Surveys in Geophysics

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-019-09530-2

Automated Data Selection in the Tau–p Domain: Application

to Passive Surface Wave Imaging

Feng Cheng1,2 · Jianghai Xia3 · Michael Behm4 · Yue Hu1 · Jingyin Pang1

Received: 29 November 2018 / Accepted: 3 April 2019

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Abstract
In the recent decades, passive surface wave methods have gained much attention in the
near-surface community due to their ability to retrieve low-frequency surface wave infor-
mation. Temporal averaging over a sufficiently long period of time is a crucial step in the
workflow to fulfill the randomization requirement of the stationary source distribution.
Because of logistical constraints, passive seismic acquisition in urban areas is mostly lim-
ited to short recording periods. Due to insufficient temporal averaging, contributions from
non-stationary sources can smear the stacked dispersion measurements, especially for the
low-frequency band. We formulate a criterion in the tau–p domain for selective stacking
of dispersion measurements from passive surface waves and apply it to high-frequency
(> 1 Hz) traffic noise. The criterion is based on the automated detection of input data with a
high signal-to-noise ratio in a desired velocity range. Modeling tests demonstrate the abil-
ity of the proposed criterion to capture the contributions from the non-stationary sources
and classify the passive surface wave data. A real-world application shows that the pro-
posed data selection approach improves the dispersion measurements by extending the fre-
quency band below 5 Hz and attenuating the distortion between 6 and 13 Hz. Our results
indicate that significant improvements can be obtained by considering tau–p-based data
selection in the workflow of passive surface wave processing and interpretation.

Keywords Tau–p domain · Dispersion measurement · Passive surface wave survey · Data
selection · Traffic noise

* Jianghai Xia
[email protected]; [email protected]
1
Subsurface Imaging and Sensing Laboratory, Institute of Geophysics and Geomatics, China
University of Geosciences, 388 Rumo Rd, Wuhan 430074, Hubei, China
2
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
3
School of Earth Sciences, Zhejiang University, 38 Zheda Road, Hangzhou 310027, Zhejiang,
China
4
ConocoPhillips School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019,
USA

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Surveys in Geophysics

1 Introduction

Vertical variation of shear (S)-wave velocity structure can be derived by inverting the dis-
persive phase velocity of both Rayleigh and Love waves (Dorman and Ewing 1962) since
surface wave dispersion is more sensitive to S-wave velocity than P-wave velocity or den-
sity for layered earth models (Xia et al. 1999). For geotechnical applications that require
small-strain dynamic properties of geomaterials, surface wave methods provide an impor-
tant tool due to their simplicity in the field, non-destructiveness, low cost, and relatively
high vertical resolution (Xia et al. 2009). Several methods exist for estimating near-surface
S-wave velocity utilizing the dispersive character of surface waves, and they can be classi-
fied in two groups related to the energy source type: active surface wave methods and pas-
sive surface wave methods.
Active surface wave methods use hammers, weight drops, electromechanical shakers,
and vibrators as seismic sources. Stokoe and Nazarian (1983) and Nazarian et al. (1983)
present the SASW method (spectral analysis of surface waves), which analyzes the disper-
sion curve of Rayleigh waves to produce near-surface S-wave velocity profiles. To improve
inherent difficulties in evaluating and distinguishing signal from noise with only a pair of
receivers in SASW measurements, the multichannel analysis of surface wave (MASW)
method, typically using multiple geophones (i.e., 12–24), was developed (Song et al. 1989;
Miller et al. 1999; Park et al. 1999; Xia et al. 1999). A growing trend in near-surface sur-
vey is toward the application of MASW for spatially 2D S-wave velocity imaging over the
past two decades (e.g., Xia et al. 2003, 2009; Socco et al. 2010; Mi et al. 2017, 2018).
Passive surface wave methods use ambient seismic energy from natural or anthropogenic
sources (e.g., earthquakes, ocean–seafloor interaction, traffic noise, industrial activities). The
main difference from active methods is that the location and origin timing of the sources do
not need to be known. Compared to the active sources, the passive sources extend the source
spectrum to lower frequencies which provide the potential for deeper imaging. Aki (1957)
introduces a passive surface wave method to derive the S-wave velocity structure by the inver-
sion of spatial autocorrelation (SPAC) curves using microtremors which are composed of
mainly Rayleigh wave energy. Okada (2003) presents an overview of the SPAC method and
further develops a microtremor array measurement (MAM) in order to improve the flexibility
of the receiver configuration and explore deeper S-wave velocity structure. Nakamura (1989)
shows that the site response can be estimated from the horizontal to vertical spectral ratio
(HVSR) of noise observed at the same site. Louie (2001) proposes the refraction microtremor
(ReMi) method, in which passive surface waves are recorded using a linear array. The con-
tinuously recorded passive data are transformed to the frequency domain using a tau–p trans-
form. In addition, some dispersion measurement schemes for active surface waves can also
be applied on passive surface waves, e.g., phase-shift method (Park et al. 2004). The meth-
ods described above directly derive subsurface structure from passive surface waves. Seismic
interferometry refers to a group of methods where the Green’s function between two receivers
is estimated from the correlation of their recordings (Lobkis and Weaver 2001; Campillo and
Paul 2003; Shapiro and Campillo 2004). These methods have been successful in retrieving
surface waves traveling between receivers based on ambient seismic energy (Sabra et al. 2005;
Yao et al. 2006; Ma et al. 2008; Picozzi et al. 2009; Nakata et al. 2011; Draganov et al. 2013;
Behm et al. 2014; Nakata 2016). The surface waves can be extracted using interferometric
techniques such as cross-correlation (Shapiro and Campillo 2004; Stehly et al. 2006), cross-
coherence (Aki1957; Claerbout 1968; Schuster et al. 2004; Nakata et al. 2011), deconvolution
(Vasconcelos and Snieder 2008a, b; Snieder et al. 2009), and multi-dimensional deconvolution

