Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 22 (2002) 181±190

www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Comparing shear-wave velocity pro®les inverted from multichannel

surface wave with borehole measurements
Jianghai Xia a,*, Richard D. Miller a, Choon B. Park a, James A. Hunter b, James B. Harris c,
Julian Ivanov a
a
Kansas Geological Survey, The University of Kansas, 1930 Constant Avenue, Lawrence, KS 66047-3726, USA
b
Geological Survey of Canada, 601 Booth Street, Ottawa, Ont., Canada K1A 0E8
c
Department of Geology, Millsaps College, 1701 N. State Street, Jackson, MS 39210, USA
Accepted 21 December 2001

Abstract
Recent ®eld tests illustrate the accuracy and consistency of calculating near-surface shear (S)-wave velocities using multichannel analysis
of surface waves (MASW). S-wave velocity pro®les (S-wave velocity vs. depth) derived from MASW compared favorably to direct borehole
measurements at sites in Kansas, British Columbia, and Wyoming. Effects of changing the total number of recording channels, sampling
interval, source offset, and receiver spacing on the inverted S-wave velocity were studied at a test site in Lawrence, Kansas. On the average,
the difference between MASW calculated Vs and borehole measured Vs in eight wells along the Fraser River in Vancouver, Canada was less
than 15%. One of the eight wells was a blind test well with the calculated overall difference between MASW and borehole measurements less
than 9%. No systematic differences were observed in derived Vs values from any of the eight test sites. Surface wave analysis performed on
surface data from Wyoming provided S-wave velocities in near-surface materials. Velocity pro®les from MASW were con®rmed by
measurements based on suspension log analysis. q 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Shear-wave velocity; Surface wave; Borehole measurements; Near-surface materials

1. Introduction half-space (p. 49; [4]). In that non-dispersive case the

The shear (S)-wave velocity of near-surface materials
(such as soil, rocks, and pavement) is of fundamental inter-
est in many groundwater, engineering, and environmental
studies. S-wave velocity is one of the key properties used in
stiffness determinations for construction engineering and
seismic response studies. It has been conclusively shown
from studies of P- and S-wave velocities in embankments,
and also in alluvial, diluvial, and Tertiary materials [1] that
S-wave velocities correspond to the classi®cation of forma-
tion hardness as used in soil mechanics and foundation
engineering (N-value, [2]).
Measurement of shear-wave velocity has been accom-
plished using a variety of invasive and non-invasive tools
and techniques. One method for calculating the relationship
of S-wave velocity with depth involves inverting the disper-
sive surface (Rayleigh and/or Love) wave phase velocity
[3]. The only time Rayleigh wave is not dispersive is
when the wave is traveling through a solid homogenous
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 11-785-864-3965; fax: 11-785-864-5317.
E-mail address: jxia@kgs.ku.edu (J. Xia).
0267-7261/02/$ - see front matter q 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0267-726 1(02)00008-8
phase velocity of the Rayleigh wave is 9.9149v (v is the
S-wave velocity in the half space). Stokoe et al. [5]
discussed the case of one layer above a solid homogenous
half-space and showed that the Rayleigh wave becomes
dispersive when its wavelengths are between 1 and 30
times the layer thickness.
Rayleigh waves are surface waves that travel along a
`free' surface, such as the earth±air interface and are the
result of interfering P and Sv waves. Particle motion in the
fundamental mode of Rayleigh waves moving from left to
right is elliptical in a counter-clockwise (retrograde) direc-
tion. The motion is constrained to the vertical plane consis-
tent with the direction of wave propagation. For a given
mode, longer wavelength surface waves will penetrate
deeper into the earth than shorter wavelengths, generally
exhibit greater phase velocities, and are more sensitive to
the elastic properties of the deeper layers (p. 30; [6]). On the
other hand, shorter wavelength surface waves are more
sensitive (possess great potential ®delity) to the physical
properties of the more sur®cial layers. For this reason,
each surface wave mode possesses a unique phase velocity
for each unique wavelength. This phase velocity/frequency
182 J. Xia et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 22 (2002) 181±190
relationship is responsible for the dispersive nature of
surface waves.
