2016
DOI: 10.3997/2214-4609.201601976
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Can We Really Detect Cavities Using Seismic Surface Wave?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
(13 reference statements)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…[Debeglia et al, 2006] combine it with microgravimetry to detect karsts in an urban environment. The use of MASW to detect cavities is still under study and remains a tough problem [Bitri et al, 2016]. To our best knowledge, animal burrows would not be detected into a fluvial levee.…”
Section: Cavitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[Debeglia et al, 2006] combine it with microgravimetry to detect karsts in an urban environment. The use of MASW to detect cavities is still under study and remains a tough problem [Bitri et al, 2016]. To our best knowledge, animal burrows would not be detected into a fluvial levee.…”
Section: Cavitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, the numerical approach applied to homogeneous media systematically shows strong backscattered arrivals due to the cavity. Yet, the diffractions tend to be degraded during the stacking or migration process as it has been pointed by Berkovitch et al (2009) and Bitri et al (2016). It may be due to combined effects: the diffraction amplitudes are weak compared to the incident wave front, the intrinsic attenuation is strong in subsurface materials and the dynamic moveout corrections are not able to accurately approximate diffraction traveltime.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%