GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 86, NO. 4 (JULY-AUGUST 2021); P. EN51–EN62, 15 FIGS., 1 TABLE.

10.1190/GEO2020-0467.1
Downloaded 08/15/22 to 192.130.254.9. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/page/policies/terms

Common-midpoint spatial autocorrelation analysis of seismic ambient

noise obtained from a spatially unaliased sensor distribution

Koichi Hayashi1, Mitchell Craig2, Shunjia Tan3, Chisato Konishi4, Haruhiko Suzuki5, Michitaka
Tahara5, Kent Falkenstein6, Bin He7, and Daxiang Cheng7

ABSTRACT investigation area. We use a 1D nonlinear inversion to estimate a

1D V S profile for each grid point, and then we construct pseudo-
We have introduced a passive surface-wave method using 2D or pseudo-3D V S models from the 1D V S profiles. The pre-
DOI:10.1190/geo2020-0467.1

seismic ambient noise obtained from dozens of receivers form-
ing spatially unaliased 2D arrays. The method delineates 2D or
3D S-wave velocity (V S ) models to depths of several hundreds
of meters, without using any sources. Typical data acquisition
uses 50–100 vertical-component 2 Hz geophones on the surface
with 5–30 m receiver spacing. Cableless seismographs with
GPS record 20–60 min of ambient noise. We establish a 2D grid
covering the investigation area and use a common-midpoint spa-
tial autocorrelation (CMP-SPAC) method to calculate phase
velocities, resulting in a dispersion curve for each grid
point. The method provides dozens of ispersion curves in the
cision and accuracy of the CMP-SPAC method were tested with
a numerical simulation using a 3D finite-difference method. The
results of the simulation demonstrated the applicability of the
method to complex velocity structures. We applied the method
to an active fault investigation in China. Sixty-four cableless
seismographs were deployed in an investigation area of
330 × 660 m (217,800 m2) with 5 and 30 m receiver spacings
for dense and sparse grids, respectively. A 3D V S model was
obtained to a depth of 150 m from CMP-SPAC analysis. The
resultant 3D V S model indicates approximately 50 m of vertical
displacement on a known fault.

INTRODUCTION conclusion that the ambient noise mainly consisted of surface

The method of using ambient noise to measure seismic phase
velocity was introduced by Aki (1957), who treats ambient noise
as a random stochastic phenomenon and proposes the theory of
spatial autocorrelation (SPAC) to model it in the time and space
domains. Phase differences were calculated from ambient noise
recorded at different locations and were consistent with theoretical
Rayleigh and Love wave dispersion curves, leading to the
waves.
Okada et al. (1990) apply the theory of SPAC to long-period seis-
mic ambient noise to determine deep S-wave velocity (V S ) structure
to a depth of several kilometers. They deploy 4–10 long-period seis-
mometers in nested triangular arrays with a maximum receiver
spacing of 3000 m. They calculate Rayleigh-wave dispersion curves
from vertical-component ambient noise in the frequency range
of 0.25–1.7 Hz, with corresponding phase velocities of 2000–

Manuscript received by the Editor 1 July 2020; revised manuscript received 6 April 2021; published ahead of production 11 May 2021; published online 08
July 2021.
1
Geometrics/OYO Corporation, 2190 Fortune Drive, San Jose, California 95014, USA. E-mail: khayashi@geometrics.com (corresponding author).
2
California State University, East Bay, 25800 Carlos Bee Blvd., Hayward, California 94542, USA. E-mail: mitchell.craig@csueastbay.edu.
3
School of Geophysics and Measurement Control Technology, ECUT and Institute of Geology, CAGS, No. 26 Baiwanzhuang Street, Beijing 100037, China.
E-mail: geo_tshj@163.com.
4
OYO Corporation, 1-66-2, Miyahara-cho, Kita-ku, Saitama, Saitama 331-0812, Japan. E-mail: konishi-chisato@oyonet.oyo.co.jp.
5
OYO Corporation, 1-10-2, Sakuragi-cho, Omiya-ku, Saitama, Saitama 330-0854, Japan. E-mail: suzuki-haruhiko@oyonet.oyo.co.jp; tahara-michitaka@
oyonet.oyo.co.jp.
6
Geometrics, 2190 Fortune Drive, San Jose, California 95014, USA. E-mail: kent@geometrics.com.
7
Laurel Geophysical Instruments LTD, Qikeshu Innovation Park B5-1, NO.55 Banjieta Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China. E-mail: hebin61@126.com;
dixoncheng@126.com.
© 2021 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved.

