S43B-2804
Inter- and Intra-method Variability of VS Profiles and VS30 at ARRA-funded Sites

Thursday, 17 December 2015
Poster Hall (Moscone South)
Alan Yong, USGS California Water Science Center Menlo Park, Menlo Park, CA, United States, John Boatwright, US Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA, United States and Antony Jeffrey Martin, GeoVision, Inc, Corona, CA, United States
Abstract:
The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funded geophysical site characterizations at 191 seismographic stations in California and in the central and eastern United States. Shallow boreholes were considered cost- and environmentally-prohibitive, thus non-invasive methods (passive and active surface- and body-wave techniques) were used at these stations. The drawback, however, is that these techniques measure seismic properties indirectly and introduce more uncertainty than borehole methods. The principal methods applied were Array Microtremor (AM), Multi-channel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW; Rayleigh and Love waves), Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves (SASW), Refraction Microtremor (ReMi), and P- and S-wave refraction tomography. Depending on the apparent geologic or seismic complexity of the site, field crews applied one or a combination of these methods to estimate the shear-wave velocity (VS) profile and calculate VS30, the time-averaged VS to a depth of 30 meters. We study the inter- and intra-method variability of VS and VS30 at each seismographic station where combinations of techniques were applied. For each site, we find both types of variability in VS30 remain insignificant (5–10% difference) despite substantial variability observed in the VS profiles. We also find that reliable VS profiles are best developed using a combination of techniques, e.g., surface-wave VS profiles correlated against P-wave tomography to constrain variables (Poisson’s ratio and density) that are key depth-dependent parameters used in modeling VS profiles. The most reliable results are based on surface- or body-wave profiles correlated against independent observations such as material properties inferred from outcropping geology nearby. For example, mapped geology describes station CI.LJR as a hard rock site (VS30 > 760 m/s). However, decomposed rock outcrops were found nearby and support the estimated VS30 of 303 m/s derived from the MASW (Love wave) profile.