Emerging technologies and advanced analyses for non-invasive near-surface site characterization

The in-situ small-strain shear modulus of soil and rock materials is a parameter of paramount importance in geotechnical modeling. It can be derived from non-invasive geophysical surveys, which provide the possibility of testing the subsurface in its natural and undisturbed condition by inferring the velocity of propagation of shear waves. In addition, for soil dynamics and earthquake engineering applications, the small-strain damping ratio plays a relevant role, yet its estimation is still challenging, lacking consolidated approaches for its in-situ evaluation. Recent advancements in instrumentation, such as distributed acoustic sensing (DAS), combined with advanced analysis methodologies for the interpretation of seismic wave propagation (e.g., machine learning and full waveform inversion), open new frontiers in site characterization. This paper presents and compares some advanced applications of measuring 1D and 2D variations in shear wave velocity and attenuation in-situ with reference to a specific case history.

Keywords:
Shear wave velocity; Rayleigh waves; DAS; Damping; FWI; Machine learning

Authorship

Aser Abbas ^##Corresponding author. E-mail address: aser.abbas@usu.edu

conceptualization

writing original draft

formal analysis

methodology

software

Utah State University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Logan, UT, USA.Utah State UniversityUSALogan, UT, USAUtah State University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Logan, UT, USA.

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1462-8539

Mauro Aimar

conceptualization

writing original draft

formal analysis

methodology

software

Politecnico di Torino, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale, Edile e Geotecnica, Torino, Italia.Politecnico di TorinoItaliaTorino, ItaliaPolitecnico di Torino, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale, Edile e Geotecnica, Torino, Italia.

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1170-9774

Michael Yust

visualization

formal analysis

software

Slate Geotechnical Consultants, Oakland, CA, USA.Slate Geotechnical ConsultantsUSAOakland, CA, USASlate Geotechnical Consultants, Oakland, CA, USA.

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2857-3591

Brady R. Cox

conceptualization

funding acquisition

project administration

writing review and editing

supervision

http://orcid.org/0009-0002-1225-8650

Sebastiano Foti

conceptualization

funding acquisition

project administration

writing review and editing

supervision

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4505-5091

#Corresponding author. E-mail address: aser.abbas@usu.edu

Declaration of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. All co-authors have observed and affirmed the contents of the paper and there is no financial interest to report.

SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Slate Geotechnical Consultants, Oakland, CA, USA.Slate Geotechnical ConsultantsUSAOakland, CA, USASlate Geotechnical Consultants, Oakland, CA, USA.

Figures | Formulas

Figures (13)
Formulas (1)

Thumbnail

Figure 1
a) Schematic model of an acquisition system based on geophones, wherein the output (labeled as “OUT”) is the particle velocity ∂u/∂t; b) Schematic model of the DAS system, where a source generates a laser pulse which is then interpreted by an interrogator unit (labeled as I.U.) and the output (labeled as “OUT”) is the average strain e [modified from Bakku (2015)Bakku, S.K. (2015). Fracture characterization from seismic measurements in a borehole [PhD thesis]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.]; c) Amplitude response in terms of e/ε ratio, as a function of the wavelength-normalized gauge length 2g/λ.

Thumbnail

Figure 2
a) Aerial view of the Hornsby Bend test site showing the locations of CPT tests and boreholes as well as the DAS fiber optic cable, the geophone array, and the vibroseis shot locations; b) Geological cross section.

Thumbnail

Figure 3
Recorded data at the Hornsby Bend site: a) Time histories of particle velocity recorded by the geophone array; b) Time histories of average radial strain recorded by DAS. Data refer to the wavefield generated from the active source located at an offset equal to 10 m.

Thumbnail

Figure 4
Comparison between the estimated dispersion and attenuation curves from the DAS and the geophone data at the Hornsby Bend site: a-b) Resulting dispersion (a) and attenuation (b) curves for the fundamental mode, R0; c-d) Resulting dispersion (c) and attenuation (d) curves for the first higher mode, R1. Estimated data are represented in terms of intervals given by one logarithmic standard deviation around the median value; after Aimar et al. (2023)Aimar, M., Cox, B.R., & Foti, S. (July 5-7, 2023). Surface wave testing with distributed acoustic sensing measurements to estimate the shear-wave velocity and the small-strain damping ratio. In Paper presented at the National Conference of Researchers in Geotechnical Engineering (CNRIG), Palermo, Italy..

