See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/307442989

The Relationship between Ambient Vibration H/V and SH Transfer Function:

Some Experimental Results

Article  in  Seismological Research Letters · September 2016

DOI: 10.1785/0220160113

CITATIONS READS
8 401

7 authors, including:

El Hadi Oubaiche Jean-Luc Chatelain

Centre National de Recherche Appliquée en Génie Parasismique CGS Institute of Research for Development
48 PUBLICATIONS   217 CITATIONS    112 PUBLICATIONS   2,222 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mustapha Hellel Djamel Machane

University of Science and Technology Houari Boumediene Centre National de Recherche Appliquée en Génie Parasismique CGS
24 PUBLICATIONS   157 CITATIONS    81 PUBLICATIONS   228 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Seismic Hazard View project

Flood risk at Algiers region View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jean-Luc Chatelain on 31 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 SRL Early Edition
The Relationship between Ambient Vibration
H/V and SH Transfer Function:
Some Experimental Results
by El Hadi Oubaiche, Jean-Luc Chatelain, Mustapha Hellel,
Marc Wathelet, Djamel Machane, Rabah Bensalem, and
Abderrahmane Bouguern
ABSTRACT
The horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratios (HVSRs) of ambient
vibrations are commonly used to observe soil resonance
frequencies, which are revealed by HVSR curve peaks. These
resonances have been explained either in terms of S-wave trans-
fer function or in terms of Rayleigh-wave ellipticity. In this
study, ambient vibration recordings have been carried out next
to nine boreholes in the eastern Mitidja basin (Algeria), all of
which have been characterized by downhole geophysical sur-
veys. Using velocity profiles obtained from the downhole sur-
veys, we compare the frequency of the second HVSR peak (f HV )
to frequencies obtained with (1) the time-averaged velocity (f T ),
(2) depth-averaged velocity (f D ), (3) the SH transfer function
(f SH ), and (4) the fundamental-mode Rayleigh-wave ellipticity
(f E ). We find that f SH , f T , and f D fit well with f HV , whereas
this is not the case for f E , implying that the HVSR peak fre-
quency is better explained by the SH transfer function peak than
by the Rayleigh-wave ellipticity.
Online Material: Tables of site coordinates, borehole soil mod-
els, borehole and vibration data results, velocity contrasts, and
relative frequency differences.
INTRODUCTION
The ambient vibration method was proposed by Kanai (1957)
in engineering seismology to evaluate soft-soil amplification.
This method is now widely used in microzonation and site-
effect studies (e.g., Chávez-García and Bard, 1994; Guéguen
et al., 2000; Alfaro et al., 2001; Duval et al., 2001; Guillier
et al., 2004; Panou et al., 2005; Chatelain, Guillier, and Parvez,
2008; Bensalem et al., 2010; Hellel et al., 2010). Most of these
studies are based on the single-station horizontal-to-vertical
spectral ratio (HVSR) method (Nogoshi and Igarashi, 1971;
Nakamura, 1989), used to obtain the fundamental soil resonance
frequency, corresponding to the HVSR curve peak frequency.
doi: 10.1785/0220160113 Seismological Research Letters
○
E
The origin of the HVSR peak has been the subject of
several studies, either theoretical analyses or numerical experi-
ments based on synthetic seismic noise. Nakamura (1989,
2000, 2009) linked the HVSR peak to the S-wave transfer func-
tion. This hypothesis has been challenged by several authors
(e.g., Lachet and Bard, 1994; Kudo, 1995; Bard, 1998), who
related HVSR peaks to the Rayleigh-wave ellipticity, as already
suggested by Nogoshi and Igarashi (1971).
Some studies based on synthetic noise show that, for soft
and hard layers shear-wave impedance (Z) contrasts over 4,
the HVSR peak can be explained by the horizontal polarization
of the Rayleigh-wave fundamental mode, whereas for contrasts
lower than 4, this explanation breaks down (e.g., Konno and
Ohmachi, 1998; Bonnefoy-Claudet et al., 2008). In a study based
on synthetic ambient vibrations, Bonnefoy-Claudet et al. (2008)
showed that (1) for high-impedance contrasts (Z > 4), the seis-
mic noise is composed of both fundamental Rayleigh- and Love-
wave modes; (2) for impedance contrasts 3 < Z < 4, the fun-
damental Rayleigh wave is not predominant, and the Love mode
strongly dominates; and (3) for lower impedance contrasts
