2018 IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Geoscience, Electronics and Remote Sensing Technology (AGERS)

Identifying Thermal Properties of Ground Surface

Derived by SAR and Laboratory Measurements
Asep Saepuloh
Faculty of Earth Sciences and Technology Edo Kharisma Army Agustan
Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB) Master Program of Geological Engineering Badan Pengkajian dan Penerapan Teknologi
Bandung Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB) (BPPT)
saepuloh@gl.itb.ac.id Bandung Jakarta, Indonesia
edookharisma@yahoo.com agustan@bppt.go.id
Penerapan Teknologi
Agustan (BPPT)
Badan Pengkajian dan Jakarta, Indonesia
agustan@bppt.go.id

Abstract—The Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) data
provide great potential for ground surface mapping under
canopy vegetation. The SAR observations regardless time and
atmospheric condition are superior for mapping under torrid
zones such as Indonesia. The ground surface parameters
including surface roughness, moisture, and dielectric constant
could be derived by SAR backscattering data. However,
estimating thermal properties of ground surface based on SAR
remote sensing is complicated because of sensor operation in
microwave region. Meanwhile, the thermal properties of
ground surface are crucial for estimating surface temperature
originated from natural or anthropogenic sources such
volcanic activity, urban area, forest fire, or steam spots. To
identify the thermal signature from the SAR data, we
performed laboratory experiments by incorporating thermal
property of materials to be derived from SAR parameters. The
experiments were performed by heating ground surface
materials including altered rocks from geothermal field and
peats from dense vegetation field. We measured moisture,
electric potential, magnetic susceptibility, and permeability of
the samples with variation of temperature. The measured
temperature was controlled by thermal camera FLIR C2 and
ground thermometer FLUKE 52 up to 250°C. According to the
measurement, we identified that the moisture and electric
potential of materials are decrease significantly at temperature
more than 100°C. An interesting phenomenon could be
reported that the magnetic susceptibility and permeability
response to the altered rock and peat samples temperature
similarly. The increasing temperature leads to decrease
magnetic susceptibility and permeability in general. The
mineral and organic content of the rocks and peats controlled
their magnetic properties. The laboratory measurement results
were then compared to the magnetic permeability derived-
SAR backscattering data at a steam field of geothermal system.
Keywords— SAR, thermal, magnetic, moisture, dielectric
I. INTRODUCTION
Assessing thermal properties of the ground surface based
on Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) remote sensing is a
challenge because of sensitivity of longer SAR wavelength
than thermal infrared region. Therefore, in this study we used
secondary derived SAR parameter to assess thermal
properties of ground surface. The magnetic and dielectric
parameters were selected due to their possibility to be
extracted by dielectric Permittivity of SAR (dPSAR) method
[1]. The dPSAR method utilized the SAR full polarized
mode and local incidence angle and operated based on small
perturbation model of backscattering [2].
The laboratory and field measurements were performed
to characterize magnetic properties of materials in various
temperatures. The thermal infrared camera FLIR C2 and
ground thermometer FLUKE 52 were used to measure
sample temperatures in a steel-frame above a heat source.
The sample moisture, electric potential, magnetic
susceptibility, and permeability were then measured every
five minutes of increment temperature. To verify the
laboratory measurement, we measured the magnetic and
thermal properties of the ground surface in a geothermal
field.
For laboratory experiment, we selected an altered rock
sample from geothermal field and peat sample from dense
vegetation field. The mineral compositions of the altered
rock were transformed due to high pressure and temperature
in a geothermal reservoir [3]. Measuring the sample was
aimed to obtain the effect of temperature to the magnetic
parameters of the rocks [4], [5]. Since, the rocks at ground
surface usually covered by soil and dense vegetation, we also
measured peat sample to obtain the effect of temperature to
the magnetic parameter of mixed soil-vegetation.
For field experiment, we measured surface features at a
geothermal field including altered surfaces, hot springs, and
mud pools. The remaining heat near the surface is the most
suitable to obtain thermal effect and magnetic properties of
materials at ground surface. This preliminary experiment was
targeted to provide basic information of the SAR remote
sensing possibility for mapping thermal property of ground
surface under canopy vegetation region.
II. MATERIAL AND METHOD
A. Selection of Measurement Parameters
To assess thermal properties of the ground surface based
on SAR data, we selected magnetic parameters including
magnetic permeability and susceptibility to correlate with
temperature of samples [6]. Magnetic properties are possible
to be derived by radar system [7], [8]. Therefore, correlating

