Reliability of MASW profiling in near-surface applications. Near Surface Geophysics (2014)

© 2014 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers 731

Near Surface Geophysics, 2014, 12, 731-737 doi:10.3997/1873-0604.2014029

* [email protected]

Reliability of MASW profiling in near-surface applications

Hannes Steinel1, Jörg Hausmann1*, Ulrike Werban1 and Peter Dietrich1,2

1 UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Dept. Monitoring and Exploration Technologies, Permoserstraße 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany

2 Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Center of Applied Geosciences, Hölderlinstraße 12, 72074 Tübingen, Germany

Received February 2013, revision accepted June 2014

ABSTRACTPseudo-2D surface wave profiling (MASW) has become a powerful state-of-the-art tool for the characterization of near-surface features in recent years. The rapid gathering and interpretation of surface wave data, i.e. Rayleigh waves, that this method offers is applicable to many investiga-tions and environments. However, most studies only perform unidirectional active surface wave profiling, i.e. without data evaluation by measuring the same profile in the opposite direction. Uncertainties arising from using the MASW method are connected to the one-dimensional inver-sion of a two-dimensional subsurface. Moreover, the occurence of lateral inhomogeneities and dipping layers distort the flat-layered 1D assumption used in surface wave inversion. In this study, we present data from two different MASW surveys. For both locations, we reveal shot-geometri-cal effects and prove the necessity of bidirectional profiling, especially since these check shots can be implemented with only little extra effort. The results of this investigation show that, in general, more attention should be paid to data evaluation.

ous near-surface investigations in several environments, including for geotechnical purposes, e.g. Ismail and Anderson (2007) and Socco et al. (2008), as geophysical surveys, e.g. Debeglia et al. (2006) and Roy and Stewart (2012), and in geomorphological studies, e.g. Socco et al. (2010) and Yamakawa et al. (2012).

To date, nearly all application-oriented studies only perform unidirectional pseudo-2D surface wave profiling, i.e. without car-rying out data evaluation by measuring the same profile in the opposite direction (Bodet et al. 2005). However, these verification shots help to clarify the presence of dipping layers and lateral variations, which influence Rayleigh wave propagation and distort the flat-layered 1D assumption of Rayleigh wave inversion (Socco and Strobbia 2004). Moreover, methodical uncertainties also arise when attempting to localize the global estimate of the dispersive characteristics, as well as the inverted vertical S-wave velocity profile relative to the mid-spread position (Lou et al. 2009). Bodet et al. (2005) and O’Neill et al. (2006) point out that this problem is connected to MASW profiling. They also suggest performing surface wave measurements in both directions of the array line. In this study, we present MASW results obtained from two different sites, illustrating how the application of bidirectional profiling improves the obtained results of the state-of-the-art method.

METHOLOGYData gathering and processing at the Lauswiesen siteThe Lauswiesen study site is situated in the Neckar valley near Tübingen, Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany (Fig. 1a). The geolo-

INTRODUCTIONBy inducing seismic signals into the ground surface, most of the energy is transmitted as surface waves, i.e. Rayleigh waves. The multispectral analysis of surface waves (MASW) method utilizes the dispersive characteristics of Rayleigh waves (Park et al. 1999). The waves propagate through different depths with certain phase velocities, mainly influenced by the density and stiffness of sub-surface materials. The data is recorded and processed to obtain the relationship between frequency and phase velocity, i.e. the disper-sion curves. By inverting these curves, the 1D depth distribution of the S-wave velocity is estimated. As a result, this provides infor-mation about the properties of the near surface.

