple matter to show that from the knowledge of the complex moduli one can
easily determine phase velocity and attenuation of harmonic waves propagating in linear
viscoelastic media using the elastic-viscoelastic correspondence principle (Read, 1950; Fung,
1965; Christensen, 1971). According to this principle the solution of a harmonic boundary
value problem in linear viscoelasticity can be easily obtained from the solution of the
corresponding elastic boundary value problem, by extending the validity of the latter
solution to complex values of the field variables. It should be remarked however, that the
validity of the correspondence principle is restricted to problems where the boundaries
conditions (which are the specified stresses and displacements) are time-invariant
(Christensen, 1971).
unbounded media (Achenbach, 1984), leads to the following pair of complex Helmholtz’s
equations:
ω2
∇ (div u$ ) = −
2
⋅ div u$ (2.13a)
(V ) * 2
P
ω2
∇ (curl u$ ) = −
2
⋅ curl u$ (2.13b)
(V ) * 2
S
where ∇ 2 denotes the Laplacian operator, the vector u$ = u$ (x, ω ) is the Fourier
transformed displacement vector ( x is the position vector), and VS* ( ω ) and VP* ( ω ) are the
complex S-wave and P-wave velocities, respectively; they govern phase velocity and
attenuation of body waves propagating in linear viscoelastic unbounded media and are
defined by:
G *B ( ω ) + 43 ⋅ G *S
V (ω ) =
*
(2.14a)
P
ρ
G *S ( ω )
V (ω ) =
*
(2.14b)
S
ρ
When the equations of motion (Eq. 2.13) are specialized for the two separate cases of
one-dimensional (harmonic) P-wave and S-wave propagation, their general solution can be
written in the following compact form:
ω
i * x + ωt
Vγ
u (x, t ) = A e
(2.15)
motion, respectively. In Eq. 2.15 the term ω Vγ* is the complex wavenumber associated
with the propagation of the γ -wave. It is convenient to rewrite Eq. 2.15 as follows:
( )
u (x, t ) = Ae
− α γ ⋅x i k γ ⋅x + ω t
⋅e (2.16)
where α γ is the attenuation coefficient and is a measure of the spatial amplitude decay of
the γ -wave as it propagates through viscoelastic and hence dissipative media. The
term k γ = ω Vγ is the (real) wavenumber associated with the γ -wave propagating with a
(real) phase velocity Vγ . From Eq. 2.14 the attenuation coefficients and the phase velocities
of the irrotational and shear waves are given by the following expressions:
−1
ρ
VP ( ω ) = ℜ (2.17a)
G B + 3 G S
* 4 *
ρ
α P ( ω ) = ω ⋅ ℑ (2.17b)
G B + 3 GS
* 4 *
−1
ρ
VS ( ω ) = ℜ (2.18a)
G S
*
ρ
α S ( ω ) = ω ⋅ ℑ (2.18b)
GS
*
In Eqs. 2.17 and 2.18 the symbols ℜ( ⋅) and ℑ (⋅) denote the real and imaginary parts of a
complex number, respectively.
On the other hand, the coefficients of attenuation α P and α S are directly related to the
physical mechanisms responsible for the energy dissipation phenomena occurring within the
material. As shown by the above equations, VP VS , and α P , α S are material properties
and, as such, they are uniquely determined from the complex moduli G *S ( ω) and G *B ( ω) ,
and mass density ρ . The other aspect that is important to emphasize is that in a viscoelastic
medium both phase velocities and attenuation coefficients are, in general, frequency
dependent functions. Hence, wave propagation in viscoelastic media gives rise to the
phenomenon of material dispersion as described in Section 2.4.2. One important
consequence of material dispersion is that the shape of the pulse associated with disturbance
changes as it propagates in a viscoelastic medium (Aki and Richards, 1980).
It is instructive to rewrite Eqs. 2.17 and 2.18 in a slightly different form which will make
apparent the close relationship between the coefficients of attenuation and the energy
dissipation phenomena occurring when a wave propagates through a viscoelastic medium.
In particular, by defining the complex constrained modulus G *P ( ω ) as:
and by separating real and imaginary parts of the complex moduli G *P ( ω) and G *S ( ω) as:
where again γ = P, S , it is then possible to rewrite Eqs. 2.17 and 2.18 as follows:
Vγ ( ω ) =
(
2 G 2 ( 1) γ + G 2 ( 2 ) γ )
(2.21a)
ρ⋅
(G 2
( 1) γ +G 2
(2) γ )
+ G ( 1) γ
Dynamic Behavior of Soils 39
ω G 2 (1) γ + G 2 ( 2 ) γ − G ( 1) γ
α γ (ω ) = ⋅ (2.21b)
Vγ ( ω ) G (2) γ
G 2 (2) γ
2 1 + 2
G (1) γ G ( 1) γ
Vγ (ω ) = ⋅ (2.22a)
ρ G 2 (2)
1 + 1 + 2 γ
G ( 1) γ
G 2 (2) γ
1+ −1
ω G 2 (1) γ
α γ (ω ) = ⋅ (2.22b)
Vγ ( ω ) G (2) γ
G ( 1) γ
( ) [ ]
G (2) γ
The ratio = arg G *γ = tan ϕ γ ( ω ) is called the loss tangent or the loss angle, and
G (1 ) γ
G (1) γ ( ω ) and G ( 2 ) γ ( ω ) are often referred to as the storage and loss moduli, respectively
(Pipkin, 1986). Figure 2.8 shows a graphical representation of these parameters.
( )
ℑ G *γ
G (2)γ G *γ
*
G γ
( )
arg G *γ
G ( 1) γ
( )
ℜ G *γ
The loss modulus G ( 2 ) γ ( ω ) is so named because this parameter is directly related to the
energy dissipated in a viscoelastic material subjected to cyclic loading. It can be shown (see
Appendix A) that the shape of the stress-strain loop predicted by a linear viscoelastic model
during harmonic excitation is elliptical. The equation of the ellipse can be written as follows:
2
σ γ − G (1) γ ⋅ ε γ
2
εγ
+ =1 (2.23)
ε ⋅ ε
γ0 G ( 2) γ γ0
where the term ε γ 0 denotes the amplitude of the harmonic strain ε γ . Equation 2.23 is the
equation of an ellipse rotated by an angle ψ γ ( ω ) with respect to the strain axis (see Fig. 2.9).
σ ( t)
ε γ ( ω ) = ε γ 0 eiωt
σ γ ( ω ) = G*γ ⋅ ε γ
ψ γ (ω )
ε ( t)
∫ ℜ(σ ) ⋅ℜ(dε ) = π ⋅ G
2
γ γ ( 2) γ ⋅ εγ
l l
An expression of the angle ψ γ ( ω ) in terms of the real and imaginary parts of the
complex modulus is given in Appendix A. The elliptical shape of the stress-strain loops
predicted by the theory of linear viscoelasticity compares fairly well with experimental
stress-strain loops obtained for soils at very small strains (i.e. γ ≤ γ τ l ) (Dobry, 1970).
Dynamic Behavior of Soils 41
However experimental evidence shows that stress-strain loops obtained at larger strain
amplitudes are cusped (Kjartansson, 1979).
The area enclosed by the ellipse is related to the amount of energy (per unit volume)
dissipated by the material during a cycle of harmonic loading. It can be easily shown (see
Appendix A) that this quantity, ∆Wγdissip is equal to:
2
∆Wγdissip ( ω) = π ⋅ G( 2) ⋅ ε γ (2.24)
γ
At the microscopic level different mechanisms have been proposed (Biot, 1956; Stoll,
1974; Johnston et al., 1979; White, 1983; Leurer, 1997) to explain the process of energy
dissipation occurring at very small strain levels in geological materials subjected to dynamic
excitation. These studies indicate that an interactive combination of several individual
mechanisms is responsible for most of the phenomena macroscopically called energy
dissipation. For coarse-grained soils the two mechanisms that have been postulated to
account for the internal entropy production are frictional losses between soil particles and
fluid flow losses due to the relative movement between the solid and fluid phases. Fine-
grained soils exhibit more complex phenomena, which are controlled by electromagnetic
interactions between water molecules and microscopic solid particles.
Based on Eq. 2.24, several definitions have been proposed in the literature as measures
of energy dissipation in geological materials (O’Connel and Budiansky, 1978; Aki and
Richards, 1980; Ishihara, 1996). Some of them, in particular those used by seismologists,
were inspired by the definitions of energy losses used in other disciplines such as electric
engineering (Cole and Cole, 1941). Most of them are dimensionless parameters proportional
to the ratio between the energy dissipated ∆Wγdissip , and some measures of the stored
energy per unit volume.
All these definitions of energy dissipation are consistent with each other only when they
are applied to weakly dissipative viscoelastic materials. In soil dynamics and geotechnical
earthquake engineering, the parameter traditionally used, as a measure of energy dissipation
during harmonic excitation is the so-called material damping ratio:
42 Dynamic Behavior of Soils
∆Wγdissip ( ω)
D ( ω) =
trad
(2.25)
γ
4 π ⋅ Wγmax (ω)
where W γmax ( ω ) is the maximum stored energy per unit volume during one cycle of
harmonic excitation.
This interesting result (which is often ignored in the literature of linear viscoelasticity,
see Ferry, 1980; Pipkin, 1986) is caused by the phase lag between the various energy storing
mechanisms which govern the mechanical response of linear viscoelastic materials during
harmonic excitation (Tschoegl, 1989). As a consequence, when the definition of material
damping ratio given by Eq. 2.25 is expressed in terms of the complex modulus G *γ ( ω ) , the
ensuing result is very cumbersome. The need for the latter operation is motivated by the
necessity to relate the definition of material-damping ratio to the constitutive parameters of
linear viscoelasticity.
The difficulties associated with the definition of material damping ratio given by Eq.
2.25 can be completely overcome by redefining this parameter, now simply denoted by
Dγ ( ω) , as:
∆Wγdissip ( ω)
Dγ ( ω) = (2.26)
8π ⋅ Wγave (ω)
where the term Wγave ( ω ) is defined as the average stored energy over one cycle of harmonic
oscillation. An analogous, dimensionless definition of energy dissipation is used by
seismologists, via a material parameter called the quality factor (O’Connel and Budiansky,
1978; Aki and Richards, 1980) and denoted by Qγ ( ω) . The two parameters Dγ ( ω) and
Qγ ( ω) are related by Q −γ 1 ( ω) = 2 Dγ ( ω) .
Dynamic Behavior of Soils 43
It can be shown (Tschoegl, 1989) that the term Wγave ( ω ) in the denominator of Eq.
2
2.26 is equal to W γave ( ω ) = G ( 1) γ ⋅ ε γ 4 . Considering this result and that given by Eq.
2.24, Eq. 2.26 yields:
G( 2)
D γ ( ω) =
γ
(2.27)
2 ⋅ G ( 1) γ
It is worth noting that when the energy losses in the material are small, the definition of
material damping ratio given by Eq. 2.25 tends to yield the same results as Eqs. 2.26 and
2.27. However, the adoption of the definition given by Eq. 2.26 has the advantage of being
independent from the magnitude of the energy losses. In light of these considerations, the
definition of material damping ratio adopted in this study is that given by Eq. 2.26.
Vγ ( ω ) =
G (1 ) γ
⋅
(
2 1 + 4 D 2γ )
[1 + ]
(2.28a)
ρ 1 + 4 D 2γ
ω 1 + 4 D 2γ − 1
α γ (ω ) = ⋅ (2.28b)
Vγ (ω ) 2D γ
However, it is apparent from the above discussion that the low-strain dynamic
properties can be defined more fundamentally in terms of the complex shear and bulk
44 Dynamic Behavior of Soils
These equations can obviously be used also to solve the inverse problem, where the
low-strain dynamic properties of soils are determined from the specified low-strain
viscoelastic properties of soils. Consequently, although the fundamental model parameters
of a linear viscoelastic model in the frequency domain are the low-strain viscoelastic
properties of soils, specification of the low-strain dynamic properties of soils is an
alternative way to provide exactly the same information.
Equation 2.28 give frequency dependent phase velocities and attenuation coefficients,
i.e. the low-strain kinematical properties, for a general linear viscoelastic constitutive model
as a function of material damping ratio Dγ ( ω) and elastic phase velocity Vγ = G(1) γ ρ .
e
[
Vγ (ω ) = Vγe ⋅ φ γ 1 D γ (ω ) ] (2.29a)
[
α γ (ω ) = k γ (ω ) ⋅ φ γ 2 D γ (ω ) ] (2.29b)
(
2 1 + 4 D 2γ )
[ ]
φ γ 1 D γ (ω ) =
[1 + ]
(2.30a)
1 + 4 D 2γ
1 + 4 D 2γ − 1
[ ]
φ γ 2 D γ (ω ) =
2D γ
(2.30b)
At very small strain levels material damping in geological materials is small (Aki and
Richards, 1980; Ishihara, 1996). Therefore it is reasonable to assume:
sup Dγ ≤ 01
. (2.31)
where the symbol sup(⋅) denotes the least upper bound of a quantity. Thus it is possible to
expand the functions φ γ 1 and φ γ 2 of Eq. 2.30 in a Maclaurin series in the variable D γ . By
retaining only the first and second order terms, Eq. 2.29 simplifies to:
Vγ (ω ) = V e
⋅
(1 + 2D )2
γ
γ (2.32a)
1 + D 2γ
α γ ( ω ) = k γ (ω ) ⋅ D γ (ω ) (2.32b)
where the same symbols Vγ ( ω ) and α γ ( ω ) have been used for the exact and approximated
expressions of these parameters. Equation 2.32 defines the low-strain kinematical properties
of soils of weakly dissipative (also called low-loss or loss-less) media. The theory of surface
waves in linear viscoelastic media developed in Chapter 3 is referred to weakly dissipative
materials (in this case soil deposits). Thus, in this study the low-strain kinematical properties
of soils are defined by Eq. 2.32.
ω ω
Vγ* ( ω ) = =
[
k γ ( ω ) + i α γ ( ω ) k ( ω ) ⋅ 1 + iD ( ω )
γ γ ] (2.33)
Vγ* (ω ) =
[
Vγ (ω ) ⋅ 1 − iD γ (ω ) ]
[1 + D (ω )]
2
(2.34)
γ
For the remainder of this study, Eq. 2.34 will be considered as the formal definition of
low-strain kinematical properties of soils. Equation 2.29a shows that phase velocity Vγ (and
hence stiffness) and material damping ratio D γ are not independent quantities in linear
viscoelastic media. This fact is also true in weakly dissipative media as shown by Eq. 2.32a.
The functional coupling between soil stiffness and material damping ratio is a direct
consequence of material dispersion, a phenomenon defined in Section 2.5.2 by means of the
Kramers-Krönig relation (Eq. 2.11).
Thus far the derivation of the low-strain kinematical properties has been quite general in
the sense that it has not required any assumption about a specific constitutive model. As a
result the actual formulation, and in particular Eqs. 2.32a and 2.34 are valid for any type of
weakly dissipative, linear viscoelastic solids. (If Eq. 2.31 does not hold, these equations
should be replaced by the first of Eq. 2.33 and Eq. 2.29). It is remarkable to note here that
since Vγe is a frequency independent property of a purely elastic material, D γ ( ω ) is the only
viscoelastic parameter that needs to be specified for a complete description of low-strain
kinematical properties of soils (i.e. Eq. 2.34).
However, as implied by the Kramers-Krönig relation (Eq. 2.11), the real and imaginary
parts of the complex modulus, G (1) γ ( ω ) and G ( 2) γ ( ω ) , are not independent, and hence
Dynamic Behavior of Soils 47
from Eq. 2.27 material damping ratio D γ ( ω ) cannot be specified arbitrarily. If for example
D γ ( ω ) is assumed to be constant and thus frequency independent for the entire frequency
range ω ∈ ]− ∞ ,+∞[ , then Eq. 2.32a (and Eq. 2.29a in the general case) would predict that
the velocity of propagation is frequency independent in linear viscoelastic media.
In Section 2.3.3 it was shown that most of the available experimental data indicate that
material damping in soils is a frequency independent phenomenon at very small strain levels
within the seismic frequency band. In the seismological literature (Aki and Richards, 1980;
Kennett, 1983; Keilis-Borok, 1989) it is shown that a nearly constant material damping ratio,
namely a function D γ ( ω ) which is frequency independent only over the seismic band,
satisfying the Kramers-Krönig relation yields the following dispersion relation:
Vγ (ω ref )
V γ (ω ) = (2.35)
2 D γ ω ref
1 + ln
ω
π
Theoretically the dispersion relation (Eq. 2.35) could be obtained by imposing the
constraint due to the Kramers-Krönig relation on Eq. 2.32a. This approach, however, turns
out to be very difficult to implement (Tschoegl, 1989). A more practical method (Liu et al.,
48 Dynamic Behavior of Soils
1976) is to assume a creep or a relaxation function which is able to reproduce the nearly
constant D γ and then use the Kramers-Krönig relation to deduce the dispersion
relationship. An alternative to this approach (Azimi et al., 1968) would be to assume a
Hilbert transform pair which satisfies the Kramers-Krönig relation with a nearly constant
D γ . Both methods, when applied to weakly dissipative media, yield the dispersion relation
(Eq. 2.35).
It should be apparent from these procedures that postulating the validity of Eq. 2.35 or
any other type of dispersion relation is equivalent to assuming a specific constitutive model
for the material; in fact Eq. 2.35 is an alternative way often used in seismology to specify the
constitutive laws of viscoelastic materials. With the definition of the dispersion relation (Eq.
2.35), the low-strain kinematical properties of soils are completely described by Eq. 2.34
with D γ ( ω ) = D γ = cons tan t .
1.4
Normalized Phase Velocity
1.2
0.8
0 20 40 60 80 100
Frequency [Hz]]
Damping Ratio = 0.01
Damping Ratio = 0.04
Damping Ratio = 0.08
Figure 2.10 illustrates the material dispersion effects predicted by Eq. 2.35. In particular
Fig. 2.10(a) shows the variation of phase velocity with frequency at constant damping ratio
( )
D γ . In this figure the ratio Vγ ( ω ) Vγ ω ref is plotted against frequency with ω ref = 2 π .
As expected, material dispersion effects increase with increasing D γ . For D γ = 8 % the
Dynamic Behavior of Soils 49
1.4
0.8
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Damping Ratio
5 Hz
10 Hz
50 Hz
100 Hz
The description of the low-strain kinematical properties of soils conducted so far has
assumed one-dimensional wave propagation. An important aspect of one-dimensional wave
propagation is that the direction of propagation coincides with the direction of attenuation.
In the case of two or three-dimensional wave propagation, these two directions are not
necessarily the same (Aki and Richards, 1980). By alternatively considering harmonic P and
S-waves, the general solution to Eq. 2.13 (note that for an P-wave curl u = 0 whereas for
an S-wave div u = 0 ) may be written in the form:
u (x , t ) = A e
(
i k *γ ⋅ x + ω t )
(2.36)
50 Dynamic Behavior of Soils
where x is the position vector, A is a constant vector to be determined from the boundary
conditions, and k *γ = k γ + iα
α γ is the bivector characterizing both the direction of
propagation (specified by the vector k γ ) and the direction of attenuation (specified by the
vector α γ ) of the γ -wave. The two vectors k γ and α γ do not need to be parallel. It is
possible to show (Ben-Menahem and Singh, 1981) that whereas the vector k γ is normal to
planes of constant phase defined by k γ ⋅ x = const. , the vector α γ is normal to planes of
constant amplitude defined by α γ ⋅ x = const. The phase velocity of the γ -wave is equal to
Vγ = ω k γ . When the vector k γ is parallel to the vector α γ the corresponding γ -wave
is called simple (Lockett, 1962).
In a simple γ-wave the direction of propagation is always the same as the direction of
maximum attenuation. Non simple waves may arise as a result of boundary effects (e.g.
reflection and refraction of harmonic waves at a plane interface) combined with viscoelastic
materials obeying specific constitutive laws (Christensen, 1971). All the propagation
phenomena involving viscoelastic waves considered in this study were assumed to
correspond to simple waves.
In the context of this study, the outcome of the first step was the selection of the
phenomenological theory of linear isotropic viscoelasticity to model the dynamic behavior
of soils at very small strain levels. The second step, which was the subject of Sections 2.5.2
and 2.5.3, resulted in the adoption of the dispersion relation (Eq. 2.35) which was largely
based on experimental observations that the material damping ratio for many soils is
hysteretic in nature within the seismic frequency band.
With respect to calibration modeling, it was noted in Section 2.5.3 that specification of
the complex moduli G *S ( ω) and G *B ( ω) over the entire range of frequencies is sufficient to
completely characterize any isotropic linear viscoelastic constitutive material. The
corresponding relaxation functions G S ( t ) and G B ( t ) in the time domain may be computed
from the inverse Fourier transform of the complex moduli as suggested by Eq. 2.9. A direct
Dynamic Behavior of Soils 51
It was emphasized in the previous section that Vγ and D γ are not independent, and
hence a correct experimental procedure should determine these parameters simultaneously.
Yet, in the current practice of experimental soil dynamics (Kramer, 1996; Ishihara, 1996)
Vγ and D γ are determined independently from each other. This section will illustrate the
principles of an experimental procedure for simultaneously determine the low-strain dynamic
properties of soils Vγ and D γ . The technique presented has to be conducted in laboratory,
with a widely known test called the resonant column test. In section 5.3.2 it will be shown how
the simultaneous measurement of the LS-DPS can be performed with the in-situ surface
wave testing.
The field techniques used to measure the low-strain dynamic properties of soils are
mainly of geophysical type because of the ability of these tests to operate at strain levels
γ ≤ 10 −5 . Some of them like the cross-hole, the down-hole or the seismic cone tests are
52 Dynamic Behavior of Soils
Resonant Column
Cyclic Triaxial
Earthquakes
Figure 2.11 Ranges of Variability of Cyclic Shear Strain Amplitude in Laboratory and
In-Situ Tests (Modified from Ishihara, 1996)
invasive, and hence they require the use of boreholes and probes. Some others like the
seismic reflection, the seismic refraction or the surface wave tests are non-invasive, and they
can be executed from the ground surface without the need of using boreholes or probes.
Concerning the use of laboratory techniques to measure the low-strain dynamic properties
of soils, very few of them can operate at very small strain levels; among them the most
popular is certainly the resonant column which allow the tests to be performed at strain
level γ < 10 −6 .
Figure 2.11 illustrates the strain levels mobilized by the most common in-situ and
laboratory tests. Current techniques used to measure the low-strain dynamic properties of
soils consider soil stiffness and material damping ratio as independent parameters. As a result
each of these parameters is measured separately. Using the results presented in section 2.5.2
and Section 2.5.3 it is possible to show how a laboratory technique such as the resonant
column test can effectively be used to simultaneously determine stiffness and damping ratio of
a soil specimen. Since these parameters are determined at specific frequencies of excitation,
the proposed method is well suited to investigate the frequency dependence laws of these
important soil properties.
In the resonant column test, a solid or hollow circular cylindrical soil specimen is
subjected to harmonic excitation by an electromagnetic driving system (Drnevich, 1985).
The soil specimen can be excited in either the torsional or the longitudinal modes of vibration.
Dynamic Behavior of Soils 53
The study presented hereinafter refers to a stress-controlled loading resonant column test in
the torsional mode of oscillation. The frequency and amplitude of the harmonic excitation
is controlled by the electromagnetic driving system.
Figure 2.12 shows schematically a fixed-free resonant column apparatus, which is fixed
at the base and free to rotate at the top where a driving torque T0 e iωt is applied. In the
proposed setting of the test, the parameter measured experimentally is the shear complex
modulus G *S ( ω) .
T0 e iωt
r ϑ
o
Figure 2.12 Fixed-Free Resonant Column Apparatus (Modified after Ishihara, 1996)
1 ∂2uϑ
∇2uϑ = ⋅ (2.37)
VS2 ∂t 2
54 Dynamic Behavior of Soils
∂2 1 ∂ 1 ∂2 ∂2
where ∇ = + + +
2
denotes the Laplacian operator in cylindrical
∂r 2 r ∂r r 2 ∂ϑ 2 ∂z 2
GS
coordinates, VS = is the elastic shear wave velocity, G S is the elastic shear modulus,
ρ
and ρ is the mass density of the soil specimen; finally u ϑ (r , z , t) is the displacement
component in the direction ϑ .
where ω is the angular frequency of oscillation. If Eq. 2.38 is substituted into Eq. 2.37, this
second order partial differential equation becomes two ordinary differential equations in the
unknown functions ξ( r ) and φ( z) which can be easily solved. The result is:
Ω z Ω z
u ϑ (r , z , t ) = A sin + B cos ⋅ r ⋅ e iωt (2.39)
h h
ρh 2 ω 2
where Ω 2 = and h is the height of the cylinder. A and B are two constants to be
GS
determined from the boundary conditions which are:
u ϑ (r , h , t ) = 0
(2.40)
∫ τ ϑz (r ,0 , t )ds = T0 e iωt
S
∂u ϑ
Since the only non-zero stress component is τ ϑz = G S , the twisting moment
∂z
M(z , t ) is computed by integrating τ ϑz (r , z , t ) over the cross sectional area to yield:
Dynamic Behavior of Soils 55
πR 4 ρω 2 h Ω z Ω z i ωt
M (z , t ) = ⋅ ⋅ A cos − B sin ⋅e
h
(2.41)
2 Ω h
By applying the boundary conditions in Eq. 2.40, it is found that the ratio between the
u
twisting moment M(z , t ) and the angle of twist ϑ = φ( z) e iωt at z = 0 is given by
r
(Christensen, 1971):
M (0 , t ) T0 πR 4 ρω 2 h
= = ⋅ ⋅ cot Ω (2.42)
φ ( 0 ) e i ωt φ ( 0 ) 2 Ω
T0 πR 4 ρω 2 h
= ⋅ ⋅ cot Ω * (2.43)
(
φ0 ) 2 Ω *
ρω 2 h 2
where Ω * ( ω ) = and G *S ( ω) is the complex shear modulus. An inspection of Eq.
G S* ( ω )
2.43 suggests that experimental measurement of the angle of twist at the top of the
specimen φ( 0) will allow the complex modulus G *S ( ω) to be determined once the amplitude
of the applied torque T0 and the geometry of the specimen are known.
It should be remarked that since the twisting moment M(0, t ) and the angle of twist
φ( 0) e iωt will be in general out of phase, φ( 0) is a complex number. If this analysis is carried
out over a wide range of frequencies, knowledge of G *S ( ω) will permit the determination of
other types of response functions such as the creep and relaxation functions. Finally, the
low-strain dynamic properties of soils in shear are determined from the knowledge of
G *S ( ω) using Eq. 2.18a for shear wave velocity, VS ( ω ) , and Eq. 2.27 for material damping
ratio, D S ( ω ) .
This analysis can be generalized to other modes of excitation. If for example, the soil
specimen in the resonant column test were excited in the longitudinal direction, the
56 Dynamic Behavior of Soils
procedure just presented would lead to the experimental measurement of the complex
Young’s modulus G *E ( ω) .
3 RAYLEIGH WAVES IN VERTICALLY HETEROGENEOUS
MEDIA
3.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to illustrate the most salient aspects of the theory of
Rayleigh wave propagation in vertically heterogeneous media. The chapter is organized in
two parts: in the first part the theory is developed for linear elastic media, and in the second
part the media is assumed linear viscoelastic. In both cases the properties of the medium are
assumed to be arbitrary (hence not necessarily continuous) functions of the depth y. Explicit
solutions, however, are presented only for the case of a finite number of homogeneous
layers overlaying a homogeneous half-space (a multi-layered medium).
The first topic to be discussed is the Rayleigh eigenvalue problem from which
fundamental results such as the Rayleigh Green’s function and the effective Rayleigh phase
velocity can be easily derived. The solution of the Rayleigh eigenvalue problem also leads to
the important concept of geometric dispersion, a phenomenon by which, in heterogeneous
media, the phase velocity of Rayleigh waves is a multi-valued function of the frequency of
excitation. Geometric dispersion needs to be distinguished from material dispersion
introduced in Chapter 2. Whereas the latter is caused by the causality constraint imposed by
the Kramers-Krönig relation, the former arises from constructive interference phenomena
occurring in media that are either bounded (e.g. rods, plates, and other types of waveguides)
or heterogeneous. Geometric dispersion is responsible for the existence of several modes of
propagation each traveling at a different phase and group velocity (modal velocities). Later
in this chapter it will be shown that another consequence of geometric dispersion is to alter
the geometric spreading law governing the attenuation of Rayleigh waves in heterogeneous
elastic media.
For surface waves generated by harmonic forces applied at the boundary or in the
interior of a vertically heterogeneous half space, the various modes of propagation of
Rayleigh waves are superimposed like in a spatial Fourier series. The phase velocity of the
resulting waveform can be obtained from an appropriate superposition of modal Rayleigh
quantities (phase and group velocities, eigenfunctions, etc.). This kinematical quantity is
given the name effective Rayleigh phase velocity and is shown to be a local quantity in the
sense that its magnitude depends on the spatial position where it is measured. It will be
shown in Chapters 5 and 6 that the notion of effective Rayleigh phase velocity is particularly
relevant for surface waves measurements conducted with harmonic sources.
57
58 Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media
The last topic to be discussed in this chapter is the Rayleigh variational principle. The
application of this powerful principle to the solution of the Rayleigh eigenvalue problem
leads to closed-form solutions for the partial derivatives of Rayleigh phase velocity with
respect to the medium parameters, in particular the medium compression and shear wave
velocities. As shown in Chapter 5, these partial derivatives are very important in the solution
of the inverse problem in which a given set of Rayleigh phase velocities (i.e., a dispersion
curve) are used to obtain an unknown profile of medium parameters.
The efficiency and accuracy of an inversion algorithm is strongly dependent upon the
technique used to compute the partial derivatives of Rayleigh phase velocity with respect to
the medium parameters. The great advantage offered by the partial derivatives obtained with
the Rayleigh variational principle is that they can be computed using only the unperturbed
medium properties. Numerical partial derivatives, on the other hand, are very inefficient to
compute because they require the solution of the Rayleigh eigenvalue problem for both
perturbed and unperturbed medium parameters. Finally it should be remarked that
numerical computation of partial derivatives is a notoriously ill-conditioned problem. In this
chapter it will be shown how the Rayleigh variational principle can successfully be used to
compute the partial derivatives of both Rayleigh modal and effective phase velocities with
respect to the medium parameters, in a systematic and efficient manner.
Another important result that can be obtained with the use of variational techniques is
related to the attenuation of Rayleigh waves in weakly dissipative media. Some of the most
common procedures used by seismologists to solve surface waves propagation problems in
inelastic media are based on the assumption of weak dissipation (Keilis-Borok, 1989;
Herrmann, 1994). One important consequence of this assumption is that Rayleigh
attenuation coefficients α R ( ω ) can be easily computed from the solution of the Rayleigh
eigenproblem in elastic media. Later in the chapter, a new technique for the solution of the
Rayleigh eigenproblem in linear viscoelastic media is presented. The technique is quite
general since it can also be applied to strongly dissipative viscoelastic media.
The solutions presented in this chapter are all obtained in the frequency domain. This
choice was made for two main reasons. The first reason is simplicity. The mathematics of
wave propagation problems is often fairly involved, and explicit non-integral solutions can
rarely be obtained. One of the few exceptions is a boundary value problem where the
boundary conditions and the body forces are specified as harmonic functions of time. The
second reason for choosing to work in the frequency domain is generality. The availability
of harmonic solutions is often sufficient for obtaining far more general solutions by using
the Fourier integral theorem.
∂ ∂L 3 ∂ ∂L − ∂L = 0
+∑ (3.1)
( )
∂t ∂q& i j=1 ∂x j ∂ q i,j ∂q i
where x j are the components of the position vector x in Cartesian coordinates. For a
linear elastic material the potential energy identifies with the elastic strain energy, and thus
the Lagrangian density is given by:
( ) 1 1
L u& i , u i ,j = ρu& i u& i − σ ij ε ij
2 2
(3.2)
where u i ( i = 1,3) are the components of the displacement vector, σ ij and ε ij are the
components of stress and strain, respectively, and ρ is the mass density that is assumed
constant with time. It is seen from Eq. 3.2 that in a linear elastic body the generalized
coordinates q i identify with the components of displacement vector u ( x, t) .
1
Considering Hooke’s law σ ij = λ ε kk δ ij + 2Gε ij where ε ij = ( )
u + u j, i , δ ij is the
2 i ,j
Kronecker symbol, and λ and G are Lamè’s elastic moduli, Eq. 3.2 can be rewritten as:
( ) 1 1
L u& i , u i ,j = ρ u& i u& i − λ (ε kk ) + G ε ij ε ij
2 2
2
(3.3)
In general, Lamè’s parameters and the mass density are functions of the coordinates, namely
( ) ( ) ( )
λ = λ x j , G = G x j , and ρ = ρ x j . However, in this chapter the elastic medium is
assumed vertically heterogeneous hence λ = λ ( x 3 ) , G = G( x 3 ) , and ρ = ρ( x 3 ) . Using the
definition of Lagrangian density given by Eq. 3.3, Lagrange’s equations of motion (Eq. 3.1)
yield the following result in vector notation (Ben-Menahem and Singh, 1981):
60 Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media
dλ dG ∂ u ∂2 u
G ∇2 u + ( λ + G) grad (div u) + e y div u + e y × curl u + 2 = ρ 2 (3.4)
dy dy ∂y ∂t
Equations 3.4 are the Navier’s equations of motion for vertically heterogeneous media
in absence of body forces. Obviously Eq. 3.4 is written in Cartesian coordinates specified by
{} { }
a set of basis vectors e j and a set of coordinate axes x j . For convenience the base
vector e 3 has been denoted by e y . Finally, the symbol (⋅) × ( ⋅) is used to indicate the vector
product.