Ground roll (often referred to as pseudo-Rayleigh wave)
is a particular type of surface wave that travels along or
near the ground surface and is usually characterized by
relatively low velocity, low frequency, and high amplitude,
(p. 143; [7]). Stokoe and Nazarian [8] and Nazarian et
al. [9] introduce a surface-wave method, called spectral
analysis of surface waves (SASW), which focuses on
analyzing the ground roll dispersion relationship to pro-
duce near-surface S-wave velocity pro®les. SASW has
been widely applied to many engineering problems over
the last couple decades [5,10±14]. SASW has been an
effective method of estimating S-wave velocity. However,
a few weaknesses of the SASW method become obvious in
practice.
With a single pair of receivers the SASW method needs to
con®gure and recon®gure as many times as necessary to
sample the desired frequency range and to reduce body
wave and/or scattered noise, etc. Empirical criteria [5,13]
can be used to control the inclusion of noise during SASW
measurements. Because of complexity of the near-surface
geology, however, it is dif®cult to optimize these criteria.
Besides that, it is also dif®cult sometime impossible to
assess and distinguish signals (the fundamental and higher
modes) from noise with only a pair of receivers. Because
of con®guration of ®eld data acquisition parameters and
multiple shots at each measurement point, it is common to
take around 1 h to complete measurements at one station.
A four-phase research project designed to develop an
ef®cient and accurate method to estimate near-surface S-
wave velocity from ground roll using multichannel seismic
data was undertaken by the Kansas Geological Survey. An
initial objective of the multiphase research project was to
better utilize the full wave®eld recorded during common
midpoint (CMP)-style re¯ection pro®ling [15]. The four
phases break down as follows:
1. development of a portable, repeatable, and high energy
acquisition system and technique designed around
recording broad band (2±100 Hz) ground roll,
2. creation of ef®cient, robust, ¯exible, user friendly, and
accurate set of algorithms organized in a straightforward
data processing sequence designed to extract and analyze
1D Rayleigh wave dispersion curves,
3. development of stable and ef®cient inversion algorithms
incorporating the very minimum number of assumptions
necessary to obtain 1D near-surface S-wave velocity
pro®les, and
4. construction and validation of the accuracy of the 1D
shear-wave velocity pro®les extending the application
into 2D where the subsurface could be imaged using
the S-wave velocity ®eld.
As part of phase one, multichannel analysis of surface
waves (MASW) using Vibroseis and/or an impulsive source
was successfully demonstrated to produce, record, and
consistently analyze broad-band ground roll (Fig. 1)
[16,17]. Multichannel recording proved ideal for effective
identi®cation and isolation of noise/events (body waves,
scattered and non-source generated surface waves, and
higher-mode Rayleigh waves) using trace-to-trace pattern
comparison and recognition of coherent waveform arrivals
based on amplitude frequency and phase. This inherent
advantage proved instrumental in accomplishing phase
two of this research program. Data processing algorithms
developed as part of phase two allow for ef®cient extraction
of accurate phase velocities as a function of frequency from
fundamental mode Rayleigh waves [18].
A robust method for inverting high frequency Rayleigh
wave dispersion data completed as phase three of this
research program provides reliable near-surface S-wave
velocities with assumptions limited to the dependence of
surface wave propagation on shear-wave velocity [19,20].
Critical to establishing a relationship between S-wave
velocity and the Rayleigh wave dispersion curve is to de®ne
quantitatively the sensitivity of Rayleigh wave dispersion
data to earth properties. Unique to the MASW approach
was effectively accomplishing the relationship between
Rayleigh wave phase velocities and earth properties through
analysis of the ®rst partial derivative matrix. High frequency
Rayleigh wave dispersion data is de®ned for a layered
earth model by the S-wave velocity, P-wave velocity,
density, and thickness. It has been shown empirically that
P-wave velocities and densities can be assigned as known
constants to each layer if the relative error in these selected
values is 25% or less [19]. Since the S-wave velocity is
the dominant property of the fundamental mode, S-wave
velocities can be quickly estimated from Rayleigh wave
dispersion data [19]. In a compressible Gibson half-space,
S-wave velocity can be more accurately determined by
inverting the Rayleigh wave phase velocity than any other
methods [21].
