GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 82, NO. 3 (MAY-JUNE 2017); P. EN51–EN66, 22 FIGS.
10.1190/GEO2016-0202.1
Downloaded 06/27/17 to 84.220.195.227. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Horizontal resolution of multichannel analysis of surface waves
Binbin Mi1, Jianghai Xia2, Chao Shen1, Limin Wang1, Yue Hu1, and Feng Cheng1
ABSTRACT
The multichannel analysis of surface wave (MASW) method
has been effectively and widely used to determine near-surface
shear-wave velocity. Horizontal resolution of the MASW method
represents the minimum horizontal length of recognizable geo-
logic anomalous bodies on a pseudo-2D S-wave velocity V S sec-
tion. Accurately assessing the achievable lateral resolution is one
of the main issues in lateral variation reconstruction using the
MASW method. It is difficult to quantitatively estimate the hori-
zontal resolution of the MASW method because of the many
influencing factors, such as parameters of the observation system,
the depth of an anomalous body, and the velocity contrast be-
tween the anomalous body and the surrounding rocks. We first
analyzed the horizontal resolution of the MASW method based
on numerical simulation experiments. According to different
influencing factors of the horizontal resolution, we established
INTRODUCTION
The multichannel analysis of surface wave (MASW) method is a
noninvasive geophysical technique that uses Rayleigh-wave disper-
sion to estimate the vertical shear-wave velocity (Song et al., 1989;
Miller et al., 1999; Park et al., 1999; Xia et al., 1999). It has
been given increasingly more attention over the past two decades
(e.g., Song et al., 1989; Miller et al., 1999; Park et al., 1999; Xia
et al., 1999, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2009; Ivanov et al., 2006a, 2006b;
Calderón-Macías and Luke, 2007; Luo et al., 2007; Socco et al.,
2010; Xia, 2014). This technique consists of the acquisition of
high-frequency broadband Rayleigh waves using a multichannel re-
cording system, extraction of dispersion curves from Rayleigh
waves, and inversion of dispersion curves to obtain near-surface
S-wave velocity V S profiles. A pseudo-2D S-wave velocity section
Manuscript received by the Editor 18 April 2016; revised manuscript received 11 January 2017; published online 20 March 2017; corrected version published
online 27 April 2017.
1
China University of Geosciences, Institute of Geophysics and Geomatics, Subsurface Imaging and Sensing Laboratory, Wuhan, China. E-mail: mibinbin1991@
126.com; geosc@126.com; liminwang_1983@126.com; huyue0716@163.com; mars_cfeng@126.com.
2
Zhejiang University, School of Earth Sciences, Hangzhou, China. E-mail: jianghai_xia@yahoo.com.
© 2017 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved.
EN51
different laterally heterogeneous models and observation systems
and then simulated several synthetic multichannel records with a
finite-difference method along a linear survey line using the roll-
along acquisition mode. After the extraction of dispersion curves
of Rayleigh waves and inversion for S-wave velocity profiles for
each synthetic shot gather, a pseudo-2D S-wave velocity section
can be generated by aligning the 1D S-wave velocity models. Ul-
timately, we evaluated the horizontal resolution capability of the
MASW method on pseudo-2D V S maps. Our numerical investi-
gation results and field data analysis indicate that V S values on
the maps are not the same as the true V S values for structures
whose lateral dimension is shorter than a receiver spread length
and that anomalous bodies, which are larger and have high veloc-
ity contrast, are easier to distinguish on V S maps with a shorter
receiver spread length. The horizontal resolution decreases with
the increasing depth and is approximately one-half of the shortest
Rayleigh wavelength that can penetrate to the depth.
is constructed by aligning 1D models at the midpoint of each
receiver spread and using a spatial interpolation scheme (Miller
et al., 1999; Xia et al., 2005; Luo et al., 2008a, 2009a). It is non-
destructive, noninvasive, of low cost, and relatively highly accurate.
Based on these benefits, the MASW method has become one of the
main seismic methods in determining near-surface S-wave velocities
for applications of geotechnical and environmental engineering
(Xia, 2014). Also, the multichannel analysis of Love-wave (MALW)
method is receiving much more attention because of the advantages
of Love waves (e.g., Xia et al., 2012; Xia, 2014; Xie and Liu, 2015).
Seismic resolution defines to what extent details of vertical and
lateral changes in the earth can be obtained from seismic data. Hori-
zontal resolution determines the ability to distinguish events that are
laterally displaced from each other (e.g., Yilmaz, 1987; Hokstad
et al., 2001; Luo et al., 2008a). Horizontal resolution of the MASW
 EN52
method represents the minimum horizontal length of the recogniz-
able geologic anomalous bodies on a pseudo-2D S-wave velocity
section. The increasing popularity of the MASW method has led
to significant methodological research and improvements on its res-
olution and accuracy in recent years, with the aim of supplying the
S-wave velocity distribution in complex structures (e.g., Beaty et al.,
Downloaded 06/27/17 to 84.220.195.227. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
2002; Foti and Strobbia, 2002; Beaty and Schmitt, 2003; Forbriger,
2003a, 2003b; Luke et al., 2003; Socco and Strobbia, 2003; Xia
et al., 2003, 2005, 2006, 2010; O’Neill, 2004; Ryden et al., 2004;
Zhang et al., 2004; Ivanov et al., 2006a, 2006b; Xu et al., 2006,
2009; Calderón-Macías and Luke, 2007; Luo et al., 2007, 2008a,
2008b, 2009b, 2009c; O’Neill et al., 2008; Boiero and Socco, 2010;
Wang et al., 2012, 2015; Yilmaz and Kocaoglu, 2012; Zeng
et al., 2012).
The traditional surface-wave analysis method is a 1D approach
because the inverted S-wave velocity profiles from surface waves
are based on the assumption of a horizontally layered earth model
(Xia et al., 1999). In 2D environments, this 1D approach usually
neglects the presence of lateral variations (Semblat et al., 2005). The
resulting model is a simplified description of the site because the
surface-wave path crosses different materials (Socco et al., 2010).
Strobbia and Foti (2006) show that it can cause perturbations on
the observed phase velocity of surface waves if the wave path is hori-
zontally heterogeneous. As a consequence, artifacts may be intro-
duced in spatially 2D S-wave imaging when not accounting for
the effects of lateral heterogeneity (Lin and Lin, 2007). In the real
world of MASW applications, however, the 1D approach is still
adopted to investigate lateral variations for processing and inversion,
and 1D velocity profiles are eventually merged to reconstruct 2D
velocity structures to display lateral variations (e.g., Miller et al.,
1999; Xia et al., 2004). In other words, data are processed and in-
verted, disregarding the effect of lateral variations, but the lateral var-
iations are then retrieved and considered in the final interpretation
(Socco et al., 2010). In this context, it is very important to assess
the errors that could be introduced because of the presence of un-
known lateral variations. Without understanding the horizontally
resolving power of MASW techniques, our ability to solve geologic
problems would not be clearly defined (Xia et al., 2005). Therefore,
assessing the achievable lateral resolution is one of the main issues in
lateral variation reconstruction using the MASW method.
It is difficult to quantitatively determine the horizontal resolution
of the MASW method because so many factors play a part in lateral
variation reconstruction on a final 2D V S section. The major influ-
Figure 1. A general procedure of the numerical investigation for the
research of horizontal resolution of the MASW method.
Mi et al.
encing factors can be classified into two categories: parameters of
the observation system and properties of the lateral anomalous
body. The former include the nearest source-receiver offset, receiver
spacing, receiver spread length (the distance between the first and
last receivers), and source interval, all of which can be adjusted ar-
tificially for the optimum according to the needs of practical inves-
tigation (e.g., Xia et al., 2004, 2006, 2009; Zhang et al., 2004; Xu
et al., 2006, 2009). The latter include the shape (the extent of the
detail of vertical and lateral changes), burial depth, and velocity
contrast of the anomalous body, which are determined by a practical
subsurface V S model.
Processing parameters influencing the vertical resolution such as
the model thickness and number of layers (Rix and Leipski, 1991;
Xia et al., 1999, 2005, 2010) may not be relevant to the horizontal
resolution. Park (2005) shows that the receiver spread length used
during acquisition of multichannel records most influences the hori-
zontal resolution on the 2D V S map generated by the MASW
method. O’Neill et al. (2008) also highlight that the spatial resolution
of the surface-wave analysis technique is related to the ratio between
the width of the heterogeneity and the receiver spread length. The
receiver spread length sets the theoretical lower limit of horizontal
resolution (Park, 2005; Xia et al., 2005; Luo et al., 2008a, 2008b).
The spatial source interval between two successive records can be a
multiple-station distance, but it should not be greater than the receiver
spread length. The smaller interval will be beneficial because redun-
dant measurements obtained can increase the resolution through a
statistical principle of the random-noise reduction (Park, 2005).
Xia et al. (2005) discuss the resolving power of the MASW technique
and resolution of the S-wave velocity, and present a lateral unblurring
processing technique by generalized inversion to increase the hori-
zontal resolution of a pseudo-2D S-wave velocity section.
Although researchers methodically studied the MASW method
in the late 1990s (Miller et al., 1999; Park et al., 1999; Xia et al.,
1999), the horizontal resolution of this technique has not been con-
firmed explicitly. In many real near-surface applications, S-wave
velocities could vary dramatically along a survey line. It is common
that there exist V S structures whose lateral dimension is shorter than
the receiver spread length. Under these circumstances, assessing the
horizontal resolution capability and accuracy of the MASW method
is very important. Great effort should be made to evaluate the val-
idity to distinguish events that are laterally displaced from each
other. This work is a continuation of the previous study (Miller et al.,
1999; Park et al., 1999; Xia et al., 1999; Park, 2005), and it intends
to further improve the MASW technique. More specifically, differ-
ent from the research on vertical resolution in which we can directly
analyze dispersion curves of Rayleigh waves in theory, effects of the
influencing factors on horizontal resolution of the 2D V S map are
explained quantitatively based on the numerical modeling experi-
ments reported in this paper.
METHODOLOGY
The horizontal resolution of the MASW method is quantitatively
analyzed by a numerical simulation technique using synthetic mod-
els containing geologic anomalous bodies, which is described as
follows (Figures 1 and 2):
1) Establish different laterally heterogeneous models and observa-
tion systems according to different influencing factors for the
horizontal resolution of the MASW method. There are several
 Horizontal resolution of surface waves EN53

