2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2005.08.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quantitative estimation of minimum offset for multichannel surface-wave survey with actively exciting source

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
36
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
4
1

Relationship

3
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 125 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
2
36
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These source distances have helped to record good signals in very soft, soft and hard soils. These are in conformity with the original recommendations of PARK et al, (2002) andXU et al, (2006). Typical recorded surface wave arrivals using source to first receiver distance as 5 m with a recording length of 1000 ms are shown in Figure 2.…”
Section: Experimental Studiessupporting
confidence: 86%
“…These source distances have helped to record good signals in very soft, soft and hard soils. These are in conformity with the original recommendations of PARK et al, (2002) andXU et al, (2006). Typical recorded surface wave arrivals using source to first receiver distance as 5 m with a recording length of 1000 ms are shown in Figure 2.…”
Section: Experimental Studiessupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Errors in S-wave velocities obtained using the MASW method are 15% or less and random when compared with direct borehole measurements (XIA et al, 2002a). Other studies include repeatability of MASW (BEATY and SCHMITT, 2003), delineation of bedrock , near-surface quality factors (Q) (XIA et al, 2002b), a pitfall using shear-wave refraction surveying (XIA et al, 2002c), detection of voids (XIA et al, 2004(XIA et al, , 2007a, the MASW method using a fast and efficient method for geophone deployment-autojuggie (STEEPLES et al, 1999;TIAN et al, 2003a b), a unified workflow for geotechnical and engineering seismology (YILMAZ et al, 2006), discussion of MASW dispersion characteristics (LIN and CHANG, 2004), optimized selection of fielddata-acquisition parameters (XU et al, 2006, XIA et al, 2006a in press), estimation of S-wave velocities for a continuous earth model (XIA et al, 2006b), generation of a dispersion image using slant stacking (XIA et al, 2007b) and a s-p transform (LUO et al, 2008b), generation of a pseudo-2D shear-wave velocity section by inversion of a series of 1D dispersion curves (LUO et al, 2008a), numerical modeling of surface waves , discussion of surface-wave inversion with a high-velocity-layer intrusion model (CALDERóN-MACíAS and LUKE, 2007), and a lowvelocity-layer intrusion model (LU et al, 2007;LIANG et al, 2008). Dispersions of ground-penetrating radar data were also inverted for the subsurface material properties (KRUK et al, 2006).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The SASW method used two receiver geophones (Nazarian et al 1983(Nazarian et al , 1992Stokoe et al 1994;Ganji et al 1997), whereas MASW used 24 geophones. Both MASW and SASW methods are non-destructive and low strain method, however MASW is an advanced technique (Park & Elrick 1998;Park et al , 2002Xia et al 1999;Zhang et al 2004;Xu et al 2006) to obtain Vs profiles more accurately and less time-consuming method. Most of the time to cover larger area is practically difficult to measure Vs in the field.…”
Section: Site Classmentioning
confidence: 99%