Pseudo-2D MASW profiling is accomplished by measuring 1D S-wave velocity profiles with high shot density, for example with the application of landstreamers or by planting geophones along the surveyed area. After acquiring the dataset, the 1D velocity distribution is calculated separately for each linear spread, where-by each 1D profile is located relative to the corresponding mid-spread position (Xia et al. 2000; Lou et al. 2009). Then, the results for the single profiles are plotted together generating a pseudo-2D S-wave velocity cross-section. This approach has become state-of-the-art for active Rayleigh wave profiling and the qualitative inter-pretation of subsurface features thanks to increased computational power and the availability of MASW software. A considerable number of studies have been published on the application of vari-

H. Steinel et al.732

© 2014 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2014, 12, 731-737

tal mode dispersive characteristics of the seismogram for each offset-shot position using SeisImager/SW software (Geometrics 2012). The energy maxima were picked semi-automatically. The dispersion curve for the corresponding mid-spread position of the 4 and 14 m offset were combined. Next, the inversion was accomplished using a genetic algorithm according to Parolai et al. (2005), Picozzi et al. (2005), Pilz et al. (2010), and Boxberger et al. (2011). The initial model, with a predefined search area, consists of three layers with respect to the geologi-cal setup at the study site (Table 1). Generally, the algorithm searches for a global solution during each model generation, employing genetic operations – namely crossover, elite selec-tion, and dynamic mutation. Thus, the iterative procedure was completed after 50 generations. Resulting misfit values of mostly less than 5% between measured and calculated disper-sion curves underline the high accuracy of the genetic algo-

gy of the area has been extensively described due to the many hydrogeological and geophysical investigations, which were car-ried out at this environmental research field site (Riva et al. 2006; Hoffmann and Dietrich 2004; Lessoff et al. 2010). A silty to clayey fluviatile top layer with a thickness of around 2 m char-acterizes the subsurface. This is underlain by gravel with differ-ing sand and silt fractions. At a depth of around 10 m, we have evidence for marlstones forming the local bedrock (Fig. 1a; Lessoff et al. (2010)).

The MASW profiles are located in NW-SE direction, starting at the River Neckar, ending near the B 27 road and vice versa. Data collected from this test site was primarily gathered as part of a seismic refraction survey. A 48-channel landstreamer with 14-Hz geophones within a spacing of 1 m was therefore used. We induced energy using a plastic hammer and a metal plate at every 10 m interval along the spread, which was 160 m long in total. We analysed this dataset in terms of Rayleigh waves. To compensate for near-field effects, not all 48 channels were uti-lized. In general, the first three traces were discarded due to low or poor signal quality. Furthermore, by deleting the last 10 traces of the spread as well as the first 10 and last 3 traces of the following spread, two spreads each of 34 m length were gener-ated, leading to source offsets of 4 and 14 m for the same mid-spread position. Thereby, we could combine the dispersion curves for both offsets in order to increase the frequency band-width and to resolve both shallower and deeper subsurface lay-ers according to the findings of Park and Shawver (2009). We processed the reclassified data in order to obtain the fundamen-

FIGURE 1

Locations and settings of the MASW survey lines: a) Lauswiesen study

site near Tübingen, Baden-Wuerttemberg, with a conceptual model of the

near-surface geology according to Lessoff et al. 2010; b) Löbnitz study

site, Saxony, with a conceptual model of the near-surface geology obtained

from sonic drillings (Hausmann et al. 2013).

TABLE 1

Predefined start model and parameter space for genetic algorithm inver-

sion at study site Lauswiesen with minimum and maximum S-wave

velocity (vs) and layer thickness (H), respectively; density is fixed for all

layers at 1.8 g/cm3.

substrate vs,min [m/s] vs,max [m/s] Hmin [m] Hmax [m]

clay 50 400 0.5 2.5

gravel 200 850 6 12

marl 500 2500 half-space

FIGURE 2

Processing scheme of MASW landstreamer profiling exemplarily illustrat-

ed by mid-spread position 59 m of the Lauswiesen profile; shooting is

performed from NW and SE. By editing the existing seismic refraction data

set we obtain two spreads of 34 m length with 4 and 14 m offset for every

mid-spread position. The resulting dispersion curves are combined and then

inverted via genetic algorithm (Parolai et al. 2005; Picozzi et al. 2005; Pilz

et al. 2010; Boxberger et al. 2011).

Reliability of MASW profiling in near-surface applications 733


We conducted the MASW survey on the path that crosses the abandoned meander (Hausmann et al. 2013).

