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

net/publication/228920696

Experiments of joint acquisition of seismic refraction and surface wave data

Article  in  Near Surface Geophysics · August 2003

DOI: 10.3997/1873-0604.2003002

CITATIONS READS

67 866

4 authors:

Sebastiano Foti Luigi Sambuelli

Politecnico di Torino Politecnico di Torino
180 PUBLICATIONS   4,675 CITATIONS    161 PUBLICATIONS   1,309 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Laura Valentina Socco Claudio Luciano Strobbia

Politecnico di Torino realtimeseismic
188 PUBLICATIONS   3,265 CITATIONS    113 PUBLICATIONS   2,053 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Geotechnical post-seismic reconnaissance View project

Understanding wave propagation in nonlinear media View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Luigi Sambuelli on 19 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Near Surface Geophysics, 2003, 119-129

Experiments of joint acquisition of seismic refraction

and surface wave data

Sebastiano Foti1, Luigi Sambuelli2*, Valentina L. Socco2 and

Claudio Strobbia2
1
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale e Geotecnica, Politecnico di Torino, C.so Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 10129 Torino, Italy
2
Dipartimento Georisorse e Territorio, Politecnico di Torino, C.so Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 10129 Torino, Italy
Received February 2001, revision accepted April 2003

ABSTRACT

Dispersive Rayleigh waves, contained in conventional P-wave refraction records, can be used
to determine the shear-wave velocity profile. In the present paper, the synergies of a cross
interpretation of refraction and surface wave data are exploited using data collected at sites
where other geotechnical and geophysical information was available.
Selected examples are presented to emphasize the relative advantages and limitations of
the two techniques in the cases of hidden layer, velocity inversions and shallow water table.
Surface wave analysis was performed to estimate the experimental dispersion curves in
the f–k domain and the results of the dispersion curves inversion were compared with refrac-
tion results in terms of velocity profiles.
The experimental results prove that many advantages, in terms of resolution and reliabil-
ity, can be obtained with joint acquisition and cross interpretation of P-wave refraction and
surface wave data, without a significant increase in testing time.

INTRODUCTION Vs by means of surface wave analysis, utilizing the dispersive

Seismic surveying techniques provide relevant data regard-
ing soil behaviour at a very low strain level for large portions
of soil, tested in an undisturbed state, by using procedures
that are time and cost effective. Since this is very useful for
geotechnical characterization of the shallow subsurface and
for assessing the dynamic site response, new techniques are
being developed from traditional seismic techniques in
order to provide reliable results in cases of complex distri-
bution of physical parameters at an engineering scale
(Massarsch 1999). In particular, the estimate of shear-wave
velocity (Vs) represents a very important information, since
this parameter is directly related to soil stiffness. Vs profiles
can be estimated using shear-wave seismic methods, such as
shear-wave refraction, but very often these techniques are
affected by experimental difficulties related to the need for
specific equipment (polarized sources and receivers) and to
the inadequacy of the shear-wave data quality.
Recently, much interest has arisen in the determination of
*luigi.sambuelli@polito.it
nature of surface waves in heterogeneous media (Glangeaud
et al. 1998). A variety of Surface Wave Methods (SWM) for
shallow subsurface characterization has been proposed
using different testing configurations, processing techniques
and inversion algorithms (Jones 1958; McMechan and Yedlin
1981; Nazarian and Stokoe 1984; Gabriels et al. 1987; Al-
Hunaidi 1994; Park et al. 1999; Rix et al. 2001).
Data obtained with other geophysical tests can be useful
during the interpretation of surface wave data to improve
the reliability of the inversion process. Joint inversion and
cross interpretation of one-dimensional methods have been
successfully implemented. In particular, the joint inversion
of Rayleigh wave dispersion curves and VES apparent resis-
tivity curves has been shown to be very effective, solving
some interpretation ambiguities inherent in the two tech-
niques (Hering et al. 1995; Misiek et al. 1997; Comina et al.
2002). VSP and downhole test data were used to provide
geometrical constraints for surface wave interpretation,
increasing the reliability of the results (Godio et al. 2001).
Two-dimensional results from GPR and ERT indicate the
presence of lateral variations that prevent the application of

