See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/230972375

Offset and linear spread geometry in the MASW method

Article  in  Journal of Geophysics and Engineering · May 2010

DOI: 10.1088/1742-2132/7/2/S07

CITATIONS READS

25 911

3 authors:

Ünal Dikmen Muzaffer Özgü Arısoy

Ankara University General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration of Turkey
44 PUBLICATIONS   361 CITATIONS    18 PUBLICATIONS   135 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ismail Akkaya
Yuzuncu Yil University
38 PUBLICATIONS   96 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Modeling of shallow structures in the Cappadocia region using gravity and aeromagnetic anomalies View project

Determining the site effects of 23 October 2011 earthquake (Van province, Turkey) on the rural areas using HVSR microtremor method View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ünal Dikmen on 31 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Offset and linear spread geometry in the MASW method

This article has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text article.

2010 J. Geophys. Eng. 7 211

(http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-2140/7/2/S07)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:
IP Address: 80.251.38.160
The article was downloaded on 06/08/2010 at 16:20

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

IOP PUBLISHING JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICS AND ENGINEERING
J. Geophys. Eng. 7 (2010) 211–222 doi:10.1088/1742-2132/7/2/S07

Offset and linear spread geometry in the

MASW method
Ünal Dikmen1,2 , M Özgü Arısoy2 and İsmail Akkaya2
1
Earthquake Research Center, Ankara University, 06830 Ankara, Turkey
2
Department of Geophysical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ankara University, 06100 Ankara,
Turkey

Received 16 December 2009

Accepted for publication 25 March 2010
Published 4 May 2010
Online at stacks.iop.org/JGE/7/211

Abstract
This paper evaluates the effect of near offset and geophone configuration on dispersion image
for linear spreads in the multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) method. In order to
determine the effect of near offset, MASW records were collected for a variety of offsets and
the corresponding calculated dispersion images were compared for a fixed layout. To reveal
the spectral resolution of dispersion images, MASW records were collected using nine
different types of linear spread configuration, then dispersion images for each MASW record
were calculated using the phase velocity analysis technique and were compared to the present
preferable linear spread type for a MASW survey. The results show that at least one pair of
near offset shots is required for distinguishing the fundamental mode from the higher modes
without ambiguity, and for picking a dispersion curve in a wide frequency range. The first shot
distance should not be longer than four times the geophone interval, and the second shot
distance should be equal to or longer than the one-third spread length, depending on the power
of the seismic source. A better dispersion image resolution and dispersion curve in the wide
frequency range can be obtained by using the SL-type geophone configuration. Besides this, in
a survey in which higher frequencies are more important, the SII-type configuration may be
preferable. With the SII-type spread configuration, the fundamental mode can easily be
distinguished from the higher modes.

Keywords: MASW, dispersion, phase velocity analysis, offset, linear spread geometry

Introduction changing the spread configuration, MASW data can be

The characteristics of soil materials (e.g. shear modulus,
elasticity modulus, bulk modulus, fundamental vibration
frequency, seismic amplification and Poisson ratio) are closely
related to the shear wave (S) velocity. Therefore, the
determination of S velocity variations of subsurface layers
is important in geotechnical engineering. In geotechnical
surveys, conventional seismic methods (refraction, borehole
seismic) are generally used in determination of the subsurface
S velocity variation. Recently, multi-channel analysis of
surface waves (MASW) has been used as a complementary
method for conventional seismic methods. MASW is the
only alternative if the application of conventional methods
is difficult due to a high level of noise contamination or
inconvenient field conditions. In a refraction survey, without
collected and great penetration depth can be obtained. The
other advantages of the method are the fast data acquisition,
easy data processing and overcoming a low-velocity layer
problem.
Although the popularity of the method in geotechnical
engineering has increased, no widely accepted rules have been
developed for field parameters (e.g. spread geometry, offset
and geophone interval). In applications, a linear spread with
a constant geophone interval is usually adopted due to the
addition of the conventional seismic refraction survey. Field
parameters such as geophone spacing, spread length, spread
geometry and seismic source directly influence the quality
of data, dispersion image resolution and penetration depth.
Among the field parameters, geophone spacing controls the
high-frequency range of the dispersion image and is therefore

1742-2132/10/020211+12$30.00 © 2010 Nanjing Geophysical Research Institute Printed in the UK 211