Thumbnail

Figure 5
Best fitting inverted ground models to DAS experimental data from the Hornsby Bend site: a-b) Theoretical and experimental data for the phase velocity (a) and phase attenuation (b); c-d) Resulting S-wave velocity (c) and damping ratio (d) profiles; after Aimar et al. (2023)Aimar, M., Cox, B.R., & Foti, S. (July 5-7, 2023). Surface wave testing with distributed acoustic sensing measurements to estimate the shear-wave velocity and the small-strain damping ratio. In Paper presented at the National Conference of Researchers in Geotechnical Engineering (CNRIG), Palermo, Italy..

Thumbnail

Figure 6
Pseudo-2D V_s cross-sections after Yust et al. (2022)Yust, M.B.S., Cox, B.R., Vantassel, J.P., & Hubbard, P.G. (2022). DAS for 2D MASW imaging: a case study on the benefits of flexible sub-array processing. arXiv, 2210.14261. Ahead of print. from the: (a) 47, 12-channel MASW sub-arrays, (b) 44, 24-channel MASW sub-arrays, and (c) 38, 48-channel MASW sub-arrays inverted using a 15-layer inversion parameterization. The depths of refusal for 9 CPT soundings along the array are shown on all plots with a solid black line.

Thumbnail

Figure 7
Illustrates the Frequency-velocity CNN framework introduced by Abbas et al. (2023b)Abbas, A., Vantassel, J.P., Cox, B.R., Kumar, K., & Crocker, J.A. (2023b). A frequency-velocity CNN for developing near-surface 2D vs images from linear-array, active-source wavefield measurements. Computers and Geotechnics, 156, 105305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2023.105305.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2023... for 2D V_s imaging of near-surface soil-over-bedrock geology. Panel (a) showcases a soil-over-rock 2D model featuring a 47-meter array of receivers and a single source located off the array's end. In panel (b), an example seismic wavefield recorded by the 48 receivers shown in panel (a) from a Ricker source is depicted. Panel (c) displays the associated dispersion image, serving as the input to the Frequency-velocity CNN. Finally, in panel (d), the Frequency-velocity CNN's predictions of the true synthetic 2D V_s images presented in panel (a) are showcased.

Thumbnail

Figure 8
The frequency-velocity CNN output 2D V_s image for the Hornsby Bend site after Abbas et al. (2023b)Abbas, A., Vantassel, J.P., Cox, B.R., Kumar, K., & Crocker, J.A. (2023b). A frequency-velocity CNN for developing near-surface 2D vs images from linear-array, active-source wavefield measurements. Computers and Geotechnics, 156, 105305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2023.105305.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2023... . For comparison with actual field conditions, a borehole log (i.e., B1) is superimposed on the predicted V_s image at 12.5 m, which is the location where the boring was conducted.

Thumbnail

Figure 9
The four smoothed 2D V_s starting models used by Yust et al. (2023)Yust, M.B.S., Cox, B.R., Vantassel, J.P., Hubbard, P.G., Boehm, C., & Krischer, L. (2023). Near-surface 2D imaging via FWI of DAS data: an examination of the impacts of FWI starting model. Geosciences, 13(3), 63. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences13030063.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences130... for FWI based on: (a) 1D MASW, (b) downhole testing (DH), (c) CNN machine learning, and (d) pseudo‐2D MASW.

Thumbnail

Figure 10
Normalized observed and simulated waveforms by Yust et al. (2023)Yust, M.B.S., Cox, B.R., Vantassel, J.P., Hubbard, P.G., Boehm, C., & Krischer, L. (2023). Near-surface 2D imaging via FWI of DAS data: an examination of the impacts of FWI starting model. Geosciences, 13(3), 63. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences13030063.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences130... from Shot 1 (−24 m) of Stage 1 (10 to 15 Hz) for the: (a) MASW, (b) downhole testing (DH), (c) CNN, and (d) 2D MASW starting models. GSOTD misfit values for each set of simulated waveforms are shown in the bottom left of each plot. Note that for clarity purposes, the waveforms are only shown for every fourth channel used for FWI.