© 2003 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers 119

120 S. Foti et al.
surface wave methods due to the one-dimensional model
adopted for the interpretation of the latter (Socco et al.
2001). The positions of the bedrock and the watertable are
also extremely useful as constraints for the inversion
process (Foti and Strobbia 2002).
Cross interpretation of surface wave and body wave seis-
mic data is of particular interest. SH reflection and refrac-
tion results can be quantitatively compared with surface
waves so that an accurate subsurface model can be obtained.
Since surface wave acquisition and processing are prefer-
ably performed with multistation approaches (Foti et al.
2001; Foti 2002), P-wave refraction data and surface wave
data can be acquired simultaneously (Shtivelman 1999). It is
therefore interesting to explore the advantages of joint
acquisition and cross interpretation of the two data sets.
Indeed, surface wave methods overcome some inherent lim-
itations of the refraction technique caused by refraction
equivalence such as a hidden layer, gradual velocity varia-
tions, velocity inversions and the blinding effect of a shallow
water table. On the other hand, refraction results provide
very useful information for surface wave interpretation:
constraints for surface wave inversion (e.g. the bedrock
position), indication of the water table depth (which allows
a good estimation of Poisson’s ratio in surface wave model-
ling) and a warning in the case of lateral variation of veloc-
ities (e.g. topography of refractors). When the two tech-
niques give independently reliable results that are mutually
confirmed, the knowledge of the values of both Vp and Vs
allows the estimation of mechanical properties and porosity
of the soil deposit (Foti et al. 2002a).
In this paper a series of joint acquisitions of seismic
refraction and surface wave data are presented in order to
demonstrate the relative advantages and limitations of the
two techniques in different situations and to emphasize
their possible synergies.
THE METHODS
Acquisition
Since the model used for SWM interpretation is a stack
of linear elastic homogeneous layers, the investigated site
should fit this assumption in order to obtain reliable results.
The acquisition layout for SWM is usually an array of equi-
spaced vertical geophones with two end-off shots. The two
shots are usually performed in order to verify that the
respective data are similar. If significant differences
between the two data sets are evident, the site cannot be
considered as one-dimensional and therefore SWM are not
suitable for its characterization.
For a joint interpretation of surface wave and refraction
data, the interpretative models for the two techniques must
be comparable, hence a one-dimensional model must also
© 2003 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2003, 1, 119-129
be assumed for the interpretation of the refraction data.
Under this assumption, the acquisition of refraction data
can be performed with only two end-off shots: this allows
the identification of plane, possibly slightly dipping, layers.
In this framework, the presence of lateral variations can be
recognized from traveltime curves, but cannot be interpret-
ed. On the other hand, any dip of refractors can be detect-
ed, giving warnings about the inversion of SWM, which
assume a model without dip. It is therefore implicit that the
joint acquisition of surface wave and refraction does not
exceed the SWM limitations due to the assumption of a one-
dimensional model.
With the above assumption, the interpretation of refrac-
tion data leads to a vertical velocity profile that it is compa-
rable with the result of SWM.
The survey design for these two seismic techniques is
mainly based on the required depth of investigation and on
spatial resolution. For seismic refraction, the modelling of
the P-wave traveltimes and the estimation of the expected
crossover distances of the refractors allow the correct defi-
nition of the profile length and of the geophone spacing. The
source is then chosen according to the overall distance.
Acquisition parameters are consequently chosen to ensure
adequate time resolution and recording windows, so that a
reliable first-break picking is obtained. For the surface
wave, preliminary modelling allows the estimation of mini-
mum and maximum wavelengths, and the layout geometry
is therefore set according to considerations related to spatial
aliasing, resolution and Rayleigh mode separation (Foti et
al. 2002b). In some cases, non-equispaced arrays are used in
order to extend the frequency range in which the dispersion
curve can be interpreted. As far as the sampling parameters
are concerned, the first requirement is that the time window
must be long enough to sample the whole wave train at the
furthest receiver. Furthermore, a wide time window pro-
duces a good resolution in frequency, while the sampling
rate can be quite low because high-frequency components
are not of interest.
Survey design for refraction and SWM often leads to
very similar layout geometries and therefore the same array
can be used to acquire data for the two tests. Moreover, ver-
tical geophones with rather low frequency (usually around 5
Hz) can be adequate for both the techniques. On the other
hand, contrasting requirements have to be fulfilled for the
acquisition parameters and therefore separate acquisitions
with different sampling rates and recording windows are
typically performed.
Processing and interpretation
As mentioned above, if the investigated site fits a one-
dimensional model (or at most a very slight dip is present),
very simple processing and interpretation procedures can be
adopted for refraction data. After first-break picking, the
 Experiments of joint acquisition of seismic refraction and surface wave data 121