78-1-5386-7777-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on January 18,2021 at 13:41:22 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 2018 IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Geoscience, Electronics and Remote Sensing Technology (AGERS)

those magnetic parameters is potential to estimating ground

surface temperature based on SAR data.
A physical property for storage and release capabilities of
the electromagnetic energy in the form of magnetic charges,
magnetic permeability (μr), was regarded as the significant
indicator for the material identification as demonstrated by
[7] and [9]. The μr implied to be relative to the absolute
magnetic permeability of free space or a vacuum in SI
(Système International d'Unités) units 4π×10−7wb A−1 m−2
[10]. We used Ferromaster Magnetic Permeability Meter
from Stefan Mayer Instruments to measure the μr of the
samples. The Ferromaster could measure the μr of samples in
range 1.001 to 1.999 with sensitivity measurement 0.001
[11]. Another selected magnetic parameter, magnetic
susceptibility (μs), of the materials represents magnetization
of the materials when they were applied by magnetic field
[12]. The μs was reported as an effective parameter to
characterize surface materials such as coals [13] and volcanic
products [14]. Measuring μs, we used Magnetic
Susceptibility Meter SM-30 from Heritage Geophysics with
sensitivity measurement about 1×10-7 SI [15].
In addition, we also measured the moisture and electric
potential parameters for powder or soil sample and pH for
water sample.
B. Laboratory and Field Scale Experimental Designs
The laboratory measurement was designed to measure
the correlation between temperature, moisture, electric
potential, and magnetic parameters including μr and μs. The
steel-frame was used to hold heated-sample above a heat
source (Fig. 1). The heat-source was designed from small gas
combustion. An altered rock and peat samples were used to
represent surface feature at geothermal and dense vegetation
fields. The thermal infrared camera and soil thermometer
were used to measure rock and peat samples. For altered
rock sample, the stop-watch was also used to measure
sample temperature every five minute of increment
temperature which was measured by Thermal Infrared
Camera FLIR C2 on the top of steel-frame. For peat sample,
the measurement is more complicated than rock sample. The
peat sample temperature increased drastically depending on
moisture content of the sample. Therefore, the measurement
was controlled by increase temperature rather than time
interval. To obtain accurate temperature measurement of the
peat sample, we used a contact system using Thermometer
FLUKE 52 as a common used scientific equipment [16],
[17]. The thermal probe was attached to the peat sample. In
addition, we also measured the electric potential and
moisture content for peat sample to analyze the cause
possibility of physical change of the peat due to increase
temperature. For measurement, the peat sample was
emplaced in a container with dimension 20×20 cm.
Fig. 1. Design of laboratory equipment to measure thermal and magnetic
properties of materials.
For field measurement, we selected Cibuni crater because
of existence of geothermal surface features such as altered
rocks, hot springs, and mud pools at one area [18]. Cibuni
crater was located at a volcanic complex of Mt. Patuha in
West Java, Indonesia (inset of Fig. 2). The variation of
vegetation covers in Cibuni crater from rare to dense was
also crucial to obtain the sensitivity of SAR remote sensing
to detect materials at ground surface as discussed in the
Section IV. The distance of measurement among points was
designed 30 m lower than SAR resolution 12.5 m minimize
the geometric error of SAR images used in this study (Fig.
2). We also used high resolution aerial photographic to select
the most appropriate measurements points based on
feasibility access and location of surface features. There were
11 measured points including 7 locations of altered rocks and
hot springs, 3 locations of altered rocks, and 1 location of
mud pool. The hot springs were located locally controlled by
fractures system at the crater. The altered rocks mostly were
composed by pyroclastic rocks origin. The minerals from
rock matrices were altered strongly to clay mineral and the
rock fragments still remain due to large size.
The land cover of Cibuni crater was depicted high
resolution aerial photograph in Fig. 2. The bare soil or open
area and dense vegetation were presented by bright grayish
and dark green, respectively. The open areas were mostly
composed by geothermal features such as mentioned above.
The vegetation was dominated by forest high trees, shrubs,
and grass. The hot springs commonly located in the small
ponds of open areas. An artificial lake presented by bright
green was located southwest part. The hot water was
collected in the lake and used for bathing by local people.
The shelter infrastructures were also existed in the western
part of the crater.

