J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-024-10189-5

RESEARCH

Techniques to identify microtremor wave contributions

and impact to seismic site characterization
Hema Sharma · Sheri Molnar · Aamna Sirohey

Received: 21 June 2023 / Accepted: 11 January 2024 / Published online: 7 February 2024
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2024

Abstract We investigate whether varying wavefield
contributions are the likely cause to variation in micro-
tremor horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio (MHVSR)
amplification shape between six sites in the relatively
homogeneous geologic setting of Windsor, Ontario. We
quantify the MHVSR shape in terms of peak broadness
and its fitness using mathematical functions to identify
potential wave type contributions. We develop a tech-
nique that uses particle motion plots of cross-correlated
microtremor recordings to establish the dominant wave
types contributing to the microtremor wavefield within
three important frequency bandwidths (below, span-
ning, and above the fundamental peak frequency). We
investigate the variability in the inverted shear-wave
velocity (VS) depth profile by performing 21 MHVSR
inversions with varying Rayleigh, Love, and body
wave contributions. The impact to seismic site char-
acterization is that the depth and VS of the resonator
(half-space) layer are overestimated consistently by an
average of 28% compared to the often-default-assumed
Rayleigh ellipticity forward amplification model. Our
study demonstrates the importance of correctly iden-
tifying wave type contributions of the microtremor
wavefield for the proper estimation of VS depth profiles,
especially to obtain correct thickness of the sediment
layer and resonator VS and thereby the average VS of the
upper 30 m (VS30).
Keywords MHVSRs · Microtremor wavefield ·
Cross-correlations · Particle motion plots · Surface
wave modes · Bedrock properties

1 Introduction
Highlights
• Multiple forward model approximations of an MHVSR
shape are evaluated based on varying microtremor
Earthquake site effects (amplification, liquefaction, etc.)
wavefield contents. are often the main cause of earthquake damage, distant
• Novel use of particle motion plots of cross-correlations from the epicentre. Amongst them, seismic wave ampli-
to identify waves contributing to the microtremor fication results from the general reduction in the soil’s
wavefield.
• We find that fundamental mode Rayleigh ellipticity notably
shear-wave velocity (VS) and density (their product is
overestimates the resonator depth and its VS and VS30. known as seismic impedance) towards the Earth’s sur-
face. For a single soil layer over an elastic half-space,
H. Sharma (*) · S. Molnar (*) · A. Sirohey the site resonance frequency (f0) from vertical propaga-
Dept. Earth Sciences, The University of Western Ontario,
tion of horizontal shear (SH) waves is,
London, ON, Canada
e-mail: hsharm3@uwo.ca f0 = VSav ∕4h (1)
S. Molnar
e-mail: smolnar8@uwo.ca