13
Surveys in Geophysics

(Wapenaar et al. 2008, 2011; Van Dalen et al. 2015; Weemstra et al. 2017; Cheng et al. 2017).
Interferometry techniques can enhance coherent signals from ambient energy and minimize
incoherent phase-shift during dispersion measurements because cross-correlation does not
reconstruct for unrelated signals (e.g., O’Connell and Turner 2011; Boschi et al. 2013; Le Feu-
vre et al. 2015). Cheng et al. (2016) proposed a hybrid method, that combines cross-correla-
tion and MASW method, called multichannel analysis of passive surface waves (MAPS).
During the past few decades, considerable progress has been made toward the development
of surface wave methods utilizing ambient noise, especially traffic noise (e.g., Okada 2003;
Nakata et al. 2011; Behm and Snieder 2013; Chang et al. 2016). Compared to active surface
wave methods, passive surface wave methods have the advantages: (1) to explore greater depth
due to an extending of the source spectrum with lower frequencies; (2) to save costs associ-
ated with active sources in field operations; (3) to monitor the long-term mechanical evolution
of structures and grounds for civil engineering purposes. These advantages offer significant
complements to active survey methods. In that context, passive surface wave methods are also
applied for data acquired with the fiber-optic distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) technique for
subsurface seismic monitoring (Daley et al. 2013; Dou et al. 2017; Zeng et al. 2017).
Many passive surface wave studies focus on the mathematical motivation, e.g., the feasibil-
ity of retrieving signals from ambient energy, or as it is often referred to, from “noise” (e.g.,
Campillo and Paul 2003; Snieder 2004; Wapenaar and Fokkema 2006; Stehly et al. 2006;
Cheng et al. 2018a), and others focus on the application, e.g., the data processing schemes
(e.g., Park et al. 2004; Bensen et al. 2007; Groos et al. 2012; Fichtner 2014; Behm et al. 2014),
the comparison with the active surface wave method (e.g., Cheng et al. 2015; Xia et al. 2017),
and the limitations and recent improvements (e.g., Wapenaar and Ruigrok 2011; Chávez-
García and Kang 2014; Luo et al. 2015, 2016; Cheng et al. 2018b; Zhou et al. 2018). There are
also several papers that focus on the noise source mechanisms, e.g., the seismic signature of
noise itself or the passive surface waves (e.g., McNamara and Buland 2004; Groos and Ritter
2009; Wang et al. 2014).
In the presented study, we propose a new approach to analyze the spatial and temporal
noise patterns in the tau–p (intercept–slowness) domain. We formulate a criterion to classify
and select passive surface wave data prior to the dispersion measurement. Two modeling tests
demonstrate the motivation and workflow of the proposed method. Further insights are gained
from the application to a traffic noise dataset.
In this paper, we use the term passive surface wave (PSW) for ambient seismic energy (or
noise) excited by moving road vehicles and railway trains, which are also referred to as micro-
tremors in other papers (e.g., Aki 1957; Okada 2003). We focus on high-frequency (> 1 Hz)
PSW because they contribute significantly to urban seismic noise in a broad frequency range
from 1 Hz to more than 45 Hz with maximum amplitudes between 1 and 10 Hz (Groos and
Ritter 2009). Besides, they can also provide a broad wavelength range from several meters to
more than several kilometers, which is the highlighted target region for subsurface surveys for
geotechnical applications.

2 Data selection in Passive Surface Wave Survey

Cheng et al. (2018b) outline a workflow for the processing of ambient noise data for
the subsurface shear-wave velocity structure including splitting, whitening, disper-
sion measurement (e.g., roadside passive MASW method in Park et al. 2004, called
PMSAW; MAPS method in Cheng et al. 2016; SPAC method in Cho et al. 2004 and

13
 Surveys in Geophysics

Chávez-García et al. 2006), stacking (over the frequency–velocity (f–v) domain), and
inversion (Fig. 1). The stacking process serves as a temporal averaging function. Tem-
poral averaging over a sufficiently long period of time is a crucial step in every workflow
applied to ambient noise data. It aims at randomization of the noise source distribution
to fulfill requirements for the stationary phase assumption (Shapiro and Campillo 2004;
Snieder 2004; Sabra et al. 2005; Stehly et al. 2006). It implies splitting a sufficiently
long period (e.g., months to years) of continuously recorded seismic noise into shorter
segments (e.g., days or hours, even minutes) and stacking the obtained interferograms
or dispersion spectra for each segment over the entire record. In practice, the record-
length is always limited to save costs in field work, especially in urban environments.
The limited record-length makes it challenging to provide an effectively stacked disper-
sion measurement from temporal averaging.
Including contributions from non-stationary sources will degrade the stacked record,
if those non-stationary sources are not equally distributed in space. Recording over short
time periods decreases the chance of sampling equally distributed non-stationary ambi-
ent noise sources. Thus, “the more the better” will not hold for the temporal averaging
in real-world applications of high-frequency passive surface wave surveys. In order to
avoid non-stationary contributions, it is important to apply data selection (quality con-
trol) before dispersion measurement into the regular workflow of the data processing.
We study the spatial and temporal noise patterns in the tau–p domain, and propose
a simple, but stable, criterion to classify PSW by calculating the signal-to-noise ratio
(SNR) of the root-mean-square (RMS) energy of the tau–p domain wavefield, which
will be demonstrated in the following Sect. 3.
In this study, we use the terms “coherent noise” and “incoherent noise” to demon-
strate the “good” and “bad” contribution of the passive surface waves to dispersion
measurement, respectively (Cupillard et al. 2011). Directional noise effects or azimuthal
adjustment would not be involved due to the linear receiver configuration along roads
or railways (e.g., Park et al. 2004; Hayashi et al. 2016; Dou et al. 2017; Zeng et al.
2017). We do not consider the statistical or stochastic properties (e.g., Groos and Ritter
2009; Nakata and Beroza 2015; Zhong et al. 2015) because the conditions based on the

Fig. 1  Passive surface wave data processing scheme. Modified from Cheng et al. (2018b)

13
Surveys in Geophysics

statistical rules would not hold under the fact that the length of the time series is limited
to seconds or hours (Brockwell and Davis 2013).