78-1-5386-7777-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on January 18,2021 at 13:41:22 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 2018 IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Geoscience, Electronics and Remote Sensing Technology (AGERS)

rised temperature was very rapid, we measured each

Fig. 2. Field measurements at Cibuni Crater in West Java (Indonesia)
presented by red, green, and blue dots for hot springs and altered rocks,
altered rocks, and mud pools and altered rocks overlaid on a high resolution
aerial photograph.
The night-time laboratory and field measurements were
increment sample temperatur 10℃ from 25.2 to 96.7℃.
Heating peat sample up to 180℃ for two hours caused only a
rised sample temperature to maximum 98℃. This
phenomenon could be reported that the moisture content of
the peat controlled mostly the heating process. The low and
high temperature of peat sample agreed to the high and low
moisture content and electric conductivty. The moisture
content and electric potential were measured about 52.2%
and 36.1% and 960 mV and 794 μS, respectively. The
measured μr about 1 and 0.993 were achieved by peat
temperature 25.2℃ and 96.7℃. Accordingly, the measured μs
about -27.5×10-3 and -29.6×10-3 were achieved by those peat
temperatures. Further measurements and investigations were
necessary to obtain the magnetic properties of the peat
samples to the thermal variation.
Confirming laboratory measurement, we performed field
measurements at surface features of geothermal system.
Cibuni crater was selected as measured site due to existence
of alteration rocks, hot springs, and mud pools in same
region. The measured parameters were consisted of ground
pH, temperature, μr, and μs.
A
1.05
Magnetic Permeability

performed in order to obtain kinetic temperature of the 1.04

sample and target materials by minimizing thermal
disturbance from environment [19]. The altered rock sample 1.03
measured at laboratory was also originated from fragment of 1.02
pyroclastic rocks at Cibuni crater. Therefore, the
1.01
measurement error could be minimized by taking into
account the same sample location. 1
0.99
III. MEASUREMENTS THERMAL PROPERTY FOR DERIVED-SAR 0 50 100 150 200
PARAMETERS T( )
Variation of sample temperature controlled by thermal
infrared camera and soil thermometer was measured Altered rock Peat
concordance to the change of their magnetic properties. For 20
altered rock sample, the increase temperature was responded B
Magnetic Susceptibility (×10-3)

by decrease magnetic permeability and susceptibility in 10

general (Fig. 3). The discrepancy was noticed up to sample
0
temperature about 21.2 that the magnetic permeability was 0 50 100 150 200
increase significantly from 1.021 to 1.045 and followed by -10
strong decrease at 22.4 about 1.038. A small variation of
magnetic permeability was recorded at rised temperature -20
from 23 to 40.3 about 1.035 to 1.038. An interesting -30
phenomenon was observed that the significant drop of
measured magnetic permeability was occurred at temperature -40
T( )
higher than 50 . For temperature 51.4 and 180 , we
recorded the magnetic permeability about 1.036 and 1.008, Altered rock Peat
respectively (Fig. 3A).
For magnetic susceptibility, a consistent decrease was Fig. 3. Laboratory measurement results to the altered rock and peat
samples for rised temperature corresponded to the magnetic permeability
measured at temperature 18.5℃ to 51.4℃ about 13.9×10-3 to (A) and susceptibility (B) parameters.
12.9×10-3, respectively. A significant drop of magnetic
susceptibility was measured at high temperature 180℃ about
6.5×10-3 (Fig. 3B). Increasing temperatures of the altered
rock sample signifies lowering measured magnetic
permeability and susceptibility, respectively. The lowering
magnetic susceptibility at high temperature was also
measured by the fresh volcanic rocks [20].
For peat sample, we observed that rised temperature was
also followed by decreasing μr and μs, respectively. Since the

78-1-5386-7777-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on January 18,2021 at 13:41:22 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 2018 IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Geoscience, Electronics and Remote Sensing Technology (AGERS)