papers discussing selections of data acquisition parameters of
surface waves (e.g., Forbriger, 2003a; O’Neill, 2004; Xia et al.,
2004, 2006, 2009; Zhang et al., 2004; Xu et al., 2006, 2009).
Xia et al. (2004, 2009) make summaries of selections of optimal
Downloaded 06/27/17 to 84.220.195.227. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
data acquisition parameters: The nearest source-receiver offset
(represented by A in Figure 2b) is approximately equal to the
maximum investigation depth, a receiver spacing (represented
by B) is selected as the thinnest layer of the layered model,

Figure 2. (a) An established lateral-heterogeneous model. (b) Illustration of the observation system for the roll-along acquisition mode in MASW
surveys. (c) One of the synthetic multichannel records computed by a finite-difference method. (d) An image of dispersive energy in the f-v
domain generated from (c) by the phase-shift method (Park et al., 1998) and the picked fundamental dispersion curve marked with dots. The color
scale of the images represents the distribution of the normalized wavefield energy in the f-v domain. (e) One of the inverted S-wave velocity
versus depth profiles. (f) A pseudo-2D S-wave velocity section generated by the MASW method for the established lateral-heterogeneous model.
 EN54 Mi et al.
and the receiver spread length (represented by C) is about twice
the maximum investigation depth. The spatial source interval be-
tween two successive records (represented by D) can be a multi-
ple-station distance, but the smaller interval will be beneficial for
complex V S structures (Park, 2005). For generating synthetic
Downloaded 06/27/17 to 84.220.195.227. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
data, Pan et al. (2013) recommend an optimum nearest source-
receiver offset of twice the maximum investigation depth for sim-
ulating better planar Rayleigh waves by numerical modeling in
elastic media without attenuation, which is selected in this paper.
The currently accepted rule of thumb of the maximum penetra-
tion depth is approximately half the longest wavelength (Rix and
Leipski, 1991). A depth of an anomalous body in the established
earth model should be less than the maximum penetration depth
of Rayleigh waves.
2) Simulate many synthetic multichannel records along a linear
survey line with a finite-difference method in 2D elastic media
(Virieux, 1986; Xu et al., 2007; Zeng et al., 2011) by use of
the roll-along acquisition mode. In the finite-difference method,
the spatial grid size is 0.2 m with a time step of 0.02 ms, and the
source is a 20 Hz Ricker wavelet with a 60 ms delay.
3) Extract dispersion curves of Rayleigh waves from each syn-
thetic shot gather. Generating a reliable image of dispersion
energy in the frequency-phase velocity (f-v) domain is a key
step in the MASW method. There are five common methods
available for imaging dispersion energy at present (Shen et al.,
2015), namely, the f-k transformation (e.g., Yilmaz, 1987), the
τ-p transformation (McMechan and Yedlin, 1981), the phase-
shift method (Park et al., 1998), the frequency decomposition
and slant stacking method (Xia et al., 2007), and the high-res-
olution linear Radon transformation (Luo et al., 2008b). The
contents presented here deal with the fundamental mode of
dispersion curves extracted by the phase-shift method.
4) Invert the dispersion curves for S-wave velocity profiles with
stable and efficient inversion algorithms. The Rayleigh-wave
phase velocity of a layered earth model is a function of fre-
quency and four groups of earth properties, namely, the P-wave
velocity V P, S-wave velocity V S, density ρ, and thickness h of
the layers. Analysis of the Jacobian matrix provides a measure
of dispersion-curve sensitivity to the earth properties (Xia et al.,
1999). S-wave velocity is the dominant influence on a dis-
persion curve, so only S-wave velocities are unknowns in inver-
Figure 3. Illustration of a two-layer earth model with an anomalous
bulge. The V P , V S , and ρ of the first and second layers are 800 m∕s,
200 m∕s, and 2 g∕cm3 ; and 1200 m∕s, 400 m∕s, and 2 g∕cm3 , re-
spectively. The thickness h of the first layer is 10 m, and the second
layer is the half-space. There is a rectangular bulge in the first layer
with V P , V S , and ρ being the same as the second layer. The length L
and thickness H of the bulge are 8 and 5 m, respectively.
sion. We use an iterative solution to a weighted least-squared
inversion problem of Rayleigh-wave phase velocities (Xia et al.,
1999) for S-wave velocity versus depth profiles. Steps 2–4 are
repeated to generate several S-wave velocity profiles when the
seismic data acquisition system is moved along a line.
5) Generate pseudo-2D contour maps of the S-wave velocity in the
vertical section. A pseudo-2D S-wave velocity section is con-
structed by aligning 1D models at the midpoint of each receiver
spread and using a spatial interpolation scheme (Miller et al.,
1999; Xia et al., 2004; Luo et al., 2009a). Eventually, the hori-
zontal resolution capability of the MASW method is evaluated
from final pseudo-2D S-wave velocity sections by quantitative
comparisons with the established subsurface model (step 1).
NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION RESULTS
Based on the research method, we investigate subsurface models
with typical lateral-anomalous bodies and different acquisition lay-
outs. We present the investigation results below for different receiver
spread lengths, anomaly lengths, thicknesses, depths, V S contrast,
more than one anomalous body, and low V S anomaly, respectively.
Receiver spread lengths
Considering that the receiver spread length most influences the
horizontal resolution of the MASW method on 2D V S maps, we
first take the numerical investigation with different receiver spread
lengths. A two-layer earth model with an anomalous bulge is pre-
sented in Figure 3. Parameters of the observation system are se-
lected as follows: the nearest offset A ¼ 30 m, receiver spacing
B ¼ 1 m, receiver spread length C ¼ 16, 24, 32, and 40 m, respec-
tively, and source interval D ¼ 2 m. In this study, data are collected
with sources at the left end of the receiver spread, pushing the geo-
phone array forward from left to right. To reduce the nonuniqueness
of the inversion, we assume that the two-layer earth model without
the anomalous body has been known as a priori information and we
select an 11-layer initial model. The top 10 layers of the initial
model with 1 m thickness constitute the first layer of the true 2-layer
model without the anomalous body, and the 11th layer is the half-
space as the 2nd layer of the true 2-layer model. We choose initial
models according to this principle in inversion in this study. The
limit of the rms error for the termination of inversion is selected
as 2 m∕s, and the maximum number of iterations is 10. The rms
errors drop quickly in early iterations and then flatten out with
the increasing iteration number. Spurious V S anomalies will appear
if we reduce the rms errors excessively when the picked dispersion
curves are disturbed and inaccurate. We choose the results of iter-
ation convergence when rms errors begin to flatten first as the final
inversion results. According to the whole procedure (Figures 1 and
2), four pseudo-2D S-wave velocity sections are finally generated
(Figure 4).
Comparing the four pseudo-2D S-wave velocity sections (Fig-
ure 4), we notice that the anomalous regions and maximum V S val-
ues of anomalous bodies on the maps are inconsistent for various
receiver spread lengths. For this model, the absolute difference in S-
wave velocity between the anomalous body and the surrounding
rock is 200 m∕s, whereas on the generated 2D V S maps, V S values
of the anomalous body are only approximately 55, 48, 40, and
33 m∕s higher than that of the surrounding rock for the 16, 24,
 Horizontal resolution of surface waves EN55