To find a solution of Eq. 3.4 for harmonic Rayleigh waves, the displacement field
u( x,t ) is assumed equal to:
{
u: u1 = r1 ( y, k, ω) ⋅ ei( ωt −kr ) , u2 = 0, u3 = i ⋅ r2 ( y, k, ω) ⋅ ei( ωt − kr ) } (3.5)
In elastic media the Rayleigh wave particle motion is elliptical with the minor axis of the
ellipse parallel to the free surface. The horizontal and the vertical components of the
displacement field are π 2 radians out of phase. Equation 3.5 represents a two-dimensional
plane strain field ( u 2 = 0 ). This assumption does not imply any loss of generality in the
discussion since it can be proven (Aki and Richards, 1980) that cylindrical Rayleigh waves
have the same y-dependence indicated by Eq. 3.5. In these equations the term k = k( ω )
denotes the real wavenumber which, in general, is a multi-valued function of the frequency
of excitation ω . Finally the term r is used to indicate the direction of propagation. Figure
3.1 illustrates the sign convention assumed for the coordinate axes.
To represent Rayleigh waves Eq. 3.5 must be supplemented with appropriate boundary
conditions: no stresses at the free surface of the half-space and no stresses and
displacements at infinity (i.e., the radiation condition):
σ (r, y) ⋅ n = 0 at y = 0
(3.6)
u (r , y) → 0, σ (r , y) ⋅ n → 0 as y → ∞
where the symbol σ (r , y ) denotes Cauchy’s stress tensor and n is a unit normal vector.
Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media 61
Rayleigh Wave
n
r
y
u (r , y + ) = u (r , y − )
(3.7)
( )
σ (r, y + ) ⋅ n = σ r, y - ⋅ n
If Eq. 3.5 is substituted into the Navier’s equations (Eq. 3.4) the result, written in matrix
form, is (Aki and Richards, 1980):
62 Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media
r1 0 k( ω ) G −1 ( y ) 0 r1
[
− k( ω ) λ( y ) ⋅ λ(y ) + 2 G( y ) ] [λ( y ) + 2 G (y ) ]
−1 −1
r2 0 0 r2
d (3.8)
= ⋅
dy −1
r3
[ ]
k ( ω ) ζ( y ) − ω 2 ρ (y )
2
0 0 [ ]
k( ω ) λ ( y ) λ ( y ) + 2 G ( y ) r 3
r4 0 − ω 2 ρ (y ) − k ( ω ) 0 r4
dr dr
where r3 ( y , k , ω ) = G 1 − kr2 , and r4 ( y , k , ω ) = ( λ + 2 G) 2 + kλr1 . The function
dy dy
( λ + G)
ζ( y ) depends on Lamè’s parameters and is given by ζ( y ) = 4 G .
( λ + 2G )
τ yr = r3 ( y, k, ω) ⋅ ei(ωt −kr )
(3.9)
τ yy = i ⋅ r4 ( y , k, ω) ⋅ ei(ωt − kr )
By defining a vector f ( y ) = r1 [ r2 r3 r4 ] T
, and a matrix A ( y) denoting the 4 × 4
array above whose elements are functions of λ ( y), G(y ), k , ω , Eq. 3.8 can be rewritten
simply as:
df ( y)
= A( y) ⋅ f ( y) (3.10)
dy
r3 (y, k, ω) = 0, r4 ( y, k, ω) = 0 at y = 0
(3.11)
f (y , k, ω) → 0 as y → ∞
For a given frequency ω , non-trivial solutions of the linear eigenproblem (Eq. 3.10)
subjected to the boundary conditions (Eq. 3.11) exist only for special values of the
wavenumber k j = k j ( ω ) , ( j = 1, M) . These particular values of k j are the eigenvalues of
the eigenproblem, and the corresponding solutions ri y , k j , ω , ( ) (i = 1, 4) are the
eigenfunctions. It can be shown (Keilis-Borok, 1989) that the set of eigenfunctions for a
given frequency ω obey certain orthogonality conditions with appropriate weighting
functions.
[ ]
F R λ ( y ), G( y ), ρ( y ), k j , ω = 0 where F R [⋅] is a complicated function of Lamè’s
parameters, the mass density, the wavenumber and the frequency of excitation. The
relationship F R [⋅] = 0 is called the Rayleigh dispersion equation. It states that in vertically
heterogeneous media the velocity of propagation of Rayleigh waves is, in general, a multi-
{
valued function of frequency. Each pair k j , ri y , k j ,ω ( )} defines a mode of propagation
and, in general, there are M normal modes of propagation at any given frequency. The
number M can be finite or infinite, depending on the y-dependence of the medium
properties and on the frequency of excitation. Furthermore, the distribution of the modes,
namely the mode spectrum, can be continuous or discrete, and in some cases both (Keilis-
Borok, 1989). In a medium composed of a finite number of homogeneous layers overlaying
a homogeneous half-space, the total number of Rayleigh modes of propagation is always
finite (Ewing et al., 1957).
frequently used techniques are those belonging to the class of propagator-matrix methods
(Kennett, 1983). The Thomson-Haskell algorithm (Thomson, 1950; Haskell, 1953) also
called the transfer matrix method is probably the most famous of this class of methods
because of its conceptual simplicity and ease of computer implementation. The application
of this algorithm, however, is limited to vertically heterogeneous media that can be
represented by a stack of homogeneous layers overlying a homogeneous half-space.
Haskell (1953) also developed asymptotic expressions for the Rayleigh dispersion
equation in the important limiting cases of short and long wavelengths. Because the original
formulation of the Thomson-Haskell algorithm suffers numerical instability problems at
high frequencies (Knopoff, 1964), this method has been modified and improved throughout
the years by numerous researchers (Schwab and Knopoff, 1970; Abo-Zena, 1979; Harvey,
1981).
Kausel and Roësset (1981) derived a finite element formulation from the Thomson-
Haskell algorithm, which is called the dynamic stiffness matrix method. The main feature of
this method is the replacement of the Thomson-Haskell transfer matrices with layer
stiffness matrices that are similar to conventional stiffness matrices used in structural
analysis. The advantage of this formulation is the ability to use standard structural analysis
techniques such as condensation and substructuring to solve both the eigenproblem and the
inhomogeneous elastodynamic problem of layered media subjected to dynamic loads
(Kausel, 1981). The first attempts in using finite element techniques to solve wave
propagation problems in seismology and earthquake engineering date back to the early 70’s
with the works of Lysmer and Waas (1972) and Lysmer and Drake (1972).
Another important class of algorithms for solving eigenvalue problems of surface waves
is the method of reflection and transmission coefficients developed by Kennett and his co-
workers (Kennett, 1974; Kennett and Kerry, 1979; Kennett, 1983), and modified and/or
improved by others researchers (Luco and Apsel, 1983; Chen, 1993; Hisada, 1994; Hisada,
1995). This method, like the Thomson-Haskell algorithm to which it is related, is only
suitable for applications in multi-layered media. It is based on the use of reflection and
transmission coefficients to construct reflection and transmission matrices for a stratified
Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media 65
media. The result is a very efficient iterative algorithm for establishing the Rayleigh
[ ]
dispersion equation F R λ ( y ), G( y ), ρ( y ), k j , ω = 0 . The method of reflection and
transmission coefficients also offers an interesting physical interpretation because it
explicitly models the constructive interference that leads to formation of the surface waves
modes (Kennett, 1983). Earlier versions of this algorithm were numerically unstable at high
frequencies because of the presence of certain frequency-dependent terms that have been
eliminated in more recent formulations (Chen, 1993).
Most of the computational efforts spent by the algorithms used for the solution of the
Rayleigh eigenvalue problem are devoted to the following two tasks: construction of the
[ ]
Rayleigh dispersion equation F R λ ( y ), G( y ), ρ( y ), k j , ω = 0 (which is also called the
Rayleigh secular function), and computation of its roots as a function of frequency. The
latter are the Rayleigh wavenumbers k j = k j ( ω ) , and also the eigenvalues solution of the
Rayleigh eigenproblem (Eqs.3.10 and 3.11).
In the case of an elastic medium the use of complex arithmetic in constructing the
Rayleigh secular function can completely be avoided (Haskell, 1953; Schwab and Knopoff,
1971), and the roots of the dispersion equation are generally obtained by means of root-
bracketing techniques combined with bisection (Hisada, 1995). The use of these slow
converging root-finding techniques is suggested by the rapidly oscillating behavior of the
Rayleigh secular function, particularly at high frequencies, which requires the use of methods
that cannot fail to find the roots (Press et al., 1992).
Figure 3.2 shows a typical plot of the roots of the Rayleigh dispersion equation
k j = k j ( ω ) where the phase velocity, rather than the wavenumber, has been plotted against
frequency. The algorithm used is that developed by Chen (1993) and Hisada (1995) which
uses the method of reflection and transmission coefficients. Each dispersion curve is
associated with a particular mode of propagation.
In general, there are several modes of propagation at a given frequency with the higher
modes characterized by a higher velocity of propagation. Another important feature of
multi-mode Rayleigh wave propagation is readily apparent from Fig. 3.2: as the frequency
increases the number of modes associated with that frequency also increases and the modes
become more closely spaced. As ω → ∞ the modes all tend to a common limit which is
the Rayleigh phase velocity of the thin layer bordering the free-surface of the vertically
heterogeneous half-space.
Once the roots of the Rayleigh secular function have been obtained, computation of the
eigenfunctions is a straightforward task. Figure 3.3 illustrates the typical mode shapes of
Rayleigh displacement eigenfunctions in a vertically heterogeneous medium.
66 Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media
165
160
7
6
Rayleigh Phase Velocity (m/sec)
155
5
4
150
3
145
2
140
135
1
130
125
0 20 40 60 80 100
Frequency (Hz)
Mode Number
1 2 3
0
-5
-10 Vertical
Depth (m)
Horizontal
-15
-20
-25
The eigenfunctions have been normalized with respect to the maximum value of the
vertical displacement. A common feature of multi-mode Rayleigh wave propagation is that
higher modes have a greater penetration depth than lower modes. This property, which is
clearly shown in Fig. 3.3, is very important in the solution of the inverse problem because
the resolution of deeper layers can be directly related to the presence of higher modes of
propagation.
As mentioned at the beginning of this section, other numerical techniques can be used
to solve the linear eigenvalue problem including the finite difference method (Boore, 1972),
numerical integration (Takeuchi and Saito, 1972), the boundary element method (Manolis
and Beskos, 1988), and the spectral element method (Komatitsch and Vilotte, 1998; Faccioli
et al., 1996). Although these techniques are less popular than the propagator matrix
methods briefly described in this section, they have several advantages. Numerical
integration and spectral element method, for example, can be used in vertically
heterogeneous media where the medium properties vary continuously with depth, and
therefore they are more general than the propagator matrix methods. Boundary element
methods are best suited for modeling unbounded or semi-infinite media because they
require discretization of only the boundaries. As a result, they reduce the dimension of the
problem by one. Moreover, boundary element methods eliminate the need, required by
finite element based methods, of using fictitious or non-reflecting boundaries to simulate
the radiation condition at infinity.
∑ [ A ( r , y , ω )] ⋅ e ( )
M
u β (r , y , ω ) =
i ω ⋅t − k j ⋅r + ϕ β
β (3.12)
j
j= 1
[ ]
where β = r , y and A β (r , y , ω ) , k j ( ω ) are the Rayleigh displacement amplitudes and
j
M i (ω⋅t − k j ⋅r + ϕβ )
[ ] [ ] ( ) ( )
M
ℑ u β (r , y , ω) = ℑ ∑ A β (r , y , ω) e
= ∑ Cβ j sin (ωt) − Dβ j cos (ωt) (3.13)
j=1 j j=1
where (C ) = (A ) ⋅cos(k ⋅r +ϕ )
β
j
β
j
j β and (D ) = (A ) ⋅sin (k ⋅ r + ϕ ) .
β
j
β
j
j β Now using simple
trigonometric identities Eq. 3.13 can be re-written as follows:
[ ] [
ℑ u β (r , y , ω ) =U β (r , y , ω ) ⋅ sin ωt − ψ β (r , y , ω ) ] (3.14)
where:
0.5
[ ( )]
M M
i=1 j=1 i
[ ] [
U β (r , y , ω) = ∑ ∑ A β (r , y , ω) ⋅ A β (r , y, ω) ⋅ cos r ⋅ k i − k j
j
]
(3.15)
Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media 69
M
[ ] (
∑ A β (r , y , ω ) i ⋅ sin k i ⋅ r + ϕ β
−1 i =1
)
ψ β (r , y , ω ) = tan M (3.16)
j=1 β [j
]
∑ A (r , y , ω ) ⋅ cos k ⋅ r + ϕ
j ( β )
From Eq. 3.14, the expression:
represents the equation of a wave front, since it is the locus of points having constant
phase. Assuming the functions ψ β (r , y , ω ) to be sufficiently smooth, Eq. 3.17 can be
differentiated with respect to time, to give:
∂ψ β
ω−
∂r
( r, y, ω ) ⋅ dr
dt
=0 (3.18)
ω
V$ β (r , y , ω ) = (3.19)
[ψ (r , y , ω)]
β
,r
where the symbol V$ β (r , y , ω ) has been used to denote the effective Rayleigh phase velocity.
It is apparent from Eq. 3.19 that the effective Rayleigh phase velocity is a local quantity,
which means that its value depends on the spatial position where it is evaluated. At a fixed
y = y , the function V$ β (r , y c , ω ) describes what may be called a dispersion surface, i.e. a two
c
dimensional surface showing the variation of the effective Rayleigh phase velocity with
frequency and distance from the source. From Eq. 3.19 it is also interesting to observe that
since the effective Rayleigh phase velocity is a vector quantity, different components of
V$ β (r , y , ω ) will, in general, travel at different phase velocities. Furthermore, since
∂ V$ β ( )
ωV$ β ⋅ ψ β
,r
=− is not, in general, equal to zero, the wave train accelerates as it
∂t (ψ ) ⋅ (ψ )
β
,r
β
,r
70 Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media
propagates along the surface of the half-space. In Eq. 3.19 the term (ψ )
β
,r
could be
a local quantity, must be integrated over r to yield the phase ψ β ( r , y , ω ) . Considering the
definition of ψ β (r , y , ω ) given by Eq. 3.16, it is possible to obtain from Eq. 3.19, an explicit
definition for the effective Rayleigh phase velocity which is given by:
∑ ∑ ( A ) (A ) ⋅ cos [r ( k )]
M M
β β − k j
i j i
V$ β ( r , y , ω ) = 2ω ⋅
i =1 j = 1
(3.20)
∑ ∑ {( A ) (A ) (k [ ]}
M M
β β s r + k s ) ⋅ cos r ( k r − k s )
r
r = 1 s =1
{
For an harmonic point source Fy ⋅ e iωt located at r = 0, y = y S , the Rayleigh displacement }
amplitudes [A (r , y , ω)]
β
j
of the individual modes of propagation are related to the
A r ( r , y , ω )
Fy ⋅ r2 y S , k j , ω( ) 1
(
r y , k , ω
j )
[ ]
A β (r , y , ω ) =
j
=
4 Vj ⋅ U j ⋅ I j ⋅ 2 π r ⋅ k j
⋅
(3.21)
A y ( r , y , ω ) j
2 (
r y , k , ω
j )
where Vj , U j , and k j are the phase, group velocity and wavenumber of the Rayleigh jth
mode of propagation ( j = 1, M) , respectively. The term I j y , k j ,ω is the first Rayleigh ( )
th
energy integral associated with the j mode of propagation (see Section 3.5 for more details)
and is defined by (Aki and Richards, 1980):
[ ( )]
∞
1
) (
I j ( y , k j , ω ) = ∫ ρ( y ) r12 y , k j , ω + r22 y , k j , ω dy
20
(3.22)
Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media 71
By substituting Eq. 3.21 into Eq. 3.20, the expression for the effective Rayleigh phase
velocity becomes:
M M
2ω ∑ ∑
( ) i 1 j 2 ( S ) [(
r ( y , k )r y , k r ( y , k )r y , k cos r k − k
1 i 2 S j i )]
j
i = 1 j =1
( ( )
Vi U i I i ) Vj U jI j k i k j
V$ r (r , y , ω ) = (3.23a)
∑ ∑
r 1 s 2 S r 2 S s r [
M M r ( y , k )r ( y , k )r ( y , k )r ( y , k )( k + k ) cos r ( k − k )
1 s r s ]
r =1 s = 1
( Vr U r I r )( Vs U s Is ) k r k s
M M ( ) ( ) [(
r (y , k )r y , k r (y , k )r y , k cos r k − k
2 )]
2ω ∑ ∑
i 2 j 2 S i 2 S j i j
i = 1 j =1
( ( )
V i U i I i ) Vj U j I j k i k j
V$ y (r , y , ω ) = (3.23b)
∑ ∑
r 2 s 2 S r 2 S s r [
M M r ( y , k )r ( y , k )r ( y , k )r ( y , k )( k + k ) cos r ( k − k )
2 s r s ]
r =1 s = 1
(Vr U r I r )( Vs U s Is ) k r k s
As a final remark of this section, it is noted from Eq. 3.23 that the effective Rayleigh
phase velocity is completely determined by the solution of the Rayleigh eigenproblem. In
fact, recalling that Vj = ω k j and U j = dω dk j (j = 1, M) , all of the modal quantities
{
appearing in Eq. 3.23 can be calculated from the pair k j , ri y , k j ,ω ( )} (i = 1, 2) .
used with a somewhat more general and sometimes different meaning than the one used in
applied mathematics. A common example is constituted by the response of a linear system
to a harmonic or a Heaviside unit point source. This response if often denoted as the
Green’s function associated to the linear system.
In this study the term Green’s function is primarily used to denote the response of a
linear elastic or viscoelastic half-space to a harmonic unit point source. Of particular interest
in this section is the displacement Green’s function, which is defined as the displacement
u$ (r , y , ω ) induced in a linear elastic medium by a harmonic unit point load 1 y ⋅ e iωt located
at the position (r = 0, y = y S ) . The subscript y in 1 y denotes the direction of action of the
unit point load.
It is evident from these considerations that for harmonic oscillations at large distances
from the source, the surface wave field dominates the overall particle motion and
u$ (r , y , ω ) ≈ u$ S (r , y , ω ) . The distance from the source where the body wave field is not
negligible is usually called the near field. Numerical studies by Holzlohner (1980), Vrettos
(1991) and Tokimatsu (1995) of wave propagation in vertically heterogeneous media have
shown that in normally dispersive media the near-field effects are important up to a distance
from the source equal to λ 2 (where λ = λ ( ω ) is the wavelength of the Rayleigh waves).
However, in inversely dispersive media (i.e. media where the material properties vary
irregularly with depth) the near-field is larger and may extend up to 2λ . All theoretical
studies and experimental measurements performed during this research program have
assumed the near-field effects to be negligible. Furthermore, even though surface waves
tests are suitable for measurements of both Love and Rayleigh waves, most current
applications including this study focus exclusively on Rayleigh waves.
Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media 73
u$ β (r , y , ω ) =U$β (r , y , ω ) ⋅ e [
i ω t − ψ β ( r , y ,ω ) ]
(3.24)
where the subscript β = r , y denotes the radial and the vertical directions, respectively.
The expressions for U$β (r , y , ω ) and ψ β (r , y , ω ) are obtained from Eqs. 3.15 and 3.16
[ ]
with the modal amplitudes A β (r , y , ω ) computed from Eq. 3.21 with Fy = 1; the final
j
result is:
( ) ( ) [( )]
0 .5
M M r ( k , y )r k , y r ( k , y )r k , y cos r k − k
1
U r (r , y , ω ) = ∑ ∑
1 i 1 j 2 i S 2 j S i j
$ (3.25a)
4 2 π ⋅ r i = 1 j= 1 k i k j ( V i U i I i )( V j U j I j )
( ) ( ) [( )]
0 .5
M M r ( k , y )r k , y r ( k , y )r k , y cos r k − k
1
U y (r , y , ω ) = ∑ ∑
2 i 2 j 2 i S 2 j S i j
$ (3.25b)
4 2 π ⋅ r i =1 j=1 k i k j ( V i U i I i )( V j U j I j )
and
M r ( k , y , ω )r ( k , y , ω ) π
∑ 1 i 2 i S
⋅ sin k i ⋅ r −
i =1 k i ⋅ ( Vi U i I i ) 4
ψ r ( r , y , ω ) = tan −1 M (3.26a)
r1 ( k j , y , ω )r2 ( k j , y S , ω ) π
∑
⋅ cos k j ⋅ r −
j =1 k j ⋅ V (U
j j j I ) 4
74 Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media
M r ( k , y , ω )r ( k , y , ω ) π
∑ 2 i 2 i S
⋅ sin k i ⋅ r +
i =1 k i ⋅ ( Vi U i I i ) 4
ψ y (r , y , ω ) = tan −1 M (3.26b)
r2 ( k j , y , ω )r2 ( k j , y S , ω ) π
∑
⋅ cos k j ⋅ r +
j =1 k j ⋅(V j U j)I j
4
Equations 3.24 through 3.26 completely define the displacement Green’s function
u$ (r , y , ω ) . Equation 3.24 is informative because it shows that a multiplicative
i arg ( u$ β )
decomposition of the displacement Green’s function of the type u$ β =U$β e is possible
even for multi-mode wave propagation. However, because the wavenumber k$ β (r , y , ω ) is
no longer a constant, the spatial variation of the displacement field is no longer harmonic
even though the temporal variation of the source is harmonic. Equations 3.25 and 3.26
show also the remarkable result that the three main factors in the expression of u$ (r , y , ω ) ,
namely the source depth ( y S ) , the receiver depth ( y ) , and the distance from the source
( r ) , are uncoupled in the sense that their contribution is independent from each other.
With the definition of Green’s function given in this section, the computation of the
displacement u (r , y ,ω ) induced by a point harmonic source Fy ⋅ e iωt located at
{r = 0, y = y } becomes a trivial task. In fact:
S
u (r , y , ω ) = Fy ⋅ u$ (r , y , ω ) (3.27)
u β (r , y , ω ) = Fy ⋅ Gβ (r , y , ω ) ⋅ e [ ]
i ωt − ψ β ( r ,y ,ω )
(3.28)
where a new function Gβ (r , y , ω ) =U$β (r , y , ω ) called the Rayleigh geometrical spreading function,
has been introduced. This function has the important physical interpretation of modeling
the geometric attenuation in vertically heterogeneous media. As already mentioned Rayleigh
waves in homogeneous media attenuate by a factor proportional to r −0.5 as a result of their
geometrical spreading from a localized source. This simple geometric attenuation law, which
follows directly from the principle of conservation of energy, does not hold in non-
Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media 75
homogeneous media. Under these conditions the Rayleigh wave displacement field results
from the superposition of several modes of propagation (geometric dispersion). An
important consequence is that the geometric spreading law of Rayleigh waves is altered.
Figure 3.4 shows a plot of the geometric spreading function Gy (r , y ,ω ) at the free-
surface ( y = 0) of three different types of elastic media: a homogeneous medium, a three-
layer soft-stiff-stiffer system (normally dispersive), and a three-layer stiff-soft-stiff system
(inversely dispersive). The numerical simulation was carried out at a frequency of 40 Hz.
1.0E-08
8.0E-09 Homogeneous
Inversely Dispersive
Gy (r,y,ω) [m]
6.0E-09
Normally Dispersive
4.0E-09
2.0E-09
0.0E+00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance [m]
It is apparent from the figure that geometric attenuation in inversely dispersive media is
most strongly affected by geometric dispersion. This has also been observed in other
numerical studies (Tokimatsu et al., 1992; Gucunski and Woods, 1991).
From Eq. 3.25 it can be easily verified that in homogeneous media where M = 1 ,
k i = k j = k , and U i = Vi = V , Gβ (r , y , ω ) reduces as expected, to the frequency
independent function Eβ r where [
E r = r1 ( y ) r2 ( y S ) 4 V 2 I 2 πk ] and
[ ]
E y = r2 ( y ) r2 ( y S ) 4 V 2 I 2 πk . The importance of the explicit factorization of the
76 Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media
( )
t2
(
where L = T − U has a stationary value (Goldstein, 1980). The function L q i , q& i , q i , j )
( i = 1, N; j = 1, 3) , already introduced in Section 3.2, is called the Lagrangian density,
whereas the variables q i describing the behavior of the system are the generalized
coordinates. Finally T and U are the kinetic and the potential energy of the system,
respectively. It is well known from the calculus of variations (Logan, 1997) that for the
integral of Eq. 3.29 to have a stationary value it is required that:
t2
t1
V
( )
δ (I ) = δ ∫ ∫ L q i , q& i , q i ,j dVdt = 0 (3.30)
Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media 77
That is, the first variation of the integral I vanishes for arbitrary changes δ q i which
vanish at the boundary of the volume V and at times t 1 and t 2 . Implementation of Eq.
3.30 yields Lagrange’s equations of motion of the system and the associated natural
boundary conditions. It was shown in Section 3.2 that in a continuous linear elastic material
2
( )
the Lagrangian density is given by L u& i , u i ,j = ρ u& i u& i − λ (ε kk ) + G ε ij ε ij where
1
2
1 2
λ = λ( y ) , G = G( y ) , and ρ = ρ( y ) . If the elastic body of volume V is identified with a
vertically heterogeneous half space with no body forces and surface tractions, and if the
displacement field u( x,t ) is specified according to Eq. 3.5, the expression for the
Lagrangian density becomes:
1 2 2 2 1 dr2
2 2 2
dr2 dr1
L = ρω (r1 + r2 ) − λ kr1 + + G − kr2 + 2G k r1 +
2 2
(3.31)
4 4 dy dy dy
where the symbol ⋅ denotes the average value of a quantity. The average value has been
used to eliminate the time dependence from the definition of the harmonic Lagrangian
density. Equation 3.31 defines the average Lagrangian density L for the homogeneous
boundary value problem of Rayleigh waves. Application of Hamilton’s principle with the
Lagrangian density given by Eq. 3.31 for any perturbation of the eigenfunctions r1 ( y , k ,ω )
and r2 ( y , k ,ω ) satisfying the boundary conditions given by Eq. 3.11 yields:
[ ]
∞
δ(I ) = δ ∫ L dy = δ ω 2 I1 − k 2 I2 − kI3 − I 4 = 0 (3.32)
0
where I1 , I 2 , I3 , and I 4 are the Rayleigh energy integrals, and are defined as (Aki and
Richards, 1980):
1 ∞ 1 ∞
I1 =
2 ∫0
ρ (r12 + r22 )dy I2 =
2 ∫0
[ ]
( λ + 2G) r12 + Gr22 dy (3.33a)
1 ∞ dr1
2 2
∞ dr2 dr1 dr2
I3 = ∫ λr1 − Gr2 dy I4 = ∫ ( λ + 2G) + G dy (3.33b)
0 dy dy 2 0 dy dy
78 Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media
In Eq. 3.32 the eigenfunctions r1 ( y , k ,ω ) and r2 ( y , k ,ω ) are the only quantities being
perturbed, hence:
δ(I ) = δ ∫ L dy = ( ω 2 δ I1 − k 2 δ I2 − kδ I 3 − δ I4 ) = 0
∞
(3.34)
0
From the Rayleigh equations of motion and associated boundary conditions (Eqs. 3.10
and 3.11), it is possible to obtain the following result at the stationary point where
∞
δ ∫ L dy = 0 (Aki and Richards, 1980):
0
L dy = (ω 2 I1 − k 2 I 2 − kI3 − I4 ) = 0
∞
∫
0
(3.35)
statement of conservation of energy, i.e., the average kinetic energy associated with a given
mode of propagation equals the average elastic strain energy.
The combined results given by Eqs. 3.34 and 3.35 will be referenced hereafter as the
variational principle of Rayleigh waves. This should not be confused with the Rayleigh
principle which asserts that first-order perturbations in the Rayleigh eigenvalue (namely the
wavenumber k) will only result in second-order perturbations of the corresponding
eigenfunctions (Ben-Menahem and Singh, 1981) and may, in fact, be derived from Eqs. 3.34
and 3.35 if desired.
{ [ ] [ ] }
independent variables. Now let λ ( y) + δ λ ( y ) , G( y ) + δ G( y ) , ρ( y ) denote the
~
material properties of a medium M whose Lamè’s parameters differ slightly from those of
the medium M. At a given frequency ω, the pair
Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media 79
Later in this section it will be shown that the problem of determining the partial
[ ]
derivatives of the modal Rayleigh phase velocity VR ( ω ) j with respect to the medium
parameters is essentially reduced to that of computing δk j . The latter task is accomplished
by using the variational principle of Rayleigh waves, namely Eqs. 3.34 and 3.35. For ease of
[ ]
notation, the modal parameters k j and VR ( ω ) j will subsequently be denoted without the
~
subscript j. Application of Eq. 3.35 to the medium M yields:
[ ]
∞
1 2
ω ∫ ρ (r1 + δr1 ) + (r2 + δr2 ) dy =
2 2
2 0
{[ }
∞
1
]
( k + δk) 2 ∫ ( λ + δλ) + 2 ( G + δG) (r1 + δr1 ) + ( G + δG)(r2 + δr2 ) dy +
2 2
2 0
∞
d d (3.36)
+ ( k + δk) ∫ ( λ + δλ)(r1 + δr1 ) (r2 + δr2 ) − ( G + δG)(r2 + δr2 ) (r1 + δr1 ) dy +
0
dy dy
1
∞ 2 2
d d
2 0
[
+ ∫ ( λ + δλ) + 2 ( G + δG) ] ( r2 + δr )
2 + ( G + δG) (r1 + δr )
1 dy
dy dy
Application of Eqs. 3.34 and 3.35 to Eq. 3.36 expanded to include first order terms leads
to:
80 Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media
∞
dr dr
[
δk ∫ λr1 2 − Gr2 1 + k ( λ + 2G)r12 + Gr22 dy +
dy dy
]
0
∞ 1 dr 2 dr2 1 2 2
+ ∫ + kr1 ( )
+ k r δ λ + 2G dy +
2
2 dy dy 2 1 (3.37)
0
δ (ω 2 I1 − k 2 I2 − kI3 − I4 ) =
(3.38)
= 2ωδω + ω δI1 − 2I 2 kδk − k δI2 − I 3 δk − kδI3 − δI4 = 0
2 2
δω 2 kI 2 − I3
U= = (3.39)
δk 2ωI1
1 dr2
∞ 2 ∞ 2
dr1 dr2
4ωUI1 ∫0
δk = − kr2 − − 4 kr1 δGdy + ∫ kr1 + δ λ + 2G dy
( ) (3.40)
dy dy 0
dy
ω k2
Since VR = , it follows that δk = − δVR , and hence from Eq. 3.40:
k ω
1 dr2
∞ 2 ∞ 2
dr1 dr2
4 k UI1 ∫0
δVR = 2 kr2 − − 4 kr1 δGdy + ∫ kr1 + δ ( λ + 2G)dy (3.41)
dy dy 0
dy
Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media 81
Equation 3.41 allows one to compute the change in Rayleigh phase velocity δVR
resulting from a small perturbation of the Lamè’s parameters λ ( y) , and G( y ) . Equation
3.41 may also be expressed as:
∞ ∂VR ∞
∂ VR
δVR = ∫ δG dy + ∫ δM dy (3.42)
0 ∂G ω ,M 0
∂M
ω ,G
∂VR 1 dr1
2
dr2
∂G = ⋅ kr2 − − 4 kr1
ω ,M 4 k UI1 dy
2
dy
2
(3.43)
∂VR 1 dr2
∂M = ⋅ kr +
ω ,G 4 k UI1 dy
2 1
The subscripts outside the brackets indicate the parameters that are held constant.
Equations 3.43 are known in seismology as the partial derivatives of the modal Rayleigh
phase velocity VR ( ω ) with respect to the medium parameters G and M . However, the
{
term partial derivative must be used with care because VR = VR M(y ), G( y), ρ( y ), k , ω }
and hence VR ( ω ) is a functional rather than a function of the parameters M( y ) and G( y ) .
Accordingly, the partial derivatives in Eq. 3.43 are understood to refer to a particular depth
y.
One more step is required to compute the partial derivatives of VR ( ω ) with respect to
the body wave velocities of the medium VP and VS . Since G = ρVS2 and M = ρVP2 , using
the chain-rule of calculus:
ρVS dr2
2
∂VR ∂VR ∂VR ∂G dr1
= ( y , k , ω ) = ∂G ⋅ = ⋅ kr − − 4 kr
∂VS ω ,VP ∂VS ω ,M ∂VS ρ 2k UI1 dy
2 2 1
dy
(3.44)
2
∂VR ∂V ∂V ∂M ρVP dr
= R ( y , k , ω) = R ⋅ = 2 ⋅ kr1 + 2
∂VP ω ,VS ∂VP ∂M ω ,G ∂VP ρ 2k UI1 dy
82 Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media
Equations 3.44 give a measure of the sensitivity of modal Rayleigh phase velocity
VR ( ω ) to small changes of the medium parameters VP and VS at a specific depth y. The
remarkable feature of Eq. 3.44, which makes it so valuable in the solution of the Rayleigh
inverse problem, is that these partial derivatives can be computed using Rayleigh wave
parameters referred to the original and not the perturbed VP and VS profiles. Conversely,
it would be very expensive to compute the above partial derivatives numerically with, say, a
four-point central finite difference scheme (Spang, 1995); a single computation of
∂VR ∂VS would require the solution of four Rayleigh eigenproblems instead of just one
eigenproblem using the variational approach.