Ü Dikmen et al
related to the resolution of shallow depths. Spread length
controls the highest recordable wavelength and is related to the
lower frequency range of the dispersion image. The sampling
interval and record length including the surface waves do not
directly influence the resolution of the dispersion image. In
most of the MASW experiments, sampling intervals and record
lengths between 0.5 and 2 ms and 0.5 and 2 s respectively
are accepted for most situations. However, it is generally
acceptable that a MASW record with a single offset is adequate
to determine the subsurface S velocity variation.
The present study evaluates the effects of the near offset
distance and linear spread configuration on the dispersion
image for MASW surveys. In order to demonstrate the
effect of the near offset distance on the dispersion image,
MASW records were acquired for a variety of offsets and the
corresponding calculated dispersion images were compared
for a fixed layout. To reveal the spectral resolutions of
dispersion images, MASW records were collected by nine
linear spreads with different geophone configurations. The
dispersion images of each set of MASW records were
calculated by means of the phase shifting technique and
compared, in order to identify a preferable linear spread
type for MASW surveys. A different type of linear
spread configuration geometry and two near offset distances
were proposed to obtain high-quality data, high-resolution
dispersion image and dispersion curve in the wide frequency
range.
MASW method
MASW is a non-destructive seismic survey method,
introduced by Park et al (1999), that has been found by the
geotechnical community to be an efficient method for detecting
the subsurface S velocity variation. In the last decade, a
number of both theoretical and experimental studies have
been made on the method. In brief, they include Park et al
(1998a), who developed a wave field transformation method
that provides images of dispersion curves directly from the
recorded wave fields of a single shot gather. Using this method,
different modes can be separated with higher resolution, even
if the shot gather consists of a relatively small number of
traces collected over a limited offset range. Park et al (2001)
investigated the influence of offset-related parameters on the
resolution of dispersion curves in MASW. Xia et al (2000a)
demonstrated that the fundamental mode phase velocities
obtained through a MASW study generally provide reliable
estimates of the S velocities. The method has been employed
in various applications in engineering geology. Park and Miller
(2005a, 2005b) applied MASW at 84 turbine sites in the Blue
Canyon Windmill Farm near Lawton, Oklahoma, for seismic
characterization of the ground materials. Socco and Strobbia
(2004) developed principles and a processing methodology of
the method for site characterization. Zhang and Chan (2003)
investigated the effects of cross-mode data mixing, limited
data and frequency range on inversion models in MASW. Kanli
et al (2006) used MASW to form a new soil classification map
of the Dinar region, in Turkey.
212
The method is based on the determination of the dispersion
properties of surface waves created by a transient point
source and recorded by a number of receivers placed on the
ground. In MASW applications, a number of low-frequency
(e.g. 1–10 Hz) vertical component geophones (e.g. 24 or
more) are set on the ground and connected to a multi-channel
recorder via a land streamer. This type of data acquisition
configuration resembles a conventional seismic refraction
survey. However, MASW field parameters (e.g. source power,
sampling interval, record length) are more flexible than seismic
refraction or reflection survey. The data-processing of MASW
records consists of three main steps: (1) extracting surface
waves from field records, (2) calculating dispersion image
and picking the field dispersion curve and (3) inverting the
field dispersion curve to determine the subsurface S velocity
variation.
In the first step, MASW records are scanned within a
certain frequency (e.g. 1–50 Hz) and phase velocity (e.g.
10–1000 m s−1) range is used to extract surface waves
from the other seismic phases (e.g. direct arrivals, multiple
reflections, refractions and scattered waves). In the second
step, extracted surface waves are used to compute dispersion
image. A number of numerical analysis techniques have
been developed for computation of dispersion image (e.g.
frequency wave number, slant stack, spatial autocorrelation
or phase shifting). All of the techniques are based on the
determination of the spectral characteristics of data, which
are collected in the space-time (x, t) domain. A surface
wave dispersion image represents the variation of phase
velocity versus frequency. Fundamental and higher modes of
surface waves constitute the predominant part of the calculated
dispersion image. A Rayleigh wave fundamental mode
dispersion curve is determined by scanning the highest energy
band in the dispersion image. The extracted dispersion curve
is then treated as the observed dispersion curve in the inversion
process for the site under investigation.
In the last step, a theoretical dispersion curve is calculated
for a given layered subsurface model, which is defined by each
layer’s thickness, density, P and S velocity values. Numerical
methods such as the Thomson–Haskell method (Thomson
1950, Haskell 1953), stiffness matrix method (Kausel and
Roesset 1981), finite differences (Hossian and Drnevich 1989)
or Green’s functions (Kausel and Peek 1982, Hisada 1994)
are used in numerical calculation of the theoretical dispersion
curve. At the end of the inversion process, the subsurface
model that minimizes the difference between theoretical
and observed dispersion curves is accepted as an accurate
subsurface model for the site. For the inversion process,
a number of developed numerical methods such as least
squares (Smith and Shanno 1971, Calderon-Macias et al
2000), genetic algorithm (Kanli et al 2006), artificial neural
networks (Santamarina and Fratta 1998) or Monte Carlo
(Tarantola 1987, Scales and Tenorio 2001) are used. Some
algorithms, especially for the inversion of surface wave data,
have been presented by Lai and Rix (1998) and Xia et al (1999).
The inversion results show that small sample intervals over a
wide frequency range and an unambiguous identification of
the fundamental mode dispersion curve are essential factors