3 Numerical Modeling

We carry out two simplified roadside modeling tests to investigate the influence of different
source distributions on dispersion measurements and on the characteristics of PSW in the
tau–p domain. Considering a laterally homogeneous dissipative medium, we generate the
passive seismic wavefield by summing of modal components (Aki and Richards 1980). We
closely follow the noise simulation procedure described in Cheng et al. (2016). The medium
is a two-layer model (Table 1), whose properties are taken from Le Feuvre et al. (2015) and
Cheng et al. (2016). Sources are randomly located on the road, such as the dark gray stars
shown in Fig. 2a. A 15.0 Hz Ricker wavelet is chosen as the source impulse.
Figure 2b displays 5-s-long PSW in the space–time (x–t) domain recorded at 24 vertical-
component receivers. The observed wavefield is mostly made up of Rayleigh waves. Several
linear arrivals indicate the emergence of Rayleigh waves, e.g., at ~ 2.0 s, while some arrivals
are interfered by the arrivals coming from the opposite direction, e.g., at ~ 1.7 s. We refer
to these opposite direction arrivals as the incoherent noise due to their interference with the
other (desired) arrivals. In well-randomized seismic source fields, these interferences will
be canceled after sufficient temporal averaging (Snieder 2004; Campillo 2006). In practice,
however, they will produce two kinds of aliasing during dispersion measurement: One is the
“crossed” aliasing which has been first presented and addressed using the FK-based method
in Cheng et al. (2018b); the other is the high-velocity aliasing which will be analyzed in this
study. When the forward-propagating and back-propagating surface waves are not well sepa-
rated, their waveforms overlap and crosstalk between these arrivals with opposite propagation
directions will be introduced. In this case, the velocity scanning on the crosstalk will produce
the high-velocity aliasing during dispersion measurement. It usually happens in the lower-
frequency band, especially below 5 Hz, because longer wavelengths increase the chance for
crosstalk.
However, the crosstalk is not always directly visible in the x–t domain. In order to reveal the
temporal distribution and variation of the velocity information, we turn to the tau–p domain.
We apply a slant-stacking operator (Diebold and Stoffa 1981; McMechan and Yedlin 1981) on
the PSW wavefield s(x, t) to transform the wavefield from the x–t domain to the tau–p domain:
N
∑ ( )
u(p, 𝜏) = s xi , t = 𝜏 + pxi (1)
i=1

where p is the slowness and τ is the intercept on the time axis. As for each τ, u(p, τ) will
reach a maximum if the scanning slowness p is close to the real slowness of PSW. For
convenience, we convert slowness (p) into velocity (v = 1/p). Crosstalk in the x–t domain
(the cyan boxes highlighted in Fig. 2b) maps the associated high-velocity aliasing (from

Table 1  Earth model parameters Layer VS (m/s) VP (m/s) ρ (g/cm3) h (m)

1 220 380 2.0 10

2 440 760 2.0 Infinite

13
 Surveys in Geophysics

Fig. 2  a Configuration of sources and receivers. The dark gray stars denote the random source locations;
the green triangles denote the linear array with a 2-m spatial interval and a 200 Hz sampling rate. The white
arrows indicate the driving direction. b Observed noise wavefield in the x–t domain. The red box indicates
the linear Rayleigh waves arrival. Two cyan boxes indicate the crosstalk between arrivals with opposite
propagation directions. c The measured wavefield in the tau–p domain. The red boxes shows the p energy
curve, the RMS-value of the wavefield u(p, τ) for each p. d The measured dispersion energy image in the
f–v domain. The white dashed line indicates the synthetic dispersion curve

500 to 800 m/s) in the tau–p domain (the red boxes highlighted in Fig. 2c) at around 1.4 s
and 3.6 s. The coherent noise at around 2.0 s indicates an expected apparent velocity range
between 150 and 400 m/s, and this velocity range is considered as the “signal window.”
Next, we calculate the root-mean-square (RMS) value of the wavefield u(p, τ) along the p
direction.
�
∑N � �2
u p, 𝜏i
Δ(p) = i (2)
N

Δ(p) reflects the effective wavefield energy for each slowness p, and refer to it as p energy
curve (the red dashed line in Fig. 2c). The dominant peak of p occurs at the signal window,
which means the modeled PSW window is dominated by coherent noise. This is consistent
with the dispersion energy image in Fig. 2d, which is measured using the roadside passive
MASW method (Park et al. 2004).
In comparison, we add interferences (red stars in Fig. 3a) into the same model with
some near-field sources around the receivers (Fig. 3a). It is hard to tell any significant
changes between the wavefield in the x–t (Figs. 2b, 3b), but the wavefield in the tau–p
domain (Fig. 3c) does present a distinct increase in the high-velocity aliasing, which
indicates the quality of the modeled PSW decreases with increasing of crosstalk.
Although the peak of p energy is still located at the signal window (the red dashed
line in Fig. 3c), the dispersion measurement is less clear compared to that measured
from the wavefield without near-field sources (Fig. 3d). We introduce the concept of

13
Surveys in Geophysics

Fig. 3  a Configuration of sources and receivers. b Observed noise wavefield in the x–t domain. c The meas-
ured wavefield in the tau–p domain. d The measured dispersion energy image in the f–v domain

signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) to quantify the quality of PSW by calculating SNR of p

energy curve, called factor ϕ:
{ }
max Δ(p)|v1 <1∕ p<v2
𝜙= { } (3)
rms Δ(p)|1∕ p < v1 , 1∕ p > v2

where v1 and v2 are used to define the signal window (the coherent noise with v1 < v < v2).
Figure 4 displays the normalized p energy curves from the first model (red line) and
from the second model (black line), and the signal window between 150 and 400 m/s (two
dashed lines). This signal window indicates the most common phase velocity range for
the near-surface structure in urban areas. In practice, we suggest to draw all the p energy
curves together to locate the main p energy peak ­v0 and define the signal window with
[v0 − 100, v0 + 100]. Using Eq. 3, we calculate SNR of each p energy curve with ϕ1 = 8.78