(Z < 3), the contribution of the Rayleigh mode is insignificant
and the simulated noise is composed of the fundamental Love
waves and S waves. Bonnefoy-Claudet et al. (2008) have shown
that, for a set of 136 sites, the S-wave velocity contrast exceeds the
value of 3 in only 32% of the cases; that is, in most cases, Rayleigh
waves are not involved.
Nevertheless, the relationship between the HVSR peak and
the Rayleigh-wave ellipticity is commonly invoked when esti-
mating the subsurface structure, shear-wave velocity, and sedi-
ment thickness (e.g., Yamanaka et al., 1994; Fäh et al., 2001;
Malischewsky and Scherbaum, 2004; Tuan et al., 2011;
Hobiger et al., 2013), as well as for determining P- and S-wave
velocity models by inversion of Rayleigh-wave dispersion curves
from ambient vibration array data (e.g., Aki, 1957; Horike,
1985; Tokimatsu, 1997; Okada, 2003; Wathelet et al., 2004;
Di Giulio et al., 2006; Zor et al., 2010). In these studies, HVSR
Volume 87, Number 5 September/October 2016 1
 SRL Early Edition
▴ Figure 1. Satellite photograph (from Google) showing the location of the nine boreholes where ambient vibration and downhole surveys
have been carried out. Borehole locations are indicated by the filled circles numbered from 1 to 9 (coordinates are listed in Ⓔ Table S1).
peaks are interpreted in terms of Rayleigh-wave ellipticity, no
matter the shear-wave velocity contrast at depth.
In most cases, HVSR curves present a single peak due to
the resonance of a soft sedimentary layer overlying a hard-rock
layer. However, in some circumstances a second peak appears at
a higher frequency than the fundamental peak (e.g., Guéguen
et al., 1998). This second peak appears when two sediment
layers with significant shear-wave velocity contrasts (e.g., a
soft sediment layer overlying stiffer consolidated sediments)
overlie harder seismic bedrock. In such a case, the fundamental
frequency is produced by both sediment layers acting as a
single-layer overlying bedrock, while the second peak reflects
the resonance frequency of the upper sediment layer. In the
Mitidja basin (Algeria), Oubaiche et al. (2012) found that
the second H/V peak was more consistently developed than
the fundamental peak, presumably because of stronger lateral
changes in the depth and/or the velocity contrast associated with
the sediment–basement interface. Using experimental data, they
showed that the amplitude of the second peak is clearly related
to the velocity contrast between the topmost soft sediment layer
and the underlying stiffer consolidated sediments, no matter
what the properties of the underlying bedrock.
In this work, we present an experimental study of the re-
lationship between these second HVSR peaks and both the
shear-wave transfer function and the Rayleigh-wave ellipticity.
As in Oubaiche et al. (2012), the first HVSR peak cannot be
studied using the available borehole data because the boreholes
2 Seismological Research Letters Volume 87, Number 5
did not reach the seismic bedrock, so the total thickness of the
overlying sediments cannot be established.
We show below that the frequency of the second HVSR
peak (f HV ), the SH transfer function (f SH ), the time-averaged
velocity (f T ), and the depth-averaged velocity (f D ) fit well
with f HV , but not with the fundamental-mode Rayleigh-wave
ellipticity (f E ), indicating that the HVSR peak frequency is bet-
ter explained by the SH transfer function peak than by the
Rayleigh-wave ellipticity.
DATA ACQUISITION AND PROCESSING
Borehole Data
We performed ambient vibration recordings adjacent to nine
boreholes located about 10–25 km east of Algiers and distrib-
uted over a zone covering about 100 km2 (Fig. 1; Ⓔ Table S1,
available in the electronic supplement to this article).
These boreholes were selected because each of them had
been characterized by downhole geophysical surveys (Fig. 1, Ⓔ
Table S1) during a seismic microzoning study (Japan Interna-
tional Cooperation Agency–Centre National de Recherche Ap-
pliquée en Génie Parasismique [JICA-CGS], unpublished report,
2006; see Data and Resources). Two of these boreholes have been
added to the seven boreholes previously used by Oubaiche et al.
(2012) who studied the relationship between the HVSR curve
amplitude peak and the SH velocity contrast at depth.
At the nine boreholes, two layers are directly observed:
(1) a surficial soft sedimentary layer comprising various pro-
September/October 2016
 SRL Early Edition