EN51
 EN52 Hayashi et al.
500 m/s, respectively. They use a nonlinear inversion to estimate V S
profiles to depths ranging from 1000 to 3000 m, with V S ranging
from 2100 to 3000 m∕s. The use of large-aperture SPAC surveys
Downloaded 08/15/22 to 192.130.254.9. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/page/policies/terms
for the delineation of geologic basins has increased in recent years
(e.g., Okada, 2003; Hayashi et al., 2013; Hayashi and Craig, 2017;
Asten and Hayashi, 2018; Stephenson et al., 2019).
The use of active-source surface-wave methods has also in-
creased during the past few decades (e.g., Ivanov et al, 2006; Foti
et al., 2017). The spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW)
method uses controlled sources and a relatively small number of
sensors to calculate phase velocities of Rayleigh waves (Nazarian
et al., 1983; Stokoe et al., 2017). The SASW method may be used to
estimate near-surface dynamic soil properties to a depth of several
tens of meters (Rosenblad et al., 2010).
The geophysical community began using surface waves to esti-
mate near-surface V S in the late 1990s (e.g., Boore, 2006; Foti et al.,
2017). Park et al. (1999a, 1999b) developed the multichannel analy-
sis of surface waves (MASW) method, using an engineering seis-
mograph and several dozen receivers. In MASW, shot gathers are
converted to the frequency domain by Fourier transform, then phase
shifted, and stacked to obtain a phase velocity image (phase velocity
versus frequency). Unlike SASW, the phase velocity image of
MASW enables us to visually distinguish between the fundamental
and higher modes. MASW has proven to be enormously popular
DOI:10.1190/geo2020-0467.1
with geophysical contractors because they are able to perform
the method using a typical engineering seismograph with a limited
number of channels (e.g., 24 or 48) and the method does not require
other special equipment apart from a set of low-frequency geo-
phones (typically 4.5 Hz vertical component). Although MASW
is fundamentally a 1D method that produces 1D velocity depth pro-
files, Xia et al. (1999) and Miller et al. (1999) implement MASW in
a continuous fashion along a survey line, providing 2D Vs sections
(see also Ivanov et al., 2006).
The original 2D implementation of MASW proposed by Xia et al.
(1999) used dozens of shot gathers to provide 2D Vs sections.
However, each dispersion curve was calculated from an individual
shot gather, thus limiting the spatial resolution. To increase the
spatial resolution, Hayashi and Suzuki (2004) apply elements of
the common-midpoint (CMP) method, as used in seismic reflection,
to MASW. The resulting method is called CMP crosscorrelation
(CMP-CC) analysis. The CMP-CC analysis method calculates
crosscorrelations for all possible pairs of traces, groups crosscorre-
lations having CMPs, and converts crosscorrelations to a phase
velocity image at each CMP. Hayashi and Suzuki (2004) demon-
strate that the CMP-CC method results in an improvement in spatial
resolution compared to conventional 2D MASW based on shot
gathers.
Researchers introduced seismic interferometry (SI), which re-
trieves the Green’s functions from the crosscorrelation of ambient
noise (e.g., Rickett and Claerbout, 1999; Schuster et al., 2004;
Wapenaar, 2004). SI is used in global seismology to determine
the 3D V S structure at a crustal scale from ambient noise recorded
by permanent stations with long period seismometers. Group veloc-
ity is usually calculated from crosscorrelations, and traveltime
tomography is used to interpolate group or phase velocities to
estimate local V S profiles (e.g., Lin et al., 2008, 2012; Shen and
Ritzwoller, 2016). This implementation is often called ambient
noise tomography (e.g., Ritzwoller et al., 2011). When we process
surface waves, which propagate horizontally, SI is essentially the
same as SPAC (e.g., Tsai and Moschetti, 2010). The primary
differences between SI and SPAC are in data acquisition and sensor
distribution, rather than processing. The reason ambient noise
tomography must use the group velocity rather than the phase veloc-
ity is that the stations are too sparsely distributed and the phase
velocity cannot be calculated due to spatial aliasing. Calculating
the group velocity is generally difficult, unstable, and requires much
longer records of ambient noise than for phase velocity calculation.
In the data acquisition and processing method presented below, sen-
sors are deployed with sufficiently small spacing to avoid spatial alias-
ing and allow for the straightforward measurement of phase velocity.
In this paper, we apply the concept of CMP-CC analysis to seis-
mic ambient noise and propose CMP-SPAC. The methods calculate
phase velocities from ambient noise recorded with a spatially un-
aliased sensor distribution and estimate 2D (Hayashi et al., 2015) or
3D (Hayashi et al., 2018a) V S structures to depths of several hun-
dreds of meters. CMP-CC is used for processing active data, and
CMP-SPAC is used for processing passive data.
Active methods such as MASW and CMP-CC are based on the
assumption that surface waves propagate only in one direction.
CMP-SPAC is a passive method that assumes an omnidirectional
wavefield. Both methods calculate crosscorrelation and complex
coherence. CMP-CC and CMP-SPAC compare the real part of
the complex coherence with a cosine and Bessel function, respec-
tively. The most obvious advantage of passive over active methods
is the penetration depth. Active-source surface-wave methods have
chronic limitations in penetration depth. Sledgehammer or acceler-
ated weight drop sources seldom achieve penetration depths greater
than 15 or 30 m, respectively (e.g., Foti et al., 2017). Active sources
alone may not be sufficient to reach the 30 m depth typically re-
quired in engineering surveys (Hayashi et al., 2016). However, pas-
sive surface-wave methods can achieve considerably greater
penetration depths. Passive surveys using compact and inexpensive
equipment introduced in the paper can easily penetrate several hun-
dred meters (e.g., Hayashi and Craig, 2017). In general, passive sur-
face-wave methods provide vertical resolution that is comparable to
that of active methods (Hayashi et al., 2016). Ideally, active and
passive methods should be performed for engineering investigations
(e.g., Craig et al., 2021). However, if only one of the survey types
can be performed, the passive method may provide better overall
results than the active method alone (Asten and Hayashi, 2018).
In active-source surveys, the generation of seismic waves by a
sledgehammer or weight drop can occupy most of the personnel’s
time. The use of passive methods eliminates the need for an artificial
source and dramatically reduces the field effort.
For the past several decades, seismic exploration has been con-
ducted using cabled seismographic systems that use spread cables
and strings of geophones, which are not well suited for the forma-
tion of large 2D arrays with a large number of elements. Recently
developed small and inexpensive cableless (nodal) seismograph
units, however, enable us to easily deploy complicated arrays.
We developed a new cableless seismograph specifically for am-
bient noise recording that was used in this work (Appendix A). In
previous studies, we evaluated the feasibility of the CMP-SPAC
method by numerical simulations (Hayashi et al., 2019) and applied
the method to engineering and environmental site investigations
(e.g., Hayashi et al., 2018b, 2020; Hayashi and Konishi, 2019;
Tan et al., 2019). Below, we describe the equipment, data acquis-
ition, processing methods, and numerical simulations. We use the
 CMP spatial autocorrelation analysis
term ambient noise tomography in the remainder of this paper to
refer to the passive surface-wave method using spatially unaliased
receiver arrays and the CMP-SPAC method.
Downloaded 08/15/22 to 192.130.254.9. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/page/policies/terms
To evaluate and demonstrate the applicability of the proposed
method compared with conventional seismic methods, a 3D survey
was carried out using the ambient noise tomography method to in-
vestigate an active fault in Hebei Province, China. The survey was
conducted in the city of Sanhe, 50 km from downtown Beijing. The
site is located in the Yanshan Piedmont plain, and the surface topog-
raphy of the investigated site is almost flat. Quaternary deposits are
present at the surface, with underlying bedrock of mainly Protero-
zoic carbonates. Several major active faults run through the region,
including the Xiadian fault, which is associated with recent seismic
activity (Dengmei, 2018). The epicenter of the 1679 Sanhe-Pinggu
M8.0 earthquake was located near the Xiadian fault. Numerous geo-
logic (Chen et al., 2017; Yu et al., 2020) and geophysical investi-
gations, including a 2D seismic reflection profile (Yong et al., 2014;
Meng et al., 2019), have been carried out in the area, and the lo-
cation of the fault has been mapped carefully.
COMMON-MIDPOINT SPAC
To estimate Vs from surface waves, CMP-SPAC applies the con-
cept of SI to the CMP method used in 2D and 3D seismic reflection
DOI:10.1190/geo2020-0467.1
acquisition and processing. The CMP-SPAC method is a general-
ized approach that is appropriate for use with ambient noise, when
the location of the source is unknown. The CMP-CC method is a
more specialized approach that is appropriate for active-source sur-
face-wave surveys. In the latter case, we only need a simple 1D
(linear) array to calculate the phase velocity from surface wave data
because the source location is known (generally at one end of the
recording spread) and directional averaging is not necessary. The
elimination of directional averaging for the active source case al-
lows the Bessel function to be replaced with a cosine function.
The data processing of CMP-SPAC consists of the following steps:
1) Calculate crosscorrelations: Crosscorrelations are calculated for
all possible pairs of receivers in each recording patch (Fig-
ure 1a). To treat seismic ambient noise as a random stochastic
phenomenon, spatially and temporally, we need to take an aver-
age of long data records. Long continuous ambient noise re-
cords are divided into many time blocks, and each time the
block is Fourier transformed from the time domain to the fre-
quency domain. Crosscorrelation is calculated between two
EN53
traces. Surface-wave analysis only needs the phase difference,
so we divide the crosscorrelation by autocorrelation, which re-
moves amplitude information and yields the complex coherence
(COH),
CCðr; ωÞ
COHðr; ωÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ;
ACðx; y; ωÞACðx þ Δx; y þ Δy; ωÞ
(1)
where x and y are the coordinates of each geophone, r is the
distance between two geophones, ω is the angular frequency,
and CC and AC are the crosscorrelation and autocorrelation
of seismic ambient noise recorded by the two geophones, re-
spectively. We take the average over all time blocks because
of the random stochastic nature of the data,
1X n
COHðωÞ ¼ COHðωÞi ; (2)
n i¼1
where n is the number of ambient noise time blocks.
2) Calculate dispersion curves from CMP-SPACs: We gather com-
plex coherences having the same midpoint. Coherences belong-
ing to each CMP bin include many different sensor pair
azimuths (Figure 1), providing directional averaging (for de-
tails, see Appendix B). The directional average of coherences
yields the SPAC:
Z φ¼2π
SPACðωÞ ¼ ReðCOHðφ; ωÞÞdφ; (3)
φ¼0
where φ is the sensor pair azimuth. We assume an isotropic
medium in which V S is the same regardless of azimuth.
We use only the real part of the complex coherences because
the imaginary part goes to zero by directional averaging if
the ambient noise only propagates in the horizontal direction.
Aki (1957) recognizes that the real part of SPAC approaches
a Bessel function. We compare the real part of SPAC with a
Bessel function and the set of phase velocities providing mini-
mum error corresponds to the dispersion curve of the observed
data
Figure 1. Acquisition geometry and CMP bin-
ning. (a) Example of acquisition geometry. Each
colored square indicates a patch recorded at a dif-
ferent time during the survey. Each patch consists
of 64 receivers. Nine patches are shown in this ex-
ample. Each thin magenta line indicates one
receiver pair used for a crosscorrelation. (b) Exam-
ple of receiver pairs belonging to one CMP (the
black box in the center). Each red line connects
a pair of receivers (the solid red circles) belonging
to the CMP.
 EN54 Hayashi et al.
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  2ffi
u on an empirical relationship (Kitsunezaki et al., 1990). Density
u Pm
u k¼1 SPACðωÞ − J 0 cðωÞ ω·Δx was calculated based on an empirical relationship (Ludwig et al.,
t
ε¼ (4) 1970). We applied a horizontal constraint among V S profiles
Downloaded 08/15/22 to 192.130.254.9. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/page/policies/terms