Fig. 4  The normalized p energy

curves determined from the
first and the second models.
Two black vertical dashed lines
indicate the signal window,
150–400 m/s, used for the calcu-
lation of factor ϕ

13
 Surveys in Geophysics

and ϕ2 = 1.62, which is also consistent with the corresponding dispersion measurements
(Figs. 2d, 3d). It shows that we can use a threshold method to select the segments that
satisfy our expectations on dispersion measurement (e.g., imaging resolution, reliability,
accuracy). More details about the threshold method for factor ϕ will be described in the
following section.

4 Application to Field Data

The passive surface wave survey was carried out in the city of Yueyang, China (Fig. 5).
A linear array with 24 receivers (4.5 Hz vertical component) was deployed along the Bei-
jing–Guangzhou railway (white dot-dashed line in Fig. 5), which is one of the busiest rail-
ways in China for both passenger trains and freight trains. The trace interval was fixed to
10.0 m, and the sampling interval was 2.0 ms. Thirty-min-long continuous PSW data were
recorded from local time 12:15–12:45 on May 6, 2016. After this, an active shot was also
recorded at the center of the same array with a 20 kg rock as shown in the red box in Fig. 5.
We apply the following workflow for automatic data selection of PSW: ① Divide the
consecutive PSW into a series of 5-s-long noise segments overlapping by 50%; ② calculate
the factor ϕ for each segment; ③ filter the segments with a threshold method; ④ disperse
measurements on the selected segments with higher ϕ; ⑤ stack all the selected dispersion
measurements and pick the final dispersion curve; ⑥ invert for 1D Vs profile; ⑦ construct
a pseudo-2D Vs map. PMASW method (Park et al. 2004) is implemented for dispersion
measurement. We use 12-trace-shot bins for dispersion imaging, and roll along the line
with 1-trace interval.
Data examples from segment 431 (left panel of Fig. 6) and 412 (right panel of Fig. 6)
illustrate how we calculate the factor ϕ. First, the x–t domain (Fig. 6a1, a2) is transformed

Fig. 5  An aerial photograph of

the survey along the Beijing–
Guangzhou Railway, Yueyang,
China. The white dashed line
indicates the railway line, and
the red dashed line indicates the
survey line

13
Surveys in Geophysics

to the tau–p domain (Fig. 6b1, b2). In the next step, we plot the p energy curves using
Eq. 2 (Fig. 7). Figure 7a displays the p energy distribution for the whole segments and indi-
cates a main energy peak at v0 = 300 m/s. Thus, we define a signal window, 200–400 m/s,
as the dashed lines show in Fig. 7a and b. Finally, the factor ϕ is calculated using Eq. 3
(ϕ412 = 12.74; ϕ431 = 1.30). The measured ϕ-values are also consistent with the measured
dispersion images (Fig. 6c1, c2). If we do not reject the segment 431, it will deteriorate the
stacked dispersion measurement by introducing high-velocity aliasing below 5 Hz and by
distorting the dispersion energy within the medial frequency band (6–13 Hz).
To identify the frequency- and time-dependent behavior of source processes, we
apply short-time Fourier transform (STFT), with a 5-s time window, on the 30-min
recording (Fig. 8a). The obtained spectrogram in Fig. 8b reveals a regular pattern of
higher power spectral density (PSD) while trains passed by and lower PSD during quiet
time. Traffic-induced seismic energy contributes significantly to the observed PSW in a
broad frequency range from ~ 2 Hz to more than 50 Hz. The maximum amplitudes occur
at around 10 Hz and tend to slowly decrease with the increasing frequency. Long lasting

Fig. 6  Wavefield images in the x–t domain (a, b), the tau–p domain (c, d) and the f–v domain (e, f) for seg-
ments 431 (left panel) and 412 (right panel)

13
 Surveys in Geophysics

Fig. 7  a p energy curves distribution for the whole segments. Two cyan dashed lines define the signal win-
dow where the main energy peak locates at 300 m/s. b The normalized p energy curves determined from
segments 431 and 412. Two black dashed lines indicate the signal window, 200–400 m/s

Fig. 8  a Observed noise wavefield in the x–t domain with a 30 min duration. b STFT spectrogram of the
continuous record with a 5-s window. c The curve determined from the continuous record. The red dots
indicate the “high quality” segments above the threshold 2, while the gray dots indicate the “low quality”
segments below the threshold. The cyan lines highlight the time windows for further analysis

and very narrow-band signals above 2 Hz, recognized as horizontal lines of increased
PSD in the spectrograms (e.g., 30.7 Hz, 42.1 Hz), are sinusoidal-type seismic waves
most likely excited by rotating machinery such as train engines (Kar and Mohanty 2006;
Groos and Ritter 2009; Nedilko 2016).

