Evaluation of ground dynamic characteristics using ambient noise measurements in a landslide area

  • Sadegh RezaeiEmail author
  • Issa Shooshpasha
  • Hamed Rezaei
Original Paper


One of the most important steps for the evaluation of landslide is the investigation of ground dynamic characteristics. The determination of ground dynamic characteristics significantly helps to evaluate site effects and identify critical areas on the slope. One of the most important ground dynamic characteristics is the shear wave velocity. It is possible to detect the seismic impedance, slip surface, and depth to the bedrock using shear wave velocity profiles. There are various methods for calculating the shear wave velocity, among which single-station ambient noise measurement is one of the least costly and fastest. Hence, single-station ambient noise measurements are taken at 30 points in order to determine ground dynamic characteristics and estimate the shear wave velocity in Nargeschal landslide area. At first, ambient noises are analyzed using the H/V method and the fundamental frequency is calculated. Then, Rayleigh wave ellipticity is determined by RayDec method in order to estimate the 1D shear wave velocity profiles. A 3D shear wave velocity model is developed by interpolation between 1D shear wave velocity profiles in the study area. The slip surface, depth to the bedrock, and, generally, subsurface conditions and ground dynamic characteristics are estimated in the landslide area using the 3D shear wave velocity model. Investigations show good agreement between the results of ambient noise measurements and geotechnical, geological, and geophysical data in the study area.