▴ Figure 2. P-wave (gray line) and S-wave (black line) velocity profiles from the downhole measurements at the nine borehole surveys.

portions of clay, sandy clay, sand, and altered sandstones, with a
thickness (H soft ) varying from 15 to 35 m and (2) an under-
lying layer of consolidated sandstones (Ⓔ Table S2, Fig. 2;
Oubaiche et al., 2012). The thickness of the second layer is not
known because the bottom of this layer is not reached at any of
the nine boreholes.
Downhole Data
Downhole surveys were performed at the nine boreholes to
investigate both the compression-wave (V P ) and shear-wave
(V S ) velocities. As described in Oubaiche et al. (2012), the seis-
mic source was a 5 kg hammer, and the source-borehole offset
was 5 m. At each of the 1-m-spaced locations inside the bore-
hole, recordings were obtained with 28 Hz geophones, for a
vertical hit and two horizontal hits in opposite directions.
Borehole data were processed as in Oubaiche et al. (2012):
the P wave generated by the vertical shot is extracted on the
first arrival of the vertical-component seismogram, and the
S wave generated by the two opposite horizontal shoots is ex-
tracted by superposing the two horizontal components with

Seismological Research Letters Volume 87, Number 5 September/October 2016 3

 SRL Early Edition
opposite polarities. The P- and S-wave velocities of the soft
layer and of the consolidated sandstones (Fig. 2, Ⓔ Table S2)
are calculated with the P- and S-wave vertical travel times,
obtained after correction for the travel-time obliquity.
Ambient Vibration Data
Ambient vibrations were recorded next to each of the nine
boreholes, with a CityShark station (Chatelain et al., 2000,
2012) coupled to a three-component 5 s Lennartz seismometer
at a 200 samples=s sampling rate for 15 min and following the
recommendations of Chatelain et al. (2008).
As in Oubaiche et al. (2012), the open-source Geopsy soft-
ware (see Data and Resources) has been used for processing
ambient vibration signals to obtain the HVSR curves, using
25 s time windows. Before processing, a 5% cosine taper was
applied at both ends of each window. Before averaging, each
individual HVSR curve was smoothed using the Konno and
Ohmachi (1998) method, with a constant of 40.
HVSR curves show two frequency peaks, indicating the
presence of two interfaces at depth. The first peak reflects the
resonance frequency of a thick sediment layer resting on marls,
which, with S-wave velocities around 2000 m=s, constitute seis-
mological bedrock (Harbi et al., 2007). The second peak fits
well with an uppermost layer composed of soft sediments over-
lying stiffer sandstones (Oubaiche et al. 2012). Again, as the
depth to basement is unknown at our nine study sites, no eva-
luation of the fundamental peak (around 1 Hz) can be under-
taken. Therefore, the focus of this study is the second peak
(above ∼1:8 Hz).
SH Transfer Function and Rayleigh-Wave Ellipticity
Curves
The soft-sediment mass densities obtained from the drilling
data vary from 1800 to 2160 kg=m3 and those of the sand-
stone from 2060 to 2160 kg=m3 (Ⓔ Table S2). SH transfer
function and fundamental-mode Rayleigh-wave ellipticity
