<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:contributor>R. D. Miller</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>C.B. Park</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>E. Wightman</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>R. Nigbor</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>J. Xia</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2002</dc:date>
  <dc:description>The shallow shear-wave refraction method works successfully in an area with a series of horizontal layers. However, complex near-surface geology may not fit into the assumption of a series of horizontal layers. That a plane SH-wave undergoes wave-type conversion along an interface in an area of nonhorizontal layers is theoretically inevitable. One real example shows that the shallow shear-wave refraction method provides velocities of a converted wave rather than an SH- wave. Moreover, it is impossible to identify the converted wave by refraction data itself. As most geophysical engineering firms have limited resources, an additional P-wave refraction survey is necessary to verify if velocities calculated from a shear-wave refraction survey are velocities of converted waves. The alternative at this time may be the surface wave method, which can provide reliable S-wave velocities, even in an area of velocity inversion (a higher velocity layer underlain by a lower velocity layer). ?? 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.1016/S0926-9851(02)00197-0</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:title>A pitfall in shallow shear-wave refraction surveying</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>