32, and 40 m receiver spread lengths, respectively, which means that
the V S differences between the anomalous body and surrounding
rock only reach 27.5%, 24%, 20%, and 16.5% of the V S differences
in the true model, respectively. The longer the receiver spread, the
smaller the V S differences between the anomalous body and the
Downloaded 06/27/17 to 84.220.195.227. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
receiver spread should be long enough for the sake of accuracy
of the extracted dispersion curves. As the selection principle for op-
timum receiver spread length (about twice the maximum investiga-
tion depth) (e.g., Xia et al., 2004), we choose 32 m receiver spread
length for the investigation depth of 15 m and 40 m receiver spread

surrounding rock on the 2D V S map, and the lower the horizontal length for the investigation depth of 20 m in the following numerical
resolution of the MASW method. In addition to the decreasing investigations.
V S values of the anomalous body, the anomalous regions on 2D
V S maps become larger with the longer receiver spread. All of the Lateral anomaly lengths
anomalous regions (Figure 4a–4d) are bigger than the real dimen-
sions of the anomalous body. A two-layer earth model with an anomalous bulge is established
We also notice that there are some spurious V S anomalies outside in Figure 6, and the lateral length L of the bulge is set to be 6, 8, 10,
the anomalous regions of the bulge on the pseudo-2D S-wave veloc- and 12 m, respectively. Parameters of the observation system are
ity sections (Figure 4a and 4b). Because surface
waves could be backpropagated due to lateral
velocity variations or backscattered by short-
wavelength heterogeneities (e.g., Yilmaz and
Kocaoglu, 2012; Schwenk et al., 2016), if the
receiver spread is not long enough, dispersion
curves of Rayleigh waves extracted from syn-
thetic shot gathers will be disturbed and inaccu-
rate, which leads to spurious V S anomalies
inverted on the 2D V S maps. Figure 5 shows im-
ages of dispersive energy in the f-v domain with
different receiver spread lengths when the mid-
points of the receiver spreads are moving right
above the center of the anomalous body. Com-
paring the dispersion images in Figure 5, we
can conclude that resolution of the dispersion
image in the f-v domain will increase as the geo-
phone spread length increases, which is consistent
with previous research (e.g., Park et al., 1998;
Forbriger, 2003a; Xia et al., 2006). Hence, the ac-
curacy of the picked dispersion curves and in-
verted V S profiles will improve and there is no
spurious V S anomaly in Figure 4c and 4d. On the
other hand, because of the existence of the anoma-
lous body, the picked dispersion curves (Figure 5)
based on dispersion energy (marked by blue dots)
are different from the theoretical fundamental-
mode dispersion curves of the two-layer earth
model without the anomalous body (marked by
black diamonds, calculated by the Knopoff
method, Schwab and Knopoff, 1972). With the
receiver spread length increasing, the differences
between the picked and theoretical two-layer-
model dispersion curves decline gradually. The
average relative differences drop from 7.3% to
6.0%, 5.5%, and 4.5% for the 16, 24, 32, and Figure 4. Pseudo-2D S-wave velocity sections generated from the earth model in Figure 3
40 m receiver spread lengths, respectively. This using the MASW method with different receiver spread lengths. (a) The parameters of the
drop causes a decrease in the differences between observation system are selected as the nearest offset A ¼ 30 m, receiver spacing B ¼ 1 m,
inverted V S of the anomalous body and the sur- receiver spread length C ¼ 16 m, and source interval D ¼ 2 m. (b) Parameters of the
observation system are selected as the nearest offset A ¼ 30 m, receiver spacing
rounding rock on the 2D V S maps directly, which B ¼ 1 m, receiver spread length C ¼ 24 m, and source interval D ¼ 2 m. (c) Parameters
also means a decrease in the horizontal resolution of the observation system are selected as the nearest offset A ¼ 30 m, receiver spacing
capability. B ¼ 1 m, receiver spread length C ¼ 32 m, and source interval D ¼ 2 m. (d) Parameters
Based on the analysis given above, it is con- of the observation system are selected as the nearest offset A ¼ 30 m, receiver spacing
B ¼ 1 m, receiver spread length C ¼ 40 m, and source interval D ¼ 2 m. Data are col-
cluded that anomalous bodies on pseudo-2D S- lected with sources at lower station numbers, pushing the geophone array forward from
wave velocity sections become blurrier with a left to right. The red rectangles in (a-d) represent the real position of the anomalous body,
longer receiver spread. On the other hand, the respectively.
 EN56 Mi et al.

selected as follows: the nearest offset A ¼ 30 m, receiver spacing
B ¼ 1 m, receiver spread length C ¼ 32 m, and source interval
D ¼ 2 m. The data acquisition and inversion procedure is the same
as the data acquired and inverted in previous investigations with
different receiver spread lengths. Four pseudo-2D S-wave velocity
Downloaded 06/27/17 to 84.220.195.227. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
higher than that of the surrounding rock for the 6, 8, 10, and
12 m anomaly lengths, respectively, which means that the V S
differences between the anomalous body and the surrounding
rock reach 15%, 20%, 25%, and 30% of the V S differences in
the true model, respectively. The longer the lateral anomalous body,

sections are generated (Figure 7).
Comparing the 2D V S maps in Figure 7, we notice that both
of the anomalous regions and maximum V S values of the anoma-
lous bodies increase gradually with the increasing lateral anomaly
lengths in the models. On the generated 2D V S maps, V S values of
the anomalous body are approximately 30, 40, 50, and 60 m∕s
the greater the V S differences between the anomalous body and the
surrounding rock on the 2D V S maps, which indicates that the
anomalous body is resolved with greater accuracy as its length-
to-depth ratio increases. In addition, all the anomalous regions
(Figure 7a–7d) are bigger than the real dimensions of the anomalous
body.

Thicknesses of the anomalous body

A two-layer earth model with an anomalous
bulge is established in Figure 8, and the thickness
H of the bulge is set to be 3, 5, and 7 m, respec-
tively. The parameters of the observation system
are selected as follows: the nearest offset A ¼
30 m, receiver spacing B ¼ 1 m, receiver spread
length C ¼ 32 m, and source interval D ¼ 2 m.
The data acquisition and inversion procedure
is the same as the data acquired and inverted
in previous investigations with different receiver
spread lengths. Three pseudo-2D S-wave veloc-
ity sections are generated (Figure 9).
Comparing the 2D V S maps in Figure 9, we
notice that both of the anomalous regions and
maximum V S values of the anomalous body
increase with the increasing thicknesses of the
anomalous body in the model. On the generated
2D V S maps, the V S values of the anomalous
body are approximately 20, 50, and 70 m∕s
higher than that of the surrounding rock for the
Figure 5. Dispersion images for the earth model in Figure 3 with different receiver spread
lengths when the midpoints of the receiver spreads are moving right above the center of 3, 5, and 7 m anomaly thicknesses, respectively,
the anomalous body (generated by the phase-shift method) (Park et al., 1998). (a) Receiver which means that the V S differences between the
spread length C ¼ 16 m, (b) receiver spread length C ¼ 24 m, (c) receiver spread length anomalous body and the surrounding rock reach
C ¼ 32 m, and (d) receiver spread length C ¼ 40 m. The blue dots and black diamonds 10%, 25%, and 35% of the V S differences in the
represent the picked dispersion curves based on dispersive energy and the theoretical fun-
damental-mode dispersion curves of the two-layer earth model without the anomalous true model, respectively. The thicker the lateral
body (calculated by the Knopoff method) (Schwab and Knopoff, 1972), respectively. anomalous body, the greater the V S differences
The color scale represents the distribution of the normalized wavefield energy in the between the anomalous body and the surround-
f-v domain. ing rock on the 2D V S map, which indicates that
the anomalous body is resolved with greater ac-
curacy as its thickness increases. The thicker lateral anomalous
body also implies a shallower location, which suggests that the hori-
zontal resolution decreases with the increase in depth. In addition,
all the anomalous regions (Figure 9a–9c) are bigger than the real
dimensions of the anomalous body.