for the reconstruction of accurate inversion models. With a
single offset MASW record, a 1D subsurface model can be
obtained. At the same time, 2D subsurface S-variations can be
obtained from several offset shots, conducted along a spread.
However, due to the properties of surface waves, the resolution
according to the results of conventional seismic refraction or
reflection is low.
Phase velocity analysis
In order to construct dispersion images of surface waves from
the MASW records, we applied the phase shifting method,
which is based on energy-normalized cross-correlation similar
to the semblance method, which has been using for velocity
spectra displays of seismic data for a long time. Both methods
measure the power coherence of signals recorded by a number
of receivers (Taner and Koehler 1969, Neidell and Taner 1971,
Akhmetsafin et al 2008). The assumption of the phase shifting
method is that surface waves emitted from a point source
are recorded by a number of receivers placed on the ground
with certain time delays, according to the velocity of the
propagation domain. Therefore, phase velocities of surface
waves can be determined by computing time delays for a
specific frequency and phase velocity range in the frequency
domain. For this purpose, an M-channel MASW record,
r(x, t) can be defined as an array formed by m = 1, 2, . . . ,
M traces and n = 1, 2, . . . , N time samples. The frequency
domain representation of r(x, t) for each channel trace can be
written as (Ryden et al 2004)
R(xm , w) = FFT [r(xm , t)] (1)
where w = 2πf is angular frequency. The complex R(xm , w)
can be written as a product of the amplitude, A(xm , w), and
phase, φm (w), terms:
R(xm , w) = A(xm , w) e−iφm (w) (2)
where the amplitude, A(xm , w), changes with both distance,
xm , and angular frequency, w, due to attenuation and source
spectrum characteristics. The phase term, φm (w), can be
determined by testing phase velocity, VT , for each frequency,
w, as (Ryden et al 2004)
w and nearly zero at the other frequencies. The phase shifting
φm (w) = xm = k xm = k(x0 + (m − 1)x) (3)
VT
where k is the wave number, x is the geophone interval,
and x0 and xm are the distance between shot location and
first geophone (near offset) and the distance between shot
location and mth geophone, respectively. The time domain
representation of each frequency component of R(xm , w) will
be an array of sinusoidal curves of the same angular frequency,
but with different amplitude and phase. Due to the amplitude,
A(xm , w) does not contain any information on phase velocity,
and it can be normalized without loss of significant information
(Ryden et al 2004):
R(xm , w) A(xm , w) e−iφm (w)
Nm (w) = = = e−iφm (w) . (4)
|R(xm , w)| A(xm , w)
In figure 1(a), sinusoidal curves constructed by unit amplitude
at 10 Hz frequency and 240 m s−1 phase velocity have the same
Offset and linear spread geometry in the MASW method
phase along a slope (s) of the phase velocity, whereas they have
different phases along the slopes of other phase velocities.
Figure 1(b) represents the Fourier amplitude spectra. If the
curves are summed together in a finite time length, such as
one period along the slope s, then it will give another curve
whose amplitude is equal to the number of channels (which
here is 24). On the other side, the summed amplitudes will
be smaller than the number of channels if the summation is
performed along other slopes. By using the shifting property
of the Fourier transform, the summation procedure can be
realized in the frequency domain as