3.5
1.006
A
3
1.004

Magnetic Permeability
2.5
1.002
2
pH

1
1.5
y = -0.02x + 3.4 0.998
1 R² = 0.9
0.996
0.5 y = -0.0001x + 1
0.994 R² = 0.7
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0.992
0 20 40 60 80 100
T (℃)
T (℃)

Fig. 4. Field measurement result at Cibuni altered rocks showed low and
high temperature concordance to low and high pH, repectively. 12 B
We measured those ground parameters at night-time to 10

Magnetic Susceptibility
obtain kinetic temperature of ground surface by minimizing 8
y = 0.008x + 1.3
thermal influence from environment [21]. Since the pH R² = 0.002
meter was set to measure fluid, we measured 7 hot springs 6
out from 11 measurement points (Fig. 2). 4
In order to confirm the measured temperature related to 2
hydrothermal fluid, we correlate the measured pH and
0
temperature at springs including hot springs (Fig. 4). The 0 20 40 60 80 100
strong correlation between pH and temperature with R2 0.9 -2
T (℃)
indicated that low to high temperature agreed with high to
low pH. The interaction between groundwater and heat
source in reservoirs caused water circulation from the Fig. 5. Field measurement result to the altered rocks showed low and high
temperature concordance to high and low magnetic permeability μr (A), but
subsurface to the surface. The chemical reaction from high high variation of magnetic susceptibility μs (B).
temperature affected minerals in the reservoir and caused
decreasing groundwater pH. This correlation plot confirmed IV. IDENTIFYING GROUND THERMAL ANOMALY ON SAR
that the measured temperatures originated from hydrothermal IMAGES
fluid from reservoir in a geothermal system. Therefore, the
influence of thermal from geothermal system was higher Following laboratory and field measurements, we tried to
than from environment. estimate relative magnetic permeability µr and dielectric
permittivity εr using dielectric permittivity from SAR
Following the laboratory measurements, we also measure (dPSAR) method [1]. The method operated based on Small
and collect μr and μs at 11 surface features. The measurement Perturbation Model Bacscattering (SPMB) of the SAR
results with ground temperature variation were presented by polarimetric mode. According to the published method, the
Fig. 5. The consistent measurement results were achieved by
µr and εr could be inverted from co-polarization
μr parameter. The low and high ground temperature
backscattering coefficient γ0 as follows:
corresponded well with high and low μr. The high
temperature in a beneath the surface demagnetized the ℎ0 , , | −1 , , |2
0
minerals of rocks presented by low μr [22]. This , =
π cos + − sin2
4 (1)
interpretation was also confirmed by low pH presented by
Fig. 4. 0
, =
ℎ0 , , | −1 , , |2
π cos + − sin2
4 (2)
Contrary to μr, the measured μs. at field measurements
showed a low correlation to the ground temperature. Large
variation of the μs from -0.1×10-3 to 1×10-2 corresponded to where f is the first function of the height of random surface
ground temperature more than 60 . According to field above the mean plane; θi is the incidence angle from the
observation, the measured rocks and soils were altered mean normal direction of the surface; and W is the
strongly to the clay minerals and mixed with organic roughness height spectral density. The g is the second
component from weathering process. We suggested that the function of µr, εr , and θi. Detail explanation of the functions
cause of large variation of measured μs originated from the was reported by [1].
influences of surficial process such as weathered soils and
A Phased Array L-band Synthetic Aperture Radar-2
decomposed organic matter. This phenomenon was
(PALSAR-2) onboard the Advanced Land Observing Satelit-
demonstrated by peat measurement in the laboratory
2 (ALOS-2) geocoded image level 1.5 was used as input of
experiment that the rised peat temperature concordance to
the dPSAR method. The spatial resolution 12.5 m was
the variation of μs, but decrase in general (Fig. 3). We
selected and higher than field measurement distance among
interpreted that the organic compounds were responsible to
points about 30 m.
the measured μs.
The dPSAR allowed estimating the µr and εr of ground
surface spatially (Fig. 6). According to the dpSAR method,
the calculated µr for Cibuni crater showed variation with

