HVSR & seismic zonation: a case study based on current

NZS 1170.5 subsoil classification methods

G. Mazzoni(1), A. Giannakogiorgos(2), M. F. Haryono(3)

Abstract
The Horizontal-to-Vertical Spectral Ratio method (HVSR) is a particular geophysical method based on single station ambient noise recording. Such method, first introduced in the 1970s, is nowadays considered a
valid tool for seismic zonation, thanks to its versatility and robustness.
With reference to NZS 1170.5 subsoil classification methods, HVSR can be proficiently used to enhance the
current practice in New Zealand as for seismic input definition and seismic hazard mapping.

1. Introduction

was later modified and developed by Yutaka

In this paper we present a case study focused on

Nakamura as illustrated by his paper [Nakamura,

the potential use of HVSR method to complement

1989].

the current practice in terms of seismic site classi-

Superficial soft soils may cause amplification at a

fication and seismic input motion definition based

site. Modifications of incoming earthquake wave

on NZS 1170.5.

characteristics result when these pass through soil

In May 2014 several HVSR tests were performed

deposits. Site effects are therefore dependent on

in the Christchurchs metro area and the results of

the medium itself and on the stratum boundary

such tests, with particular emphasis on site peri-

depths. As well as strata properties, amplification

ods, will be presented.

may also result from topographic effects due to

irregular surface geometry which focuses any in-

2. The HVSR method

coming seismic energy at certain points leading to

The HVSR method consists of first recording sev-

amplification [Bouchon,1996].

eral minutes of 3-component ambient noise vibra-

Often sites involve both irregular geometry and

tions, and performing a Fourier transform on each

heterogeneous mechanical properties, still ampli-

component. The ratio between the Fourier ampli-

fication resulting from topographic effects is less

tude spectra of the horizontal to vertical compo-

than that resulting from heterogeneous soil prop-

nents is then worked out. The method was first

erties [Chvez-Garca, 2007]. Amplification is

introduced by Nogoshi and Igarashi (1971) but it

highly variable, even within a distance of a few

(1) Geotechnical Engineer, Cresco Group

(2), (3) Geotechnical Engineer, Coffey NZ

metres, therefore caution is required when per-

surface. Surface layers are therefore exposed to

forming accurate seismic hazard mapping.

tremors resulting from both natural sources such

as sea waves, tides and atmospheric pressure
changes, as well as due to anthropogenic or cultural sources such as vehicles, industrial machinery and construction work. Natural noise and cultural noise are known as microseisms and microtremors respectively, where the former usually
consists of long-period waves of periods longer
than 2 seconds, also being referred to long-period
microtremors whilst the latter usually denotes
high frequency signals of short periods such as
those caused by traffic, or functioning machinery.
Noise generated at frequencies around 1Hz, is
usually due to wind effects and the local meteorological conditions. Microtremors are usually assumed to only affect the uppermost sedimentary
layers whilst microseisms affect layers deeper
down [Atakan, 2007]. The ambient noise wave

General principles of HVSR testing

field is temporally and spatially variable, as well

as being non-uniform at all frequencies. Islands
such as New Zealand are constantly exposed to

As well as being advantageous due to its fast deployment, the HVSR technique is one of the
cheapest available ways to study site effects by
making use of ambient seismic noise. The ground
is never at rest being constantly exposed to
sources of rapid deformational energy that in turn
excite seismic waves [Lay and Wallace, 1995].
Ambient noise was previously regarded as a nuisance in seismograph design, but since then further studies have been conducted resulting in an
improved understanding of the noise phenomenon
and new applications for microtremors and different techniques making use of noise recordings,
have been found [Bonnefoy-Claudet et al., 2006].
Ambient noise includes all noise types, both of
artificial and natural origin, generated near the
2

