Abstract
The paper intends to compare three different methodologies which can be used to analyze surface-wave propagation, thus eventually obtaining the vertical shear-wave velocity (VS) profile. The three presented methods (currently still quite unconventional) are characterized by different field procedures and data processing.
The first methodology is a sort of evolution of the classical Multi-channel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) here accomplished by jointly considering Rayleigh and Love waves (analyzed according to the Full Velocity Spectrum approach) and the Horizontal-to-Vertical Spectral Ratio (HVSR).
The second method is based on the joint analysis of the HVSR curve together with the Rayleigh-wave dispersion determined via Miniature Array Analysis of Microtremors (MAAM), a passive methodology that relies on a small number (4 to 6) of vertical geophones deployed along a small circle (for the common near-surface application the radius usually ranges from 0.6 to 5m).
Finally, the third considered approach is based on the active data acquired by a single 3-component geophone and relies on the joint inversion of the group-velocity spectra of the radial and vertical components of the Rayleigh waves, together with the Radial-to-Vertical Spectral Ratio (RVSR).
The results of the analyses performed while considering these approaches (completely different both in terms of field procedures and data analysis) appear extremely consistent thus mutually validating their performances.
Pros and cons of each approach are summarized both in terms of computational aspects as well as with respect to practical considerations regarding the specific character of the pertinent field procedures.
•Unambiguous determination of the shear-wave velocity vertical profile•Joint acquisition and analysis of multi-component seismic data•Surface wave analysis via advanced techniques based on active and passive data•Surface wave dispersion: effective dispersion curve and Full Velocity Spectra analysis