Examining Eq. 3.44, it is found that the phase velocity of Rayleigh waves is relatively
insensitive to changes in VP (Lee and Solomon, 1979; Ben-Menahem and Singh, 1981), and
thus the partial derivative ∂VR ∂VP is small compared to ∂VR ∂VS . Figure 3.5 shows the
partial derivatives given by Eq. 3.44 for the case of a homogeneous medium and a frequency
of 40 Hz.
dVR/dVS , dVR/dVP
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0.0
2.0 d V R /d V S
dVR/dVS
dVR/dVP
Depth [m]
4.0 d V R /d V P
6.0
Frequency 40 Hz
VS = 120 m/s
8.0
VP = 400 m/s
10.0
Figure 3.5 Partial Derivatives of Rayleigh Phase Velocity with Respect to VP and VS for
a Homogeneous Medium
Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media 83
It is apparent from the figure that the shear wave velocity VS controls the Rayleigh
wave velocity VR ( ω ) . The largest values of ∂VR ∂VS and ∂VR ∂VP are 0.418 and 0.105
respectively. Both maxima occur at the free-surface (y = 0 ) .
∂VR ρVS
j y
dr1
2
dr
= 2 ⋅∫ kr2 − − 4 kr1 2 dy
∂VS L j 2k UI1 y j−1 dy dy
yj 2 (3.45)
∂VR ρVP dr2
= 2 ⋅ ∫ kr1 + dy
∂VP L j 2k UI1 y j−1 dy
In this section, closed-form solutions for the partial derivatives of the effective Rayleigh
phase velocity V$ β (r , y , ω ) with respect to the body wave velocities of the medium V and P
VS will be obtained. From Eq. 3.23 the effective Rayleigh phase velocity may be considered
[( ) ( ) ]
a function of the following variables V$ β = V$ β r1 y , k j , ω , r2 y , k j , ω , Vj , U j , k j , where
β = r , y and j = 1, M . The explicit dependence of V$ β on the independent variables r and ω
has been omitted because it is irrelevant in the next developments. It is convenient to re-
write Eq. 3.23 as follows:
84 Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media
2⋅∑∑
M M ( ) i [ (
Φ cos ωr 1 V − 1 V
β ij j
)]
i =1 j= 1 Vi Vj
Vβ ( r , y , ω ) =
$
M M Φ ( ) [
β rs (1 Vr + 1 Vs ) cos ωr (1 Vr − 1 Vs ) ] (3.46)
∑ ∑
r = 1 s =1 Vr Vs
where:
(Φ )
( )
i 1 j 2 S (
r ( y , k )r y , k r ( y , k )r y , k
=
1 i 2 S j ) (3.47a)
r ij
( )
( U i I i ) U jI j
( ) (
r (y , k )r y , k r ( y , k )r y , k )
(Φ ) =
2 i 2 j 2 S i 2 S j
(3.47b)
y
ij
( )
(U i I i ) U j I j
[( ) ( )
V$ β = V$ β r1 y , k j , ω , r2 y , k j , ω , Vj , U j ] (3.48)
Mimicking the procedure used in Section 3.5.1, the problem of determining the partial
derivatives of V$ β with respect to the medium parameters is essentially reduced to that of
computing δV$ β for small variations of δVS and δVP . From Eq. 3.48, it is apparent that the
latter task requires the computation of quantities such as δ(r1 ) j , δ(r2 ) j , δVj , and δU j .
However from Rayleigh principle, first-order perturbations in the wavenumber δk j will induce
variations in the corresponding eigenfunctions δ(r1 ) j and δ(r2 ) j that are of second order.
Hence, in computing the first variation of δV$ β , the terms δ(r1 ) j and δ(r2 ) j may be
neglected, and from Eq. 3.48:
Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media 85
∂V$ β $
∂V β
$
δVβ = δVj + δU j (3.49)
∂Vj ∂U j
where the summation convention is implied over the index j. The first variation of δVj is
given by Eq. 3.42, and δU j can be computed from Eq. 3.39 resulting in:
I δI δI (V ⋅ I3 − 2ωI2 )
δU j = − 2 2 δV + 2 − 3 + δI (3.50)
V ⋅ I1 V ⋅ I1 2ωI1 (2ωV ⋅ I12 ) 1 j
In Appendix B it is shown that the first variations of δVj and δU j given by Eq. 3.41
and Eq. 3.50, respectively, can be written as follows:
[
δVj = ∫ PjδVS + Q j δVP dy
0
] (3.51)
[
δU j = ∫ Π j δVS + Ω jδVP dy
0
] (3.52)
where:
ρVS dr1
2
dr
Pj ( y ,ω) = ⋅ kr2 − − 4 kr1 2
2 ( k 2 UI1 ) j
(3.53a)
dy dy
j
2
ρVP dr
Q j ( y ,ω) = ⋅ kr1 + 2
2 ( k 2 UI1 ) j
(3.53b)
dy j
and
86 Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media
1 2 dr1 dr2
Π j ( y,ω) =
⋅ ωρVS kr2 − r2 − 2r1 − ( k I2 ) j ⋅ Pj
2
ω 2 (I1 ) j
(3.54a)
dy dy j
1 2 dr2
Ωj ( y ,ω) = 2 ⋅ ωρVP kr1 − r1 − ( k I2 ) j ⋅ Q j
2
ω (I1 ) j
(3.54b)
dy j
In view of Eqs. 3.51 and 3.52, Eq. 3.49 can be written as follows:
∞
∂V
$ ∂V$ β ∂V
$ $
∂V
δVβ = ∫
β β β
$ Pj +
Π j δVS + Qj + Ω j δVP dy (3.55)
0
∂V ∂U j ∂Vj ∂U j
j
∞ ∂V$ β ∞
∂V$ β
δVβ = ∫
$ δVS dy + ∫ δVP dy (3.56)
0 ∂VS ω ,VP 0 ∂VP ω ,VS
where:
∂V$β ∂V$ β $β
∂V
= Pj + Π
∂VS ω ,VP ∂Vj ∂U j j
(3.57)
∂V$ β ∂V$β ∂V$ β
= Qj + Ω j
∂V
P ω ,VS ∂V j ∂U j
Equation 3.57 provides expressions for computing the partial derivatives of the effective
Rayleigh phase velocity V$ β (r , y , ω ) with respect to the medium parameters V and V . To
P S
Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media 87
∂V$ β
complete the formulation requires explicit expressions for the partial derivatives and
∂ Vj
∂V$ β
. Appendix B shows the details of this computation. The final result is:
∂U j
∂V$β $β
∂V
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
M M
= ( r , y , ω) = ∑ ∑ Γβ Pi − Γβ Pj + Tβ Π i + Tβ Π j
~ ~
∂VS ω ,VP ∂VS i =1 j=1
ij ij ij ij
(3.58)
∂V$β $β
∂V
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
M M
= ( r , y , ω) = ∑ ∑ Γβ Q i − Γβ Q j + Tβ Ω i + Tβ Ω j
~ ~
∂VP ω ,V ∂VP i =1 j=1
ij ij ij ij
S
The terms Γβ( ) , (~Γ ) and (T ) , (~T ) are complicated functions of the modal
ij
β
ij
β
ij
β
ij
distance from the source r. Because their expressions are rather lengthy, they have been
reported in Appendix B
The distinctive feature of the effective partial derivatives that distinguishes them from
the modal partial derivatives is their dependence on r. The local properties of these
quantities have been inherited from the effective Rayleigh phase velocity during the process
of differentiating Eq.3.46.
Variational methods can also be used to obtain important results for Rayleigh wave
propagation in weakly dissipative media. In Chapter 2 weakly dissipative media were defined
as those media satisfying Eq. 2.31. It was also shown that the mechanical properties
governing the behavior of such media are defined by Eqs. 2.34 and 2.35. In physical terms
these are the phase velocity Vγ ( ω ) and attenuation coefficient α γ ( ω ) of compression and
shear waves ( γ = P , S) . In this section variational techniques are employed to obtain phase
88 Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media
∞ ∂V ∞
∂VR
δVR = ∫ R δVS dy + ∫ δV dy (3.59)
0 ∂VS ω ,VP ∂VP ω ,VS
P
0
In weakly dissipative media the material damping ratio D γ is a small quantity, and hence
it is reasonable to assume that in Eq. 2.34 the second order terms in D γ are in most cases
[
negligible. With this assumption Eq. 2.34 simplifies to Vγ* ( ω ) = Vγ ( ω ) ⋅ 1 − iD γ ] with
Vγ ( ω ) given by Eq. 3.35. If Vγe denotes the phase velocity of the γ -wave in a linear elastic
medium, the existence of material damping may be thought (Anderson and Archambeau,
1964; Anderson et al., 1965) to introduce a small change in Vγe given by:
[( )
δ V γ* = V γ − V γe − iV γ D γ ] (3.60)
Then, substituting Eq. 3.60 in Eq. 3.59 for δVS and δVP :
∞ ∞
∂V ∂VR
δVR* = ∫ R
0
∂VS ω ,V
( VS [
− VS)
e
− iV D
S S dy + ∫ ]
0
∂VP ω ,V
( [
VP − VPe ) − iVP D P dy ] (3.61)
P S
where δVR =
*
[( V R ]
− VRe ) − iVR D R . Taking the real and the imaginary parts of Eq. 3.61:
∞ ∂V VSe ∞
∂VR VPe
VR ( ω ) = V + ∫ VS
e R
1 − dy + ∫ VP 1 − dy
0 ∂VS ω ,VP VS ∂VP ω ,VS VP
R
0
(3.62)
1 ∞ ∂VR ∞
∂VR
D R (ω) = ⋅ ∫ VS D S dy + ∫ P P ∂VP
V D dy
VR ( ω ) 0 ∂VS ω ,VP
0 ω , VS
Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media 89
V γe 2 D γ ω
From Eq. 2.35, 1 − =
V γ ( ω ) π
ln
ω ref
( )
where Vγ ω ref = Vγ since ω ref is the
e
ω
reference frequency for material dispersion. Also, α R ( ω ) = D from Eq. 2.32. With
VR ( ω ) R
these results Eq. 3.62 can be rewritten as follows:
2 ω ∞ ∂VR ∞
∂VR
VR ( ω ) = V + ln
e
⋅ ∫ VS D S dy + ∫0 P P ∂VP
V D dy
π ω ref 0 ∂VS ω ,VP
R
ω , VS
(3.63)
ω ∞ ∂VR ∞
∂VR
α R ( ω) = 2 ⋅ ∫ VS D S dy + ∫ VP D P dy
[ ]
VR ( ω ) 0 ∂VS ω ,VP 0 ∂VP ω ,VS
Equation 3.63 is an important result because it shows that Rayleigh phase velocity
VR ( ω ) and attenuation coefficient α R ( ω ) in vertically heterogeneous, weakly dissipative
media can be computed from the solution of the elastic Rayleigh eigenvalue problem. In
fact Eq. 3.63 forms the basis of an algorithm for the solution of the uncoupled inverse
problem of Rayleigh waves. The procedure, which will be described in detail in Chapter 4,
involves three major steps. The first step is the determination of the experimental
dispersion and attenuation curves, namely VR ( ω ) and α R ( ω ) , from surface wave
measurements. In the second step the experimental dispersion curve VR ( ω ) is inverted to
obtain the elastic shear wave velocity profile VS ( y ) . The third and final step involves the
use of Eq. 3.63 as the basis of the inversion of the experimental attenuation curve α R ( ω )
to obtain the material damping ratio profile D S ( y) .
It should be noted that the inversion for VS is non-linear, but the inversion for D S ( y)
is linear. Most of the procedures currently used by seismologists to study Rayleigh wave
attenuation are based on Eq. 3.63 and the assumption of weak dissipation (Lee and
Solomon, 1979; Aki and Richards, 1980; Keilis-Borok, 1989; Herrmann, 1994). The next
section will illustrate a new technique that can be used to simultaneously invert both the
dispersion and attenuation curves. The technique is quite general and can also be applied to
strongly dissipative media.
Although Eq. 3.63 has been derived with reference to individual Rayleigh wave modes, it
is also valid for the case of effective Rayleigh wave propagation with small changes of
notation. The primary modification is the replacement of the modal partial derivatives (Eq.
3.44) with the effective partial derivatives (Eq. 3.58). Then the modal phase velocities and
attenuation coefficients VR ( ω ) and α R ( ω ) must be replaced with the corresponding
90 Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media
The techniques available for the solution of the complex eigenproblem are in essence
the same as those used for the elastic eigenproblem. The main difference is that the use of
complex arithmetic can no longer be avoided in solving the viscoelastic eigenproblem, and
algorithms such as root finding techniques must be properly generalized to remain
applicable for complex values of the arguments. This generalization is not always trivial as
shown in the next section.
Before concluding this section it is worth noting that the viscoelastic eigenproblem
includes an interesting degenerate case. If the complex Lamè’s parameters are such that the
Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media 91
viscoelastic Poisson’s ratio is a frequency-independent real number, it can be shown that the
roots of the Rayleigh dispersion equation as well as the corresponding eigenfunctions are
real (Christensen, 1971). Therefore, in this special circumstance, the solution of the complex
eigenproblem could be obtained using the same procedures used for the elastic
eigenproblem. The wavenumbers for the viscoelastic eigenproblem will still be complex,
however.
Rayleigh Wave n
r
Layer 1 h 1 , ρ 1 , V P 1 , V S1 , D P 1 , D S1
y
Layer 2 h 2 , ρ 2 , V P 2 , V S2 , D P2 , D S2
M M M M M M M
Layer nl h n l , ρ n l , V Pn l , V Sn l , D Pn l , D Sn l
As mentioned in Section 3.2.1, most of the computational effort required for the
solution of the elastic eigenvalue problem are spent in constructing the Rayleigh secular
function and in finding its roots. This is also true for the viscoelastic eigenproblem with new
difficulties arising in connection with the root computation of the Rayleigh secular function.
The latter is now a complex-valued function F R (⋅) of the complex-valued Rayleigh phase
92 Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media
velocity VR* defined by Eq. 2.34: symbolically F R ( VR* ): C → C (for simplicity, the use of an
asterisk to denote a complex quantity will hereafter be limited to the essential cases).
Most of the difficulties associated with computing the roots of functions f ( z): C → C
are overcome if the function f ( z) satisfies the condition of analyticity within an open set
D ⊂ C (see Hille, 1973 for a precise definition of the necessary and sufficient conditions
required for a function f ( z): C → C to be analytic or holomorphic in D ⊂ C ). In this case the
zeros of the function f ( z) may be determined using a completely new class of algorithms
which are developed by taking full advantage of the theory of analytic functions. Strictly
speaking, the Rayleigh secular functionF R ( VR* ) is not analytic with respect to the complex
variable Rayleigh phase velocity VR* , because it is not a single-valued function of VR* .
However, this fundamental property can be restored (within a set D : VR* ∈D ⊂ C ) during
the process of constructing F R ( VR* ) by choosing the appropriate branches of F R ( VR* ) on
the Riemann surfaces. The practical implementation of this process requires that all of the
branch-cuts and branch-points ofF R ( VR* ) in D be identified first (Båth, 1968; Schwab and
Knopoff, 1972).
In this study a new technique for computing the zeros of F R ( VR* ) was developed. The
technique finds the roots of the Rayleigh secular function without breaking up its complex
structure. Conversely, it takes advantage of the intimate connection existing between the
real and the imaginary part of F R ( VR* ) , as a consequence of its analyticity with respect to
VR* in the domain of interest, with the exception of at most a finite number of isolated
pole-type singularities. In this case the term meromorphic function would be more appropriate
than holomorphic function to designate F R ( VR* ) . The proposed method is based on the
theory of analytic functions, particularly the well-known Cauchy’s residue theorem:
Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media 93
∑ Re s(z )
M
1
2 πi ∫Γ
⋅ f( z )dz = j (3.64)
j= 1
where the integral sign denotes integration along a positively oriented closed contour Γ ,
f ( z) is an analytic function inside and on Γ except at the points z j ( j = 1, M) where it may
have isolated singularities; z ∈C is a point of the complex plane z = ( x + iy ) , and the
()
symbol Res z j denotes the residue of the function f ( z) at the point z j . Finally, M is the
number of isolated singularities of f ( z) located inside Γ . Equation 3.64 forms the basis of
the algorithm proposed by Abd-Elall et al. (1970) for computing the roots of f ( z) . In fact
Cauchy’s residue theorem may also be written in the form:
1 zN m
GN = ⋅∫
2 π i Γ f( z )
dz = ∑ρz
j= 1
j j
N
(3.65)
where ρ j are the residues of 1 f( z) at the points z j that are the zeros of f ( z) , m is the
number of zeros of f ( z) which are located inside Γ . By evaluating the contour integral
defined by Eq. 3.65 for different values of N ( N = 0, 2 m − 1) , a sequence of complex
numbers G N G
determine the coefficients of the complex polynomial Pm ( z) :
Pm ( z) = c 0 + c1 z + c 2 z 2 +....+ c m −1 z m −1 + z m (3.66)
by solving the linear system of equations that can be constructed from the modified
Newton identities (Abd-Elall et al., 1970):
m −1
∑G
j= 0
r+j ⋅ c j + G r +m = 0 r = 0, m − 1 (3.67)
The zeros of the polynomial (Eq. 3.66) coincide with the zeros of f ( z) inside Γ . It
should be remarked that solution of the system of equations (Eq. 3.67) does not require
knowledge of the residues ρ j .
modal (complex) Rayleigh phase velocities associated with the solution of the complex
eigenproblem. A fundamental step required for the implementation of the algorithm is the
computation of the complex numbers G N for N = 0, 2 m − 1 . This task is accomplished by
evaluating the contour integral of Eq. 3.65 numerically.
A crucial step of this calculation is the definition of the region D , delimited by the
boundary Γ , where the roots of F R ( VR* ) are located. To define D , one must determine
lower and upper bounds for the real and imaginary parts of VR* . In the plane
{ }
w R : VR , D R lower and upper bounds for VR may be easily established from the roots of
the Rayleigh dispersion equation in homogeneous media, using min( VS ) and max ( VS ) ,
respectively. Bounds for DR are found from the observation that
0 ≤ D R ≤ max (D R ) < max ( D S ) . However, the plane of analyticity of the Rayleigh secular
function is not the plane w R : VR , D R { } { }
but rather the plane z R : x R , y R , whose
{ }
relations with w R : VR , D R are given by Eq. 2.34, namely:
VR
x = x ( V , D ) =
R R R R
(1 + D R 2 )
zR: (3.68)
VR ⋅ D R
y = y ( V , D ) = −
R R R R
(1 + D R 2 )
such that VR* = z R = ( x R + iy R ) . In Eq. 3.65, the numerical evaluation of the integral
involving F R ( VR* ) along the contour Γ must be performed in the zR-plane.
Equations 3.68 give the relationships between a point w R : ( VR , D R ) of the wR-plane and
the corresponding point z R : ( x R , y R ) of the zR-plane. Thus, it is possible to map a region
C of the wR-plane into another region D of the zR-plane. Figures 3.7(a) and (b) show the
two regions C and D where the roots of F R ( VR* ) are located. It should be noted from
the figures the opposite orientation of the boundaries γ and Γ of the two regions C and D
of the complex plane.
In Eq. 3.65 the numerical evaluation of the contour integral may be simplified by
introducing an admissible parametrization of the contour Γ so that the numbers G N may
be computed as follows:
Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media 95
10
8
wR-plane
6
roots
DR (%) 4 D C
2
C
0 A B
γ
-2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
VR (m/s)
Figure 3.7(a) Roots of Rayleigh Secular Function in the Region C of the wR-plane
roots
0 A B
-5
Γ
YR (m/s)
D
D
-10
-15 zR-plane
C
-20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
XR (m/s)
Figure 3.7(b) Roots of Rayleigh Secular Function in the Region D of the zR-plane
96 Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media
GN =
1
⋅∫
z NR
dz R =
1
⋅∫
z R ( τ) [ ]
⋅ z ′ ( τ ) dτ
N
2 πi Γ F R ( z R ) 2 πi Γ F R z R ( τ ) R [ ] (3.69)
where VR min = min( VR ) , VR max = max ( VR ) , and D R max = max ( D R ) . In calculating the
integral of Eq. 3.69 care must be used because the two curves γ (wR-plane) and Γ (zR-plane)
are oriented in opposite directions.
The method of substitution in C , applied to the contour integral of Eq. 3.69 yields:
Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media 97
where the contour Γ' denotes the boundary of the region D' in the ζ R -plane. The
numerical integration in Eq. 3.71 was performed using a classical fifty-point Gauss-Legendre
quadrature formula (Press et al., 1992).
At each frequency ω , the determining the number of zeros of F R ( VR* ) is the first step
in finding the roots of the Rayleigh secular function. A possible strategy for computing m is
based on the observation that all the matrices G j with j > m are singular (Abd-Elall et al.,
1970). Hence, the value of m can be found by a procedure that evaluates the rank of
successive matrices G j until a value of j is found for which G j is singular. In this study the
test for singularity of the matrices G j was performed using their condition number R cond that
was calculated using the singular value decomposition of G j . A matrix G j is considered
singular if its condition number is so small that the logical expression 〈1.0 + R cond = 1.0 〉 is
true to machine precision.
Once the roots of F R ( VR* ) have been computed for a given frequency ω , the
eigenfunctions ri* y , ( k R ) j ,ω completely solves the complex eigenproblem and thus the
homogeneous boundary value problem of Rayleigh waves in viscoelastic, vertically
heterogeneous media. The corresponding dispersion and attenuation curves can be easily
obtained from the inversion of Eq. 3.68 to give:
VR = VR ( x R , y R ) =
(x R 2 + y R 2 )
xR
wR: (3.72)
yR
D R = D R ( x R , y R ) = − x
R
∑ [ A ( r , y , ω )] ⋅ e ( )
M
u β (r , y , ω ) = * i ω ⋅t − k *j ⋅r + ϕ β
β (3.73)
j
j= 1
[
where A β* (r , y , ω ) ] j
and k *j ( ω ) are the (complex) Rayleigh displacement amplitude and
{ }
subsets D1 ∪ D2 ...∪ Dn ⊂ C where Eq.3.73 is a well-defined, single-valued and
continuous function of the independent complex arguments.
As already mentioned, in elastic media Eqs. 3.12 and 3.28 provide equivalent
representations for u β (r , y , ω ) . Therefore, following the procedure that led to Eq. 3.73, the
100 Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media
viscoelastic Green’s function may be obtained from Eq. 3.24 by extending the validity of the
elastic Green’s function to complex valued amplitude and phase to yield:
u$ β (r , y , ω ) = U$β* (r , y , ω ) ⋅ e [
i ω t − ψ β* ( r ,y ,ω ) ]
(3.74)
where the terms U$β* , ψ β* ∈C can be computed using Eqs. 2.25 and 2.26 with complex-
valued modal quantities. The restrictions about the domains of validity of Eq. 3.73 apply
equally well to Eq. 3.74. However, the presence in Eqs. 2.25 and 2.26 of rather complicated
multi-valued functions of several complex variables can make the task of identifying branch
cuts, branch points and singularities associated with these expressions very difficult (Krantz,
i⋅arg (U$β* )
1982),. By setting U$ * = U$ * ⋅ e
β β Eq. 3.74 may be more conveniently re-written as:
u$ β (r , y , ω ) =U$βv (r , y , ω ) ⋅ e [
i ω t − Ψβ*v ( r , y ,ω ) ]
(3.75)
where the terms U$βv ∈ R , Ψβv* ∈ C are defined respectively by U$βv (r , y , ω ) = U$β* and
[
Ψβ*v (r , y , ω ) = ψ β* − arg U$β* . ( )]
Finally, from Eq. 3.75 the displacement field u β (r , y , ω ) induced by a harmonic source
{
Fy ⋅ e iωt located at r = 0, y = y S } in a linear viscoelastic vertically heterogeneous medium
can be written in a form:
uβ (r , y , ω ) = Fy ⋅ Gβv (r , y , ω ) ⋅ e [ ]
i ω t − Ψβ*v ( r , y ,ω )
(3.76)
[ ]
From Eq. 3.76, the expression ωt − Ψβ*v (r , y , ω ) = cons tan t represents the equation of
a (complex) wave front, which is characterized by an effective complex phase velocity given
by:
Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media 101
ω
V$ β* (r , y , ω ) = (3.77)
[ Ψβ*v (r , y , ω ) ] ,r
[
where Ψβ*v (r , y , ω ) ] ,r
can be interpreted as an effective complex wavenumber and denoted
by k$ β* (r , y , ω ) .
ω
V$ β (r , y , ω ) =
[( ) ( )]
(3.78a)
ℜ ψ β* − arg U$β*
,r
[ ( )]
α$ β (r , y , ω ) = ℑ ψ *β
,r
(3.78b)
V$ β (r , y , ω ) and α$ β (r , y , ω ) are the effective phase velocity and the effective attenuation
coefficient, respectively, and characterize the harmonic propagation of multi-mode Rayleigh
waves in viscoelastic, vertically layered media. At a fixed y = y c , the two-dimensional plots
V$ β (r , y c , ω ) and α$ (r , y , ω ) are defined as the dispersion and the attenuation surface,
β c
respectively. It should be remarked that Eq. 3.78 could have also been obtained from the
extension of the elastic solution (i.e. Eq. 3.23) for complex values of the arguments.
systems, the Lagrangian density is simply given by the difference between kinetic energy
density and potential energy density.
Viscoelastic bodies, on the other hand, belong to the category of dissipative systems
that are not monogenic because dissipative forces do not admit a representation in terms of
potential functions. As a result, Hamilton’s variational principle is not applicable in
viscoelastic bodies, at least in its classical form. These considerations seem to suggest that
the important results obtained in Section 3.5 and derived from the application of
Hamilton’s principle do not hold in viscoelastic media.
Two approaches may be used to show that, fortunately, this is not the case. The first
approach is based on introducing a type of formalism that allows treating non-conservative
systems as if they were conservative (Ben-Menahem and Singh, 1981). The basic idea is to
consider a mechanical system made up from the combination of two systems: the “real”
system A , which stores and dissipates strain energy, and a “mirror” system B producing
energy in equal amount to that dissipated by A (i.e. the system B acts as a storage for the
energy dissipated by A ). For the joined system A U B the total energy is conserved, and
hence Hamilton’s principle can be applied. The results of this approach show that the
variational principles of Rayleigh and Love waves along with their implications are also valid
for viscoelastic media, and thus Eqs.3.44 and 3.58 remain valid for complex values of the
parameters. However, the analysis of Ben-Menahem and Singh (1981) indicates that the
results are correct only to a first order approximation in D γ ( γ = P , S) , and hence they are
rigorously valid only in weakly dissipative media.
The second approach that may be used to show that the Rayleigh variational principle,
can be extended to viscoelastic media is based on the application of certain variational
theorems of linear viscoelasticity (Gurtin, 1963; Christensen, 1971). As mentioned in
Section 3.6, these theorems can also be used as an alternative to integral transform methods
to obtain the equations of motion and the associated boundary conditions of various
boundary value problems in linear viscoelasticity. Most of the viscoelastic variational
theorems are natural extensions of the results obtained in linear elasticity. They provide the
rigorous procedure for extending the variational theorems of linear elasticity to
viscoelasticity, in particular the Rayleigh variational principle, which is formally expressed by
Eqs. 3.34 and 3.35.
However, as remarked several times in this chapter, integral transform methods are an
ideal tool for solving boundary value problems in linear viscoelasticity because of the
advantages offered by the application of the elastic-viscoelastic correspondence principle.
Among them is the possibility of reinterpreting the variational theorems of linear elasticity
as integral transformed viscoelastic variational theorems (Christensen, 1971). For steady
state harmonic problems, this reinterpretation becomes a trivial exercise simply involving
the extension of the elastic solution to complex values of the field variables. Once the
viscoelastic version of the Rayleigh variational principle has been established, the results
Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media 103
obtained in Sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.2, particularly Eqs. 3.34 and 3.35, can be extended to
linear viscoelasticity on a firm theoretical basis.
The approach based integral transform methods does not have any physical
interpretation and is solely based on the formal analogies between the field equations of
linear elasticity and the integral transformed field equations of linear viscoelasticity. On the
other hand, the approach based viscoelastic variational theorems has both a solid theoretical
basis and a physical, energy-based interpretation. However, the thermodynamical legitimacy
of the procedure based on the application of Hamilton’s principle to the combined real-
mirror system (Ben-Menahem and Singh, 1981) is questionable. Furthermore, this approach
lead to results that are correct only to first order.
104 Rayleigh Waves in Vertically Heterogeneous Media
4 SOLUTION OF THE RAYLEIGH INVERSE PROBLEM
4.1 Introduction
{ }
Given the set of medium parameters ρ( y ), VP* ( y ), VS* ( y) defining the material
properties of a site, the problem of determining the dispersion and attenuation curves
VR ( ω ) and α R ( ω ) associated with that site is often referred to as the Rayleigh direct or
forward problem. Conversely, if VR ( ω ) and α R ( ω ) are known, then the problem of
{ }
determining the unknown medium parameters ρ( y ), VP* ( y ), VS* ( y) defines the Rayleigh
backward or inverse problem.
In more general terms, direct problems are concerned with determining the effects
induced on a physical system by certain causes, whereas in inverse problems the roles of
causes and effects are reversed, and the objective is to determine the causes that generate
the observed effects (Engl, 1993). Following this definition, for a vertically heterogeneous
viscoelastic medium excited by a harmonic source, several types of Rayleigh direct/inverse
problems may be considered. They differ from each other in the function (i.e., the effect)
that is chosen to represent the medium response. Dispersion and attenuation functions are
one possible type of response function but other choices are possible as well. In the frequency
domain other response functions include the displacement amplitude, the displacement
phase, or the displacement spectra. In the time domain and for transient sources, a valuable
response function is either a short or long period seismogram. Although in geotechnical
earthquake engineering the most common response functions are experimentally
determined dispersion and attenuation curves (Stokoe et al., 1989; Tokimatsu, 1995; Rix et
al., 1998a), other interpretations of the test using alternate response functions are also
possible as shown later in this chapter.
105
106 Solution of the Rayleigh Inverse Problem
To be more precise, the definition (4.1) should also specify the functional space in
which the solution is supposed to exist, and the restrictions that a given set of data must
satisfy to be considered admissible. It should be remarked that the Hadamard’s postulates of
well posedness apply to both direct and inverse problems. However, it is only in recent
years through studies in non-linear dynamics that the importance of instability has been
recognized in the solution of forward problems where small perturbations in the initial data
produce unpredictable changes in the solution (Parker, 1994).
Two strategies can be used to effect uniqueness in the solution of an inverse problem.
The first strategy is to add a priori information about the solution of the problem. For the
Rayleigh inverse problem, this may be information about the body wave velocity and/or
material damping ratio of one or more layers (obtained, for example, from laboratory tests).
Adding constraints to the solution is a second widely used strategy to effect uniqueness
in the solution of an inverse problem. In some cases, the strategy of providing more
information can be regarded as constraining the solution. An obvious example is to require
the body wave velocities and/or material damping ratios to be within a specified range (e.g.,
non-negative). However, there are constraints of a different nature that enforce features of
global behavior such as smoothness and regularity rather than requiring the solution to
assume specific numerical values or bounds.
Solution of the Rayleigh Inverse Problem 107
For very unstable problems there are mathematical techniques, called regularization
methods, that approximate the ill-posed problem with a parameter-dependent family of
neighboring well-posed problems (Tikhonov and Arsenin, 1977; Engl, 1993). Because some
of these regularization methods admit a variational formulation (e.g. Tikhonov
regularization) where the objective is the minimization of appropriate functionals, they can
also be applied to non-linear inverse problems successfully.
An uncoupled inversion of dispersion and attenuation data requires the solution of two
inverse problems for 2 n L unknown model parameters, for example the shear wave velocities
and the shear damping ratios of a nL-layer soil deposit. The solution of these two inverse
problems is not completely independent because the shear wave velocity profile obtained
from the non-linear inversion of the dispersion curve will subsequently be used in the linear
inversion of the attenuation curve. Therefore, the amplification of the errors resulting from
108 Solution of the Rayleigh Inverse Problem
inversion of the dispersion curve will carry over to the inversion of the attenuation curve, a
process that is characterized by its own degree of ill-posedness. In other words, the
uncoupled inversion suffers a negative synergetic effect resulting from the solution of two
inverse problems where the input data of one problem comes from the solution of the
other.