Other advantages of the MASW method include both
speed of data acquisition (a few minutes at a measurement
point) and resulting time necessary to produce a single 1D
pro®le as well as the redundancy in measuring dispersive
characteristics of surface waves across short distances
[22,23]. With a standard CMP roll-along acquisition method
[15] routinely used for acquiring conventional 2D petro-
leum exploration seismic re¯ection data, the MASW
method was successfully used to image the near-surface.
Combining these two methods allows high con®dence,
non-invasive delineation of horizontal and vertical varia-
tions in near-surface material properties [22,23]. Extending
this imaging technology to include lateral variations in
lithology as well as tunnel and fracture detection, bedrock
mapping, and delineation of subsidence in karst terrains has
required a unique approach that incorporates MASW and
CMP methods.
MASW is a noninvasive and environmental-friendly
method, keenly suited for estimations of shear-wave
 J. Xia et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 22 (2002) 181±190
Fig. 1. A diagram of the MASW method. Multichannel raw ®eld data, which contain enhanced ground roll signals, are acquired. Rayleigh wave phase velocity
is extracted from the ®eld data in the F±K domain. The phase velocity, ®nally, is inverted for a shear-wave velocity pro®le (Vs vs. depth).
velocity with depth at construction or hazardous material
sites. MASW can also used in practice in assessing the
liquefaction potential of gravelly soils when penetration
methods such as standard penetration testing and cone
penetration testing are not feasible. Any penetration of the
earth surface or subsequent layers risks dispersal of soil
contaminates and creates a potential new migration path
for contaminants.
Economical advantages of the MASW method to
measure S-wave velocity in near-surface material over
other approaches are signi®cant. Time needed in data acqui-
sition at each station for the MASW method is approxi-
mately a few minutes while time required for the SASW
method is around 1 h. The cost of acquiring borehole veloci-
ties for a `non-permit' site can be an order of magnitude
greater than using MASW to estimate the S-wave velocity
(several thousand dollars vs. several hundred dollars).
Health, safety, and environmental concerns routinely play
a major role when drilling and run the cost of a borehole
measure up signi®cantly.
In this paper, S-wave velocities calculated using surface
wave data acquired and processed using the MASW method
will be presented and discussed. Results of this approach
will be compared with direct borehole measurements.
2. Validation of MASW technique
MASW-derived S-wave velocity pro®les (S-wave vel-
ocity vs. depth) were compared to direct borehole measure-
ments at three North American sites in an attempt to
thoroughly evaluate the technique in a variety of near-
surface conditions, a wide range of velocities, and through
a relatively diverse set of applications.
2.1. Lawrence, Kansas
Surface wave data, acquired on the campus of the Univer-
sity of Kansas in Lawrence, Kansas, were analyzed and
compared to data collected in a borehole drilled and logged
183
speci®cally for this experiment [19]. An IVI minivib was
used to produce a four-octave seismic energy sweep,
recorded with a spread of forty groups of 10 Hz geophones
on 1 m intervals starting 2 m from the test well. The source
was offset 27 m from the geophone spread and delivered
10 s linear up-sweeps of seismic energy within a frequency
band from 10 to 200 Hz. Raw shot gathers were rich in
ground roll energy (Fig. 2). The range of phase velocities
present in the dispersive ground roll arrivals extends from
220 to 780 m/s. A dispersion curve (Fig. 3a) (Rayleigh wave
phase velocities as a function of frequency) with a frequency
range from 15 to 80 Hz was extracted from ®eld data
(Fig. 2) using the MASW method.
Both P- and S-wave velocity vertical pro®les were co-
incidentally acquired using a three-component borehole
receiver. Con®dent determination of S-wave ®rst break arri-
vals on the recorded three-component borehole data was
accomplished with the aid of a cross-correlation technique
[24]. Most error present on the S-wave velocity pro®le (the
solid line in Fig. 3b) is a result of digital undersampling. An
overall error in S-wave borehole velocity from this survey
has been estimated to be approximately 10%.