Depths of the anomalous body

Figure 6. Illustration of a two-layer earth model containing an
anomalous bulge with various lateral lengths. The V P , V S , and ρ of
the first and second layers are the same as the model in Figure 3.
The thickness h of the first layer is 10 m, and the second layer is the
half-space. There is a rectangular bulge in the first layer with V P ,
V S , and ρ being the same as the second layer. The thickness H of the
bulge is 5 m. The lateral length L of the bulge is set to be 6, 8, 10,
and 12 m, respectively.
We have given the numerical investigation results for different
lateral lengths of the anomalous body at the depth of 5–10 m (lateral
anomaly lengths). To quantitatively study the relationship between
the horizontal resolution of the MASW method and the burial depth
of the anomalous body, another two-layer earth model with an
anomalous bulge at the depth of 10–15 m is established (Figure 10).
The lateral length L of the bulge is set from 10 to 15 and 20 m,
respectively. Parameters of the observation system are selected
as follows: the nearest offset A ¼ 30 m, receiver spacing B ¼ 1 m,
 Horizontal resolution of surface waves EN57

receiver spread length C ¼ 40 m, and source in-

terval D ¼ 2 m. The data acquisition and inver-
sion procedure is the same as the data acquired
and inverted in previous investigations with differ-
ent receiver spread lengths. Three pseudo-2D S-
wave velocity sections are generated (Figure 11).
Downloaded 06/27/17 to 84.220.195.227. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

On the generated 2D V S maps in Figure 11, V S

values of the anomalous body are approximately
20, 30, and 40 m∕s higher than that of the sur-
rounding rock for 10, 15, and 20 m anomaly
lengths, respectively, which means that the V S
differences between the anomalous body and
the surrounding rock reach 10%, 15%, and 20%
of the V S differences in the true model, respec-
tively. Comparing the 2D V S maps in Figures 7
and 11, we notice that for the same lateral
anomaly length (10 m, in Figures 7c and 11a),
the maximum V S values of the anomalous body
become lower with the deeper burial depth. The
lateral anomalous body at deeper depth needs to
be longer than the shallower one for achieving
the same level of V S differences, which suggests
that the horizontal resolution of the MASW
method decreases with the increasing depth. In
addition, the centers of the anomalous regions
(Figure 11a–11c) are a little shallower than the
real position of the anomalous body.
In real-world applications, the differences be-
tween MASW results and direct borehole V S log-
ging measurements are approximately 15% or
less and random (Xia et al., 2002, 2009). For
the theoretical results by numerical simulation
without errors as discussed in this paper, we state
that lateral anomalous bodies are recognizable if
the V S differences between the anomalous bodies
and the surrounding rock on V S maps are more
than 15% of the real V S differences in the model.
Based on this assumption and numerical investi- Figure 7. Pseudo-2D S-wave velocity sections generated from the earth model with
gation results (Figures 7 and 11), the minimum different lateral anomaly lengths in Figure 6 using the MASW method. (a) The lateral
horizontal length of recognizable geologic anoma- length L ¼ 6, (b) 8, (c) 10, and (d) 12 m. The red rectangles in (a-d) represent the real
positions of the anomalous bodies, respectively.
lous bodies at a certain depth is approximately
equal to the depth.

V S contrast
A two-layer earth model with an anomalous bulge is established
in Figure 12 and the V S of the bulge increases from 300 to 400, and
500 m∕s, respectively. Meanwhile, the V P of the bulge increases
from 1000 to 1200, and 1400 m∕s, respectively. Parameters of
the observation system are selected as follows: the nearest offset
A ¼ 30 m, receiver spacing B ¼ 1 m, receiver spread length C ¼
32 m, and source interval D ¼ 2 m. With the same data acquisition
and inversion procedure as discussed in previous investigations with
different receiver spread lengths, three pseudo-2D S-wave velocity Figure 8. Illustration of a two-layer earth model containing an
sections are generated (Figure 13). anomalous bulge with various thicknesses. The V P , V S , and ρ of
Comparing the 2D V S maps in Figure 13, we notice that the the first and second layers are the same as the model in Figure 3.
anomalous regions and maximum V S values of the anomalous body The thickness h of the first layer is 10 m, and the second layer is the
half-space. There is a rectangular bulge in the first layer with V P ,
increase with the increasing V S in the model. On the generated 2D V S , and ρ being the same as the second layer. The lateral length L of
V S maps, the V S values of the anomalous body are approximately the bulge is 10 m. The thickness H of the bulge is set to be 3, 5, and
30, 50, and 60 m∕s higher than that of the surrounding rock for 300, 7 m, respectively.
 EN58 Mi et al.

400, and 500 m∕s S-wave velocities of the anomalous body in the
model, respectively, which means that the V S differences between
the anomalous body and the surrounding rocks reach only 30%,
25%, and 20% of the V S differences in the true model, respectively.
The larger the V S contrast in the anomalous body, the greater the V S
Downloaded 06/27/17 to 84.220.195.227. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
maximum V S value in the merged anomalous region is higher than
the V S value when there is only one anomalous body in the model.
With the greater distance between the two anomalous bodies (we
will discuss this point later), they will be distinguished from each
other on the pseudo-2D S-wave velocity section (Figure 15c), and

differences between the anomalous body and the surrounding rocks the anomalous regions and maximum V S values for each anomaly
on the 2D V S map, and hence the easier the anomalous body may be are almost the same as those when there is only one anomalous body
resolved. With the increasing V S contrast of the anomalous body in in the model (compared with Figure 13b).
the model, the percentage of V S differences decreases gradually. In
addition, all of the anomalous regions (Figure 13a–13c) are bigger
than the real dimensions of the anomalous body.

More than one anomalous body

A two-layer earth model with two anomalous bulges is estab-
lished in Figure 14, and the distance d between the two bulges is
set to be 10, 15, and 20 m, respectively. Parameters of the obser-
vation system are selected as follows: the nearest offset A ¼ 30 m,
receiver spacing B ¼ 1 m, receiver spread length C ¼ 32 m, and
source interval D ¼ 2 m. With the same data acquisition and inver-
sion procedure as discussed in previous investigations with different
receiver spread lengths, three pseudo-2D S-wave velocity sections
are generated (Figure 15). Figure 10. Illustration of a two-layer earth model containing an
Comparing the 2D V S maps in Figure 15, we notice that the anomalous bulge at the depth of 10–15 m. The V P , V S , and ρ of
anomalous regions of the two bulges are separated from each other the first and second layers are the same as the model in Figure 3.
gradually with the increasing distance between the two anomalous The thickness h of the first layer is 15 m, and the second layer is the
half-space. There is a rectangular bulge in the first layer with V P ,
bodies in the model. If the two anomalous bodies are too close, they V S , and ρ being the same as the second layer. The thickness H of the
will interfere with each other on the generated 2D V S map and two bulge is 5 m. The lateral length L of the bulge is set to be 10, 15, and
anomalous regions merge into one (Figure 15a). Furthermore, the 20 m, respectively.