TABLE 1 Acquisition parameters

Site Method Receiver spacing Profile length Source Sampling rate Recording window
1 Refraction seismic 2m 50 m Hammer 0.025 ms 51.2 ms
Surface waves 2m 50 m Weight-drop 2 ms 4096 ms
2 Refraction seismic - - - - -
Surface waves 0.5 m 12 m Hammer 1 ms 2048 ms
3 Refraction seismic 3m 75 m Hammer 0.050 ms 102.4 ms
Surface waves 3m 75 m Weight-drop 2 ms 4096 ms
4 Refraction seismic 2m 50 m Hammer 0.025 ms 51.2 ms
Surface waves 2m 50 m Weight-drop 2 ms 4096 ms

traveltime curves of the two end-off shots can be interpret-
ed with the intercept time method, thus obtaining a vertical
profile of the P-wave velocity.
Surface wave processing is based on the estimate of the
dispersion curve of Rayleigh wave phase velocity, which cor-
responds to the maxima of the f–k spectrum. Usually only
absolute maxima are considered but in cases where higher
Rayleigh modes could play an important role, relative max-
ima are also sought in order to increase the information
content of the dispersion curves. Zero padding in the space
domain is usually applied to improve wavenumber resolu-
tion (Foti et al. 2002b).
The interpretation is carried out on a selected branch of
the dispersion curve. If the fundamental mode can be isolat-
ed, a weighted, damped least-squares inversion can be
adopted but, in the case of multimodal interpretation, a
trial-and-error inversion is preferred. Indeed spatial sam-
pling issues in a shallow subsurface characterization do not
allow the experimental separation of Rayleigh modes in a
complex layered situation, and mode superposition effects
lead to the identification of an apparent dispersion curve
(Foti et al. 2000), whose partial derivatives are not easily
computed. The density and Poisson’s ratio of the initial
model are fixed with particular attention to the water table
position (Foti and Strobbia 2002).
The software used for the interpretation is POLISURF
(Strobbia 2003), implemented in Matlab and based on the
algorithm for the resolution of the forward problem pro-
posed by Thomson (1950) and Haskell (1953) and modified
by Dunkin (1965). The software supplies both modal curves
and the apparent dispersion curve.
HIDDEN LAYER
In the case of strong velocity contrasts (for example, a very
high velocity bedrock with a low velocity multilayer over-
burden), waves refracted by a deeper layer may reach the
surface before waves refracted by an intermediate layer. As
a consequence, the intermediate layer is not identified and
the bedrock depth is not properly estimated by seismic
refraction techniques. SWM surveying can solve this so-
called hidden layer problem, which could severely affect
refraction results.
Case 1: A hidden layer
The site studied is located in Pontremoli (Tuscany, Italy),
where the local geology suggests the presence of a fairly
shallow bedrock. The seismic survey was carried out to
determine the dynamic site properties to be used for seismic
hazard evaluation and, therefore, an estimate of the bedrock
depth and of the overburden characteristics were required.
A geotechnical log was available about 200 m away from the
geophysical survey location. It indicates the presence of a

Experimental equipment and set-up

The acquisition was made using a 24-channel Mark VI
seismograph (ABEM) and 24 vertical 4.5 Hz geophones
(SENSOR). Two different impulsive sources were used: a
6 kg sledge-hammer and a 130 kg weight-drop system. The
former was used to generate high-frequency signals, while
the latter was necessary to guarantee a high S/N ratio at low FIGURE 1
frequency for SWM. Source type, array geometry and Case 1: experimental f–k spectrum showing the positions of the maxima associat-
acquisition parameters are reported in Table 1. ed with the Rayleigh experimental dispersion curve.

© 2003 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2003, 1, 119-129
122 S. Foti et al.

FIGURE 2
Case 1: comparison between experimental and numerical dispersion curves.

FIGURE 3
Case 1: experimental velocity profiles.

FIGURE 4
Case 1: P-wave refraction seismo-
grams: direct and reverse shots.