13
Surveys in Geophysics

We calculate the factor ϕ for each noise segment and select the noise segments with
high ϕ-values for the further dispersion measurement. Figure 8c displays the measured fac-
tor ϕ for all noise segments along the time direction, which reflects changes in the quality
of PSW in terms of coherency. In general, the higher factor ϕ indicates the higher quality
PSW, which would contribute to the dispersion measurement, and vice versa. However, the
total number of segments is limited due to the limited recording length. In this case, using
only selected segments for dispersion stacking will decrease with the increasing threshold
value due to lack of data. Therefore, we need a trade-off solution between the accuracy and
the stability of dispersion measurement stacking. We set a threshold value ϕ0 = 2.0, from
which the factor ϕ increases rapidly as indicated by the red dots peak between 1250 and
1400 s (Fig. 8c). Only segments with higher ϕ-value (red dots in Fig. 8c) are kept for fur-
ther dispersion measurement.
Compared to the raw stacked dispersion image with all of the segments involved
(Fig. 9a1), the selective stacked result is significantly improved with much clearer and more
continuous dispersion energy trend (Fig. 9b1). The information retrieved below 5 Hz is
important for Vs model construction at larger depths. Besides, our approach also improves
higher mode coherency which will contribute to the stability and accuracy of the subse-
quent inversion process (Xia et al. 2000, 2003; Luo et al. 2007). We also present the active
surface wave inversion result here. Active data acquisition is challenged by the ever-present
traffic noise (Fig. 9a2), and the dispersion measurements are affected by a distorted funda-
mental mode and the lack of higher modes (Fig. 9b2). For comparison, Fig. 10a exhibits
all these picked dispersion curves together, as well as the inverted one. The blue dots indi-
cate the biased dispersion curve from the raw result (Fig. 9a1) with a higher fundamental
mode below 5 Hz and an abnormal bump around 12 Hz. Compared to the black dots in

Fig. 9  a1 Dispersion measurement before data selection. b1 Dispersion measurement after data selection.
a2 Wavefield of the active surface wave in the x–t domain. b2 Dispersion measurement of the active surface
wave

13
 Surveys in Geophysics

a b

Fig. 10  a The dispersion curves picked from the dispersion images in Fig. 9. The blue dots denote the dis-
persion measurement before data selection. The red dots denote the result after data selection. The gray
dots denote the result of active surface wave. The green crosses denote the forward dispersion curves from
the last iteration of the inversion. b The inverted 1D Vs models from the picked dispersion curves after data
selection (the red curves in a). The cyan dashed line indicates the initial Vs model, the gray dashed lines
indicate the inverted Vs model for each iteration, and the black solid line indicates the final Vs model

the active result, the red dots extend the critical lower-frequency band from 5 to 2 Hz and
retrieve more realistic higher mode information. Both the fundamental and higher mode
data from the selected stacked result (the red curves) were used for the final inversion using
the damped least-squares method and the singular-value decomposition (SVD) technique
(Xia et al. 1999, 2003). The black line in Fig. 10b shows the final inverted 1D Vs model
when the RMS error reaches the error tolerance (10 m/s) after three iterations. The cyan
line indicates the initial Vs model created by the algorithm presented in Xia et al. (1999).
Figure 11 maps the final pseudo-2D Vs section under the survey line. Although the reso-
lution of the Vs section is slightly low, a flat bedrock interface is delineated with confidence
at 65 m deep (the dashed line) and low velocity zones (LVZs) are outlined with the contour
line for Vs = 400 m/s. These LVZs were supposed to be the indicator of the permeable frac-
tures (e.g., Saito et al. 2004), and these sites need to be monitored considering the long-
term safety of the railway transportation system. The overburden is mainly made of clays,
but the south side is more loose and wet and used for planting vegetables, and the north
side is more solid and dry as shown in the photographs at the bottom of Fig. 11. These soil
conditions are consistent with the inverted pseudo-2D Vs model.

5 Discussion

The proposed tau–p-based method aims to establish a classification and selection criterion
for PSW. Data segments with minimum influence from non-stationary sources distribution
are identified and used for further dispersion measurement. This is a general data selection
processor that is also applicable to other surface wave methods such as ReMi (Louie 2001),
SPAC (Chávez-García et al. 2006) or hybrid methods based on interferometry technique
like MAPS (Cheng et al. 2016; Pang et al. 2019). In order to apply the proposed method on
interferometry methods like MAPS, data selection should be performed after cross-corre-
lation because cross-correlation could contribute to the retrieval of coherent surface waves,
and it would avoid the potential waste of the limited data.
Figure 8 presents a different data segment of train-induced seismic noise. We
recorded the timeline for four slow-speed (80–120 km/h) trains that passed by at around

13
Surveys in Geophysics

Fig. 11  The final pseudo-2D Vs section. The dash line is inferred as surface of the bedrock. The solid lines
indicate the potential “dangerous” areas, the low velocity zone (LVZ). The bottom panel displays the real-
site pictures for reference at the south end, the middle, the north end, respectively

t1 = 20 s, t2 = 820 s, t3 = 1040 s, t4 = 1780 s, respectively (Fig. 12), to connect the seis-

mic signature with the associated train event. We did not have time to take photographs
for the China Railways High-speed (CRH) trains whose design speed is about 380 km/h,
but our sensors did capture their footprints, e.g., at around 640 s and 1290 s (Fig. 8a).
It takes about 10 s for passenger train A, as well as passenger train B and C, to pass
through the line from the end side, but about 15 s for the freight train (Fig. 8a). The
freight train moves slower than passenger trains. Two parallel events are detected on the
time window from 820 to 860 s (Fig. 8a) with different loads on the wagons (highlighted
by the yellow box in Fig. 12). The first half of the wagons were loaded with heavy stone
for construction usage, while the last half of wagons were loaded with light oil.
In order to further understand the seismic signature of moving trains, three time win-
dows with different train events (indicated by the cyan dashed line in Fig. 8c) are pre-
sented in Fig. 13. Considering only 50-s time window for trains arriving and departing,
we get an M-shaped change for the 𝜙 − t curves (Fig. 13). Table 2 presents the time
windows for the M-shaped change for the 𝜙 − t curves of four trains. We suppose this
phenomenon is caused by the transfer of energy between ballistic waves and coda waves
as the distance changes. In the far distance, the recorded wavefields are mostly weak
coda waves. In the intermediate distance, the energy of the coda waves increases with
the trains arriving or departing. In the short distance, there is a transfer of energy from
coda waves to ballistic waves as the distance decreases. It is a common practice in seis-
mology to use the seismic coda of earthquakes for coda wave imaging (Aki 1969; Aki
and Chouet 1975; Campillo and Paul 2003; Snieder 2004, 2006; Paul et al. 2005). In