wave surf and oceanic standing waves and are

therefore noisier than land sites distant from any
coast. As well as hourly variations, the noise wave
field exhibits daily and seasonal changes too both
as a result of human-induced variations in the case
of microtremors and atmospheric variations such
as changing atmospheric patterns in the case of
microseisms.
Numerous studies have been undertaken to determine the capability and applicability of the HVSR
technique, as well as its limitations [Di Giacomo
et al., 2005]. Many agree about the fact that the
original Nakamuras technique does not give reliable amplification values. In fact amplification
values obtained directly from the HVSR spectrum
(as per Nakamuras proposed method) vary from
2

those found using other site-response estimation

quired, simply ambient noise. Another advantage

techniques, only being able to give rough amplifi-

of the HVSR method over others, such as the re-

cation level estimates in the case of relatively

fraction method is that whilst the latter has a lim-

simple geological conditions [Lermo and Chavez-

ited penetration depth, within reasonable costs, the

Garcia, 1994]. But whilst the latter is true, the

HVSR technique is better and considerably relia-

HVSR technique allows for the reliable detection

ble at reaching larger depths.

of the fundamental resonance frequency (f0) of

soft deposits and, in most cases, for the robust

3. Site classification: the current practice

estimation of S-wave versus depth profile.

The seismic site classification according to NZS

Applying the HVSR technique is simple and it

1170.5 is based on three fundamental parameters:

may also be performed in a wider variety of loca-

a) Shear wave velocity (vs)

tions than other techniques such as array methods.

b) Site period (T0)

For instance, seismic refraction is problematic

c) Impedance contrasts (Z)

when applied in agricultural fields, marsh areas,

As in many other national and international stand-

areas of dense vegetation and built urban envi-

ards, the unrefined classification provides for sub-

Extract of NZS 1170.5:2004 concerning subsoil classes definition

ronments, whereas the HVSR method is not. If

soil classes ranging from sound rock (class A) to

explosives are required as a seismic source, there

very soft soil (class E) to define spectral amplifi-

are further restrictions as well as possible damag-

cation of seismic acceleration.

es and inconveniences incurred for underground

The introduction of site period and impedance

communications and drainage systems. This is not

contrasts in subsoil class definition represents a

the case for HVSR technique that makes use of

major progress in simplified seismic zonation

single station measurements by means of simple

(with reference to international major codes, such

portable instrumentation. Also, no seismic sources

as EC7) and it is in line with the most recent atti-

such as sledge hammers and explosives are re-

tudes in seismic risk assessment procedures based

on a multi-parametric approach [Castellaro,

In modern practice, especially in Europe and in

2011].

Japan, the HVSR method is proficiently used in

The current standard practice in New Zealand in-

seismic zonation in conjunction with mechanical

volves the use of seismic-mechanical tests (such

tests and/or other geophysical methods to provide

as SCPT) and general geological knowledge to

a robust seismic parameterization, both for simpli-

determine the subsoil class, even though the

fied classification and for more advanced wave

HVSR method (aka Nakamuras method) is in-

propagations analysis.

cluded in the standards.

In the next part of the article we will present a

Evidently the limits of such approach (e.g. depth

case study based on the use of HVSR technique as

limit of SCPT) imply the necessity of precaution-

for simplified seismic zonation according to NZS

ary assumptions, especially when dealing with

1170.5 in several spots within Christchurch metro

soft soil classes.

area.

Moreover this procedure does not allow any direct

estimation of site fundamental periods rather than

5. The Christchurchs case study

via a limited simplified procedure (two-layer

In May 2014 we have performed several HVSR

model) that cannot be applied in deep alluvia.

tests around Christchurchs metro area and used

All this inevitably leads to a potential overestima-

existing geotechnical information (e.g. borelogs

tion of amplification parameters and to an overall

and CPTs) to optimize the HVSR inversion pro-

increase in construction costs.

cedures and proceed with a quick seismic subsoil

classification based on NZS 1170.5.