curves were calculated with quality factors Q P and Q S fixed to
50 and 25 for the overlying soft sediments and to 100 and 50
for the sandstone, as commonly used (e.g.,Wang et al., 1994; Di
Giulio et al., 2003; Bonnefoy-Claudet et al., 2006).
Multilayer V S profiles (Fig. 2, Ⓔ Table S2) obtained with
the downhole tests are used to calculate the vertical incidence
SH transfer function curves with the gpsh application included
in the Geopsy package. Multilayer V P and V S profiles (Fig. 2,
Ⓔ Table S2) are used to calculate the Rayleigh-wave ellipticity
curves with the gpell application, also included in the Geopsy
package.
SH transfer function, Rayleigh-wave ellipticity, and HVSR
curves are obtained between 0.5 and 20 Hz, all computed and
displayed with a 100-sample logarithmic distribution so as to
insure that results are comparable. For additional accuracy, the
frequency peaks were not extracted from the graphics but
directly from the Geopsy output files of HVSR , SH transfer
function, and Rayleigh-wave ellipticity.
4 Seismological Research Letters Volume 87, Number 5
RESULTS
Downholes
From the downhole surveys (Fig. 2, Ⓔ Table S2), the upper-
most soft sediment layer thickness varies from 15 m at SC5 to
36 m at SC8, with a depth-averaged shear-wave velocity (V D )
ranging from 264 m=s at SC3 to 458 m=s at SC8 and a time-
averaged shear-wave velocity (V T ) ranging from 228 m=s at
SC3 to 413 m=s at SC8 (Ⓔ Table S3). In the underlying con-
solidated sandstone layer, the shear-wave velocity (V stiff ) varies
from 550 m=s at SC5 to 1364 m=s at SC4. Using V D , V T , and
H soft in the generic formula f
V =4H leads to f D in the 2.0–
4.2 Hz range and f T in the 1.7–4.0 Hz range (Ⓔ Table S3).
HVSR
HVSR curves show two frequency peaks (Fig. 3). The first peak
ranges from 0.7 Hz at SC4 to 1.5 Hz at SC9. This peak is the
natural frequency of the deepest sediment-based interface not
reached in the boreholes (Oubaiche et al., 2012). The second
peak ranges from 1.8 Hz at SC3 to 4.7 Hz at SC7 (Fig. 3, Ⓔ
Table S3), corresponding to the resonance frequency of the
surficial soft sediment layer, as already demonstrated for the
seven sites studied in Oubaiche et al. (2012). This study relates
to the second HVSR peak, as in Oubaiche et al. (2012).
SH Transfer Function and Rayleigh-Wave Ellipticity
Peaks
The transfer function and the Rayleigh-wave ellipticity curve
peaks (Fig. 3, Ⓔ Table S3) are close to the HVSR curve peaks,
which range from 1.8 to 4.7 Hz. SH transfer function peaks
range from 2.4 Hz at SC3 to 4.7 Hz at SC7, and Rayleigh-wave
ellipticity peaks range from 2.6 Hz at SC3 to 5.2 Hz at SC5. At
two-third of the sites (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7) f SH is closer to f HV
than f E , whereas f E is closer to f HV than f SH at site 9; and, for
both sites 6 and 8, f SH and f E are equal (Fig. 3).
DISCUSSION
Difference between Frequencies
The comparison of HVSR curves with both SH transfer function
and Rayleigh-wave ellipticity curves shows that f SH is consis-
tently closer to f HV than f E (Fig. 3). The average relative differ-
ences (Ⓔ Table S3) between f HV and f T , f D , and f SH , taking
Δf
jf −f HV j, in which f is f T , f D , and f SH , Δf T =f HV av