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 346
where VSav is the single soil layer’s average VS, and
h is soil thickness. Site amplification is determined
empirically using soil base-to-surface or rock-to-soil
spectral ratios from earthquake recordings (Borcherdt
1970). Empirical site amplification is also evaluated
using the horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio from
either earthquake or microtremor (ambient vibration)
recordings from a single seismometer. A microtremor
horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio (MHVSR) is the
ratio of the average of horizontal components’ Fourier
spectra and the vertical component’s Fourier spec-
trum of a tri-axial seismometer’s microtremor record-
ings (Nogoshi and Igarashi 1971; Nakamura 1989).
The reader is referred to the most recent review of
the microtremor method (Molnar et al. 2022) which
documents evolution in understanding of the MHVSR.
An MHVSR amplification spectrum provides reliable
site frequency(ies) related to soil thickness and VS in
the subsurface (known as seismic site conditions). An
MHVSR amplification spectrum can also provide reli-
able amplification estimates at site resonance (peak)
frequency(ies) when there is a strong seismic imped-
ance contrast. MHVSRs can therefore be inverted to
determine subsurface seismic site conditions, but it
is not often accomplished due to significant model
non-uniqueness and continued distrust of MHVSR
amplification as a reliable measure of site amplifica-
tion. Joint inversion of a MHVSR spectrum with a
site’s surface wave dispersion curve is often used to
reduce model non-uniqueness. The remaining hin-
drance to sole MHVSR inversion is an appropriate for-
ward prediction model. Without the knowledge of the
microtremor wavefield composition, the appropriate
forward prediction model is unknown. The evolution
in the understanding of which seismic wave type(s)
dominates the microtremor recording and thereby
the MHVSR in approximately chronological order is
as follows: SH waves, Rayleigh waves, both Rayleigh
and Love waves or diffracted waves, i.e. the total
wavefield comprising body (primary, and horizontal
and vertical shear waves, P, SV and SH waves respec-
tively) and surface waves.
In the formative Nakamura (1989) publication,
the site’s microtremor fundamental-mode resonance
frequency (f0HV) is shown to be equivalent to f0 and
thereby it was assumed that body waves dominate
the microtremor wavefield, while Rayleigh surface
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372
wave contributions could be ignored as noise. Later,
Lachet and Bard (1994) illustrated that the f0HV can
also be explained by the ellipticity curve of funda-
mental mode Rayleigh wave and is equivalent to f0.
Castellaro (2016) showed that f0HV coincides with
the lowest frequency minimum in the vertical com-
ponent Fourier spectrum because of vanishing ver-
tical energy when Rayleigh wave motion changes
from prograde to retrograde. When Rayleigh waves
dominate, the vertical component Fourier spec-
trum is minimum at f0HV and maximum at ⁓2f0HV
(Castellaro 2016). Hence, there are two important
identifiers of an empirical MHVSR dominated by
Rayleigh ellipticity: the vertical component Fourier
spectrum amplitude is always a minimum at result-
ing in amplitude divergence between the horizon-
tal and vertical component spectra (termed as ‘eye
shape’ pattern by Castellaro and Mulargia 2009),
and MHVSR de-amplification occurs at ⁓2f0HV,
i.e. a trough is present in the MHVSR at ~ 2. Cas-
tellaro and Mulargia (2009) use the first identifier
to confirm f0HV is of stratigraphic origin. For a
linear elastic and homogeneous half-space, sur-
face waves exist as only Rayleigh waves (Aki and
Richards 1980). Earth’s layering gives rise to addi-
tional surface wave modes, including Love waves
which arise due to constructive interference of up-
going and down-going SH waves (Aki and Richards
1980). Konno and Ohmachi (1998) showed that
for high impedance contrasts, Love waves increase
the MHVSR peak amplitude. The Airy phase of
Love waves can also give rise to resonance (Ben-
Hador and Buchen 1999) and thereby increase the
horizontal amplitude. Hence, an important indicator
of the presence of Love wave contributions to the
microtremor wavefield is an increased horizontal
amplitude; the higher the amplitude of the horizon-
tal components within the ‘eye-shape’ frequency
bandwidth, the more Love wave contributions there
are to the wavefield.
Bonnefoy-Claudet et al. (2008) showed that
the contribution of surface and body waves in the
microtremor wavefield varies according to the
S-wave impedance contrast between the sediment
and bedrock layer, as well as the source geometry
(the direction and distance of the source from the
measurement station). They concluded that the
J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372
microtremor wavefield is mainly composed of Ray-
leigh and Love waves for high impedance contrast
sites (> 4); Rayleigh waves exist, but the wavefield
is dominated by Love waves for moderate imped-
ance contrast sites (> 3 and ≤ 4); and is mainly
composed of Love and body waves for low imped-
ance contrast sites (≤ 3), with minor contribution
from Rayleigh waves. Along with the impedance
contrast, the source geometry also plays a role in
determining the microtremor wavefield compo-
sition. Body waves attenuate faster than surface
waves (Aki and Richards 1980), so that away from
the source, the microtremor wavefield is dominated
by surface waves. Conversely, when microtrem-
ors are recorded closer to their sources, there is
some contribution of body waves along with sur-
face waves. Albarello and Lunedei (2011) showed
that when sources are nearby, for a high imped-
ance contrast, body waves dominate the wavefield
below the f0HV; for frequencies above 2f0HV, surface
waves dominate the wavefield; and at intermediate
frequencies, spanning the f0HV and 2f0HV, the wave-
field can be influenced by both surface and body
waves. The diffraction or splitting of wave types
due to lateral variability in subsurface ground con-
ditions is known to broaden f0HV and in extreme
cases result in plateaued MHVSRs with no clear
f0HV (Uebayashi 2003).
The most recent proposal to explain the micro-
tremor wavefield is that of a diffuse wavefield
assumption (DFA; Sánchez-Sesma et al. 2008)
which assumes that a diffusion-like phenomenon
takes place when microtremors are generated by
various sources, due to multiple scattering of seis-
mic waves. If a three-dimensional (3D), diffuse,
equipartitioned, harmonic displacement vector field
is established within an elastic medium, the Green’s
function can be approximated by the cross-corre-
lation of recordings at two points in the medium.
When these two points coincide, the amplification
function is given in terms of the imaginary part
of the Green’s functions (Piña-Flores et al. 2020).
Overall, the respective contribution of wave types to
the microtremor wavefield depends on the source(s)
distribution and site conditions and ultimately
impacts the MHVSR amplification, i.e. the shape or
morphology of the MHVSR curve.
347
The f0HV or the entire MHVSR spectrum is
often inverted for subsurface site conditions even
though the appropriate forward model to predict
the MHVSR (physical basis of the microtremor
wavefield) for the site is often unknown. Several
researchers have tried to reduce the Love and body
wave content in the microtremor recording to fit
the MHVSR as a Rayleigh ellipticity function. Fäh
et al. (2001) modified empirical MHVSRs by multi-
plying them with a scalar quantity of √2 to remove
the influence of Love and SH waves prior to inver-
sion using a Rayleigh ellipticity forward model.
Rayleigh wave ellipticity was also computed by
Hobiger et al. (2009) using the random decrement
technique (RayDec), which reduces the Love and
body waves from the single-station recordings. The
open-source Geopsy software (www.​geopsy.​org,
version 3.4.2, Wathelet et al. 2020), developed by
SESAME (Bard et al. 2004), inverts the unmodified
empirical MHVSR spectra as Rayleigh wave ellip-
ticity functions using horizontal and vertical eigen-
functions from Aki and Richards (1980). Arai and
Tokimatsu (2004) developed an inversion scheme
that accounts for Love waves and higher modes of
Rayleigh and Love waves in the forward modelling
of MHVSRs. The theoretical amplification function
in the Matlab-based ModelHVSR routine developed
by Herak (2008) is based on vertically incident P
and SV waves. In most of the cases, these approxi-
mations work. The theoretical amplification func-
tion of the HVInv algorithm (http://​www.​ual.​es/​
Grupo​sInv/​hv-​inv/) developed by García-Jerez et al.
(2016) is based on diffractions of the total wavefield
(Sánchez-Sesma et al. 2008).
Several array-based studies were also accom-
plished to understand particle motions of the recorded
microtremor wavefield. Hobiger et al. (2011) illus-
trated an array-based method, MUSIQUE, that can
estimate the Rayleigh wave particle motions and
can determine if they are prograde or retrograde and
hence is useful in separating the wave modes. Degree-
of-polarization has been calculated to estimate Ray-
leigh ellipticity from the microtremors (Schimmel
and Gallart 2004; Poggi and Fäh 2010; Berbellini
et al. 2019). Poggi and Fäh (2010) used high-reso-
lution frequency-wavenumber (HRFK) technique to
filter out Love and SH wave content to acquire the
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 348
Fig. 1  Location map of six array sites in Windsor. Top inset
shows an example of the three-sensor array geometry. The co-
located invasive VS profiling locations (CPT, cone penetration
Rayleigh ellipticity. Tapia et al. (2020) identify body
and surface waves using particle motion plots from
landslide recordings. In a different study, cross-cor-
relations of microtremor recordings and their particle
motion plots were used by Yeh et al. (2013) to esti-
mate a VS model at a fault zone in Taiwan.
In this study, we perform a detailed analysis
of the MHVSR curves at six seismic array sites in
Windsor, Ontario, Canada (Fig. 1) to test novel
techniques in identifying wave type contributions
of microtremor recordings. Our goal is to deter-
mine the physical basis of the MHVSR and thereby
determine the most appropriate forward amplifi-
cation model for inversion either from the micro-
tremor recordings (array-based) or directly from
the MHVSR curve (single-station). We examine
the functional form of MHVSR using two math-
ematical functions (Gaussian and Lorentzian).
We further examine the particle motion plots of
cross-correlated microtremor recordings to ana-
lyse the body and surface wave contributions to
the recorded microtremor wavefield. We also test
whether the effort to improve inversion fitness of
the MHVSR curve of the appropriate theoretical
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372
test holes; CH, cross-hole surveys; VSP, vertical seismic pro-
filing) of the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario are also
shown
site amplification (forward) modelling routine
identified from the microtremor recordings and/
or the MHVSR curve leads to improvement in the
inverted VS profiles and hence seismic site charac-
terization. To accomplish this, we invert MHVSR
