@article{GarofaloFotiHollenderetal.2016,
  author    = {Garofalo, F. and Foti, S. and Hollender, F. and Bard, Pierre-Yves and Cornou, C. and Cox, B. R. and Ohrnberger, Matthias and Sicilia, D. and Asten, M. and Di Giulio, G. and Forbriger, T. and Guillier, B. and Hayashi, K. and Martin, A. and Matsushima, Satoru and Mercerat, D. and Poggi, V. and Yamanaka, H.},
  title     = {InterPACIFIC project: Comparison of invasive and non-invasive methods for seismic site characterization. Part I: Intra-comparison of surface wave methods},
  series = {Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering},
  volume    = {82},
  journal   = {Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0267-7261},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.12.010},
  pages     = {222 -- 240},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {The main scope of the InterPACIFIC (Intercomparison of methods for site parameter and velocity profile characterization) project is to assess the reliability of in-hole and surface-wave methods, used for estimating shear wave velocity. Three test-sites with different subsurface conditions were chosen: a soft soil, a stiff soil and a rock outcrop. This paper reports the surface-wave methods results. Specifically 14 teams of expert users analysed the same experimental surface-wave datasets, consisting of both passive and active data. Each team adopted their own strategy to retrieve the dispersion curve and the shear-wave velocity profile at each site. Despite different approaches, the dispersion curves are quite in agreement with each other. Conversely, the shear-wave velocity profiles show a certain variability that increases in correspondence of major stratigraphic interfaces. This larger variability is mainly due to non-uniqueness of the solution and lateral variability. As expected, the observed variability in V-s,V-30 estimatesis small, as solution non-uniqueness plays a limited role. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FotiHollenderGarofaloetal.2017,
  author    = {Foti, Sebastiano and Hollender, Fabrice and Garofalo, Flora and Albarello, Dario and Asten, Michael and Bard, Pierre-Yves and Comina, Cesare and Cornou, Cecile and Cox, Brady and Di Giulio, Giuseppe and Forbriger, Thomas and Hayashi, Koichi and Lunedei, Enrico and Martin, Antony and Mercerat, Diego and Ohrnberger, Matthias and Poggi, Valerio and Renalier, Florence and Sicilia, Deborah and Socco, Valentina},
  title     = {Guidelines for the good practice of surface wave analysis},
  series = {Bulletin of earthquake engineering : official publication of the European Association for Earthquake Engineering},
  volume    = {16},
  journal   = {Bulletin of earthquake engineering : official publication of the European Association for Earthquake Engineering},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Dordrecht},
  issn      = {1570-761X},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10518-017-0206-7},
  pages     = {2367 -- 2420},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {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,V-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 information on the acquisition and analysis of surface wave data by giving some basic principles and specific suggestions related to the most common situations. They are primarily targeted to non-expert users approaching surface wave testing, but can be useful to specialists in the field as a general reference. The guidelines are based on the experience gained within the InterPACIFIC project and on the expertise of the participants in acquisition and analysis of surface wave data.},
  language  = {en}
}