Conversely, the simultaneous inversion of both the dispersion and attenuation curves
eliminates this negative coupling effect because both sets of experimental data are inverted
simultaneously in a single, complex-valued, inversion. Furthermore, the solution of the
coupled inverse problem takes advantage of an internal constraint that is embedded in the
formalism of the complex inversion. This internal constraint is given by the Cauchy-
Riemann equations that are satisfied by the Rayleigh phase velocity when viewed as an
analytic function of the complex-valued shear wave velocity. The intimate connection
between the real and the imaginary parts of the variables involved in the simultaneous
inversion adds a salutary built-in constraint that makes the coupled inversion a better-posed
problem.
Local-search procedures are iterative schemes that, starting from an initial guess of the
solution, generate a sequence of improved approximations converging, under suitable
conditions, toward a stationary point. Most local-search procedures are calculus based
techniques whose strategy consists of locally linearizing a non-linear functional at each
iteration. These techniques require the functional to be sufficiently smooth so that its
Gateaux derivatives with respect to the model parameters exist and are continuous.
Furthermore, even if all the smoothness requirements for the functional are satisfied, the
sequence of approximations of the solution is guaranteed to converge only if the initial
guess is sufficiently close to the solution. However, the most important limitation inherent to
Solution of the Rayleigh Inverse Problem 109
all the local-search procedures is that even when they succeed in finding a stationary point,
there are no simple means to determine whether it is a local or a global stationary point in
the solution space.
Figure 4.1 illustrates some of the possible approaches to the Rayleigh inverse problem.
The shaded boxes indicate the options that were considered in this study.
Occam's Algorithm
Figure 4.1 Algorithms for the Solution of the Rayleigh Inverse Problem
The Rayleigh inverse problem was solved using a local-search procedure, where the
stationary point in the solution space was sought with a constrained optimization technique
known as Occam’s algorithm. The implementation of the procedure requires the application of
a two-step iterative scheme. During the first step the Rayleigh forward problem is solved for
the current values of the medium parameters. In the second step, the non-linear inverse
problem is linearized in the neighborhood of the current medium parameters so that the
resulting constrained linear inverse problem can be solved. The procedure is repeated for a
sufficient number of iterations until a properly defined convergence criterion is satisfied.
The practical implementation of Occam’s algorithm relies on the ability to solve two
crucial problems: the Rayleigh forward problem and the computation of the partial
110 Solution of the Rayleigh Inverse Problem
derivatives of the response function with respect to the medium parameters. When the
response functions are the dispersion and attenuation curves, the solution of both problems
has been described in Chapter 3.
For the Rayleigh inverse problem, the mathematical model is given by a linear
viscoelastic, multi-layered medium. The model parameters may be the complex body wave
velocities of the individual layers, namely [
VP* = ( VP* ) 1 , ( VP* ) 2 ,... ( VP* ) n
L
] and
[ ]
VS* = ( VS* ) 1 , ( VS* ) 2 ,... ( VS* ) n . Additional sets of model parameters may include the mass
L
[ ] [
density ρ = ρ1 , ρ 2 ,... ρ nL and the thickness h = h1 , h 2 ,... h nL ] of the layers. Because the
number of layers nL is generally assumed, the inverted profile of model parameters will
depend on the a priori assumption about nL, and it may contains large discontinuities or
other features that are not essential for matching the experimental data. By enforcing
maximum smoothness and regularity in the solution, one minimizes its dependence upon
the assumed number of layers, and at the same time rejects solutions that are unnecessarily
complicated.
Solution of the Rayleigh Inverse Problem 111
( ) ⋅ (∂ V )
2 H
R 1 = ∂ Vγ* = ∂ Vγ* *
γ
2
(4.2)
( ) ⋅ (∂ V )
2 2 H
R2 = ∂∂ V *
γ = ∂ V
2 *
γ = ∂ V 2 *
γ
2 *
γ
2 2
(⋅) H
indicates the Hermetian transpose of a complex-valued matrix. Finally ∂ is an n L × n L
real-valued matrix representing the two-point central finite difference operator and is given by:
0 ...
−1 1 0
∂= (4.3)
... −1 1
0 −1 1
It can be easily shown that for a continuously varying medium and for real-valued model
parameters, the two definitions of R 1 and R 2 given by Eq. 4.2 correspond to the integral
over depth of the square of the first and the second derivative, respectively, of the model
parameter function Vγ ( y ) with respect to depth.
[ ]
measured at different frequencies VR* = ( VR* ) 1 , ( VR* ) 2 ,... ( VR* ) n . For the time being it will
F
be assumed the Rayleigh phase velocities refer to a specific mode of propagation (i.e., modal
Rayleigh phase velocities). However, for simplicity of notation the mode index is omitted in
the expression for VR* .
described by a pair of complex numbers: the expected value ( VR* ) j ( j = 1, n F ) and its standard
For the solution of the Rayleigh inverse problem, it is convenient to expand Eq. 4.4 in a
* *
Taylor series about an initial guess of model parameters VP0 , VS0 obtaining:
VR* = VR0
*
+ ( J *P ) V* , V* ⋅ ( VP* − VP0* ) + ( J *S ) V* ,V* ⋅ ( VS* − VS0* ) +
P0 S0 P0 S0
(4.5)
+ o (V − V *
P
* 2
P0 ) + (V *
S −V * 2
S0 ) 2
where VR* 0 is the n F × 1 vector of Rayleigh phase velocities corresponding to the solution
* *
of Eq. 4.4 with medium parameters equal to VP0 and VS0 . The terms (J )
*
P V * ,V *
P0 S0
and
(J )
*
S VP* 0 , VS*0
are the n F × n L complex-valued Jacobian matrices whose elements are defined by:
∂( VR* )
[( J ) ] *
P jk
VP* 0 , VS*0
=
j
∂( VP ) k
*
VP* 0 , VS*0
(4.6)
∂( VR* )
[( J ) ] *
S jk
VP* 0 , VS*0
=
j
∂( VS ) k
*
VP* 0 , VS*0
Solution of the Rayleigh Inverse Problem 113
where j = 1, n F and k = 1, nL . The subscripts outside the brackets indicate the point in
C n L × nL at which the Jacobian matrices are evaluated. By neglecting terms higher than the
first order in Eq. 4.5, this equation reduces to:
In Section 3.5.1 it was shown that the Rayleigh phase velocity is relatively insensitive to
changes in P-wave velocity in elastic media. It can be easily proved that this result also holds
in viscoelastic media for complex-valued velocities. Based on this observation and noting
that the ill-posedness of the Rayleigh inverse problem can be reduced by minimizing the
number of independent model parameters, Eq. 4.7 is inverted only for VS* . With this
assumption Eq. 4.7 simplifies to:
(J )
*
S V*
S0
[
⋅ VS* = ( J *S ) V* ⋅ VS0* + ( VR* − VR0* )
S0
] (4.8)
By setting VR* = VR* , Eq. 4.8 can be used as a basis for determining the unknown profile
of model parameters VS* that correspond to a set of experimental data VR* . The value
obtained for VS* , say VS1* , could then be used as a new starting model for determining the
next approximation VS2* .
For each iteration, the technique used to solve the linear system of equations is Occam’s
algorithm whose strategy is as follows: given a set of nF measured Rayleigh phase velocities
(V ) and their associated uncertainties σ (j = 1, n ) , find those values of
*
R j
*
j F
shear wave velocity profile while predicting the experimental ( VR* ) j with an acceptable
accuracy.
A measure ε 2 of the misfit between measured and predicted Rayleigh phase velocities
can be obtained with the weighted least-squares criterion applied to complex-valued data:
[ ] [
ε2 = W* VR* − W* VR* ( VS* ) ⋅ W* VR* − W* VR* ( VS* ) ]
H
(4.9)
{
W* = diag 1 / σ1* , 1 / σ*2 ,..... ,1 / σ*nL } (4.10)
which are the uncertainties associated with the experimental data VR* .
[
FU = ( ∂ VS* ) ⋅ ( ∂ VS* ) +
H
]
(4.11)
+µ −1
{[W V − W V ( V )]
* *
R
* *
R
*
S
H
[
⋅ W V − W V (V
* *
R
* *
R
*
S )] − ε }
2
*
where the first term is the roughness of the solution VS* , and the second term is the data
misfit multiplied by the Lagrange multiplier µ −1 . From Eq. 4.11 it can be observed that the
parameter µ may be interpreted as a smoothing parameter: If µ is large, the value of the
functional FU is controlled by the roughness of the solution VS* and the data misfit does
not significantly affect the solution. Conversely, if µ is small, most of the contribution to
FU is given by the data misfit and the roughness term plays only a minor role.
Solution of the Rayleigh Inverse Problem 115
Equation 4.11 is non-linear in VS* because of the presence of the term VR* ( VS* ) that
represents the predicted Rayleigh phase velocity. If this term is replaced by its linear part
which is given by Eq. 4.7 (without the contribution of VP* ), Eq. 4.11 becomes:
( ) ⋅ (∂ V ) +
FU = ∂ VS*
H *
S
(4.12)
( ) ( )
H
+ µ W*d0* − W* ⋅ J*S
−1
⋅ V ⋅ W*d0* − W* ⋅ J*S
*
⋅ V − ε*2
*
S S
VS*0 *
VS 0
S S
[
∇ V* FU = ∇ V* ( ∂ VS* ) ⋅ ( ∂ VS* ) +
H
]
(4.13)
[ ] ⋅ [W d − W ⋅ ( J )
]
H
+ µ ∇ V* W* d0* − W* ⋅ ( J *S ) V* ⋅ VS*
−1 * *
0
* *
S V* ⋅V −ε =0
*
S
2
*
S
S0 S0
( ) (
∇ * V* H ⋅ ∂ T∂ V* + ∇ * V*
) ( ) (∂ ∂) ⋅ V* +
H T H
VS S
VS S S
S
(4.14)
( ) ( )
H
+ 2µ ∇V* W*d0* − W* ⋅ JS*
−1
⋅ V ⋅ W d − W ⋅ J
* * * * *
⋅ V = 0
*
S
VS*0 S 0 S V* S
S0
S
[ S0
]
After considering that ∇ V * ( J *S ) V * = ∇ V * ( W * ) = 0 , Eq. 4.14 simplifies to:
S
∂ ∂ + µ W ⋅ JS
−1 * * ⋅ W* ⋅ J* ⋅ W*d* (4.15)
VS*0
S *
S
VS 0 S
VS*0
0
−1
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
H H
V = µ ∂T∂ + W* ⋅ JS*
* ⋅ W* ⋅ JS* ⋅ W* ⋅ J*S ⋅ W*d*
VS*0 VS*0 VS*0
(4.16)
S
0
The smoothing parameter µ in Eq. 4.16 must be determined with the additional
constraint that the specified residual error ε 2* is matched with a vector VS* composed only
of negative imaginary parts. This condition will insure that the hysteretic shear-damping
ratio obtained from the inversion algorithm will be a positive quantity.
Figure 4.2 shows a flow chart of Occam’s algorithm applied to the solution of the
coupled Rayleigh inverse problem. Most of the computational effort of the algorithm is
spent in the solution of the complex Rayleigh eigenproblem.
Thus far, the application of Occam’s algorithm to the solution of the Rayleigh inverse
problem is based on comparing the experimental Rayleigh phase velocity with the predicted
Rayleigh phase velocity of a specific mode of propagation. However, the procedure will
remain valid when the modal quantities are replaced with the corresponding effective
quantities. In this case, since the effective Rayleigh phase velocity depends on two
independent variables, namely the frequency and distance from the source, the total number
of experimental data is not n F but rather n T = n F + n P , where n P is the number of
locations at which the Rayleigh phase velocity has been measured. With few other changes,
most of the formalism developed in this section for the modal Occam’s inversion is applicable
to the effective Occam’s inversion. As shown in the following sections, this generalization can
also be extended to other formulations of the Rayleigh inverse problem where different
types of analyses (coupled versus uncoupled) and response functions are considered.
In Chapter 2 it was shown that the body wave velocities ( VP* ) k , and ( VS* ) k (k = 1, n ) L
INPUT
V *
R
and VS0*
Hisada -Lai
FORTRAN
Code
Stop
Compute Partial
Compute Effective Derivatives
Compute Green’s
Velocity & Partial
( )
∂ V R*
j
Function
Derivatives
( )
∂ V S*
k
MATLAB 5
Program
Interface
Main Code
(Input/Output/Storage)
(V *
)
− VS*( i ) < Tol
YES
STOP Select a New Profile
( )
S ( i +1 )
VS*( i +1 ) = VS*( i ) + ∆VS*( i )
MATLAB 5 NO
Code
Solution of Linearized Inverse Problem
T H
*
∂ ∂ + µ W ( J S ) V * W ( J S ) V * VS =
−1 * * * *
S0 S0
H
= µ −1 W * ( J *S ) V * W * d 0*
S0
∂( V * ) ∂( VR* ) ∂( V * )
R j
=
j
⋅
P k
(
∂ V*
P ( ref ) )
k
∂( VP )
VP* 0 ( ref ) , VS*0 ( ref )
*
k *
VP 0 , VS*0 (
∂ V*
)
P( ref )
k
(4.17)
∂( V * ) ∂( VR* ) ( S )k
∂ V*
R j
=
j
⋅
∂ V
( *
S ( ref ) )
k
VP*0 ( ref ) , VS*0 ( ref )
∂( V *
S k)
VP*0 , VS*0 (
∂ V*
)
S ( ref )
k
∂ V*
( )
γ
k
1
= (4.18)
(
∂ V*
γ ( ref )
k
)
2D γ ω
1 + ln
ref
π ω
where γ = P , S .
Figure 4.3 shows classes of possible algorithms for solving the uncoupled Rayleigh
inverse problem. The shaded boxes indicate algorithms developed during this study,
whereas the boxes with dashed borders briefly outline the procedure used to obtain the
experimental data. Each class of algorithm has two components: one to compute the shear
wave velocity profile ( VS ) k ( k = 1, nL ) and the other to determine the shear damping ratio
profile (DS ) k . The subscript eff appearing in the algorithms UEQMA and UEFMA is used
to denote effective quantities. The term G in the expression α R = G ⋅ D S denotes the matrix
formed by the partial derivatives of Rayleigh phase velocity with respect to the shear and
compression wave velocities of the soil layers (hereafter called the G-matrix). This matrix is
calculated using Eq. 3.63b where the partial derivatives are computed using Eq. 3.45.
Uncoupled Inversion
Shear Wave Velocity Shear Damping Ratio Shear Wave Velocity Shear Damping Ratio Shear Wave Velocity Shear Damping Ratio
Inversion Inversion Inversion Inversion Inversion Inversion
Non-Linear Inversion Linear Inversion Non-Linear Inversion Linear Inversion Non-Linear Inversion Non-Linear Inversion
VR = VR(Vs) α R = GDs VR(eff) = VR(eff)(Vs) αR(eff) = G(eff) Ds VR(eff) = VR(eff)(Vs) |w(r,ω)| = Fy Gy(r,ω) exp(-G(eff)Ds r)
[Compute VR using first mode only] [Compute G using first mode only] [Ignore dependenceVR(eff) =VR(eff)(r)] [Ignore dependence G(eff) = G(eff)(r)] [Account for VR(eff) = VR(eff)(r)] [Accounts for G(eff) = G(eff)(r)]
Experimentally
obtain arg[w(r,ω)]
at each receiver location
and at various ω
Figure 4.3 Algorithms for the Solution of the Uncoupled Rayleigh Inverse Problem
120 Solution of the Rayleigh Inverse Problem
In Eq. 3.63b the compression-damping ratio D P has been replaced by the term K ⋅ D S
where K is a parameter defining the ratio of compression to shear damping ratio (Rix et al.,
1998a). Previous studies (Spang, 1995) have shown that the value adopted for K has a
negligible influence on the backcalculated shear damping ratio profile. This is due to the fact
that the phase velocity of Rayleigh waves is relatively insensitive to changes in VP and thus
the partial derivative ∂VR ∂VP in Eq. 3.63b is small compared to ∂VR ∂VS (see Section
3.5.1). Furthermore, many studies (Winkler and Nur, 1979; Jongmans, 1990; Malagnini,
1996; Leurer, 1997) have shown that 0 < K < 1 in soil. This fact (which is consistent with
the observation that, in fine grained materials such as soils, most of the energy dissipation is
expected to occur in shear mode) combined with small values of ∂VR ∂VP makes the
second term of Eq. 3.63b negligible compared to the first. Based on these considerations, all
uncoupled analyses were performed using a value of K = 1.
In an uncoupled analysis of Rayleigh wave data, the inversion of the attenuation curve,
that is α R = G ⋅ D S , is a linear problem. In this case it can be shown that the formulation of
Occam’s algorithm could be reversed and would yield the same result. In other words, for a
linear inversion the smoothest solution with specified error misfit is the same as the solution
where the error misfit is minimized for a specified value of smoothness. The Lagrange
multipliers of the two solutions are reciprocals of each other.
The following sections provide a description of the main tasks performed by each class
of algorithms. The inversion algorithms were written in MATLAB; the Rayleigh forward
problem was written in FORTRAN 77 and linked to the main program via the MATLAB
API (Application Program Interface). A description of the main tasks performed by the
algorithms is reported in Appendix C.
The second module of the UFUMA algorithm is called Attenuation and is designed to
implement the linear inversion of the experimental attenuation curve. This task is
accomplished with a two-step procedure. First, the frequency-dependent Rayleigh
attenuation coefficients α R ( ω ) are computed from the experimental displacement
amplitudes at multiple receiver offsets using a non-linear regression based on the expression
w(r , ω) exp. = Fy ⋅ Gy (r , ω) ⋅ e −α R ⋅r where w(r,ω ) is the vertical particle displacement spectrum,
and Gy (r , ω) is the vertical geometric spreading function. Once the experimental
attenuation curve is determined, the shear damping ratio profile is determined from the
linear inversion of the relation α R = G ⋅ D S . Both Gy (r , ω) and G and calculated by
Rayleigh.
The UEQMA algorithms UEQMA are composed of two modules that are again called
Dispersion and Attenuation. The Dispersion module implements the non-linear inversion of the
experimental dispersion curve using Occam’s algorithm. Like UFUMA, Dispersion calls a
MATLAB mex-file named Rayleigh that solves the eigenvalue problem of Rayleigh waves in
elastic, vertically heterogeneous media. Rayleigh also computes the effective Rayleigh phase
velocity V$ R (ω , r ) , and the partial derivatives of V$ R (ω , r ) with respect to the shear and
compression wave velocities of the soil layers. Dispersion computes the effective theoretical
dispersion curve and the effective partial derivatives that account for all of the Rayleigh
modes of propagation according to Eqs. 3.23 and 3.58, respectively. Averaging the effective
Rayleigh phase velocities and partial derivatives over the receiver offsets used in the
measurements eliminates the dependence of these quantities on the spatial coordinate. The
experimental dispersion curve and receiver offsets are imported into Dispersion from an
external ASCII file.
Attenuation is the second module of the algorithm UEQMA and is used to obtain the
shear damping ratio profile from the experimental attenuation curve. Like UFUMA, the
122 Solution of the Rayleigh Inverse Problem
The difficulties that are inherent in the determination of the experimental dispersion
and attenuation surfaces suggest a new approach to interpreting surface wave data. As
Solution of the Rayleigh Inverse Problem 123
mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, the conventional interpretation of surface wave
measurements is based on adopting dispersion and attenuation curves as the medium
response functions. This choice is not unique, and other types of response functions may be
selected that may be better suited to the solution of the Rayleigh inverse problem. In the
frequency domain some of these alternate response functions include displacement
amplitude, displacement phase, and displacement spectra (see Fig. 4.1).
In surface wave tests displacement phase and amplitude are directly measured; Rayleigh
phase velocity and attenuation coefficient are derived from the phase and amplitude. Thus,
it may be advantageous to choose the displacement phase and amplitude as the response
functions for the solution of the Rayleigh inverse problem because they are more basic
quantities. For the uncoupled inversion an example of this approach would be to determine
the shear damping ratio profile directly from the experimental displacement amplitudes
$
using w(r , ω) exp. = Fy ⋅ Gy (r , ω) ⋅ e−G⋅DS ⋅r . In essence, the response function is changed from
attenuation coefficients to displacement amplitudes. This alternative, denoted in Fig.4.3 with
a dotted box, is attractive because it permits the experimental displacement amplitudes to be
used directly and avoids the need to calculate the attenuation coefficients.
A consistent, strongly coupled inversion should not only simultaneously invert the real
and the imaginary parts (or amplitude and phase) of R * = R *
(V *
P , VS* ) , but it should also
include an experimental procedure where both ℜ (R * ) and ℑ (R * ) are measured
simultaneously. In other words, in a consistent, coupled inversion the dispersion and
attenuation curves should be both measured and inverted simultaneously. Chapter 5 will
illustrate the details of an experimental procedure conceived for the simultaneous
measurement of both VR ( ω ) and α R ( ω ) .
In the seismological literature the term coupled inversion is often used for a procedure
that accounts for the link between surface wave phase velocity and attenuation and the
stiffness and damping properties of the layers in weakly dissipative medium (Aki and
Richards, 1980; Keilis-Borok, 1989; Herrmann, 1994). As illustrated in Section 3.5.3, this
weakly coupled inversion requires only the solution of the real-valued eigenproblem in elastic
media. The implementation of a weakly coupled inversion is based on the iterated
application of Eq. 3.63.
Figure 4.4 shows some of the possible algorithms that may be used for the solution of
the coupled Rayleigh inverse problem. The shaded boxes show the strongly coupled
inversion algorithms developed in this study and written in MATLAB; the solution of the
corresponding forward problem for linear viscoelastic media was written in FORTRAN 77.
A description of the main tasks performed by these computer codes is reported in
Appendix C.
The dashed boxes in Fig. 4.4 briefly outline the principles used to obtain the
experimental data. The symbol T (r,ω ) appearing in the dashed boxes denotes the
displacement transfer function; a quantity that will be defined in Chapter 5. The term
ΨR (r , ω ) = Ψβ*v (r ,0 , ω ) denotes the complex-valued phase angle defined by Eq. 3.76.
Finally, the subscript eff appearing in some of the equations is used to distinguish effective
quantities from modal quantities. The next three sections will provide a description of the
tasks performed by each of the algorithms outlined in Fig. 4.4.
Coupled Inversion
Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Wave Velocity and
Shear Damping Ratio Shear Damping Ratio Shear Damping Ratio
Inversion Inversion Inversion
Figure 4.4 Algorithms for the Solution of the Strongly Coupled Rayleigh Inverse Problem
126 Solution of the Rayleigh Inverse Problem
ViscoRay uses a MATLAB mex-file called Rayleigh written in FORTRAN 77 that solves
the complex eigenvalue problem of Rayleigh waves in linear viscoelastic multi-layered media.
Rayleigh also computes the partial derivatives of the complex Rayleigh phase velocity with
respect to the complex shear and compression wave velocities of the soil layers using the
variational formulation illustrated in Section 3.8. These partial derivatives are used to
construct the complex-valued Jacobian matrix required for the solution of the coupled
Rayleigh inverse problem.
The theoretical dispersion and attenuation curves computed by Rayleigh include only the
fundamental mode of propagation of Rayleigh waves. However, the frequency dependent
attenuation coefficients α R ( ω ) are calculated using a geometric spreading function
Gyv (r , ω ) that accounts for all of the modes of propagation (Rix et al., 1998a). The
experimental Rayleigh phase velocities and attenuation coefficients are imported into
ViscoRay from external ASCII files.
ViscoRay uses a MATLAB mex-file called Rayleigh written in FORTRAN 77 that solves
the complex eigenvalue problem of Rayleigh waves in viscoelastic multi-layered media.
Rayleigh computes the effective complex Rayleigh phase velocity and its partial derivatives
with respect to the complex shear and compression wave velocities of the medium layers
using the variational formulation of Section 3.8.
Solution of the Rayleigh Inverse Problem 127
The effective theoretical dispersion and attenuation curves and the effective partial
derivatives of Rayleigh phase velocity with respect to medium parameters computed by
Rayleigh, reflect the contribution of all the Rayleigh modes of propagation. It should be
noted that the experimental attenuation coefficients are calculated iteratively using the
geometric spreading function Gyv (r , ω ) that depends on the shear wave velocity profile of
the current iteration.
As it will be shown in Chapter 5, the difficulties of the algorithm CEFMA are related to
the experimental determination of the effective wavenumber, which is obtain from an
unstable process of numerical differentiation of the complex phase angle Ψβ*v (r ,0 , ω ) with
respect to the source-to-receiver distance. As mentioned in section 4.6.4, a smooth
numerical fitting of the experimental data, in this case the displacement transfer functions
T (r,ω ) , may mitigate some of these difficulties. Once the experimental dispersion surface
[ R ]
V$ * (ω , r ) has been defined, the objective of the algorithm CEFMA involves the task of
exp.
finding the smoothest complex shear wave velocity profile VS* ( ω ) whose theoretical
[ ]
complex dispersion surface matches V$ R* (ω , r ) exp. .
However, in the opinion of the writer the direct inversion of displacement spectra
w(r,ω ) or transfer functions T (r,ω ) constitutes the most rational approach to the
interpretation of active surface waves tests. The major difficulty of its practical
implementation is the computation of the partial derivatives of the displacement spectra
128 Solution of the Rayleigh Inverse Problem
with respect to the medium parameters. Currently, these partial derivatives have to be
computed numerically because no closed-form solutions, functions of the unperturbed
medium parameters, are available. Recent works in theoretical seismology are attempting to
address the solution of this difficult problem (Zeng and Anderson, 1995).
5 RAYLEIGH PHASE VELOCITY AND ATTENUATION
MEASUREMENTS
5.1 Overview
The most important aspects of surface wave measurements are reviewed in this chapter.
Surface wave tests are often called Spectral-Analysis-of-Surface-Waves (SASW) tests in the
engineering literature (Nazarian, 1984; Stokoe et al., 1989; Tokimatsu, 1995). Although
surface waves include both Rayleigh and Love waves, most of the methods currently used to
near-surface soil and rock properties focus exclusively on the observation of Rayleigh waves.
The SASW test is a relatively young in-situ seismic technique (compared to more
traditional seismic tests such as cross-hole and down-hole tests) that was developed by
Stokoe and co-workers during the early 1980’s (Nazarian et al., 1983; Nazarian, 1984;
Sánchez-Salinero, 1987; Rix, 1988; Stokoe et al., 1989). The technique evolved from the
Steady-State-Vibration Technique used by the US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station (WES) during the early 1960’s (Richart et al., 1970). The SASW test is
becoming increasing popular in the geotechnical engineering community, primarily because
it is a non-invasive field technique, and hence does not require the use of boreholes or
probes. This attractive feature may be crucial for certain types of geotechnical investigations.
Surface wave tests were originally developed for the determination of the elastic moduli
profile of soil deposits and pavement systems (Nazarian et al., 1983; Stokoe et al., 1989).
More recently, Rix et al. (1998a) developed a technique for using the SASW test to
determine the material damping ratio profile of a layered soil deposit. So far, however, the
two problems of determining the stiffness and material damping ratio profiles of a site have
been treated separately (i.e., uncoupled). Section 4.7 described several algorithms for the
simultaneous (i.e., strongly coupled) inversion of surface wave dispersion and attenuation
data. Section 4.7 also noted that the dispersion and attenuation data should not only be
inverted but also measured simultaneously. One goal of this chapter is to illustrate an
experimental procedure for the simultaneous measurement of both dispersion and
attenuation data.
Chapter 5 is organized in two main sections: Section 5.2 reviews the methods that are
currently used in conventional surface wave measurements. Section 5.3 proposes a new
approach to surface wave measurements where consistency between measurement
techniques and data interpretation is emphasized. Echoing the inversion analyses of Chapter
4, the new methodology is developed following two strategies. For the uncoupled inversion
algorithms presented in Section 4.6, the dispersion and attenuation data should be obtained
from uncoupled measurements, a topic that is discussed in Section 5.3.1. Conversely, the
use of the simultaneous inversion algorithms discussed in Section 4.7 suggests that the
129
130 Rayleigh Phase Velocity and Attenuation Measurements
Passive methods overcome this limitation because they do not involve generation of
wave energy with artificial sources. They are based on the observation of short- and long-
period ground motion induced by cultural noise and microtremors. Passive methods require
the particle motion to be recorded by a large number of sensors arranged in two-
dimensional arrays over the ground surface. Penetration depths with passive methods can
range from less than 50 meters with short-period microtremors to several kilometers with
long-period microtremors (Tokimatsu, 1995). This study focuses exclusively on the
interpretation of active surface wave methods, particularly those involving harmonic
sources.
The receivers used in surface wave tests for near-surface site characterization are usually
vertical velocity transducers with natural frequencies ranging from 1 to 4.5 Hz (Stokoe et al.,
1989). The recording device is usually a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) dynamic signal
analyzer that is capable of performing real-time spectral analyses of the particle velocity time
histories measured at the receivers. Figure 5.1 shows a typical configuration of the
equipment used in SASW testing during Rayleigh phase velocity measurements.
Sources are classified as transient and harmonic according to the time-variation of the
dynamic force. Transient sources are typically impulsive; common examples include
sledgehammers and dropped weights. They generate surface waves containing a broad range
of frequencies. Lack of repeatability and poor signal-to-noise ratios are their most important
limitations. Common harmonic sources include hydraulic vibrators and electro-mechanical
shakers that sweep through a pre-selected range of frequencies. For SASW tests performed
in soil deposits, the frequency range is approximately 5 to 200 Hz (Rix, 1988). Harmonic
sources are more repeatable and capable of higher signal-to-noise ratios than transient
sources (Rix, 1988; Spang, 1995). Moreover, the use of harmonic sources greatly simplifies
Rayleigh Phase Velocity and Attenuation Measurements 131
Recording
Device
Source
Receivers
Vertical
Particle
Motion
the interpretation of surface wave data since the analysis of Rayleigh wave propagation in
vertically heterogeneous media is more difficult for transient than for harmonic waves.
From the velocity spectra V (r,ω ) , two other important spectral quantities are
calculated: the auto-power spectrum G rr ( ω ) of each receiver and the cross-power spectrum
G r1r2 ( ω ) of the two receivers:
Fy ⋅ e iωt
Rayleigh Wave w 1 (r1 , t ) w 2 ( r2 , t )
Geophones
1 2
r1
r2
The symbol (⋅) in Eq. 5.1 denotes complex conjugation. The time delay between
[ ]
receivers as a function of the circular frequency is given by arg G r1r2 ( ω ) ω . Hence, the
phase velocity VR ( ω ) of the propagating Rayleigh wave can be computed from:
ω(r2 − r1 )
VR ( ω ) =
[ ]
(5.2)
arg G r1r2 ( ω )
Equation 5.2 yields the experimental dispersion curve associated with the pair of
receivers located at r1 and r2. This procedure is then repeated for different receiver spacings,
and the individual dispersion curves are combined together to form the composite
dispersion curve of the site (Nazarian, 1984).
Receiver positions are chosen according to one of two schemes: the common source
array and the common receiver midpoint array. Both schemes are illustrated in Figs.5.3 (a)
and (b). Local stratigraphy and portability of the source control the selection of the receiver
array. Sometimes the SASW test is performed using both forward and reverse arrays
(Stokoe et al., 1989). The receiver positions remain the same, but the source is moved to the
opposite end of the array. The results of the forward and reverse arrays are combined
together in an attempt to mitigate the effects of lateral inhomogeneities and/or local
discontinuities.
Nyquist’s criterion, spatial aliasing is avoided if the receiver spacing is chosen to be smaller
than half the wavelength one wants to measure.
An important spectral quantity that is also calculated during SASW phase velocity
measurements is the ordinary coherence function, which is defined by:
F ⋅ e iω t
Receivers
1 2
F ⋅ e iω t
Receivers
1 2
F ⋅ e iω t
1 Receivers 2
near field
F ⋅ e iω t
Receivers
1 2
F ⋅ e iω t
Receivers
1 2
F ⋅ e iω t
1 Receivers 2
γ r21r2 ( ω) =
[G r1r2 ][
( ω) ⋅ Gr r ( ω)
12
]
[G ( ω)] ⋅ [G ( ω) ]
(5.3)
r1r1 r2 r2
The ordinary coherence function gives a measure of how the measured particle velocity
& (r1 , t) is related to w
w & (r2 , t ) . It can be shown (Bendat and Piersol, 1986) that 0 ≤ γ 2r1r2 ≤ 1
with the upper bound γ r1r2 = 1 corresponding to a situation where there is an exact linear
relationship between w & (r1 , t) and w
& (r2 , t ) . Low coherence values may be attributed to the
presence of signal noise or more generally to the situation where the measured particle
velocities at the receiver r1 and r2 are not linearly related. From Eq. 3.28 with
u y (r ,0 , ω ) = w(r , ω ) it can be easily shown that the theoretical coherence function (i.e., the
coherence function computed with synthetic particle velocities) is equal to one at all
frequencies. Therefore, since Eq. 3.28 has been derived by neglecting the body wave field,
an additional cause for observed low values of the coherence function may be the near-field
effects.
In the context of Section 3.3, the Rayleigh phase velocity computed with Eq. 5.2 is the
average effective Rayleigh phase velocity V$ R (r , ω ) over the distance (r2 − r1 ) . This quantity,
which is sometimes called the apparent phase velocity (Tokimatsu, 1995), reflects the
contribution of several modes of propagation of Rayleigh waves, and its magnitude depends
on the location where it is measured as demonstrated by Eq. 3.23. Therefore, the current
procedure based on Eq. 5.2 eliminates important information from the experimental
measurements, that is the functional dependence of the measured Rayleigh phase velocity
on the receiver position. As discussed in Chapter 4, the well posedness of the Rayleigh
inverse problem can be improved by supplying more information to constrain the solution.