curves by assuming various wavefield combina-
tions including Rayleigh, Love and body waves,
as well as higher surface wave modes. The impact
to seismic site characterization amongst the 21
amplification models is evaluated in terms of
four chosen metrics: depth and VS of the resona-
tor (half-space), the velocity ratio at the top of the
resonator and the time-averaged VS of the upper
30 m, VS30.
2 Variation in theoretical amplification function
with changing wavefield
To demonstrate variation in the shape of theoretical
site amplification dependent on the assumed wave-
field content (forward model), we calculate theo-
retical site amplification functions for a simple one-
layer soil model (VS0 = 200 m/s) of 10 m thickness
J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372
Fig. 2  A For a single soil
layer model, B theoretical
amplification functions are
computed as Rayleigh ellip-
ticity, SH transfer function,
or the DFA considering
different wave combina-
tions: 100% Rayleigh waves
(R), 50% Rayleigh and 50%
Love waves (R + L) and
Rayleigh, Love and body
waves (R + L + BW)
over an elastic half-space (VS1 = 600 m/s) (Fig. 2)
based on Rayleigh ellipticity (gpell algorithm of the
Geopsy software package, Wathelet et al. 2020), the
transverse shear-wave transfer function (gpsh algo-
rithm within Geopsy) and varying seismic wave
contributions based on the DFA (HVInv tool of
García-Jerez et al. 2016). Figure 2 shows that the
calculated Rayleigh ellipticity functions are consist-
ent regardless of the available tool (gpell or HVInv).
The Rayleigh ellipticity spectrum exhibits f0HV at
6.6 Hz with a trough at 8.3 Hz; the curve is asym-
metrical with a gentler slope below f0HV. When an
equal amount of Love wave contribution is added
(50% Rayleigh and 50% Love waves, termed R + L),
f0HV does not change but its amplification increases
significantly (3.9 to 9.3). Amplification increases
because the added Love wave content increases the
horizontal component amplitudes. The theoretical
SH transfer function has a peak frequency of 5 Hz,
where f0 = VSav/4 h = 200/4(10) = 5 Hz, and peak
amplification of 3, where A0 = VS1/VS0 = 600/200 = 3.
A combination of body (P, SV, and SH) and sur-
face (equal contribution of R and L) waves (termed
R + L + BW) results in the same 5 Hz peak fre-
quency as the SH transfer function’s f0, but the peak
is broader, and amplification is higher at and below
the peak frequency. Figure 2 demonstrates that Ray-
leigh ellipticity functions for a moderate imped-
ance contrast site (A0 = 3) exhibits a narrow and
high amplitude peak shape compared to a lower and
broader SH transfer function amplification response.
The addition of Love waves (R + L) increases only
the peak amplification compared to the Rayleigh
349
ellipticity. The combination of body and surface
waves to the wavefield broadens and shifts the peak
frequency lower, towards the expected SH-wave f0.
Amplification below the peak frequency is increased
when Love waves or body waves are present. Fig-
ure 2 reinforces that different combinations of
contributing seismic waves affect the shape of the
MHVSR curve.
3 Geologic setting
The city of Windsor, Ontario, is in the southernmost
part of Canada, on the bank of the Detroit River chan-
nel connecting Lake Huron with Lake Erie via Lake
St. Clair (Fig. 1). The Quaternary deposits range
from a few meters to 50 m in thickness and strongly
reflect the underlying bedrock surface (Hudec 1998).
The general stratigraphy from base to top (oldest to
youngest) applicable to the six array sites consists of
Middle Devonian Detroit River Group limestone and
dolostone bedrock (Easton and Carter 1995; Hudec
1998), overlain by a few meters of Catfish Creek grav-
elly till (the basal till/limestone interface), and the
thickest unit of clayey-to-silty Tavistock Till, which
is then overlain by glaciolacustrine silty clay. A unit
of fine-to-coarse grained deltaic channel sand overlies
the unweathered silty clay unit west of Huron Church
Road (Hudec 1998) and is likely present at array sites
5 and 6 (Fig. 1). Overall, the geologic stratigraphy in
Windsor corresponds to sites that are relatively later-
ally continuous, thereby ideal for one-dimensional
site amplification studies.
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 350
4 Empirical MHVSR data
Bilson Darko et al. (2020) accomplished non-invasive
passive seismic testing to obtain MHVSRs and funda-
mental-mode Rayleigh wave dispersion curves at six
seismic array sites in Windsor, Ontario (Fig. 1) for
blind comparison of inverted VS profiles with invasive
(standard and cone) penetration testing. Microtremor
recordings of 15 to 20-min duration were collected by
Bilson Darko et al. (2020) using three tri-axial Trom-
ino® velocimeters with 128 Hz sampling in a triangu-
lar array geometry (inset of Fig. 1). To calculate the
MHVSR, the full duration microtremor recording is
segmented into time windows of frequency-depend-
ent lengths (50 cycles per window length) and cosine
tapered. Time windows with high amplitude local
transients are removed using an anti-triggering filter
based on short-to-long term averaging, overlapped
by 5%, and Fourier transformed into amplitude fre-
quency spectra and smoothed using a Konno and
Ohmachi (1998) filter with the smoothing constant set
to 40. The similarity of the two individual horizontal
component Fourier amplitude spectra is checked to
confirm uniform subsurface site conditions prior to
calculating their quadratic mean. The time-averaged
Fig. 3  Average MHVSR curves (solid line) with one standard
deviation (dashed lines) for sites 1 to 6 (A to F). Grey curves
in B and F are original MHVSR spectra determined by Bilson
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372
MHVSR is calculated by dividing the mean horizon-
tal spectrum by the vertical spectrum for each time
window then averaged for all time windows for each
site. Figure 3 shows the average MHVSRs with their
standard deviation for the six Windsor seismic array
sites of Bilson Darko et al. (2020). f0HV is determined
based on two criteria: (1) amplification is > 2, and
(2) f0HV corresponds to divergence between the mean
horizontal spectrum and the vertical spectrum.
For the sites with a reliable (low standard devia-
tion) MHVSR spectrum, the f0HV is consistently 2 Hz.
Sharma and Molnar (2019) demonstrated consist-
ency in this f0HV of ~ 2 Hz at an additional 45 sites
across Windsor. The MHVSR is not reliable when
the standard deviation is high, often below f0HV due
to poor sensor-to-ground coupling, climatic effects or
transients from nearby sources (Molnar et al. 2022).
Bilson Darko et al. (2020) obtained a broadened and
reduced MHVSR peak amplification at sites 2 and 6
(grey curves in Fig. 3) in comparison to a single clear
MHVSR peak amplification at the other four sites.
This was relatively puzzling as a rapid variation in
the geology is not expected. Instead, they noted this
change in MHVSR shape could be attributed to bad
weather conditions and/or poor sensor coupling.
Darko et al. (2020). Red, blue and green lines represent peak
half-width, peak height and peak base respectively
J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372
Bilson Darko et al. (2020) therefore discarded these
unreliable MHVSRs in their joint dispersion curve and
f0HV inversions (i.e. performed dispersion curve only
inversions) for VS profiles at sites 2 and 6.
The largest amplitude source of microtremors in
our frequency range (0.5–15 Hz) at the six sites is
road traffic, particularly along a four-lane expressway,
as there are no other major noise sources nearby. Sites
1, 3 and 4 are located the furthest from the express-
way, at distances of 220 to 300 m. The MHVSR spec-
tra for these sites correspond to a tall and narrow f0HV
shape, most consistent with a theoretical Rayleigh
ellipticity function, conveying that the microtremor
wavefield is likely dominated by Rayleigh waves. In
contrast, the MHVSR shape for the other three sites (2,
5 and 6), located at distances between 70 and 100 m
of the expressway, is variable and unexpected. The
change in MHVSR shape at site 5 includes a minor
narrow peak in the left flank of the peak (we infor-
mally term this as a ‘left shoulder’) which does not
impact site characterization; a clear f0HV is obtained.
In contrast, the MHVSR shape at sites 2 and 6 (grey
curves in Fig. 3 B and F) impacts their reliability or
use for site characterization; a clear f0HV cannot be
determined for site 2, and the broadness of f0HV at site
6 increases its uncertainty.
To preclude MHVSR reliability issues due to
sensor-to-ground coupling, climatic effects, or near-
source transients, we revisited and carefully rede-
ployed four tri-axial Tromino® seismometers in a
linear array with about 20 m sensor spacing at sites
2 and 6. The MHVSR processing steps are the same
as described above. The extra care and attention
applied to seismometer deployment during our sec-
ondary testing improves MHVSR reliability for the
given recording, yet reliable MHVSR curves could
Table 1  Quantitative measures of MHVSR shape
Site Peak height Peak half-width Peak broadness
1 7.96 0.63 7.9
2 6.72 0.89 13.2
3 9.92 0.5 5.0
4 10.18 0.59 5.8
5 6.8 0.68 10.0
6 5.03 1.43 28.4
351
be determined from only two of the four seismom-
eter recordings at both sites (black curves in Fig. 3
B and F). Thus, we interpret that sensor coupling is
the dominant factor impacting MHVSR reliability for
these sites in Windsor. The reliable MHVSR spectrum
for site 2 is similar to site 5’s MHVSR with a wide
f0HV base and the presence of a lower amplification
left shoulder peak. For site 6, the reliable MHVSR
spectrum maintains a broadened f0HV. The MHVSR
shape at site 6 is consistent over the recording dura-
tion and therefore anomalous compared to the other
sites. Having ruled out climatic and temporal effects,
the variability in the MHVSR shape amongst the six
sites must therefore be primarily the result of site
conditions or wavefield effects.
To convey MHVSR shape quantitatively, we report
MHVSR peak(s) according to their peak height and
half-width from which to calculate peak broadness
(Fig. 3; Table 1). The peak height is calculated by
subtracting the MHVSR amplification at the peak’s
baseline from the maximum peak amplification, and
half-width is calculated as the frequency bandwidth
of the MHVSR peak at half-height. The peak broad-
ness is calculated by dividing the half-width by the
peak height and multiplying by a factor of 100. The
broadest peak at site 6 is ~ 5.5 times broader than the
narrowest peaks of sites 3 and 4 (Table 1).
There is a spatial trend in the MHVSR shape
amongst the six sites: moderate f0HV amplification
with a wide base at sites 1 and 2 in the southeast;
highest and narrow f0HV amplification at sites 3 and 4;
and greater variation in the f0HV shape (left shoulder
peak, broadness) at sites 5 and 6 in the northwest. If
wavefield contributions are not considered, our inter-
pretation would be that there is likely lateral (2D) var-
iability (Uebayashi 2003) towards the northwest (sites
5 and 6). However, the observed variations in MHVSR
shape may be controlled by variations in wavefield
contributions amongst the six sites given the uniform
subsurface ground conditions in southwestern Wind-
sor. Sites 1, 3 and 4 are likely dominated by Rayleigh
waves as they are farther from the source, and sites 2,
