1. Predicting Site Response

2. Based on theoretical calculations –1-D equivalent linear, non-linear –2-D and 3-D non-linear Needs geotechnical site properties

3. and Damping Ratios (Q) Imaging of Near-Surface Seismic Slowness (Velocity) and Damping Ratios (Q)

4. S β (z) (shear-wave slowness) (=1/velocity) S α (z) (compressional-wave slowness) ξ β (z) (shear-wave damping ratio [Q β ]) Image What? Why? Site amplification Site classification for building codes Identification of liquefaction and landslide potential Correlation of various properties (e.g., geologic units and Vs)

5. Why Slowness? Travel time in layers directly proportional to slowness; travel time fundamental in site response (e.g., T = 4*s*h = 4*travel time) Can average slowness from several profiles depth-by-depth Slowness is the usual regression coefficient in fits of travel time vs. depth Visual comparisons of slowness profiles more meaningful for site response than velocity profiles

6. Why Show Slowness Rather Than Velocity? Large apparent differences in velocity in deeper layers (usually higher velocity) become less important in plots of slowness Focus attention on what contributes most to travel time in the layers

7. Imaging Slowness Invasive Methods – Active sources – Passive sources Noninvasive Methods – Active sources – Passive sources

8. Invasive Methods Active Sources – surface source – downhole source Passive sources – Recordings of earthquake waves in boreholes---not covered in this talk

9. Invasive Method Surface Source-- Downhole Receiver (ssdhr) (receiver can be on SCPT rod) One receiver moved up or down hole

10. SURFACE SOURCE ---SUBSURFACE RECEIVERS downhole profiling – velocities from surface – data gaps filled by average velocity – expensive (requires hole) – depth range limited (but good to > 250 m) seismic cone penetrometer – advantages of downhole – inexpensive – limited range – not good for cobbly materials, rock

11. Plotting sideways makes it easier to see slopes changes by viewing obliquely (an exploration geophysics trick) Create a record section—opposite directions of surface source (red, blue traces) Pick arrivals (black) CCOC

12. Finer layering in upper 100m

13. Two models from the same travel time picks.

14. The increased resolution makes little difference in site amplification

15. SUBSURFACE SOURCE --- SUBSURFACE RECEIVERS crosshole – “point” measurements in depth – expensive (2 holes) – velocity not appropriate for site response suspension logger – rapid collection of data (no casing required) – average velocity over small depth ranges – can be used in deep holes – expensive (requires borehole) – no way of interpolating across data gaps

16. From Geovision Downhole source--- P-S suspensionlogging (aka “PS Log”) Downhole source--- P-S suspension logging (aka “PS Log”) Dominant frequency = 1000 Hz

17. Example from Coyote Creek: note 1) overall trend; 2) “scatter”; 3) results averaged over various depth intervals reduces “noise”

18. “Noise” fluctuations in both S and P logs agree with variations in lithology! (No averaging)

19. Some Strengths of Invasive Methods Direct measure of velocity Surface source produces a model from the surface, with depth intervals of poor or missing data replaced by average layer (good for site amplification calculations) PS suspension logging rapid, can be done soon after hole drilled, no casing required, not limited in depth range

20. Some Weaknesses of Invasive Methods Expensive! (If need to drill hole) Surface source may have difficulties in deep holes, requires cased holes, logging must wait PS suspension log does not produce model from the surface (but generally gets to within 1 to 2 m), and there is no way of interpolating across depth intervals with missing data.

21. Noninvasive Methods Active Sources – e.g., SASW and MASW Passive sources (usually microtremors) – Single station – Arrays (e.g., fk, SPAC) Combined active—passive sources

22. Overview of SASW and MASW Method Spectral-Analysis-of-Surface-Waves (SASW—2 receivers); Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW— multiple receivers) Noninvasive and Nondestructive Based on Dispersive Characteristics of Rayleigh Waves in a Layered Medium

23. SASW Field Procedure Transient or Continuous Sources (use several per site) Receiver Geometry Considerations: – Near Field Effects – Attenuation – Expanding Receiver Spread – Lateral Variability (Brown)

24. SASW & MASW Data Interpretation (Brown) Dispersion curve built from a number of subsets (different source, different receiver spreads)

25. Some Factors That Influence Accuracy of SASW & MASW Testing Lateral Variability of Subsurface Shear-Wave Velocity Gradient and Contrasts Values of Poisson’s Ratio Assumed in the inversion of the dispersion curves Background Information on Site Geology Improves the Models

26. Noninvasive Methods Passive sources (usually microtremors) ancient – Single station (much work has been done on this method---e.g., SESAME project. I only mention it in passing, using some slides from an ancient paper)

27. (Boore & Toksöz, 1969) Ellipticity (H/V) as a function of frequency depends on earth structure

28. Noninvasive Methods Passive sources (usually microtremors) – Multiple stations (usually two- dimensional arrays)

29. (Hartzell, 2005) The array of stations at WSP used by Hartzell

30. (Hartzell, 2005) Inverting to obtain velocity profile

31. Noninvasive Methods Often active sources are limited in depth (hard to generate low- frequency motions) Station spacing used in passive source experiments often too large for resolution of near-surface slowness Solution: Combined active—passive sources

32. (Yoon and Rix, 2005) An example from the CCOC—WSP experiment (active: f > 4 Hz; passive: f<8 Hz)

33. Comparing Different Imaging Results at the Same Site Direct comparison of slowness profiles Site amplification – From empirical prediction equations – Theoretical Full resonance Simplified (Square-root impedance)

34. Comparison of slowness profiles:

35. Coyote Creek Blind Interpretation Experiment (Asten and Boore, 2005) CCOC = Coyote Creek Outdoor Classroom

36. The Experiment Measurements and interpretations done voluntarily by many groups Interpretations “blind” to other results Interpretations sent to D. Boore Workshop held in May, 2004 to compare results Open-File report published in 2005 (containing a summary by Asten & Boore and individual reports from participants)

37. Active sources at WSP: note larger near-surface & smaller deep slownesses than reference for most methods.

38. Passive sources at WSP: note larger near-surface & smaller deep slownesses than reference for most methods. Models extend to greater depth than do the models from active sources

39. Combined active & passive sources at WSP: note larger near-surface slownesses than reference

40. leading to these small differences in empirically-based amplifications based on V30 (red=active; blue=passive & combined)

41. converge near 30 m Average slownesses tend to converge near 30 m (coincidence?) with systematic differences shallower and deeper (both types of source give larger shallow slowness; at 30 m the slowness from active sources is larger than the reference and on average is smaller than the reference for passive sources.

42. larger differencesat higher frequencies But larger differences at higher frequencies (up to 40%) (V30 corresponds to ~ 2 Hz)

43. Summary (short) Many methods available for imaging seismic slowness Noninvasive methods work well, with some suggestions of systematic departures from borehole methods Several measures of site amplification show little sensitivity to the differences in models (on the order of factors of 1.4 or less) Site amplifications show trends with V30, but the remaining scatter in observed ground motions is large