Thumbnail

Figure 11
Normalized observed and simulated waveforms by Yust et al. (2023)Yust, M.B.S., Cox, B.R., Vantassel, J.P., Hubbard, P.G., Boehm, C., & Krischer, L. (2023). Near-surface 2D imaging via FWI of DAS data: an examination of the impacts of FWI starting model. Geosciences, 13(3), 63. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences13030063.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences130... from Shot 1 (−24 m) for the updated models at the end of FWI Stage 1 (10 to 15 Hz) based on the: (a) MASW, (b) downhole testing (DH), (c) CNN, and (d) 2D MASW starting models. GSOTD misfit values for each set of simulated waveforms are shown in the bottom left of each plot. Note that for clarity purposes, the waveforms are only shown for every fourth channel used for FWI.

Thumbnail

Figure 12
Borehole logs, downhole V_s results, and the depth to CPT refusal overlaid on the final, updated 2D V_s images at the end of FWI Stage 4 (10 to 30 Hz) for the: (a) MASW, (b) downhole testing (DH), (c) CNN, and (d) 2D MASW starting models after Yust et al. (2023)Yust, M.B.S., Cox, B.R., Vantassel, J.P., Hubbard, P.G., Boehm, C., & Krischer, L. (2023). Near-surface 2D imaging via FWI of DAS data: an examination of the impacts of FWI starting model. Geosciences, 13(3), 63. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences13030063.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences130... .

Thumbnail

Figure 13
Newberry site testing configuration after Abbas et al. (2024)Abbas, A., Cox, B.R., Tran, K.T., Corey, I., & Dawadi, N. (2024). An open-access data set of active-source and passive-wavefield DAS and nodal seismometer measurements at the Newberry Florida site. Seismological Research Letters, 1-17. Ahead of print. http://dx.doi.org/10.1785/0220230216.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1785/0220230216... .

Thumbnail

(1)

Figure 1 a) Schematic model of an acquisition system based on geophones, wherein the output (labeled as “OUT”) is the particle velocity ∂u/∂t; b) Schematic model of the DAS system, where a source generates a laser pulse which is then interpreted by an interrogator unit (labeled as I.U.) and the output (labeled as “OUT”) is the average strain e [modified from Bakku (2015)Bakku, S.K. (2015). Fracture characterization from seismic measurements in a borehole [PhD thesis]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.]; c) Amplitude response in terms of e/ε ratio, as a function of the wavelength-normalized gauge length 2g/λ.

Figure 2 a) Aerial view of the Hornsby Bend test site showing the locations of CPT tests and boreholes as well as the DAS fiber optic cable, the geophone array, and the vibroseis shot locations; b) Geological cross section.

Figure 3 Recorded data at the Hornsby Bend site: a) Time histories of particle velocity recorded by the geophone array; b) Time histories of average radial strain recorded by DAS. Data refer to the wavefield generated from the active source located at an offset equal to 10 m.

Figure 4 Comparison between the estimated dispersion and attenuation curves from the DAS and the geophone data at the Hornsby Bend site: a-b) Resulting dispersion (a) and attenuation (b) curves for the fundamental mode, R0; c-d) Resulting dispersion (c) and attenuation (d) curves for the first higher mode, R1. Estimated data are represented in terms of intervals given by one logarithmic standard deviation around the median value; after Aimar et al. (2023)Aimar, M., Cox, B.R., & Foti, S. (July 5-7, 2023). Surface wave testing with distributed acoustic sensing measurements to estimate the shear-wave velocity and the small-strain damping ratio. In Paper presented at the National Conference of Researchers in Geotechnical Engineering (CNRIG), Palermo, Italy..

Figure 5 Best fitting inverted ground models to DAS experimental data from the Hornsby Bend site: a-b) Theoretical and experimental data for the phase velocity (a) and phase attenuation (b); c-d) Resulting S-wave velocity (c) and damping ratio (d) profiles; after Aimar et al. (2023)Aimar, M., Cox, B.R., & Foti, S. (July 5-7, 2023). Surface wave testing with distributed acoustic sensing measurements to estimate the shear-wave velocity and the small-strain damping ratio. In Paper presented at the National Conference of Researchers in Geotechnical Engineering (CNRIG), Palermo, Italy..