5 and 6 may have contributions from other wave types
(likely body wave) owing to their closer proximity to
anthropogenic microtremor sources. We proceed to
develop novel techniques to further identify potential
wave contributions from the microtremor recordings
and/or MHVSR spectra.
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 352
5 Microtremor wavefield content
from mathematical quantification
of the MHVSR
We propose that MHVSR shape is indicative of the
underlying microtremor wavefield composition (e.g.
Figure 2) and seek novel techniques to identify and/
or separate these wavefield contributions from the
MHVSR amplification spectrum. A potential tech-
nique is the fitting of different mathematical functions
with unique distributional shapes to identify unique
MHVSR shapes due to seismic wave type(s) embed-
ded within the empirical MHVSR spectrum. We uti-
lize the curve_fit function from the Python scipy.opti-
mize library that is based on a nonlinear least squares
regression to fit a combination of mathematical func-
tions (linear, Gaussian and Lorentzian) with the tar-
get amplification and MHVSR curves. This idea stems
from prominent use of theoretical distributions (e.g.
Gaussian, Lorentzian, Gaussian–Lorentzian, Voigt)
to fit experimentally measured Raman spectroscopy
peaks and thereby identify the surface chemistry
Fig. 4  Mathematical model fit (combination of Gaussian, Lor-
entzian and linear functions) of different theoretical amplifica-
tion functions for a single soil layer over an elastic half-space
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372
of materials or minerals (e.g. Yuan and Mayanovic
2017).
Figure 4 shows the fitting of Gaussian and Lor-
entzian distributions to each theoretical amplification
function (Fig. 2) of our single soil layer over an elas-
tic half-space example from Section 2. We determine
and report the peak broadness (B, as calculated and
shown in Table 1) and the percentage contribution of
the Gaussian and Lorentzian distributions (Fig. 4). A
linear model is used to fit the linear offset in amplifi-
cation across all spectral frequencies. The SH transfer
function with a symmetrical and broad peak is fit by
a single peaked function, either a 100% Gaussian or a
100% Lorentzian. For all other theoretical amplifica-
tion functions, a combination of both Lorentzian and
Gaussian functions is required to fit the non-symmet-
rical and less broad peaked amplification function.
When the linear fit has a non-zero slope, particularly
to adjust for amplification offset differences above
f0HV, Love and/or body waves are present. Below
f0HV, the amplification offset is fit by the Lorentzian
distribution rather than the linear function. We note
example: A R, B SH, C R + L and D R + L + BW. Legend
shows the peak broadness (B) and % contribution of Gaussian
(G) and Lorentzian (L) functions
J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372
Fig. 5  Mathematical model fit (combination of Gaussian, Lorentzian and linear functions) of the empirical MHVSR spectrum for
sites 1 to 6 (A to F). Legend similar as in Fig. 4
an alternative approach could be to fit specific (fixed)
mathematical distributions to directly compare the
percentage contribution of each distribution’s unique
shape to the theoretical amplification spectrum
amongst the considered examples.
Figure 5 shows mathematical functions fit to the
empirical MHVSR spectra at the six Windsor seis-
mic array sites. The broader and more symmetrical
MHVSR peak at site 6 is fit equally by either a sin-
gle Gaussian or Lorentzian distribution (dotted box
in Fig. 5) and is suggestive that the microtremor
wavefield is dominated by upward propagating SH
waves. All other sites are best fit by a minimum of
two mathematical distributions. Sites 3 and 4 are best
fit by a tall Lorentzian distribution, noting a second
short Lorentzian distribution is required to fit the
empirical peak’s base. Sites 1, 2 and 5 are best fit
by a combination of a narrow Gaussian distribution
(central peak) and broader and lower amplitude Lor-
entzian distribution (peak’s base). Overall, the Lor-
entzian distribution is best suited to fit the MHVSR
curve at f0HV and below, with the need of a secondary
Gaussian or Lorentzian distribution combined with a
353
sloped linear offset to achieve fitness of the empirical
MHVSR curve at f0HV and above.
Figures 4 and 5 illustrate that when SH waves
dominate, the MHVSR amplification curve is
symmetrical and best fit by a single peaked
distribution (Gaussian or Lorentzian) with a linear
offset of (near) zero slope. When surface waves
dominate, the MHVSR curve is asymmetric and
more than one peaked function form is required
to fit the MHVSR at f0HV and below, with the need
of a sloped linear offset above f0HV to account for
increasing amplification due to Love and/or body
wave contributions.
6 Microtremor wavefield content
from cross‑correlated microtremor recordings
MHVSR analysis for our six Windsor seismic array
sites in the previous two sections show that in
addition to surface waves, sites 2, 5 and 6 may also
have contributions from body waves, especially site
6. We seek to better understand the microtremor
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 354
Fig. 6  Cross-plots of low frequency (0.5–1 Hz) cross-correla-
tions grouped by similar response: A, B sites 1 and 4, C, D
sites 2 and 6 and E, F sites 3 and 5 respectively. Uppermost
wavefield contributions at each Windsor site using
the cross-correlations of the simultaneous passive-
seismic array recordings at two receivers. The
typical assumption of a microtremor wavefield is
that uniform energy is coming at a receiver from all
azimuths, and microtremors are uncorrelated in time
and space (Colombi et al. 2014). We performed a
cursory verification that the microtremor wavefield
was azimuthally distributed within our frequency
range of interest (0.5–15 Hz) at each site using
frequency-wavenumber analysis. To understand
the energy partitioning at each of the six sites, we
consider one of the two seismometers as a pseudo
source and the other as a receiver. Cross-correlations
are then obtained from the microtremor recordings
at the pseudosource and the receiver. The two
seismometers were spaced 15 m apart for sites 1, 3,
4 and 5 (Bilson Darko et al. 2020) and 20 m apart
for sites 2 and 6 during our secondary testing. Cross-
correlations are computed using a 3-s time delay
and averaged over the full duration microtremor
recording. We cross correlate the vertical (Z)
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372
panels show the site’s MHVSR curve (black) compared to the
five other site’s MHVSR (grey), and blue shading highlights the
0.5–1-Hz frequency band
component microtremor recording at the pseudo
source with the vertical, radial (R, parallel azimuth
between the seismometer pair), and transverse (T,
perpendicular azimuth) component microtremor
recordings at the receiver. This provides us with the
three orthogonal cross-correlations, vertical (ZZ),
transverse (ZT) and radial (ZR), for each site. These
orthogonal cross-correlations are calculated at three
select frequency bandwidths: 0.5–1 Hz, below f0HV;
1–5 Hz, spanning f0HV and 2f0HV; and 5–15 Hz, above
2f0HV, from microtremor recordings that are bandpass
filtered for each case. For each frequency bandwidth,
particle motion plots of the three orthogonal cross-
correlations are generated to understand how the
vertical component energy at the pseudo source has
partitioned amongst the three components at the
receiver.
Figure 6 displays particle motion plots of the low
frequency (0.5–1 Hz) orthogonal cross-correlations.
For sites 1 and 4 (Fig. 6A and B), the horizontal plane
(ZT-ZR) plots show the lowest horizontal amplitude
motions of the six sites, indicating minimal SV/SH/
J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372
Fig. 7  Cross-plots of mid frequency (1–5 Hz) cross-correla-
tions grouped by similar response: A–C sites 1, 3 and 4, and
D–F sites 2, 5 and 6 respectively. Uppermost panels show the
Love wave contributions. Most of the pseudosource
energy remains in the vertical direction, more so for
site 4 than 1, with little energy transferring to radial
(see ZZ vs ZR plot) and transverse (see ZZ vs ZT
plot) direction, indicating a dominance of Rayleigh/P-
waves. The crossplots for sites 2 and 6 not only are
most similar to each other (Fig. 6C and D), but also
have similarities to sites 1 and 4 with the highest
amplitude motions in the vertical direction. However,
more of the energy at sites 2 and 6 partitions into the
horizontal plane (relatively equal in both horizon-
tal directions) leading to motions which indicate as
a mixture of Rayleigh, SV and SH/Love waves. The
cross-plots for sites 3 and 5 (Fig. 6E and F) have
the highest amplitudes in the radial direction sug-
gesting contribution from polarized SV waves. The
MHVSR amplitude at these two sites is the highest at
the low frequencies compared to all other sites, also
consistent with body wave contributions below f0HV
(Fig. 2B).
Figure 7 shows particle motion plots of the mid-
frequency (1–5 Hz, spanning the f0HV peak and
355
site’s MHVSR curve (black) compared to the five other site’s
MHVSR (grey), and green shading highlights the 1–5-Hz fre-
quency band
⁓2f0HV trough) orthogonal cross-correlations. Sites
1 and 3 (Fig. 7A and B) display vertically polarized
motions indicative of P wave motion or vertically
dominant Rayleigh wave elliptical motion, the latter
of which is more likely. For an ellipticity ratio,
the amplitude is maximum at f0HV and minimum
at 2f0HV; plots would therefore be dominated by
vertical energy present at the ellipticity minimum’s
frequency. For site 4 (Fig. 7C), more energy
has partitioned into the horizontal components
particularly in the radial direction, indicating the
wavefield is dominated by Rayleigh waves. At this
mid-frequency band, we had expected the cross-
plots at sites 3 and 4 to be most similar to each other
with their consistent MHVSR shape. For sites 2, 5
and 6 (Fig. 7D to F), more energy is partitioned into
the transverse direction indicating contributions
from Love waves and/or SH waves in addition to
Rayleigh waves. The broadened f0HV shape for site
6 is consistent with increased SH wave content or
more similarity to a theoretical transfer function
(Fig. 2B).
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 356
Fig. 8  Cross-plots of high frequency (5–15 Hz) cross-cor-
relations grouped by similar response: A, B sites 1 and 6 and
C–F sites 2 to 5 respectively. Uppermost panels show the
Figure 8 shows particle motion plots of the high
frequency (5–15 Hz, above f0HV) orthogonal cross-
correlations. Rayleigh waves (elliptical disc in ZZ-ZR
plane) are present in all cases. Sites 1 and 6 (Fig. 8A
and B) exhibit elliptical motions or a mixture or Ray-
leigh and SH waves, whereas for sites 2 to 5 (Fig. 8C
to F), the highest amplitudes occur in the ZZ-ZR
plane indicating Rayleigh wave dominance.
Overall, the particle motion plots of the cross-cor-
relations at the six Windsor sites (Figs. 6, 7, and 8)
indicate a mixture of body and surface waves below
f0HV, other than for sites 3 and 5. At mid frequen-
cies (spanning f0HV and 2f0HV), Rayleigh or P-waves
dominate sites 1, 3 and 4, and sites 2, 5 and 6 are