Inverting the Rayleigh wave dispersion curve to deter-
mine S-wave velocities requires de®nition of densities and
P-wave velocities. Density estimates can be assigned with
relative con®dence based on geology and the assumption
that they increase approximately linearly with depth. In
practice, P-wave velocity can be estimated from surface
seismic methods such as refraction with suf®cient accuracy
for most applications. In this particular case, P-wave veloci-
ties were obtained from borehole data and therefore possess
a bit more accuracy than possible when measured from
surface seismic methods.
An initial S-wave model (labeled `initial B' on Fig. 3)
must be created to begin the iterative inversion process. For
most cases a good initial model can be derived using the
inverse program (based on Eq. (6), [19]). For this case,
the root-mean-square error between measured data and the
initial model dropped from 70 to 30 m/s with two iterations.
184 J. Xia et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 22 (2002) 181±190

Fig. 2. The ®eld data acquired near the Kansas Geological Survey. Forty groups of 10 Hz geophones were spread 1 m apart. An IVI minivib was the energy
source and located 27 m from the right side of the geophone spread. Two linear events are velocities (220 and 780 m/s) of dispersive ground roll at frequencies
approximately 15 and 50 Hz.

When comparing inverted S-wave velocity and borehole
measured S-wave velocity, some consideration must be
given to the averaging effects associated with the receiver
spread. The inverted S-wave velocity pro®le is horizontally
averaged across the length of the source-geophone spread
(in this case, 66 m), while in the borehole case the sampling
is along a vertical segment. Theoretically, considering all
the effects of this averaging there should be only small
differences between inverted and borehole measured S-
wave velocities. From the comparison at this Lawrence,
Kansas, test hole site, the average relative difference
between inverted S-wave velocities and borehole measured
S-wave velocities is 18%. By excluding the ®rst layer, the
difference drops to only 9%.
As an ancillary test to analyze the sensitivity of the
inverted model to initial values, initial values for Vs were
manually selected to be uniformly greater than or less than
borehole values (Fig. 3). `Initial A' and `Initial B' are
symmetrical to the borehole values and therefore converge
to borehole values from two different directions (Fig. 3b).
Overall accuracy for all the inverted models were visually
the same. Con®dence in the inverted model can be obtained
from the observation that both initial models approach to
borehole results, especially for the shallower part of the
vertical pro®le (,20 m).
Initial values provide critical constraints necessary for
inversion to converge on a meaningful result. As yet another
off-shoot of this study, we tested the robustness of the inver-
sion technique used for the MASW method. An initial
model assumed to be a uniform half-space with a constant
velocity was inverted using different constant initial values
that ranged from 100 to 1800 m/s (Fig. 4). The inverted
results from all these randomly selected (yet realistic) initial
values converge to borehole results. The total number of
iterations necessary to accomplish convergence is less
than 20 for each case. The limits of the inversion's ability
to converge are exceeded for initial values of 50 or
1900 m/s. For these inversions convergence was not
 J. Xia et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 22 (2002) 181±190 185

Fig. 3. Inverse results of the real example. Labels on dispersion curves (a) and S-wave velocity pro®les (b) have the same meaning as in labels in Fig. 4 except
that the dispersion curve labeled `measured' (a) is real data extracted from ®led data (Fig. 2) by the MASW method. `Initial B' model (b) was calculated from
the `measured' data in (a). `Borehole' (b) was S-wave velocities derived from the three-component seismic borehole survey. `Initial A' and `initial B' models
(b) are symmetrical to the borehole values. Both initial models converge to the model determined by borehole data. One of every two phase velocities from the
inverted models is shown by diamonds and dots (a).

achieved. In the real world, however, values as extreme as
50 or 1900 m/s would not be potential candidates for initial
values when using meaningful constraints on the range of
possible Vs values.
Sampling frequency of the dispersion curve (phase vel-
ocity vs. frequency) can have a signi®cant in¯uence on the
performance and quality of inversion results. As long as
each unique wavelength component of the surface wave is
thoroughly sampled for all layers (depths) of interest the
inversion will produce a representative Vs pro®le. Compar-
ing the inversion results from data points from 15 to 47 Hz
(33 points), 15 to 31 Hz (17 points), and 15 to 47 Hz with
interval of 2 Hz (17 points) with inverted results from 66
data points, no obvious decrease in accuracy can be
observed as a result of reducing the number of data points
(Fig. 5). Our testing, as well as the experience of other
186 J. Xia et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 22 (2002) 181±190
Fig. 4. Inversion results of phase velocities shown in Fig. 3a started from a
uniform half-space with a constant S-wave velocity. (a) Constant initial
values are `blindly' selected from 100 to 900 m/s. (b) Constant initial values
are `blindly' selected from 1000 to 1800 m/s.
researchers [25] suggests as little as one octave of band-
width (factor of 2 in frequencies (15±31 Hz)) is suf®cient
to allow good inversion results.