8%4%, Δf D =f HV av
8%  4%, and Δf SH =f HV av

12%  9% are similar to the relative f HV standard deviation
average σ HV =f HV av , which amounts to 12%  3%. It is not
the case for Δf E =f HV av, because, with a value of 26%  16%,
it is about two times larger than σ HV =f HV av .
Variation with the Velocity Contrast
The HVSR peak frequency is well correlated with both f T and
f D obtained from downhole data, because Δf T =f HV and
Δf D =f HV do not vary with the shear-wave velocity contrast
at depth (Fig. 4a,b, Ⓔ Table S4), to the contrary of what
has been observed for the peak amplitudes at the seven first
September/October 2016
 SRL Early Edition
▴ Figure 3. (a) Horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio (HVSR), SH
transfer function, and Rayleigh-wave ellipticity curves obtained
at the nine sites of Figure 1. Gray line, HVSR; black line, SH trans-
fer function; dashed line, Rayleigh-wave ellipticity. Gray circle,
black triangles, and crosses represent the picked value of the
HVSR peak frequency, the SH transfer function, and the Ray-
leigh-wave ellipticity, respectively. (b) Frequencies picked on
(a) at each site. The gray bars represent f HV standard deviations.
SH transfer function and Rayleigh-wave ellipticity curves are ob-
tained using the borehole data (Fig. 2, Ⓔ Table S2). Because only
the second HVSR peak is studied, and for clarity of the figure, SH
transfer function and Rayleigh-wave ellipticity curves are calcu-
lated without estimating the thickness of the underlying stiff layer
nor the bedrock shear-wave velocity; that is, the fundamental
peak is not calculated.
Seismological Research Letters
▴ Figure 4. Relative frequency differences variation with the
velocity contrast between the surficial soft sediment and the
underlying sandstone layers. Relative frequency difference of
(a) the frequency from time-averaged velocity Δf T = f HV versus
velocity contrast (V stiff = V T ), (b) the frequency from depth-aver-
aged velocity Δf D = f HV , (c) the SH transfer function peaks
(Δf SH = f HV ), and (d) of the Rayleigh-wave ellipticity peaks
(Δf E = f HV ) versus the velocity contrast (V stiff = V D ). The vertical gray
bars represent the standard deviations of Δf T = f HV , Δf D = f HV ,
Δf SH = f HV , and Δf E = f HV listed in Ⓔ Table S4.
boreholes by Oubaiche et al. (2012), which are closely linked to
the shear-wave velocity contrast.
The relative difference Δf SH =f HV increases with the veloc-
ity contrast, whereas no clear relationship can be evidenced with
Δf E =f HV (Fig. 4c,d, Ⓔ Table S4).
Correlation between Frequencies
Four weighted linear least-square regressions have been calcu-
lated between the dependent parameters f HV , considering a
weight w
1=σ HV 2 , and the independent parameters f T ,
f D , f SH , and f E (Fig. 5). We calculated the p-value associated
with each correlation and set the threshold to the commonly
used value of 0.05, which corresponds to a confidence level
of 95%. Because the p-values obtained for the correlations
between f HV and, respectively, f T (1:16 × 10−5 ), f D
(1:57 × 10−4 ), f SH (8:87 × 10−4 ), and f E (0.039) are below
the chosen threshold, the coefficients of determination can
be considered as significant.
Given the coefficient of determination and slopes ob-
tained, much better matches are obtained between f HV and
f T (slope a
1:1; coefficient of determination R2
0:94),
f D (a
0:97; R2
0:88), and f SH (a
0:95; R2
0:81),
than between f HV and f E (a
0:63; R2
0:47).
Volume 87, Number 5 September/October 2016 5
 SRL Early Edition
▴ Figure 5. Weighted linear least-square regressions between HVSR peaks frequencies (f HV ) and frequencies (a) from time-averaged
shear-wave velocity (f T ), (b) from depth-averaged shear-wave velocity (f D ), (c) of SH transfer function peak frequencies (f SH ), and (d) of
Rayleigh-wave ellipticity peak frequencies (f E ). The black line represents linear fit and dashed gray lines represent the upper and lower
control limits for 95% level regression confidence.
CONCLUSION
An experimental study of ambient vibration HVSR and
downhole velocity profiles has been conducted at nine sites
over a zone of about 100 km2 in the Dar el Beida region
(Algeria) to study the relationship between HVSR peak fre-
quency and both the shear-wave transfer function and the