dominated both by body and surface waves. Since
sites 1, 3 and 4 are farther from the dominant micro-
tremor source (road expressway), Rayleigh waves
would likely dominate as P waves will have attenu-
ated more at these higher frequencies. Above 2f0HV,
there is dominance of surface waves at all sites. It
should be noted that although retrieval of pure body
waves using cross-correlations can be problematic
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372
site’s MHVSR (black) compared to the five other site’s MHVSR
(grey), and red shading highlights the 5–15-Hz frequency band
(Sager et al. 2018), we have confidence in our conclu-
sions as they are consistent with earlier microtremor
wavefield contribution findings (e.g. Albarello and
Lunedei 2011).
7 Impact to seismic site characterization
Previous sections examined the contributions of
different wave types in the recorded microtremor
wavefield at the six Windsor sites. In this section,
we investigate the variability in inverted VS models
from inversion of the average MHVSR spectrum
at the six Windsor sites due to the chosen forward
amplification model. This variance will be evaluated
in terms of impact to seismic site characterization
for four selected metrics: (a) resonator (half-space)
depth, DR; (b) resonator VS, VSR; (c) the velocity
ratio at the top of the resonator, CV = VSR/VSR-1;
and (d) the time-averaged VS of the top 30 m, VS30.
In addition, we evaluate how our understanding
of the microtremor wavefield at the Windsor sites
J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372
impacts site characterization, i.e. comparison of the
default-assumed fundamental mode Rayleigh wave
ellipticity (R0) inverted VS model with that of the
best-fit inverted VS models of f0HV (peak best, Pb,
model) and the entire MHVSR curve (curve best,
Cb, model) amongst 20 other inverted VS models.
Our aim therefore is to evaluate fitness of f0HV,
the shape around f0HV (peak flanks), as well as
the entire MHVSR curve shape with varying wave
contributions in the forward model.
The current state-of-practice of inverting MHVSR
data for subsurface velocity (depth profile) mod-
els primarily uses f0HV (either as a single frequency
value, or as several amplification values with fre-
quency that define the peak), which may also involve
higher peak frequencies (when applicable) and less
commonly the entire MHVSR spectrum because the
appropriate forward amplification model to predict
the MHVSR (physical basis of the microtremor wave-
field) for the site is often unknown. We test the fitness
of the empirical MHVSR data (entire curve) at the six
Windsor sites for 21 different amplification forward
models with wavefield combinations that include
equal contributions of either Rayleigh waves (R mod-
els), Rayleigh and Love waves (R + L models) or Ray-
leigh, Love and body waves (R + L + BW models) as
well as the fundamental (0) and first two higher sur-
face wave modes (1, 2).
To perform the suite of 21 MHVSR inversions
for each of the six Windsor sites with varying wave
contributions in the amplification forward model,
we use the HVInv algorithm of García-Jerez et al.
(2016). The model parameterization consists of four
uniform velocity layers including the elastic half-
space corresponding to surficial soil, soil and glacial
till layers over the half-space. For all four layers,
Poisson’s ratio varies from 0.2 to 0.45 and density
is held constant at 2000 kg/m3. We constrain the a
priori VS and soil thickness (h) parameter bounds
for the upper three layers based on inversion of the
site’s dispersion curve (see Fig. 14 in the Appendix).
Inversion of the site’s dispersion data provided
by Bilson Darko et al. (2020) was accomplished
using the Dinver algorithm of the Geopsy software
(Wathelet et al. 2020) with relatively wide model
parameter bounds. For the 21 MHVSR inversions,
wide parameter bounds are used for the top depth
(DR) and VS (VSR) of the resonator. Hence, the
greatest freedom of model parameters in the 21
357
MHVSR inversions is that of the resonator (half-
space) and its depth (Fig. 15 of the Appendix).
We initiate Monte Carlo sampling with the HVInv
program which switches to optimized simplex down-
hill sampling as the inversion converges. HVInv cal-
culates the misfit as,
∑N (MHVSRi − H∕V i )2
misfit = (2)
i=1 2
𝜎MHVSR
i
where N is the number of frequency samples, H/V
is the theoretical amplification function calculated
using the DFA, and σ is one standard deviation of the
MHVSR. The total number of models generated for
each inversion varies between 10,000 and 15,000. We
calculate post-inversion fitness using the natural loga-
rithm of the modelled amplification function, H/V(f),
and the natural logarithm of the MHVSR spectral data
as (Ikeda et al. 2013),
∑N � �
1 i=1
ln MHVSRi ∙ ln(H∕V i )
fitness =
N2
�
∑N � � 2 ∑N � � 2
( i=1 (ln MHVSRi )) ( i=1 (ln H∕V i ))
(3)
where N is the number of frequency samples. The
maximum fitness of the 21 amplification models is
evaluated in terms of Eq. 3 for both the full MHVSR
curve (0.5 to 15 Hz, except 1 to 15 Hz for site 5) and
limited to the mid-frequency bandwidth that includes
f0HV (1 to 5 Hz) to determine the Cb and Pb models,
respectively, for each site.
7.1 Wavefield contributions that best fit MHVSR
curves with a tall and narrow ­f0HV
Figure 9 shows the fitness of the suite of 21 minimum
misfit amplification models with varying wavefield
contributions (A to C) in comparison to Windsor site
1’s MHVSR data and in terms of its residual (H/V
model - MHVSR data) with frequency. The corre-
sponding VS depth profile of the 21 minimum misfit
models for Windsor site 1 is also shown in Fig. 9. We
maintain the use of low-frequency (below f0HV), mid-
frequency (includes f0HV) and high-frequency (above
f0HV) bandwidths of the previous section for discus-
sion (dashed vertical lines in Fig. 9). The differ-
ence in peak amplifications of models and MHVSRs
appears to be large for some models, owing to high
and narrow amplification at f0HV that some models
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 358
Fig. 9  Comparison of MHVSR data (circles) and 21 amplifica-
tion models (coloured lines) and their residual with frequency
considering A Rayleigh, B Rayleigh and Love and C Rayleigh,
Love and body wave contributions in the amplification model
have difficulty in fitting. It is readily apparent that
the default assumed R0 amplification model fits the
narrow and high amplification of the f0HV peak. The
inclusion of higher Rayleigh wave modes (R1, R2;
Fig. 9A) produce higher amplification within the nar-
rowest portion of the f0HV peak maximum in better
agreement with the MHVSR data but with reduced
fitness within the mid-frequency bandwidth, i.e. the
peak’s maximum is fit more than the entire peak.
There is an observable trend of decreasing fitness
of the f0HV peak at high amplification with the addi-
tion of Love wave (some models; Fig. 9B) to Love
and body wave contributions (all models; Fig. 9C).
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372
for Windsor site 1. The corresponding VS depth profile of the
21 models is also shown. Pb and Cb refer to peak best and
curve best models respectively determined by Eq. 3
The addition of fundamental mode Love waves
(R0L0) leads to the highest fitness of the f0HV peak
(Pb model) by improving fitness of the peak’s flanks
while reducing fitness of the peak’s maximum. At low
frequencies, Rayleigh and Love wave contribution
amplification models best fit the empirical amplifica-
tion (Fig. 9B), which is overestimated if body waves
are included (Fig. 9C). At high frequencies, amplifi-
cation fitness appears to be improved mostly by the
addition of Love waves (Fig. 9B and C compared to
Fig. 9A). Amongst all the 21 models, R1L2 is the Cb
model and provides the highest fitness of the entire
MHVSR curve.
J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372
Fig. 10  MHVSR inversion results for Windsor site 5; same format as Fig. 9
The MHVSR fitness results of site 1 are generally
repeated for sites 2, 3 and 4 with high and narrow f0HV
amplification (see Figs. 16, 17, and 18 in the Appen-
dix), noting Rayleigh wave contributions best fit f0HV
for all sites (Pb model), and with (sites 2 and 3) and
without (site 4) the need of Love wave contributions
to best fit the entire MHVSR curve (Cb model). Over-
all, the fitness of the 21 amplification models is con-
sistent with our initial assumption that sites 1, 3 and
4 are most Rayleigh ellipticity-like (should be mod-
elled as R0) as well as our further understanding of
the microtremor wavefield composition at site 1 from
earlier sections: f0HV and mid-frequency bandwidth
is dominated by Rayleigh waves, but Love wave con-
tributions are likely present over the entire MHVSR
spectrum. We note the possibility that the high ampli-
fication of f0HV may be the result of higher Rayleigh
mode contributions (see also site 2 results in Fig. 16),
359
noting higher mode contributions are not evaluated
by our microtremor wavefield analyses in Sections 6
and 7.
7.2 Wavefield contributions that best fit MHVSR
curves with an anomalously shaped ­f0HV peak
Figure 10 shows the suite of 21 MHVSR inversion
results with varying wavefield contributions (A to C)
for site 5. The anomalously shaped f0HV peak is best
fit with both Rayleigh and Love wave contributions
(Pb model in Fig. 10B), and the entire MHVSR curve
is best fit when all wave types contribute (Cb model
in Fig. 10C). The f0HV left shoulder is present in some
of the theoretical amplification functions when Love
waves and body waves are added (Fig. 10B and C).
The suite of corresponding VS profiles is not signifi-
cantly different suggesting this morphological change
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 360
Fig. 11  MHVSR inversion results for Windsor site 6; formatting as in Fig. 9
to site 5’s f0HV is driven primarily by the addition of
Love or Love and body waves rather than merging
of two narrow resonance modes driven by seismic
impedance layering (discussed further for site 6).
7.3 Wavefield contributions that best fit MHVSR
curves with a symmetrical and broader ­f0HV
The MHVSR inversion results with varying wavefield
contributions (A to C) for site 6 are shown in Fig. 11.
Residuals for site 6 are the lowest compared to
other sites, due to the symmetry in the f0HV peak’s
flanks. Similar to site 5, the anomalous broad but
symmetrical f0HV peak is best fit with both Rayleigh
and Love wave contributions and the entire MHVSR
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372
curve is best fit when all wave types contribute,
noting the fit is very similar amongst these models,
i.e. the fitness of Pb and Cb models is similar due to
greater symmetrical shape of site 6’s MHVSR. The
R0 model does not fit the f0HV amplification as well
as models that include other wave contributions. For
some models, the central f0HV peak is modelled as
two narrow peaks, e.g. Rayleigh wave models with
higher modes included (Fig. 11A) and some models
that include all wave types (Fig. 11C). It is therefore
possible to explain the broadened f0HV shape for
site 6 as result of additional Love and body wave
contributions and/or contributions by higher Rayleigh
modes or the presence of two narrow resonance
modes driven by seismic impedance layering (i.e.
J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372 361