Contrary to the investigation at the aforementioned Lauswiesen site, this survey was specifically planned for surface wave, i.e. Rayleigh wave, excitation and registration in order to delineate subsurface features. Accordingly, 96 4.5-Hz geophones were planted along the path with 1 m spacing. We induced energy using a plastic hammer and a metal plate at every 2 m interval along the spread. Keeping near-field effects in mind, we chose source offsets of 4 and 8 m for every mid-spread position (Dikmen et al. 2010). Shooting was performed using a roll-along method in NW-SE direction with the source being located in the NW and vice versa. Since we only processed single spreads of 23 m length, verification shots (SE-NW direction) could be accomplished simultaneously during the profiling with minimal extra effort. By enlarging profile length with receivers at the back of the actual shot position, propagation in the opposite of the actual shot direction can be recorded simultaneously (and can be used for check shots). For illustration, advancing from NW-SE direction throughout the fixed spread, the opposite direction (SE-NW) measured simultaneously after 27 m (smallest spread length + offset 4 m). However, the mid-spread positions should be identical for the purpose of data comparability and evaluation. Consequently, the profile was extended in NW direction for another 47 m. Afterwards, we reduced our seismic records, obtaining 49 seismograms with 24 traces and a spread length of 23 m for each shot position and offset. Thus, we achieved a bidi-rectional data coverage along the profile in forward (NW) and backward (SW) direction.

The processing steps of the seismograms are identical with those from the Lauswiesen data sets. We combined the funda-mental mode dispersion curves of both offsets for the corre-sponding mid-spread position (Fig. 3). We set our initial starting model to six layers so we could perform genetic algorithm inver-sion, according to the methods outlined by Parolai et al. (2005), Picozzi et al. (2005), Pilz et al. (2010), and Boxberger et al. (2011). These six layers represent the both vertically and later-

rithm. Figure 2 exemplarily illustrates the processing for the Lauswiesen data set for NW-SE direction. We then interpolated the depth steps of the 1D S-wave velocity profiles to an equal thickness of 0.1 m. These profiles were plotted against each other, generating a pseudo-2D S-wave velocity cross-section. We repeated this approach for both recording directions.

Data gathering and processing at the Löbnitz siteThe Löbnitz study site is located in northern Saxony, Germany (Fig. 1b). The MASW survey was intended to characterize verti-cal and lateral structures of an abandoned meander of the River Mulde, including the delineation of a point bar, a channel, and a cut bank. Previous geotechnical and geophysical studies clarified the geological setup of this investigation site (Paasche et al. 2009; Hausmann et al. 2013). The subsurface is composed of haugh sediments. Alluvial loamy material overlays fluvial grav-elly sands, changing sand, and gravel layers. All of these layers are underlain by gravel sediments from the lower terrace (bench gravel) at a depth of ca. 5–6 m (Fig. 1b). The meander was cut off and has now been abandoned due to embankment creation.

FIGURE 3

Processing scheme of bidirectional MASW profiling exemplarily illus-

trated by mid-spread position 49.5 m of the Löbnitz profiles; shooting is

performed from NW and SE direction for the same mid-spread position.

The resulting dispersion curves for 4 and 8 m offsets are combined and

then inverted via genetic algorithm (Parolai et al. 2005; Picozzi et al. 2005;

Pilz et al. 2010; Boxberger et al. 2011).

TABLE 1

Predefined start model and parameter space for genetic algorithm inver-

sion at study site Löbnitz with minimum and maximum S-wave velocity

(vs) and layer thickness (H), respectively; density is fixed for all layers at

1.8 g/cm3.

substrate vs,min [m/s] vs,max [m/s] Hmin [m] Hmax [m]

mixed (path) 50 300 0.5 1

haugh sed./filling

50 350 1 1.5

haugh sed./filling

50 350 1 1.5

gravel/filling 50 350 1 1.5

gravel/clay 80 500 1 2

gravel 100 600 half-space



layer of marl marks the vertical limits of the investigated subsur-face. This layer is noticeable throughout both profiles, with vs ranging from 700–2,500 m/s and in depths of 8–13 m. Since the spread was obtained using a landstreamer device for refraction seismic purposes, the shot positions are identical. The mid-spread positions of both profiles differ, however, by 2 m. Nevertheless, the position of the distinctive depressions, where the marl lies at a depth of 13 m, differs by 10 m for each of the profiles. Moreover, both shot directions reveal differing positions for the marl boundary (Fig. 5) with a maximum vertical drift of about 3 m. As such, a higher shot density would be preferable and would help to improve the resolution of the mapped subsur-face features.