Figure 9. Pseudo-2D S-wave velocity sections

generated from the earth model with different
anomaly thicknesses in Figure 8 using the MASW
method. (a) The thicknesses are H ¼ 3, (b) 5, and
(c) 7 m. The red rectangles in (a-c) represent the
real positions of the anomalous bodies, respec-
tively.
 Horizontal resolution of surface waves
Low VS anomaly
A two-layer earth model with a graben is provided in Figure 16,
and the lateral length L of the graben is set to be 6, 8, 10, and 12 m,
respectively. Parameters of the observation system are selected as
follows: the nearest offset A ¼ 30 m, receiver spacing B ¼ 1 m,
Downloaded 06/27/17 to 84.220.195.227. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
receiver spread length C ¼ 32 m, and source interval D ¼ 2 m.
The data acquisition and inversion procedure is the same as the data
acquired and inverted in previous investigations with different
receiver spread lengths. Four pseudo-2D S-wave velocity sections
are generated (Figure 17).
Comparing the 2D V S maps in Figure 17, we notice that the mini-
mum V S values of the anomalous graben decrease gradually with
the increasing lateral anomaly lengths in the models. The longer the
lateral anomalous graben, the greater the V S differences between the
anomalous graben and surrounding rock on the 2D V S maps, and
hence the easier the anomalous graben may be resolved. Also, it is
noteworthy that spurious high V S anomalies appear in the upper part
of the graben on the 2D V S maps (Figure 17c and 17d) for the low
V S anomaly detection.
FIELD DATA EXAMPLE
Illustrations for the horizontal resolution of the MASW method
with actual field data are difficult because the true subsurface V S
model cannot be accurately assessed. Here, we present two field
data examples, in which V S maps generated using the MASW
method can be compared with the approximate true earth models.
EN59
Field data 1
The first field data example was acquired in Andalusia, Alabama,
USA (Miller and Xia, 1999). The data were collected along a dirt
road within the Conecuh National Forest where sinkholes were
present in close proximity (Xia et al., 2005). Data were recorded
with 48 4.5 Hz vertical component geophones separated by 1.2 m
(the receiver spread length was 56.4 m). The nearest offset was 12 m
in hopes of mapping up to 30 m of the subsurface and the source
interval was 2.4 m. Data were acquired from both directions along
Figure 12. Illustration of a two-layer earth model containing an
anomalous bulge with various V P and V S . The V P , V S , and ρ of the
first and second layers are the same as the model in Figure 3. The
thickness h of the first layer is 10 m, and the second layer is the half-
space. There is a rectangular bulge in the first layer. The length L
and thickness H of the bulge 10 and 5 m, respectively. The V S of the
bulge is set to be 300, 400, and 500 m∕s, respectively. The V P of the
bulge is set to be 1000, 1200, and 1400 m∕s, respectively. The mass
density of the bulge is 2 g∕cm3 .
Figure 11. Pseudo-2D S-wave velocity sections
generated from the earth model (Figure 10) for
the deeper anomaly depth using the MASW method
with different lateral anomaly lengths (a) L ¼ 10,
(b) 15, and (c) 20 m. The red rectangles in (a-c)
represent the real positions of the anomalous
bodies, respectively.
 EN60 Mi et al.

the dirt road (Xia et al., 2005). A total of 40 shots were collected in
each direction by use of the roll-along acquisition mode (Mayne,
1962). Two pseudo-2D S-wave velocity sections were generated
by the technique of MASW (Figure 18a and 18b). The two striking
low-velocity “bull’s-eyes” located around stations 3057 and 3095 at
Downloaded 06/27/17 to 84.220.195.227. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
different receiver spread lengths, if only detecting sinkholes at a
depth of 8 m, the receiver spread length can be reduced to less than
20 m (about twice the maximum investigation depth) for the higher
horizontal resolution. Hence, the sinkholes with 12 m lateral length
will be well-imaged on the pseudo-2D S-wave velocity section.

a depth of 8 m are associated with nearby sinkholes.
Xia et al. (2005) present a lateral unblurring processing technique
by generalized inversion to increase the horizontal resolution of the
two pseudo-2D S-wave velocity sections (Figure 18c and 18d). If
we consider the postunblurring V S maps as the true subsurface
model, the horizontal resolution capability of the traditional MASW
method can be analyzed by comparing the pre- and postunblurring
V S maps. On the postunblurring V S maps (Figure 18c and 18d), the
lateral length of sinkholes located around stations 3057 and 3095 at
a depth of 8 m is approximately 12 m. However, on the preunblur-
ring V S maps (Figure 18a and 18b), the lateral length of the sink-
holes is longer and sinkholes become blurred because of the average
within a horizontal distance of 56.4 m (the receiver spread length) at
each station. Like the previous numerical investigation results with
We also notice that it shows anomalously high V S anomalies at
shallow depths above the sinkholes (Figure 18). Miller and Xia
(1999) explain this phenomenon as high V S anomalies at shallow
depths being due to the higher stress above the voids caused by the
voids, and low V S anomalies at deep depths are due to the voids
themselves. These high V S anomalies are consistent with the numeri-
cal investigation results that spurious high V S anomalies may appear
in the upper part of the sinkhole on the 2D V S maps (Figure 17c and
17d), located above the zone of detection of the low V S anomaly.
Field data 2
The second field data example was acquired beside the Guangle
Highway in the southern China, in 2015. There is a landslide nearby

Figure 13. Pseudo-2D S-wave velocity sections

generated from the earth model (Figure 12) with
different velocities in the anomalous body using
the MASW method; V S and V P in the anomalous
body are (a) 300 and 1000 m∕s, (b) 400 and
1200 m∕s, and (c) 500 and 1400 m∕s. The red
rectangles in (a-c) represent the real position of
the anomalous body, respectively.

Figure 14. Illustration of a two-layer earth model

containing two anomalous bodies with various dis-
tances. The V P , V S , and ρ of the first and second
layers are the same as the model in Figure 3. The
thickness h of the first layer is 10 m, and the sec-
ond layer is the half-space. There are two rectan-
gular bulges in the first layer with V P , V S , and ρ
being the same as the second layer. The length L
and thickness H of the two bulges are 10 and 5 m.
The distance d between the two bulges increases
from 10 to 15 m, and 20 m, respectively.
 Horizontal resolution of surface waves EN61

the highway (Figure 19), and it was grouted with cement paste by
steel pipes to consolidate the subsoil with the aim of stopping the
landslide from sliding. Surface-wave data were collected on the site
of the landslide before (in June) and after (in August) the injection,
intending to evaluate the effects of the injection process. This can be
Downloaded 06/27/17 to 84.220.195.227. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
surveys at different times. It is noticed that the anomalous regions
at locations 800–810 m (the lateral length is approximately 10 m)
and 820–835 m (the lateral length is approximately 15 m) at the
depth of 7–10 m with V S increasing more than 40 m∕s are clearly
identified using the MASW method. This is consistent with the

considered as a time-lapse MASW survey. Data were recorded with numerical investigation results, with different burial depths, that
twelve 4.5 Hz vertical component geophones separated by 1 m (the the minimum horizontal length of recognizable geologic anomalous
receiver spread length was only 11 m, Figure 19). The nearest offset bodies at a certain depth is approximately equal to the depth.
was 6 m, and the source interval was 8 m. A total of seven shots
were collected for each survey using the roll-along acquisition
mode, and two pseudo-2D S-wave velocity sections were generated
(Figure 20a and 20b).
On the V S map generated before the injection process (Fig-
ure 20a), we can notice the low-velocity areas at locations 800–
805 and 820–830 m at the depth of 5–10 m. After the injection
process (Figure 20b), S-wave velocities of the two areas become
higher and almost correspond with that of the surrounding rocks.
According to the in situ borehole measurements, the upper part with Figure 16. Illustration of a two-layer earth model containing an
a V S of less than 230 m∕s is associated with mixtures of colluvium anomalous graben with various lateral lengths. The V P , V S , and
and clay, having a thickness of approximately 3–5 m. The weath- ρ of the first and second layers are the same as the model in Figure 3.
ered siltstone is under the colluvium with a V S of more than The thickness h of the first layer is 5 m, and the second layer is the
half-space. The rectangular graben in the second layer possesses the
250 m∕s. We calculate the changes of V S before and after the in- same V P , V S , and ρ as the first layer. The thickness H of the graben
jection process (Figure 20c), and V S changes less than 40 m∕s are is 5 m. The lateral length L of the graben is set to be 6, 8, 10, and
ignored in consideration of the 15% maximum errors in the two 12 m, respectively.