Table 2  Reporting of the four select seismic site characteriza-
tion metric’s values and their comparison in terms of the dif-
ference and relative percentage change (%) between the default
assumed R0 model and the Pb model, Cb model or the aver-
age (Ave, and one standard deviation (SD)) of all other 20
models for the six Windsor sites. Positive differences indicate
overestimation of the R0 model; negative differences indicate
underestimation of the R0 model (shown with grey shading).
The last row reports the average relative percentage change (%)
between the R0 model and the other 20 models for all possible
120 model comparisons of the six Windsor sites; one SD and
the coefficient of variation (cov) are also reported

CV VS30 Comparison with R0 model (difference, %)

Case DR (m) VSR (m/s)
(VSR/VS3) (m/s) DR VSR CV VS30
Site 1 R0 108 1925 2.4 316
Pb: R0L0 74 1781 2.7 344 34, 31 144, 8 0.3, 13 -28, 9
Cb: R1L2 66 1312 1.9 302 42, 39 613, 32 -0.5, 21 14, 4
Ave_20 (1 SD) 69 (11) 1620 (370) 2.5 (0.5) 315 (20) 39, 36 305, 16 -0.1, 4 1, 0
Site 2 R0 79 2738 4.2 380
Pb: R2 75 2072 3.0 339 4, 5 666, 24 1.2, 29 41, 11
Cb: R2L1 70 1875 2.7 346 9, 11 863, 32 1.5, 36 34, 9
Ave_20 (1 SD) 64 (8) 1781 (290) 2.7 (0.4) 360 (24) 15, 19 957, 35 1.5, 37 20, 5
Site 3 Pb: R0 121 1726 2.3 269
Cb: R1L2 61 1142 1.8 324 60, 50 584, 34 0.5, 22 -55, 20
Ave_20 (1 SD) 82 (26) 1415 (438) 2.2 (0.7) 290 (28) 39, 32 311, 18 0.1, 4 -21, 8
Site 4 Pb, Cb: R0 97 2752 3.6 279
Ave_20 (1 SD) 74 (14) 1537 (553) 2.0 (0.7) 256 (27) 23, 24 1215, 44 1.6, 44 23, 8
Site 5 R0 111 1939 2.6 325
Pb: R1L1 76 1221 1.9 303 35, 32 718, 37 0.7, 27 22, 7
Cb: R0L1BW 82 1635 2.6 297 29, 26 304, 16 0, 0 28, 9
Ave_20 (1 SD) 82 (10) 1513 (413) 2.3 (0.5) 303 (14) 29, 27 426, 29 0.3, 12 22, 7
Site 6 R0 65 1078 2.3 249
Pb: R1L1 48 939 2.1 241 17, 26 139, 13 1, 14 8, 3
Cb: R2L1BW 46 1059 2.4 240 19, 29 19, 2 -0.1, 4 9, 4
Ave_20 (1 SD) 48 (9) 974 (128) 2.2 (0.2) 243 (10) 17, 26 104, 10 0.1, 4 6, 2
Average relave percentage change, SD and cov for the 6 sites 28, 14, 0.5 28, 16, 0.58 24, 18, 0.73 7, 6, 0.86