FIGURE 5
Case 1: P-wave refraction travel-
times and best-fitting two-layer
model.

© 2003 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2003, 1, 119-129
 Experiments of joint acquisition of seismic refraction and surface wave data 123

FIGURE 6
Case 1: bedrock depth vs. velocity of the hidden layer under the assumption
of a single hidden layer with constant velocity.

very shallow zone of soft soils (about 2 m thick), underlain

by dense gravels. A sandstone bedrock, weathered in the
upper part, was found at a depth of about 8 m.
The SWM results showed good agreement with the geol-
ogy and with the information from the borehole. The seis-
mograms of the different shots were acquired separately,
allowing statistical evaluation of the coherence function for
pairs of receivers, which is a good indicator of the S/N ratio.
The absolute maxima of the f–k spectrum were used to esti-
mate the experimental dispersion curve for Rayleigh waves
(Fig. 1). In Fig. 2, the experimental dispersion is compared to
the numerical simulation for the last iteration of the inver-
sion process. The final result is the 5-layers-over-a-halfspace
model shown in Fig. 3.
The raw seismograms, for the two end-off shots of refrac-
tion, are shown in Fig. 4. The interpretation of the traveltime
curves (Fig. 5) suggested a two-layer model, which is shown
in Fig. 3. This result would locate a slightly dipping bedrock,
of fairly high velocity, at a depth varying between 3 and
3.7 m, but the high velocity contrast (330 m/s vs. 2620m/s)
between the two layers suggested the possibility of a hidden
layer with significant thickness.
No information about the existence and the properties of
this hidden layer can be obtained from the refraction survey,
but it is possible to calculate the thickness–velocity ratio of
such layer: this allows, at least, an estimate of the possible
error in the bedrock depth.
The maximum thickness of the possible hidden layer as a
function of its velocity is shown in Fig. 6: it refers to a single
layer whose refracted waves are, at any distance, preceded
by the arrival from the deep refractor or by the direct waves.
For each possible velocity (slope) of the intermediate layer,
the maximum thickness is computed such that the arrivals
from this layer are never first arrivals. Under this assump- FIGURE 7
tion of a single hidden layer, the error in the location of the Case 1: traveltimes for equivalent velocity profiles (multi-layer profile from
bedrock can be of the order of 50%. The situation is even SWM: two-layer profile from seismic refraction).
worse if the velocity of this blind zone is not constant but
increases with depth: the real depth of the bedrock can be determined by the SWM, can be compatible with the travel-
significantly greater. A simple modelling shows that a stack times observed in the field. The two traveltimes depicted in
of layers with velocities increasing with depth, like that Fig. 7 are equivalent, but correspond to very different strati-