Despite the modest geological setup of this study site, which consists of three layers with no abrupt lateral discontinuities, both pseudo-2D shear-wave velocity profiles differ most notably in mapping the depth of the marl boundary. This shot geometri-cal dependency may be the result of the one-dimensional inver-sion of a two-dimensional subsurface, i.e. the averaging of the global Rayleigh wave response of the geological features under-neath the spread to a local point (mid-spread position). Therefore, one has to be aware of the methodical uncertainties connected with shear-wave velocity profiling.

LöbnitzThe results of both shot directions (Fig. 6) reveal lateral and vertical heterogeneities of the subsurface, but with a number of differences. At this study site, it was possible to investigate to a maximum depth of only 7 m due to shorter spread length. The path close to the profile becomes visible and is the uppermost layer in both profiles (200–300 m/s), even though it is not con-sistent. In the NW part of both profiles, up to profile point 27 m in NW-SE direction and 21 m in SE-NW direction, the subsur-face is characterized by relatively homogenous S-wave velocities of 100–200 m/s. This indicates haugh sediments down to a depth of 5 m. In depths of 5–6 m, velocities increase up to 350 m/s. From 6–7 m depth, velocities increase up to 400 m/s, especially

ally complex geological situation of the abandoned meander and its filling (Fig. 1b; Table 2). We achieved misfit values of mostly less than 3% between measured and calculated dispersion curves. According to Xia et al. (2003), inclusion of higher modes stabilizes the inversion process of surface wave data and improves the investigation depth. The small misfit values between measured and calculated dispersion curves indicate the high accuracy of the inversion of the fundamental modes at Löbnitz site. Because of the shallow investigation depth (7 m), the examination of only fundamental modes seems to be suffi-cient to show the differences in the bidirectional profiling. The depth steps were interpolated and the topography of the profile was applied to both pseudo-2D S-wave velocity sections.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONLauswiesenThe results of the pseudo-2D shear-wave velocity profiling dependent on the shot direction are shown in Fig. 4. Both profiles confirm the geological setup of the study site, with an approx. 2-m thick layer (100–300 m/s) representing haugh sediments. Increasing velocities (300–700 m/s) correspond to gravelly sedi-ments with differing sand and silt compositions. The thickness of this layer differs in both profiles but tends to decrease with increasing distance from the River Neckar – by approximately 8 m in the NW section to 6 m in the SE section, with maximum thicknesses of 10 m between 0–20 m along the NW-SE profile and 20–30 m along the SE-NW profile, respectively. A lower

FIGURE 4

Results of pseudo-2D S-wave velocity (vs) profiling via landstreamer at the

Lauswiesen study site pulling from a) NW to SE and b) from SE to NW

direction; proportion of horizontal to vertical scale 1:5.

FIGURE 5

Interpreted marl boundaries at the Lauswiesen study site, with

vs > 700 m/s dependent on the direction of data gathering; proportion of

horizontal to vertical scale 1:5.