k
;
m throughout the inversions to ensure that 2D and 3D V S models
where cðωÞ is the phase velocity of seismic ambient noise, m is
the number of SPAC traces in a CMP-SPAC gather, and J0 is a
Bessel function of the first kind.
3) Estimate V S profiles from dispersion curves: We used a nonlin-
ear least-squares inversion and genetic algorithm (Suzuki and
Yamanaka, 2010) to estimate 1D V S profiles from dispersion
curves at each CMP bin. A matrix method (Saito and Kabasawa,
1993) was used to calculate theoretical dispersion curves, taking
into account fundamental and higher modes (up to the 5th to
10th modes). The initial velocity models were created by trans-
forming dispersion curve picks from the frequency-phase veloc-
ity (f-c) domain to the velocity-depth (V S , z) domain (Xia et al.,
1999). The velocity associated with each dispersion curve pick
(an f, c pair) was mapped to a depth that is one-third its wave-
length (λ ¼ c∕f; z ¼ λ∕3) (e.g., Gazetas, 1982). There is fairly
good agreement that the penetration depth and vertical resolu-
tion of the surface-wave method are about one-half to one-third
of the maximum and minimum Rayleigh-wave wavelengths, re-
spectively, based on numerical (e.g., Gazetas, 1982; Xia et al.,
1999) and experimental studies (e.g., Foti et al., 2017; Hayashi,
DOI:10.1190/geo2020-0467.1
were smooth. One-dimensional V S profiles from adjacent
CMPs were spatially concatenated to prepare pseudo-2D and
pseudo-3D V S models.
NUMERICAL EXAMPLE
We performed a numerical simulation of the ambient noise wave-
field for 2D and 3D velocity models using a 3D finite-difference
method as a way of testing the effect of complex structures on
the results of the ambient noise tomography method. We used a
numerical simulation because the analytical calculation of surface
waves propagating 2D or 3D velocity structure is quite difficult. The
synthetic ambient noise data were processed using the CMP-SPAC
method.
A 3D viscoelastic finite-difference method with a fourth-order
velocity-stress staggered grid scheme (Levander, 1988) was used
to generate synthetic ambient noise data (Figure 2). Ten 65 s records
were calculated with different random source distributions. The
synthetic ambient noise data described above were processed using
the CMP-SPAC method (Figure 3).

2019). The initial velocity model was used for a nonlinear least-
squares inversion or to define the search area of the genetic al-
gorithm. We fixed the number of layers at 10–20 and only
changed V S throughout the inversions. The P-wave velocity
(V P ) was either fixed as twice the V S , or it was calculated based
Processing results using synthetic data
A two-layer 2D model with a step was used in the first simulation
(Figure 4a). Coherences and phase-velocity spectra from selected

Figure 2. Model used to generate the synthetic

data in the finite-difference simulation. (a) The
3D block diagram. (b) Plan view of recording
surface showing source and receiver locations.
The dimensions of the model are
550 × 550 × 440 m, and the cell size is 1 m.
The time step was 0.25 ms, the number of time
steps was 260,000, and the record length was
65 s. Receivers were deployed in a
100 × 100 m square array with 4 m spacing be-
tween receivers. The number of receivers was
676. Sources were randomly distributed outside
of the receiver array (on a circle in [a] and [b])
to simulate a stochastic ambient noise field, spa-
tially and temporally random.

Figure 3. Geometry used for recording and CMP

binning. (a) Receiver distribution. An example
CMP bin is indicated by the red square in the
upper right corner. (b) Raypaths (the red lines) of
receiver pairs sharing the same CMP bin (the small
black square). The CMP bin size is 10 × 10 m, and
the number of bins is 100. All of the receivers are
used to calculate coherences at each CMP in the
numerical simulation.
 CMP spatial autocorrelation analysis EN55

locations (Figure 4c and 4d) indicate clear differences in the veloc- The second simulation used a 3D model consisting of three layers
ity structure depending on the location. The velocity model ob- with two isolated low-velocity zones (Figure 5a). In the 3D velocity
tained from the ambient noise tomography (Figure 4b) captures model obtained from ambient noise tomography, the two low-veloc-
Downloaded 08/15/22 to 192.130.254.9. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/page/policies/terms

the step in the velocity model. At a depth of 30 m, the estimated ity zones in the original model were detected (Figure 5b). The
values of V S are accurate to within approximately 20%–25% of the resultant 3D velocity model (Figure 5b) was reasonably consistent
true velocities. with the true model (Figure 5a) and resolved small anomalies con-

