Geophysical characterization of seismic station sites in the United States – The importance of a flexible, multi-method approach

Abstract

Noninvasive geophysical site characterization methods were used in two recent projects to obtain shear-wave velocity (VS) profiles to a minimum depth of 30 m and the time-averaged VS of the upper 30 meters (VS30) at seismic station sites. These projects include the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funded U.S. Geological Survey site characterization project for 191 sites in California and the Central-eastern United States (CEUS), and the 2012 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) funded project for 33 additional CEUS sites. These sites are located in rural to urban settings with topographic conditions ranging from relatively flat sedimentary basins to mountaintop ridges. About 60 percent of the ARRA sites and 80 percent of the EPRI sites are located on rock or have thin sediment cover over rock, including Quaternary volcanic rock, Tertiary sediments and sedimentary rock, and Mesozoic (or older) crystalline or sedimentary rock. The remaining sites consist of thick sequences of Quaternary sediments overlying older sediments and rock. ARRA sites were characterized using non-invasive active and passive surface-wave methods, including the horizontal-tovertical spectral ratio (HVSR) method and one or more of the following: spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW), multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW; Rayleigh and Love waves) and, occasionally, array microtremor (linear and 2-D arrays) methods. P-wave seismic refraction data were also acquired at rock and shallow-rock sites. S-wave seismic refraction and/or Love-wave MASW methods were applied at sites where characterization proved difficult with Rayleighwave methods. Based on our experience from the ARRA project, we acquired Rayleigh- and Love-wave based MASW and P- and S-wave refraction data for the EPRI project at CEUS sites. The HVSR method was found to be useful for identifying shallow-rock sites and for evaluating the relative variability of the depth-to-rock interface beneath the seismic station and the testing array(s). The fundamental mode modeling assumption was generally valid at most of these sites; nevertheless, multi-mode or effective-mode modeling routines were occasionally required, particularly in the case of shallow high-velocity layers. Deep sediment sites were characterized using active and, when appropriate, passive surface-wave based methods. Rock and shallow sediment sites were generally more challenging to characterize than deep sediment sites. About 10 percent of rock sites could not be characterized using surface wave methods, thus these sites were characterized using body-wave refraction methods. Love wave methods were found to be more effective than Rayleigh wave methods at some rock and shallow-rock sites (e.g., sites with shallow rock and sites with a thin low-velocity, highly attenuating surface layer). Lateral velocity variability was found to be very common at rock and shallow-rock sites, often causing significant scatter in the surface-wave dispersion data. Seismic refraction models have demonstrated that it may not be unusual for VS30 to vary by 20 percent, or more, over small distances (several tens of meters) at such sites. Based on these experiences, it is important to consider the application of combinations of methods when using noninvasive geophysical approaches to characterize seismic site conditions.