2.2. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Continuing critical evaluation of the MASW technique
for consistency and accuracy involved comparison of
surface wave inverted shear-wave velocities with several
borehole-derived velocity pro®les (surface-to-downhole S-
wave velocity measurements) in a similar setting, but at
different locations. Validation of any new technique is
best accomplished with blind testing procedures under
controlled conditions. MASW-derived S-wave velocity
pro®les were statistically compared to S-wave velocity
pro®les measured in eight boreholes in the unconsolidated
sediments of the Fraser River Delta, near Vancouver, BC,
Canada in 1998. An extensive database of borehole-derived
S-wave velocities have been cataloged in this area by the
Geological Survey of Canada at more than 40 locations
critical to local estimations of sediment response during
ground shaking from an earthquake [26].
Fig. 5. Effect of the number of data points on inversion results. See text for
details.
MASW testing was undertaken at eight representative
sites, selected on the basis of geographic location, accessi-
bility of boreholes, and uniqueness of the S-wave velocity
pro®les [27]. Borehole information including the S-wave
velocity pro®le from one of the eight sites was held in
con®dence during the acquisition and processing of the
surface wave data. This `blind' test site ensured that the
velocities calculated using the MASW method were deter-
mined completely independent of any in¯uence or guidance
from the borehole measurements.
Multichannel surface wave data were acquired using
4.5 Hz vertical geophones and a 60-channel Geometrics
StrataView seismograph. Geophones were deployed at the
eight sites on either a 0.6 or 1.2 m interval (depending on
target depth range) with the nearest source-to-geophone
offset ranging from 1.2 to 90 m, again depending on target
depth considerations. Geophone spreads were placed as
close as possible to the measurement well and never more
than 50 m away from it. Three to ten impacts were vertically
stacked at each offset using an accelerated weight drop
designed and built by the KGS. To insure the entire surface
wavetrain was recorded and appropriately sampled, data for
all sites were recorded with a 1 ms sample interval for
2048 ms. Once the geophone spread was deployed at a
site, it only took 2±3 min to acquire all the data necessary
to con®dently estimate the S-wave velocity pro®le as a
function of depth.
Interference from a strong electromagnetic ®eld produced
by nearby installations hindered accurate establishment of
time zero. It was therefore necessary to begin recording data
by manual triggering of the seismograph at the blind test
hole. Fortunately, unlike other acoustic imaging techniques,
absolute correctness of the instant energy is imparted to the
ground is not necessary to extract Rayleigh wave phase
velocities from raw ®eld data.
First arrival times of seismic energy measured in bore-
holes and associated S-wave velocity calculations are
based on the assumption that S-wave energy is propagating
 J. Xia et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 22 (2002) 181±190 187

Fig. 6. (a) Field shot gather with 60 traces at location of borehole FD92-11, Vancouver, Canada; (b) Rayleigh wave phase velocities measured from ®eld data
shown in (a) and calculated based on inverted Vs model shown in (c); (c) inverted Vs model compared to borehole measured velocities.

vertically from source to downhole receiver. S-wave veloci-
ties calculated from MASW, however, are estimated using
horizontally propagating energy. Due to this distinctive
difference in travel paths of measured energy differences
between MASW results and borehole measurements are
expected and will be particularly noticeable at hetero-
geneous sites. S-wave velocities measured in boreholes
can easily vary from measurement technique to measure-
ment technique. The sites tested for this study observed
differences that are not likely related to heterogeneity
with the shallow subsurface. In the following paragraphs,
we will show surface wave data and results from two bore-
hole sites.
Sixty-channel surface wave data were acquired at well
FD92-11 on a 0.6-m geophone interval (Fig. 6a). A disper-
sion curve (Fig. 6b) was extracted from that data (Fig. 6a).