Figure 4. Numerical simulation of ambient noise

tomography data using 2D two-layer structure
with a step. (a) The velocity model used in simu-
lations. The V S of two layers is 200 and 500 m/s,
respectively. The depth of the boundary ranges
from 20 to 40 m. Boxes A and B indicate the lo-
cations of the coherences and f-c spectra shown
below. (b) Reconstructed velocity model. (c) Co-
herences corresponding to the CMPs at locations
A and B in the model (a). (d) Phase velocity im-
ages in the frequency domain corresponding to the
CMPs at locations A and B. The velocity model
obtained from the ambient noise tomography
(b) captures the step in the velocity model. At a
depth of 30 m, estimated values of V S are accurate
to within approximately 20%–25% of the true
velocities.
DOI:10.1190/geo2020-0467.1

Figure 5. Numerical simulation of the 3D three-

layer structure with low-velocity zones. (a) Actual
velocity model. (b) Reconstructed velocity model.
The model (a) consists of three layers with V S of
400, 600, and 800 m∕s. There are two low-veloc-
ity zones with V S of 200 m/s at depths of 3 and
6 m. Both are 20 m square and 5 m thick. In
the 3D velocity model obtained from ambient
noise tomography (b), two low-velocity zones
were detected, which are reasonably consistent
with the original model.
 EN56 Hayashi et al.

sidering receiver spacing (4 m), bin size (10 m), and the minimum area, whereas the sparse grid covered the entire investigation area
retrieved wavelength (approximately 10 m). and penetrated to a greater depth. We calculated dispersion curves
The results of simulations and analysis of synthetic data indicate from dense and sparse grid data and combined them before applying
Downloaded 08/15/22 to 192.130.254.9. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/page/policies/terms

that the dispersion curves of surface waves obtained from seismic
ambient noise generally reflect velocity structure beneath a receiver
array. The results of simulations also demonstrate that the appli-
cability of the ambient noise tomography based on the CMP-SPAC
analysis to complex velocity structures.
the inversion. The acquisition parameters used for the dense and
sparse measurements are summarized in Table 1.
Coherences (Figure 9a and 9b) have the characteristic shape of
Bessel functions, and clear dispersion curves were obtained (Fig-

ACTIVE FAULT INVESTIGATION USING 3D

AMBIENT NOISE TOMOGRAPHY, HEBEI
PROVINCE, CHINA
Having demonstrated the applicability of this method in the pre-
vious section, we carried out a survey to investigate the Xiadian
fault in the Hebei Province, China (Figure 6). The Xiadian fault
poses an earthquake hazard to Beijing, which lies only 50 km away.
The main survey area had a rectangular footprint 330 × 630 m
(217;800 m2 ) and was recorded using 30 m receiver spacing (Fig-
ure 7). We conducted a smaller, additional survey within the main
survey area using a 5 m receiver spacing to provide higher resolu-
tion over a limited area. A seismic reflection profile was available at
this site against which the results of our survey could be compared.
The following section summarizes the data acquisition, data
DOI:10.1190/geo2020-0467.1

processing, and results.

Data acquisition and processing

We recorded data using 64 cableless (nodal) single-channel seis-
mograph units, each acting as a recording node, equipped with a
vertical-component 2 Hz geophone (for details, see Appendix A).
The typical recording geometry and roll along scheme are shown in
Figure 8. We deployed nodes on a series of rectangular grids. We
recorded seismic ambient noise for 20–60 min, depending on the
investigation depth (Hayashi, 2019), and then we picked up half
Figure 7. Receiver locations for dense (the small orange dots) and
of the nodes from the rear of the recording patch and rolled them sparse (the blue dots) measurements. The extent of the sparse grid is
to the front. We repeated this procedure until all of the targeted lo- 330 × 630 m. Circles A and B are the locations of the example
cations were completed. SPAC analyses shown in Figure 9. Square boxes a, b, c, and d
We conducted two separate surveys using rectangular grids of are the locations of the dispersion curves and the 1D Vs profiles
shown in Figure 10. The dashed lines (cc(a), cc(b), and cc(c)) show
sensors to record ambient noise. Two grids of sensors using differ- the location of cross sections in Figure 11. The solid black line ori-
ent receiver spacings, 5 and 30 m, were used to record the seismic ented north–south shows the location of the seismic reflection pro-
ambient noise (Figure 7). The dense grid provided better resolution file in Figure 13a.
at shallow depths over a limited area in the middle of the survey

Figure 6. The investigation site in Hebei Prov-

ince, China, is shown with the black circle. The
approximate location of the Xiadian fault from
previous studies (Yong et al., 2014; Chen et al.,
2017; Meng et al., 2019) is shown with the dashed
red line (map modified from OpenStreetMap).
 CMP spatial autocorrelation analysis EN57

ure 9c and 9d). The maximum phase velocity obtained from the of receiver pairs is limited and velocity estimates are less reliable
sparse measurements was approximately 600 m/s at a frequency in those locations.
of 1 Hz (Figure 9c and 9d), which corresponds to a maximum wave- The results of the velocity model obtained from the field inves-
Downloaded 08/15/22 to 192.130.254.9. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/page/policies/terms

length of approximately 600 m and a measurement depth of approx-
imately 200 m based on the one-third wavelength assumption
(e.g., Gazetas, 1982). The minimum wavelength obtained from
the dense measurements was approximately 6 m, implying a vertical
resolution near the surface of approximately 2 m. A comparison of
phase velocity-frequency spectra from different locations in the sur-
vey area (Figure 9c and 9d) reveals that phase velocities to the south
(Figure 9d) are lower than those in the north (Figure 9c). A com-
parison of a series of dispersion curves and 1D velocity models
from different locations in the survey area also reveal a progressive
increase in velocities from south to north (Figure 10).
tigation at the Xiadian fault may be compared with the seismic re-
flection section (Figure 13). Based on the interpretation of the
seismic reflection section (Figure 13a), the fault appears to be a
south-dipping normal fault. Displacement along the fault appears
to be larger at shallow depths (to 80 m deep) than at greater depths
(80–150 m deep). The V S cross section obtained from the ambient
noise tomography also indicates normal faulting in about the same
location. However, the displacement appears to increase with depth,
a characteristic of a growth fault. In the V S cross section, we can
recognize a low-velocity zone in the upper 25 m over the distance

Velocity model
Example V S cross sections obtained from ambient noise tomog-
raphy are shown in Figure 11. The velocity structure can be repre-
sented by a three-layer model, and it is clear that the surface and
second layers thin from south to north. The changes in the layer
thickness are consistent with movement on the Xiadian fault. A per-
spective diagram of the engineering bedrock surface defined based
on V S > 550 m∕s (Disaster Prevention Institute of Science and
Technology, 2017) shows that the bedrock depth changes approx-
DOI:10.1190/geo2020-0467.1

imately 50 m in the middle of the investigation area (Figure 12). The

step in bedrock depth is apparently due to displacement on the Xia-
dian fault. The apparent fault displacement on V S sections from am-
bient noise tomography was verified by comparison with a seismic
reflection profile (Figure 13) obtained at the middle of the site (for
the location, see Figure 7).