4. The role of HVSR in site classification

Here we report two examples of such procedures,

To overcome such partial lack of information, the

the first carried out in Hagley Park and the second

HVSR method can be used as primary integrative

operated in a private property in Hillsborough.

tool for seismic micro-zonation.

As for Hagley Parks experience, we have used

In fact such technique allows, in most cases, for

two MASW tests and three borelogs (CERA pub-

the direct estimation of site fundamental frequen-

lic database) to constrain the inversion problem of

cies (hence site period) as well as S-wave velocity

five HVSR tests carried out in a 3-hour span dur-

profiling thanks to suitable wavefield inversion

ing daily hours.

procedures [Lunedei & Albarello, 2010].

As for Hillsborough, we have used one CPT and

The main advantages of the HVSR method are

one borelog (Coffeys database) to constrain an

mostly in terms of cost-effectiveness and versatili-

equal number of HVSR tests.

ty. Compared to other state-of-the-art method for

The results of such experiences are listed below

indirect seismic parameterization, including 1D

with reference to the mentioned simplified subsoil

and 2D surface wave methods and body waves

classification method, together with some graph-

tomography, the HVSR method has far less limi-

ical examples of test outputs and inversion proce-

tations in terms of usability (depth target, velocity

dures.

inversions, etc.) and procedural costs.

It must be noticed that any physical restraint (e.g.

borelog) is strictly needed only to the first major

Results for Hagley Park (HAG) test site

Test No.
HAG 1
HAG 2
HAG 3
HAG 4
HAG 5

WGS 84 Coord.
43.53205 S
172.62434 E
43.53322 S
172.62696 E
43.53153 S
172.61884 E
43.52694 S
172.61923 E
43.52613 S
172.62503 E

vs,30
225 m/s
221 m/s
201 m/s
221 m/s
214 m/s

T0
0.76 s
(0.46 s)
0.46 s
(0.77 s)
0.82 s
(0.53 s)
0.76 s
(0.46 s)
0.48 s
(0.77 s)

Reference test
MASW
MASW
Borehole
Borehole
Borehole

The period value in brackets () corresponds to the second major peak of HVSR curve. In the case of Hagley Park site
such peak is very close to the dominant one, since the whole site presents 2 major peaks in the H/V spectrum (fatally
very close to the 0.6 s threshold). This suggests that, wether the site may be often classified as class D based on vs,30
and T0 values, a more accurate analysis based on HVSR results (e.g. 1D propagation model) may lead to amplification
factors closer to class C.
By examining the HVSR curve, the T0 value can be estimated directly (Max. H/V).

The inversion procedure has been carried out through the optimization procedure based on surface waves dominance
assumption (synthetic H/V below 1.0 Hz is merely indicative). Such procedure allows to estimate the vs,30 parameter.

Results for Hillsborough (HIL) test site

Test No.
HIL 1
HIL 2

WGS 84 Coord.
43.56683 S
172.66216 E
43.56674 S
172.66283 E

vs,30
260 m/s

T0
0.33 s

Reference test
CPT

(309 m/s)

(0.27 s)

Borehole

The site is generally classified as C, even though the site stratigraphic amplification may approach that of class B for
the uphill zone (test HIL 2). The vs,30 and T0 value for the uphill test are reported in brackets () since a scattering between N-S and E-W spectral components of ambient noise suggests caution while evaluating such parameters with
standard procedures from HVSR. The limitation of HVSR method as direct estimator of T0 in sharply non-1D conditions
is stated in many literature references and in NZS 1170.5 as well.
Again, the T0 value can be estimated directly (Max. H/V on test HIL 1).

The s-wave velocity estimation plot for test HIL 1 is shown below

contrast of seismic impedance, hence, for a future

6. Conclusions

perspective, it is not necessary to actually reach

Based on the proposed Christchurchs case study,

great depths with mechanical tests to provide a

some preliminary conclusions can be stated as

sound seismic classification. Moreover autocorre-

follows.

lation with MASW proved to be a good alterna-

The HVSR method is a valid alternative to more

tive solution to mechanical tests constraining, at

invasive and expensive testing procedures (such

least where local conditions are suitable for line

as SCPT or DH) to determine the vs,30 parameter.

array tests (e.g. Hagley Park site).

