Geology topics

Michael W. Asten

Publications and source records attributed to Michael W. Asten.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2022

Microtremor array method using spatial autocorrelation analysis of Rayleigh‑wave data

Microtremor array measurements (MAM) and passive surface wave methods in general, have been increasingly used to non-invasively estimate shear-wave velocity structures (Vs) for various purposes. The methods estimate dispersion curves and invert them for retrieving S-wave velocity profiles. This paper summarizes principles, limitations, data collection and processing methods. It intends to enable students and practitioners to understand the principles needed to plan a microtremor array investigation, record and process the data, and evaluate the quality of investigation result. The paper focuses on the spatial autocorrelation (SPAC) processing method among microtremor array processing methods because of its relatively simple calculation and stable applicability.

Journal of Seismology↗

USGS2022

An assessment of uncertainties in VS profiles obtained from microtremor observations in the phased 2018 COSMOS blind trials

Site response is a critical consideration when assessing earthquake hazards. Site characterization is key to understanding site effects as influenced by seismic site conditions of the local geology. Thus, a number of geophysical site characterization methods were developed to meet the demand for accurate and cost-effective results. As a consequence, a number of studies have been administered periodically as blind trials to evaluate the state-of-practice on-site characterization. We present results from the Consortium of Organizations for Strong Motion Observation Systems (COSMOS) blind trials, which used data recorded from surface-based microtremor array methods (MAM) at four sites where geomorphic conditions vary from deep alluvial basins to an alpine valley. Thirty-four invited analysts participated. Data were incrementally released to 17 available analysts who participated in all four phases: (1) two-station arrays, (2) sparse triangular arrays, (3) complex nested triangular or circular arrays, and (4) all available geological control site information including drill hole data. Another set of 17 analysts provided results from two sites and two phases only. Although data from one site consisted of recordings from three-component sensors, the other three sites consisted of data recorded only by vertical-component sensors. The sites cover a range of noise source distributions, ranging from one site with a highly directional microtremor wave field to others with omni-directional (azimuthally distributed) wave fields. We review results from different processing techniques (e.g., beam-forming, spatial autocorrelation, cross-correlation, or seismic interferometry) applied by the analysts and compare the effectiveness between the differing wave field distributions. We define the M index as a quality index based on estimates of the time-averaged shear-wave velocity of the upper 10 ( V S10 ), 30 ( V S30 ), 100 ( V S100 ), and 300 ( V S300 ) meters and show its usefulness in quantitative comparisons of V S profiles from multiple analysts. Our findings are expected to aid in building an evidence-based consensus on preferred cost-effective arrays and processing methodology for future studies of seismic site effects.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2016

Comparisons between vs30 and spectral response for 30 sites in Newcastle, Australia from collocated seismic cone penetrometer, active- and passive-source vs data

Although the time‐averaged shear‐wave velocity down to 30 m depth ( V S 30 ) can be a proxy for estimating earthquake ground‐motion amplification, significant controversy exists about its limitations when used as a single parameter for the prediction of amplification. To examine this question in absence of relevant strong‐motion records, we use a range of different methods to measure the shear‐wave velocity profiles and the resulting theoretical site amplification factors (AFs) for 30 sites in the Newcastle area, Australia, in a series of blind comparison studies. The multimethod approach used here combines past seismic cone penetrometer and spectral analysis of surface‐wave data, with newly acquired horizontal‐to‐vertical spectral ratio, passive‐source surface‐wave spatial autocorrelation (SPAC), refraction microtremor (ReMi), and multichannel analysis of surface‐wave data. The various measurement techniques predicted a range of different AFs. The SPAC and ReMi techniques have the smallest overall deviation from the median AF for the majority of sites. We show that V S 30 can be related to spectral response above a period T of 0.5 s but not necessarily with the maximum amplification according to the modeling done based on the measured shear‐wave velocity profiles. Both V S 30 and AF values are influenced by the velocity ratio between bedrock and overlying sediments and the presence of surficial thin low‐velocity layers (<2 m thick and <150 m/s), but the velocity ratio is what mostly affects the AF. At 0.2< T <0.4 s, the AFs are largely controlled by the surficial geology of a particular site. AF maxima are the highest in the hard classes, which is the inverse of the findings used in the Australian Building Code. Only for T >0.5 s do the amplification curves consistently show higher values for soft site classes and lower for hard classes.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2005

Comparison of shear-velocity profiles of unconsolidated sediments near the Coyote Borehole (CCOC) measured with fourteen invasive and non-invasive methods editorial

A set of fourteen invasive and non-invasive geophysical methods are compared for the measurement of the shear-velocity (Vs) profile at or near a borehole at the Coyote Creek outdoor Classroom, Santa Clara Valley, California. The borehole with geophysical logs provided opportunity for a series of blind trials of methods for measurement of the Vs profile in thick, soft sediments. The various methods are important in the task of establishing shear-velocity profiles for purposes of earthquake hazard site classification in California. Results of the trials were presented at a one-day workshop at the US Geological Survey in May 2004; this paper summarizes results, relative depths of penetration and differences between the fourteen methods.

California↗