Guidelines and pitfalls of refraction microtremor surveys

The geotechnical industry has widely adopted the refraction microtremor shear-wave velocity measurement technique, which is accepted by building authorities for evaluation of seismic site class around the world. Clark County and the City of Henderson, Nevada, populated their Earthquake Parcel Map with over 10,000 site measurements for building code enforcement, made over a 3-year period. 2D refraction microtremor analysis now allows engineers to image lateral shear-wave velocity variations and do passive subsurface imaging. Along with experience at a basic level, the ability to identify the “no energy area” and the “minimum-velocity envelope” on the slowness-frequency (p-f) image helps practitioners to assess the quality of their ReMi data and analysis. Guides for grading (p-f) image quality, and for estimating depth sensitivity, velocity-depth tradeoffs, and depth and velocity resolution also assist practitioners in deciding whether their refraction microtremor data will meet their investigation objectives. Commercial refraction microtremor surveys use linear arrays, and a new criterion of 2.2% minimum microtremor energy in the array direction allows users to assess the likelihood of correct results. Unfortunately, any useful and popular measurement technique can be abused. Practitioners must follow correct data collection, analysis, interpretation, and measurement procedures, or the results cannot be labeled “refraction microtremor” or “ReMi” results. We present some of the common mistakes and provide solutions with the objective of establishing a “best practices” template for getting consistent, reliable models from refraction microtremor measurements.