Moreover site periods can be actually measured

with the HVSR method, eliminating the need for

fornia. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 86, no. 1A, pp.66-

further modelling and/or simplified precautionary

72.

assumptions.

Castellaro, S. 2011, La matrice VFZ, un

Hence all the parameters needed for seismic site

approccio alternativo alla classificazione sismica

classification according to NZS 1170.5 can be

semplificata dei suoli. The Emilia-Romagna geo-

easily retrieved from simple single station ambient

logical bulleting no. 43-2011, pp. 17-26.

noise recording, provided that the large geotech-

Chvez-Garca, F.J., 2007. Ambient noise

nical surveying database currently available for

and site response: from estimation of site effects

Christchurch metro allows a robust and virtually

to determination of the subsoil structure in: Muc-

inexpensive constraining procedure for HVSR.

ciarelli, M.; Herak, M. and Cassidy, J. (eds.), In-

Finally the HVSR method, thanks to its cost-

creasing Seismic Safety by Combining Engineer-

effectiveness, can be implied intensively to de-

ing Technologies and Seismological Data, NATO

termine the subsoil class, primarily to avoid over-

Advanced Research Workshop, Dubrovnik, Croa-

estimation of seismic amplification that undoubt-

tia, pp.53-71.

edly leads to greater economical effort from the

community.

Di Giacomo,D. et al., 2005. Analysis and

modeling of HVSR in the presence of a velocity
inversion: the case of Venosa, Italy. Bull. Seism.
Soc. Am., 95, No. 6, pp.2364- 2372.

7. References

Lay,T. and Wallace,T.C., 1995. Modern

Atakan, K., 2007. The need for standardised approach for estimating the local site effects

Global Seismology. California: San Diego: Academic Press.

based on ambient noise recordings in: Mucciarelli,

Lermo,J. and Chvez-Garca,F.J.,1994. Are

M.; Herak, M. and Cassidy, J. (eds.), Increasing

microtremors useful in site response evaluation?

Seismic Safety by Combining Engineering Tech-

Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 84, No. 5, pp.1350-1364.

nologies and Seismological Data, NATO Ad-

Lunedei E., Albarello D.; 2010: Theoretical

vanced Research Workshop, Dubrovnik, Croatia,

HVSR curves from the complete wavefield model-

pp.3-13.

ling of ambient vibrations in a weakly dissipative

Bonnefoy-Claudet,S. et al. (2006a). H/V ratio: a tool for site effects evaluation. Results from
1-D noise simulations. Geophys. J. Int., 167, No.
2, pp.827-837.

vol. 181, pp. 1093-1108

Nakamura, Y., 1989. A method for dynamic
characteristics estimation of subsurface using mi-

Bonnefoy-Claudet,S.

Cotton,F.

and

Bard,P.Y., 2006b. The nature of noise wavefield

and its applications for site effects studies : a literature review.

layered Earth. Geophysical Journal International,

Earth-Science

Reviews,

79,

pp.205-227.
Bouchon,M. and Barker,J.S., 1996 . Seismic

crotremor on the ground surface. QR of RTRI,

30, No. 1, pp.25-33.
Nogoshi,M. and Igarashi,T., 1971. On the
amplitude characteristics of microtremor (Part 2)
(in Japanese with English abstract). Jour. Seism.
Soc. Japan, 24, pp.26-40.

response of a hill: The example of Tarzana, Cali7

Wald,L.A. and Mori,J., 2000. Evaluation of

methods for estimating linear site-response amplifications in the Los Angeles region. Bull. Seism.
Soc. Am., 90, No. 6B, S32S42.