Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
The Refraction Microtremor (ReMi) method is being used around the world by the geotechnical and geo-
physical community to determine shear-wave velocities. This is due to its faster, less expensive and accurate
determination of shear wave velocities, when compared to other methods used. Unlike standard crosshole
and downhole techniques, ReMi does not require any drilling. It eliminates the problem of shear-wave source
and quiet site that are pre-requisites for good seismic refraction surveys. In this paper we present refraction
microtremors (ReMi) measurements done at sites underlain by different soil types in Egypt. The ReMi data
were collected using standard refraction equipment employing 12, 24 or 48 channels. We used deep oceano-
graphic noise and ambient noise including energy from power generators, pile drivers and traffic. The data
were processed using the SeisOpt® ReMi™ (© Optim, Inc.) software to reveal one-dimensional shear-wave
velocity structures beneath the arrays. To access the validity of the method for the Egyptian soils, the shear-
wave profiles obtained from the ReMi measurements were compared to downhole and crosshole data for
different soils. Comparisons demonstrate the robustness of the ReMi technique for obtaining shear-wave ve-
locities for different soil types in Egypt.
2.1. Damietta
coarse sand-pebble beds. The gravels are mostly dark source MASW records. All phases in the record are pre-
brown limestone and chert. They range in size from peb- sent in the resulting (P-f) image that shows the power at
bles to cobbles which are poorly sorted. The gravels are each combination of phase slowness and frequency.
embedded in sandy matrix. Dispersive phases show the distinct curve of normal
modes in low-velocity surface layers: sloping down from
2.5. Mokattam high phase velocities (low slowness) at low frequencies,
to lower phase velocities (high slowness) at higher fre-
The Mokattam area deposits can be classified into Mid- quencies. Miller et al. (2000) [11] examine P-f-domain
dle Eocene and Upper Eocene. The middle Eocene is power spectra of MASW records along a profile to de-
formed of carbonate rocks (limestone and marl) and the fine lateral variations in dispersion curves and thus in
Upper Eocene is formed of classic sediments (shale and shear velocities.
sands). The distinctive slope of dispersive waves is a real ad-
vantage of the P-f analysis. Other arrivals that appear in
2.6. Beni Suef microtremors records, such as body waves and air waves,
cannot have such a slope. The P-f spectral power image
This is site is made up Nile River deposits. They are will show where such waves have significant energy.
composed of cobbles and gravel sized sediments, alter- Even if most of the energy in a seismic record is a phase
nating with coarse to fine grained sands and gravels. In- other than Rayleigh waves, the P-f analysis will separate
ter bedded within it are a series of red brown clays and thin that energy in the slowness-frequency plot away from the
fine grained sand and silt laminate which in some parts crop dispersion curves this technique interprets. By recording
out along Nile banks and the valley. These sediments seem many channels, retaining complete vertical seismograms,
to be derived from deeply leached terrain and from local and employing the P-f transform, this method can suc-
sources. cessfully analyze Rayleigh dispersion where SASW tech-
niques cannot.
3. ReMi Data Processing
3.2. Rayleigh Phase-Velocity Dispersion Picking
ReMi processing involves three steps: Velocity Spectral
Analysis, Rayleigh Phase-Velocity Dispersion Picking, This analysis adds only a spectral power-ratio calculation
and Shear-Wave Velocity Modeling: to McMechan and Yedlin’s (1981) [9] technique [9], for
spectral normalization of the noise records. The ability to
3.1. Velocity Spectral Analysis pick and interpret dispersion curves directly from the P-f
images of spectral ratio parallels the coherence checks in
The basis of the velocity spectral analysis is the p-tau the SASW technique [12] and the power criterion in the
transformation, or “slantstack,” described by Thorson MASW technique [13]. Picking phase velocities at the
and Claerbout (1985) [5]. This transformation takes a frequencies where a slope or a peak in spectral ratio oc-
record section of multiple seismograms, with seismo- curs clearly locates the dispersion curve. Picks are not
gram amplitudes relative to distance and time (x-t), and made at frequencies without a definite peak in spectral
converts it to amplitudes relative to the ray parameter ratio, often below 4 Hz and above 14 Hz where an iden-
(the inverse of apparent velocity) and an intercept time tifiable dispersive surface wave does not appear. Often,
tau. It is familiar to array analysts as ‘‘beam forming’’ the P-f image directly shows the average velocity to 30
and has similar objectives to a two-dimensional Fourier- meters depth, from the phase velocity of a strong peak
spectrum or ‘‘F-K’’ analysis as described by Horike ratio appearing at 4 Hz, for soft sites, or nearer to 8 Hz,
(1985) [6]. Clayton and McMechan (1981) [7] and Fuis at harder sites.