DISCUSSION
The use of 1D or 2D active-source surface-wave methods such as Figure 8. Schematic diagram of typical data acquisition. The gray
MASW or CMP-CC (Hayashi and Suzuki, 2004) and 1D passive circles indicate the receivers’ (nodes) locations. The receiver spac-
ing may range from 5 to 30 m depending on the investigation depth.
surface-wave methods such as SPAC (Asten and Hayashi, 2018) (a) Square 8 × 8 grid of 64 nodes (the gray circles) in the starting
or a refraction microtremor method (Louie, 2001) has increased position. (b) After each measurement, the first 32 nodes (the rec-
during the past two decades for noninvasive estimation of the tangle) are rolled forward. (c) Recording patch for the second ob-
near-surface V S structure. Passive methods have several significant servation period. The spread is rolled forward again to form the next
advantages over the active method, as summarized above. Below, recording patch. (d) Final recording patch.
we summarize the advantages of the CMP-SPAC method using a
large number of receivers in a 2D array over traditional 1D passive
surface-wave methods. The passive surface-wave method requires
Table 1. Acquisition and processing parameters used for the
the presence of ambient noise. Ample ambient noise is usually dense and sparse measurements.
present in urban and rural settings, and it tends to be relatively
omnidirectional (Hayashi and Kita, 2010). In settings in which
the ambient noise wavefield is not omnidirectional, a simple linear Dense Sparse
(1D) receiver array, such as the one used for an active survey, may measurements measurements
not provide correct phase velocities. Two-dimensional isotropic ar-
Survey footprint 170 × 270 m 330 × 630 m
rays, such as the square grid patterns used in this study or a triangu-
lar array, should be used to ensure directional averaging as shown in Number of array positions 52 8
Appendix B. Performance evaluations of linear and grid arrays Total number of receiver 1835 253
under conditions of unidirectional and omnidirectional noise are locations
Receiver spacing 5m 30 m
provided in Appendix B. Implementation of the CMP-SPAC
method that we have presented uses a large number of receivers Receiver offset range 5–55 m 30–310 m
compared with traditional 1D surface-wave methods, and it pro- Data length of each array 30 min 60 min
vides greatly improved directional averaging, which enables us CMP intervals (bin size) 10 m 30 m
to apply the method to 2D and 3D investigations. In the case of Number of CMP bins 458 227
3D surveys, at the edges of the survey area, the azimuthal range
 EN58 Hayashi et al.

Figure 9. Examples of coherences and phase

velocity images in the frequency domain obtained
from sparse (30 m sensor spacing) measurements
Downloaded 08/15/22 to 192.130.254.9. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/page/policies/terms

calculated for CMPs labeled A and B in Figure 7.

(a) Coherences at CMP label A, (b) coherences at
CMP label B, (c) phase velocity-frequency at
CMP label A, and (d) phase velocity-frequency
at CMP label B. The phase velocities to the south
(d) are clearly lower than those in the north (c).

Figure 10. Example (a) dispersion curves and

(b) 1D V S profiles from different locations in
DOI:10.1190/geo2020-0467.1

the investigation area obtained from the inversion.

(a) The dispersion curves and (b) velocity models
show a progressive increase in velocities from the
south (the red curve) to the north (the blue curve).
For the locations of the dispersion curves and V S
profiles, see Figure 7 for the map.

Figure 11. The V S cross sections obtained from

ambient noise tomography. (a) North–south cross
section, crossing the Xiadian fault, (b) east–west
cross section, located in the southern portion of
the survey area, and (c) east–west cross section,
located in the northern portion of the survey area.
The locations of the cross sections are shown in
Figure 7. The velocity structure may be summa-
rized with a three-layer model: The surface layer
has V S < 300 m∕s and ranges in thickness from
approximately 20 to approximately 50 m. The
V S in the second layer ranges from 300 to
550 m/s. The thickness of the second layer ranges
from approximately 50 to 70 m. The third layer,
with V S > 550 m∕s, corresponds to engineering
bedrock (Disaster Prevention Institute of Science
and Technology, 2017). Its depth ranges from ap-
proximately 70 to 120 m.
 CMP spatial autocorrelation analysis
Downloaded 08/15/22 to 192.130.254.9. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/page/policies/terms
Figure 12. Perspective diagram of top surface of engineering bed-
rock, defined as V S ¼ 550 m∕s. See Figure 7 for the location. The
dashed lines (a-c) correspond to locations of 2D velocity cross sec-
tions shown in Figure 11.
DOI:10.1190/geo2020-0467.1
Figure 13. Comparison of the velocity model from ambient noise
tomography with the seismic reflection profile. North is to the right.
(a) Seismic reflection profile (Disaster Prevention Institute of Science
and Technology, 2017); see the basemap in Figure 7 for the line
location. (b) The 2D velocity profile extracted from ambient noise
tomography model at the same location as the seismic reflection pro-
file. In the seismic reflection section (a), the location of the fault (the
red line) is interpreted based on offset reflectors between two-way
times of 50–250 ms. The deepest reflector at a two-way time of
100–150 ms corresponds to engineering bedrock (Disaster Prevention
Institute of Science and Technology, 2017), which corresponds to the
third layer in the ambient noise tomography model, defined as having
V S > 550 m/s. In the reflection profile (a), there is a clear offset of the
reflectors at two-way times of 100–200 ms, corresponding to depths
of 50–100 m. The velocity model from ambient noise tomography
(b) also indicates the presence of a fault in approximately the same
location, between 300 and 550 m/s contours. The apparent dip direc-
tion and sense of motion of the fault are the same for the ambient noise
velocity model as for the reflection profile.
range 200–250 m. The low-velocity zone appears to correspond to a
fractured zone associated with recent fault activity (Yu et al., 2020).
The seismic reflection section did not delineate the shallow low-
velocity zone. However, it does more tightly constrain the location
EN59
of the surface trace of the fault based on the offset of the shallowest
reflector.
CONCLUSION
An ambient noise tomography method was developed for the de-
termination of 2D and 3D near-surface V S structures, suitable for
engineering and environmental site investigations. The method uses
dozens of sensors on spatially unaliased 2D arrays and calculates
the phase velocity curves in terms of CMP-SPAC. A new cableless
seismograph makes it possible to easily deploy 2D arrays with doz-
ens of receivers in urban areas. The CMP-SPAC method was used to
calculate dispersion curves from spatially unaliased seismic ambi-
ent noise data obtained from dense 60 receiver arrays. To evaluate
the applicability of ambient noise tomography to complex velocity
structures with lateral velocity changes, numerical simulations were
performed using a 3D finite-difference method. Reconstructed V S
models were consistent with velocity models used in the simula-
tions, confirming that the dispersion curves obtained from ambient
noise are in general agreement with the velocity structure beneath a
receiver array. A 3D ambient noise tomography survey of an active
fault was carried out in Hebei Province, China. Sixty-four cableless
seismograph units with vertical-component 2 Hz geophones were
used for data acquisition. The CMP-SPAC method was used to cal-
culate dispersion curves from ambient noise data. The resultant 3D
V S model clearly delineates a change in the bedrock depth due to
the vertical offset on the fault. The numerical and field examples
presented above demonstrate that the CMP-SPAC method can be
used to simply and quickly estimate 2D and 3D V S models from
the surface to depths ranging from several tens of meters to hun-
dreds of meters. As cableless systems gain popularity in the engi-
neering community, we expect that the use of passive surface-wave
methods (e.g., CMP-SPAC) will become a standard tool for site in-
vestigations that is used at least as often as active methods
(e.g., CMP-CC).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the three anonymous reviewers, Assistant Editor J. Et-
gen, and the associate editor for their constructive reviews and com-
ments, which greatly improved the quality of the manuscript.
DATA AND MATERIALS AVAILABILITY
Data associated with this research are available and can be
obtained by contacting the corresponding author.
APPENDIX A
SEISMOGRAPH SPECIFICATIONS AND GEO-
PHONE PERFORMANCE
This work was conducted in conjunction with the development of
a cableless (nodal) seismograph. Because the method requires a 2D
array consisting of dozens of receivers, a compact cableless seismo-
graph was needed for data acquisition, particularly in urban areas.
The characteristics of the seismograph (Geometrics Atom) that we
developed are briefly summarized here. A single-channel version of
the seismograph was the standard unit used for the bulk of the CMP-
SPAC surveying. A three-channel version was used with 3C geo-
 EN60 Hayashi et al.

