Rayleigh wave dispersion curves from seismological and engineering geotechnical methods: a comparison at the Bornheim test site (Germany)

Active and passive procedures for estimating the local seismic response from surface-wave measurements are compared for a test site in the Bornheim area (Germany), where independent geophysical and geological information is available. Recording was done using geophones, as well as seismometers, in various configurations. Five popular and standardized techniques were used for analysing the data: multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW), the refraction microtremor technique (ReMi), the extended spatial autocorrelation technique (ESAC) and frequency-wavenumber analysis (beam-forming and maximum likelihood methods). The resulting surface wave dispersion curves are largely consistent, but differ in their respective low-frequency ranges due to the resolving capabilities of the respective acquisition geometries. Two joint inversions of dispersion and H/V curves, one for the lower frequency range (2.3-9.2 Hz) and the other for the complete range (2.3-45 Hz) of the dispersion curves resulted in fairly similar S-wave profiles, but increasing the frequency range allowed better estimates for the lower velocities at shallow depths. The results also compare well with borehole information. The site responses obtained from the two S-wave profiles are very similar, even at higher frequencies. The use of combined procedures (geotechnical-engineering and seismological) allows a high quality estimation of the S-wave velocity structure to be obtained, both at shallow and large depth. However, if a combined approach is not possible, for site response estimation at sites with sedimentary cover thicker than 30 to 50 m and where knowledge of the average S-wave velocity is more important than higher resolution estimates at shallower depths, the use of passive seismological 2D arrays is strongly recommended