Figure 15. Pseudo-2D S-wave velocity sections generated from the earth model containing two anomalous bodies with different distances d in
Figure 14 using the MASW method, (a) d ¼ 10, (b) 15, and (c) 20 m. The red rectangles in (a-c) represent the real positions of the anomalous
bodies, respectively.
 EN62 Mi et al.
DISCUSSION
In the MASW method, the extracted dispersion curve is mainly
determined by the geophysical structure within a receiver spread
(e.g., Luo et al., 2009a). S-wave velocities derived from phase veloc-
ity measurements represent the average structure below the recording
Downloaded 06/27/17 to 84.220.195.227. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
array, which is assumed to be flat layered (e.g., Xia et al., 2005).
Because each shot gather covers a certain horizontal length, the
S-wave velocity profile is an average result of the subsurface covered
by that length. Therefore, in the pseudo-2D S-wave velocity section,
the fact that the inverted 1D S-wave velocity profile is located at the
midpoint of each spread is the middle-of-receiver-spread assumption.
An illustration of the generation of a pseudo-2D S-wave velocity
section for the model containing a lateral anomaly using the roll-
along acquisition mode is given in Figure 21. From receiver spreads
(a) to (b), the recording array moves forward from the left side of the
anomalous body and finally covers the anomalous body entirely
(Figure 21). During this process, the V S values on the pseudo-
Figure 17. Pseudo-2D S-wave velocity sections
generated from the earth model containing a
low V S graben in Figure 16 using the MASW
method. (a) The lateral lengths of the graben are
L ¼ 6, (b) 8, (c) 10, and (d) 12 m. The red rectan-
gles in (a-d) represent the real positions of the gra-
ben, respectively.
2D S-wave velocity section increase gradually from the V S value
of the surrounding rock to the maximum V S value, and the lateral
length of this region (between the middle of receiver spreads [a] and
[b]) is L. From receiver spreads (b) to (c), the recording array covers
the anomalous body entirely all the time. The V S values on the
pseudo-2D S-wave velocity section maintain the maximum V S
value, and the length of this region (between the middle of receiver
spreads [b] and [c]) is C-L (C is greater than L). From receiver
spreads (c) to (d), the recording array moves forward to the right
side of the anomalous body, and V S values on the pseudo-2D S-
wave velocity section decrease gradually from the maximum V S
value to the V S value of the surrounding rock and the length of this
region (between the middle of receiver spreads [c] and [d]) is L. The
length of the whole anomalous region on the pseudo-2D S-wave
velocity section is C + L. Based on the above analysis (Figure 21),
the length of the anomalous region that has the maximum V S value
for the anomalous body is C-L. If there are two anomalous bodies
underground nearby, which can be distinguished from each other on
 Horizontal resolution of surface waves EN63

the pseudo-2D S-wave velocity section, then the

distance between the two anomalous bodies
should be approximately at least C-L. This is
why the two bulges (Figure 15) are distinguished
from each other only when the distance between
Downloaded 06/27/17 to 84.220.195.227. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

the two bulges reaches 20 m (32–10 m).

According to the numerical investigation re-
sults, the maximum V S value for the anomalous
body on the pseudo-2D S-wave velocity section
is not a simple average of V S below the recording
array. It is influenced by many factors and changes
gradually with different influencing factors. In
addition, the choice of the initial model in the in-
version can have a significant influence on the
maximum V S value on the pseudo-2D S-wave
velocity section. The maximum V S value is not
the same as the true V S value for structures whose
lateral dimension is shorter than the receiver
spread length. In other words, we cannot get the
real V S value of the anomalous body directly from
the pseudo-2D S-wave velocity section if the hori-
zontal dimension of the anomalous body is shorter
than the receiver spread length.
Numerical tests demonstrate that anomalous
bodies, which are larger and have a high velocity
contrast, are easier to distinguish with a shorter
receiver spread length on the V S map. In field
applications of the MASW method, properties
of lateral anomalous bodies are determined by
practical subsurface V S models and these cannot
be changed artificially. Therefore, the horizontal
resolution of the MASW method is influenced by
parameters of the observation system (mostly by
the receiver spread length). Usually, data acquis-
ition parameters are selected optimally based on
actual surveying requirements, so the receiver
spread length is determined by a specific appli-
cation (about twice the maximum investigation
depth) (e.g., Xia et al., 2004).
The horizontal resolution of the MASW
method primarily decreases with the increasing
depth. According to one-half-wavelength estima-
tions (Sanchez-Salinero et al., 1987; Rix and
Leipski, 1991) and different wavelengths carrying
geologic information at different depths (Babuska
and Cara, 1991; Yin et al., 2014), the horizontal
resolution of the MASW method at a certain depth
is determined by the shortest Rayleigh wavelength
that can penetrate to the depth. With short wave-
lengths, Rayleigh waves can only penetrate a
shallow depth, but they have a high horizontal res-
olution, whereas with longer wavelengths, Ray-
leigh waves can penetrate deeper, but they have Figure 18. Field data 1 from Xia et al. (2005). Plots (a and b) are pseudo-2D S-wave
a low horizontal resolution. Like the numerical in- velocity sections for field data 1 using the MASW method. Plots (c and d) are the same
vestigation results with different burial depths and pseudo-2D sections after application of the lateral unblurring processing technique;
field data 2, the minimum horizontal length of rec- these are considered to be close to the true subsurface model. The striking low-velocity
bull’s-eyes located around stations 3057 and 3095 at a depth of 8 m are associated with
ognizable geologic anomalous bodies at a certain the sinkholes. On the original pseudo-2D S-wave velocity sections (a and b), the sink-
depth is approximately equal to the depth. There- holes are blurring because of the average within a horizontal distance of 56.4 m (the
fore, the horizontal resolution of the MASW receiver spread length) at each station.
 EN64 Mi et al.

Figure 19. Illustration of the MASW survey for

field data 2. The survey line was on the site of a
landslide, parallel to the highway. Data were re-
corded with twelve 4.5 Hz vertical component geo-
phones separated by 1 m. The nearest offset was
6 m, and the source interval was 8 m. A total of
seven shots were collected for each survey in the
Downloaded 06/27/17 to 84.220.195.227. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

months of June and August by use of the roll-along

acquisition mode.

Figure 20. Pseudo-2D S-wave velocity sections

generated on the site of landslide (a) before and
(b) after the injection process, and (c) V S changes
between (a) and (b). The V S changes of less than
40 m∕s are ignored in consideration of the 15%
maximum errors in the two surveys at different
times.