M
E(VT ) = e−iwδm R(xm , w) = e−iwδ1 R(x1 , w)
m=1
−iwδ2
+e R(x2 , w) + . . . + e−iwδM R(xM , w) (5)
where the delay term, δm , for the mth geophone is calculated
as
xm x0 + (m − 1)x
δm = = . (6)
VT VT
The delay term, δm , increases with the distance for a fixed
testing phase velocity or decreases with increasing testing
phase velocity for a fixed distance. In practice, the summation
of the amplitudes is done by the definition of a particular
frequency (e.g. 2–30 Hz) and a testing phase velocity (e.g.
10–1000 m s−1) range. The result of each summation, as
represented by the amplitude of summed sinusoidal curves,
can be then displayed as phase velocity versus amplitude,
as illustrated in figure 1(c). The scanned curve has one
main lobe with a maximum peak amplitude, and its sharpness
affects the resolution and accuracy of the analysed dispersion
relationship. The sharpness of the main lobe increases with the
number of channels. Therefore, more traces will ensure higher
resolution in the determination of a phase velocity (Park et al
2001). In figure 1(c), the main lobe gives the peak amplitude
at 240 m s−1 of phase velocity and nearly zero, depending
on the number of traces used, at other phase velocities.
Figure 1(d) represents a normalized dispersion image panel
of the sinusoidal curves given in figure 1(a). As can be seen
from figure 1(d), the dispersion image shows only the peak
amplitude at a frequency (10 Hz) at 240 m s−1 of phase velocity
method is a powerful technique in constructing the dispersion
image of surface waves especially for linear type arrays. Park
et al (2001) presented a detailed parametric examination of
the scanning method on its resolution in response to changes
in such parameters as the number of traces, phase velocity,
geophone interval and frequency. A more detailed description
of the method can be found in Park et al (1998a, 2001) and
Ryden et al (2004).
Offset effect
Higher modes of surface waves have been accepted as
interfered components of surface waves and the body waves.
Although algorithms using high modes have been developed
(Gabriels et al 1987, Roma et al 2002, Song et al 2007),
the interpretation of surface wave data is based on the
213
Ü Dikmen et al
(a)
(b)
Figure 1. (a) A plane wave propagating at 10 Hz frequency and 240 m s velocity in homogeneous media, (b) its Fourier amplitude
spectra, (c) its summed amplitude curve (normalized), (d) its dispersion image.
Figure 2. An illustration of the fundamental and higher modes of
the Rayleigh wave.
determination of fundamental mode. Sometimes, higher
modes can predominate in the dispersion images, rather
than the fundamental mode, and they can be perceived as
the fundamental mode (Zhang and Chan 2003). In the
interpretation, using the higher modes as the fundamental
mode results in an inaccurate S velocity variation that does
not reflect the real S velocity model. Fundamental and two
higher modes are sketched in figure 2. Choosing the higher
mode as the fundamental mode produces a velocity that is
higher than the real velocity. In other words, it causes a
different S velocity model than the exact model. Therefore,
the determination of the fundamental mode on the dispersion
image is very important.
214
(c)
(d)
−1
The field parameters such as spread length, geophone
spacing and offset distance are important factors that directly
affect the investigation depth, near and far field effects and
resolution of the dispersion image during data acquisition. The
resolution of the dispersion image, and therefore the result of
the MASW method, is strongly dependent on these acquisition
parameters (Park et al 1999). Offset is not sufficiently
discussed within these parameters and is generally selected
depending on the experience of the researchers. The selection
of a shorter offset distance than needed invalidates the plane
wave assumption and results in dominance of the higher modes
in seismic records. Similarly, the selection of an offset distance
that is longer than required results in the dominance of the
near and far source effects in the seismic records, thereby
reducing the resolution of the dispersion image. Therefore,
the selection of appropriate offset distance is important in
MASW measurements.
In order to investigate the effect of the offset distance on
the dispersion image, three lengths (23 m, 69 m and 115 m)
with three different geophone intervals (1 m, 3 m and 5 m) of
three linear spreads were recorded in the same location. Eight
MASW records were collected for different offsets (1, 2, 4, 8,
12, 16, 24 and 48 m) in each spread. For the spread at a length
of 115 m, the data for a 48 m offset could not be recorded,
due to a trigger cable-length problem. The data acquisition
process used the 4.5 Hz frequency of the vertical geophone and
an 8 kg sledgehammer as an energy source. The calculated
dispersion images for 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24 and 48 m offsets for
 Offset and linear spread geometry in the MASW method

(a) (e)

(b) (f )

(c) (g)

(d) (h)

Figure 3. Dispersion images calculated from different offset shot MASW records. Geophone interval is 1 m: (a) 1 m, (b) 2 m, (c) 4 m,
(d) 8 m, (e) 12 m, (f ) 16 m, (g) 24 m and (h) 48 m.

