Surface wave methods gained in the past decades a primary role in many seismic projects. Specifically, they are often used to retrieve a 1D shear wave velocity model or to estimate the V S,30 at a site. The complexity of the interpretation process and the variety of possible approaches to surface wave analysis make it very hard to set a fixed standard to assure quality and reliability of the results. The present guidelines provide practical Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article

International audienc

For more information on the USGS-the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment-visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprodTo order this and other USGS information products, visit

Site response is a critical consideration when assessing earthquake hazards. Site characterization is key to understanding site effects as influenced by seismic site conditions of the local geology. Thus, a number of geophysical site characterization methods were developed to meet the demand for accurate and cost-effective results. As a consequence, a number of studies have been administered periodically as blind trials to evaluate the state-of-practice on-site characterization. We present results from the Consortium of Organizations for Strong Motion Observation Systems (COSMOS) blind trials, which used data recorded from surface-based microtremor array methods (MAM) at four sites where geomorphic conditions vary from deep alluvial basins to an alpine valley. Thirty-four invited analysts participated. Data were incrementally released to 17 available analysts who participated in all four phases: (1) two-station arrays, (2) sparse triangular arrays, (3) complex nested triangular or circular arrays, and (4) all available geological control site information including drill hole data. Another set of 17 analysts provided results from two sites and two phases only. Although data from one site consisted of recordings from three-component sensors, the other three sites consisted of data recorded only by vertical-component sensors. The sites cover a range of noise source distributions, ranging from one site with a highly directional microtremor wave field to others with omni-directional (azimuthally distributed) wave fields. We review results from different processing techniques (e.g., beam-forming, spatial autocorrelation, cross-correlation, or seismic interferometry) applied by the analysts and compare the effectiveness between the differing wave field distributions. We define the M index as a quality index based on estimates of the time-averaged shear-wave velocity of the upper 10 (VS10), 30 (VS30), 100 (VS100), and 300 (VS300) meters and show its usefulness in quantitative comparisons of VS profiles from multiple analysts. Our findings are expected to aid in building an evidence-based consensus on preferred cost-effective arrays and processing methodology for future studies of seismic site effects.

This article summarizes a passive surface-wave method that uses only two sensors and its application to the estimation of deep S-wave velocity structure. Three-dimensional S-wave velocity structure to a depth of several kilometers has a large effect on long-period ground motion in tectonic basins, such as the Los Angeles (LA) Basin. Recent studies of long-period ground motion in the LA Basin (e.g., Hatayama and Kalkan, 2012) show that observed ground motion in some areas cannot be explained by the S-wave velocity models in current use. Most studies of basin velocity structure rely on geologic information, surface and borehole geophysical data, and observed earthquake records to deduce or measure seismic velocities. Geophysical data and seismic stations commonly used for velocity analysis are sparsely distributed and most well data are too shallow to characterize deep S-wave velocity structure. To establish more accurate basin velocity structure, there is a need for more densely distributed deep S-wave velocity data.