APPENDIX B
EFFECT OF DIRECTIONAL CHAR-
Downloaded 08/15/22 to 192.130.254.9. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/page/policies/terms

ACTERISCS OF AMBIENT NOISE

PROPAGATION AND ARRAY PAT-
TERNS ON CMP-CPAC
The seismic ambient noise wavefield is com-
monly assumed to be omnidirectional (isotropic)
due not only to ubiquitous sources over a full
range of azimuths, but also to scattering from
heterogeneities in the near surface. In the case
of surface waves, wave propagation is confined
to the horizontal plane, by omnidirectional we
mean a full 360° range of azimuths, and scatter-
ers include topographic irregularities.
In cases in which ambient noise is omnidirec-
tional, the SPAC method can provide good re-
sults with a simple linear (1D) array. However,
in cases in which noise is not omnidirectional,
a 2D azimuthally symmetric (isotropic) array
such as a circle or triangle is needed to provide
Figure A-1. Field test of 2 Hz geophones (the red curve) and 10 Hz geophones (the blue directional averaging to obtain correct phase
curve) for SPAC and HVSR. The broadband accelerometer (the green curve) is refer- velocities (Hayashi, 2009; Hayashi and Kita,
ence. (a) SPAC at 892 m sensor separation, (b) SPAC at 1717 m sensor separation, 2010).
(c) SPAC at 4330 m sensor separation, and (d) HVSR. One hour of ambient noise
DOI:10.1190/geo2020-0467.1

was recorded with all three types of sensors, with sensor separations of 892, 1717, A nested triangle array is an efficient design
and 4330 m. Two Hz and 10 Hz vertical-component geophones were used in SPAC using a small number of sensors that may be used
tests. Two Hz 3C phones were used in the HVSR test. The tests were performed in for deep 1D velocity surveying (e.g., Craig et al.,
Cupertino, California. 2018). In the present study, we used a square grid
array. In the square grid array, the receiver pairs
phones for horizontal to vertical spectral ratio (HVSR) surveys at used for calculating a dispersion curve at each CMP bin generally
selected locations. HVSR, in which horizontal spectrum of ambient include a full range of azimuths (Figure 1b), providing an essen-
noise is divided by vertical, is an ambient noise processing method tially isotropic array. Although the square grid array requires a rel-
that is widely used to measure resonant frequency and estimate atively large number of sensors, it provides a relatively flat response
depth to bedrock (Nakamura, 1989; Seht and Wohlenberg, 1999; in the wavenumber domain and avoids the sidelobes of a simple
Parolai et al., 2002; Setiawan et al., 2018). circular array (Craig and Genter, 2006). Finally, the square grid ar-
Each of the seismograph units used in this study includes a CPU, ray may be deployed efficiently for 3D data acquisition, as demon-
24-bit A/D converter, GPS-controlled clock, battery, and 4–32 GB of strated in the site investigation above.
internal data storage, all in a compact, lightweight case. The GPS We performed a simple numerical simulation to evaluate the ef-
clock allows data recorded on different units to be synchronized with- fects of the directional characteristics of ambient noise propagation
out cables. Once the unit is turned on and achieves GPS lock, it auto- and array patterns (Hayashi and Kita, 2010) on CMP-SPAC. The
matically begins recording. Users can download data from multiple array patterns that we tested were linear, nested triangle, and square
units simultaneously by Wi-Fi and directly into data processing soft- grid (Figure B-1a). The simulation used plane Rayleigh waves
ware. Vertical or 3C 2 Hz geophones are normally used as sensors. propagating horizontally with a phase velocity of 200 m/s. For
To evaluate the performance of geophones at the lower end of their SPAC analysis, only the vertical component was used. We calcu-
frequency range, a field test was carried out using 2 and 10 Hz geo- lated three cases with different distributions of propagation direc-
phones and a broadband accelerometer (OYO McSEIS-MTNeo) as a tions. The first case simulated omnidirectional ambient noise by
reference. The test was performed in Cupertino, California, apart using Rayleigh waves propagating in 18 different directions. In
from the 3D measurements in China. The accelerometer provides the second and third cases, wave propagation was unidirectional,
in the directions of 30° and 45°.
superior performance (a flat response) at low frequencies (approxi-
Dispersion curves were obtained from the simulations and were
mately 0.2 Hz). One hour of ambient noise was recorded with all
compared for each of the array types (Figure B-1b). The frequency
three types of sensors, with sensor separations of 892, 1717, and
range of interest, based on the minimum and maximum receiver
4330 m. Recorded data were used to compute SPAC and HVSR spacing, was 1.5–20.0 Hz. An array’s performance was judged
(Figure A-1). The 2 Hz geophones provide SPAC and HVSR that based on how close estimated velocities were to the true value
is almost identical to that of the accelerometer down to a frequency of 200 m/s. All arrays performed well in the case of omnidirectional
of 0.2 Hz, which is remarkable performance, considering that the noise. The linear array obtained the correct phase velocities (200 m/
natural frequency of the geophone is only 2 Hz. The comparison s) from the multidirectional wavefield but not in the case of the uni-
of HVSR demonstrated the quality of the horizontal component data directional ones. The triangular array provided inconsistent results
and their applicability to earthquake engineering. in the case of the unidirectional wavefields; this may be related to its
 CMP spatial autocorrelation analysis EN61
Downloaded 08/15/22 to 192.130.254.9. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/page/policies/terms
DOI:10.1190/geo2020-0467.1

Figure B-1. Test of array performance with multidirectional and unidirectional wavefield. (a) Arrays used in the simulation. (b) Dispersion
curves obtained from the simulation. A linear array is usually used in active methods or SI, a triangular array is typically used in conventional
1D passive surface-wave methods or microtremor array measurements, and a grid array was used in this study. The maximum receiver spacing
was 50 m in all arrays. The minimum receiver spacing was 5 m in the linear and grid arrays and 3.6 m in the triangular array.