et al. (1984) [8] used the p-tau transformation as an ini- Picking is done along a “lowest-velocity envelope”
tial step in P-wave refraction velocity analysis. bounding the energy appearing in the P-f image. It is
McMechan and Yedlin (1981) [9] developed the P-f possible to pick this lowest-velocity envelope in a way
technique (The “p” stands for slowness or inverse of ve- that puts confidence limits on the phase velocities, as
locity and “f” stands for frequency. Plotting dispersion well as on the inverted velocity profile. Picking a sur-
curve in the “P-f” domain allows the Rayleigh wave face-wave dispersion curve along an envelope of the
phases to be separated from other arrivals) and tested it lowest phase velocities having high spectral ratio at each
against synthetic surface waves, and reverberations seen frequency has a further desirable effect. Since higher-
on controlled-source multichannel seismic records. Park mode Rayleigh waves have phase velocities above those
et al. (1998) [10] applied the P-f technique to active- of the fundamental mode, the refraction microtremors
technique preferentially yields the fundamental-mode is placed, at different depths (1 - 40 m), in one borehole
velocities. Higher modes may appear as separate disper- (source) facing the recording orthogonal geophones (re-
sion trends on the P-f images, if they are nearly as ener- ceivers) at the same depths in the other boreholes. Two
getic as the fundamental. triaxial-seismic geophones are placed at same depths as
Spatial aliasing will contribute to artifacts in the slow- the source in the recording boreholes. The raw data ob-
ness-frequency spectral-ratio images. The artifacts slope tained from a crosshole survey are the travel times for
on the P-f images in a direction opposite to normal-mode compressional and shear waves from the source to the
dispersion. The p-tau transform is done in the space and geophones. The distance between the source and the two
time domain, however, so even the aliased frequencies recording boreholes are 3 and 6 m respectively (ASTM
preserve some information. The seismic waves are not D 4428). Downhole data acquisition is different from
continuously harmonic, but arrive in groups. Further, the crosshole in that only one recording borehole is used and
refraction microtremors analysis has not just two seismo- the source of shear waves is placed about 1 m from the
grams, but 12 or more. So, severe slowness wraparound well on the surface (ASTM D7400). The source of shear
does not occur until well above the spatial Nyquist fre- wave is a wooden plate that is stroked in opposite direc-
quency. tions to obtain shear wave reversals with opposite direc-
tions +ve and –ve.
3.3. Shear Wave Velocity Modeling
4. Data Acquisition
5.1. Damietta
Figure 4. Example of recorded S-wave seismograms show- Figure 7. Comparison between shear wave velocities Ob-
ing S-wave arrival time at 120 msec for a downhole test tained from ReMi and crosshole tests for Damietta site.
(Damietta site). both +ve (black) and –ve (Blue) s-arrivals
are shown (Reversals).
5.2. Sidi Krir
5.3. Mahmoudia
5.4. Nubaria
Figure 10. Comparison between shear wave velocities Ob- Figure 12. Dispersion curve and corresponding picks Ob-
tained from ReMi And crosshole tests for Sidi Krir site. tained for Mahmoudia site.
5.5. EL Tebbin
5.6. Alexandria
Figure 19. Comparison between shear wave velocities ob- Figure 22. Shear wave velocity obtained from ReMi test for
tained from ReMi and crosshole tests for EL Tebbin site. Alexanderia site.
5.7. Mokattam
Figure 24. Dispersion curve and corresponding picks ob- Figure 27. Dispersion curve and corresponding picks ob-
tained for Mokattam site. tained for Beni Suef site.
who permitted the work kindly. Also Optim, who pro- [10] C. B. Park, R. D. Miller and J. Xia, “Imaging Dispersion
vided support and software. Curves of Surface Waves on Multi-Channel Record,”
Annual Meeting Abstracts, Society of Exploration Geo-
physicists, Tulsa, 1998, pp. 1377-1380.