Rayleigh-wave ellipticity frequencies. The downholes are not
deep enough to allow us to study the soil fundamental peak
frequency near 1 Hz on HVSR curves. Therefore, we focused
on the second HVSR peak, in the 1.8–4.7 Hz range, produced
by shear-wave velocity contrasts in the 1.8–4.5 range between
a topmost soft sediment layer and an underlying consolidated
sediment layer.
Very good fits are found between these HVSR peak
frequencies and the frequencies obtained with the generic for-
mula f
V =4H using both depth-averaged and time-aver-
aged velocities in the surficial soft sediment layer. The best
fit is observed with time-averaged velocities, whereas Oubaiche
et al. (2012) reported that, for HSVR peak amplitudes, the best
fit is obtained with depth-averaged velocities.
A comparison between these HVSR peak frequencies and
both SH transfer function and Rayleigh-wave ellipticity peak
frequencies shows a strong fit with the SH transfer function
frequency, whereas no relationship can be evidenced with the
Rayleigh-wave ellipticity frequency.
This experimental study favors the claims of Nakamura
(1989, 2000, 2009), Konno and Ohmachi (1998), and Bonnefoy-
Claudet et al. (2008) that associated the HVSR frequency peak
with the SH transfer function rather than with Rayleigh-wave
ellipticity.
DATA AND RESOURCES
Borehole and downhole data were obtained from the Japan
International Cooperation Agency–Centre National de Re-
cherche Appliquée en Génie Parasismique (JICA-CGS, 2006)
6 Seismological Research Letters Volume 87, Number 5
Algiers earthquake scenario project, which has not been pub-
lished and cannot be released to the public. Ambient vibration
data were collected for this study. Data can be obtained from
the corresponding author. Geopsy software is available at www.
geopsy.org (last accessed June 2015).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study is part of a cooperative project between the Centre
National de la Recherche Appliquée en Génie Parasismique
(CGS) in Algiers (Algeria) and the French Institut de
Recherche pour le Développement (IRD). We thank Michel
Campillo for very fruitful discussions on the diffuse-field
theory. We thank the Service de Coopération et d’Action
Culturelle (SCAC) of the French Embassy in Algiers for their
financial support. We thank all of the CGS and ISTerre people
who participated in the data acquisition. This study was funded
by CGS and IRD. We thank Michael Bevis for assisting us with
our English.
REFERENCES
Aki, K. (1957). Space and time spectra of stationary stochastic waves,
with special reference to microtremors, Bull. Earthq. Res. Inst.
35, 415–456.
Alfaro, A., L. Pujades, X. Goula, T. Susagna, B. M. Navarro, F. J. Sanchez,
and J. A. Canas (2001). Preliminary map of soil’s predominant peri-
ods in Barcelona using microtremors, Pure Appl. Geophys. 158,
2499–2511.
Bard, P.-Y. (1998). Microtremor measurements: A tool for site effect es-
timation? Proc. of the Second International Symposium on the Effects
of Surface Geology on Seismic Motion, Yokohama, Japan, Vol. 3,
1251–1279.
Bensalem, R., J.-L. Chatelain, D. Machane, E. H. Oubaiche, M. Hellel, B.
Guillier, M. Djeddi, and L. Djadia (2010). Ambient vibration tech-
niques applied to explain heavy damages caused in Corso (Algeria)
by the 2003 Boumerdes earthquake: Understanding seismic ampli-
fications due to gentle slopes, Seismol. Res. Lett. 81, no. 6, 928–940,
doi: 10.1785/gssrl.81.6.928.
Bonnefoy-Claudet, S., C. Cornou, P.-Y. Bard, F. Cotton, P. Moczo, J.
Kristek, and D. Fäh (2006). H/V ratio: A tool for site effects
September/October 2016
 SRL Early Edition
evaluation. Results from 1-D noise simulations, Geophys. J. Int. 167,
no. 2, 827–837.
Bonnefoy-Claudet, S., A. Köhler, C. Cornou, M. Wathelet, and P. Y. Bard
(2008). Effects of Love waves on microtremor H/V ratio, Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Am. 98, no. 1, 288–300.
Chatelain, J.-L., P. Guéguen, B. Guillier, J. Fréchet, F. Bondoux, J.
Sarrault, P. Sulpice, and J.-M. Neuville (2000). CityShark: A user-
friendly instrument dedicated to ambient noise (microtremor) re-
cording for site and building response studies, Seismol. Res. Lett.
71, 698–703.
Chatelain, J.-L., B. Guillier, F. Cara, A.-M. Duval, K. Atakan, P.-Y. Bard,
and the WP02 SESAME Team (2008). Evaluation of the influence
of experimental conditions on HVSR results from ambient noise
