InterPACIFIC project: Comparison of invasive and non-invasive methods for seismic site characterization. Part II: Inter-comparison between surface-wave and borehole methods |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy;2. French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), Cadarache, Saint-Paul-lez-Durance, France;3. University Grenoble Alpes/CNRS/IRD/IFSTTAR, ISTerre, F-38000 Grenoble, France;4. University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA;5. French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), Bruyères le Châtel, Arpajon, France;6. University of Postdam, Postdam, Germany;7. EdF (Electricité de France), CEIDRE-TEGG, Aix-en-Provence, France;1. Department of Civil Engineering, Kyunghee University, 1732, Deogyeong-daero, Giheung-gu, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do 446-701, Republic of Korea;2. Geotechnical Engineering Research Institute, Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology, (Daehwa-Dong) 283, Goyangdae-ro, Ilsanseo-gu, Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do 411-712, Republic of Korea;3. Department of Civil, Environmental, and Construction Engineering, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32825, United States;1. Department of Civil Engineering, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India;2. Department of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, India;1. Exploration Geophysics Group, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM), Gwahang-no 92, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-350, Republic of Korea;2. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), 373-1 Guseong-dong, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-701, Republic of Korea |
| |
| Abstract: | The InterPACIFIC project was aimed at assessing the reliability, resolution, and variability of geophysical methods in estimating the shear-wave velocity profile for seismic ground response analyses. Three different subsoil conditions, which can be broadly defined as soft-soil, stiff-soil, and hard-rock, were investigated. At each site, several participants performed and interpreted invasive measurements of shear wave velocity (Vs) and compression wave velocity (Vp) in the same boreholes. Additionally, participants in the project analysed a common surface-wave dataset using their preferred strategies for processing and inversion to obtain Vs profiles. The most significant difference between the invasive borehole methods and non-invasive surface wave methods is related to resolution of thin layers and abrupt contrasts, which is inherently better for invasive methods. However, similar variability is observed in the estimated invasive and non-invasive Vs profiles, underscoring the need to account for such uncertainty in site response studies. VS,30 estimates are comparable between invasive and non-invasive methods, confirming that the higher resolution provided by invasive methods is quite irrelevant for computing this parameter. |
| |
| Keywords: | Surface-wave methods Site characterization MASW Rayleigh waves Geophysical methods Cross-Hole Down-Hole P-S suspension logging SDMT |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