spread in 23 m and 69 m lengths are shown in figures 3(a)–
(h) and 4(a)–(h), respectively. When the dispersion images
obtained for spreads of 23 m length (figures 3(a)–(d)) and
69 m length (figures 4(a)–(d)) are examined, it can be seen
that the higher mode is clearer than the fundamental mode
for offsets up to 8 m. However, the fundamental mode in the
dispersion image (figures 3(e)–(h) and 4(e)–(h)) obtained for
12–48 m offsets is clear and higher modes could not be tracked.
Dispersion images for 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 24 m offsets at a 5 m
geophone interval and spread at a 115 m length are shown in
figures 5(a)–(g). From figures 5(a)–(g), it can be seen that
when the spread length is increased, near and far source effects
become significant, depending on the power of the seismic
source used and therefore the selection of dispersion curve for
defining the fundamental mode is difficult. The selection of
only one offset distance for MASW records would generally
not be sufficient to obtain high dispersion image resolution and
to distinguish higher modes from fundamental mode. Some
researchers have correlated offset with wavelength (Zhang
et al 2004) of investigation depth (Park et al 1999, Xu
et al 2006). Xu et al (2006) have proposed a near offset
distance, based on theoretical models, as
2h
d=√ (7)
σ2 − 1
where σ = VP /VS and h is the vertical distance from the
surface to the refractor. Zhang et al (2004) proposed an
optimum near offset (d), based on a layered earth model, as
λmax CR min
d= (8)
4CR
where λmax is the longest wavelength, CR min is the minimum
phase velocity of the Rayleigh wave and CR is the difference
between the maximum and minimum phase velocities. Park
et al (1999) suggested a relationship for the near offset, d,
based on the fundamental properties of surface waves, as
d  zmax (9)
where zmax is the maximum investigation depth. To compare
these three relationships for the offset, a two-layer model (from
Zhang et al 2004) is shown in table 1. In this model, P
and S velocities have been obtained from seismic refraction

215
Ü Dikmen et al

(a) (e)

(b) (f )

(c) (g)

(d) (h)

Figure 4. Dispersion images calculated from different offset shot MASW records. Geophone interval is 3 m: (a) 1 m, (b) 2 m, (c) 4 m,
(d) 8 m, (e) 12 m, (f ) 16 m, (g) 24 m and (h) 48 m.

Table 1. Measurement results from the refraction survey and the inverted S-wave velocities (Zhang et al 2004).
Poisson’s ratio (σ )a Bulk density (g cm−3)a Vp (m s−1) Vs (m s−1) Measured VR (m s−1)

Fill layer 0.37 1.8 222 ± 10 135 ± 10 115

Base layerb 0.34 1.7 1062 ± 10 550 ± 25 175
a
Obtained from the seismic refraction experiment.
b
Base layer can be regarded as a half space.

experiments. The thickness (h) of the first layer was 5 m,
the measured maximum and minimum phase difference, v,
was 60 m s−1, and maximum wavelength, λmax , was taken
as 2h = 10 m. According to relationship (7), the offset
distance should be 6.68 m; for relationship (8), offset distance
should be 4.79 m; and, for relationship (9), it should be
at least 10 m. However, if the dispersion images given in
figures 3 and 4 are examined, it can be seen that the resolution
of dispersion images obtained for 4–12 m offset distances are
quite different. In MASW measurements, instead of one offset
distance, as used in traditional methods, the MASW records
could be collected for two different offset distances and then
determination of the dispersion curve for the fundamental
mode makes separation of fundamental and higher modes
easier. An offset distance of three to four times larger than
the geophone interval and a second offset distance equal to or
longer than one-third of the spread length appear to be good
selection depending on the power of the seismic source for a
geotechnical survey.
Linear spread geometry
In MASW applications, generally, a linear type spread with
a constant geophone interval is used for data acquisition.