models that generate two narrow peaks in Fig. 11C
have similar VS profiles that are different from the
other model’s VS profiles). Site 6’s dispersion data
(Fig. 14) suggests a stiff near surface layer with
apparent mode velocities at the highest frequencies
but does not suggest strong contributions by higher
modes at mid-frequencies or to the f0HV. The change
in MHVSR shape at site 6 can be explained by
additional wave contributions, consistent with earlier
interpretations in Sections 6 and 7, but we do not
rule out that the broadness is driven by merging of
resonance frequencies.
7.4 Choice of theoretical amplification model’s
impact to seismic site characterization
The impact to seismic site characterization in terms
of the four chosen metrics (DR, VSR, CV, and VS30) for
the R0, Pb and Cb models for all six Windsor sites is
reported in Table 2. In addition, Table 2 reports the
difference and relative percentage change of these
four seismic site characterization metrics between the
default assumed R0 model and the (1) Pb model, (2)
Cb model and (3) average of the 20 models for each
site. Overall, the R0 amplification model’s VS profile

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 362
Fig. 12  R0, Pb and Cb inversion results for sites 1 to 3 (A to C); formatting as in Fig. 9
determines the deepest and often the highest VS of the
resonator (half-space) consistently amongst the suite
of 21 amplification models for the six sites. For site
1, amplification models that best fit f0HV (Pb model)
and the entire MHVSR curve (Cb model) include
Love wave contributions (Fig. 12A). In other words,
the default assumed R0 model for this site may over-
estimate DR by 31% and 39% and VSR by 8% and 32%
respectively (Table 2). Had we applied our under-
standing of wavefield contributions at this site (out-
comes from earlier Sections 6 and 7), we would have
modelled the MHVSR as the R0L0 model (Rayleigh
and Love wave contributions with default-assumed
fundamental mode contributions); this model
improves fitness of f0HV compared to the R0 model
while forfeiting fitness of the f0HV peak maximum, as
desired (R0L0 is the Pb model). For site 1, the impact
to seismic site characterization is that if wavefield
contributions are not accounted for in the forward
amplification model (comparison of the average of
all 20 amplification forward model solutions with the
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372
default assumed R0 forward model), DR and VSR are
likely overestimated by an average of 36% and 16%
respectively (Table 2). The impact on CV and VS30 for
all the six sites will be discussed together later in this
section. This overestimation of DR and VSR by the R0
model compared to the Pb and Cb models is generally
consistent for all the sites (Figs. 12 and 13; Table 2).
The Pb model (site 3; Fig. 12C) and both the Pb and
Cb models (site 4; Fig. 13A) are the R0 model, as
expected from earlier analyses of the MHVSR shape
and wavefield contributions at these two sites. The
fundamental mode Rayleigh ellipticity (R0) amplifi-
cation model assumption is applicable for sites 3 and
4. Had we blindly inverted site 5’s and 6’s MHVSR as
R0 amplification, we would overpredict DR and VSR
on average by 27% or 26% and 29% or 10% respec-
tively. This is expected since the Pb model includes
Love wave contributions and the Cb model includes
Love and body wave contributions which are signifi-
cant departures from the R0 model assumption for
these two sites (Fig. 13B and C).
J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372
Fig. 13  R0, Pb and Cb inversion results for sites 4 to 6 (A to C); formatting as in Fig. 9
We do not observe a consistent impact to ­ CV
amongst the six Windsor sites; the average percent-
age change in ­CV can be quite high (e.g. 37% and
44% for sites 2 and 4 respectively) or low (e.g. 4%
for sites 1 and 6), owing to the high variance in VSR
amongst the inversion models. Since this variation
in the half-space depth is at depths greater than 30 m
for all the sites, the impact to VS30 should be 0% (e.g.
site 1; Table 2) but can be as much as 20% (Table 2)
confirming impact to the VS depth profile above the
resonator layer even with constrained a priori model
parameters of the upper three layers. We note that
VS30 variance will be less than the other three chosen
metrics because it is an average measure and that a
variance in VS30 over ~ 4% (the variance within and
between different in situ VS profiling methods; Garo-
falo et al. 2016) is significant.
In practice, we do not expect 21 forward model
solutions to be accomplished to find the MHVSR
curve’s best fit amplification (Cb) model; however,
our intent is to determine the potential impact to
363
seismic site characterization when wavefield contri-
butions are ignored in the inversion of MHVSR data.
Combining the results for all six sites (bottom row
of Table 2), we observe that the largest variance in
the average percentage change compared to the R0
model amongst the six Windsor sites occurs in the
VSR (28% ± 16%) and DR (28% ± 14%) metrics, fol-
lowed closely by CV (24% ± 18%). This indicates
that the largest impact to seismic site characteriza-
tion due to the unknown forward model solution is
the depth and VS of the resonator (half-space), which
also influences CV. Not surprisingly, the VS30 metric
has the lowest average percentage change (7% ± 6%),
i.e. resonator VS and depth are often deeper than 30 m
and do not play a significant role in the VS30 at these
Windsor sites. In terms of the metric’s statistical dis-
persion (coefficient of variation, cov = SD/Ave), the
largest dispersion corresponds to VS30 (0.86) and then
CV (0.73). The cov in the VSR and DR metrics (0.58
and 0.5) is larger than dispersion between various
in situ VS(z) profiling methods (0.2; Garofalo et al.
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 364
2016) and is also therefore significant. This says that
varying the wave contributions of the forward ampli-
fication model (21 tested possible models per site)
will impact seismic site characterization in terms of
the resonator VS and depth, and although the variance
in VS30 is small, it is significant or impactful.
8 Conclusions
In this study, changes in MHVSR shape were related
to the wave types present in the microtremor record-
ings at six sites in Windsor, Ontario. The MHVSR’s
lowest frequency peak amplification (f0HV) is ~ 2 Hz
amongst the six sites, consistent with the relatively
homogeneous geologic setting, yet f0HV amplification
is higher and narrower for sites 1, 3 and 4 compared
to sites 2, 5 and 6. The quantification of the f0HV peak
broadness amongst the six Windsor sites conveys that
the f0HV peak at site 6 is ~ 5.5 times broader than sites
3 and 4. We then proceeded to develop novel single-
seismometer and two-seismometer techniques to fur-
ther elucidate the potential wave contributions in the
microtremor recordings at the six Windsor sites with
the practical intent to determine the most applicable
theoretical amplification (forward) model to invert
the MHVSR. This is in contrast to existing techniques
to remove non-Rayleigh wave contributions for the
inversion of MHVSR spectra as theoretical Rayleigh
ellipticity functions (e.g. Hobiger et al. 2009; Berbel-
lini et al. 2019).
We first proposed quantification of the MHVSR
itself (single-seismometer method) in terms of the
number and shaped nature of different mathematical
functions (linear, Lorentzian, Gaussian) to identify
unique MHVSR shapes due to seismic wave type(s)
embedded within the empirical MHVSR spectrum.
When SH waves dominate, the MHVSR amplifica-
tion curve is mostly symmetrical and best fit by a
single peaked distribution (Gaussian or Lorentzian)
with a linear offset of (near) zero slope. When sur-
face waves dominate, the MHVSR curve is asym-
metric and more than one peaked functional form is
required to fit the MHVSR at f0HV and below, with the
need of a sloped linear offset above f0HV to account
for increasing amplification due to Love and/or body
wave contributions. Hence, site 6’s broad but sym-
metrical f0HV is fit by a single peaked mathematical
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372
function and reinforces that the microtremor wave-
field is dominated by shear waves. In contrast, all
other sites require two peaked mathematical forms to
fit f0HV in combination with a linear offset to fit the
entire MHVSR curve which reinforces that the micro-
tremor wavefield is dominated by surface waves (pri-
marily Rayleigh waves) in the mid-frequency f0HV
bandwidth with increasing Love and/or body wave
contributions at other frequencies. Although the input
data for this type of analysis is relatively simple (the
empirical MHVSR), the percentage contribution of
specific wave types is not determined, and the method
is therefore relatively lacking for our intended goal.
This technique could grow in popularity if the under-
lying mathematical function(s) of particular wave
type contributions are better defined in future, i.e. as
practical as its application to identify chemical com-
position of materials in Raman spectroscopy.
We then proceeded to a two-seismometer tech-
nique that involved examination of particle motion
plots of the orthogonal microtremor cross-correla-
tions to further differentiate wave contributions in
the microtremor wavefield at the six Windsor sites.
Below f0HV, our analysis confirmed a mixture of body
and surface waves at most Windsor sites; sites 3 and 5
display the highest amplification which could be gen-
erated from polarized SV waves. At mid frequencies
(spanning f0HV and 2f0HV), either Rayleigh or P-waves
(sites 1, 3, 4) or body and surface waves (sites 2, 5, 6)
dominated. Above 2f0HV, there is dominance of sur-
face waves at all sites. The contribution percentage of
individual seismic wave types is not possible in this
study. The wave contributions and thereby the most
appropriate theoretical (forward) amplification model
to invert the f0HV peak or the entire MHVSR spectrum
at each site were identified.
We chose to test post-inversion fitness of the f0HV
peak or the entire MHVSR curve at the six Windsor
sites using 21 theoretical amplification models based
on different combinations of wave contributions: Ray-
leigh waves, Rayleigh and Love waves or Rayleigh,
Love and body waves as well as up to two higher sur-
face wave modes, where equal contributions come
from each wave type and their respective modes. As
a future scope of work, differing wave contributions
can be assumed. From this suite of possible amplifi-
cation solutions, we could then evaluate the impact to
seismic site characterization in terms of the difference
J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372
and relative percentage change of four chosen metrics
(DR, VSR, CV and VS30) between the default-assumed
fundamental mode Rayleigh wave ellipticity (R0)
model with that of the peak and curve best mod-
els (Pb and Cb model respectively). The R0 model
assumption is applicable only for sites 3 and 4; R0
is the Pb (both sites) and Cb (site 4) model. For all
other sites, some combination of Rayleigh waves with
Love and/or body waves best fits f0HV and the entire
MHVSR curve; the default-assumed Rayleigh elliptic-
ity function (R0) forward model would be wrongfully
applied in the inversion of the MHVSR data for these
sites.
In terms of impact to seismic site characterization,
the R0 model’s VS profile determines the deepest and
often the highest VS of the resonator (half-space) con-
sistently amongst the suite of 21 amplification models
for the six sites. In other words, DR (and VSR) is sub-
stantially overestimated by the wrongfully applicable
R0 model in fitting f0HV or the entire MHVSR curve as
much as 32% (and 37%) and 39% (and 32%) respec-
tively. Had we blindly inverted each site’s MHVSR as
R0 amplification, we would overpredict the four cho-
sen metrics by an average relative percentage change
of 28% (DR), 28% (VSR), 24% (CV) and 7% (VS30).
Although we do not recommend the practitioner to
perform 21 different inversions with varying wave
contributions, we do note that comparison of the
suite of inverted models was informative and gener-
ally supported previous interpretations of the under-
lying wave contributions, e.g. the inclusion of higher
Rayleigh wave modes or Love waves improved fit-
ness of the maximum amplification, the inclusion of
Love and/or body waves improved fitness of the f0HV
peak while sacrificing fitness of its maximum ampli-
fication and the inclusion of Love and/or body waves
improved fitness of the entire MHVSR curve. The
practitioner may also not have access to surface wave
dispersion data as was used in this study to reduce
model non-uniqueness of the MHVSR inversion.
Other near surface information to constrain h or VS
(i.e. Equation 1) should be utilized to reduce MHVSR
model non-uniqueness. Our study determined a sig-
nificant effect of the chosen forward amplification
model in the MHVSR inversion (f0HV or entire spec-
trum) to the subsequent VS depth profile and demon-
strates the importance of correctly identifying wave
type contributions of the microtremor wavefield for
the proper estimation of VS depth profiles, especially
365
to obtain correct thickness of the sediment layer and
resonator VS and thereby VS30.
Abbreviations 3D Three-dimensional; A0 Peak
amplification; B MHVSR Peak broadness; BW Body
waves; Cb Curve (full MHVSR) best amplification
model; CV Ratio of the Vs between the layer above
and the resonator (half-space) layer; DR Depth
(D) of the resonator (R) layer; DFA Diffuse wave-
field assumption; f0 Theoretical fundamental mode
(resonance) site frequency; f0HV Fundamental mode
MHVSR peak frequency; h Soil thickness; HRFK
High-resolution frequency-wavenumber; H/V Hor-
izontal-to-vertical ratio; L waves Love waves; L0
Fundamental mode Love wave; L1 First mode Love
wave; L2 Second mode Love wave; MHVSR Micro-
tremor horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio; P waves
Primary (compressional) waves; Pb Peak (f0HV) best
amplification model; R waves Rayleigh waves; R0
Fundamental mode Rayleigh wave; R1 First mode
Rayleigh wave; R2 Second mode Rayleigh wave; S
waves Secondary (shear) waves; SH waves Trans-
verse shear waves; SV waves Radial shear waves;
VS Shear wave velocity; VS30 Time-averaged VS
of the top 30 m; VSav Average VS of the soil layer;
VSR VS of the resonator (R, half-space) layer; ZR
Cross-correlation of the pseudosource’s vertical (Z)
component recordings and the receiver’s radial (R)
component recording; ZT Cross-correlation of the
pseudosource’s vertical (Z) component recordings
and the receiver’s transverse (R) component record-
ing; ZZ Cross-correlation of the pseudosource’s
vertical (Z) component recordings and the receiv-
er’s vertical (Z) component recording
Acknowledgements We thank Dr. Gerhard Pratt for his sug-
gestion to perform particle motion analysis of cross-correla-
tions from microtremor recordings. We acknowledge Alex
Bilson Darko for supplying microtremor recordings and surface
wave dispersion curve data for the Windsor array sites. The
manuscript was improved by two anonymous reviewers.
Author contribution Hema Sharma (HS) and Sheri Mol-
nar (SM) conceptualized the presented work and methodolo-
gies. HS performed all analyses under the supervision of SM.
Aamna Sirohey (AS) performed the analyses of Section 6 and
helped to draft its writing. HS and SM wrote and edited the
manuscript. SM acquired the funding for this research work.
Funding Funding for this research was provided by the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)
(RGPIN-2016–04634).
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 366 J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372

Appendix

Fig. 14  Input dispersion curves (circles) for array sites 1 (A) misfit model (the VS profile of this minimum misfit model are
to 6 (F) shown in comparison to the theoretical fundamental- shown in Fig. 15) for sites 1 to 6 (A to F)
mode Rayleigh dispersion curve (solid line) of the minimum