Figure 21. Illustration of the generation of a

pseudo-2D S-wave velocity section for the model
containing a lateral anomaly using the roll-along
acquisition mode. The geophone array is pushing
forward along a linear survey line on the surface
from left to right. (a) Receiver spread: The record-
ing array is on the left side of the anomalous body,
and the last geophone is just above the left boun-
dary of the anomalous body. (b) Receiver spread:
The recording array covers the anomalous body en-
tirely, and the last geophone is just above the right
boundary of the anomalous body. (c) Receiver
spread: The recording array covers the anomalous
body entirely, and the first geophone is just above
the left boundary of the anomalous body. (d)
Receiver spread: The recording array is on the right
side of the anomalous body, and the first geophone
is just above the right boundary of the anomalous
body. The vertical dashed lines represent the middle
of each receiver spread. Here, L is the lateral
anomaly length, and C is the receiver spread length.
 Horizontal resolution of surface waves
Downloaded 06/27/17 to 84.220.195.227. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Figure 22. Illustration of the relationship between the horizontal
resolution of the MASW method and wavelengths of Rayleigh
waves. The Rayleigh wave with the λ wavelength can penetrate to
the λ∕2 depth, and the horizontal resolution at the depth of λ∕2 is
approximately equal to λ∕2.
method at a certain depth is about half of the shortest Rayleigh wave-
length that can penetrate to that depth (Figure 22).
CONCLUSIONS
We have presented a numerical research procedure for evaluating
the horizontal resolution of the MASW method. A multiple number
of pseudo-2D S-wave velocity sections corresponding to different
lateral-heterogeneous models using the MASW method have been
shown. The V S values of the lateral anomalous body on the pseudo-
2D S-wave velocity section are influenced by many factors.
Numerical investigation results and two field data examples demon-
strate that the V S values on the map are not the same as the true V S
values for structures whose lateral dimension is shorter than the
receiver spread length. Anomalous bodies that are larger and have
high velocity contrast are easier to distinguish with a shorter receiver
spread length on the V S map. After determining the investigation
depth for a particular problem, the optimal data acquisition param-
eters, such as the receiver spread length, can be determined. The hori-
zontal resolution of the MASW method decreases with the increasing
depth and is approximately half of the shortest Rayleigh wavelength
that can penetrate to the depth, which is useful for real-world appli-
cations using the MASW method to reconstruct the lateral variation.
The numerical investigation method can also be used for the research
of horizontal resolution of MALWs.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the editors and reviewers for their constructive com-
ments and suggestions on this manuscript. We would like to convey
our gratitude to X. Ye (Broadvision Engineering Consultants, Na-
tional Engineering Laboratory for Surface Transportation Weather
Impacts Prevention, Yunnan, China) for supplying the field data 2.
We also thank O. Yilmaz for the detailed discussion and encourage-
ment. B. Mi thanks J. Bradford for his help during the revision of
this manuscript at Boise State University. This research is supported
by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC, grant
no. 41274142) and the National Nonprofit Institute Research Grant
of Institute for Geophysical and Geochemical Exploration, Chinese
Academy of Geological Sciences (grant no. WHS201307).
EN65
REFERENCES
Babuska, V., and M. Cara, 1991, Seismic anisotropy in the earth: Academic
Publishers.
Beaty, K. S., and D. R. Schmitt, 2003, Repeatability of multimode Rayleigh-
wave dispersion studies: Geophysics, 68, 782–790, doi: 10.1190/1
.1581031.
Beaty, K. S., D. R. Schmitt, and M. Sacchi, 2002, Simulated annealing in-
version of multimode Rayleigh wave dispersion curves for geological struc-
ture: Geophysical Journal International, 151, 622–631, doi: 10.1046/j
.1365-246X.2002.01809.x.
Boiero, D., and L. V. Socco, 2010, Retrieving lateral variations from surface
wave dispersion curves analysis: Geophysical Prospecting, 58, 977–996.
Calderón-Macías, C., and B. Luke, 2007, Improved parameterization to in-
vert Rayleigh-wave data for shallow profiles containing stiff inclusions:
Geophysics, 72, no. 1, U1–U10, doi: 10.1190/1.2374854.
Forbriger, T., 2003a, Inversion of shallow-seismic wavefields: Part 1 — Wave-
field transformation: Geophysical Journal International, 153, 719–734, doi:
10.1046/j.1365-246X.2003.01929.x.
Forbriger, T., 2003b, Inversion of shallow-seismic wavefields: Part 2 — In-
ferring subsurface properties from wavefield transforms: Geophysical
Journal International, 153, 735–752, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-246X.2003
.01985.x.
Foti, S., and C. Strobbia, 2002, Some notes on model parameters for surface
wave data inversion: 15th Symposium on the Application of Geophysics
to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP), SEI6–SEI6.
Hokstad, K., R. Sollie, and S. A. Petersen, 2001, Horizontal resolution of
3-D VSP data: 71st Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Ab-
stracts, 444–447.
Ivanov, J., R. D. Miller, P. Lacombe, C. D. Johnson, and J. W. Lane Jr.,
2006a, Delineating a shallow fault zone and dipping bedrock strata using
multichannel analysis of surface waves with a land streamer: Geophysics,
71, no. 5, A39–A42, doi: 10.1190/1.2227521.
Ivanov, J., R. D. Miller, J. Xia, D. W. Steeples, and C. B. Park, 2006b, Joint
analysis of refractions with surface waves an inverse solution to the re-
fraction-traveltime problem: Geophysics, 71, no. 6, R131–R138, doi: 10
.1190/1.2360226.
Lin, C., and C. Lin, 2007, Effect of lateral heterogeneity on surface wave
testing numerical simulations and a countermeasure: Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 27, 541–552, doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.10
.008.
Luke, B. A., C. Calderón-Macias, R. C. Stone, and M. Huynh, 2003, Non-
uniqueness in inversion of seismic surface-wave data: Proceedings of the
16th Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and
Environmental Problems (SAGEEP), 1342–1347.
Luo, Y., J. Xia, J. Liu, Q. Liu, and S. Xu, 2007, Joint inversion of high-fre-
quency surface waves with fundamental and higher modes: Journal of
Applied Geophysics, 62, 375–384, doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2007.02.004.
Luo, Y., J. Xia, J. Liu, Y. Xu, and Q. Liu, 2008a, Generation of a pseudo-2D
shear-wave velocity section by inversion of a series of 1D dispersion
curves: Journal of Applied Geophysics, 64, 115–124, doi: 10.1016/j
.jappgeo.2008.01.003.
Luo, Y., J. Xia, J. Liu, Y. Xu, and Q. Liu, 2009a, Research on the MASW
middle-of-the-spread-results assumption: Soil Dynamic and Earthquake
Engineering, 29, 71–79, doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2008.01.009.
Luo, Y., J. Xia, R. D. Miller, Y. Xu, J. Liu, and Q. Liu, 2008b, Rayleigh-
wave dispersive energy imaging by high-resolution linear Radon trans-
form: Pure and Applied Geophysics, 165, 903–922, doi: 10.1007/
s00024-008-0338-4.
Luo, Y., J. Xia, R. D. Miller, Y. Xu, J. Liu, and Q. Liu, 2009b, Rayleigh-
wave mode separation by high-resolution linear Radon transform: Geo-
physical Journal International, 179, 254–264, doi: 10.1111/gji.2009.179
.issue-1.
Luo, Y., J. Xia, Y. Xu, C. Zeng, R. D. Miller, and Q. Liu, 2009c, Dipping
Interface mapping using mode-separated Rayleigh waves: Pure and Ap-
plied Geophysics, 166, 353–374, doi: 10.1007/s00024-009-0451-z.
Mayne, W. H., 1962, Horizontal data stacking techniques: Supplement to
Geophysics, 27, 927–938, doi: 10.1190/1.1439118.
McMechan, G. A., and M. J. Yedlin, 1981, Analysis of dispersive waves by
wave field transformation: Geophysics, 46, 869–874, doi: 10.1190/1
.1441225.
Miller, R. D., and J. Xia, 1999, Feasibility of seismic techniques to delineate
dissolution features in the upper 600 ft at Alabama electric cooperative’s
proposed Damascus site, interim report: Kansas Geological Survey Open-
file Report, 99–3.
Miller, R. D., J. Xia, C. B. Park, and J. Ivanov, 1999, Multichannel analysis
of surface waves to map bedrock: The Leading Edge, 18, 1392–1396, doi:
10.1190/1.1438226.
O’Neill, A., 2004, Shear velocity model appraisal in shallow surface wave
inversion: Proceedings on ISC-2 on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site