8. References
[11] R. D. Miller, C. B. Park, J. M. Ivanov, J. Xia, D. R. Laf-
len, and C. Gratton, “MASW to Investigate Anomalous
[1] J. N. Louie, “Faster, Better: Shear-Wave Velocity to 100 Near-Surface Materials at the Indian Refinery in Law-
Meters Depth from Refraction Microtremors Arrays,” renceville,” Kansas Geology Survey, Open-File Report,
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 91, Lawrence,2000, p. 48.
No. 2, 2001, pp. 347-364. doi:10.1785/0120000098
[12] S. Nazarian and K. H. Stokoe II, “In Situ Shear Wave
[2] S. Pullammanappallil, B. Honjas, J. Louie, J. A. Siemens Velocities from Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves,”
and H. Miura, “Comparative Study of the Refraction Mi- Proceedings of the World Conference on Earthquake En-
crotremors Method: Using Seismic Noise and Standard gineering, Vol. 8, San Francisco, 21-28 July 1984.
P-Wave Refraction Equipment for Deriving 1D Shear-
Wave Profiles,” Proceedings of the 6th SEGJ Interna- [13] C. B. Park, R. D. Miller and J. Xia, “Multi-Channel
tional Symposium, Tokyo, January 2003, pp. 192-197. Analysis of Surface Waves,” Geophysics, Vol. 64, No. 3,
1999, pp. 800-808. doi:10.1190/1.1444590
[3] R. Said, “The Geology of Egypt,” Conco Hurghada Inc.,
Rotterdam, 1990. [14] M. Saito, “Computations of Reflectivity and Surface
Wave dispersion Curves for Layered Media; I, Sound
[4] EGSMA, Geological Map of Greater Cairo Area. Outline Wave and SH Wave,” Butsuri-Tanko, Vol. 32, No. 5,
of Geology Stratigraphy, Egyptian Geological Survey and 1979, pp. 15-26.
Mining Authority, 1983.
[15] M. Saito, “Compound Matrix Method for the Calculation
[5] J. R. Thorsonand J. F. Claerbout, “Velocity-Stack and of Spheroidal Oscillation of the Earth,” Seismological
Slant-Stack Stochastic Inversion,” Geophysics, Vol. 50, Research Letters, Vol. 59, 1988, p. 29.
No. 12, 1985, pp. 2727-2741. doi:10.1190/1.1441893
[16] Y. Zeng and J. G. Anderson, “A Method for Direct Com-
[6] M. Horike, “Inversion of Phase Velocity of Long-Period putation of the Differential Seismograms with Respect to
Microtremors to the S-Wave-Velocity Structure Down to the Velocity Change in a Layered Elastic Solid,” Bulletin
the Basement in Urbanized Areas,” Journal of Physics of of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 85, No. 1,
the Earth, Vol. 33, 1985, pp. 59-96. 1995, pp. 300-307.
doi:10.4294/jpe1952.33.59
[17] T. Iwata, H. Kawase, T. Satoh, Y. Kakehi, K. Irikura, J.
[7] R. W. Clayton and G. A. McMechan, “Inversion of Re- N. Louie, R. E. Abbott and J. G. Anderson, “Array Mi-
fraction Data by Wavefield Continuation,” Geophysics, crotremor Measurements at Reno, Nevada, USA,” EOS,
Vol. 46, No. 3, 1981, pp. 860-868. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Vol.
doi:10.1190/1.1441224 79, No. 45, p. F578.
[8] G. Fuis, W. Mooney, J. Healy, G. McMechan and W. [18] J. Xia, R. D. Miller and C. B. Park, “Estimation of
Lutter, “A Seismic Refraction Survey of the Imperial Near-Surface Shear-Wave Velocity by Inversion of Ray-
Valley Region, California,” Journal of Geophysical Re- leigh Wave,” Geophysics, Vol. 64, No. 3, 1999, pp. 691-
search, Vol. 89, No. B2, 1984, pp. 1165-1190. 700. doi:10.1190/1.1444578
doi:10.1029/JB089iB02p01165
[19] E. H. Field, S. E. Hough and H. Jacob, “Using Mi-
[9] G. A. McMechan and M. J. Yedlin, “Analysis of Disper- crotremors to Assess Potential Arthquake Site Response,
sive Waves by Wave Field Transformation,” Geophysics, a Case Study in Flushing Meadows, New York City,”
Vol. 46, No. 6, 1981, pp. 869-874. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 80,
doi:10.1190/1.1441225 No. 6A, 1990, pp. 1456-1480.