Thus, a substantial improvement is expected by accounting for the dependence of the
measured phase velocity on the source-to-receiver distance.
The relevant spectral quantity is now the particle velocity auto-power spectrum Grr ( ω)
calculated at each receiver spacing. Because ambient noise may be important, particularly at
Rayleigh Phase Velocity and Attenuation Measurements 135
large receiver offsets, the experimental particle velocity spectra are corrected to account for
the noise effects (Rix et al., 1998a; Rix et al., 1998b):
~
Grr ( ω) = ~
γ sr2 ( ω) Grr ( ω) (5.4)
~
where Grr ( ω) is the measured auto-power spectrum that is presumed to contain non-
coherent noise. The quantity ~
γ sr2 ( ω) is the ordinary coherence function between the
harmonic source and the measured vertical particle velocity. Computation of ~ γ sr ( ω) 2
requires the use of an accelerometer at the source to monitor the motion of the harmonic
oscillator.
From Eq. 5.4 the experimental vertical particle displacement spectrum is readily
computed by:
V (r , ω ) G rr (ω )
w( r , ω ) = = (5.5)
ω ⋅ C(ω ) ω ⋅ C(ω )
where C( ω ) is a frequency dependent calibration factor that converts the output of the
velocity transducer (volts) into engineering units (e.g., cm/sec).
Once the vertical displacement amplitudes w (r,ω ) have been computed, the Rayleigh
attenuation coefficients α R ( ω ) can be determined from Eq. 3.76 by assuming
Ψyv* (r ,0 , ω ) ≈ K * ( ω ) ⋅ r where [ ]
K * ( ω ) = ω VR ( ω ) + iα R ( ω ) . This assumption is
equivalent to assuming that the complex phase angle Ψyv* (r ,0 , ω ) is dominated by the
fundamental mode of propagation. This hypothesis applies only to the phase angle and not
to the modulus of the vertical displacement w(r,ω ) . In other words, the attenuation
coefficients are calculated using a hybrid approach in which the material attenuation is
assumed to be dominated by the fundamental mode, but the geometric attenuation is
correctly computed by accounting for all the modes of propagation. With these assumptions
Eq. 3.76 gives:
dissipative media U$y* (r ,0 , ω ) ≈ U$y (r ,0 , ω ) and G (r,ω ) can be computed from the elastic
solution of the Rayleigh forward problem.
Figures 5.4(a) and (b) show the results of two experimental attenuation coefficients
α R ( ω ) computed at the Treasure Island National Geotechnical Experimentation Site
(NGES) at two different frequencies. The magnitude of the harmonic force Fy may be
considered as an additional parameter to be determined from the regression. In this case the
two parameters α R ( ω ) and Fy may be determined using a partitioned non-linear regression
algorithm that eliminates the linear parameter Fy from the non-linear regression for
α R ( ω ) . It can be shown (Lawton and Sylvestre, 1971) that this procedure is beneficial in
accelerating and stabilizing the convergence of the algorithm.
1.E-05
Vertical Particle Displacement (m)
f = 30 Hz Experimental
1.E-06 αR = 0.0377 1/m Theoretical
1.E-07
1.E-08
1.E-09
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance (m)
1.E-05
1.E-07
1.E-08
1.E-09
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance (m)
method overcomes this problem because material attenuation is more easily observed and
measured experimentally over larger distances.
The second reason motivating a new interpretation approach comes from the
formulation of the coupled inversion presented in Section 4.7. As mentioned at the
beginning of this chapter, in a truly consistent approach to surface wave testing, the
dispersion and attenuation curves should be both measured and inverted simultaneously.
The objective of Section 5.3.2 is to illustrate a technique for the simultaneous determination
of the dispersion and attenuation curves from surface wave measurements.
w(r , ω ) = Fy ⋅ G (r , ω ) ⋅ e [ ]
i ω t − Ψ * ( r ,ω )
(5.7)
Rayleigh Phase Velocity and Attenuation Measurements 139
V$ R ( r , ω )
+ i ⋅ $ R ( r , ω ) . By decomposing
α
Ψ * (r , ω ) into its real and imaginary parts, Eq. 5.7 can be rewritten as follows:
w(r , ω ) = Fy ⋅ G (r , ω ) ⋅ e − Ψ2 ( r ,ω ) ⋅ e [ ]
i ω t − Ψ1 ( r ,ω )
(5.8)
[ ] [ ]
where Ψ1 (r , ω ) = ℜ Ψ * (r , ω ) , and Ψ2 (r , ω ) = ℑ Ψ * (r , ω ) . Considering only the spectral
part of Eq. 5.8 gives:
w(r , ω ) = Fy ⋅ G (r , ω ) ⋅ e − Ψ2 ( r ,ω )
(5.9)
[ ]
arg w(r , ω ) = − Ψ1 (r , ω )
ω
Since V$ R (r , ω ) = and α$ R ( r , ω ) = Ψ2 (r , ω ) [ ] from Eq. 5.9 it is possible to
[ ]
Ψ1 (r , ω ) ,r
,r
obtain:
$ −ω
VR (r, ω ) = ∂
∂r
( [
arg w(r , ω ) ])
(5.10)
w(r , ω )
α$ (r , ω ) = − ∂ ln
R ∂ r G (r , ω )
corrected displacement amplitude, the latter considered again as a function of the source-to-
receiver distance r. The corrected displacement amplitude is defined by the natural
logarithm of w(r , ω ) G (r , ω ) . Figure 5.5 illustrates this important geometrical
interpretation of the effective Rayleigh phase velocity V$ R (r , ω ) and attenuation coefficient
α$ R (r , ω ) . Equation 5.10 is important because it suggests a procedure for the experimental
determination of V$ R (r , ω ) and α$ R (r , ω ) .
ω = constant
arg[w(r, ω)]
ω
V$ R (r* , ω ) =
k$ R (r * , ω )
r*
r
k$ R
1
ω = constant
ln[|w(r,ω)|/G(r,ω) ]
α$ R = α$ R (r* , ω )
1
α$ R
r* r
In the latter case however, it is assumed that the V$ R (r , ω ) data have already been
inverted so that the geometric spreading function G (r,ω ) required to calculate the
corrected displacement amplitudes is known (for weakly dissipative media).
Although this procedure is in principle correct, its practical implementation may be very
difficult due to the unstable numerical differentiation required by Eq. 5.10. This problem
associated with the experimental determination of the dispersion and attenuation surfaces
has already been discussed in Section 4.6.4, where a possible solution strategy has also been
presented.
Equation 5.10 demonstrates that the effective Rayleigh phase velocity and attenuation
coefficient are indeed derived quantities that are obtained from differentiation of the
experimentally measured displacement phases and amplitudes. This consideration is the
basis of a new interpretation of the SASW test where the inverted quantities are
displacement phases and amplitudes rather than phase velocities and attenuation
coefficients. The details of this new interpretation were illustrated in Sections 4.6.4 and
4.7.4. If in Eq. 5.7 the complex phase angle Ψ * (r , ω ) is approximated by
[ ]
Ψ * (r , ω ) ≈ K * ( ω ) ⋅ r with K * ( ω ) = k R ( ω ) + iα R ( ω ) , Eq. 5.9 becomes:
142 Rayleigh Phase Velocity and Attenuation Measurements
w(r , ω ) = Fy ⋅ G (r , ω ) ⋅ e− α R (ω )⋅r
(5.11)
[ ]
arg w(r , ω ) = − k R ( ω ) ⋅ r
Equation 5.11 suggests a method for estimating the average effective Rayleigh phase
velocity and attenuation coefficient over the same linear array of receivers. The method
simply consists of computing k R ( ω ) and hence VR ( ω ) from a linear regression involving
the experimental displacement phases and then inverting VR ( ω ) to obtain the shear wave
velocity profile and G (r,ω ) . The attenuation coefficient α R ( ω ) is obtained from a non-
linear regression involving the displacement amplitudes. The procedure for determining
α R ( ω ) is the same as the conventional method presented in Section 5.2.2. The key
difference is that the same configuration of receivers is used to obtain both VR ( ω ) and
α R ( ω ) , and therefore the method suggested by Eq. 5.11 provides consistency between
surface wave phase velocity and attenuation measurements.
In a linear system, which in this case corresponds to a linear viscoelastic soil deposit, the
ratio between an output and an input signal in the frequency domain is called the frequency
response function or the transfer function of the system (Oppenheim and Willsky, 1997). In
the typical SASW test configuration shown in Fig.5.1, the input signal is the harmonic force
applied by the vertically oscillating source Fy ⋅ e iωt , while the output signal is the vertical
displacement w(r , ω) measured at a distance r from the source.
From Eq. 5.7, the displacement transfer function T (r,ω ) between source and receiver
is given by:
w( r , ω )
T (r , ω ) = iωt = G ( r , ω ) ⋅ e
− i⋅Ψ * ( r ,ω )
(5.12)
Fy ⋅ e
Because the dynamic signal analyzer allows direct measurement of T (r,ω ) , Eq. 5.12 can
be used as a basis of a non-linear regression analysis to determine the complex phase angle
Rayleigh Phase Velocity and Attenuation Measurements 143
VR ( ω )
The validity of this assumption may be arguable, but the uncertainties associated with
the methods used to interpret surface wave measurement do not justify the recourse to
more refined statistical distributions in the opinion of the writer. The statistics of normally
distributed experimental data are the expected value and variance. Bias and other systematic
errors in the measurements are not considered.
The recording device used in surface wave testing (generally a dynamic signal analyzer)
determines an estimate of the expected values of G rr ( ω ) , G r1r2 ( ω ) , and H(r,ω ) , which are
[ ] [ ] [ ]
indicated by E G rr ( ω ) , E G r1r2 ( ω ) , and E H(r,ω ) . It is also possible to compute the
variances of these measured quantities using the following relations (Bendat and Piersol,
1986):
G 2rr (ω )
Var[G rr ω ] =
( )
nd
(1 − γ )
2 (5.13a)
( ω )
[ ] [ { }]
2
G
Var G r1r2 (ω ) = n ⋅ γ 2 ; Var arg G r1r2 (ω )
r r r1r2
≈
12
d r1 r2 2 γ r21r2
(1 − γ sr2 ) ⋅ H(r , ω )
2
[
Var H(r , ω ) ≈
] 2 n d ⋅ γ sr2
(5.13b)
(1 − γ sr2 )
[ {
Var arg H(r , ω ) ≈
}]
2 γ sr2
where γ sr ( ω) represents the ordinary coherence function between the harmonic source
2
and the receiver output signal. The number n d is the number of independent averages used
to estimate the spectral quantities.
( )
2
2 γ r21r2 1 − γ r21r2
[ ]
Var γ r21r2 ≈
nd
(5.14)
( )
a non-linear function of arg Gr1r2 , VR ( ω ) is in general non-Gaussian distributed. However,
by assuming the experimental data to be characterized by small variances, it is possible to
expand Eq. 5.2 in a Taylor’s series about E arg G r1r2 [ ( )] (provided E[arg(G )] ≠ 0 ), and
r1r2
ω(r2 − r1 )
[
E VR ( ω ) ≈ ]
[ (
E arg G r1r2 ( ω ) )]
(5.15)
[ ( )] [
]
Var arg G r1r2 ( ω ) ⋅ ω (r2 − r1 )
2
[
Var VR ( ω ) ≈ ]
{ [ ( )]}
4
E arg G ( ω )
r1r2
1 nR
E V[R
( ω ) = ] ∑ E VR ( ω ) j
n R j =1
[ ]
nR
(5.16)
Var V ( ω ) = 1
R [ ] ∑ Var VR ( ω )
n R2 j=1
[ ] j
In Eq. 5.16 the variance of VR ( ω ) has been computed under the assumption that the
[ ]
individual VR ( ω ) j are statistically uncorrelated.
E G rr (ω ) [ ]
[
E w(r , ω ) ≈
]
ω ⋅ C(ω )
(5.17)
Var G rr (ω ) [ ]
[
Var w(r , ω ) ≈ ] [
4 E G rr (ω ) ⋅ ω ⋅ C(ω ) ][ ] 2
The expected value and variance of the Rayleigh attenuation coefficient α R ( ω ) must be
computed from the non-linear regression based on Eq. 5.6. Unfortunately, because of the
non-linearity of the relationship between w(r,ω ) and α R ( ω ) , one can only estimate
[ ] [ ]
E α R ( ω ) and Var α R ( ω ) . If the attenuation coefficient is estimated from Eq. 5.6 using
a standard non-linear least-squares algorithm (e.g. the Gauss-Newton method or the
Levenberg-Marquardt method), the uncertainty associated with this estimate can be
approximately calculated with the following relation (Menke, 1989):
] ( ) [ ]( )
T
[
Var α R ( ω ) ≈ J αT R J α R J αTR Cov w ( ω ) J αTR J α R J αTR
−1 −1
(5.18)
last # last #
Since it is assumed that the data w (r , ω ) are uncorrelated, the data covariance matrix is
diagonal with the non-zero elements equal to the variances of w (r , ω ) given by Eq. 5.17.
The term J α R is a n T × 1 vector whose components Jα R ( ) (k = 1, n ) are defined from
k
T
∂ w ( rk , ω )
(J ) = [J
αR
k
αR ]
(ω) =
k ∂α R
= − rk ⋅ w ( rk , ω ) (5.19)
The subscript last # outside the brackets of Eq. 5.18 indicates that the terms inside the
parentheses, essentially the vector J α R , refer to the last iteration in the solution of the non-
linear regression based on Eq. 5.6.
Equation 5.18 completes the calculation of the expected values and variances of the
experimental Rayleigh phase velocities VR ( ω ) and attenuation coefficients α R ( ω ) . The
next task is to determine how the uncertainties of these data are mapped into uncertainties of
the estimated model parameters, which are the shear wave velocity and shear damping ratio
profiles of a given soil deposit. This and other related topics will be discussed in Sections
5.4.4 and 5.4.5.
[ ] [ ] [
Cov m ( ω ) = (G rT G r ) G rT Cov arg ( w ( ω ) ) ] [(G G r ) G rT ]
−1 −1 T
T
r (5.20)
148 Rayleigh Phase Velocity and Attenuation Measurements
[ ] [
where Cov arg ( w ( ω ) ) is an n T × n T diagonal matrix (assuming the data arg w (r , ω ) to ]
be uncorrelated) whose elements are the variances of the experimental displacement phases
[ ]
arg w (r , ω ) at the n T different receiver locations at a given frequency ω .
[ ]
The term Cov m ( ω ) is a 2 × 2 diagonal matrix whose two non-zero elements are the
[ ]
variances of the intercept and the slope (i.e., Var k R ( ω ) ) of the linear regression. Finally,
T
r1 r2 L rn T
the term G r is a n T × 2 matrix defined by G r = where rk ( k = 1, n T )
1 1 L 1
denotes the source-to-receiver distance for receiver k.
[ ] [ ]
Having defined E k R ( ω ) and Var k R ( ω ) , the expected value and variance of
VR ( ω ) = ω k R ( ω ) are determined using the Taylor’s series expansion described in the
previous section. The results are given by the following expression:
ω
[ ( ) ]
E VR ω ≈ E k ( ω )
R [ ]
(5.21)
[ ] [
ω 2 Var k R ( ω ) ]
Var VR ( ω ) ≈
{[
E k R ( ω)
4
]}
[ ] [
E T (r , ω ) = ωE H(r , ω ) ; ] [ (
E arg T (r , ω ) ) ] = E [arg (H(r , ω))] + π2
(5.22)
[ ]
Var T(r , ω ) = ω Var H(r , ω ) ;
2
[ ] [ (
Var arg T (r , ω ) ) ] = Var [arg (H(r , ω ))]
ω
Now, since the complex wavenumber K * ( ω ) = + iα R ( ω ) is determined from
VR ( ω )
the non-linear regression T (r , ω ) = G (r , ω ) ⋅ e − i⋅K ( ω ) ⋅r
*
, it is first necessary to calculate
[ ] [ ]
E T(r,ω ) and Var T(r,ω ) in order to compute expected value and variance of K * ( ω ) .
[ ]
It is convenient to write T (r , ω ) = T1 (r , ω ) + iT2 (r , ω ) , from which it is simple to obtain:
[ 1 ] [ ] { [ (
E T (r , ω ) ≈ E T (r , ω ) ⋅ cos E arg T(r , ω ) ) ]}
[ ] [ ] { [ (
E T2 (r , ω ) ≈ E T(r , ω ) ⋅ sin E arg T(r , ω )
) ]} (5.23)
[ ] [ ]
Var T(r , ω ) = Var T1 (r , ω ) − Var T2 (r , ω ) [ ]
where:
[
Var T (r , ω )
1 ] ≈ cos [arg (T(r , ω))]Var [ T(r , ω ) ] +
2
The uncertainty of the complex wavenumber K * ( ω ) is finally computed from the non-
linear regression T (r , ω ) = G (r , ω ) ⋅ e − i⋅K ( ω )⋅r following a procedure that is formally identical
*
to that used for determining the uncertainty of the Rayleigh attenuation coefficient α R ( ω ) .
The result is:
150 Rayleigh Phase Velocity and Attenuation Measurements
] ( ) [ ]( )
H
[
Var Κ (ω ) ≈ J HK * J K * J Cov T(ω ) J HK * J K * J
−1 −1
∗ H H
(5.25)
last #
K* K* last #
( ) = −i r ⋅ T r ,ω
∂T rj , ω
(J ) = [J
K *
j K * ]
(ω) =
j ∂K * ( ) j j (5.26)
Like Eq. 5.18, the subscript last # outside the brackets of Eq. 5.25 indicates that the
terms inside the parenthesis refer to the last iteration in the solution of the non-linear
regression T (r , ω ) = G (r , ω ) ⋅ e − i⋅K ( ω ) ⋅r
*
.
Once E [ K * ( ω ) ] and Var [ K * ( ω ) ] are computed, the expected value and variance of
the complex Rayleigh phase velocity VR* ( ω ) are obtained from the complex extension of
Eq. 5.21, namely:
ω
[ ( )
E VR ω ≈ E K * ( ω )
*
]
R [ ]
(5.27)
ω 2 Var K *R ( ω ) [ ]
[
Var VR ( ω ) ≈
*
]
E K *R ( ω )
4
{[ ]}
Equation 5.27 completes the statistical analysis of surface wave measurements when
dispersion and attenuation data are determined simultaneously from the particle velocity
transfer functions H(r,ω ) . However it may also be important to compute E VR* ( ω ) and [ ]
Rayleigh Phase Velocity and Attenuation Measurements 151
[ ]
Var VR* ( ω ) when surface wave data, namely VR ( ω ) and α R ( ω ) , are obtained
independently. The solution to this problem is obtained from the application of the theory
of random variables (Papoulis, 1965) to Eq. 2.34.
[
E VR* ( ω ) ≈ ]
E VR ( ω )[ ] (
⋅ 1 − iE D R ( ω ) [ ])
1 + E 2 D R (ω) [ ]
[ ]
2
1 − iE D R ( ω )
[
Var VR ( ω ) ≈
*
] ⋅ Var VR ( ω ) + [ ] (5.28)
2
[
1 + E D R ( ω ) ]
[ ][ [ ] ( [ ])]
2
E V ( ω ) ⋅ 2E D ( ω ) + i 1 − E 2 D ( ω )
+
R R R
[
⋅ Var D R ( ω ) ]
1 + E 2 D R (ω ) ( 2
[ ])
where:
[
E α R ( ω) E ] [V (ω )]
[
E D R ( ω ) ≈ ] ω
R
(5.29)
[ ] [ ]
2 2
E VR ( ω ) E α R ( ω)
[
Var D R ( ω ) ≈ ] ω
[
⋅ Var α R ( ω ) +
ω
] [
⋅ Var VR ( ω ) ]
In deriving Eqs. 5.28 and 5.29 it was assumed that the random variables VR and D R are
uncorrelated.
152 Rayleigh Phase Velocity and Attenuation Measurements
In summary, despite the fact that the relationship between directly measured quantities
(i.e., G rr ( ω ) , G r1r2 ( ω ) , and H(r,ω ) ) and the derived surface wave data (i.e., VR ( ω ) ,
α R ( ω ) , and VR* ( ω ) ) is non-linear in most cases, the assumption of small variances allows
one to obtain explicit results for the expected values and variances of VR ( ω ) , α R ( ω ) , and
VR* ( ω ) .
From a statistical point of view, E VS [ ] and Var [ V ] are the quantities that are of
S
( ) (W J )
−1
[ ]
Cov VS ≈ µ∂ T ∂ + WVR J S WVR J S
T T
VR S WVR ⋅
last #
(5.30)
( ) (W J )
T
−1
[ ]
⋅ Cov VR ⋅ µ∂ T ∂ + WVR J S WVR J S
T T
VR S WVR
last #
[ ]
where Cov VR is an n F × n F matrix of covariances of the experimental Rayleigh phase
velocities at n F different frequencies ω . It is assumed that the data VR ( ω ) are
[ ]
uncorrelated, and hence the matrix Cov VR is diagonal with the non-zero elements equal
to the variances of VR ( ω ) . The variances are given by Eq. 5.16 for conventional
measurements and by Eq. 5.21 for the new measurement procedure.
Rayleigh Phase Velocity and Attenuation Measurements 153
matrix defined by
( ) , 1 / (σ ) ,..... ,1 / (σ )
WVR = diag 1 / σ VR
1
VR
2
VR
nF
where
(σ )
VR
k
= + Var ( VR ) k with k = 1, n F and represents the standard deviations associated with
the experimental data VR . The parameter µ and the symbol ∂ have already been defined
in Section 4.5; µ is the inverse of the Lagrange multiplier and ∂ is the two-point-central
finite difference operator.
Finally, the term J S is the n F × n L Jacobian matrix whose elements ( JS ) kj are defined
by the partial derivatives ( JS ) kj = ∂( VR ) k ∂( VS ) j . The subscript last # outside the brackets
of Eq. 5.30 indicates that the terms inside the parentheses (in essence the Jacobian matrix
J S ) should be computed with respect to the last iteration in the solution of the non-linear
problem VR = VR ( VS ) .
The determination of the uncertainty associated with the estimated damping ratio
[ ]
profile D S is simpler than determining Cov VS because the inversion of the experimental
attenuation curve α R ( ω ) to obtain the damping ratio profile is linear. The problem can
symbolically be written as GD S = α R . In this equation G is a n F × n L matrix formed by
the partial derivatives of Rayleigh phase velocity with respect to the shear and compression
wave velocities of the soil layers and defined by Eqs. 3.45 and 3.63b. The term α R is a
n F × 1 vector of Rayleigh attenuation coefficients calculated for n F different frequencies
and D S is a n L × 1 vector containing the unknown shear damping ratios of the n L layers
soil deposit. If the linear equation GD S = α R is inverted using Occam’s algorithm, the
uncertainty of the estimated shear damping ratio profile D S can be computed from the
uncertainty of the measured attenuation coefficients α R using the following relation:
( ) ( )
−1
[ ]
Cov D S = µ∂ T ∂ + Wα R G Wα R G Wα R G Wα R ⋅
T T
T (5.31)
T
( ) (
)
−1
[ ]
T T
⋅ Cov α R
⋅ µ∂ ∂ + Wα R G Wα R G Wα R G Wα R
154 Rayleigh Phase Velocity and Attenuation Measurements
[ ]
where Cov α R is an n F × n F diagonal matrix whose non-zero elements (the α R ( ω ) are
assumed to be uncorrelated) are the variances of α R ( ω ) at n F different frequencies ω ; the
variances can be calculated from Eq. 5.18. Cov DS [ ] is a n L × n L diagonal matrix
containing the variances of the estimated shear damping ratios (DS ) j with j = 1, n L .
( ) (W J ) W
−1
[ ]
H H
Cov V ≈ µ∂ T ∂ + WV* * J *S
*
W J
* * * * *
⋅
S VR* S VR* S VR*
R
last #
(5.32)
( )W (W J )
H
−1
[ ]
H H
⋅ Cov VR* ⋅ µ∂ T ∂ + WV* * J*S *
J *S * *
WV* *
VR* VR* S
R R
last #
where Cov VR* [ ] is an n F × n F diagonal matrix (for uncorrelated VR* ( ω ) data) whose
elements are the (complex) variances of the experimental VR* ( ω ) at n F different
Rayleigh Phase Velocity and Attenuation Measurements 155
[ ]
frequencies and given by Eq. 5.27. Cov VS* is a n L × n L diagonal matrix formed by the
variances of the estimated complex valued shear wave velocities ( VS* ) j ( j = 1, n L ) .
R
( ) ( )
R 1 R 2
( ) R
nF R k
( )
WV* * = diag 1 / σ *V * , 1 / σ *V * ,..... , 1 / σ *V * where σ *V * = + Var ( VR* ) k with
k = 1, n F and represents the complex-valued standard deviations of the experimental VR* .
Finally, the term J *S is the n F × n L complex-valued Jacobian matrix whose elements ( J*S ) kj
6.1 Overview
The objective of this chapter is the validation of the algorithms developed during this
research study, and based on some of the theoretical concepts presented Chapters 3 and 4.
The validation of these algorithms is carried out using the following procedure. For a
layered medium characterized by a set of material parameters, synthetic displacement data at
several receiver offsets are generated from the numerical solution of the Rayleigh forward
problem. These surface wave displacement data, which simulate SASW field measurements,
are then used to calculate synthetic dispersion and attenuation curves with the same
techniques used in a real SASW test and illustrated in chapter 5.
The simulated dispersion and attenuation curves are then inverted using the Rayleigh
inversion algorithms described in Chapter 4 in an attempt to recover the original shear wave
velocity and shear damping ratio profiles of the medium. A comparison between the
original and the inverted VS and D S profiles will provide the means for assessing the
performance of the algorithms. This validation procedure is carried out for stratified media
having different layering and material properties.
This chapter is organized in two main sections, describing the procedures adopted for
the validation of the uncoupled and coupled inversion algorithms, respectively. In each of these
sections, the algorithms associated with the fundamental mode analysis (i.e. UFUMA and
CFUMA) are presented first, followed by those based on the equivalent multi-mode analysis (i.e.
UEQMA and CEQMA).
The problem of determining the displacement field induced by a vertical harmonic point
load applied at the free surface of an homogeneous, isotropic, linear elastic half-space, was
first solved by Lamb (1904) in a classical paper entitled “On the Propagation of Tremors over the
Surface of an Elastic Solid”. Lamb used the tools of complex variable theory to find the
solution of what today is known as the Lamb’s problem, which can be considered as the
dynamic analogue of another classical problem of linear elasticity: Boussinesq’s problem.
157
158 Validation of the Algorithms
Although Lamb developed a solution for an arbitrary time variation of the source, only
the solution for a harmonic source is presented here. The harmonic solution can be written
as follows:
Fe iωt
w R (r , ω ) = ⋅ k ⋅ Φ(k R ) ⋅ H (02 ) ( k R r ) (6.1)
2 iG R
k S2 k R2 − k P2
Φ( k R ) = − (6.2)
R ′( k R )
where k P and k S are the wave-numbers of the P-wave and S-wave, respectively. Finally, the
function R ( k R ) is given by the following expression:
R ( k R ) = (2 k 2R − k 2S ) − 4 k 2R (k − k 2P )( k 2R − k 2S )
2 2
R (6.3)
ξ 3 − 8 ξ 2 + 8 (1 + 2 χ) ξ − 16χ = 0 (6.4)
Lamb’s solution was calculated for three different elastic media, and the results were
compared with those obtained with the new algorithm. Table 6.1 shows the material
properties and frequencies used for the comparison test.
Table 6.1 Medium Properties and Frequencies Used for Validation of the Elastic
Lamb’s Problem
Mass
VP VS Frequency
Case No. Density
[m/s] [m/s] [Hz]
[t/m3]
The results of the validation test are shown in Fig. 6.1(a) through Fig. 6.1(c), where
vertical displacement amplitudes and phases are plotted versus the distance from the source
for a specified frequency.
-7
x 10
1 6
Lamb Solution
4 Numerical Method
0.8
Displacement Amplitude [m]
Lamb Solution
Displacement Phase [rad]
Numerical Method
2
0.6
0
0.4
-2
0.2
-4
0 -6
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance [m] Distance [m]
Figure 6.1(a) Comparison of Solutions for the Elastic Lamb’s Problem (Case 1)
The magnitude of the harmonic source Fe iωt has been assumed equal to one. In all
three cases the agreement between the closed-form solution given by Lamb and that
obtained with the numerical algorithm is excellent.
160 Validation of the Algorithms
-7
x 10
1 6
Lamb Solution
4 Numerical Method
0.8
Numerical Method
2
0.6
0
0.4
-2
0.2
-4
0 -6
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance [m]
Distance [m]
Figure 6.1(b) Comparison of Solutions for the Elastic Lamb’s Problem (Case 2)
-7
x 10
1 6
Lamb Solution
0.8
4 Numerical Method
Lamb Solution
Displacement Phase [rad]
Displacement Amplitude [m]
Numerical Method
2
0.6
0
0.4
-2
0.2
-4
0 -6
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance [m] Distance [m]
Figure 6.1(c) Comparison of Solutions for the Elastic Lamb’s Problem (Case 3)
The solution of the Lamb’s problem in viscoelastic media can be obtained from the
application of the elastic-viscoelastic correspondence principle to the corresponding elastic
solution. As a result, in the viscoelastic solution the terms k P , k S , k R and G appearing in
Eq. 6.1 are complex-valued. Table 6.2 shows the frequencies and material parameters used
for the validation of the numerical solution of the Lamb’s problem in viscoelastic media.
Figures 6.2(a) through 6.2(c) show the results of the comparison. It is apparent from the
plots that the closed-form and numerical solutions also agree for the viscoelastic case.
Validation of the Algorithms 161
Table 6.2 Medium Properties and Frequencies Used for Validation of the Viscoelastic
Lamb’s Problem
Mass
VP VS DP DS Frequency
Case No. Density
[Hz]
[m/s] [m/s] [%] [%] [t/m3]
-7
x 10
1 6
Lamb Solution
4 Numerical Method
0.8 Lamb Solution
Displacement Phase [rad]
Displacement Amplitude [m]
Numerical Method
2
0.6
0
0.4
-2
0.2
-4
0 -6
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance [m]
Distance [m]
Figure 6.2(a) Comparison of Solutions for the Viscoelastic Lamb’s Problem (Case 1)
-7
x 10
1 6
Lamb Solution
4 Numerical Method
0.8 Lamb Solution
Displacement Phase [rad]
Displacement Amplitude [m]
Numerical Method
2
0.6
0
0.4
-2
0.2
-4
0 -6
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance [m]
Distance [m]
Figure 6.2(b) Comparison of Solutions for the Viscoelastic Lamb’s Problem (Case 2)
162 Validation of the Algorithms
-7
x 10
1 6
Lamb Solution
4 Numerical Method
0.8
Numerical Method
2
0.6
0
0.4
-2
0.2
-4
0 -6
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance [m]
Distance [m]
Figure 6.2(c) Comparison of Solutions for the Viscoelastic Lamb’s Problem (Case 3)
As discussed in Section 3.4, near-field effects decay very quickly with distance from the
source in normally dispersive media (they are negligible at distances larger than one-half a
wavelength). In inversely dispersive media, such effects are considerably more important
(they may extend up to distances that are four times larger). Furthermore, in normally
dispersive media the propagation of surface waves is to a great extent dominated by the
fundamental mode, while in inversely dispersive soil deposits the response of the medium is
more often controlled by higher modes of propagation, particularly at high frequencies
(Gucunski and Woods, 1991). For these three layered media, a numerical simulation was
conducted to compute synthetic dispersion and attenuation curves.
This computation was performed using the computer programs developed for the
solution of the Rayleigh forward problem and the methods for surface wave data
interpretation described in Section 5.3. The synthetic displacement field was computed at 20
receiver locations, with the closest receiver located at a distance equal to one to two
wavelengths from the source. The numerical simulation was performed for a set of 50
Validation of the Algorithms 163
frequencies ranging from 5 to 100 Hz, which is a typical frequency range used in SASW
tests. Once the synthetic dispersion and attenuation curves of the three soil deposits were
determined, the last step of the validation procedure consisted of inverting these curves to
obtain the corresponding shear wave velocity and shear damping ratio profiles. A
comparison of the latter with the original VS and D S profiles served as the basis for
assessing the performance of the inversion algorithms.
Table 6.3 Medium Properties Used for the Validation of the Inversion Algorithms
(Case 1)
Mass
Layer Thickness VP VS DP DS
Density
No. [m]
[m/s] [m/s] [%] [%] [t/m3]
Table 6.4 Medium Properties Used for the Validation of the Inversion Algorithms
(Case 2)
Table 6.5 Medium Properties Used for the Validation of the Inversion Algorithms
(Case 3)
Mass
Layer Thickness VP VS DP DS
Density
No. [m]
[m/s] [m/s] [%] [%] [t/m3]
The dispersion curves of the first four modes of propagation for the Case 1 soil profile
are shown in Fig.6.3, together with the synthetic dispersion curve. As expected for this
normally dispersive profile, there is a good agreement between the synthetic dispersion
curve and the dispersion curve associated with the fundamental mode of propagation.