216

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d )
Figure 5. Dispersion images calculated from different offset shot MASW records. Geophone interval is 5 m: (a) 1 m, (b) 2 m, (c) 4 m,
(d) 8 m, (e) 12 m, (f ) 16 m and (g) 24 m.
However, surface waves are desired to record in a wide
frequency range. Geophone spacing is a variable that directly
affects the resolution of the shallow depth. When the geophone
spacing is increased, shallow depth resolution will be reduced
and when the spread length is increased, the investigation
depth will be increased with low resolution. For seismic
studies in which S-wave variations in shallow depths (z <
10 m) are important (e.g. archeogeophysics), identification of
the dispersion image at high frequencies (e.g. 20–100 Hz) with
high resolution will be important.
For the purpose of investigating the dispersion image
resolution of MASW, data were collected by nine different
linear array configurations at a range of different geophone
spacings. Geophone positions used for each spread
configuration are given in table 2 and spread geometries are
given in figure 6. The first five linear spread geometries
(figures 6(a)–(e)) represent constant (C), decreasing (DE),
increasing (IN), narrow-width (NW) and short–long (SL)
geophone spacings, respectively. The last four linear spread
geometries (figures 6(f )–(i)) are symmetrical according
Offset and linear spread geometry in the MASW method
(e)
(f )
(g)
to the spread mid-point (CL ) and represent decrease–
decrease (SDD), decrease–increase (SDI), increase–decrease
(SID) and increase–increase (SII) geophone spacings,
respectively.
In MASW data collection, for all array configurations
(figure 6), a 6 m offset distance, 27.6 m spread length,
1 ms sampling interval, 1 s record length and an 8 kg
sledgehammer were used as fixed field parameters. Seismic
wave forms obtained from nine different linear arrays are
shown in figures 7(a)–(i) and normalized dispersion images,
calculated by means of the phase shifting method for each
surface wave record, are shown in figure 8(a)–(i) with the
same colour scale. The dispersion images for C-, DE- and IN-
type linear spreads are given in figures 8(a)–(c). For these
three types of linear spreads, the dispersion curve for the
fundamental mode can be selected at a frequency range of
approximately 5–27 Hz, although resolution is relatively low.
The dispersion images for NW- and SL-type linear spreads
are given in figures 8(d)–(e). For these two types of linear
spreads, the dispersion curve for the fundamental mode can
217
Ü Dikmen et al

Figure 6. Different types of linear spread geometries, (a) C-type, (b) DE-type, (c) IN-type, (d) NW-type, (e) SL-type, (f) SDD-type,
(g) SDI-type, (h) SID-type and (i) SII-type.

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f )

(g) (h) (i )

Figure 7. Recorded wave forms, (a) C: constant, (b) DE: decreasing, (c) IN: increasing, (d) NW: narrow–wide, (e) SL: short–long, (f )
SDD: symmetric decreasing–decreasing, (g) SDI: symmetric decreasing–increasing, (h) SID: symmetric increasing–decreasing and (i) SII:
symmetric increasing–increasing.

218

(a)
(d)
(g)
Figure 8. Dispersion images of different spread geometries.
be selected at a frequency range of 4–34 Hz and resolution
is relatively high. The effects of higher modes on these
two types of spread configurations are minimum within the
nine spread geometries. The fundamental mode dispersion
curve can be clearly identified at a frequency range of nearly
2–30 Hz in the dispersion images obtained from symmetrical
type spreads (figures 8(f )–(i)), and moreover, dispersion
curves of high modes at high frequencies are relatively clear
and the comparative resolution is high. In figure 8, the
dispersion curve for the fundamental mode provides the widest
frequency band in the SL-type spread, and separation of the
fundamental and higher mode is best for the SII-type spread
within these nine different linear spreads. The results show
that for studies at deeper depths, the SL-type linear array is
preferred, and for studies when high modes are important, the
SII-type linear array is preferred.
Discussion and conclusions
Figures 9(a)–(b) illustrate the spatial sampling of waves with
different frequencies in C- and SL-type spreads. In this figure,
four different waves with frequencies of 0.25, 0.5, 1.5 and
4.5 Hz were used. It is known that, in order to recover a signal
of a period of time, at least three examples are necessary. As
Offset and linear spread geometry in the MASW method
(b) (c)
(e) (f)
(h) (i )
can be seen from figures 9(a)–(b), both spread types sample
low-frequency signals. However, high-frequency signals
could not be adequately sampled by the C-type spread, while
the SL-type spread was shown to sample sufficiently. The
geophone interval for the C-type spread is constant and equal
to 1.2 m, while the SL-type spread uses two different geophone
intervals, equal to 0.325 m and 2 m for short and long intervals,
respectively. Therefore, the spatial resolution in the SL-type
spread is better especially in the high-frequency band. This
can easily be seen in the dispersion images, corresponding to
these two types of spread geometries given in figures 8(a) and
(e), respectively.
In order to determine the spectral properties of nine
different types of linear spreads, average power spectra were
calculated. Figure 10 shows the normalized average power
spectra of MASW records obtained from nine different types
of spreads. To constitute the average power spectra, Fourier
power spectra of 24 traces of each MASW record were
calculated. The average power spectrum of each MASW
record was obtained by summing and averaging the sample
values at each frequency. Figure 10 shows that in symmetric
configurations (SDD, SDI, SID and SII types), SII- and SID-
type geometries have relatively high power and SL-type spread
geometry has relatively high power in the wide frequency band
219
220