The area of the filled channel is noticeable in both profiles (Fig. 6). In the NW-SE velocity section, distinct subsurface fea-tures especially limit filling at points 27–63 m along this part of the profile. The path is characterized by high velocities (200–300 m/s) in the uppermost layer, which is followed by an inverse layer (50–100 m/s) down to a depth of 2.5 m. After an increase in S-wave velocity (200–300 m/s), the velocities of the underly-ing layer decrease once more to 100–200 m/s. A high-contrast increase in S-wave velocity in the gravel (> 300 m/s) limits the channel at a depth of 6 m. Apart from a similar inverse velocity distribution in the uppermost layers, distinct subsurface features of the filling are missing in the SE-NW profile, and no indica-tions for the delineation of a channel are provided (Fig. 7). One can argue that the soft low velocity layers of the channel may be blurred by stiff cut bank artefacts, since the spread only pushes towards the NW end of the profile, starting at the cut bank. Therefore, most of the geophones and large portions of the Rayleigh wave response may be dominated by the soil closer to the source during further data acquisition in NW direction. On the contrary, the NW-SE profile approached the cut bank by pushing the spread in SE direction. O’Neill et al. (2006) and O’Neill et al. (2008) also report such shot-geometrical depend-encies in surface wave profiling. The authors describe these scat-tered artefacts as lateral smearing. Referring to our data, the blurred channel of the SE-NW profile and the drift of the NW limit of the infill area in both pseudo-2D S-wave velocity sec-tions at profile points 27 and 21 m, respectively, represent such lateral scattering.

CONCLUSIONSBased on two different study sites, our investigations showed that there is a shot-geometrical dependency in pseudo-2D S-wave velocity profiling. This dependency is highlighted by differences of the layer boundaries, as shown by the velocity distributions from opposite shot directions. At the Lauswiesen study site, these differences between the shot directions were clearly illus-trated by a differing marl boundary. Considering that the geology of the investigation site is mainly characterized by three layers without major lateral inhomogeneities, methodical uncertainties related to the MASW method must be taken into account to help us understand the reason for the aforementioned mismatching marl boundary positions for both profile directions. In this respect, methodical uncertainties in surface wave profiling may originate from the 1D inversion of a 2D subsurface and the aver-aging of the surface wave response to a local point, i.e. the mid-spread position. The investigated abandoned meander near Löbnitz also revealed variations between both pseudo-2D MASW cross-sections, which were dependent on shot direction. Here, lateral inhomogeneities of the infill area and the cut bank disrupt the flat-layered assumption of the 1D inversion. This is especially visible in the SE-NW profile, where the stiff velocity structures of the cut bank blur the softer channel fillings. Moreover, we note that the subsurface features closer to the

in the NW-SE profile. This increase may indicate more gravelly sediments, which we regard as velocity boundary (> 250 m/s), delimiting features of the abandoned meander. A similar veloci-ty, therefore also regarded as a similar sediment distribution, is found in the SE area of the NW-SE profile at points 65–83 m along the profile and 60–83 m along the SE-NW profile. In con-trast, the velocity boundary v

s > 300 m/s was already detected at a depth of 4 m in the NW-SE profile. This boundary indicates the cut bank of the abandoned meander, which can also be observed from an aerial viewpoint and via further site reconnaissance. In contrast, we cannot draw similar conclusions from the SE-NW profile, where we monitor the depth of this boundary constantly at about 6 m throughout the entire profile without any consider-able change (Fig. 7).

FIGURE 6

Results of the pseudo-2D S-wave velocity (vs) profiling with fixed geo-

phones at the Löbnitz study site, pushing from a) NW to SE and b) from

SE to NW direction; proportion of horizontal to vertical scale 1:5.

FIGURE 7

Interpreted lower-terrace gravel boundaries at the Löbnitz study site with

vs > 250 m/s dependent on the direction of data gathering; proportion of

horizontal to vertical scale 1:5.



to the technicians Andreas Schoßland, Helko Kotas, and Marco Pohle for excellent fieldwork at the Löbnitz test site and support. The editor and reviewers are acknowledged for their constructive comments helping to improve the manuscript.

REFERENCESBodet L., van Wijk K., Bitri A., Abraham O., Côte P., Grandjean G. et al.

2005. Surface-wave inversion limitations from laser-Doppler physical modeling. Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics 10(2), 151–162.

Boxberger T., Picozzi M. and Parolai S. 2011. Shallow geology charac-terisation using Rayleigh and Love wave dispersion curves derived from seismic noise array measurement. Journal of Applied Geophysics 75, 345–354.