Figure 6 Pseudo-2D V_s cross-sections after Yust et al. (2022)Yust, M.B.S., Cox, B.R., Vantassel, J.P., & Hubbard, P.G. (2022). DAS for 2D MASW imaging: a case study on the benefits of flexible sub-array processing. arXiv, 2210.14261. Ahead of print. from the: (a) 47, 12-channel MASW sub-arrays, (b) 44, 24-channel MASW sub-arrays, and (c) 38, 48-channel MASW sub-arrays inverted using a 15-layer inversion parameterization. The depths of refusal for 9 CPT soundings along the array are shown on all plots with a solid black line.

Figure 7 Illustrates the Frequency-velocity CNN framework introduced by Abbas et al. (2023b)Abbas, A., Vantassel, J.P., Cox, B.R., Kumar, K., & Crocker, J.A. (2023b). A frequency-velocity CNN for developing near-surface 2D vs images from linear-array, active-source wavefield measurements. Computers and Geotechnics, 156, 105305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2023.105305.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2023... for 2D V_s imaging of near-surface soil-over-bedrock geology. Panel (a) showcases a soil-over-rock 2D model featuring a 47-meter array of receivers and a single source located off the array's end. In panel (b), an example seismic wavefield recorded by the 48 receivers shown in panel (a) from a Ricker source is depicted. Panel (c) displays the associated dispersion image, serving as the input to the Frequency-velocity CNN. Finally, in panel (d), the Frequency-velocity CNN's predictions of the true synthetic 2D V_s images presented in panel (a) are showcased.

Figure 8 The frequency-velocity CNN output 2D V_s image for the Hornsby Bend site after Abbas et al. (2023b)Abbas, A., Vantassel, J.P., Cox, B.R., Kumar, K., & Crocker, J.A. (2023b). A frequency-velocity CNN for developing near-surface 2D vs images from linear-array, active-source wavefield measurements. Computers and Geotechnics, 156, 105305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2023.105305.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2023... . For comparison with actual field conditions, a borehole log (i.e., B1) is superimposed on the predicted V_s image at 12.5 m, which is the location where the boring was conducted.

Figure 9 The four smoothed 2D V_s starting models used by Yust et al. (2023)Yust, M.B.S., Cox, B.R., Vantassel, J.P., Hubbard, P.G., Boehm, C., & Krischer, L. (2023). Near-surface 2D imaging via FWI of DAS data: an examination of the impacts of FWI starting model. Geosciences, 13(3), 63. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences13030063.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences130... for FWI based on: (a) 1D MASW, (b) downhole testing (DH), (c) CNN machine learning, and (d) pseudo‐2D MASW.

Figure 10 Normalized observed and simulated waveforms by Yust et al. (2023)Yust, M.B.S., Cox, B.R., Vantassel, J.P., Hubbard, P.G., Boehm, C., & Krischer, L. (2023). Near-surface 2D imaging via FWI of DAS data: an examination of the impacts of FWI starting model. Geosciences, 13(3), 63. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences13030063.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences130... from Shot 1 (−24 m) of Stage 1 (10 to 15 Hz) for the: (a) MASW, (b) downhole testing (DH), (c) CNN, and (d) 2D MASW starting models. GSOTD misfit values for each set of simulated waveforms are shown in the bottom left of each plot. Note that for clarity purposes, the waveforms are only shown for every fourth channel used for FWI.

Figure 11 Normalized observed and simulated waveforms by Yust et al. (2023)Yust, M.B.S., Cox, B.R., Vantassel, J.P., Hubbard, P.G., Boehm, C., & Krischer, L. (2023). Near-surface 2D imaging via FWI of DAS data: an examination of the impacts of FWI starting model. Geosciences, 13(3), 63. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences13030063.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences130... from Shot 1 (−24 m) for the updated models at the end of FWI Stage 1 (10 to 15 Hz) based on the: (a) MASW, (b) downhole testing (DH), (c) CNN, and (d) 2D MASW starting models. GSOTD misfit values for each set of simulated waveforms are shown in the bottom left of each plot. Note that for clarity purposes, the waveforms are only shown for every fourth channel used for FWI.