© 2003 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2003, 1, 119-129
124 S. Foti et al.
graphies: the two-layer model was obtained from the first
interpretation of the refraction survey, while the multilayer
model was obtained by scaling the Vs profile of the SWM
method assuming a Poisson’s ratio of 0.45 (Fig. 3).
The P-wave refraction survey proved to be inadequate at
the investigated site. Furthermore, the presence of the hid-
den layers, without other information, could only be sus-
pected. The results of the SWM, on the contrary, were in
good agreement with the available borehole data.
VELOCITY INVERSION
In general, if velocity inversions occur within the stratigra-
phy, seismic refraction surveys are unable to detect low-
velocity layers, while SWM are not affected by this problem.
In the following, two examples of velocity inversion are
presented. At the first site, seismic tests were carried out in
an urban environment in the presence of a stiff top layer
(the road paving) and with a high level of background noise
caused by human activity. The second site is a fluvial deposit
with a shallow water table where the velocity of shear waves
does not always increase with depth.
Case 2: Velocity inversion in an urban area
Construction activity in an urban environment requires
site characterization under very difficult conditions. Indeed,
very often space for the execution of tests is very limited
and noise levels are quite high, also because the traffic can
seldom be stopped. Moreover, tests very often have to be
done in paved areas and seismic refraction cannot supply
information at shallow depths below the very stiff top layer.
SWM can provide a shear-wave velocity profile in this situ-
ation because measurements are not very sensitive to back-
ground noise and the pavement system can be adequately
modelled.
© 2003 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2003, 1, 119-129
In this situation the interpretation of the SWM tests is
somewhat more complex, indeed higher Rayleigh modes
play a very important role for surface wave propagation in
inversely dispersive media. Moreover the lack of spatial
resolution in the usual applications makes it impossible to
separate the individual modes during the analysis and the
interpretation has to be done by considering the mode
superposition effects evaluated using the apparent phase
velocity (Foti et al. 2000). The stiffness of the top layer
strongly affects the whole dispersion curve (Fig. 8), so even
if the characterization of the pavement system is not includ-
ed in the scope of the testing program, information in the
high-frequency range is necessary for an adequate estimate
of the shear-wave velocity profile.
The example reported below is part of a series of tests
performed to evaluate the potential use of SWM for feasi-
bility studies of directional drilling for pipeline positioning.
Trenchless technologies are becoming increasingly popular
for underground service installation and they require infor-
mation regarding the mechanical properties of the first 2 – 3
m of soil. The site is located in the city of Biella (Italy). No
detailed information is available for the stratigraphy at this
site, but the drilling operation revealed the presence of a
fairly hard material at shallow depth (about 3 m below
ground level).
The design of the array geometry (see Table 1) was based
on the required depth of investigation (very shallow in this
case) and on the need for high-frequency information to
characterize the stiff, thin top layer. To ensure an adequate
spatial sampling, a short array with a small geophone spac-
ing was chosen for the surface wave data acquisition. The
data quality was very good, even though the acquisition was
made in an extremely noisy environment, due to intense
traffic nearby. The very fast direct wave travelling in the top
layer made the seismic refraction survey totally blind below
the pavement system.
FIGURE 8
Effect of different thin, stiff top lay-
ers on the Rayleigh-wave apparent
dispersion curve.
 Experiments of joint acquisition of seismic refraction and surface wave data
FIGURE 9
Case 2: comparison between experimental and numerical dispersion curves.
As mentioned above, a multimodal approach is needed
for the interpretation of the SWM in this case. Due to the
presence of the stiff top layer, higher Rayleigh modes are
dominant at high frequencies. Energy partition between dif-
ferent modes of propagation is not easily evaluated and the
modes cannot be isolated during the analysis. The approach
used for the interpretation is based on mode superposition
and it computes the apparent phase velocity by considering
the same receiver geometry as used for field testing.
The experimental and numerical dispersion curves are
shown in Fig. 9. Both the Rayleigh modes and the apparent
phase velocity are shown for the numerical simulation,
showing that the fundamental Rayleigh mode is dominant
only for frequencies less than 120 Hz. In the high-frequency
range the propagation is dominated by higher modes, with a
continuous transition characterized by an asymptotic value
associated with the stiff top layer. The inversion process was
conducted using a trial-and-error approach; indeed, the
dependence of the apparent dispersion curve on higher
modes and on the testing geometry prevents the use of local
search algorithms because the partial derivatives are not
sufficiently stable. The estimated shear-wave velocity profile
is shown in Fig. 10. The presence of a stiffer material starting
2.5 m below the ground surface is compatible with the
observation made during the drilling mentioned above.
© 2003 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2003, 1, 119-129
125
FIGURE 10
Case 2: shear-wave velocity profile.
Case 3: Velocity inversion with a shallow water table
The site is situated along the banks of the River Po
(Italy), and is characterized by recent sandy deposits on a
sequence of fluvial sediments (clay layers over dense sands
and gravels). The uppermost materials are characterized by
very low seismic velocities (P-wave velocity of 200 m/s and
S-wave velocity of less than 100 m/s). The aim of the testing
was the identification of clayey layers, which prevent seep-
age during floods.
Due to the vicinity of the river, the water table is quite
shallow. In saturated porous media, the P-wave velocity is
strongly dependent on the fluid mechanical properties, and
it is therefore less sensitive to the solid skeleton properties.
For this reason, P-wave refraction does not provide useful
geometrical and mechanical information for saturated
materials. The only information that can be inferred from P-
wave refraction in this situation is the water table depth. On
the other hand, surface wave data, which are less influenced
by the degree of saturation, allow soil characterization, also
below the water table. The information about water-table
depth provided by the P-wave refraction leads to a more
FIGURE 11
Case 3: P-wave refraction seismo-
grams: direct and reverse shots.
126 S. Foti et al.