78-1-5386-7777-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on January 18,2021 at 13:41:22 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 2018 IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Geoscience, Electronics and Remote Sensing Technology (AGERS)
range 0.7 to 23 (Fig. 6A). The lowest µr about 0.7 located at
southern part agreeable with field measurement about 0.9 in
general. The low µr zone less than 1 surrounded the crater
rim with the high µr zone more than 2 located around the
center toward the SE part of the crater. The crater-rim
structures were interpreted as weak zones that the
hydrothermal fluid reached to the surface easily.
Fig. 6. Relative magnetic permeability (A) and dielectric permittivity (B)
maps derived by ALOS 2 PALSAR 2 polarimetric mode.
The high µr about 2.3 corresponded to the field
measurement about 1 originated from the low
demagnetization zone. The crater-rim structure could be
responsible to the circular pattern of low µr zone. The high µr
zones located in the lineaments NW-SE and NE-SW were
interpreted as faults and served as barrier or impermeable
media. For the εr, low and high anomaly located at open and
vegetated areas. According to field observation, the low εr
corresponded with open and dry soil. The medium to high εr
78-1-5386-7777-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on January 18,2021 at 13:41:22 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
were located at wet soil or dense vegetation. We interpreted
that the εr parameter was controlled stronger by moisture
content of ground surface than geological structures.
V. CONCLUSION
The preliminary measurements and applications of
thermal signature to the derived SAR data were presented in
this study. The laboratory experiments were performed by
heating altered rock and peat samples from geothermal and
dense vegetation fields, respectively. According to the
laboratory measurements, the moisture, electric potential,
and magnetic permeability of materials decreased
significantly at temperature more than 50°C. The magnetic
susceptibility responded to the altered rock and peat samples
similarly. The increase temperature will decrease magnetic
susceptibility of the altered rock and peat samples in general.
Ground surface measurements including pH,
temperature, magnetic permeability, and susceptibility at a
geothermal field were also performed to confirm laboratory
measurement. According to the field measurements, the
consistent magnetic permeability was obtained that the low
and high ground temperature corresponded well with high
and low magnetic permeability. The high temperature in a
geothermal system demagnetized the rock minerals presented
by low magnetic permeability. Contrary, the measured
magnetic susceptibility showed a low correlation to the
ground temperature. Large variation of magnetic
susceptibility corresponded to the ground temperature more
than 60 ℃ . The organic materials from weathering and
vegetation influenced to the measurement of magnetic
susceptibility at field.
An application to estimate the magnetic permeability and
dielectric permittivity from SAR backscattering data was
also applied to the selected geothermal field. The lowest
magnetic permeability about 0.7 agreed to the field
measurement about 0.9 in general. The low magnetic
permeability located at crater-rim structure and served as
permeable zones. The high magnetic permeability about 2.3
corresponded to the field measurement about 1 originated
from the barriers of the fault zones. In addition, the dielectric
permittivity parameter was controlled by moisture content of
the ground surface. Further analyses for accurate mapping
were targeted to the next study.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Authors thank to Ristekdikti and LPPM-ITB for
providing research funding in fiscal year 2018. The ALOS-2
PALSAR-2 data was provided by JAXA under collaborative
research scheme ID P3371002.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Saepuloh, K. Koike, M. Urai, and J. T. S. Sumantyo, “Identifying
surface materials on an active volcano by deriving dielectric
permittivity from polarimetric SAR data,” IEEE Geosci. Remote
Sens. Lett., vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 1620–1624, Aug. 2015.
[2] A. K. Fung, K.-S. Chen, and K. S. Chen, Microwave scattering and