recordings, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 6, 33–74, doi: 10.1007/S10518-
007-9040-7.
Chatelain, J.-L., B. Guillier, P. Guéguen, J. Fréchet, and J. Sarrault (2012).
Ambient vibration recording for single-station, array and building
studies made simple: CityShark II, Int. J. Geosci. 3, no. 6A, 1168–
1175, doi: 10.4236/ijg.2012.326118.
Chatelain, J.-L., B. Guillier, and I. A. Parvez (2008). False site effects: The
Anjar case, following the 2001 Bhuj (India) earthquake, Seismol.
Res. Lett. 79, 698–703, doi: 10.1785/gssrl.79.6.816.
Chávez-García, F. J., and P.-Y. Bard (1994). Site effect in Mexico City
eight years after the September 1985 Michoacan earthquake, Soil
Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 13, no. 4, 229–247.
Di Giulio, G., C. Cornou, M. Ohrnberger, M. Wathelet, and A. Rovelli
(2006). 2-D small aperture arrays for velocity profiles estimation
using ambient seismic noise in a small-size alluvial basin (Colfiorito,
Italy), Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 96, no. 5, 1915–1933, doi: 10.1785/
0120060119.
Di Giulio, G., A. Rovelli, F. Cara, R. M. Azzara, F. Marra, R. Basili, and
A. Caserta (2003). Long-duration asynchronous ground motions
in the Colfiorito plain, central Italy, observed on a two-dimen-
sional dense array, J. Geophys. Res. 108, no. B10, 2486–2500,
doi: 10.1029/2002JB002367.
Duval, A.-M., S. Vidal, J.-P. Méneroud, A. Singer, F. De Santis, C. Ramos,
G. Romero, R. Rodriguez, A. Pernia, N. Reyes, et al. (2001).
Caracas, Venezuela, site effect determination with microtremor,
Pure Appl. Geophys. 158, 2513–2523.
Fäh, D., F. Kind, and D. Giardini (2001). A theoretical investigation of
average H/V ratios, Geophys. J. Int. 145, no. 2, 535–549.
Guéguen, P., J.-L. Chatelain, B. Guillier, and H. Yepes (2000). An indi-
cation of the soil topmost layer response in Quito (Ecuador) using
HVSR spectral ratio, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 19, 127–133.
Guéguen, P., J.-L. Chatelain, B. Guillier, H. Yepes, and J. Egred (1998).
Site effect and damage distribution in Pujili (Ecuador) after the
28 March 1996 earthquake, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 17, 329–334.
Guillier, B., D. Machane, E. H. Oubaiche, J.-L. Chatelain, Y. Ait Meziane,
R. Bensalem, F. Dunand, P. Guéguen, M. Hadid, M. Hellel, et al.
(2004). Résultats préliminaires sur les fréquences fondamentales et
les amplifications de sols, obtenus par l’étude du bruit de fond, sur la
ville de Boumerdes–Algérie, Mémoires du Service Géologique de
l’Algérie 12, 103–114 (in French).
Harbi, A., S. Maouche, F. Vaccari, A. Aoudia, F. Oussadou, G. F. Panza,
and D. Benouar (2007). Seismicity, seismic input and site effects in
the Sahel—Algiers region (North Algeria), Soil Dynam. Earthq.
Eng. 27, no. 5, 427–447.
Hellel, M., J.-L. Chatelain, B. Guillier, D. Machane, R. Bensalem, E. H.
Oubaiche, and H. Haddoum (2010). Heavier damages without
site effects and site effects with lighter damages: Boumerdes City
(Algeria) after the May 2003 earthquake, Seismol. Res. Lett. 81,
37–43, doi: 10.1785/gssrl.81.1.37.
Hobiger, M., C. Cornou, M. Wathelet, G. Di Giulio, B. Knapmeyer-
Endrun, F. Renalier, and N. Theodoulidis (2013). Ground structure
imaging by inversions of Rayleigh wave ellipticity: Sensitivity analy-
sis and application to European strong-motion sites, Geophys. J. Int.
192, no. 1, 207–229.
Seismological Research Letters
Horike, M. (1985). Inversion of phase velocity of long-period microtre-
mors to the S-wave velocity structure down to the basement in
urbanized areas, J. Phys. Earth 33, 59–96.
Kanai, K. (1957). The requisite conditions for the predominant vibration
of ground, Bull. Earthq. Res. Inst. Tokyo Univ. 23, 457–471.
Konno, K., and T. Ohmachi (1998). Ground-motion characteristics
estimated from spectral ratio between horizontal and vertical com-
ponents of microtremor, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 88, 228–241.
Kudo, K. (1995). Practical estimates of site response. State-of-art report,
Proc. of the Fifth International Conference on Seismic Zonation, Nice,
France, 17–19 October 1995.
Lachet, C., and P.-Y. Bard (1994). Numerical and theoretical investiga-
tions on the possibilities and limitations of Nakamura’s technique, J.
Phys. Earth 42, 377–397.