13
 Surveys in Geophysics

Fig. 12  Timeline for four trains that passed through our survey line at t1 = 20 s, t2 = 820 s, t3 = 1040 s,
t4 = 1780 s, respectively. The yellow boxes show the mixed wagon train, with the first half loading heavy
stone and the last half loading light oil. We did not capture the CRH trains’ photograph due to their high
speed

a b c

Fig. 13  The zoomed in view of the highlighted windows in Fig. 8c

Table 2  Time windows for each ϕ change Train A (s) Freight train (s) Train B (s) CRH (s)
process change in ϕ in Fig. 8
↑ 0–16 800–810 1020–1035 1265–1280
↓ 16–20 810–820 1035–1040 1280–1300
↑ 20–40 820–840 1040–1045 1300–1315
↓ 40–45 840–850 1045–1060 1315–1330

seismology, the scattered waves of the coda are usually considered as random, as well as
seismic noise. The time window between which two face-to-face trains get close to each
other shows a V-shaped change in factor ϕ (e.g., 860–960 s), because the left-going and
right-going waves are out of phase with each other and the coupled PSW will undergo
destructive interference.

13
Surveys in Geophysics

6 Conclusions

We established a simple, but stable, criterion in the tau–p domain to select data segments
with minimum contribution from non-stationary sources. Modeling tests and real-world
application show that the proposed data selection technique in the tau–p domain performs
well in improving the dispersion measurement of the passive surface waves. The real-world
application also indicates that the 𝜙 − t curve, a by-product of the data selection, provides
a novel view to understand and track the time-variant processes for seismic signatures of
traffic noise.
In particular, the approach improves the dispersion measurements for datasets of lim-
ited recording length. This provides a possibility for very short (tens of seconds to several
minutes) passive surface wave surveys, which will significantly reduce costs in field work.

Acknowledgements This study is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under
Grant No. 41830103, the China Scholarship Council (CSC), and the Ph.D. Innovation Fund of China
University of Geosciences. The first author thanks crews of AoCheng Technology for their help in data
collection.

References
Aki K (1957) Space and time spectra of stationary stochastic waves with spectral reference to microtremors.
Bull Earthq Res Inst 35:415–456
Aki K (1969) Analysis of the seismic coda of local earthquakes as scattered waves. J Geophys Res
74:615–618
Aki K, Chouet B (1975) Origin of coda waves: source, attenuation, and scattering effects. J Geophys Res
80:3322
Aki K, Richards PG (1980) Quantitative seismology: theory and methods, vol 2. Freeman, S. Francisco,
New York
Behm M, Snieder R (2013) Love waves from local traffic noise interferometry. Lead Edge 32(6):628–632
Behm M, Leahy M, Snieder R (2014) Retrieval of local surface wave velocities from traffic noise: an exam-
ple from the La Barge basin (Wyoming). Geophys Prospect 62:223–243
Bensen GD, Ritzwoller MH, Barmin MP, Levshin AL, Lin F, Moschetti MP, Shapiro NM, Yang Y (2007)
Processing seismic ambient noise data to obtain reliable broad-band surface wave dispersion measure-
ments. Geophys J Int 169:1239–1260
Boschi L, Weemstra C, Verbeke J, Ekström G, Zunino A, Giardini D (2013) On measuring surface wave
phase velocity from station-station cross-correlation of ambient signal. Geophys J Int 192(1):346–358
Brockwell PJ, Davis RA (2013) Time series: theory and methods. Springer, Berlin
Campillo M (2006) Phase and correlation in “random” seismic fields and the reconstruction of the green
function. Pure Appl Geophys 163:475–502
Campillo M, Paul A (2003) Long-range correlations in the diffuse seismic coda. Science 299(5606):547–549
Chang JP, De Ridder SAL, Biondi BL (2016) Case History High-frequency Rayleigh-wave tomography
using traffic noise from Long Beach, California. Geophysics 81(2):B43–B53
Chávez-García FJ, Kang TS (2014) Lateral heterogeneities and microtremors: limitations of HVSR and
SPAC based studies for site response. Eng Geol 174:1–10
Chávez-García FJ, Rodríguez M, Stephenson WR (2006) Subsoil structure using SPAC measurements along
a line. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:729–736
Cheng F, Xia J, Xu Y, Xu Z, Pan Y (2015) A new passive seismic method based on seismic interferometry
and multichannel analysis of surface waves. J Appl Geophys 117:126–135
Cheng F, Xia J, Luo Y, Xu Z, Wang L, Shen C, Liu R, Pan Y, Mi B, Hu Y (2016) Multi-channel analysis of
passive surface waves based on cross-correlations. Geophysics 81(5):EN57–EN66
Cheng F, Draganov D, Xia J, Behm M, Hu Y (2017) Deblurring directional-source effects for pas-
sive surface-wave surveys using multidimensional deconvolution. In: AGU fall meeting abstracts, p
#S21C-0736