having a relatively small number of sensors (only 13, as opposed to
the 64 of the grid array), better results would probably be obtained
with an array using a larger number of sensors. The grid array,
which was the standard array used for data acquisition and simu-
lations presented above, clearly provided the best overall perfor-
mance in the case of a unidirectional wavefield, and it is the
preferred choice provided that a sufficient number of sensors is
available.
REFERENCES
Aki, K., 1957, Space and time spectra of stationary stochastic waves, with
special reference to microtremors: Bulletin of the Earthquake Research
Institute, 35, 415–456.
Asten, M. W., and K. Hayashi, 2018, Application of the spatial auto-corre-
lation method for shear-wave velocity studies using ambient noise: Sur-
veys in Geophysics, 39, 633–659, doi: 10.1007/s10712-018-9474-2.
Boore, M. D., 2006, Determining subsurface shear-wave velocities: A re-
view: Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on the Effects
of Surface Geology on Seismic Motion, 103.
Chen, Y., J. Shen, J. Zhang, J. Zhao, and M. Hu, 2017, Grain-size analysis
and sedimentary environment research of Quaternary sediments on Xia-
dian Active Fault: Journal of Institute of Disaster Prevention, 19, 18–27.
Craig, M., and R. L. Genter, 2006, Geophone array formation and semblance
evaluation: Geophysics, 71, no. 1, Q1–Q8, doi: 10.1190/1.2159055.
Craig, M., K. Hayashi, and O. Kozaci, 2021, Active and passive seismic
surface wave methods for levee assessment in the Sacramento-San Joa-
quin Delta, California, USA: Near Surface Geophysics, 19, 141–154, doi:
10.1002/nsg.12144.
Craig, M., N. Kundariya, M. Burnham, and K. Hayashi, 2018, S-wave veloc-
ity measurements in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta using active and
passive surface wave methods: 88th Annual International Meeting, SEG,
Expanded Abstracts, 4884–4888, doi: 10.1190/segam2018-2998566.1.
Dengmei, D. M., 2018, Study on the geometry distribution and paleoearth-
quake of the Xiadian buried fault in the area of Beijing Plain (in Chinese):
Institute of Disaster Prevention.
Disaster Prevention Institute of Science and Technology, 2017, Active fault
detection and earthquake risk evaluation report in Sanhe City, 26–31 (in
Chinese).
Foti, S., S. Hollender, F. Garofalo, D. Albarello, M. Asten, P. Y. Bard, C.
Comina, C. Cornou, B. Cox, G. Di Giulio, T. Forbriger, K. Hayashi, E.
Lunedei, A. Martin, D. Mercerat, M. Ohrnberger, V. Poggi, F. Renalier, D.
Sicilia, and L. V. Socco, 2017, Guidelines for the good practice of
surface wave analysis: A product of the InterPACIFIC project: Bulletin
of Earthquake Engineering, 16, 2367–2420, doi: 10.1007/s10518-017-
0206-7.
Gazetas, G., 1982, Vibrational characteristics of soil deposits with variable
wave velocity: International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Meth-
ods in Geomechanics, 6, 1–20, doi: 10.1002/nag.1610060103.
Hayashi, K., 2009, Effect of array shape on the spatial auto-correlation
analysis of micro-tremor array measurements: Proceedings of the Sym-
posium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environ-
mental Problems, 616–625.
Hayashi, K., 2019, Near-surface engineering, in N. Nakata, L. Gualtieri, and
A. Fichtner, eds., Seismic ambient noise: Cambridge University Press,
302–337.
Hayashi, K., R. Cakir, and T. J. Walsh, 2016, Comparison of dispersion
curves and velocity models obtained by active and passive surface wave
 EN62 Hayashi et al.
methods: 86th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts,
4983–4988, doi: 10.1190/segam2016-13846390.1.
Hayashi, K., and M. Craig, 2017, S-wave velocity measurement and the ef-
fect of basin geometry on site response, east San Francisco Bay area, Cal-
Downloaded 08/15/22 to 192.130.254.9. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/page/policies/terms
ifornia, USA: Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 98, 49–61, doi: 10
.1016/j.pce.2016.07.001.
Hayashi, K., M. Craig, T. Kita, and T. Inazaki, 2015, CMP spatial autocor-
relation analysis of multi-channel passive surface-wave data: 85th Annual
International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2200–2204, doi: 10
.1190/segam2015-5913708.1.
Hayashi, K., and T. Kita, 2010, Applicability of a spatial auto-correlation
method (SPAC) using a linear array in comparison with triangular and
L-shaped arrays: Proceedings of the Symposium on the Application of
Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, cp-175-
00063, doi: 10.3997/2214-4609-pdb.175.SAGEEP063.
Hayashi, K., and C. Konishi, 2019, Estimating 3D S-wave velocity struc-
tures from seismic ambient noise based on a common midpoint spatial
autocorrelation method: Geophysical Aspect of Smart Cities Workshop,
14.
Hayashi, K., C. Konishi, H. Suzuki, Y. Liu, M. Tahara, K. Falkenstein, M.
Craig, and L. T. Wong, 2018a, Development and application of 2D/3D
ambient noise tomography for near-surface S-wave velocity delineation:
88th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 4718–
4722, doi: 10.1190/segam2018-2996064.1.
Hayashi, K., J. M. Lorenzo, and A. Gostic, 2018b, Application of 2D am-
bient noise tomography to levee safety assessment in New Orleans: The
Leading Edge, 37, 740–745, doi: 10.1190/tle37100740.1.
Hayashi, K., A. Martin, K. Hatayama, and T. Kobayashi, 2013, Estimating
deep S-wave velocity structure in the Los Angeles Basin using a passive
surface wave method: The Leading Edge, 32, 620–626, doi: 10.1190/
tle32060620.1.
Hayashi, K., Y. S. Seik, Y. Y. Seik, L. T. Wong, J. Pang, and K. E. Suhartono,
2020, Bedrock depth mapping using a three-dimensional ambient noise
tomography at northern Singapore Island: Third Asia Pacific Meeting on
DOI:10.1190/geo2020-0467.1
Near Surface Geoscience and Engineering, 34.
Hayashi, K., and H. Suzuki, 2004, CMP cross-correlation analysis of multi-
channel surface-wave data: Exploration Geophysics, 35, 7–13, doi: 10
.1071/EG04007.
Hayashi, K., H. Suzuki, Y. Liu, and M. Tahara, 2019, Numerical simulation
of ambient noise tomography at 2D and 3D structures using 3D finite
difference method: Proceedings of the Symposium on the Application
of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, 180–183,
doi: 10.4133/sageep.32-045.
Ivanov, J., R. D. Miller, P. Lacombe, C. D. Johnson, and J. W. Lane Jr., 2006,
Delineating a shallow fault zone and dipping bedrock strata using multi-
channel analysis of surface waves with a land streamer: Geophysics, 71,
no. 5, A39–A42, doi: 10.1190/1.2227521.
Kitsunezaki, C., N. Goto, Y. Kobayashi, T. Ikawa, M. Horike, T. Saito, T.
Kurota, K. Yamane, and K. Okuzumi, 1990, Estimation of P- and S-wave