FIGURE 12
Case 3: P-wave refraction traveltimes and best-fitting two-layer model.
FIGURE 15
Case 3: comparison between experimental (dots) and numerical (solid)
dispersion curves.

FIGURE 13
Case 3: time-domain data for SWM (weight-drop source).

FIGURE 16
Case 3: shear-wave velocity pro-
file from SWM.

FIGURE 14
Case 3: experimental f–k spectrum showing the positions of the maxima asso-
ciated with the Rayleigh experimental dispersion curves.

FIGURE 17
Case 3: example of SH-wave refraction seismograms.

© 2003 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2003, 1, 119-129
 Experiments of joint acquisition of seismic refraction and surface wave data
FIGURE 18
Case 3: 2D map of shear-wave velocity from tomographic inversion of SH
refraction data compared with the shear-wave velocity profile from SWM.
reliable surface wave inversion, supplying an estimate of
Poisson’s ratio, typically assumed a priori in the inversion
(Foti and Strobbia 2002).
Refraction seismograms are shown in Fig. 11 and travel-
time graphs with apparent velocities are shown in Fig. 12.
The only information that can be obtained from the P-wave
refraction is the P-wave velocity of the unsaturated upper-
most material (about 200 m/s), the water-table depth (about
3 m), and the P-wave velocity of the saturated media (about
1625 m/s).
SWM supplied more interesting information regarding
the investigation target. A sample raw seismogram is shown
in Fig. 13. Mode separation is evident in the time–offset
domain where the time separation of the two main events
increases with offset. The different modes of propagation
are easily located in the f–k spectrum (Fig. 14).
The fundamental mode (associated with the higher
wavenumber) is dominant at low frequencies, below 27 Hz.
At higher frequencies a higher mode (probably the third)
becomes dominant, but by seeking relative maxima the fun-
damental mode can be identified up to more than 35 Hz.
Because of the uncertainty related to the exact definition
of the higher mode detected, the inversion is performed by
considering the fundamental mode only. The shape of the
fundamental mode (Fig. 15) suggests the presence of a
velocity inversion that was confirmed by the interpretation.
The values of Poisson’s ratio used for the inversion were
chosen according to the results of P-wave refraction; values
were assigned to the starting SWM model, taking into
account the effect of saturation (Foti and Strobbia 2002).
Figure 15 compares the experimental dispersion curve with
the numerical one, obtained for the final profile selected in
the iterative inversion process.
The velocity profile (Fig. 16) can be interpreted by con-
sidering the local geology as a sequence of clayey and grav-
elly layers, respectively characterized by lower and higher
© 2003 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2003, 1, 119-129
127
velocities. A borehole log at about 1 km from the investi-
gated site shows a similar profile. This interpretation is in
good agreement with the results of several other tests per-
formed along the same profile. A vertical electric sounding
showed the presence of a conductive layer from 9 to 16 m
depth (Comina et al. 2002). A Wenner resistivity tomogra-
phy confirmed the interpretation of SWM and VES,
although the ERT did not show an adequate depth of
investigation and so did not provide any information about
the bottom end of the clayey layer. It is also interesting to
compare the results of SWM with an SH refraction tomog-
raphy. The VSH data were acquired by using a polarized
source and performing 15 shots along the profile. 21 hori-
zontal receivers (Swyphone™ prototypes, Sambuelli et al.
2001) were used (for acquisition parameters, see Table 1). A
sample seismogram shows evidence of the refraction events
(Fig. 17).
The tomographic interpretation was carried out using
Rayfract® (Intelligence Resources) software and the results
are shown in Fig. 18 together with an SWM profile. Obvious-
ly the velocity inversion is not detected by seismic refraction
and this also affects the reliability of the depth values
obtained by tomography.
CONSTRAINED INVERSION
In the case of a plane layered lithology, with significant
velocity contrasts between different layers, the seismic
refraction results give a vertical velocity profile that could
be used as a starting model or as a constraint for surface
wave inversion. This could help in obtaining more consistent
results from the inversion process, limiting the ambiguity
related to the non-uniqueness of the solution. On the other