13
 Surveys in Geophysics

Cheng F, Draganov D, Xia J, Hu Y, Liu J (2018a) Q-estimation using seismic interferometry from vertical
well data. J Appl Geophys 159:16–22
Cheng F, Xia J, Xu Z, Hu Y, Mi B (2018b) FK-based data selection in high-frequency passive surface wave
survey. Surv Geophys 39:661–682
Cho I, Tada T, Shinozaki Y (2004) A new method to determine phase velocities of Rayleigh waves from
microseisms. Geophysics 69(6):1535–1551. https​://doi.org/10.1190/1.18368​27
Claerbout JF (1968) Synthesis of a layered medium from its acoustic transmission response. Geophysics
33:264–269
Cupillard P, Stehly L, Romanowicz B (2011) The one-bit noise correlation: a theory based on the concepts
of coherent and incoherent noise. Geophys J Int 184(3):1397–1414
Daley TM, Freifeld BM, Ajo-Franklin J, Dou S, Pevzner R, Shulakova V, Kashikar S, Miller DE, Goetz J,
Henningers J, Lueth S (2013) Field testing of fiber-optic distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) for subsur-
face seismic monitoring. Lead Edge 32(6):699–706
Diebold JB, Stoffa PL (1981) The travel time equation, tau–p mapping, and inversion of common midpoint
data. Geophysics 46(3):238–254
Dorman J, Ewing M (1962) Numerical inversion of seismic surface wave dispersion data and crust-mantle
structure in the New York-Pennsylvania Area. J Geophys Res 67(9):3554
Dou S, Lindsey N, Wagner AM, Daley TM, Freifeld B, Robertson M, Peterson J, Ulrich C, Martin ER, Ajo-
Franklin JB (2017) Distributed acoustic sensing for seismic monitoring of the near surface: a traffic-
noise interferometry case study. Sci Rep 7(1):11620
Draganov D, Campman X, Thorbecke J, Verdel A, Wapenaar K (2013) Seismic exploration-scale velocities
and structure from ambient seismic noise (> 1 Hz). J Geophys Res Solid Earth 118:4345–4360
Fichtner A (2014) Source and processing effects on noise correlations. Geophys J Int 197(3):1527–1531
Groos JC, Bussat S, Ritter JRR (2012) Performance of different processing schemes in seismic noise cross-
correlations. Geophys J Int 188(2):498–512
Groos JC, Ritter JRR (2009) Time domain classification and quantification of seismic noise in an urban
environment. Geophys J Int 179(2):1213–1231. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04343​.x
Hayashi K, Cakir R, Walsh TJ, State W (2016) Comparison of dispersion curves and velocity models
obtained by active and passive surface wave methods. In: 2016 SEG annual meeting. society of explo-
ration geophysicists, pp 4983–4988
Kar C, Mohanty AR (2006) Monitoring gear vibrations through motor current signature analysis and wave-
let transform. Mech Syst Signal Process 20:158–187
Le Feuvre M, Joubert A, Leparoux D, Côte P (2015) Passive multi-channel analysis of surface waves with
cross-correlations and beamforming. Application to a sea dike. J Appl Geophys 114:36–51
Lobkis OI, Weaver RL (2001) On the emergence of the Green’s function in the correlations of a diffuse
field. J Acoust Soc Am 110:3011–3017
Louie J (2001) Faster, better: shear-wave velocity to 100 meters depth from refraction microtremor arrays.
Bull Seismol Soc Am 91:347–364
Luo Y, Xia J, Liu J, Liu Q, Xu S (2007) Joint inversion of high-frequency surface waves with fundamental
and higher modes. J Appl Geophys 62:375–384
Luo Y, Yang Y, Xu Y, Xu H, Zhao K, Wang K (2015) On the limitations of interstation distances in ambient
noise tomography. Geophys J Int 201(2):652–661
Luo S, Luo Y, Zhu L, Xu Y (2016) On the reliability and limitations of the SPAC method with a directional
wave field. J Appl Geophys 126:172–182
Ma S, Prieto GA, Beroza GC (2008) Testing community velocity models for southern California using the
ambient seismic field. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:2694–2714
McMechan GA, Yedlin MJ (1981) Analysis of dispersive waves by wave field transformation. Geophysics
46:869–874
McNamara DE, Buland RP (2004) Ambient noise levels in the continental United States. Bull Seismol Soc
Am 94(4):1517–1527
Mi B, Xia J, Shen C, Wang L, Hu Y, Cheng F (2017) Horizontal resolution of multichannel analysis of sur-
face waves. Geophysics 82(3):EN51–EN66
Mi B, Xia J, Shen C, Wang L (2018) Dispersion energy analysis of Rayleigh and Love waves in the presence
of low-velocity layers in near-surface seismic surveys. Surv Geophys 39:271–288
Miller RD, Xia J, Park CB, Ivanov J (1999) Multichannel analysis of surface waves to map bedrock. Lead
Edge 18:1392–1396
Nakamura Y (1989) A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of subsurface using microtremor on
the ground surface. Q Rep RTRI 30:25–33
Nakata N (2016) Near-surface S-wave velocities estimated from traffic-induced Love waves using seismic
interferometry with double beamforming. Interpretation 4:SQ23–SQ31

13
Surveys in Geophysics

Nakata N, Beroza GC (2015) Stochastic characterization of mesoscale seismic velocity heterogeneity in

