Automated Surface Wave Method: Field Testing

Nazarian, Soheil; Desai, Milind R

doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9410(1993)119:7(1094)

Cited by 119 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Steidl et al (1996) use an S-wave velocity of 90 m=sec for the uppermost 1-m-thick layer, which is based on geotechnical testing and S-wave velocity profiles from Pecker (1995). However, Brown et al (2002) and Stokoe, Kurtulus, and Meng (2004) used the spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW) technique (Nazarian and Desai, 1993) to estimate the S-wave velocity structure (under linear conditions) at the Garner Valley test site. Results from Brown et al (2002) did not adequately resolve the velocity structure in the upper few meters.…”

Section: Phase Velocity Dispersionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Induced Dynamic Nonlinear Ground Response at Garner Valley, California

Lawrence¹,

Bodin²,

Langston³

et al. 2008

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present results from a prototype experiment in which we actively induce, observe, and quantify in situ nonlinear sediment response in the near surface. This experiment was part of a suite of experiments conducted during August 2004 in Garner Valley, California, using a large mobile shaker truck from the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) facility. We deployed a dense accelerometer array within meters of the mobile shaker truck to replicate a controlled, laboratory-style soil dynamics experiment in order to observe wave-amplitudedependent sediment properties. Ground motion exceeding 1g acceleration was produced near the shaker truck. The wave field was dominated by Rayleigh surface waves and ground motions were strong enough to produce observable nonlinear changes in wave velocity. We found that as the force load of the shaker increased, the Rayleighwave phase velocity decreased by as much as ∼30% at the highest frequencies used (up to 30 Hz). Phase velocity dispersion curves were inverted for S-wave velocity as a function of depth using a simple isotropic elastic model to estimate the depth dependence of changes to the velocity structure. The greatest change in velocity occurred nearest the surface, within the upper 4 m. These estimated S-wave velocity values were used with estimates of surface strain to compare with laboratory-based shear modulus reduction measurements from the same site. Our results suggest that it may be possible to characterize nonlinear soil properties in situ using a noninvasive field technique.

show abstract

Section: Phase Velocity Dispersionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Induced Dynamic Nonlinear Ground Response at Garner Valley, California

Lawrence¹,

Bodin²,

Langston³

et al. 2008

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The common-receiver midpoint geometry has a distinct advantage at sites with lateral velocity variation because all receiver pairs sample an overlapping region of the array. In order to minimize nearfield effects associated with the cylindrical (as opposed to planar; see Section 2.2.1.2) wave-front, while also ensuring a good signal-to-noise ratio, the distance between the source and near receiver typically is set to be equal to the receiver spacing (Sánchez-Salinero, 1987;Nazarian and Desai, 1993). The source location is generally reversed (Stokoe and others, 1994) to assess the effects of small phase shifts between sensors and the lateral velocity variation.…”

Section: Sasw Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

ARRA-funded V<sub>S30</sub> measurements using multi-technique approach at strong-motion stations in California and central-eastern United States

Yong¹,

Martin²,

Stokoe³

et al. 2013

Open-File Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In identification phase, stiffness and possibly damping properties of underlying soils are evaluated by minimizing discrepancies between computed and experimental wave dispersion curves. SASW technique was pioneered by Stokoe and coworkers [69,90] and developed further by Stokoe and others [70,83,101]. Forced-vibration tests of foundations were employed by Luco and Wong [64,65] to identify lowstrain stiffness and damping properties of underlying soil strata.…”

Section: Spectral Analysis Of Forced-vibration Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A survey of geotechnical system identification techniques

Oskay

Zeghal

2011

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Identification and inverse problem techniques play an important role in the characterization and modeling of geotechnical systems. These techniques have been used in estimation of system parameters, model development and calibration, as well as simulation of earthquake ground motions. The recent availability of high quality seismic records of sites equipped with downhole accelerometer arrays led to a burgeoning of identification and inverse problem studies involving geotechnical systems. This paper presents a survey of system identification techniques and analyses of full-and small-scale soil systems, with an emphasis on geotechnical earthquake engineering problems.

show abstract

Automated Surface Wave Method: Field Testing

Cited by 119 publications

References 3 publications

Induced Dynamic Nonlinear Ground Response at Garner Valley, California

Induced Dynamic Nonlinear Ground Response at Garner Valley, California

ARRA-funded V<sub>S30</sub> measurements using multi-technique approach at strong-motion stations in California and central-eastern United States

A survey of geotechnical system identification techniques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About