hand, SWM could supply information about small changes
in the mechanical properties inside the layers, which would
not be detected by refraction surveys. Moreover SWM sup-
ply direct information concerning the shear modulus at very
low strains, which is very important for geotechnical appli-
cations such as site amplification studies.
Case 4: Constrained SWM inversion
This example deals with a case of constrained inversion
of surface waves using refraction results. The site is located
in the Tuscany region, close to the site of Case 1. A very stiff
limestone bedrock starting at a depth of around 9 m was
found by a borehole log. The upper layers consist of a geo-
logical formation of gravels, very similar to that described in
Case 1. In this case, the shallow cover also consists of soft
soils.
P-wave refraction traveltime interpretation led to a
three-layer stratigraphy with very small dip (Fig. 19a). The
velocity values and the depths of the bedrock and of the dif-
128 S. Foti et al.
ferent portions of the overburden were in good agreement
with data from boreholes in the vicinity. SWM processing
was then performed using the velocity profile from the
refraction results as the starting model for the inversion pro-
cedure. The good fit between experimental and calculated
dispersion curves (Fig. 19b) and the small changes intro-
duced in the starting model by the inversion procedure (Fig.
19c) were confirmation of the reliability of the information
obtained from the two seismic techniques. The results of a
seismic downhole test performed in the above-mentioned
borehole are in good agreement with the shear-wave veloc-
ity profile obtained with SWM.
CONCLUSION AND COMMENTS
Seismic refraction and surface wave methods suffer from
some intrinsic limitations, which are inherent in their
respective basic assumptions and interpretation procedures.
They are also affected by experimental difficulties, which
are different for the two techniques (mainly: acquiring data
with an adequate S/N ratio for reliable first-break picking in
© 2003 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2003, 1, 119-129
FIGURE 19
Case 4: (a) P-wave refraction traveltimes; (b) comparison between experi-
mental and numerical dispersion curves; (c) experimental velocity profiles.
the case of refraction and acquiring data over an adequate
frequency range for SWM). The experiments described
show how a joint acquisition and a cross interpretation of
the results could, in some cases, minimize the consequences
of the following limitations:
• Equivalence problems such as velocity inversions and
hidden layers, which are responsible for significant errors
in layer depth estimation in seismic refraction, are over-
come by using SWM, which is not affected by such limi-
tations and which could therefore provide consistent
results and ‘warnings’ for refraction interpretation (see
Cases 1 and 3). Similarly P-wave refraction cannot be
used under certain layer conditions, e.g. where all the first
arrivals are associated with a very stiff top layer, while
SWM allows the characterization of such sites (see Case
2).
• Seismic refraction assumes sharp velocity contrasts
between layers and is not adequate in the case of gradual
changes in velocity with depth, while SWM can solve any
vertical velocity distribution with good resolution, espe-
cially at shallow depths (see Cases 1 and 4).
• SWM is scarcely influenced by the presence of the water
table and gives information about small velocity varia-
tions in the saturated zone. P-wave refraction gives infor-
mation about the water-table level but is less sensitive to
small velocity variations in saturated media. On the other
hand, information about the water-table level can be
used to determine the correct value of Poisson’s ratio to
be used for SWM inversion (see Case 3).
• Non-uniqueness of the SWM inversion solution can be
greatly mitigated by the introduction of a priori informa-
tion, which could be inferred by refraction data (see Case
4).
The above considerations focus on many situations in which
the cross interpretation of P-wave refraction and SWM
could be synergic, overcoming many limitations of the two
techniques. It is suggested that SWM should be associated
with P-wave refraction as a routine technique for geotechni-
cal site characterization.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the Tuscany Regional Government and
the Agency for the River Po for permission to publish the
data. They are grateful to F. Bosco, C. Comina and R.
Maniscalco for their valuable help during data acquisition
and processing.