velocities in deep soil deposits for evaluating ground vibrations in earth-
quake: Sizen-saigai-kagaku, 9, 1–17.
Levander, A. R., 1988, Fourth-order finite-difference P-SV seismograms:
Geophysics, 53, 1425–1436, doi: 10.1190/1.1442422.
Lin, F., M. P. Moschetti, and M. H. Ritzwoller, 2008, Surface wave tomog-
raphy of the western United States from ambient seismic noise: Rayleigh
and Love wave phase velocity map: Geophysical Journal International,
173, 281–298, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2008.03720.x.
Lin, F., B. Schmandt, and V. C. Tsai, 2012, Joint inversion of Rayleigh wave
phase velocity and ellipticity using USArray: Constraining velocity and
density structure in the upper crust: Geophysical Research Letters, 39,
L12303, doi: 10.1029/2012GL052196.
Louie, J. M., 2001, Faster, better: Shear-wave velocity to 100 meters depth
from refraction microtremor arrays: Bulletin of the Seismological Society
of America, 91, 347–364, doi: 10.1785/0120000098.
Ludwig, W. J., J. E. Nafe, and C. L. Drake, 1970, Seismic refraction, in the
sea vol. 4, part 1: Wiley-Interscience, 53–84.
Meng, L., Y. Peng, Z. Ran, C. Wen, and Y. Wang, 2019, Features of the
southwest segment of Xiandian Fault revealed through shallow seismic
prospecting: Chinese Earthquake Engineering Journal, 41, 155–161.
Miller, R. D., J. Xia, C. B. Park, and J. M. Ivanov, 1999, Multichannel analy-
sis of surface waves to map bedrock: The Leading Edge, 18, 1392–1396,
doi: 10.1190/1.1438226.
Nakamura, Y., 1989, A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of
subsurface using microtremors on the ground surface: Quarterly Report
of Railway Technical Research Institute (RTRI), 30, 25–33.
Nazarian, S., K. H. Stokoe, and W. R. Hudson, 1983, Use of spectral analy-
sis of surface waves method for determination of moduli and thickness of
pavement system: Transportation Research Record, 930, 38–45.
Okada, H., 2003, The microtremor survey method: SEG, SEG Monograph
Series 12.
Okada, H., T. Matsushima, T. Moriya, and T. Sasatani, 1990, An exploration
technique using long-period microtremor for determination of deep geo-
logical structures under urbanized areas: Butsuri-Tansa, 43, 402–417.
Park, C. B., R. D. Miller, and J. Xia, 1999a, Multimodal analysis of
high frequency surface waves: Proceedings of the Symposium on the
Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems,
115–121.
Park, C. B., R. D. Miller, and J. Xia, 1999b, Multi-channel analysis of
surface waves: Geophysics, 64, 800–808, doi: 10.1190/1.1444590.
Parolai, S., P. Bormann, and C. Milkereit, 2002, New relationship between
Vs, thickness of sediments, and resonance frequency calculated by the
H/V ratio of seismic noise for the Cologne area (Germany): Bulletin
of the Seismological Society of America, 92, 2521–2527, doi: 10
.1785/0120010248.
Rickett, J., and J. F. Claerbout, 1999, Acoustic daylight imaging via spectral
factorization: Helioseismology and reservoir monitoring: The Leading
Edge, 18, 957–960, doi: 10.1190/1.1438420.
Ritzwoller, M. H., F. C. Lin, and W. Shen, 2011, Ambient noise tomography
with a large seismic array: Comptes Rendus Geoscience, 343, 558–570,
doi: 10.1016/j.crte.2011.03.007.
Rosenblad, B. L., J. Bailey, R. Csontos, and R. Van Arsdale, 2010, Shear
wave velocities of Mississippi embayment soils from low frequency sur-
face wave measurements: Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
30, 691–701, doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.02.010.
Saito, M., and H. Kabasawa, 1993, Computation of reflectivity and surface
wave dispersion curves for layered media — 2: Rayleigh wave calcula-
tions: Butsuri-Tansa, 46, 283–298.
Schuster, G. T., J. Yu, J. Sheng, and J. Rickett, 2004, Interferometric/day-
light seismic imaging: Geophysical Journal International, 157, 838–852,
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004.02251.x.
Seht, M. I. V., and J. Wohlenberg, 1999, Microtremor measurements used to
map thickness of soft sediments: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, 89, 250–259, doi: 10.1785/BSSA0890010250.
Setiawan, B., M. Jaksa, M. Griffith, and D. Love, 2018, Estimating bedrock
depth in the case of regolith sites using ambient noise analysis: Engineer-
ing Geology, 243, 145–159, doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.06.022.
Shen, W., and M. H. Ritzwoller, 2016, Crustal and uppermost mantle struc-
ture beneath the United States: Journal of Geophysical Research, Solid
Earth, 121, 4306–4342, doi: 10.1002/2016JB012887.
Stephenson, W. J., M. W. Asten, J. K. Odum, and A. D. Frankel, 2019, Shear
wave velocity in the Seattle Basin to 2 km depth characterized with the
krSPAC microtremor array method: Insights for urban basin scale imag-
ing: Seismological Research Letters, 90, 1230–1242, doi: 10.1785/
0220180194.
Stokoe, K. H., S. Hang, and S. H. Joh, 2017, Spectral-analysis-of-surface-
waves (SASW) testing to evaluate VS profiles at geotechnical and geo-
logical sites: 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
Suzuki, H., and H. Yamanaka, 2010, Joint inversion using earthquake
ground motion records and microtremor survey data to S-wave profile
of deep sedimentary layers: Butsuri-Tansa, 65, 215–227.
Tan, S., K. Hayashi, B. He, and D. Cheng, 2019, Active fault investigation
by 3D ambient noise tomography in Hebei province, China: 89th Annual
International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 4790–4794, doi: 10
.1190/segam2019-3215374.1.
Tsai, V. C., and M. P. Moschetti, 2010, An explicit relationship between
time-domain noise correlation and spatial autocorrelation (SPAC) results:
Geophysical Journal International, 182, 1509–1514, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
246X.2010.04693.x.
Wapenaar, K., 2004, Retrieving the elastodynamic Green’s function of an
arbitrary inhomogeneous medium by cross correlation: Physical Review
Letters, 93, 254301, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.254301.
Xia, J., R. D. Miller, and C. B. Park, 1999, Configuration of near surface
shear wave velocity by inverting surface wave: Proceedings of the Sym-
posium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environ-
mental Problems, 95–104.
Yong, F., Z. Jiang, S. Luo, Y. Li, J. Liu, and Z. Liu, 2014, The seismic re-
flection study on high-resolution profile of shallow structure in north part
of Ziadian Fault: Chinese Journal of Engineering Geophysics, 11, 832–
836.
Yu, Z., H. Pan, J. Shen, J. Li, M. Zhang, and X. Dai, 2020, The active fault
features of Xiadian Fault zone revealed by Rongjiabao trench and its prob-
abilistic seismic hazard evaluation: Seismology and Geology, 42, 688–
702.
Biographies and photographs of the authors are not available.