emission models for users. Artech house, 2010.
[3] M. J. Mottl and H. D. Holland, “Chemical exchange during
hydrothermal alteration of basalt by seawater—I. Experimental
results for major and minor components of seawater,” Geochim.
Cosmochim. Acta, vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 1103–1115, 1978.
[4] F. Hrouda, “A technique for the measurement of thermal changes of
magnetic susceptibility of weakly magnetic rocks by the CS‐2
 2018 IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Geoscience, Electronics and Remote Sensing Technology (AGERS)
apparatus and KLY‐2 Kappabridge,” Geophys. J. Int., vol. 118, no. 3,
pp. 604–612, 1994.
[5] C. P. Hunt, B. M. Moskowitz, and S. K. Banerjee, “Magnetic
properties of rocks and minerals,” Rock Phys. Phase Relat., vol. 3,
pp. 189–204, 1995.
[6] Y. Pan, R. Zhu, S. K. Banerjee, J. Gill, and Q. Williams, “Rock
magnetic properties related to thermal treatment of siderite: behavior
and interpretation,” J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, vol. 105, no. B1,
pp. 783–794, 2000.
[7] N. J. Cassidy and H. M. Jol, Electrical and magnetic properties of
rocks, soils and fluids, vol. 2. Elsevier, Kidlington, UK, 2009.
[8] D. Stillman and G. Olhoeft, “Frequency and temperature dependence
in electromagnetic properties of Martian analog minerals,” J.
Geophys. Res. Planets, vol. 113, no. E9, 2008.
[9] D. A. Pavlov and M. S. Zhdanov, “Analysis and interpretation of
anomalous conductivity and magnetic permeability effects in time
domain electromagnetic data: Part II: Sμ-inversion,” J. Appl.
Geophys., vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 217–233, 2001.
[10] M. H. Weik, “Relative magnetic permeability,” in Computer Science
and Communications Dictionary, M. H. Weik, Ed. Boston, MA:
Springer US, 2001, pp. 1459–1459.
[11] S. Mayer, “Permeability Meter FERROMASTER Data Sheet.”
Stefan Mayer Instruments, Dinslaken, Germany, 2018.
[12] R. Acharya and K. Paudyal, “Magnetic Susceptibility as a Tool of
Lithological Mapping: A Case Study from Malekhu-Damauli Area of
Central Nepal, Lesser Himalaya,” Nepal J. Sci. Technol., vol. 16, no.
1, pp. 49–58, 2016.
[13] A. Kapicka, N. Jordanova, E. Petrovský, and S. Ustjak, “Effect of
different soil conditions on magnetic parameters of power-plant fly
ashes,” J. Appl. Geophys., vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 93–102, 2001.
78-1-5386-7777-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on January 18,2021 at 13:41:22 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[14] A. Saepuloh and E. Bakker, “Identifying Successive Eruption of
Guntur Volcanic Complex Using Magnetic Susceptibility and
Polarimetric Synthetic Aperture Radar (PolSAR) Data,” in IOP
Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2017, vol. 71,
p. 012004.
[15] Heritage Geophysics Inc., “Magnetic susceptibility meter SM-30
User’s Manual.” Heritage Geophysics, Littleton, Colorado, 2003.
[16] H. Gong, Y. J. Wang, S. C. Teo, and L. Huang, “Interaction between
thin-film tin oxide gas sensor and five organic vapors,” Sens.
Actuators B Chem., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 232–235, 1999.
[17] W. G. Rees and S. P. James, “Angular variation of the infrared
emissivity of ice and water surfaces,” Int. J. Remote Sens., vol. 13,
no. 15, pp. 2873–2886, 1992.
[18] A. Fauzi, S. Darma, and E. E. Siahaan, “The role of Pertamina in
geothermal development in Indonesia,” in Proceeding World
Geothermal Congress, 2005.
[19] A. Saepuloh et al., “Interpretation of ground surface changes prior to
the 2010 large eruption of Merapi volcano using ALOS/PALSAR,
ASTER TIR and gas emission data,” J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res.,
vol. 261, pp. 130–143, Jul. 2013.
[20] A. Saepuloh, R. A. Saputra, and P. Sumintadireja, “Pemetaan
Geologi Gunung Api Dijital Daerah Ngebel, Madiun berdasarkan
Data Reflektansi dan Suseptibilitas Magnetik Batuan,” J. Geol. Dan
Sumberd. Miner., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 201–210, 2017.
[21] J. C. Price, “On the analysis of thermal infrared imagery: The limited
utility of apparent thermal inertia,” Remote Sens. Environ., vol. 18,
no. 1, pp. 59–73, 1985.
[22] G. Pullaiah, E. Irving, K. L. Buchan, and D. J. Dunlop,
“Magnetization changes caused by burial and uplift,” Earth Planet.
Sci. Lett., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 133–143, 1975.