500
Fundamental Mode
450 Second Mode
Third Mode
Rayleigh Phase Velocity [m/s]
350
300
250
200
150
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
F requency [Hz]
However, Fig. 6.4 also shows that the agreement between the synthetic dispersion curve
and the effective dispersion curve is even better, particularly at frequencies less than 15 Hz. The
effective dispersion curve was computed by averaging the effective Rayleigh phase velocity
V$ R (r , ω ) over the receiver locations at each frequency. Figure 6.4 shows that, even in
normally dispersive media, the simulated experimental dispersion curve compares better
with the effective dispersion curve than with the modal dispersion curve.
400
350
Synthetic Curve
Rayleigh Phase Velocity [m/s]
Effective Curve
Fundamental Mode
300
250
200
150
0 20 40 60 80 100
F requency [Hz]
Figure 6.4 Rayleigh Effective Dispersion Curve for Case 1 Soil Profile
Figure 6.5 shows modal and synthetic attenuation curves for the Case 1 soil profile. The
irregularities of the synthetic attenuation curve are mostly due to numerical noise affecting
the computation of the attenuation coefficients and caused by the coupling between
material and geometric attenuation.
0.2
Fundamental Mode
Rayleigh Attenuation Coefficient [1/m]
Second Mode
0.15 Third Mode
Fourth Mode
Synthetic Curve
0.1
0.05
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Frequency [Hz]
The modal and synthetic dispersion curves corresponding to the soil profile of Case 2
are illustrated in Fig.6.6, where only the first four modes of propagation have been plotted.
550
Fundamental Mode
Second Mode
500 Third Mode
Rayleigh Phase Velocity [m/s]
Fourth Mode
Synthetic Curve
450
400
350
300
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
F requency [Hz]
Case 2 profile is a soil deposit with a soft layer trapped between two stiffer layers. The
irregularity in soil stratification is reflected in modal dispersion curves which contain, as
shown in Fig.6.6, three jumps discontinuities at frequencies of about 50, 82 and 98 Hz. It is
important to note that modal dispersion curves need not be continuous. Depending on the
medium stratification and on the frequency range, these curves may display one or more
jump discontinuities. The current dispersion curves are computed using a set of 50
frequencies ranging from 5 to 100 Hz. A finer frequency discretization would result in
smoother dispersion curves, but the jump discontinuities are features that are independent
of the frequency discretization. Note that the synthetic dispersion curve also has a jump
discontinuity at a frequency of about 35 Hz.
Figure 6.6 shows that in the frequency range of about 35 to 50 Hz the synthetic
dispersion curve deviates from the fundamental mode dispersion curve; it mostly follows
the second mode of propagation. However, the fundamental mode still dominates the
synthetic dispersion curve for frequencies outside this range.
Figure 6.7 shows a comparison between the effective, the synthetic and the fundamental
mode dispersion curves. The ability of the effective dispersion curve to follow the irregular
pattern of the synthetic dispersion curve over the frequency range of 35-50 Hz is readily
apparent. The results shown in Fig. 6.7 are remarkable. As mentioned earlier in this chapter,
irregular layered media such as the profile of Case 2 are inversely dispersive and their
response is no longer governed by the fundamental mode of propagation as in normally
dispersive media. The synthetic dispersion curve, which simulates the dispersion curve that
would be obtained experimentally, is determined from measurements of displacement
phases. Because the displacement field is obtained from the superposition of all of the
Rayleigh modes of propagation, the synthetic dispersion curve inherently reflects the
consequences of multi-mode wave propagation.
The synthetic and the modal attenuation curves associated with the Case 2 soil profile
are shown in Fig.6.8. Because the modal attenuation curves are very similar, it is difficult to
identify a predominant mode of propagation. However, the synthetic attenuation curve
appears to intersect all four modal attenuation curves in several frequency ranges.
168 Validation of the Algorithms
500
Synthetic Curve
450
Rayleigh Phase Velocity [m/s]
Effective Curve
Fundamental Mode
400
350
300
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
F requency [Hz]
Figure 6.7 Rayleigh Effective Dispersion Curve for Case 2 Soil Profile
0.08
0.07
Fundamental Mode
Rayleigh Attenuation Coefficient [1/m]
Second Mode
0.06 Third Mode
Fourth Mode
0.05 Synthetic Curve
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Frequency [Hz]
The dispersion curves for the Case 3 soil profile are shown in Fig. 6.9. Case 3 is an
example of a soil deposit containing a stiff thin layer that may represent an overconsolidated
crust overlying an otherwise regular soil medium; this soil stratification is encountered at
many geotechnical sites. The modal dispersion curves associated with this soil deposit are
discontinuous, emulating a pattern already observed for the Case 2 soil profile. However, the
modal dispersion curves of Case 3 have only one jump discontinuity that occurs at a
frequency of about 75 Hz.
650
Fundamental Mode
Second Mode
600 Third Mode
Fourth Mode
Rayleigh Phase Velocity [m/s]
Synthetic Curve
550
500
450
400
350
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
F requency [Hz]
Two discontinuities, one at about 41 Hz and the other at about 65 Hz, characterize the
synthetic dispersion curve. For frequencies less than 41 Hz, the synthetic curve is in good
agreement with the fundamental mode dispersion curve. However, for frequencies greater
than 41 Hz, the second mode of propagation controls the synthetic dispersion curve.
A comparison between the synthetic, the fundamental mode, and the effective
dispersion curves is shown in Fig. 6.10. As for the Case 1 and Case 2 soil profiles, the
agreement between the synthetic and the effective dispersion curves is excellent. The extent
of the match between the two curves is indicated by the identical values of frequency where
the jump discontinuities occur.
Figure 6.10 confirms the value of the effective dispersion curve as the most appropriate
response function to be compared with the synthetic dispersion curve. Because the
170 Validation of the Algorithms
procedure used to determine the synthetic dispersion curves was the same as that used in
SASW measurements, these findings are expected to be validated by experimental surface
wave data.
650
Fundamental Mode
550
500
450
400
350
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
F requency [Hz]
Figure 6.10 Rayleigh Effective Dispersion Curve for Case 3 Soil Profile
0.06
Second Mode
Third Mode
0.04 Fourth Mode
Synthetic Curve
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Frequency [Hz]
The synthetic and modal attenuation curves for the Case 3 soil profile are illustrated in
Fig.6.11. This figure displays features that are similar to those of the Case 2 soil profile; in
particular note that the modal attenuation curves are closely spaced over the entire
frequency range.
400
350
Theoretical
Phase Velocity [m/sec]
300 Synthetic
Iter. # 7
250
200
150 Iter. # 1
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
F requency [Hz]
Figure 6.12 Fundamental Mode Theoretical and Synthetic Dispersion Curves for Case 1
Soil Profile
The theoretical curve associated with the seventh and final iteration is in good
agreement with the synthetic dispersion curve. The corresponding sequence of shear wave
velocity profiles is illustrated in Fig.6.13 where the dashed line indicates the initial model
used in the inversion. The final shear wave velocity profile is shown with a bold line. Finally,
Fig. 6.14 shows the convergence of the algorithm in terms of the Root-Mean-Square (RMS)
error between the synthetic and the theoretical dispersion curve.
172 Validation of the Algorithms
10
15
Depth [m]
20
Iter. # 7
25
Iter. # 1
30
35
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Shear W ave Velocity [m /sec]
Figure 6.13 Shear Wave Velocity Profile from UFUMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 1
Soil Profile
2.5
2
Exact RMS Misfit
1.5
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Iteration #
Figure 6.14 Convergence of UFUMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 1 Soil Profile
5 0.12
Theoretical
15 0.08
Depth (m)
20 0.06
25 0.04
30 0.02
35 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Shear Dam ping Ratio (% ) Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6.15 Shear Damping Ratio Profile and Theoretical Attenuation Curve from
UFUMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 1 Soil Profile
0.9
0.8
rms Error
0.7
0.6
0.5
-10 0 10
10 10 10
S m o o t h i n g P a ra m e t e r
Figure 6.16 Attenuation Curves RMS Misfit Error using UFUMA Inversion Algorithm
for Case 1 Soil Profile
174 Validation of the Algorithms
Figure 6.15 also compares the synthetic and the theoretical attenuation curves obtained
from the solution of the forward problem GD S = α R using the inverted shear damping
ratio profile. The agreement between the two curves is satisfactory and is confirmed by the
RMS error as a function of the Lagrange multiplier shown in Fig.6.16.
500
Theoretical
450
Synthetic
Phase Velocity [m/sec]
400
Iter. # 8
350
300 Iter. # 1
250
200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
F requency [Hz]
Figure 6.17 Fundamental Mode Theoretical and Synthetic Dispersion Curves for Case 2
Soil Profile
The theoretical and synthetic dispersion curves for the Case 2 soil profile are shown in
Fig.6.17. The non-linear inversion algorithm required eight iterations to converge. However,
the agreement between the synthetic and the theoretical dispersion curve of the final
iteration is not very satisfactory. As mentioned in the previous section, in irregular soil
profiles the effects of higher modes of propagation can no longer be neglected, and
therefore it is unrealistic to expect good agreement between a synthetic (or experimental)
dispersion curve and a theoretical curve containing only the fundamental mode of
propagation. The numerical simulation shown in Fig.6.17 confirms this hypothesis.
The sequence of shear wave velocity profiles during the iterative inversion process is
illustrated in Fig.6.18 where the final profile is again denoted with a bold line. The RMS
error misfit between the synthetic and the simulated dispersion curve as a function of the
iteration number is shown in Fig.6.19.
Validation of the Algorithms 175
10
Iter. # 8
15
Depth [m]
20
25
Iter. # 1
30
35
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Shear W ave Velocity [m /sec]
Figure 6.18 Shear Wave Velocity Profile from UFUMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 2
Soil Profile
3.5
3
Exact RMS Misfit
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Iteration #
Figure 6.19 Convergence of UFUMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 2 Soil Profile
The results of the uncoupled inversion of the synthetic attenuation curve are shown in
Fig. 6.20 and Fig. 6.21. The agreement between the synthetic and the fundamental mode
176 Validation of the Algorithms
attenuation curves is acceptable but not very satisfactory. This observation is consistent with
the results from the inversion of the synthetic dispersion curve shown in Fig.6.17.
0 0.08
5 0.07
Theoretical
0.06
Synthetic
0.05
15
Depth (m)
0.04
20
0.03
25
0.02
30 0.01
35 0
3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
S h e a r D a m p i n g R a tio (% ) Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6.20 Shear Damping Ratio Profile and Theoretical Attenuation Curve from
UFUMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 2 Soil Profile
0.75
rms Error
0.7
0.65
-10 0 10
10 10 10
Smoothing Parameter
Figure 6.21 Attenuation Curves RMS Misfit Error using UFUMA Inversion Algorithm
for Case 2 Soil Profile
Validation of the Algorithms 177
The last soil profile to be investigated is Case 3 which is a soil deposit characterized by
the presence of a thin, stiff surface layer overlying an otherwise regular shear wave velocity
profile. Figure 6.22 shows the sequence of theoretical dispersion curves obtained from the
inversion of the synthetic dispersion curve. For this soil profile, the UFUMA inversion
600
Theoretical
Synthetic
500
Phase Velocity [m/sec]
Iter. # 11
400
Iter. # 1
300
200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Frequency [Hz]
Figure 6.22 Fundamental Mode Theoretical and Synthetic Dispersion Curves for
Case 3 Soil Profile
10
15
Depth [m]
20
25
Ite r . # 1
Ite r . # 1 1
30
35
0 200 400 600 800 1000
S h e a r W a v e V e lo c i t y [ m / s e c ]
Figure 6.23 Shear Wave Velocity Profile from UFUMA Inversion Algorithm for Case
3 Soil Profile
178 Validation of the Algorithms
3
Exact RMS Misfit
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Iteration #
algorithm failed to converge. Figure 6.23 shows the shear wave velocity profiles associated
with the theoretical dispersion curves of Fig. 6.22. Figure 6.24 shows the RMS error misfit
as the number of iterations progresses; it is apparent from the oscillatory behavior of the
RMS error that the solution did not converge.
The results obtained for Case 3 soil profile emphasize the limitations of the fundamental
mode approach to the interpretation of surface wave data. In irregular soil deposits where
higher modes of propagation govern the response of the medium, the inversion of the
experimental dispersion curve may be either inaccurate, as occurred in the Case 2 soil
profile, or it may be unable to converge to a solution, as shown for the Case 3 soil profile.
Better results were obtained from the inversion of the synthetic attenuation curve as
illustrated by Fig. 6.25 and Fig. 6.26. A more regular shear damping ratio profile (compared
with the corresponding shear wave velocity profile) is the main reason for this result. In
fact, Fig. 6.11 shows that as a consequence of a smoothly varying D S profile, the modal
attenuation curves for Case 3 are closely spaced, and hence it is not surprising that a
fundamental-mode-based inversion of the equation GD S = α R yields satisfactory results.
Fig.6.27 shows the synthetic and the theoretical dispersion curves for the Case 1 soil
profile. Only five iterations were required for the algorithm to converge. From Fig.6.27 it
can be seen that the agreement between the theoretical effective and the synthetic
dispersion curves is excellent for the final iteration.
0 0.05
0.045
5
0.04 Theoretical
Synthetic
10 0.035
0.025
20
0.02
25 0.015
0.01
30
0.005
35 0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Shear Damping Ratio (% ) Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6.25 Shear Damping Ratio Profile and Theoretical Attenuation Curve from
UFUMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 3 Soil Profile
0.4
0.35
rms Error
0.3
0.25
-10 -5 0 5 10
10 10 10 10 10
Smoothing Parameter
Figure 6.26 Attenuation Curves RMS Misfit Error using UFUMA Inversion Algorithm
for Case 3 Soil Profile
180 Validation of the Algorithms
400
350
Theoretical
Synthetic
Phase Velocity [m/sec]
300
250
Iter. # 5
200
Iter. # 1
150
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Frequency [Hz]
Figure 6.27 Effective Theoretical and Synthetic Dispersion Curves for Case 1 Soil
Profile
The sequence of shear wave velocity profiles is shown in Fig.6.28 where the dashed line
is used to denote the starting profile, and the bold line corresponds to the final profile.
10
15
Depth [m]
20
25
Iter. # 5
30
Iter. # 1
35
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Shear W ave Velocity [m /sec]
Figure 6.28 Shear Wave Velocity Profile from UEQMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 1
Soil Profile
Validation of the Algorithms 181
The RMS error misfit between the theoretical effective and the synthetic dispersion
curves as a function of the iteration number is shown in Fig.6.29. In the UEQMA inversion
algorithm the shear damping ratio profile is obtained from the inversion of experimental
attenuation curve via the equation GD $ S = α R . The matrix G $ is formed by the partial
derivatives of the effective Rayleigh phase velocity with respect to the shear and
compression wave velocities of the soil layers averaged over the receiver spacings (see Eq.
3.58).
2.5
2
Exact RMS Misfit
1.5
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Iteration #
Figure 6.29 Convergence of UEQMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 1 Soil Profile
0 0.14
5 0.12
Theoretical
10 Synthetic
0.1
Attenuation Coefficient (1/m)
15 0.08
Depth (m)
20 0.06
25 0.04
30 0.02
35 0
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Shear Damping Ratio (%) Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6.30 Shear Damping Ratio Profile and Theoretical Attenuation Curve from
UEQMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 1 Soil Profile
182 Validation of the Algorithms
1.1
1
rms Error
0.9
0.8
0.7
-10 0 10
10 10 10
S m oothing Param eter
Figure 6.31 Attenuation Curves RMS Misfit Error using UEQMA Inversion Algorithm
for Case 1 Soil Profile
Figure 6.30 shows the resulting shear damping ratio profile and theoretical attenuation
curve for the Case 1 soil profile. At high frequencies the theoretical attenuation curve
becomes very irregular emulating the synthetic attenuation curve (see also Fig.6.5). The RMS
error misfit of the synthetic and predicted attenuation curve is illustrated in Fig.6.31.
The results for the Case 2 soil profile are presented in Fig.6.32, which shows the
succession of theoretical effective dispersion curves required for the UEQMA inversion
algorithm to converge. The results obtained are remarkable: the cusped synthetic dispersion
curve is almost perfectly matched by the theoretical curve corresponding to the final
iteration. Figure 6.32 also shows the stability and convergence of the inversion algorithm.
The convergence of the algorithm in terms of the RMS error misfit between theoretical
and synthetic dispersion curves is shown in Fig. 6.34. Ten iterations were required for the
algorithm to converge.
Validation of the Algorithms 183
600
Theoretical
S ynthetic
500
Phase Velocity [m/sec]
400 Iter. # 10
Iter. # 1
300
200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
F requency [Hz]
Figure 6.32 Effective Theoretical and Synthetic Dispersion Curves for Case 2 Soil
Profile
10
15
Depth [m]
Iter. # 10
20
25
30 Iter. # 1
35
0 200 400 600 800
S h e a r W a v e V e lo c i t y [ m / s e c ]
Figure 6.33 Shear Wave Velocity Profile from UEQMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 2
Soil Profile
184 Validation of the Algorithms
2.5
2
Exact RMS Misfit
1.5
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Iteration #
Figure 6.34 Convergence of UEQMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 2 Soil Profile
Figures 6.35 and 6.36 summarize the results obtained from the inversion of the synthetic
attenuation curve. The agreement between the theoretical and the synthetic attenuation
curves is satisfactory.
0 0.06
5
0.05
Theoretical
Synthetic
10
Attenuation Coefficient (1/m)
0.04
15
Depth (m)
0.03
20
0.02
25
0.01
30
35 0
3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Shear Damping Ratio (%) Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6.35 Shear Damping Ratio Profile and Theoretical Attenuation Curve from
UEQMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 2 Soil Profile
Validation of the Algorithms 185
0.66
0.65
0.64
rms Error
0.63
0.62
0.61
-10 0 10
10 10 10
Smoothing Parameter
Figure 6.36 Attenuation Curves RMS Misfit Error using UEQMA Inversion Algorithm
for Case 2 Soil Profile
700
Theoretical
600 Synthetic
Phase Velocity [m/sec]
500
Iter. # 6
400
300 Iter. # 1
200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Frequency [Hz]
Figure 6.37 Effective Theoretical and Synthetic Dispersion Curves for Case 3 Soil
Profile
186 Validation of the Algorithms
Figure 6.38 illustrates the sequence of shear wave velocity profiles corresponding to the
six iterations. The RMS error misfit between the theoretical and the synthetic dispersion
curves as a function of the iteration number is shown in Fig. 6.39. Finally, the results of the
linear inversion of the synthetic attenuation curve are presented in Fig.6.40 and Fig.6.41.
5 Iter. # 6
10
15
Depth [m]
20
25
Iter. # 1
30
35
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Shear W ave Velocity [m /sec]
Figure 6.38 Shear Wave Velocity Profile from UEQMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 3
Soil Profile
6
Exact RMS Misfit
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Iteration #
Figure 6.39 Convergence of UEQMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 3 Soil Profile
Validation of the Algorithms 187
0 0.05
0.045
5
0.04 Theoretical
10 0.035
Synthetic
0.025
20
0.02
25 0.015
0.01
30
0.005
35 0
2 2.5 3 3.5 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Shear Damping Ratio (%) Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6.40 Shear Damping Ratio Profile and Theoretical Attenuation Curve from
UEQMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 3 Soil Profile
0.6
0.55
0.5
rms Error
0.45
0.4
0.35
-10 0 10
10 10 10
S m o o t h in g P a ra m e t e r
Figure 6.41 Attenuation Curves RMS Misfit Error using UEQMA Inversion Algorithm
for Case 3 Soil Profile
188 Validation of the Algorithms
Figure 6.42 shows the sequence of fundamental mode dispersion and attenuation curves
for Case 1 soil profile. The agreement between the theoretical dispersion curve
corresponding to the sixth and final iteration and the synthetic dispersion curve is good for
frequencies greater than 20 Hz. However, at frequencies lower than 20 Hz the inversion
algorithm was unable to obtain a satisfactory match between these two curves.
600
Phase Velocity [m/sec]
Theoretical
500
Synthetic
Iter. # 1
400
300
Iter. # 6
200
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Frequency [Hz]
0.2
Attenuation Coefficient [1/m]
0.15 Theoretical
Iter. # 6
Synthetic
0.1
0.05 Iter. # 1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Frequency [Hz]
Figure 6.42 Fundamental Mode Theoretical Dispersion and Attenuation Curves for Case
1 Soil Profile
Validation of the Algorithms 189
The agreement between the synthetic and theoretical attenuation curves for the final
iteration is good at all frequencies. Figure 6.43 shows the sequence of shear wave velocity
and shear damping ratio profiles corresponding to the dispersion and attenuation curves of
Fig. 6.42. The dashed and the bold lines denote the initial and final profiles, respectively.
0 0
Iter. # 1
5 5
Iter. # 1
Iter. # 6
10 10
15 15
Depth [m]
Depth [m]
20 20
25 25
30 30
Iter. # 6
35 35
0 200 400 600 800 0 2 4 6
Shear Wave Velocity [m/sec] Shear Damping Ratio [%]
Figure 6.43 Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Damping Ratio Profile from CFUMA
Inversion Algorithm for Case 1 Soil Profile
12
10
8
Exact RMS Misfit
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Iteration #
Figure 6.44 Convergence of CFUMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 1 Soil Profile
190 Validation of the Algorithms
A measure of the goodness of the simultaneous inversion is provided also in this case by
the RMS error misfit between the complex valued theoretical and synthetic dispersion
curves. Figure 6.44 shows the RMS error as a function of the iteration number for Case 1
soil profile. The inversion algorithm required six iterations to converge.
The results of the simultaneous inversion of the synthetic dispersion and attenuation
curves for Case 2 are presented in Figs. 6.45 through 6.47. In particular, Fig. 6.45 shows the
theoretical and synthetic dispersion and attenuation curves for this soil profile. The
agreement between the synthetic dispersion and attenuation curves and the corresponding
theoretical curves of the sixth and last iteration is satisfactory. By comparing Fig. 6.45 with
Figs.6.17 and 6.20, it appears that for the fundamental mode-based algorithms, the
simultaneous inversion furnishes more accurate results than the uncoupled inversion for this
soil profile. It should also be noted that the simultaneous inversion required a fewer number
of iterations to converge than the corresponding uncoupled inversion (six vs. eight).
500
Phase Velocity [m/sec]
400 Iter. # 6
300
Iter. # 1
Theoretical
200
Synthetic
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Frequency [Hz]
0.1
Attenuation Coefficient [1/m]
Theoretical
Synthetic
0.05
Iter. # 1
Iter. # 6
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Frequency [Hz]
Figure 6.45 Fundamental Mode Theoretical Dispersion and Attenuation Curves for Case
2 Soil Profile
Validation of the Algorithms 191
Figure 6.46 shows the sequence of shear wave velocity and shear damping ratio obtained
from the simultaneous inversion as the number of iteration progresses, and finally Fig. 6.47
illustrates the convergence of the algorithm in terms of the RMS error misfit.
0 0
Iter. # 6
5 5
Iter. # 6
10 10
15 15
Depth [m]
Depth [m]
20 20
25 25
Iter. # 1
Iter. # 1
30 30
35 35
0 200 400 600 800 0 2 4 6
Shear Wave Velocity [m/sec] Shear Damping Ratio [%]
Figure 6.46 Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Damping Ratio Profile from CFUMA
Inversion Algorithm for Case 2 Soil Profile
3
Exact RMS Misfit
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Iteration #
Figure 6.47 Convergence of CFUMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 2 Soil Profile
192 Validation of the Algorithms
Theoretical and synthetic dispersion and attenuation curves for Case 3 are shown in Fig.
6.48. The agreement between the synthetic and theoretical curves for the last iteration is
satisfactory. Recall that the fundamental mode, uncoupled inversion of the synthetic
dispersion curve had failed to converge.
600
Phase Velocity [m/sec]
Theoretical
Synthetic
500 Iter. # 8
400
Iter. # 1
300
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Frequency [Hz]
0.1
Attenuation Coefficient [1/m]
Theoretical
Synthetic
0.05
Iter. # 1
Iter. # 8
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Frequency [Hz]
Figure 6.48 Fundamental Mode Theoretical Dispersion and Attenuation Curves for Case
3 Soil Profile
The sequence of shear wave velocity and shear damping ratio profiles for Case 3 is
illustrated in Fig. 6.49. Finally, the RMS error misfit between the synthetic dispersion and
attenuation curves is shown in Fig.6.50. The inversion algorithm required eight iterations to
converge.
0 0
Iter. # 8
5 5
Iter. # 1
10 10
15 15
Depth [m]
Depth [m]
Iter. # 8
20 20
25 25
Iter. # 1
30 30
35 35
200 400 600 800 0 2 4 6
Shear Wave Velocity [m/sec] Shear Damping Ratio [%]
Figure 6.49 Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Damping Ratio Profile from CFUMA
Inversion Algorithm for Case 3 Soil Profile
3
Exact RMS Misfit
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Iteration #
Figure 6.50 Convergence of CFUMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 3 Soil Profile
194 Validation of the Algorithms
Because the strategy of the CEQMA inversion algorithm is based on matching the
complex-valued effective phase velocity with the complex-valued synthetic dispersion curve,
an error in computing the correct sequence of modes (even at one frequency) will ultimately
cause the effective phase velocity to be incorrect. Figures 6.51 through 6.53 shows the
results for Case 1 obtained from the application of the CEQMA algorithm.
600
Phase Velocity [m/sec]
Theoretical
500
Synthetic
400 Iter. # 1
300
Iter. # 6
200
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Frequency [Hz]
0.2
Attenuation Coefficient [1/m]
0.15 Theoretical
Iter. # 6
Synthetic
0.1
0.05
Iter. # 1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Frequency [Hz]
Figure 6.51 Effective Theoretical Dispersion and Attenuation Curves for Case 1 Soil
Profile
The results of the simultaneous inversion of surface wave data for Case 2 soil profile are
shown in Figs.6.54 through 6.56. For this soil profile, the theoretical dispersion and
attenuation curves also exhibit an irregular pattern, particularly in the case of the attenuation
curves.
Validation of the Algorithms 195
0 0
Iter. # 1
5 5
Iter. # 1
10 10
Iter. # 6
Depth [m] 15 15
Depth [m]
20 20
Iter. # 6
25 25
30 30
35 35
0 200 400 600 0 2 4 6
Shear Wave Velocity [m/sec] Shear Damping Ratio [%]
Figure 6.52 Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Damping Ratio Profile from CEQMA
Inversion Algorithm for Case 1 Soil Profile
12
10
Exact RMS Misfit
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Iteration #
Figure 6.53 RMS Error Misfit of CEQMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 1 Soil Profile
196 Validation of the Algorithms
600
300
Iter. # 1
200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Frequency [Hz]
Attenuation Coefficient [1/m]
0.1
Theoretical Iter. # 7
Synthetic
0.05
Iter. # 1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Frequency [Hz]
Figure 6.54 Effective Theoretical Dispersion and Attenuation Curves for Case 2 Soil
Profile
0 0
Iter. # 7 Iter. # 7
5 5
Iter. # 1
Iter. # 1
10 10
15 15
Depth [m]
Depth [m]
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
200 400 600 0 2 4 6 8
Shear Wave Velocity [m/sec] Shear Damping Ratio [%]
Figure 6.55 Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Damping Ratio Profile from CEQMA
Inversion Algorithm for Case 2 Soil Profile
Validation of the Algorithms 197
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Iteration #
Figure 6.56 RMS Error Misfit of CEQMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 2 Soil Profile
The final results are those for the Case 3 soil profile that are presented in Figs. 6.57
through 6.59. They are characterized by the same irregular behavior of the previous two soil
profiles, which is also reflected by the oscillatory behavior of the RMS error misfit.
600
Phase Velocity [m/sec]
500 Iter. # 6
400
Iter. # 1
300 Theoretical
200 Synthetic
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Frequency [Hz]
0.1
Attenuation Coefficient [1/m]
Theoretical
Synthetic
0.05
Iter. # 1
Iter. # 6
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Frequency [Hz]
Figure 6.57 Effective Theoretical Dispersion and Attenuation Curves for Case 3 Soil
Profile
198 Validation of the Algorithms
0 0
5 5
Iter. # 6
10 10
15 15
Depth [m]
Depth [m]
Iter. # 6
20 20
Iter. # 1
25 25
30 30
Iter. # 1
35 35
0 200 400 600 800 0 2 4 6
Shear W ave Velocity [m/sec] Shear Damping Ratio [%]
Figure 6.58 Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Damping Ratio Profile from CEQMA
Inversion Algorithm for Case 3 Soil Profile
3
Exact RMS Misfit
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Iteration #
Figure 6.59 RMS Error Misfit of CEQMA Inversion Algorithm for Case 3 Soil Profile
Validation of the Algorithms 199
Nevertheless, the four algorithms UFUMA, UEQMA, CFUMA, and CEQMA are based
on different inversion strategies and it is instructive to compare and evaluate their
performance. The results of the algorithm CEQMA have not been compared with those of
the other algorithms because, based on the discussion in the previous section, they are
considered unreliable. Figures 6.60 and 6.61 show the shear wave velocity and shear
damping ratio profiles corresponding to Case 1.
The RMS error misfit between the original and the predicted VS and D S profiles, which is
defined by VSorig − VSpred n L and D orig
S − D pred
S n L respectively (nL is the number
2 2
of layers), was also computed. The results of this calculation for the four algorithms are
reported in Table 6.6.
UFUMA
5 UEQMA
CFUMA
10 O R IG I N A L
15
Depth [m]
20
25
30
35
100 200 300 400 500 600
Shear W ave Velocity [m /sec]
Figure 6.60 Inverted Shear Wave Velocity Profiles for Case 1 Soil Stratigraphy
200 Validation of the Algorithms
UFUMA
5 UEQMA
CFUMA
10 O R IG I N A L
15
Depth [m]
20
25
30
35
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Shear Damping Ratio [% ]
Figure 6.61 Inverted Shear Damping Ratio Profiles for Case 1 Soil Stratigraphy
Table 6.6 Inversion Algorithms RMS Error Misfit for Case 1 Soil Profile
From this table it appears that the algorithms providing the most accurate predictions of
the original profile are the uncoupled, multi-mode analysis (UEQMA) and coupled,
fundamental mode inversion (CFUMA). In terms of the shear wave velocity profile, the
UEQMA algorithm is the most accurate (i.e., the lowest RMS error misfit); the uncoupled
fundamental mode-based UFUMA algorithm yielded the worst prediction. In terms of the
shear damping ratio profile the lowest RMS error was attained by the coupled inversion
with the CFUMA algorithm.
Validation of the Algorithms 201
For the Case 2 soil profile, the results of the inversions are summarized by Figs. 6.62 and
6.63 and by Table 6.7. Case 2 is characterized by an irregular stratigraphy where a soft layer is
trapped between two harder layers. As mentioned several times in this chapter, such layered
media are inversely dispersive and their response includes contributions from higher modes
of propagation. This feature is reflected in the performance of the inversion algorithms.
UFUMA
5
UEQMA
CFUMA
10 ORIGINAL
15
Depth [m]
20
25
30
35
200 300 400 500 600
S h e a r W a v e V e l o c i t y [ m /sec]
Figure 6.62 Inverted Shear Wave Velocity Profiles for Case 2 Soil Stratigraphy
0
10
15
Depth [m]
20 UFUMA
UEQMA
CFUMA
25
ORIGINAL
30
35
0 2 4 6 8 10
Shear Damping Ratio [%]
Figure 6.63 Inverted Shear Damping Ratio Profiles for Case 2 Soil Stratigraphy
202 Validation of the Algorithms
Table 6.7 Inversion Algorithms RMS Error Misfit for Case 2 Soil Profile
The lowest RMS error misfit for both shear wave velocity and shear damping ratio
profiles was achieved by the effective, multi-mode analysis of the UEQMA algorithm. The
results obtained by the fundamental mode based algorithms UFUMA and CFUMA were in
both cases less accurate, particularly those associated with the algorithm CFUMA. This
result confirms the inadequacy of the fundamental mode approach for irregular media, and
reinforces the need for an approach based on multi-mode wave propagation such as the
effective Rayleigh phase velocity.
Finally, Figs. 6.64 and 6.65 and Table 6.8 illustrate the results for the Case 3 soil profile.
For this irregular stratigraphy characterized by the presence of a thin and stiff surface crust,
the analyses based on the effective Rayleigh phase velocity again provided the best overall
results. The multi-mode UEQMA inversion algorithm exhibited the best performance in
terms of RMS error misfit for the prediction of the shear wave velocity profile. The
performance of the uncoupled fundamental mode algorithm UFUMA was the least
accurate. In terms of the prediction of shear damping ratio profile, both the UEQMA and
UFUMA algorithms performed well, whereas CFUMA algorithm exhibited a higher RMS
error.
Table 6.9 summarizes the performance of the algorithms UFUMA, CFUMA, and
UEQMA in this numerical simulation. Even though more numerical simulations are
required for a definitive validation of these algorithms, the results obtained in this section
are important, and they lead to the following observations. Overall, the multi-mode-based
approach of the algorithm UEQMA is resulted to be the most accurate inversion algorithm,
particularly for determining the shear wave velocity profile. The fundamental mode-based
algorithms UFUMA and CFUMA are generally less accurate than the algorithm UEQMA in
predicting both the shear wave velocity and the shear damping ratio profiles. There are
however two exceptions to this general rule. The first exception is the prediction of the
shear damping ratio for Case 1 soil profile. Here the algorithm CFUMA has yielded the most
accurate results, whereas the algorithm UEQMA yielded the highest RMS error misfit. The
Validation of the Algorithms 203
second exception is the prediction of shear damping ratio for Case 3 soil profile where both
UFUMA and UEQMA algorithms yielded approximately the same RMS error.