Figure 12 Borehole logs, downhole V_s results, and the depth to CPT refusal overlaid on the final, updated 2D V_s images at the end of FWI Stage 4 (10 to 30 Hz) for the: (a) MASW, (b) downhole testing (DH), (c) CNN, and (d) 2D MASW starting models after Yust et al. (2023)Yust, M.B.S., Cox, B.R., Vantassel, J.P., Hubbard, P.G., Boehm, C., & Krischer, L. (2023). Near-surface 2D imaging via FWI of DAS data: an examination of the impacts of FWI starting model. Geosciences, 13(3), 63. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences13030063.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences130... .

Figure 4 Comparison between the estimated dispersion and attenuation curves from the DAS and the geophone data at the Hornsby Bend site: a-b) Resulting dispersion (a) and attenuation (b) curves for the fundamental mode, R0; c-d) Resulting dispersion (c) and attenuation (d) curves for the first higher mode, R1. Estimated data are represented in terms of intervals given by one logarithmic standard deviation around the median value; after Aimar et al. (2023)Aimar, M., Cox, B.R., & Foti, S. (July 5-7, 2023). Surface wave testing with distributed acoustic sensing measurements to estimate the shear-wave velocity and the small-strain damping ratio. In Paper presented at the National Conference of Researchers in Geotechnical Engineering (CNRIG), Palermo, Italy..

Figure 5 Best fitting inverted ground models to DAS experimental data from the Hornsby Bend site: a-b) Theoretical and experimental data for the phase velocity (a) and phase attenuation (b); c-d) Resulting S-wave velocity (c) and damping ratio (d) profiles; after Aimar et al. (2023)Aimar, M., Cox, B.R., & Foti, S. (July 5-7, 2023). Surface wave testing with distributed acoustic sensing measurements to estimate the shear-wave velocity and the small-strain damping ratio. In Paper presented at the National Conference of Researchers in Geotechnical Engineering (CNRIG), Palermo, Italy..

Figure 6 Pseudo-2D V_s cross-sections after Yust et al. (2022)Yust, M.B.S., Cox, B.R., Vantassel, J.P., & Hubbard, P.G. (2022). DAS for 2D MASW imaging: a case study on the benefits of flexible sub-array processing. arXiv, 2210.14261. Ahead of print. from the: (a) 47, 12-channel MASW sub-arrays, (b) 44, 24-channel MASW sub-arrays, and (c) 38, 48-channel MASW sub-arrays inverted using a 15-layer inversion parameterization. The depths of refusal for 9 CPT soundings along the array are shown on all plots with a solid black line.

Figure 7 Illustrates the Frequency-velocity CNN framework introduced by Abbas et al. (2023b)Abbas, A., Vantassel, J.P., Cox, B.R., Kumar, K., & Crocker, J.A. (2023b). A frequency-velocity CNN for developing near-surface 2D vs images from linear-array, active-source wavefield measurements. Computers and Geotechnics, 156, 105305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2023.105305.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2023... for 2D V_s imaging of near-surface soil-over-bedrock geology. Panel (a) showcases a soil-over-rock 2D model featuring a 47-meter array of receivers and a single source located off the array's end. In panel (b), an example seismic wavefield recorded by the 48 receivers shown in panel (a) from a Ricker source is depicted. Panel (c) displays the associated dispersion image, serving as the input to the Frequency-velocity CNN. Finally, in panel (d), the Frequency-velocity CNN's predictions of the true synthetic 2D V_s images presented in panel (a) are showcased.

Figure 8 The frequency-velocity CNN output 2D V_s image for the Hornsby Bend site after Abbas et al. (2023b)Abbas, A., Vantassel, J.P., Cox, B.R., Kumar, K., & Crocker, J.A. (2023b). A frequency-velocity CNN for developing near-surface 2D vs images from linear-array, active-source wavefield measurements. Computers and Geotechnics, 156, 105305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2023.105305.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2023... . For comparison with actual field conditions, a borehole log (i.e., B1) is superimposed on the predicted V_s image at 12.5 m, which is the location where the boring was conducted.