 Experiments of joint acquisition of seismic refraction and surface wave data
REFERENCES
Al-Hunaidi M.O. 1994. Analysis of dispersed multi-mode signals of
the SASW method using the multiple filter/crosscorrelation tech-
nique. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 13, 13–24.
Comina C., Foti S., Sambuelli L., Socco L.V. and Strobbia C. 2002.
Joint inversion of VES and surface wave data. Proceedings of
SAGEEP 2002, Las Vegas, USA, February 10–14, CD-Rom.
Dunkin J.W. 1965. Computation of modal solutions in layered, elas-
tic media at high frequencies. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America 55, 335–358.
Foti S. 2002. Numerical and experimental comparison between 2-
station and multistation methods for spectral analysis of surface
waves. RIG (Italian Geotechnical Journal 1, 11–22.
Foti S., Lai C.G. and Lancellotta R. 2002a. Porosity of fluid-saturat-
ed porous media from measured seismic wave velocities.
Geotechnique 52, 359–373.
Foti S., Lancellotta R., Sambuelli L. and Socco L.V. 2000. Notes on
fk analysis of surface waves. Annali di Geofisica 43, 1199–1210.
Foti S., Lancellotta R., Sambuelli L. and Socco L.V. 2001.
Application of fk analysis of surface waves for geotechnical char-
acterization. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference
on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering
and Soil Dynamics, San Diego, CD-rom
Foti S., Sambuelli L., Socco L.V. and Strobbia C. 2002b. Spatial sam-
pling issues in fk analysis of surface waves. Proceedings of
SAGEEP 2002, Las Vegas, USA, February 10–14, CD-Rom.
Foti S. and Strobbia C. 2002. Some notes on model parameters for
surface wave data inversion. Proceedings of SAGEEP 2002, Las
Vegas, USA, February 10–14, CD-Rom.
Gabriels P., Snieder R. and Nolet G. 1987. In situ measurements of
shear-wave velocity in sediments with higher-mode Rayleigh
waves. Geophysical Prospecting 35, 187–196.
Glangeaud F., Mari J.L., Lacoume J.L., Mars J. and Nardin M. 1998.
Dispersive seismic waves in geophysics. European Journal of
EEGS 3, 265–306.
Godio A., Sambuelli L., Socco L.V. and Strobbia C. 2001. Rilievo
Geofisico multidisciplinare per la caratterizzazione di una discar-
ica mineraria. Proceedings of GNGTS, Roma, November 6–8.
Haskell N.A. 1953. The dispersion of surface waves on multilayered
media. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 43, 17–34.
© 2003 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2003, 1, 119-129
View publication stats
129
Hering A., Misiek R., Gyulai A., Ormos T., Dobroka M. and Dresen
L. 1995. A joint inversion algorithm to process geoelectric and
surface wave seismic data. Part I: basic ideas. Geophysical
Prospecting 43, 135–156.
Jones R.B. 1958. In-situ measurement of the dynamic properties of
soil by vibration methods. Geotechnique 8, 1–21.
Massarsch K.R. 1999. Seismic field measurements applied to static
geotechnical problems. 5th EEGS – ES meeting, Budapest,
Expanded Abstracts, SE1.
McMechan G.A. and Yedlin M.J. 1981. Analysis of dispersive waves
by wave field transformation. Geophysics 46, 869–874.
Misiek R., Liebig A., Gyulai A., Ormos T., Dobroka M. and Dresen
L. 1997. A joint inversion algorithm to process geoelectric and
surface wave seismic data. Part II: applications. Geophysical
Prospecting 45, 65–85.
Nazarian S. and Stokoe II K.H. 1984. In situ shear wave velocities
from spectral analysis of surface waves. Proceedings of 8th
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, Vol. 3,
pp. 31–38, Prentice–Hall.
Park C.B., Miller R.D. and Xia J. 1999. Multichannel analysis of sur-
face waves. Geophysics 64, 800–808.
Rix G.J., Lai C.G. and Foti S. 2001. Simultaneous measurement of
surface wave dispersion and attenuation curves. Geotechnical
Testing Journal, ASTM, 350–358.
Sambuelli L., Deidda, G.P., Albis G., Giorcelli E. and Tristano G.
2001. Comparison of standard horizontal geophones and newly
designed horizontal detectors. Geophysics 66, 1827–1837.
Shtivelman V. 1999. Using surface waves for estimating shear-waves
velocities in the shallow subsurface onshore and offshore Israel.
European Journal of EEGS 4, 15–35.
Socco L.V., Strobbia C., Sambuelli L. and Foti S. 2001. Integrazione
di dati sismici ed elettrici per la caratterizzazione di un sito cam-
pione presso gli argini del fiume Po. Proceedings of GNGTS,
Roma, November 6–8.
Strobbia C. 2003. Surface wave methods: acquisition, processing and
inversion. PhD dissertation Politecnico di Torino.
Thomson W.T. 1950. Transmission of elastic waves through a strati-
fied solid medium. Journal of Applied Physics 21, 89–93.