5 UFUMA
UEQMA
CFUMA
10 ORIGINAL
15
Depth [m]
20
25
30
35
300 400 500 600 700
Shear W ave Velocity [m/sec]
Figure 6.64 Inverted Shear Wave Velocity Profiles for Case 3 Soil Stratigraphy
UFUMA
5 UEQMA
CFUMA
10 ORIGINAL
15
Depth [m]
20
25
30
35
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Shear Damping Ratio [%]
Figure 6.65 Inverted Shear Damping Ratio Profiles for Case 3 Soil Stratigraphy
204 Validation of the Algorithms
Table 6.8 Inversion Algorithms RMS Error Misfit for Case 3 Soil Profile
VS DS
UFUMA/
Case 3 UEQMA UFUMA CFUMA
UEQMA
It should be remarked that both exceptions occurred in the prediction of the shear-
damping ratio D S . This is not surprising since a) the attenuation properties of a dissipative
medium affect the overall response of a medium to a lesser extent than stiffness, and b) in the
boundary value problem considered in this study (i.e. a harmonic point load over the surface
of a vertically heterogeneous viscoelastic half-space) material attenuation is coupled with
geometric attenuation. The combination of the effects of a) and b) makes the computation
of the Rayleigh attenuation coefficients and therefore, the shear damping ratio, very
sensitive to numerical noise.
Validation of the Algorithms 205
Although the numerical simulation presented in this study is not statistically significant
and should be substantiated with other simulations using different profiles and material
parameters, it is still possible to draw two general conclusions. The first and most important
is that a multi-mode inversion analysis yields more accurate results than a fundamental mode
analysis. This is particularly true for irregular media (i.e. Case 2 and Case 3), and for
predictions of the shear wave velocity structure.
The second conclusion is that in regular soil deposits (i.e. Case 1) a fundamental mode
analysis may yield sufficiently accurate results for both shear wave velocity and shear
damping ratio determination. However, the results obtained from the numerical simulation
seem also to indicate that the coupled inversion (more precisely, the strongly coupled
inversion), where the shear wave velocity and shear damping ratio are determined
simultaneously (CFUMA), is more accurate than the corresponding uncoupled analysis
(UFUMA).
206 Validation of the Algorithms
7 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
7.1 Overview
The algorithms developed in this research study for the interpretation of surface wave
measurements will now be applied to experimental data. Rayleigh phase velocity and
attenuation measurements were performed at the Treasure Island National Geotechnical
Experimentation Site (California, USA), where independent in situ and laboratory
measurements of shear wave velocity and shear damping ratio are available for comparison.
After a brief description of the geotechnical characteristics of the site, the following
sections will illustrate the results of both the coupled and uncoupled inversion of the
experimental dispersion and attenuation curves. The chapter ends with a comparison of
these results with those obtained from independent cross-hole and laboratory
measurements performed at the site.
Parking
Fire Station
Building 157
B1
B2 B4 B5
Storage B3
Current Test Area
Figure 7.1 Treasure Island National Geotechnical Experimentation Site (After Spang, 1995)
207
208 Experimental Results
study and included soil borings, penetration tests, and in situ seismic tests. The approximate
locations of the borings used for cross-hole tests in the EPRI study are shown in Figure 7.1.
3
Depth (m)
Fine
6
To
Medium
Sand
9
(Bay Mud)
Soft Clay
12
Figure 7.2 Soil Profile and Properties at the Treasure Island NGES (After Spang, 1995)
Surface wave tests were performed at Treasure Island NGES to determine the
experimental dispersion and attenuation curves at the site. Rayleigh waves were generated by
a vertically oscillating, electrodynamic force generator operating in swept-sine mode. The
dynamic force provided by the shaker is frequency-dependent, with the maximum dynamic
Experimental Results 209
force provided at lower frequencies. Frequencies used in field tests ranged from 5 to 100
Hz, so that the dynamic force supplied by the electromechanical ranged from about 90 to
500 N. Rayleigh waves were recorded by vertical transducers (geophones) having a natural
frequency of 1 Hz at various offsets (r) from the source.
The experimental dispersion and attenuation curves were obtained using the
conventional techniques described in Section 5.2. In particular, the Rayleigh phase velocity
was determined using the so-called two-station method, whereas the Rayleigh attenuation
coefficients were calculated with the multi-station method and using a geometric spreading
function accounting for multi-mode Rayleigh wave propagation.
In this section, the results associated with the fundamental mode analysis will be
illustrated first (i.e. the UFUMA algorithm), followed by those based on the equivalent
multi-mode analysis (i.e. the UEQMA algorithm). Figure 7.3 shows the sequence of
dispersion curves required for the UFUMA algorithm to converge.
A homogeneous profile with VS = 60 m / s was used as the initial estimate of the layer
shear wave velocities. Five iterations were required for the algorithm to converge. Figure 7.4
shows the corresponding sequence of shear wave velocity profiles obtained from the
fundamental-mode-based inversion. The dashed line indicates the initial profile whereas the
bold line shows the final shear wave velocity profile. The Root-Mean-Square (RMS) error
between the experimental and the theoretical dispersion curve as function of the iteration
number is illustrated in Fig.7.5.
210 Experimental Results
250
Theoretical
200 Experimental
Phase Velocity [m/sec]
150
Iter. # 5
100
50 Iter. # 1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Frequency [Hz]
Iter. # 5
5
Depth [m]
10
Iter. # 1
15
0 50 100 150 200 250
Shear Wave Velocity [m/sec]
Figure 7.4 Shear Wave Velocity Profile from UFUMA Inversion Algorithm at Treasure
Island NGES
Experimental Results 211
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Iteration #
The RMS error between the theoretical and the experimental attenuation curves as a
function of the smoothing parameter is shown in Fig.7.7. The value selected for the
smoothing parameter is the smallest value that yields a solution vector composed of non-
negative shear damping ratios. For this site the adopted value was 2.8 ⋅ 10 4 which resulted in
a RMS error of 1.38.
The results of the uncoupled equivalent multi-mode analysis conducted with the
algorithm UEQMA will now be illustrated. Figure 7.8 shows the experimental dispersion
curve and the succession of theoretical dispersion curves as the iterations progress. The
same homogeneous profile with VS = 60 m / s was assumed as the initial estimate of the
shear wave velocities.
Figure 7.9 shows the sequence of shear wave velocity profiles obtained from the non-
linear inversion. The bold line indicates the final shear wave velocity profile. The algorithm
required five iterations to converge. The RMS error misfit between the experimental and
the theoretical dispersion curves as a function of the iteration number is shown in Fig.7.10.
212 Experimental Results
0 0.05
Experimental
Theoretical
0.04
0.02
10
0.01
0.00
15
0 20 40 60 80
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Shear Damping Ratio [%] Frequency [Hz]
Figure 7.6 Shear Damping Ratio Profile and Theoretical Attenuation Curve from
UFUMA Inversion Algorithm at Treasure Island NGES
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
Rms Error
2.0
1.38
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1.E-06 1.E-03 1.E+00 1.E+03 1.E+06 1.E+09 1.E+12
Smoothing Parameter
Figure 7.7 Attenuation Curves RMS Error using UFUMA Inversion Algorithm at
Treasure Island NGES
Experimental Results 213
250
Theoretical
200 Experimental
Iter. # 5
100
50 Iter. # 1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Frequency [Hz]
0
Iter. # 5
5
Depth [m]
10 Iter. # 1
15
0 50 100 150 200 250
Shear Wave Velocity [m/sec]
Figure 7.9 Shear Wave Velocity Profile from UEQMA Inversion Algorithm at Treasure
Island NGES
214 Experimental Results
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Iteration #
Figure 7.11 and 7.12 summarize the results obtained from the linear inversion of the
experimental attenuation curve. For the selected smoothing parameter, the RMS error
between the theoretical and the experimental attenuation curves is equal to 3.41.
0 0.05
Experimental
0.04
Theoretical
Attenuation Coefficient (1/m)
5
0.03
Depth [m]
0.02
10
0.01
15 0
0 1 2 3 0 20 40 60 80
Shear Damping Ratio [%] Frequency (Hz)
Figure 7.11 Shear Damping Ratio Profile and Theoretical Attenuation Curve from
UEQMA Inversion Algorithm at Treasure Island NGES
Experimental Results 215
3.5 3.41
rms Error
3
2.5
2
-10 -5 0 5 10
10 10 10 10 10
Smoothing Parameter
Figure 7.12 Attenuation Curves RMS Misfit Error using UEQMA Inversion Algorithm
at Treasure Island NGES
250
Theoretical
200
Phase Velocity [m/sec]
Experimental
150 Iter. # 6
100 Iter. # 1
50
0
0 20 40 60 80
Frequency [Hz]
0.1
Attenuation Coefficient [1/m]
0.08 Theoretical
Experimental
Iter. # 1
0.06
0.04
Iter. # 6
0.02
0
0 20 40 60 80
Frequency [Hz]
Figure 7.13 illustrates the convergence of the inversion algorithm in terms of dispersion
and attenuation curves. The theoretical curves corresponding to the sixth and final iteration
are in reasonable agreement with the experimental curves.
The corresponding sequences of shear wave velocity and shear damping ratio profiles
are shown in Fig.7.14 where the dashed lines indicate the starting models used in the
inversion. The final shear wave velocity and shear damping ratio profiles are shown using
bold lines.
0 0
Iter. # 6
Iter. # 6
5 5
Depth [m]
Depth [m]
10 10
Iter. # 1
Iter. # 1
15 15
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 2 4 6
Shear Wave Velocity [m/sec] Shear Damping Ratio [%]
Figure 7.14 Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Damping Ratio Profile from CFUMA
Inversion Algorithm at Treasure Island NGES
Finally Fig.7.15 shows the convergence of the algorithm in terms of the RMS error
between the experimental and theoretical complex phase velocities; the convergence of the
algorithm after six iterations is apparent.
Experimental Results 217
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Iteration Num b e r
The in situ shear damping ratios shown in Fig.7.17 were obtained from analysis of cross-
hole seismic data utilizing a seismic waveform matching technique (Tang, 1992). They
represent the mean values and the associated uncertainties measured between three different
pairs of the boreholes shown in Fig.7.1.
Figures 7.16 and 7.17 show a comparison between shear wave velocity and shear
damping ratio profiles determined from the inversion of surface wave data, and the values
of these parameters obtained from independent in situ and laboratory measurements.
The values of shear wave velocity obtained from the interpretation of surface wave test
compare reasonably well with cross-hole measurements. Because Treasure Island NGES is a
relatively homogeneous site, there are small differences between the shear wave velocity
profiles predicted by the algorithms UFUMA, UEQMA, and CFUMA. As mentioned
several times in this dissertation, in regular soil profiles the response of the medium is
mainly controlled by the fundamental mode of propagation. It is therefore natural to expect
very similar results from the UFUMA, UEQMA, and CFUMA algorithms. From Fig.7.16
218 Experimental Results
the increasing lack of resolution with depth that is inherent to surface wave tests should also
be noted, particularly when using relatively small sources. This limitation can be partially
overcome by using more powerful sources capable of generating lower frequencies (< 5
Hz).
3 CFUMA
UFUMA
UEQMA
6
Depth [m]
Cross-Hole
12
15
Figure 7.16 Comparison at Treasure Island NGES of Shear Wave Velocity from Surface
Wave Test Results with Other Independent Measurements
Experimental Results 219
6
Depth [m]
9 CFUMA
UFUMA
12 UEQMA
Cross-Hole
15 Resonant C.
Torsional S.
Figure 7.17 Comparison at Treasure Island NGES of Shear Damping Ratio from
Surface Wave Test Results with Other Independent Measurements
Concerning the predictions of shear damping ratios, Fig.7.17 shows that the values
obtained from the interpretation of surface wave tests are generally less than those obtained
from cross-hole measurements. These differences can be attributed to three possible causes:
1. Frequencies used in cross-hole tests are usually on the order of several hundred Hertz or
more. The shorter wavelengths associated with these higher frequencies are more
susceptible to apparent attenuation due to scattering and other phenomena than are the
long wavelengths associated with surface wave testing at lower frequencies (i.e., 5 to 100
Hz).
220 Experimental Results
2. At higher frequencies involved in cross-hole tests, soil damping may be strongly affected
by fluid flow losses in addition to frictional losses as described earlier. These fluid losses
may cause the damping to increase and become frequency dependent at higher
frequencies.
3. There are substantial differences in the volume of soil “sampled” by the two methods.
The borehole spacing in the cross-hole measurements was approximately 3 m while the
surface wave measurements were performed with geophone offsets as large as 60 m.
Thus, the cross-hole measurements yield localized attenuation properties, and the
surface wave measurements yield properties which are averaged over a much larger
volume of soil. The extent to which the measurements differ will depend on the
heterogeneity of the site.
8.1 Conclusions
Surface wave tests are non-invasive field techniques that can be used to determine the
low-strain dynamic properties of soil deposits. In this dissertation a different approach to
the conventional interpretation of surface waves measurements has been presented. The
new approach is developed around three fundamental ideas.
First, the definition of the so-called dynamic properties of soils is revisited within the
framework of a consistent theory of mechanical behavior. Often in the geotechnical
literature, the terms stiffness and damping ratio are used, in a loose sense, as if they were
intrinsic properties of soils. In reality, the definition of these terms is inherently linked to an
assumed constitutive model to which these behavioral properties are ascribed. Different
idealizations of material behavior will result in different types of behavioral properties.
Accordingly, although it is customary in geotechnical engineering to take for granted the
significance of terms like stiffness and damping ratio, it is important to reexamine the
definitions of these important mechanical parameters in the context of a consistent theory
of material behavior.
221
222 Conclusions and Recommendations
For wave propagation problems it was found convenient to introduce another set of
viscoelastic parameters which are the body wave phase velocities and attenuation
coefficients collectively denoted as the Low-Strain Kinematical Properties of Soils (LS-KPS). The
three sets of model parameters, LS-VPS, LS-DPS, and LS-KPS, are equipollent; they simply
provide alternate ways to characterize the mechanical response of linear viscoelastic
materials.
One of the results obtained from reformulating the definitions of the low-strain
dynamic properties of soils is the recognition that stiffness and material damping ratio are
not independent parameters even in weakly dissipative media. The coupling between
stiffness and material damping ratio is the natural consequence of material dispersion, a
phenomenon that is formally defined by the Kramers-Krönig relations. Material dispersion
is an intrinsic feature of any type of viscoelastic materials. As a result of their mutual
dependence, a correct experimental procedure for determining stiffness and material
damping ratio of soils should determine these two parameters simultaneously. However, in the
current practice of geotechnical engineering testing, stiffness and material damping ratio are
determined separately using different measurement techniques. Based on these
considerations, the final part of Chapter 2 is dedicated to illustrating the principles of a new
experimental procedure to be conducted in laboratory with the resonant column test for the
simultaneous determination of soil stiffness and material damping ratio. The procedure is
also suitable for the investigation of the frequency dependence laws of these important soil
parameters.
After reexamining the definition of the low-strain dynamic properties of soils within the
framework of the theory of linear viscoelasticity, the focus of this dissertation shifted to
procedures used to determine these important soil parameters from the interpretation of
surface wave measurements. With regards to this subject, two new ideas were developed and
presented in this study. Together they form the basis of a new approach to surface wave
measurement and interpretation. The first contribution was the derivation of an explicit
representation of the effective Rayleigh phase velocity, which was defined as the phase
velocity of a superposition of a finite number of harmonic waves having the same frequency
and different wavenumbers. The effective Rayleigh phase velocity corresponds to the phase
Conclusions and Recommendations 223
velocity measured in surface wave testing with harmonic source if the near field effects are
neglected.
Surface waves propagating in vertically heterogeneous media are dispersive, and their
velocity of propagation is a multi-valued function of the frequency of excitation. This
phenomenon, known in the literature as geometric dispersion, arises from a condition of
constructing interference among rays that are either bent or reflected/refracted by the
heterogeneity of the medium. Geometric dispersion is responsible for the existence of
several modes of propagation each traveling at a different phase and group velocity in a
vertically heterogeneous medium. Geometric dispersion also affects the geometric spreading
of Rayleigh waves in homogeneous media.
For Rayleigh waves generated by harmonic sources, the various modes of propagation
of surface waves are superimposed as in a spatial Fourier series. The phase velocity of the
resulting waveform was named effective Rayleigh phase velocity. In Chapter 3 an explicit
expression for the effective Rayleigh phase velocity has been derived. An important feature
of this kinematical quantity is its local nature, which makes its current value to be a function
of the spatial position where it is measured. If the contribution of the body wave field is
neglected (a valid assumption at distances of more than one to two wavelengths from the
source), then the effective phase velocity is the phase velocity that would be measured at a
point during a surface wave test. For measurements at two or more receiver locations, the
measured phase velocity is equal to the averaged effective phase velocity over the receiver
array. The notion of effective phase velocity and its explicit representation formed the basis
of a new interpretation of surface wave measurements where the modal dispersion curves
are replaced by the effective dispersion curve. The latter is obtained from the frequency
dependence law of the effective phase velocity averaged over the receiver array.
224 Conclusions and Recommendations
In the new approach to surface wave interpretation, the experimental dispersion curve is
compared and matched with the effective dispersion curve, which accounts for multi-mode
Rayleigh wave propagation. In Chapter 3 closed-form analytical expressions for the partial
derivatives of the effective Rayleigh phase velocity with respect to the shear and
compression wave velocities of the layers have been derived by employing the variational
principle of Rayleigh waves. The major advantage offered by the analytical over the
numerical partial derivatives, is that the former are computed using the solution of the
Rayleigh eigenproblem referred to the original and not the perturbed profile of medium
parameters.
The second contribution in the area of surface wave propagation presented in this study
is a numerical technique for the solution of the Rayleigh eigenvalue problem in linear
viscoelastic media. One immediate application of this result was the development of a
systematic and efficient procedure for simultaneously determining the low-strain dynamic
properties of soil deposits from the interpretation of surface wave measurements. In the
conventional interpretation of surface wave data, the shear wave velocity and the shear
damping ratio profiles at a site are determined separately from the inversion of an
experimental dispersion and attenuation curve. The simultaneous inversion of surface wave
data offers several advantages over the corresponding uncoupled analysis.
First, it explicitly recognizes and accounts for the inherent coupling existing between
seismic wave phase velocity (which is directly related to stiffness) and material damping ratio
as a consequence of material dispersion. Secondly, the simultaneous inversion is a better-posed
mathematical problem (in the sense of Hadamard). The solution of the (strongly) coupled
Rayleigh inverse problem is based on the use of a complex formalism where the Rayleigh
phase velocity is viewed as an holomorphic function VR* ( VS* ) of the complex-valued shear
wave velocity. Thus, the simultaneous inversion takes full advantage of the internal constraint
Conclusions and Recommendations 225
constituted by the Cauchy-Riemann equations satisfied by the analytic function VR* ( VS* ) .
Thirdly, the simultaneous inversion eliminates some of the errors affecting the
corresponding uncoupled analysis, where some of the input data required for the inversion
of the attenuation measurements are obtained from the inversion of the dispersion data,
and thus they are affected by the uncertainties associated with the latter process. In the
simultaneous inversion, this problem is overcome by inverting both dispersion and
attenuation measurements in a single, complex-valued, inversion procedure.
Often in the seismological literature the term simultaneous inversion is used to denote
an approximate procedure that, based on the assumption of weak dissipation, does not
actually require the solution of the complex eigenproblem. Conversely, it uses a variational
approach combined with the results obtained from the solution of the elastic eigenproblem
to find an approximate solution to the complex eigenproblem. This type of approach is
here denoted as the weakly coupled inversion. The technique presented in this study for the
solution of the complex eigenvalue problem is not restricted to weakly dissipative media.
The theory of modal and effective Rayleigh waves propagation in elastic and viscoelastic
media developed in Chapter 3 has been used in Chapter 4 to develop four types of
inversion algorithms named UFUMA, UEQMA, CFUMA, and CEQMA. For a given pair
of experimental dispersion and attenuation curves, these algorithms determine the shear
wave velocity and shear damping ratio profiles of a soil deposit. The inversion procedure
used in these four algorithms is based on a constrained least squares algorithm known as
Occam’s algorithm. Its main objective is to enforce maximum smoothness on the resulting shear
226 Conclusions and Recommendations
wave velocity and shear damping ratio profiles while attaining a specified error misfit
between the experimental and the simulated dispersion and attenuation curves. The choice
of this inversion strategy was motivated by the need of minimizing the dependence of the
inverted shear wave velocity and shear damping ratio profiles upon the assumed number of
layers, which is, in general, an additional unknown in the interpretation of surface wave
testing.
The algorithms UFUMA and UEQMA refer to the uncoupled fundamental mode and
uncoupled equivalent multi-mode inversion analysis, whereas the algorithms CFUMA and
CEQMA were designed to perform the coupled fundamental mode and coupled equivalent
multi-mode inversion analysis, respectively.
Concerning the results obtained with the inversion algorithms UFUMA, UEQMA, and
CFUMA, they can be summarized as follows:
1. Overall, the UEQMA inversion algorithm based on the concept of effective phase
velocity yielded the most accurate results, particularly for the prediction of the shear
wave velocity profile. The fundamental mode based algorithms UFUMA and CFUMA
were generally less accurate in predicting both the shear wave velocity and shear
damping ratio profile;
2. For regular soil profiles (Case 1) the fundamental mode based inversion yielded
satisfactory results. However the results obtained with the coupled inversion algorithm
CFUMA are more accurate than those obtained with the corresponding uncoupled
analysis performed with the algorithm UFUMA;
3. For irregular soil profiles (Case 2 and Case 3) the results of the algorithm UEQMA were
always more accurate than those obtained with the algorithm UFUMA and CFUMA.
The results obtained from the numerical simulation are consistent with the expectations
from the theory, and also with the results of other independent studies (Gucunski and
Woods, 1991; Tokimatsu, 1995). Whereas in regular soil profiles the fundamental mode of
propagation governs the response of a layered medium to a dynamic excitation, irregular soil
Conclusions and Recommendations 227
profiles are inversely dispersive, and as such the response of the medium includes
contributions from higher modes of propagation.
1. Implementation of a routine for the subdivision of the region of the complex plane
containing the roots of the Rayleigh secular function into a series of smaller subregions.
As explained in Section 3.6.1, the computation of the roots of the Rayleigh secular
function via a high-degree polynomial becomes an ill-conditioned problem as the
number of modes increases. As a result these roots are computed with a decreasing
degree of accuracy. The instabilities exhibited by the code CEQMA during the
computation of higher modes of propagation are most likely due to this problem. The
technique of subdividing the region containing the roots should stabilize the
performance of the algorithm CEQMA.
2. Implementation of a new method for the construction of the Rayleigh secular function
in linear viscoelastic media to be integrated with the root-finding technique presented in
this study. The actual technique for constructing the Rayleigh secular function is based
on the method of reflection and transmission coefficients. This method, originally
developed for elastic media, does not seem to be very accurate when applied to
viscoelastic systems, particularly at high frequencies and for large number of layers. The
spectral element method, the boundary element method and numerical integration are
possible alternative methods.
3. In surface wave tests the quantities measured experimentally are displacement spectra or
displacement transfer functions. In this study it was shown that Rayleigh phase velocity
and attenuation coefficient are derived quantities that are obtained from the displacement
spectra or transfer functions via an unstable process of numerical differentiation. Based
on this observation it would be interesting to attempt the construction of an algorithm
for determining the medium parameters from the direct inversion of the displacement
spectra or transfer functions.
4. Procedures should be developed for solving the Rayleigh inverse problem by adopting
Global-Search-Techniques such as genetic algorithms, fractal inversion, neural network
inversion, or Monte Carlo simulation. As mentioned in Chapter 4, these methods are
more robust and accurate than Local-Search-Techniques such as Occam’s algorithm,
even though they are computationally more expensive.
228 Conclusions and Recommendations
6. Solution of the boundary value problem of surface waves using more sophisticated
constitutive laws other than classical linear viscoelasticity. Examples include binary
porous media theories, non-local and polar theories, doublet-mechanics. Attempt to
relax the usual assumptions of small displacements/displacement gradients.
APPENDIX A - ELLIPTIC HYSTERETIC LOOP IN LINEAR
VISCOELASTIC MATERIALS
σ γ ( ω) = G *γ ( ω) ⋅ ε γ ( ω) (A.1)
[
σ γ ( ω) = G*γ ( ω) ⋅ ε γ 0 ⋅ cos ωt − ϕ γ ( ω) ] (A.2)
[ ] [ ]
where tan ϕ γ ( ω ) = arg G *γ ( ω ) is the loss angle. Using trigonometric identities Eq. A.2 can
be rewritten as:
[ ] [ ]
σ γ ( ω) − G*γ ( ω) ⋅ ε γ ( ω) ⋅ cos ϕ γ ( ω) = G*γ ( ω) ⋅ ε γ 0 ⋅ sin ϕ γ ( ω) ⋅ sin ( ωt) (A.3)
2
εγ
2
σ γ − G(1) ⋅ ε γ
+ γ =1 (A.4)
ε
γ0 G ⋅
( 2) γ ε γ 0
229
230 Appendix A
where G(1) γ and G( 2 ) γ are the real and the imaginary parts of the complex modulus G *γ ( ω) .
Equation A.4 is the equation of an ellipse rotated by an angle ψ γ ( ω ) with respect to the
strain axis (see Fig. 2.9). It represents the stress-strain hysteretic loop exhibited by a linear
viscoelastic material subjected to harmonic oscillations.
l l
( ) ( )
∆Wγdissip ( ω) = ∫ d Wγ = ∫ ℜ σ γ ⋅ℜ d ε γ (A.5)
where the symbol ℜ (⋅) denotes the real part of a complex quantity, and l is length of the
hysteretic loop. In Eq. A.5 the term dWγ represents the work done by the stress (per unit
volume of the material) for an infinitesimal variation of the strain. Considering Eq. A.2 and
( )
the fact that ℜ d ε γ = ω ⋅ ε γ 0 ⋅ cos (ωt + π 2) ⋅ dt , Eq. A.5 can be rewritten as:
∆Wγdissip ( ω) = ∫
0
2π ω
( )
ω ⋅ G *γ ⋅ ε γ 20 ⋅ cos ωt − ϕ γ ⋅ cos (ωt + π 2) ⋅ dt (A.6)
( )∫
∆Wγdissip ( ω) = ω ⋅ G *γ ⋅ ε γ 20 ⋅ sin ϕ γ
0
2π ω
sin 2 (ω t) ⋅ dt (A.7)
2
∆Wγdissip ( ω) = π ⋅ G( 2) γ ⋅ ε γ (A.8)
Appendix A 231
G 2 2G
1 ( 1 ) γ (1 ) γ σ 2γ
⋅ 1+ ⋅ε −
2
2 ⋅ σγ εγ + 2 =1 (A.9)
ε γ 20 G( 2 ) γ γ
ε ⋅G ε γ ⋅ G( 2 )
γ 0 ( 2 ) γ 0 γ
Then, utilizing the result that the coefficients of a quadric centered at the origin and written in
the form A ik x i x k = 1 represent the components of a second order tensor (Finzi and Pastori,
1961), it is easily recognized from Eq. A.9 that:
G 2 G(1) γ
1 (1) γ
ε γ 2 ⋅ 1 + G( 2 ) − 2
0 γ ε γ ⋅ G( 2 )
A= 0 γ
(A.10)
G(1) γ 1
− 2 2
ε ⋅ G ε ⋅ G
γ0 (2) γ γ 0 (2) γ
The problem of finding the ellipse principal axes has been transformed in a problem of linear
algebra, namely of finding the eigenvectors of the matrix A. Because this matrix is real and
symmetric, its eigenvalues are also real and the corresponding eigenvectors, as expected, are
orthogonal. A straightforward computation yield for the eigenvalues λ 1,2 :
2
G * 2 + 1 ± G * 2 + 1 − 4G 2
γ γ ( 2 )γ
λ 1 ,2 ( ω ) = 2 (A.11)
2 ⋅ ε γ 0 ⋅ G( 2 )
γ
2
G* 2 − 1 m G* 2 + 1 − 4G 2
γ γ ( 2) γ
tan ψ 1,2 ( ω) = (A.12)
2 ⋅ G(1) γ
APPENDIX B - EFFECTIVE RAYLEIGH PHASE
VELOCITY PARTIAL DERIVATIVES
In Section 3.5.2 it was shown that the first variation of the effective Rayleigh
phase velocity δV$ β (β = r , y ) can be written as:
∂V$ β ∂V$ β
δV$ β = δVj + δU j (B.1)
∂Vj ∂U j
where the summation convention is implied over the index j ranges from one to the
number of Rayleigh modes of propagation associated with the frequency ω (cf.
Eq.3.49). Explicit results will now be obtained for the terms δVj and δU j of Eq. B.1.
From the relations G = ρVS2 , ( λ + 2G) = ρVP2 and Eq. 3.41, the following result is
obtained:
[
δVj = ∫ PjδVS + Q jδVP dy
0
] (B.2)
where:
ρVS dr1
2
dr
Pj (y ,ω ) = ⋅ kr2 − − 4 k r1 2 (B.3a)
2 ( k 2 U I1 ) j dy dy
j
2
ρVP dr
Q j ( y ,ω ) = ⋅ kr1 + 2 (B.3b)
2 ( k 2 U I1 ) j dy j
The strategy to obtain an explicit relation for δU j is a bit more laborious. Application
of Rayleigh principle to Eq.3.33a gives δI1 = 0 , hence Eq.3.50 simplifies as follows:
233
234 Appendix B
I δI2 δI
δU j = − 2 2 δV + − 3 (B.4)
V ⋅ I1 V ⋅ I1 2ωI1 j
The first variations δI 2 and δI 3 can be calculated from Eq.3.33 considering again
Rayleigh principle and the relations G = ρVS2 and ( λ + 2G) = ρVP2 ; the result is:
∞
dr dr dr
δI 3 = ∫ 2ρ VP r1 2 δVP − VS r2 1 + 2 r1 2 δVS dy (B.5b)
0 dy dy dy
δU j = ∫ [Π δV
0
j S + Ω jδVP dy ] (B.6)
where:
1 dr1 dr2
Π j ( y ,ω ) = ⋅ ωρVS kr22 − r2 − 2r1 − ( k 2 I2 ) j ⋅ Pj (B.7a)
ω 2 (I1 ) j dy dy j
1 dr
Ω j ( y ,ω ) = ⋅ ωρVP kr12 − r1 2 − ( k 2 I2 ) j ⋅ Q j (B.7b)
ω 2 (I1 ) j dy j
∞
∂V$ β ∂V$ β ∂V$ β ∂V$ β
δVβ = ∫
$ Pj + Π j δVS + Qj + Ω j δVP dy (B.8)
∂Vj
0
∂U j ∂ Vj ∂U j
∞ ∂V$ β ∞
∂V$ β
δVβ = ∫
$ δVS dy + ∫ δVP dy (B.9)
0 ∂VS ω , VP 0 ∂VP ω ,VS
where:
Equation B.10 provides an explicit relationship for the partial derivatives of the
effective Rayleigh phase velocity V$ β (r , y , ω ) with respect to the medium parameters
VP and VS . A complete definition of this relation however, requires specification of
the terms ∂V̂β ∂Vj and ∂V̂β ∂U j , whose calculation will be the objective of the rest
of the Appendix.