Ambient noise RayDec Rayleigh wave ellipticity Shear wave velocity Landslide 


  1. Asten MW, Askan A, Ekincioglu EE, Sisman FN, Ugurhan B (2014) Site characterisation in north-western Turkey based on SPAC and HVSR analysis of microtremor noise. Explor Geophys 45:74–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaty KS, Schmitt DR, Sacchi M (2002) Simulated annealing inversion of multimode Rayleigh wave dispersion curves for geological structure. Geophys J Int 151:622–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bignardi S, Mantovani A, Zeid NA (2016) OpenHVSR: imaging the subsurface 2D/3D elastic properties through multiple HVSR modeling and inversion. Comput Geosci 93:103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonnefoy-Claudet S, Köhler A, Cornou C, Wathelet M, Bard PY (2008) Effects of Love waves on microtremor H/V ratio. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:288–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borges JF, Silva HG, Torres RJG, Caldeira B, Bezzeghoud M, Furtado JA, Carvalho J (2016) Inversion of ambient seismic noise HVSR to evaluate velocity and structural models of the Lower Tagus Basin, Portugal. J Seismol 20:875–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Choobbasti AJ, Rezaei S, Farrokhzad F (2013) Evaluation of site response characteristics using microtremors. Gradevinar 65:731–741Google Scholar
  7. Degrande G, Badsar SA, Lombaert G, Schevenels M, Teughels A (2008) Application of the coupled local minimizers method to the optimization problem in the spectral analysis of surface waves method. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 134:1541–1553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Del Gaudio V, Muscillo S, Wasowski J (2014) What we can learn about slope response to earthquakes from ambient noise analysis: an overview. Eng Geol 182:182–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Di Alessandro C, Bonilla LF, Boore DM, Rovelli A, Scotti O (2012) Predominant-period site classification for response spectra prediction equations in Italy. Bull Seismol Soc Am 102:680–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eker AM, Koçkar MK, Akgün H (2015) Evaluation of site effect within the tectonic basin in the northern side of Ankara. Eng Geol 192:76–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. El-Hady S, Fergany EA, Othman A, Mohamed GE (2012) Seismic microzonation of Marsa Alam, Egypt using inversion HVSR of microtremor observations. J Seismol 16:55–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fäh D, Kind F, Giardini D (2001) A theoretical investigation of average H/V ratios. Geophys J Int 145:535–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Foti S, Comina C, Boiero D, Socco LV (2009) Non-uniqueness in surface-wave inversion and consequences on seismic site response analyses. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29:982–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foti S, Parolai S, Albarello D, Picozzi M (2011) Application of surface-wave methods for seismic site characterization. Surv Geophys 32:777–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fukushima Y, Bonilla LF, Scotti O, Douglas J (2007) Site classification using horizontal-to-vertical response spectral ratios and its impact when deriving empirical ground-motion prediction equations. J Earthq Eng 11:712–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garofalo F, Foti S, Hollender F, Bard PY, Cornou C, Cox BR, Dechamp A, Ohrnberger M, Perron V, Sicilia D, Teague D (2016) InterPACIFIC project: Comparison of invasive and non-invasive methods for seismic site characterization. Part II: Inter-comparison between surface-wave and borehole methods. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 82:241–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Giocoli A, Stabile TA, Adurno I, Perrone A, Gallipoli MR, Gueguen E, Norelli E, Piscitelli S (2015) Geological and geophysical characterization of the southeastern side of the High Agri Valley (southern Apennines, Italy). Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 15:315–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldberg DE, Holland JH (1988) Genetic algorithms and machine learning. Mach Learn 3:95–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gouveia F, Lopes I, Gomes RC (2016) Deeper VS profile from joint analysis of Rayleigh wave data. Eng Geol 202:85–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gouveia F, da Fonseca AV, Gomes RC, Teves-Costa P (2018) Deeper Vs profile constraining the dispersion curve with the ellipticity curve: a case study in Lower Tagus Valley, Portugal. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 109:188–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hobiger M, Bard PY, Cornou C, Le Bihan N (2009) Single station determination of Rayleigh wave ellipticity by using the random decrement technique (RayDec). Geophys Res Lett 36:L14303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hobiger M, Cornou C, Wathelet M, Giulio GD, Knapmeyer-Endrun B, Renalier F, Bard PY, Savvaidis A, Hailemikael S, Le BN, Ohrnberger M (2013) Ground structure imaging by inversions of Rayleigh wave ellipticity: sensitivity analysis and application to European strong-motion sites. Geophys J Int 192:207–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Imposa S, Panzera F, Grassi S, Lombardo G, Catalano S, Romagnoli G, Tortorici G (2017) Geophysical and geologic surveys of the areas struck by the August 26th 2016 Central Italy earthquake: the study case of Pretare and Piedilama. J Appl Geophys 145:17–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jafarzadeh F, Shahrabi MM, Jahromi HF (2015) On the role of topographic amplification in seismic slope instabilities. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 7:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kanai K, Tanaka T (1961) On microtremors VIII. Bull Earth Res Int Univ Tokyo 39:97–114Google Scholar
  26. Konno K, Ohmachi T (1998) Ground-motion characteristics estimated from spectral ratio between horizontal and vertical components of microtremor. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88:228–241Google Scholar
  27. Kumar M, Rana S, Pant PD, Patel RC (2017) Slope stability analysis of Balia Nala landslide, Kumaun Lesser Himalaya, Nainital, Uttarakhand, India. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 9:150–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nakamura Y (1989) A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of subsurface using microtremor on the ground surface. QR Railway Tech Res Inst 30:25–33Google Scholar