Malischewsky, P., and F. Scherbaum (2004). Love’s formula and H/V-ratio
(ellipticity) of Rayleigh waves, Wave Motion 40, no. 1, 57–67.
Nakamura, Y. (1989). A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of
subsurface using microtremor on the ground surface, Q. Rep.
Railway Tech. Res. Inst. 30, no. 1, 25–30.
Nakamura, Y. (2000). Clear identification of fundamental idea of
Nakamura’s technique and its applications, Proc. of the 12th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand,
30 January–4 February 2000, Paper 2656.
Nakamura, Y. (2009). Basic structure of QTS (HVSR) and examples of
applications, in Increasing Seismic Safety by Combining Engineering
Technologies and Seismological Data, M. Mucciarelli, M. Herak, and
J. Cassidy (Editors), NATO Science for Peace and Security, Series C:
Environmental Security, Springer Sciences, Dordrecht, The Nether-
lands, 33–51.
Nogoshi, M., and T. Igarashi (1971). On the amplitude characteristics of
microtremor (part 2), J. Seismol. Soc. Japan 24, 26–40 (in Japanese
with English abstract).
Okada, H. (2003). The Microtremor Survey Method, M. W. Asten (Editor),
Geophysical Monograph Series No. 12, Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Oubaiche, E. H., J.-L. Chatelain, A. Bouguern, R. Ben Salem,
D. Machane, M. Hellel, F. Khaldaoui, and B. Guillier (2012).
Experimental relationship between ambient vibration H/V peak
amplitude and shear-wave velocity contrast, Seismol. Res. Lett.
83, no. 6, 1038–1046.
Panou, A., N. Theodulidis, P. Hatzidimitriou, K. Stylianidis, and C.
Papazachos (2005). Ambient noise horizontal-to-vertical spectral
ratio in site effects estimation and correlation with seismic damage
distribution in urban environment: The case of the city of
Thessaloniki (northern Greece), Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 25,
no. 4, 261–274, doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2005.02.004.
Tokimatsu, K. (1997). Geotechnical site characterization using surface
waves, Proc. of the First International Conference on Earthquake
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 3, 1333–1368.
Tuan, T., F. Scherbaum, and P. G. Malischewsky (2011). On the relation-
ship of peaks and troughs of the ellipticity (H/V) of Rayleigh waves
and the transmission response of single layer over half-space models,
Geophys. J. Int. 184, no. 2, 793–800.
Wang, Z., R. Street, and E. Woolery (1994). Q S estimation for
unconsolidated sediments using first-arrival SH critical refractions,
J. Geophys. Res. 99, 13,543–13,551.
Wathelet, M., D. Jongmans, and M. Ohrnberger (2004). Surface-wave
inversion using a direct search algorithm and its application to
ambient vibration measurements, Near Surf. Geophys. 2, no. 4,
211–221.
Yamanaka, H., M. Takemura, H. Ishida, and M. Niwa (1994). Character-
istics of long-period microtremors and their applicability in explo-
ration of deep sedimentary layers, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 84, no. 6,
1831–1841.
Zor, E., S. Özalaybey, A. Karaaslan, M. C. Tapırdamaz, S. Ç. Özalaybey,
A. Tarancıoğlu, and B. Erkan (2010). Shear wave velocity structure
of the İzmit Bay area (Turkey) estimated from active-passive array
Volume 87, Number 5 September/October 2016 7
 SRL Early Edition
surface wave and single-station microtremor methods, Geophys. J.
Int. 182, no. 3, 1603–1618.
El Hadi Oubaiche1
Djamel Machane
Rabah Bensalem
Centre National de Recherche Appliquée
en Génie Parasismique (CGS)
Rue Kaddour Rahim Prolongée
Hussein Dey BP 252
16040 Alger, Algérie
eoubaiche@yahoo.com
Jean-Luc Chatelain
Marc Wathelet
Université Grenoble-Alpes
Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD) – ISTerre
CS 40700
38058 Grenoble, CEDEX 9
France
8 Seismological Research Letters Volume 87, Number 5
View publication stats
Mustapha Hellel
Faculté des Sciences de la Terre, de la Géographie et de
l’Aménagement du Territoire
Université des Sciences et de la Technologie Houari Boume-
dienne (USTHB)
BP 32 El Alia Bab Ezzouar
16111 Alger, Algérie
Abderrahmane Bouguern
Faculté des Hydrocarbures et de la Chimie
Université M’Hamed Bougara de Boumerdes (UMBB)
Rue de l’indépendance
35000 Boumerdès, Algérie
Published Online 13 July 2016
1
Also at Faculté des Hydrocarbures et de la Chimie, Université M’Hamed
Bougara de Boumerdes (UMBB), Rue de l’indépendance, 35000 Bou-
merdès, Algérie.
September/October 2016