Debeglia N., Bitri A. and Thierry P. 2006. Karst investigations using microgravity and MASW; Application to Orléans, France. Near Surface Geophysics 4(4), 215–225.

Dikmen U., Arisoy M.Ö. and Akkaya I. 2010. Offset and linear spread geometry in the MASW method. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering 7, 211–222.

Geometrics. 2012. SeisImager/SW Surface Wave Data Analysis Software. http://www.geometrics.com (24.10.2012).

Hausmann J., Steinel H., Kreck M., Werban U., Vienken T. and Dietrich P. 2013. Two-dimensional geomorphological characterization of a filled abandoned meander using geophysical methods and soil sam-pling. Geomorphology 201, 335–343.

Hayashi K. and Suzuki H. 2004. CMP cross-correlation analysis of multi-channel surface-wave data. Exploration Geophysics 35, 7–13.

Hoffmann R. and Dietrich P. 2004. An approach to determine equivalent solutions to the geoelectrical 2D inversion problem. Journal of Applied Geophysics 56(2), 79–91.

Ismail A. and Anderson N. 2007. Near-surface characterization of a geo-technical site in north-east Missouri using shear-wave velocity meas-urements. Near Surface Geophysics 5(5), 331–336.

Lessoff S.C., Schneidewind U., Leven C., Blum P., Dietrich P. and Dagan G. 2010. Spatial characterization of the hydraulic conductivity using direct-push injection logging. Water Resources Research 46(12), 9 p.

Lou Y., Xia J., Liu J., Xu Y. and Liu Q. 2009. Research on the middle-of-receiver-spread assumption of the MASW method. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29, 71–79.

O’Neill A., Campbell T. and Matsuoka T. 2008. Lateral resolution and lithological interpretation of surface-wave profiling. The Leading Edge 27, 1550–1563.

O’Neill A., Safani J. and Matsuoka T. 2006. Landstreamers and Surface Waves: Testing and Results. 19th EEGS Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, 1065–1074.

Paasche H., Werban U. and Dietrich P. 2009. Near-surface seismic travel-time tomography using a direct-push source and surface-planted geo-phones. Geophysics 74(4), G17–G25.

Park C.B., Miller R.D. and Xia J. 1999. Multichannel analysis of surface waves. Geophysics 64, 800–808.

Park C.B. and Shawver J.B. 2009. MASW survey using multiple source offsets. 22nd EEGS Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, 639–649.

Parolai S., Picozzi M., Richwalski S.M. and Milkereit C. 2005. Joint inversion of phase velocity dispersion and H/V ratio curves from seis-mic noise recordings using a genetic algorithm, considering higher modes. Geophysical Research Letters 32, 4 p.

Picozzi M., Parolai S. and Richwalski S. 2005. Joint inversion of H/V ratios and dispersion curves from seismic noise: Estimating the S-wave velocity of bedrock. Geophysical Research Letters 32, 2–5.

source dominate most of the Rayleigh wave response, also con-tributing to the artefacts of the stiffer structures, which are pulled in NW direction into the channel. On the contrary, the NW-SE profile shows that the cut bank and the infill can be delineated and interpreted qualitatively with reasonable certainty. Thus, pushing the spread towards relatively high velocity contrasts at high shot density improve the resolution of structural inhomoge-neities.