Characterization, 539–546.
 EN66 Mi et al.
O’Neill, A., T. Campbell, and T. Matsuoka, 2008, Lateral resolution and
lithological interpretation of surface-wave profiling: The Leading Edge,
27, 1550–1563, doi: 10.1190/1.3011028.
Pan, Y., J. Xia, and C. Zeng, 2013, Verification of correctness of using real
part of complex root as Rayleigh-wave phase velocity by synthetic data:
Journal of Applied Geophysics, 88, 94–100, doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2012
.09.012.
Park, C. B., 2005, MASW horizontal resolution in 2D shear-velocity (Vs)
Downloaded 06/27/17 to 84.220.195.227. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
mapping: Kansas Geological Survey Open-file Report, 2005–4.
Park, C. B., R. D. Miller, and J. Xia, 1998, Imaging dispersion curves of
surface waves on multi-channel record: 68th Annual International Meet-
ing, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1377–1380.
Park, C. B., R. D. Miller, and J. Xia, 1999, Multi-channel analysis of surface
waves (MASW): Geophysics, 64, 800–808, doi: 10.1190/1.1444590.
Rix, G. J., and E. A. Leipski, 1991, Accuracy and resolution of surface wave
inversion. Recent advances in instrumentation, data acquisition and test-
ing in soil dynamics: Geotechnical Special Publication, 29, 17–32.
Ryden, N., C. B. Park, P. Ulriksen, and R. D. Miller, 2004, Multimodal ap-
proach to seismic pavement testing: Journal of Geotechnical and Geoen-
vironmental Engineering, 130, 636–645, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241
(2004)130:6(636).
Sanchez-Salinero, I., J. M. Roesset, K. Y. Shao, K. H. Stokoe II, and G. J.
Rix, 1987, Analytical evaluation of variables affecting surface wave test-
ing of pavements: Transportation Research Record no. 1136, 86–95.
Schwab, F. A., and L. Knopoff, 1972, Fast surface wave and free mode com-
putations, in B. A. Bolt, ed., Methods in computational physics: Aca-
demic Press, 87–180.
Schwenk, J. T., S. D. Sloan, J. Ivanov, and R. D. Miller, 2016, Surface-wave
methods for anomaly detection: Geophysics, 81, no. 4, EN29–EN42, doi:
10.1190/geo2015-0356.1.
Semblat, J. F., M. Kham, E. Parara, P. Y. Bard, K. Pitilakis, K. Makra, and D.
Raptakis, 2005, Seismic wave amplification basin geometry vs soil layer-
ing: Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 25, 529–538, doi: 10
.1016/j.soildyn.2004.11.003.
Shen, C., A. Wang, L. Wang, Z. Xu, and F. Cheng, 2015, Resolution equiv-
alence of dispersion-imaging methods for noise-free high-frequency sur-
face-wave data: Journal of Applied Geophysics, 122, 167–171, doi: 10
.1016/j.jappgeo.2015.09.019.
Socco, L. V., S. Foti, and D. Boiero, 2010, Surface-wave analysis for building
near-surface velocity models — Established approaches and new perspec-
tives: Geophysics, 75, no. 5, 75A83–75A102, doi: 10.1190/1.3479491.
Socco, L. V., and C. L. Strobbia, 2003, Extensive modeling to study surface
wave resolution: Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on the Application
of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP),
1312–1319.
Song, Y. Y., J. P. Castagna, R. A. Black, and R. W. Knapp, 1989, Sensitivity
of near-surface shear-wave velocity determination from Rayleigh and
Love waves: 59th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Ab-
stracts, 509–512.
Strobbia, C., and S. Foti, 2006, Multi-offset phase analysis of surface wave
data (MOPA): Journal of Applied Geophysics, 59, 300–313, doi: 10.1016/
j.jappgeo.2005.10.009.
Virieux, J., 1986, P-SV wave propagation in heterogeneous media: Velocity-
stress finite-difference method: Geophysics, 51, 889–901, doi: 10.1190/1
.1442147.
Wang, L., Y. Luo, and Y. Xu, 2012, Numerical investigation of Rayleigh-
wave propagation on topography surface: Journal of Applied Geophysics,
86, 88–97, doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2012.08.001.
Wang, L., Y. Xu, and Y. Luo, 2015, Numerical investigation of 3D multi-
channel analysis of surface wave method: Journal of Applied Geophysics,
119, 156–169, doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2015.05.018.
Xia, J., 2014, Estimation of near-surface shear-wave velocities and quality
factors using multichannel analysis of surface-wave methods: Journal of
Applied Geophysics, 103, 140–151, doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2014.01.016.
Xia, J., C. Chen, P. H. Li, and M. J. Lewis, 2004, Delineation of a collapse
feature in a noisy environment using a multichannel surface wave tech-
nique: Geotechnique, 54, 17–27, doi: 10.1680/geot.2004.54.1.17.
Xia, J., C. Chen, G. Tian, R. D. Miller, and J. Ivanov, 2005, Resolution of
high-frequency Rayleigh-wave data: Journal of Environmental and Engi-
neering Geophysics, 10, 99–110, doi: 10.2113/JEEG10.2.99.
Xia, J., R. D. Miller, and C. B. Park, 1999, Estimation of near-surface shear-
wave velocity by inversion of Rayleigh wave: Geophysics, 64, 691–700,
doi: 10.1190/1.1444578.
Xia, J., R. D. Miller, C. B. Park, J. A. Hunter, J. B. Harris, and J. Ivanov,
2002, Comparing shear-wave velocity profiles from multichannel analysis
of surface wave with borehole measurements: Soil Dynamics and Earth-
quake Engineering, 22, 181–190, doi: 10.1016/S0267-7261(02)00008-8.
Xia, J., R. D. Miller, C. B. Park, and G. Tian, 2003, Inversion of high fre-
quency surface waves with fundamental and higher modes: Journal of
Applied Geophysics, 52, 45–57, doi: 10.1016/S0926-9851(02)00239-2.
Xia, J., R. D. Miller, Y. Xu, Y. Luo, C. Chen, J. Liu, J. Ivanov, and C. Zeng,
2009, High-frequency Rayleigh-wave method: Journal of Earth Science,
20, 563–579, doi: 10.1007/s12583-009-0047-7.
Xia, J., Y. Xu, C. Chen, R. D. Kaufmann, and Y. Luo, 2006, Simple equa-
tions guide high-frequency surface-wave investigation techniques: Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 26, 395–403, doi: 10.1016/j
.soildyn.2005.11.001.
Xia, J., Y. Xu, Y. Luo, R. D. Miller, R. Cakir, and C. Zeng, 2012, Advantages
of using multichannel analysis of Love waves (MALW) to estimate near-
surface shear-wave velocity: Surveys in Geophysics, 33, 841–860, doi: 10
.1007/s10712-012-9174-2.
Xia, J., Y. Xu, and R. D. Miller, 2007, Generating image of dispersive energy
by frequency decomposition and slant stacking: Pure and Applied Geo-
physics, 164, 941–956, doi: 10.1007/s00024-007-0204-9.
Xia, J., Y. Xu, R. D. Miller, and C. Zeng, 2010, A trade-off solution between
model resolution and covariance in surface-wave inversion: Pure and Ap-
plied Geophysics, 167, 1537–1547, doi: 10.1007/s00024-010-0107-z.
Xie, H., and L. B. Liu, 2015, Near-surface anisotropic structure characteriza-
tion by Love wave inversion for assessing ground conditions in urban areas:
Journal of Earth Science, 26, 807–812, doi: 10.1007/s12583-015-0619-7.
Xu, Y., J. Xia, and R. D. Miller, 2006, Quantitative estimation of minimum
offset for multichannel surface-wave survey with actively exciting source:
Journal of Applied Geophysics, 59, 117–125, doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo
.2005.08.002.
Xu, Y., J. Xia, and R. D. Miller, 2007, Numerical investigation of implemen-
tation of air-earth boundary by acoustic-elastic boundary approach: Geo-
physics, 72, no. 5, SM147–SM153, doi: 10.1190/1.2753831.
Xu, Y., J. Xia, and R. D. Miller, 2009, Approximation to cutoffs of higher
modes of Rayleigh waves for a layered earth model: Pure and Applied
Geophysics, 166, 339–351, doi: 10.1007/s00024-008-0443-4.
Yilmaz, O., 1987, Seismic data processing: SEG.
Yilmaz, O., and A. Kocaoglu, 2012, Effect of lateral heterogeneity in the soil
column on shear-wave velocity estimation by Rayleigh-wave inversion:
The Leading Edge, 31, 758–765, doi: 10.1190/tle31070758.1.
Yin, X., J. Xia, C. Shen, and H. Xu, 2014, Comparative analysis on pen-
etrating depth of high-frequency Rayleigh and Love waves: Journal of
Applied Geophysics, 111, 86–94, doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2014.09.022.
Zeng, C., J. Xia, R. D. Miller, and G. P. Tsoflias, 2011, Application of the
multiaxial perfectly matched layer (M-PML) to near-surface seismic mod-
eling with Rayleigh waves: Geophysics, 76, no. 3, T43–T52, doi: 10
.1190/1.3560019.
Zeng, C., J. Xia, R. D. Miller, G. P. Tsoflias, and Z. Wang, 2012, Numerical
investigation of MASW applications in presence of surface topography:
Journal of Applied Geophysics, 84, 52–60, doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2012
.06.004.
Zhang, S. X., L. S. Chan, and J. Xia, 2004, The selection of field acquisition
parameters for dispersion images from multichannel surface wave data: Pure
and Applied Geophysics, 161, 185–201, doi: 10.1007/s00024-003-2428-7.