Ü Dikmen et al
Table 2. Geophone positions used in nine different spread geometries are given in meters.
Type g1 g2 g3 g4 g5 g6 g7 g8 g9 g10 g11 g12 g13 g14 g15 g16 g17 g18 g19 g20 g21 g22 g23 g24

C 0 1.2 2.4 3.6 4.8 6.0 7.2 8.4 9.6 10.80 12.0 13.2 14.4 15.6 16.8 18.0 19.2 20.4 21.6 22.8 24.0 25.2 26.4 27.6
DE 0 2.3 4.5 6.6 8.6 10.5 12.3 14.0 15.6 17.10 18.5 19.8 21.0 22.1 23.1 24.0 24.8 25.5 26.1 26.6 27.0 27.3 27.5 27.6
IN 0 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.1 2.8 3.6 4.500 5.5 6.6 7.8 9.1 10.5 12.0 13.6 15.3 17.1 19.0 21.0 23.1 25.3 27.6
NW 0 0.5 2.46 2.96 4.92 5.42 7.380 7.88 9.84 10.34 12.3 12.8 14.76 15.26 17.22 17.72 19.68 20.18 22.14 22.64 24.6 25.1 27.06 27.6
SL 0 0.325 0.65 0.975 2.975 4.975 6.975 8.975 9.30 9.625 9.95 10.275 12.275 14.275 16.275 18.275 18.6 18.925 19.25 19.575 21.575 23.575 25.575 27.6
SDD 0 3.0 5.5 7.6 9.3 10.6 11.6 12.3 12.8 13.2 13.5 13.7 13.9 14.1 14.4 14.8 15.3 16.0 17.0 18.3 20.0 22.1 24.6 27.6
SDI 0 3.0 5.5 7.6 9.3 10.6 11.6 12.3 12.8 13.2 13.5 13.7 16.8 19.3 21.4 23.1 24.4 25.4 26.1 26.6 27.0 27.3 27.5 27.6
SID 0 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.2 3.2 4.5 6.2 8.3 10.8 13.9 14.1 14.4 14.8 15.3 16.0 17.0 18.3 20.0 22.1 24.6 27.6
SII 0 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.2 3.2 4.5 6.2 8.3 10.8 16.8 19.3 21.4 23.1 24.4 25.4 26.1 26.6 27.0 27.3 27.5 27.6
C, constant; DE, decreasing; IN, increasing; NW, narrow–wide; SL, short–long; SDD, symmetric decreasing–decreasing; SDI, symmetric decreasing–increasing; SID, symmetric
increasing–decreasing and SII, symmetric increasing–increasing.

