Free Access
| Issue |
Rev. Fr. Geotech.
Number 178, 2024
RFG Digues 2024
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Article Number | 2 | |
| Number of page(s) | 8 | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1051/geotech/2024005 | |
| Published online | 26 mars 2024 | |
- Bitri A, Jousset P, Samyn K, Naylor A. 2010. River dykes investigation and effects of the topography on seismic surface waves propagation. Proceedings of the EGU General Assembly. [Google Scholar]
- Bodet L, Abraham O, Clorennec D. 2009. Near-offset effects on Rayleigh-wave dispersion measurements: Physical modeling. Journal of Applied Geophysics 68: 95–103. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Boussafir Y, Saussaye L, Dissler E, Durand E. 2018. Des anomalies géotechniques à l’origine de propositions d’indicateurs de durabilité pour les digues fluviales. Journées Nationales de Géotechnique et de Géologie de l’Ingénieur. [Google Scholar]
- Buchen PW, Ben-Hador R. 1996. Free-mode surface-wave computations. Geophysical Journal International 124: 869–887. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Dezert T, Palma Lopes S, Fargier Y, Forquenot de la Fortelle Q, Côte P, Tourment R. 2019. Fusion d’informations géophysiques et géotechniques acquises sur banc d’essai pour application au diagnostic de digues. Digues Maritimes et Fluviales de Protection contre les Inondations. [Google Scholar]
- Fauchard C, Mériaux P. 2004. Les méthodes de reconnaissance à grand rendement adaptées aux digues de protection contre les inondations. Colloque CFGB Vol. 25. [Google Scholar]
- Hayashi K, Suzuki H. 2004. CMP cross-correlation analysis of multi-channel surface-wave data. Exploration Geophysics 35: 7–13. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Karl L, Fechner T, Schevenels M, François S, Degrande G. 2011. Geotechnical characterization of a river dyke by surface waves. Near Surface Geophysics 9: 515–527. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Mériaux P, Tourment R, Wolff M. 2004. Le patrimoine de digues de protection contre les inondations en France. Ingénieries, EAT, pp. 15–23. [Google Scholar]
- Park CB, Miller RD, Xia J. 1999. Multichannel analysis of surface waves. Geophysics 64: 800–808. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Pasquet S, Bodet L. 2017. SWIP: An integrated workflow for surface-wave dispersion inversion and profiling. Geophysics 82: WB47–WB61. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Royet P, Palma-Lopes S, Fauchard C, Mériaux P, Auriau L. 2012. Rapid and cost-effective dike condition assessment methods: geophysics and remote sensing. FloodProBE Project Report − WP3: Reliability of Urban Flood Defences. [Google Scholar]
- Sabor K, Jougnot D, Guerin R, et al. 2021. A data mining approach for improved interpretation of ERT inverted sections using the DBSCAN clustering algorithm. Geophysical Journal International 225: 1304–1318. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Steck B, D’Urso G, Vautrin D, et al. 2018. Validation of geophysical methods for internal erosion detection on earth embankments. 9th International Conference on Scour and Erosion (ICSE 2018). Taipei (Taiwan): ICSE. [Google Scholar]
- Vergniault C, Bitri A. 2017. La sismique par ondes de surface appliquée aux barrages en remblai et aux digues. Journées Scientifiques AGAP Qualité. [Google Scholar]
- Vergniault C, Dubie F, Girard B, Renalier F. 2018. Retour d’expérience sur l’utilisation des méthodes géophysiques par ondes de surface (MASW et bruit de fond) pour les études de stabilité dynamique des digues du canal de la Durance. Colloque CFBR 2018 : Méthodes et Techniques Innovantes dans la Maintenance et la Réhabilitation des Barrages et des Digues. Chambéry (France): CFBR. [Google Scholar]
- Wang Y. 2015. Frequencies of the Ricker wavelet. Geophysics 80: A31–A37. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Wathelet M. 2008. An improved neighborhood algorithm: parameter conditions and dynamic scaling. Geophysical Research Letters 35. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.