MASW-derived S-wave velocities and direct borehole
measurements were shown in Fig. 6c. An S-wave velocity
pro®le calculated using crosshole techniques at the site of
well FD92-11 (Fig. 6c) produces results quite similar to
MASW results at shallower subsurface depths (,15 m)
while MASW matches borehole measurements much better
at the greater depths (.15 m). It is interesting to note that
relative differences between S-wave velocities determined
using MASW vs. borehole measurements are quite similar
to relative differences observed between S-wave velocities
from borehole and crosshole measurements. This leaves
some question as to what is the best measure of true S-
wave velocities in the subsurface.
The MASW velocity pro®le at the `blind' test site
matches borehole measurements extremely well (Fig. 7).
The relative difference between the results was only 9%.
This almost insigni®cant difference is primarily the result
of random noise and/or re¯ected ground roll contaminating
portions of the Rayleigh wave signals. Re¯ected ground roll
has been observed in areas with voids, near vertical faults, or
vertical surface structures extending into the subsurface.
Noise of this nature (re¯ected ground roll) suf®ciently
smears the dispersion curve in the F±K domain to reduce
linearity of the phase velocity in the time domain. When this
smearing occurs, both the accuracy of phase velocity deter-
minations and the signal-to-noise ratio decrease.
An overall difference between the direct borehole
measurements and inverted S-wave velocities of approxi-
mately 15% or less was observed at the seven well locations.
Using blind testing as the ultimate veri®cation of computa-
tional accuracy, the 9% differences between S-wave veloci-
ties using MASW and velocities measured in the blind
test borehole con®rms the legitimacy and accuracy of this
methodology (Fig. 7).
188 J. Xia et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 22 (2002) 181±190

Fig. 7. (a) Field shot gather with 60 traces at location of an unknown borehole at the Vancouver site; (b) Rayleigh wave phase velocities measured from ®eld
data shown in (a) and calculated based on inverted Vs model shown in (c); (c) Inverted Vs model compared to borehole measured velocities. The seismograph
was manually triggered due to interference of an electromagnetic ®eld nearby. First arrivals are not correctly related to source-geophone offsets.

2.3. A mining site, Wyoming
Surface wave data were collected to determine S-wave
velocities of near-surface materials (upper 7 m) at a mining
site in Wyoming (Fig. 8) [28]. Consistency in results using
Fig. 8. Forty-eight-channel surface wave data acquired off both ends of the
W±E line at a mining site in Wyoming. (a) A shot off the east end of the line
and (b) a shot off the west end of the line.
multichannel records from opposite ends of the pro®le
verify accuracy of inverted S-wave velocities. Data were
acquired with forty-eight 8 Hz vertical-component geo-
phones separated by 0.9 m, with a 1.8 m source-to-nearest-
geophone spacing. The source was a 6.3 kg hammer vertically
impacting a metal plate.
Dispersion curves were extracted from surface wave data
(Fig. 8) using the MASW method. Dispersion curves were
inverted using a 10-layer model with layer thickness gradu-
ally increasing from the shallowest at 0.9 m to the deepest at
2.7 m (Fig. 9a). Density of each layer was ®xed at 2.0 g/cm 3
with P-wave velocities of each layer estimated from ®rst
arrival analysis (Fig. 8). Initial S-wave velocities were esti-
mated from the dispersion curve [19]. Inverted S-wave
velocities (Fig. 9a) for these two data sets (collected with
the same receiver stations but source locations on opposite
ends of the spread) (Fig. 8b) possess a relative difference of
about 8%.
To check the accuracy of the MASW method to estimate
S-wave velocity by inverting the dispersion curve, a bore-
hole was installed and suspension logged (Fig. 10). The
inverted S-wave velocities within the top 3 m are very
close to the velocities from suspension logs (Fig. 10). The
inverted S-wave velocity linearly increases with depth
below 7 m. In the range of 0±6 m, the average difference
 J. Xia et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 22 (2002) 181±190
Fig. 9. (a) Dispersion curves and (b) inverted S-wave velocities from data in
Fig. 8. Values labeled (E) or (W) are those associated with shot gathers off
the east end or the west end of the line (Fig. 8). For example, Measured (E)
and Final (E) in (a) are the dispersion curve extracted from data of Fig. 8a
and the calculated dispersion curve based on inverted S-wave velocity
model labeled Inverted (E) in (b), respectively.