As shown by both pseudo-2D MASW investigations, a criti-cal examination of the geometrical parameters for data acquisi-tion is necessary. Apart from the correctly chosen source offset, geophone spacing, spread length and source intervals, the geo-logical context has to be taken into account for planning a MASW survey – considering the aforementioned shot-geometri-cal effects (as revealed in the results obtained from both study sites). Moreover, we emphasize the necessity of bidirectional profiling for surface wave measurements. These verification shots should be taken into consideration during data acquisition. They require only minimal further additional effort and expense (as shown by our results from the Löbnitz study site). Thus, bidirectional MASW measurements improve data evaluation and make us aware of the presence of lateral inhomogeneities of the near surface as well as shot-geometrical dependencies of the method. We showed the benefit of bidirectional profiling in the state-of-the-art application of MASW method. We agree that the inclusion of higher modes, if present, into data inversion could help to stabilize the inversion process and consequently may improve the investigation depth. However, for demonstration of the mentioned effects in near-surface characterization, inversion results were sufficient. Beyond doubt, additional information from other geophysical and geotechnical methods supports the interpretation of surface wave data. The results of this study show that, in general, more attention should be paid to evaluation of surface wave data. Besides ensuring careful assessment of the relevant geometrical parameters during MASW survey planning, it is also possible to use novel surface wave seismic approaches, e.g. cross-correlation analysis (CMPCC) (Hayashi and Suzuki 2004; Samyn et al. 2012) and multi-offset phase analysis (MOPA) (Strobbia and Foti 2006; Vignoli and Cassiani 2010) to improve the resolution of lateral subsurface structures.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe sincerely thank the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the German Research Foundation (DFG) for funding this research through the MuSaWa project (Multi-scale S-wave tomography for exploration and risk assessment of development sites - 03G0745) and the DFG for funding the CAOS research group (From catchments as organized systems to model based dynamic functional units - FOR 1598). Also thanks to the local authorities for access to the study areas.

Additional thanks to Ludwig Zschornack for relevant discus-sions on the Lauswiesen study area and to Claudia Dierke and Dr. Steffen Popp-Hofmann for gathering the dataset. Also thanks



Socco L.V. and Strobbia C. 2004. Surface-wave method for near surface characterization: a tutorial. Near Surface Geophysics 2(4), 165–185.

Strobbia C. and Foti S. 2006. Multi-offset phase analysis of surface wave data (MOPA). Journal of Applied Geophysics 59, 300–313.

Vignoli G. and Cassiani G. 2010. Identification of lateral discontinuities via multi-offset phase analysis of surface wave data. Geophysical Prospecting 58, 389–413.

Xia J., Miller R.D., Park C.B. and Ivanov J. 2000. Construction of 2-D vertical shear-wave velocity field by the multichannel analysis of surface wave technique. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, 1197–1206.

Xia J., Miller R.D., Park C.B. and Tian G. 2003. Inversion of high fre-quency surface waves with fundamental and higher modes. Journal of Applied Geophysics 52, 45–57.

Yamakawa Y., Kosugi K., Masaoka N., Sumida J., Tani M. and Mizuyama T. 2012. Combined geophysical methods for detecting soil thickness distribution on a weathered granitic hillslope. Geomorphology 145–46, 56–69.

Pilz M., Parolai S., Picozzi M., Wang R., Leyton F., Campos J. et al. 2010. Shear wave velocity model of the Santiago de Chile basin derived from ambient noise measurements: A comparison of proxies for seismic site conditions and amplification. Geophysical Journal International 182, 355–367.

Riva M., Guadagnini L., Guadagnini A., Ptak T. and Martac E. 2006. Probabilistic study of well capture zones distribution at the Lauswiesen field site. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 88, 92–118.

Roy S. and Stewart R. 2012. Near-surface seismic investigation of Barringer (Meteor) Crater, Arizona. Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics 17, 117–127.

Samyn K., Bitri A. and Grandjean G. 2012. Imaging a near-surface fea-ture using cross-correlation analysis of multi-channel surface wave data. Near Surface Geophysics 10, 39p.

Socco L.V., Boiero D., Comina C., Foti S. and Wisén R. 2008. Seismic characterization of an Alpine site. Near Surface Geophysics 6(4), 255–267.

Socco L.V., Jongmans D., Boiero D., Stocco S., Maraschini M., Tokeshi K. et al. 2010. Geophysical investigation of the Sandalp rock ava-lanche deposits. Journal of Applied Geophysics 70, 277–291.

Reliability of MASW profiling in near-surface applications. Near Surface Geophysics (2014)

Documents

Transcript of Reliability of MASW profiling in near-surface applications. Near Surface Geophysics (2014)