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372 367

Fig. 15  A priori VS and h parameter bounds used in the 21 minimum misfit model is coloured grey at and below the cal-
MHVSR inversions (thin grey lines) for array sites 1 (A) to 6 culated resolution depth of the dispersion data, i.e. depth ≈
(F) based the minimum misfit model (black line) from inver- wavelength of the lowest frequency dispersion datum divided
sion of the site’s dispersion curve. The lower portion of the by 3 (Asten and Henstridge 1984)

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 368 J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372

Fig. 16  MHVSR inversion results for Windsor site 2; formatting as in Fig. 9

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372 369

Fig. 17  MHVSR inversion results for Windsor site 3; formatting as in Fig. 9

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 370 J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372

Fig. 18  MHVSR inversion results for Windsor site 4; formatting as in Fig. 9

Data availability Data are available upon request. References

Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Consent for publication Not applicable.
Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
Figs. 14,15,16,17,18.
Aki K, Richards PG (1980) Quantitative seismology—theory
and methods. Freeman Company, San Francisco
Not applicable. Albarello D, Lunedei E (2011) Structure of an ambient vibra-
tion wavefield in the frequency range of engineering inter-
est ([0.5, 20] Hz): insights from numerical modelling.
Near Surface Geophysics 9:543–559. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
3997/​1873-​0604.​20110​17
Arai H, Tokimatsu K (2004) S-wave velocity profiling by
inversion of microtremor H/V spectrum. Bull Seism Soc
Am 94(1):53–63
Asten MW, Henstridge JD (1984) Array estimator and the use
of microseisms for reconnaissance of sedimentary basins.
Geophysics 49(11):1828–1837

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372
Bard P-Y et al (2004) The SESAME project: an overview and
main results. Proceedings of the 13th World Conference
in Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, August
2004, Paper # 2207
Ben-Hador R, Buchen P (1999) Love and Rayleigh waves in
non-uniform media. Geophys J Int 137:521–534
Berbellini A, Schimmel M, Ferreira AMG, Morelli A (2019)
Constraining S-wave velocity using Rayleigh wave ellip-
ticity from polarization analysis of seismic noise. Geo-
phys J Int 216:1817–1830
Bilson Darko A, Molnar S, Sadrekarimi A (2020) Blind com-
parison of non-invasive shear wave velocity profiling with
invasive methods at bridge sites in Windsor, Ontario. Soil
Dyn Earthq Eng 129. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​soild​yn.​
2019.​105906
Bonnefoy-Claudet S, Kohler A, Cornou C, Wathelet M, Bard
P-Y (2008) Effects of Love waves on microtremor H/V
Ratio. Bull Seism Soc Am 98(1):288–300
Borcherdt RD (1970) Effects of local geology on ground
motion near San Francisco Bay. Bull Seism Soc Am
60:29–61
Castellaro S (2016) The complementarity of H/V and disper-
sion curves. Geophysics 81(6):T323–T338
Castellaro S, Mulargia F (2009) The effect of velocity inver-
sions on H/V. Pure Appl Geophys 166:567–592. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00024-​009-​0474-5
Colombi A, Boschi L, Roux P, Campillo M (2014) Green’s
function retrieval through cross-correlations in a two-
dimensional complex reverberating medium. J Acoust Soc
Am 135(3):1034–1043. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1121/1.​48644​85
Easton RM, Carter TR (1995) Geology of the Precambrian
Basement Beneath the Paleozoic of Southwestern
Ontario. In: Ojakangas RW, Dickas AB, Green JC (eds)
Basement Tectonics 10. Proceedings of the International
Conferences on Basement Tectonics, vol 10. Springer,
Dordrecht, pp 221–264. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-​94-​
017-​0831-9_​26
Fäh D, Kind F, Giardini D (2001) A theoretical investigation
of average H/V ratios. Geophys J Int 145(2):535–549
García-Jerez A, Piña-Flores J, Sánchez-Sesma FJ, Luzón F,
Perton M (2016) A computer code for forward compu-
tation and inversion of the H/V spectral ratio under the
diffuse field assumption. Comput Geosci 97:67–78
Garofalo F et al (2016) InterPACIFIC project: comparison
of invasive and non-invasive methods for seismic site
characterization. Part II: inter-comparison between sur-
face-wave and borehole methods. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
82:241–254
Herak M (2008) ModelHVSR – A Matlab tool to model hori-
zontal-to-vertical spectral ratio of ambient noise. Comput
Geosci 34(11):1514–1526
Hobiger M, Bard P-Y, Cornou C, Le Bihan N (2009) Single
station determination of Rayleigh wave ellipticity by using
the random decrement technique (RayDec). Geophys Res
Lett 36:L14303. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1029/​2009G​L0388​63
Hobiger M, Cornou C, Bard P-Y, Le Bihan N (2011)
MUSIQUE: A quaternion-based array processing tech-
nique for surface wave polarization analysis. SSP 2011
- 2011 IEEE Workshop on Statistical Signal Processing,
Nice, France, pp 5–8. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​SSP.​2011.​
59677​70
371
Hudec PP (1998) Geology and geotechnical properties of gla-
cial soils in Windsor. In: Karrow PF, White OL (eds)
Urban geology of Canadian cities, vol 42. Geological
Association of Canada - Special Publication, pp 225–236
Ikeda T, Asten M, Matsuoka T (2013) Joint inversion of spa-
tial autocorrelation curves with HVSR for site character-
ization in Newcastle, Australia. ASEG Extended Abstr
1:1–4. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1071/​ASEG2​013ab​315
Konno K, Ohmachi T (1998) Ground-motion characteristics
estimated from spectral ratio between horizontal and
vertical components of microtremor. Bull Seism Soc
Am 88(1):228–241
Lachet C, Bard P-Y (1994) Numerical and theoretical inves-
tigations on the possibilities and limitations of Nakamu-
ra’s technique. J Phys Earth 42:377–397
Molnar S et al (2022) A review of the microtremor hor-
izontal-to-vertical spectral ratio (MHVSR) method.
J Seismolog 26:653–685. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10950-​021-​10062-9
Nakamura Y (1989) A method for dynamic characteris-
tics estimation of subsurface using microtremor on the
ground surface. Q Rep Railw Tech Res Inst (RTRI)
Japan 30:25–33
Nogoshi M, Igarashi T (1971) On the amplitude characteris-
tics of ambient noise (part 2). J Atmos Oceanic Technol
24:26–40
Piña-Flores J, Cárdenas-Soto M, García-Jerez A, Seivane H,
Luzón F, Sánchez-Sesma FJ (2020) Use of peaks and
troughs in the horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio of ambi-
ent noise for Rayleigh-wave dispersion curve picking.
J Appl Geophys 177. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jappg​eo.​
2020.​104024
Poggi V, Fäh D (2010) Estimating Rayleigh wave particle
motion from three-component array analysis of ambient
vibrations. Geophys J Int 180(1):251–267
Sager K, Boehm C, Ermert L, Krischer L, Fichtner A (2018)
Sensitivity of seismic noise correlation functions to global
noise sources. J Geophys Res: Solid Earth 123:6911–
6921. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1029/​2018J​B0160​42
Sánchez-Sesma FJ, Perez-Ruiz JA, Luzon F, Campillo M,
Rodriguez-Castellanos A (2008) Diffuse fields in dynamic
elasticity. Wave Motion 45:641–654
Schimmel M, Gallart J (2004) Degree of polarization filter for
frequency-dependent signal enhancement through noise
suppression. Bull Seism Soc Am 94(3):1016–1035
Sharma H, Molnar S (2019) Earthquake site characterization
of southwestern Ontario for microzonation mapping. 12th
Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Quebec,
Canada, June 2019, Paper # 192-jKuB-149
Tapia M, Guinau M, Roig P, Pérez-Guillén C, Suriñach E, Khaz-
aradze G (2020) Seismic data of a rockslide: Evaluation of
noise levels, site effects, frequency content and identifica-
tion of seismic phases. Data Brief 29:105250. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​dib.​2020.​105250
Uebayashi H (2003) Extrapolation of irregular subsurface struc-
tures using the horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio of long-
period microtremors. Bull Seism Soc Am 93(2):570–582
Wathelet M, Chatelain J, Cornou C, Giulio GD, Guillier B, Ohrn-
berger M, Savvaidis A (2020) Geopsy: a user-friendly open-
source tool set for ambient vibration processing. Seismol
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 372
Res Lett 91:1878–1889. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1785/​02201​
90360
Yeh Y, Wen S, Lee K, Chen C (2013) Shear-wave velocity model
of the Chukuo fault zone, Southwest Taiwan, from cross
correlation of seismic ambient noise. J Asian Earth Sci
75:174–182
Yuan X, Mayanovic RA (2017) An empirical study on Raman
peak fitting and its application to Raman quantitative
research. Appl Spectrosc 71(10):2325–2338. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1177/​00037​02817​721527
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
J Seismol (2024) 28:345–372
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner)
holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing
agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author
self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article
is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement
and applicable law.