( )
−
− Φβ C ijωr − 2i + 2 Vi Vj − Φβ Dij Vi Vj 2
j i i j
2 M M
ij
Vi Vj 2 ij
∑∑
A β i=1 j=1 Vi Vj
−
δV δVj 1 1 δV δVj
2Bβ M M
( )ij Vj ij
( )
Φβ Dij − 2i − 2 − ωr Φβ C ij + − 2i + 2 Vi Vj
Vi Vi Vj Vi Vj
∑ ∑
A β2 i=1 j=1 Vi Vj
+
1 1 1
( ) (V δV + V δV )
1
( )
−
Φβ Dij + ⋅ Vi Vj 2
j i i j
2Bβ M M ij
Vi Vj 2
∑ ∑
A β2 i=1 j=1 Vi Vj
(B.11)
where:
M M ( ) (1 V + 1 V ) cos [ωr (1 V − 1 V )]
Φ
β
A β (r , y , ω ) = ∑ ∑
i j i j
ij
(B.12a)
i =1 j =1 Vi Vj
M M
Bβ (r , y , ω ) = ∑ ∑
( )
Φ
β ij
[ (
cos ωr 1 Vi − 1 Vj
)]
(B.12b)
i =1 j =1 V i Vj
and:
[ (
C ij (r , ω ) = sin ωr 1 Vi − 1 Vj )] (B.13a)
[ (
D ij (r , ω ) = cos ωr 1 Vi − 1 Vj )] (B.13b)
Appendix B 237
2 M M
[δV$ (r , y, ω)]
β
U
= ∑ ∑ A Λ
A β2 i=1 j=1 β β
( ) ij
( )
ij
− Bβ Χβ δVi − A β Σ β ( ) ij
( )
− Bβ Ξβ δVj
ij
(B.14)
where:
(Φ ) (2ωrC − Vi D ij Vj2)
(Λ ) =
β ij
ij
(B.15a)
2( V V )
β 2
ij
i j V i Vj
(Φ ) [2(ωrV C ) (
− Vi Vj D ij + ωrVi C ij − Vi D ij Vi + Vj Vj2 )]
(Χ )
β j ij
ij
= (B.15b)
( )
β 3
ij
2 Vi Vj Vi Vj
(Φ ) (2ωrC )
+ Vj D ij Vi2
(Σ ) =
β ij
ij
(B.15c)
2( V V )
β 2
ij
i j Vi Vj
(Φ ) [2(ωrV C ) (
+ Vi VjD ij + ωrVi C ij + VjD ij Vi + Vj Vi2 )]
(Ξ )
β j ij
ij
= (B.15d)
( )
β 3
ij
2 Vi Vj Vi Vj
2 A β Λ β( ) − Bβ Χ β
( )
( )
Γβ
ij
=
ij
A β2
ij
(B.16)
2 A β Σ β( ) − Bβ Ξβ
( )
( )
~
Γβ
ij
=
ij
Aβ 2
ij
238 Appendix B
so that:
[ ] ( ) ( )
M M
δV$ β (r , y , ω )
~
= ∑ ∑ Γβ δVi − Γβ δVj (B.17)
i =1 j =1
U ij ij
By replacing Eq.B.2 for the terms δVi and δVj in Eq.B.17, the latter becomes:
M M
∞
[ ]
δV$ β (r , y , ω )
U
( ) ( )
~
= ∫ ∑ ∑ Γβ Pi − Γβ Pj δVS dy +
i =1 j =1
0
ij ij
(B.18)
∞
M M
∫0 ∑ ∑ Γ( )
β Q −
~
Γβ Q ( )
δVP dy
i =1 j=1
i j
ij ij
[ ]
Now the next task is the computation of δV$ β (r , y , ω ) . At this purpose Eq.3.46
V
is differentiated with respect to U k while keeping the modal phase velocity Vk
constant, yielding:
[δV$ (r , y , ω)]
β
V
=
δU δU j
2 M M
( )
− Φ β D ij i +
ij
Ui
U j
∑∑
A β i =1 j =1 Vi Vj
−
(B.19)
1 1 δU δU j
2B β M M ij
( )
− Φ β D ij + i +
Vi Vj U i
U j
∑∑
A β2 i=1 j=1 Vi Vj
Equation B.19 can be reduced, after some algebra, to a form analogous to that of
Eq.B.17, namely:
Appendix B 239
[ ] ( ) ( )
M M
δV$ β (r , y , ω )
~
= ∑ ∑ Tβ δU i + Tβ δU j (B.20)
i =1 j =1
V ij ij
where:
(T ) β
ij
( )
= U j Wβ
ij
(B.21)
(~T ) β
ij
( )
= U i Wβ
ij
and:
2 1 1 ( )
Φ β ij D ij
(W ) β
ij
= 2 B β + − A β ⋅
A β Vi Vj U i U j Vi Vj
(B.22)
∞
M M
[ δV$ β (r , y , ω ) ] V
( ) ~
( )
= ∫ ∑ ∑ Tβ Π i + Tβ Π j δVS dy +
i =1 j=1
0
ij ij
(B.23)
∞
M M
∑ ∑ T Ω +( )
~
∫0 i =1 j=1 β ij i β ij j δVP dy
T Ω ( )
∞
M M
∑ ∑ ( ) P −
~
Γ P( )
+ T Π +( )
~
T Π ( )
∫0 i=1 j=1 β ij i β ij j β ij i β ij j δVS dy +
Γ (B.24)
∞
M M
∫ ∑
0
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
∑ Γβ ij Q i − ~Γβ ij Q j + Tβ ij Ω i + ~Tβ ij Ω j δVP dy
i =1 j =1
∂V$ β ∂V$ β
( )
( ) ( )
( )
M M
= ( r , y , ω ) = ∑ ∑ Γβ Pi − Γβ Pj + Tβ Π i + Tβ Π j
~ ~
∂VS ω ,VP ∂VS i =1 j=1
ij ij ij ij
∂V$ β ∂V$ β
( )
( ) ( )
( )
M M
= (r , y , ω ) = ∑ ∑ Γβ Q i − Γβ Q j + Tβ Ω i + Tβ Ω j
~ ~
∂VP ω , VS ∂VP i =1 j =1
ij ij ij ij
(B.25)
APPENDIX C - DESCRIPTION OF COMPUTER CODES
Dispersion uses a mex-file called Rayleigh which is a FORTRAN 77 written routine that
solves the eigenvalue problem of surface Rayleigh waves in elastic vertically heterogeneous
media (modified from Hisada, 1995). This code computes also the modal partial derivatives of
Rayleigh phase velocity with respect to the shear and compression wave velocities of the soil
layers using a variational formulation and the G-matrix formed by these partial derivatives. The
G-matrix and the Green’s function associated with the Rayleigh wave-displacement field,
which is also computed by Rayleigh, are used by the module Damping for the inversion of
the experimental attenuation measurements.
All INPUT data required by the mex-file Rayleigh are imported via a data file from
Dispersion. The experimental phase velocities and attenuation coefficients are imported into
Dispersion and Damping from external ASCII files.
241
242 Appendix C
Number of Layers
NL = 9;
Thickness of Layers (the half-space is denoted by 0.0)
THK = [1.52 1.52 1.98 2.44 3.05 9.14 10.00 10.00 0.0]';
Mass Density of Layers
DNS = [1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75]';
Compression Damping Ratio of Layers (need DP/DS in forming the G-matrix)
DP = [1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0]';
Elastic Poisson's Ratio of Layers
NU = [0.25 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30]';
Shear Damping Ratio of Layers (need DP/DS in forming the G-matrix)
DS = [1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0]';
Initial Guess Shear Wave Velocity of Layers
VS0 = [60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0]';
FREQUENCY DATA (Hz)
Type of Frequency Spacing [1 = logarithmic] [0 = linear arithmetic]
IFREQ = 1;
Number of Frequencies
NF = 83;
Initial Frequency
IOM = 8.453;
Final Frequency
NOM = 70.823;
Frequency Increment (only for linearly spaced frequencies)
DOM = 0.0;
PHI = 0.0;
Depth of the receivers
ZH = 0.0;
Number of Receivers
NP = 100;
Position First Receiver
INP = 1.00;
Position Last Receiver
NNP = 100.00;
Increment of Receiver Position
DNP = 1.00;
PARAMETERS USED TO COMPUTE ROOTS OF RAYLEIGH SECULAR FUNCTION
Specified Tolerance (TOL < 0.1)
TOL = 0.001;
Number of Partitions to Search Roots from CMIN to CMAX
NCC = 400;
Number of Sub-Partitions for Roots Close to VP and VS
NSC = 10;
Range of Velocity to Use Sub-Partitions
DCR = 20.0;
The shear damping ratio profile is obtained independently by a linear inversion of the
experimental attenuation data also based on the Occam’s algorithm. This task is implemented by
the MATLAB m-file Damping, which constitutes the second module of the algorithm
UEQMA.
Dispersion uses a mex-file called Rayleigh which is a FORTRAN 77 written routine that
solves the eigenvalue problem of surface Rayleigh waves in elastic vertically heterogeneous
244 Appendix C
media (modified from Hisada, 1995). This code also computes the effective Rayleigh phase
velocity and its partial derivatives with respect to the shear and compression wave velocities of
the soil layers using a variational formulation. The effective G-matrix formed by these partial
derivatives is also computed. The effective G-matrix and the Green’s function associated with
the Rayleigh wave-displacement field, which are also computed by Rayleigh, are used by the
module Damping for the inversion of the experimental attenuation measurements.
The effective theoretical dispersion and attenuation curves computed by Dispersion and
Damping are calculated by taking into account all the modes of propagation of Rayleigh
waves. Averaging the effective Rayleigh phase velocities and attenuation coefficients over the
frequency dependent receiver offsets eliminates the dependence of these quantities on the
receivers’ location.
All INPUT data required by the mex-file Rayleigh are imported via a data file from
Dispersion, which is the same data file used by the code UFUMA. The experimental phase
velocities and attenuation coefficients are imported into Dispersion and Damping via
external ASCII files.
ViscoRay is a MATLAB computer code interfaced with a mex-file called Rayleigh which
is a FORTRAN 77 routine that solves the complex eigenvalue problem of Rayleigh waves in
linear viscoelastic vertically heterogeneous media. This code also computes the partial
derivatives of the (modal) complex Rayleigh phase velocity with respect to the complex shear
and compression wave velocities of the soil layers using a variational formulation.
The theoretical dispersion and attenuation curves computed by the program ViscoRay, as
well as the modal partial derivatives of Rayleigh phase velocity with respect to medium
parameters, are referred to the fundamental mode of propagation of Rayleigh waves. However,
the frequency dependent attenuation coefficients are calculated using a geometric spreading
function that accounts for all the modes of propagation (Rix et al., 1998a).
All INPUT data required by the mex-file Rayleigh are imported via a data file from
ViscoRay, which is the same data file used by the codes UFUMA and UEQMA. The
Appendix C 245
experimental phase velocities and attenuation coefficients are imported into ViscoRay via
external ASCII files.
Number of Points in the Complex Plane used for Contour Integration with
the Gauss-Legendre Quadrature Formulae
Number of Points along curves DR = constant
NCC = 50;
Number of Points along curves CR = constant
NDD = 50;
ViscoRay is a MATLAB computer code interfaced with a mex-file called Rayleigh, which
solves the complex eigenvalue problem of Rayleigh waves in viscoelastic vertically
heterogeneous media. This code also computes the effective complex Rayleigh phase velocity
and its partial derivatives with respect to the complex shear and compression wave velocities
of the soil layers using a variational formulation.
The effective theoretical dispersion and attenuation curves computed by ViscoRay as well
as the effective partial derivatives of Rayleigh phase velocity with respect to medium
parameters, are calculated by taking into account all the modes of propagation of Rayleigh
waves. Averaging the effective Rayleigh phase velocities and the effective partial derivatives
over the frequency dependent receiver offsets eliminates the dependence of these quantities on
the receivers’ location. The experimental attenuation coefficients are calculated iteratively using
a geometric spreading function that also accounts for all the modes of propagation of Rayleigh
waves (Rix et al., 1998a).
All INPUT data required by the mex-file Rayleigh are imported via a data file from
ViscoRay, which is the same data file used by the code CFUMA including the parameters
used to compute the zeros of the Rayleigh secular function.
246 Appendix C
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abd-Elall, L.F., Delves, L.M., Reid, J.K. (1970). “A Numerical Method for Locating the
Zeros and Poles of a Meromorphic Function.”, from Numerical Methods for Non Linear
Algebraic Equations, by P. Rabinowitz, Ed. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, pp. 47-
59.
Aki, K., and Richards, P.G. (1980). “Quantitative Seismology: Theory and Methods.”, W.H.
Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 932 pp.
Anandarajah, A. (1996). “Discrete Element Method for Platy Colloidal Particles.”, Symposium,
Computational and Experimental Methods for Particulate Materials, ASME, Johns Hopkins
University, Baltimore, MD, June 12-14, 1996.
Anderson, D.L., and Archambeau, C.B. (1964). “The Anelasticity of the Earth.”,J. Geophysical
Research, 69(10), 2071-2084.
Anderson, D.L., Ben-Menahem, A., and Archambeau, C.B. (1965). “Attenuation of Seismic
Energy in the Upper Mantle.” J. Geophysical Research, 70, 1441-1448.
Azimi, S.A., Kalinin, A.V., Kalinin, V.V., and Pivovarov, B.L. (1968). “Impulse and
Transient Characteristics of Media with Linear and Quadratic Absorption Laws.”,
Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth, February 1968, pp.88-93.
Baran, P.A., and Sweezy, P.M. (1968). “Monopoly Capital: An Essay on the American
Economic and Social Order (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books).
Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V.N., Jamiolkowski, M., and Robertson, P.K. (1989). “Design
Parameters of Cohesionless Soils from In-Situ Tests.”, Specialty Session on In-Situ Testing of
Soil Properties for Transportation Facilities, Sponsored by Committee A2L02-Soil and Rock
Properties, National Research Council, Transportation Research Board, Washington, January,
1989.
247
248 Bibliography
Bendat, J. and Piersol, A. (1986). “Random Data - Analysis and Measurement Procedures.”,
2nd Ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 566 pp.
Ben-Menahem, A., and Singh, S.J. (1981). “Seismic Waves and Sources.”, Springer-Verlag,
New York, 1108 pp.
Biot, M.A. (1955). “Theory of Elasticity and Consolidation for a Porous Anisotropic Solid.”
Journal of Applied Physics, 26, 182-185.
Boore, D.M. (1972). “Finite Difference Methods for Seismic Wave Propagation in
Heterogeneous Materials.” Methods of Computational Physics, Vol.11, Ed. Bolt, B.A.,
Academic press, New York, pp.1-36.
Bowen, R.M. (1982). “Compressible Porous Media Models by Use of the Theory of
Mixtures.” International Journal of Engineering Science, Vol. 20, No. 6, pp. 697-735.
Bracewell, R. (1965). “The Fourier Transform and its Applications.”, McGraw-Hill Co.
Casagrande, A. (1932). “Research on the Atterberg Limits of Soils.”, Public Roads 13 (8),
121-130 and 136.
Chen, X. (1993). “A Systematic and Efficient Method of Computing Normal Modes for
Multilayered Half Space.” Geophysics J. Int., Vol. 115, pp. 391-409.
Cole, K.S., and Cole, R.H. (1941). “Dispersion and Absorption in Dielectrics. I. Alternating
Current Characteristics.”, J.Chem.Phys., 9, 341-351.
Constable, S.C., Parker, R.L., and Constable, G.G. (1987). “Occam’s Inversion: A Practical
Algorithm For Generating Smooth Models From Electromagnetic Sounding Data.”
Geophysics, 52, 289-300.
Cundall, P.A., and Strack, O.D.L. (1979). “A Discrete Numerical Model for Granular
Assemblies.”, Geotechnique, Vol. 29, No.1, pp. 47-65.
Bibliography 249
De Boer, R. (1996). “Highlights in the Historical Development of the Porous Media Theory:
Toward a Consistent Macroscopic Theory.” Applied Mechanics Review, ASME, Vol.49,
No.4, 201-262.
Delves, L.M., and Lyness, J.N. (1967). “A Numerical Method for Locating the Zeros of an
Analytic Function.”, Math. Comp., 21, 543-560.
Dobry, R. (1970). “Damping in Soils: Its Hysteretic Nature and the Linear Approximation.”
Research Report R70-14, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 82p.
Dobry, R., and Vucetic, M. (1987). “Dynamic Properties and Seismic Response of Soft Clay
Deposits.”, Proceedings, International Symposium on Geotechnical Engineering of Soft Soils, Mexico
City, Vol.2, pp.51-87.
Electric Power Research Institute. (1993). “Guidelines for Determining Design Basis
Ground Motions” Vol. I: Methods and Guidelines for Estimating Earthquake Ground Motion in
Eastern North America. EPRI TR-102293 Project 3302 November 1993.
Engl, H.W. (1993). “Regularization Methods for the Stable Solution of Inverse Problems.”
Surveys on Mathematics for Industry, Vol. 3, pp. 71-143.
Eringen, A.C. and Suhubi, E.S. (1964). “Nonlinear Theory of Simple Microelastic Solid, I
and II, Int. J. Eng. Sci. 2, 189-204, 389-404.
Eringen, A.C. and Kafadar C.B. (1976). “ Polar Field Theories.” Continuum Physics Vol. IV,
Part I, Edited by A.C. Eringen, Academic Press, p.274.
Ewing, W.M., Jardetzky, W.S., and Press, F. (1957). “Elastic Waves in Layered Media.”,
McGraw-Hill, 380p.
Faccioli, E., Maggio, F., Quarteroni, A., and Tagliani, A. (1996). “Spectral-Domain
Decomposition Methods for the Solution of Acoustic and Elastic Wave Equations.”,
Geophysics, Vol.61, No.4, pp.1160-1174.
Ferrari, M., Granik, V.T., Imam, A., and Nadeau, J.C. (1997) “Advances in Doublet
Mechanics.”, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 213 p.
Ferry, J.D. (1980). “Viscoelastic Properties of Polymers.”, 3rd Edition, John Wiley, New
York, pp.641.
Finzi, B., and Pastori, M. (1961). “Calcolo Tensoriale e Applicazioni”, Zanichelli, Bologna,
p.508 (in Italian).
Frost, J.D., and Kuo, C.Y. (1996). “Automated Determination of the Distribution of Local
Void Ratio from Digital Images.”, ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol.19, No.2,
pp.107-117.
Fung, Y.C. (1965). “Foundations of Solid Mechanics.”, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, pp.525.
Goodman, M.A., and Cowin, S.C. (1972). “A Continuum Theory for Granular Materials.”
Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis 44: 249-266.
Green, A.E., and Rivlin, R.S. (1964). “Multipolar Continuum Mechanics.”, Arch. Rat. Mech.
Anal. 17, 113-147.
Gucunski, N., and Woods, R.D. (1991). “Use of Rayleigh Modes in Interpretation of SASW
Tests,” Proceedings, 2nd International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Vol. 2, pp. 1399-1408.
Gurtin, M.E. (1963). “Variational Principles in the Linear Theory of Viscoelasticity.”, Arch.
Ration. Mech. Anal., 13, 179.
Hall, J.R., and Richart, Jr.F.E. (1963). “Dissipation of Elastic Wave Energy in Granular
Soils.”, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol.89, No.SM6, pp.27-56.
Hardin, B.O., and Drnevich, V.P. (1972). “Shear Modulus and Damping in Soils:
Measurement and Parameter Effects.” J. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, ASCE,
98(SM6), 603-624.
Hardin, B.O. (1978). “The Nature of Stress-Strain Behavior of Soils.”, Proceedings, Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics, ASCE, Pasadena, California, Vol.1, pp.3-89.
Harvey, D. (1981). “Seismogram Synthesis using Normal Mode Superposition: the Locked
Mode Approximation.”, Geophys. J. R. Astr. Soc., 66, 37-70.
Bibliography 251
Haskell, N.A. (1953). “The Dispersion of Surface Waves on Multilayered Media.”, Bulletin of
the Seismological Society of America, 43, 17-34.
Henrici, P. (1974). “Applied and Computational Complex Analysis.”, Vol. 1, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, pp. 682.
Hille, E. (1973). “Analytic Function Theory.”, Vol. 1, Chelsea, New York, 2nd Edition.
Hisada, Y. (1994). “An Efficient Method for Computing Green’s Functions for a Layered
Half-Space with Sources and Receivers at Close Depths,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society
of America, 84(5), 1456-1472.
Hisada, Y. (1995). “An Efficient Method for Computing Green’s Functions for a Layered
Half-Space with Sources and Receivers at Close Depths (Part 2).”, Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, 85(4), 1080-1093.
Idriss, I.M., and Sun, J.I. (1991). “Users Manual for SHAKE91.” University of California at
Davis.
Ishibashi, I., and Zhang, X. (1993). “Unified Dynamic Shear Moduli and Damping Ratios of
Sand and Clay.”, Soils and Foundations, Vol.33, No.1, pp.182-191.
Iwasaki, T., Tatsuoka, F., and Takagi, Y. (1978). “Shear Modulus of Sands Under Torsional
Shear Loading.”, Soils and Foundations, Vol.18, No.1, pp.39-56.
Jamiolkowski, M., Leroueil, S., and Lo Presti, D.C.F. (1991). “Theme Lecture: Design
Parameters from Theory to Practice.”, Proceedings, Geo-Coast-91, Yokohama, Japan, pp.1-
41.
Jamiolkowski, M., Lancellotta, R., and Lo Presti, D.C.F. (1994). “Remarks on the Stiffness at
Small Strains of Six Italian Clays.”, International Symposium on Pre-FailureDeformation
Characteristics of Geomaterials, IS-Hokkaido, Sapporo, Japan, 1994.
252 Bibliography
Johnston, D.H., Toksöz, M.N., and Timur, A. (1979). “Attenuation of Seismic Waves In Dry
and Saturated Rocks: II. Mechanisms.” Geophysics, 44(4), 691-711.
Jones, T.D. (1986). “Pore Fluids and Frequency-Dependent Wave Propagation in Rocks.”,
Geophysics, Vol.51, No.10, pp.1939-1953.
Kausel, E. (1981). “An Explicit Solution For The Green Functions For Dynamic Loads In
Layered Media..” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Research Report R81-13, 79
pp.
Kausel, E., and Roësset, J.M. (1981). “Stiffness Matrices for Layered Soils.”, Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, 71, 6, 1743-1761.
Kennett, B.L.N. (1974). “Reflections, Rays, and Reverberations.”, Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, 64, 1685-1696.
Kennett, B.L.N., and Kerry, N.J. (1979). “Seismic Waves in a Stratified Half-Space.”,
Geophys. J. R. Astr. Soc., 57, 557-583.
Knopoff, L. (1964). “A Matrix Method for Elastic Wave Problems.”, Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, 54, 431-438.
Kokusho, T. (1980). “Cyclic Triaxial Test of Dynamic Soil Properties for Wide Strain
Range.”, Soils and Foundations, Vol.20, No.2, pp.45-60.
Komatitsch, D., and Vilotte, J.P. (1998). “The Spectral Element Method: An Efficient Tool
to Simulate the Seismic Response of 2D and 3D Geological Structures.” Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, 88(2), 368-392.
Bibliography 253
Koppermann, S.E., Stokoe, II K.H., and Knox, D.P. (1982). “Effect of State of Stress on
Velocity of Low Amplitude Compression Waves Propagating Along Principal Stress
Directions in Sand.”, Geotechnical Engineering Report, GR82-22, University of Texas, Austin,
Texas.
Krantz, S.G. (1982). “Function Theory of Several Complex Variables.”, John Wiley & Sons,
New York, pp.437.
Kuo, C.Y., and Frost, J.D. (1997). “Initial Fabric and Uniformity of a Sand Specimen – An
Image Analysis Approach.”, Proceedings, of ASCE Symposium on Mechanics of Deformation and
Flow of Particulate Materials, Evanston, pp. 214-227.
Kuraoka, S., and Bosscher, P.J. (1996). “Parallelization of the Distinct (Discrete) Element
Method (DEM).”, Symposium, Computational and Experimental Methods for Particulate
Materials, ASME, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, June 12-14, 1996.
Lai, C.G. (1997). “On the Theory of Mixtures of Porous Media.”, Master Report in
Engineering Science and Mechanics, The Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta,
Georgia.
Lamb, H. (1904). “On the Propagation of Tremors over the Surface of an Elastic Solid.”,
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A203:1-42 pp.
Lambe, T.W., and Whitman, R.V. (1969). “Soil Mechanics.”, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Lawson, C.L., and Hanson, R.J. (1974). “Solving Least Squares Problems.”, Prentice-Hall,
340 pp.
Lawton, W.H. and Sylvestre E.A. (1971). “Elimination of Linear Parameters in Non-Linear
Regression.” Technometrics, 13(3), 461-467.
Lee, W.B., and Solomon, S.C. (1979). “Simultaneous Inversion of Surface-Wave Phase
Velocity and Attenuation: Rayleigh and Love Waves over Continental and Oceanic
Paths.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 69(1), 65-95.
Leurer, K.C. (1997). “Attenuation in Fine-Grained Marine Sediments: Extension of the Biot-
Stoll Model by the Effective Grain Model (EGM).” Geophysics, Vol.62, No.5, 1465-1479.
254 Bibliography
Liu, H.P., Anderson, D.L., and Kanamori, H. (1976). “Velocity Dispersion due to
Anelasticity; Implications for Seismology and Mantle Composition.”, Geophys. J.R. Astr.
Soc. 47, 41-58.
Lockett, F.J. (1962). “The Reflection and Refraction of Waves at an Interface between
Viscoelastic Materials.”, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 10, 53.
Logan, J.D. (1997). “Applied Mathematics.”, John Wiley & Sons, 2nd Ed., pp.476.
Lo Presti, D.C.F. (1987). “Behavior of Ticino Sand During Resonant Column Tests.”, Ph.D.
Thesis, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy.
Lo Presti, D.C.F., Jamiolkowski, M., Pallara, O. and Cavallaro, A. (1996). “Rate and Creep
Effect on the Stiffness of Soils.”, Proceedings, Conference on Measuring and Modeling Time
Dependent Soil Behavior, Held in Conjuction with the ASCE National Convention, November 10-
14, 1996, Washington, D.C.
Lo Presti, D.C.F, and Pallara, O. (1997). “Damping Ratio of Soils from Laboratory and In-
Situ Tests.”, Proceedings, 14th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Hamburg, Germany, 6-12, September, 1997.
Lubliner, J. (1990). “Plasticity Theory.”, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, pp.495.
Luco, J.E. and Apsel, R.J. (1983). “On the Green’s Function for a Layered Half-Space.” Part
I, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 73, 909-929.
Lysmer, J. and Drake, L.A. (1972). “A Finite Element Method for Seismology.” Methods of
Computational Physics, Vol.11, Ed. Bolt, B.A., Academic press, New York, pp.181-215.
Lysmer, J. and Waas, G. (1972). “Shear Waves in Plane Infinite Structures.”, J. Eng. Mech.
Div., ASCE, 18, 859-877.
Malagnini, L. (1996). “Velocity and Attenuation Structure of Very Shallow Soils: Evidence
for Frequency-Dependent Q.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 86(5), 1471-
1486.
Malagnini, L., Herrmann, R.B., Biella, G., and De Franco, R. (1995). “Rayleigh Waves in
Quaternary Alluvium from Explosive Sources: Determination of Shear-Wave Velocity
and Q Structure.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 85, 900-922.
Malagnini, L., Herrmann, R.B., Mercuri, A., Opice, S., Biella, G., and De Franco, R. (1997).
“Shear-Wave Velocity Structure of Sediments from the Inversion of Explosion-Induced
Rayleigh Waves: Comparison with Cross-Hole Measurements.” Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, 87(6), 1413-1421.
Bibliography 255
Manolis G.D., and Beskos, D.E. (1988). “Boundary Element Methods in Elastodynamics.”,
Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 282.
Masad, E., Muhunthan, B., and Chameau, J.L. (1997). “Stress-Strain Model for Clays with
Anisotropic Void Ratio Distribution.”, International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics, Submitted for Publication (Revised June 1997).
Menke, W. (1989). “Geophysical Data Analysis: Discrete Inverse Theory.”, Revised Edition,
International Geophysics Series, Vol.45, Academic Press, 289 pp.
Mindlin, R.D. (1964). “Microstructure in Linear Elasticity.”, Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. 16, 51-78.
Mitchell, J.K. (1976). “Fundamentals of Soil Behaviour.”, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Muhunthan, B., and Chameau, J.L. (1996). “Void Fabric Tensor and Ultimate State Surface
of Soils.”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 123, No.2.
Nazarian, S., Stokoe, K.H., and Hudson, W.R. (1983). “Use of Spectral Analysis of Surface
Waves Method for Determination of Moduli and Thicknesses of Pavement Systems.”,
Transportation Research Record 930, Transportation Reseacrh Board, Washington, D.C.,
pp.38-45.
Nazarian, S. (1984). “In Situ Determination of Elastic Moduli of Soil Deposits and
Pavement Systems by Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves Method.”, Ph.D. Dissertation,
The University of Texas at Austin.
Nemat-Nasser, S., and Mehrabadi, M.M. (1983). “Stress and Fabric in Granular Mass.”,
Mechanics of Granular Materials: New Models and Constitutive Relations (Jenkins, J.T., and
Satake, M. Eds.), Elsevier, pp. 1-8.
Oda, M. (1972). “ Initial Fabrics and their Relations to Mechanical Properties of Granular
Materials.”, Soils and Foundations, Vol.12, No.2, pp.1-18.
Oppenheim, A., and A. Willsky, A. (1997). “Signals and Systems.”, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, 540 pp.
256 Bibliography
Parker, R.L. (1994). “Geophysical Inverse Theory.”, Princeton University Press, New Jersey,
pp.386.
Passman, S.L., Nunziato, J.W., and Walsh, E.K. (1984). “ A Theory of Multiphase Mixtures.”
Appendix 5C, 286-325, Rational Thermodynamics, C. Truesdell, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
578 pp.
Press, W.H., Teukolsky, S.A., Vetterling, W.T., and Flannery, B.P. (1992). “Numerical
Recipies in Fortran - The Art of Scientific Computing.”, Cambridge University Press, 2nd
Ed., pp. 963.
Read, W.T. (1950). “ Stress Analysis for Compressible Viscoelastic Materials.”, J. Appl. Phys.,
21, 671.
Richart, F.E., Jr., Woods, R.D., and Hall, J.R. (1970), “Vibrations of Soils and Foundations.”,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 414 pp.
Rix, G.J. (1988). “Experimental Study of Factors Affecting the Spectral Analysis of Surface
Waves Method.”, Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, pp.315.
Rix, G.J., Lai, C.G., Spang, A.W.,Jr. (1998a). “In-Situ Measurement of Damping Ratio Using
Surface Waves.” Accepted for publication to ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 29 pp.
Rix, G.J., and Lai, C.G. (1998). “Simultaneous Inversion of Surface Wave Velocity and
Attenuation,” Geotechnical Site Characterization, Edited by P.K. Robertson and P.W.
Mayne, Vol. 1, pp.503-508, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Site
Characterization – ISC’98/Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 19-22 April 1998.
Rix, G.J., Lai, C.G., Foti, S., and Zywicki D. (1998b). “ Surface Wave Tests in Landfills and
Embankments“, Proceedings, 3rd ASCE Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
and Soil Dynamics Conference, Seattle, Washington, USA, August, 3-6,1998.
Roësset, J.M., Chang, D.W., Stokoe, K.H. II (1991). “Comparison of 2-D and 3-D Models
for Analysis of Surface Wave Tests.” 5th International Conference on Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, Karlsruhe, Germany, 1991, pp. 111-126.
Schwab, F., and Knopoff, L. (1971). “Surface Waves on Multilayered Anelastic Media.”,
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 61, 4, 893-912.
Schwab, F., and Knopoff, L. (1972). “Fast Surface Wave and Free Mode Computations.”,
Methods of Computational Physics, Vol.11, Ed. Bolt, B.A., Academic press, New York,
pp.87-180.
Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M. (1970). “Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic
Response Analyses.”, Report EERC 70-10, Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, Berkeley.
Shibuya, S., Mitachi, T., Fukuda, F., and Degoshi, T. (1995). “Strain Rate Effects on Shear
Modulus and Damping of Normally Consolidated Clay.” Geotechnical Testing Journal, 18(3),
365-375.
Spang, A.W., Jr. (1995). In Situ Measurements of Damping Ratio Using Surface Waves.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, pp. 347.
Stoll, R.D. (1974). “Acoustic Waves in Saturated Sediments.” Physics of Sound in Marine
Sediments, Plenum Press, 19-39.
Stokoe, K.H. II, Rix, G.J., and Nazarian, S. (1989). “In Situ Seismic Testing with Surface
Waves.”, Proceedings, 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Rio De Janeiro, 13-18 August, pp. 331-334.
Takeuchi, H. and Saito, M. (1972). “Seismic Surface Waves.” Methods of Computational Physics,
Vol.11, Ed. Bolt, B.A., Academic press, New York, pp.217-294.
Tang, X.M.. (1992). “A Waveform Inversion Technique for Measuring Elastic Wave
Attenuation Using Cylindrical Bars.” Geophysics, 57, 854-859.
Thomson, W.T. (1950). “Transmission of Elastic Waves through a Stratified Solid Medium”,
J.Appl.Phys., 21, 89-93.
Tikhonov, A.N. and Arsenin, V.Y. (1977). “Solutions of Ill-Posed Problems.”, Winston &
Sons, Washington D.C., pp.258.
258 Bibliography
Ting, J.M., Corkum, B.T., Kauffman, C.R., and Green, C. (1989). “Discrete Numerical
Model for Soil Mechanics.”, J. Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 115 (3), 379-398.
Ting, J.M., Khwaja, M., Meachum, L.R., and Rowell, J.D. (1993). “An Ellipse-Based Discrete
Element Model for Granular Materials.”, International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics, V. 17, pp. 603-623.
Truesdell, C. (1957). “ Sulle Basi della Termomeccanica.”, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei,
Rendiconti della Classe di Scienze Fisiche, Matematiche e Naturali (8), 22, 33-88, 158-166 (in
Italian).
Truesdell, C. and Noll W. (1992). “The Non-Linear Field Theories of Mechanics.”, Springer-
Verlag, 2nd Edition, p.591.
Vucetic, M., and Dobry, R. (1991). “Effect of Soil Plasticity on Cyclic Response.” J.
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 117(1), 89-107.
Winkler, K.W., and Nur, A. (1979). “Pore Fluids and Seismic Attenuation in Rocks.”,
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 6, 1-4.
Zeng, Y., and Anderson, J.G. (1995). “A Method for Direct Computation of the Differential
Seismogram with Respect to the Velocity Change in a Layered Elastic Solid.”, Bulletin of
the Seismological Society of America, Vol.85, No.1, pp.300-307.