(a)
(b)
Figure 9. Spatial sampling in two different linear spread geometries: (a) C-type spread geometry, (b) SL-type spread geometry.
within five types of non-symmetric array geometries (C, DE,
IN, NW and SL).
In conclusion, the effect of near offset on the dispersion
image and the resolution of dispersion images obtained from
different types of linear spread geometry were investigated
in MASW surveys. The results show that discriminating
fundamental mode from the higher mode could be achieved
more easily by using two different near offset shot records than
by using a single shot record. This also guarantees the selection
Offset and linear spread geometry in the MASW method
of fundamental mode. The first near offset could be up to
four times the geophone interval, while the second near offset
distance could be at least equal to or longer than one-third of the
spread length, depending on the power of the seismic source.
Instead of using a constant interval type spread (e.g. C-type),
an SL-type spread is particularly recommended to extract a
dispersion curve relative to other spread types in a broadband
frequency range. In a MASW survey in which higher modes
are important, an SII-type spread may be preferred. By using
221
Ü Dikmen et al
Figure 10. Averaged power spectrum calculated from nine different
spread methods.
this kind of spread, fundamental and higher modes can be seen
clearly.
Acknowledgments
This study was conducted in the Geoscience Data Processing
Laboratory (YEBVIL) at Ankara University, Turkey. The
authors wish to thank two referees for their careful and critical
review of the original manuscript.
References
Akhmetsafin R D, Dubinskii V and Patterson D 2008
Hilbert-semblance method for acoustic logging data processing
Russ. Geol. Geophys. 49 692–7
Calderon-Macias C, Sen M K and Stoffa P L 2000 Artificial neural
networks for parameter estimation in geophysics Geophys.
Prospect. 48 21–48
Gabriels P, Snider R and Nolet G 1987 In situ measurements of
shear wave velocity in sediments with higher-mode Rayleigh
waves Geophys. Prospect. 35 187–96
Haskell N A 1953 The dispersion of surface waves on multilayered
media Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 43 17–34
Hisada Y 1995 An efficient method for computing Green’s
functions for a layered half-space with sources and receivers at
close depths Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 84 1456–72
Hossian M M and Drnevich V P 1989 Numerical and optimization
techniques applied to surface wave for back-calculation of
layer moduli American Society for Testing and Materials
Special Publication vol 1026 ed A J Bush and
G Y Baladi pp 649–69
Kanli A I, Tildy P, Pronay Z, Pınar A and Hermann L 2006 VS30
mapping and soil classification for seismic site effect evaluation
in Dinar region, SW Turkey Geophys. J. Int. 165 223–35
Kausel E and Peek R 1982 Dynamic loads in the interior of a
layered stratum: an explicit solution Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
72 1459–81
Kausel E and Roesset J M 1981 Stiffness matrices for layered soils
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 71 1743–61
Lai C G and Rix G J 1998 Simultaneous inversion of Rayleigh phase
velocity and attenuation for near-surface site characterization
222
View publication stats
Report No GIT-CEE/GEO-98-2, Georgia Institute of
Technology, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Neidell N S and Taner T M 1971 Semblance and other
coherency measures for multichannel data Geophysics
36 482–97
Park C B and Miller R D 2005a Seismic characterization of wind
turbine sites near Lawton, Oklahoma by the MASW method
Kansas Geological Survey Open-file Report 2005-22
Park C B and Miller R D 2005b Seismic characterization of wind
turbine sites in Kansas by the MASW method Kansas
Geological Survey Open-file Report 2005-23
Park C B, Miller R D and Xia J 1998a Imaging dispersion curves of
surface waves on multi-channel record 68th Ann. Int. Mtg Soc.
Expl. Geophys. pp 1377–80
Park C B, Miller R D and Xia J 1999 Multichannel analysis of
surface waves Geophysics 64 800–8
Park C B, Miller R D and Xia J 2001 Offset and resolution of
dispersion curve in multichannel analysis of surface waves
(MASW) Proc. SAGEEP 2001 (Denver, CO) SSM4
Roma V, Rix G J, Lai C G and Hebeler G L 2002 Geotechnical soil
characterization using fundamental and higher Rayleigh modes
propagation in layered media 12th European Conf. on
Earthquake Engineering (London)
Ryden N, Park C B, Ulriksen P and Miller R D 2004 Multimodal
approach to seismic pavement testing J. Geotechnical
Geoenviron. Eng. 130 636–45
Santamarina J C and Fratta D 1998 Introduction to Discrete Signals
and Inverse Problems in Civil Engineering (Reston, VA: ASCE
Press)
Scales J and Tenorio L 2001 Prior information and uncertainty in
inverse problems Geophysics 66 389–97
Smith F B and Shanno D F 1971 An improved Marquardt procedure
for nonlinear regression Technometrics 13 63–74
Socco L V and Strobbia C 2004 Surface-wave method for near
surface characterization: a tutorial Near Surf. Geophys.
2 165–85
Song X, Hanming G, Jiangping L and Xueqiang Z 2007 Estimation
of shallow subsurface shear-wave velocity by inverting
fundamental and higher-mode Rayleigh waves Soil Dyn.
Earthq. Eng. 27 599–607
Taner T M and Koehler F 1969 Velocity spectra-digital computer
derivation and applications of velocity functions
Geophysics 34 859–81
Tarantola A 1987 Inverse Problem Theory: Methods for Data Fitting
and Model Parameter Estimation (Amsterdam: Elsevier)
Thomson W T 1950 Transmission of elastic waves through a
stratified soil media Research Report R81-2 Department of
Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA
Xia J, Miller R D and Park C B 1999 Estimation of near-surface
shear-wave velocity by inversion of Rayleigh wave
Geophysics 64 691–700
Xia J, Miller R D and Park C B 2000a Advantages of calculating
shear-wave velocity from surface waves with higher-modes
70th SEG Ann. Mtg Exp. pp 1295–8
Xu Y, Xia J and Miller R D 2006 Quantitative estimation of
minimum offset for multichannel surface-wave survey with
actively exciting source J. Appl. Geophys. 59 117–25
Zhang S X and Chan L S 2003 Possible effects of misidentified
mode number on Rayleigh wave inversion J. Appl.
Geophys. 53 17– 29
Zhang S X, Chan L S and Xia J 2004 The selection of field
acquisition parameters for dispersion images from
multichannel surface wave data Pure Appl.
Geophys. 161 185–201