Fig. 10. S-wave velocities from a suspension log and MASW inverted S-wave velocities labeled as Area-A W±E (E) and Area-A W±E (W). Labels (E) and
(W) have the same meaning as labels in Fig. 9.
189
was less than 15% between S-wave velocities estimated
from the MASW method and those measured from suspen-
sion logging. We believe that the zigzag pattern observed in
the suspension log data between 6 and 14 m results from
measurement errors. If a 5-point moving average ®lter is
applied to the suspension log data a trend of linearly increas-
ing velocity with depth can be observed from 6 to 14 m in
both data sets. The suspension logging results con®rmed
that MASW calculated S-wave velocities accurately repre-
sent the subsurface.
3. Conclusions
The MASW method is a non-invasive acoustic approach
to estimate near-surface S-wave velocity from surface wave
energy. No systematic difference between these results of
MASW and traditional or borehole methods were observed
in data from any of these test sites. The difference between
MASW results and direct borehole measurements are
random and approximately 15% or less. The MASW
method is capable to analyze the fundamental and higher
modes simultaneously, which can provide more accurate S-
wave velocities [29]. The MASW method is an environ-
mental friendly, low cost, quick, and in situ technology
to measure S-wave velocity as a function of depth. The
MASW method is robust and consistently provides reliable
S-wave velocity pro®les within the ®rst 30 m below the
ground surface.
190 J. Xia et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 22 (2002) 181±190
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Ron Good of Geological Survey of
Canada and David La¯en, Joe Anderson, Brett Bennett,
Jim Droddy, and Chad Gratton of the Kansas Geological
Survey for their assistance during the ®eld tests. The authors
extend their thanks to Ed Wightman and Bart Hoekstra of
Blackhawk Geometrics and Robert Nigbor of Agbabian
Associates for acquiring seismic data and constructive
discussion on this topic. The authors are grateful to one
anonymous reviewer for the constructive suggestions. The
authors would also like to thank Mary Brohammer for her
efforts in the manuscript and graphic preparation.
References
[1] Imai T, Tonouchi K. Correlation of N-value with S-wave velocity.
Proceedings of the Second European Symposium on Penetration Test-
ing; 1982. p. 67±72.
[2] Craig RF. Soil mechanics. 5th ed. New York: Chapman & Hall, 1992.
[3] Dorman J, Ewing M. Numerical inversion of seismic surface wave
dispersion data and Crust±Mantle structure in the New York±
Pennsylvania area. J Geophys Res 1962;67:5227±41.
[4] Sheriff RE, Geldart LP. Exploration seismology: history, theory, and
data acquisition, vol. 1. New York: Cambridge University Press,
1985.
[5] Stokoe II KH, Wright GW, Bay JA, Roesset JM. Characterization of
geotechnical sites by SASW method. In: Woods RD, editor. Geo-
physical characterization of sites, ISSMFE Technical Committee
#10, New Delhi: Oxford Publishers, 1994.
[6] Babuska V, Cara M. Seismic anisotropy in the earth. Boston: Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 1991.
[7] Sheriff RE. Encyclopedic dictionary of exploration geophysics. 3rd
ed. Tulsa: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 1991.
[8] Stokoe II KH, Nazarian S. Effectiveness of ground improvement from
spectral analysis of surface waves. Proceeding of the Eighth European
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Helsinki,
Finland, 1983.
[9] Nazarian S, Stokoe II KH, Hudson WR. Use of spectral analysis of
surface waves method for determination of moduli and thicknesses of
pavement systems. Transportation Research Record No. 930, 1983;
p. 38±45.
[10] Sanchez-Salinero I, Roesset JM, Shao KY, Stokoe II KH, Rix GJ.
Analytical evaluation of variables affecting surface wave testing of
pavements. Transportation Research Record No. 1136, 1987. p. 86±
95.
[11] Sheu JC, Stokoe II KH, Roesset JM. Effect of re¯ected waves in
SASW testing of pavements. Transportation Research Record No.