Figure 9 The four smoothed 2D V_s starting models used by Yust et al. (2023)Yust, M.B.S., Cox, B.R., Vantassel, J.P., Hubbard, P.G., Boehm, C., & Krischer, L. (2023). Near-surface 2D imaging via FWI of DAS data: an examination of the impacts of FWI starting model. Geosciences, 13(3), 63. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences13030063.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences130... for FWI based on: (a) 1D MASW, (b) downhole testing (DH), (c) CNN machine learning, and (d) pseudo‐2D MASW.

Figure 10 Normalized observed and simulated waveforms by Yust et al. (2023)Yust, M.B.S., Cox, B.R., Vantassel, J.P., Hubbard, P.G., Boehm, C., & Krischer, L. (2023). Near-surface 2D imaging via FWI of DAS data: an examination of the impacts of FWI starting model. Geosciences, 13(3), 63. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences13030063.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences130... from Shot 1 (−24 m) of Stage 1 (10 to 15 Hz) for the: (a) MASW, (b) downhole testing (DH), (c) CNN, and (d) 2D MASW starting models. GSOTD misfit values for each set of simulated waveforms are shown in the bottom left of each plot. Note that for clarity purposes, the waveforms are only shown for every fourth channel used for FWI.

Figure 11 Normalized observed and simulated waveforms by Yust et al. (2023)Yust, M.B.S., Cox, B.R., Vantassel, J.P., Hubbard, P.G., Boehm, C., & Krischer, L. (2023). Near-surface 2D imaging via FWI of DAS data: an examination of the impacts of FWI starting model. Geosciences, 13(3), 63. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences13030063.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences130... from Shot 1 (−24 m) for the updated models at the end of FWI Stage 1 (10 to 15 Hz) based on the: (a) MASW, (b) downhole testing (DH), (c) CNN, and (d) 2D MASW starting models. GSOTD misfit values for each set of simulated waveforms are shown in the bottom left of each plot. Note that for clarity purposes, the waveforms are only shown for every fourth channel used for FWI.

Figure 12 Borehole logs, downhole V_s results, and the depth to CPT refusal overlaid on the final, updated 2D V_s images at the end of FWI Stage 4 (10 to 30 Hz) for the: (a) MASW, (b) downhole testing (DH), (c) CNN, and (d) 2D MASW starting models after Yust et al. (2023)Yust, M.B.S., Cox, B.R., Vantassel, J.P., Hubbard, P.G., Boehm, C., & Krischer, L. (2023). Near-surface 2D imaging via FWI of DAS data: an examination of the impacts of FWI starting model. Geosciences, 13(3), 63. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences13030063.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences130... .

Figure 13 Newberry site testing configuration after Abbas et al. (2024)Abbas, A., Cox, B.R., Tran, K.T., Corey, I., & Dawadi, N. (2024). An open-access data set of active-source and passive-wavefield DAS and nodal seismometer measurements at the Newberry Florida site. Seismological Research Letters, 1-17. Ahead of print. http://dx.doi.org/10.1785/0220230216.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1785/0220230216... .

(1)

e (r, t) = \frac{1}{2 g} [u (r + g, t) - u (r - g, t)]

How to cite

copy

Associação Brasileira de Mecânica dos Solos Av. Queiroz Filho, 1700 - Torre A, Sala 106, Cep: 05319-000, São Paulo - SP - Brasil, Tel: (11) 3833-0023 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: secretariat@soilsandrocks.com

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

Versão para download de PDF

PDF

Inglês

Versões e tradução automática

Versão original do texto

English

Tradução automática

Google Translator
Microsoft Translator

Como citar

RIS

BIBTEX

Outros formatos de citação e exportação:

SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online
Rua Dr. Diogo de Faria, 1087 – 9º andar – Vila Clementino 04037-003 São Paulo/SP - Brasil
E-mail: scielo@scielo.org

Leia a Declaração de Acesso Aberto

Métricas

Emerging technologies and advanced analyses for non-invasive near-surface site characterization

PlumX

Mensagem

[1] #Corresponding author. E-mail address: aser.abbas@usu.edu