  29. Nelder JA, Mead R (1965) A simplex method for function minimization. Comput J 7:308–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pastén C, Sáez M, Ruiz S, Leyton F, Salomón J, Poli P (2016) Deep characterization of the Santiago Basin using HVSR and cross-correlation of ambient seismic noise. Eng Geol 201:57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pazzi V, Tanteri L, Bicocchi G, D’Ambrosio M, Caselli A, Fanti R (2017) H/V measurements as an effective tool for the reliable detection of landslide slip surfaces: case studies of Castagnola (La Spezia, Italy) and Roccalbegna (Grosseto, Italy). Phys Chem Earth, Parts A/B/C 98:136–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pilz M, Parolai S, Picozzi M, Wang R, Leyton F, Campos J, Zschau J (2010) Shear wave velocity model of the Santiago de Chile basin derived from ambient noise measurements: a comparison of proxies for seismic site conditions and amplification. Geophys J Int 182:355–367Google Scholar
  33. Pischiutta M, Villani F, D’Amico S, Vassallo M, Cara F, Di Naccio D, Farrugia D, Di Giulio G, Amoroso S, Cantore L, Mercuri A, Famiani D, Galea P, Akinci A, Rovelli A (2017) Results from shallow geophysical investigations in the northwestern sector of the island of Malta. Phys Chem Earth 98:41–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Poggi V, Fäh D, Burjanek J, Giardini D (2012) The use of Rayleigh-wave ellipticity for site-specific hazard assessment and microzonation: application to the city of Lucerne, Switzerland. Geophys J Int 188:1154–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pollasro RM, Persits FM, Steinshouer DW (1997) Map showing geology, oil and gas field and geologic provinces of Iran. USGS, Open-file report:97–470G Ver. 1.0Google Scholar
  36. Rezaei S, Choobbasti AJ (2014) Liquefaction assessment using microtremor measurement, conventional method and artificial neural network (Case study: Babol, Iran). Front Struct Civ Eng 8:292–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rezaei S, Choobbasti AJ (2017) Application of the microtremor measurements to a site effect study. Earthq Sci 30:157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rezaei S, Choobbasti AJ (2018) Evaluation of local site effect from microtremor measurements in Babol City, Iran. J Seismol 22:471–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rezaei S, Choobbasti AJ, Kutanaei SS (2015) Site effect assessment using microtremor measurement, equivalent linear method, and artificial neural network (case study: Babol, Iran). Arab J Geosci 8:1453–1466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rezaei S, Shooshpasha I, Rezaei H (2018a) Evaluation of landslides using ambient noise measurements (case study: Nargeschal landslide). Int J Geotech Eng.
  41. Rezaei S, Shooshpasha I, Rezaei H (2018b) Reconstruction of landslide model from ERT, geotechnical, and field data, Nargeschal landslide, Iran. Bull Eng Geol Environ. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rezaei S, Shooshpasha I, Rezaei H (2018c) Empirical correlation between geotechnical and geophysical parameters in a landslide zone (case study: Nargeschal landslide). Earth Sci Res J.
  43. Rosa-Cintas S, Clavero D, Delgado J, López-Casado C, Galiana-Merino JJ, Garrido J (2017) Characterization of the shear wave velocity in the metropolitan area of Málaga (S Spain) using the H/V technique. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 92:433–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sah N, Kumar M, Upadhyay R, Dutt S (2018) Hill slope instability of Nainital City, Kumaun Lesser Himalaya, Uttarakhand, India. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 10:280–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sambridge M (1999) Geophysical inversion with a neighbourhood algorithm—II. Appraising the ensemble. Geophys J Int 138:727–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. SESAME-Team, Bard PY (2005). Guidelines for the implementation of the H/V spectral ratio technique on ambient vibrationsmeasurements, processing and interpretations. SESAME European research project. (Retrieved from Google Scholar site)Google Scholar
  47. Sivaram K, Mahesh P, Rai SS (2012) Stability assessment and quantitative evaluation of H/V spectral ratios for site response studies in Kumaon Himalaya, India using ambient noise recorded by a broadband seismograph network. Pure Appl Geophys 169:1801–1820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Slemmons DB (1978) Determination of design earthquake magnitudes for microzonation. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Microzonation for Safer Construction, 1978, San Francisco, Vol 1. California, Nation Science Foundation, pp 119–130Google Scholar
  49. Topal T, Akin M (2009) Geotechnical assessment of a landslide along a natural gas pipeline for possible remediations (Karacabey-Turkey). Environ Geol 57:611–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Topsakal E, Topal T (2015) Slope stability assessment of a re-activated landslide on the Artvin-Savsat junction of a provincial road in Meydancik, Turkey. Arab J Geosci 8:1769–1786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tün M, Pekkan E, Özel O, Guney Y (2016) An investigation into the bedrock depth in the Eskisehir Quaternary Basin (Turkey) using the microtremor method. Geophys J Int 207:589–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ullah I, Prado RL (2016) The analysis of H/V curve from different ellipticity retrieval technique for a single 3c-station recording. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci.
  53. Ullah I, Prado RL (2017) Soft sediment thickness and shear-wave velocity estimation from the H/V technique up to the bedrock at meteorite impact crater site, Sao Paulo city, Brazil. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 94:215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wathelet M (2008) An improved neighborhood algorithm: parameter conditions and dynamic scaling. Geophys Res Lett 35(9):1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wathelet M, Jongmans D, Ohrnberger M (2004) Surface-wave inversion using a direct search algorithm and its application to ambient vibration measurements. Near Surf Geophys 2:211–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhao JX, Zhang J, Asano A, Ohno Y, Oouchi T, Takahashi T, Ogawa H, Irikura K, Thio HK, Somerville PG, Fukushima Y, Fukushima Y (2006) Attenuation relations of strong ground motion in Japan using site classification based on predominant period. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:898–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zuccarello L, Paratore M, La Rocca M, Ferrari F, Messina A, Branca S, Contrafatto D, Galluzzo D, Rapisarda S, García L (2016) Shallow velocity model in the area of Pozzo Pitarrone, Mt. Etna, from single station, array methods and borehole data. Ann Geophys 59:0433Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Civil EngineeringBabol University of TechnologyBabolIran
  2. 2.Faculty of Engineering GeologyGolestan UniversityGorganIran

Personalised recommendations