1196, 1988. p. 51±61.
[12] Stokoe II KH, Rix GJ, Nazarian S. In situ seismic testing with surface
wave: processing. XII International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering; 1989. p. 331±4.
[13] Gucunski N, Wood RD. Instrumentation for SASW testing. In: Bhatia
SK, Blaney GW, editors. Geotechnical special publication no. 29,
recent advances in instrumentation, data acquisition and testing in
soil dynamics, New York: American Society of Civil Engineers,
1991. p. 1±16.
[14] Hiltunen DR. Nondestructive evaluation of pavement systems by the
SASW method. Vancouver, BC: Geotechnical News, BiTech Pub-
lishers Ltd, September, 1991. p. 22±5.
[15] Mayne WH. Horizontal data stacking techniques. Geophysics 1962;
27(Suppl):927±37.
[16] Park CB, Miller RD, Xia J. Multi-channel analysis of surface waves
using Vibroseis (MASWV). Expanded Abstracts of Technical Pro-
gram with Biographies, SEG, 66th Annual Meeting, Denver, CO,
1996. p. 68±71.
[17] Park CB, Miller RD, Xia J. Multi-channel analysis of surface waves.
Geophysics 1999;64(3):800±8.
[18] Park CB, Miller RD, Xia J. Multimodal analysis of high frequency
surface wave. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Application of
Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP
99), Oakland, CA, March 14±18, 1999. p. 115±22.
[19] Xia J, Miller RD, Park CB. Estimation of near-surface shear-wave
velocity by inversion of Rayleigh waves. Geophysics 1999;64(3):
691±700.
[20] Xia J, Miller RD, Park CB. Con®guration of near-surface shear-wave
velocity by inverting surface wave. Proceedings of the Symposium on
the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental
Problems (SAGEEP 99), Oakland, CA, March 14±18, 1999. p. 95±
104.
[21] Xia J, Miller RD, Park CB. Estimation of shear wave velocity in a
compressible Gibson half-space by inverting Rayleigh wave phase
velocity. Expanded Abstracts of Technical Program with Biographies,
SEG, 67th Annual Meeting, Dallas, TX, 1997. p. 1927±30.
[22] Xia J, Miller RD, Park CB. Construction of vertical seismic section of
near-surface shear-wave velocity from ground roll. Exp Abstract,
SEG/AEGE/CPS, Beijing, 1998. p. 29±33.
[23] Miller RD, Xia J, Park CB, Ivanov J. Multichannel analysis of surface
waves to map bedrock. Leading Edge 1999;18(12):1392±6.
[24] Press WH, Teukosky SA, Vetterling WT, Flannery BP. Numerical
recipes in C. 2nd ed. New York: The Press Syndicate of the University
of Cambridge, 1992.
[25] Rix GJ, Leipski AE. Accuracy and resolution of surface wave inver-
sion: recent advances in instrumentation, data acquisition and testing
in soil dynamics, Geotechnical Special Publication no. 29. New York:
American Society of Civil Engineers, 1991. p. 17±23.
[26] Hunter JA, Burns RA, Good RL, Pelletier CF. A compilation of shear
wave velocities and borehole geophysical logs in unconsolidated sedi-
ments of the Fraser River delta. Ottawa: Geological Survey of
Canada, Open File No. 3622, 1998.
[27] Xia J, Miller RD, Park CB, Hunter JA, Harris JB. Comparing shear-
wave velocity pro®les from MASW with borehole measurements in
unconsolidated sediments, Fraser River Delta, BC, Canada. J Environ
Engng Geophys 2000;5(3):1±13.
[28] Xia J, Miller RD, Park CB, Wightman E, Nigbor R. A pitfall in
shallow shear-wave refraction surveying. Expanded Abstracts of
Technical Program with Biographies, SEG, 69th Annual Meeting,
Houston, TX, 1999. p. 508±11.
[29] Xia J, Miller RD, Park CB. Advantage of calculating shear-wave
velocity from surface waves with higher modes. Expanded Abstracts
of Technical Program with Biographies, SEG, 70th Annual Meeting,
Calgary, Canada, 2000. p. 1295±8.