Long Beach, California. Geophys J Int 203(3):2049–2054
Nakata N, Snieder R, Tsuji T, Larner K, Matsuoka T (2011) Shear wave imaging from traffic noise using
seismic interferometry by cross-coherence. Geophysics 76(6):SA97–SA106
Nazarian S, Stokoe KH II, Hudson WR (1983) Use of spectral analysis of surface waves method for deter-
mination of moduli and thicknesses of pavement systems. Transp Res Rec 930:38–45
Nedilko B (2016) Seismic detection of rockfalls on railway lines. Doctoral dissertation, University of British
Columbia
O’Connell DRH, Turner JP (2011) Interferometric multichannel analysis of surface waves (IMASW). Bull
Seismol Soc Am 101(5):2122–2141
Okada H (2003) The microtremor survey method. SEG, Tulsa
Pang J, Cheng F, Shen C, Dai T, Ning L, Zhang K (2019) Automatic passive data selection in time
domain for imaging near-surface surface waves. J Appl Geophys. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappg​
eo.2018.12.018
Park CB, Miller RD, Xia J (1999) Multi-channel analysis of surface waves (MASW). Geophysics
64:800–808
Park CB, Miller RD, Xia J, Ivanov J (2004) Imaging dispersion curves of passive surface waves. In: 74th
annual international meeting, SEG, expanded abstracts, pp 1357–1360
Paul A, Campillo M, Margerin L, Larose E (2005) Empirical synthesis of time-asymmetrical Green func-
tions from the correlation of coda waves. J Geophys Res 110(B8):1–13
Picozzi M, Parolai S, Bindi D, Strollo A (2009) Characterization of shallow geology by high-frequency seis-
mic noise tomography. Geophys J Int 176:164–174
Sabra KG, Gerstoft P, Roux P, Kuperman WA, Fehler MC (2005) Surface wave tomography from micro-
seisms in southern California. Geophys Res Lett 32:L14311
Saito H, Hayashi K, Iikura Y (2004) Detection of formation boundaries and permeable fractures based on
frequency-domain Stoneley wave logs. Explor Geophys 35:45–50
Schuster GT, Yu J, Sheng J, Rickett J (2004) Interferometric/daylight seismic imaging. Geophys J Int
157:838–852
Shapiro NM, Campillo M (2004) Emergence of broadband Rayleigh waves from correlations of the ambient
seismic noise. Geophys Res Lett 31(7):L07614
Snieder R (2004) Extracting the Green’s function from the correlation of coda waves: a derivation based on
stationary phase. Phys Rev E 69:046610
Snieder R (2006) The theory of coda wave interferometry. Pure Appl Geophys 163(2–3):455–473
Snieder R, Miyazawa M, Slob E, Vasconcelos I, Wapenaar K (2009) A comparison of strategies for seismic
interferometry. Surv Geophys 30(4–5):503–523
Socco LV, Foti S, Boiero D (2010) Surface-wave analysis for building near-surface velocity models-Estab-
lished approaches and new perspectives. Geophysics 75(5):75A83–75A102
Song YY, Castagna JP, Black RA, Knapp RW (1989) Sensitivity of near-surface shear-wave velocity
determination from Rayleigh and Love waves. In: 59th annual international meeting, SEG, expanded
abstracts, pp 509–512
Stehly L, Campillo M, Shapiro NM (2006) A study of the seismic noise from its long-range correlation
properties. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 111:1–12
Stokoe KH II, Nazarian S (1983) Effectiveness of ground improvement from spectral analysis of surface
waves. In: Proceeding of the eighth European conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineer-
ing, vol. 1, pp 91–95
Van Dalen KN, Mikesell TD, Ruigrok EN, Wapenaar K (2015) Retrieving surface waves from ambi-
ent seismic noise using seismic interferometry by multidimensional deconvolution. J Geophys Res
120:944–961
Vasconcelos I, Snieder R (2008a) Interferometry by deconvolution, part 1-theory for acoustic waves and
numerical examples. Geophysics 73:S115–S128
Vasconcelos I, Snieder R (2008b) Interferometry by deconvolution: part 2-theory for elastic waves and
application to drill-bit seismic imaging. Geophysics 73:S129–S141
Wang H, Quan W, Wang Y, Miller GR (2014) Dual roadside seismic sensor for moving road vehicle detec-
tion and characterization. Sensors (Switzerland) 14(2):2892–2910
Wapenaar K, Fokkema J (2006) Green’s function representations for seismic interferometry. Geophysics
71(4):SI33–SI46
Wapenaar K, Ruigrok E (2011) Improved surface-wave retrieval from ambient seismic noise by multi-
dimensional deconvolution. Geophys Res Lett 38:1–5
Wapenaar K, van der Neut J, Ruigrok E (2008) Passive seismic interferometry by multidimensional decon-
volution. Geophysics 73(6):A51–A56

13
 Surveys in Geophysics

Wapenaar K, van der Neut J, Ruigrok E, Draganov D, Hunziker J, Slob E et al (2011) Seismic interferom-
etry by crosscorrelation and by multidimensional deconvolution: a systematic comparison. Geophys J
Int 185(3):1335–1364. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05007​.x
Weemstra C, Draganov D, Ruigrok EN, Hunziker J, Gomez M, Wapenaar K (2017) Application of seis-
mic interferometry by multidimensional deconvolution to ambient seismic noise recorded in Malargüe,
Argentina. Geophys J Int 60(4):802–823
Xia J, Miller RD, Park CB (1999) Estimation of near-surface shear-wave velocity by inversion of Rayleigh
wave. Geophysics 64:691–700
Xia J, Miller RD, Park CB, Survey KG (2000) Advantages of calculating shear-wave velocity from surface
waves with higher modes. In: SEG expanded abstracts, pp 1285–1298
Xia J, Miller RD, Park CB, Tian G (2003) Inversion of high frequency surface waves with fundamental and
higher modes. J Appl Geophys 52:45–57
Xia J, Miller RD, Xu Y, Luo Y, Chen C, Liu J, Ivanov J, Zeng C (2009) High-frequency Rayleigh-wave
method. J Earth Sci 20:563–579
Xia J, Cheng F, Xu Z, Shen C, Liu R (2017) Advantages of multi-channel analysis of passive surface waves
(MAPS). In: International conference on engineering geophysics, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates, 9–12
October 2017, pp 94–97
Yao H, van der Hilst RD, de Hoop MV (2006) Surface-wave array tomography in SE Tibet from ambient
seismic noise and two-station analysis-I. Phase velocity maps. Geophys J Int 166:732–744
Zeng X, Lancelle C, Thurber C, Fratta D, Wang H, Lord N, Chalari A, Clarke A (2017) Properties of noise
cross-correlation functions obtained from a distributed acoustic sensing array at Garner Valley, Cali-
fornia. Bull Seismol Soc Am 107(2):603–610
Zhong T, Li Y, Wu N, Nie P, Yang B (2015) Statistical properties of the random noise in seismic data. J
Appl Geophys 118:84–91
Zhou C, Xi C, Pang J, Liu Y (2018) Ambient noise data selection based on the asymmetry of cross-correla-
tion functions for near surface applications. J Appl Geophys 159:803–813

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13