A test of mobile weight-drop for surface

wave seismic data acquisition

Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 1755, 100004 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4958533
Published Online: 21 July 2016

Eddy Hartantyo

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Vp/Vs and Poisson’s ratios in marine sediments and rocks

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 66, 1093 (1979); https://
doi.org/10.1121/1.383344

Distributed acoustic sensing for seismic activity monitoring

APL Photonics 5, 030901 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5139602

Tuff as rock and soil: Review of the literature on tuff geotechnical, chemical and mineralogical
properties around the world and in Indonesia
AIP Conference Proceedings 2114, 050022 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5112466

AIP Conference Proceedings 1755, 100004 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4958533 1755, 100004

© 2016 Author(s).
 A Test of Mobile Weight-drop for Surface Wave Seismic
Data Acquisition
Eddy Hartantyo

Geophysics Laboratory, Faculty of Math and Nat Sciences, University of Gadjah Mada
Sekip Utara, Bulaksumur, Yogyakarta 55283, INDONESIA
Corresponding email: hartantyo@ugm.ac.id

Abstract. Design, implementation and test of mobile weight-drop (MWD) could be accomplished. The test was
conducted with 8 channel seismic acquisition data logger using 3 m spacing and 5 m near offsets. Two type of active
sources were used (hammer and MWD), as well as passive records. The averaged PSD shows that frequency range was
30-90 Hz, wider than a hammer. The peak amplitude of averaged PSD which was found at the frequency 55 Hz is 0.2x10-
6 dB/Hz. Compared with hammer source, the averaged value of MWD is nearly half, means the energy impact of the

hammer is twice compared with MWD. The Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) of averaged PSD of hammer and noise is
around 76.2 times or 38 dB, otherwise for MWD and noise is 238 times or 47 dB. For the MASW purposes, both hammer
and MWD shows a similar result, but the hammer source delivering lower frequency than MWD. The accelerated MWD
will be designed for the next research.

INTRODUCTION
There are two types of surface exploration seismic, i.e. refraction and reflection seismic [1]. On those surveys,
optimum parameters for acquisition are needed to record a good quality data. One of the important parameters is the
seismic source [2]. Ideal source parameters are: a big enough energy and wide frequency bands for capturing the
maximum seismic resolution [3]. For university level, the most important criteria are the ‘cost’ and mobility aspects,
due to simplicity for educational purposes.
The use of near surface exploration seismic was massively conducted for several purposes. For example, it uses
to describe the subsurface velocity [4-8], and for geotechnical analysis, identify the slip surface of debris by
refraction seismic [8,9]. The last author using a 16 lbs hammer for the seismic source. Shot with 6 times stacking
will create a signal which clearly seen at 30 m offsets. Al-Anezi et al. (2012) also use a 6 kg hammer as a seismic
source for weathered soil mapping in the Northeast Riyadh, Saudi Arabia [10]. They are using 10 times stacking and
reached maximum 98 m offsets.
Nowadays, in a relatively rare population (remote) area, weight drop use for the seismic source is unpopular due
to its energy and usually replaced by dynamite or vibroseis [11]. The massive use of huge weight drop has been
done in a remote area, using 30-300 m height for dropping 1-ton steel, with a JDAM-like shape, for the seismic
source. They are using an aeroplane or helicopter for bringing this JDAM-like source to this proper height. Another
type of seismic sources is accelerated weight drop which is mounted in the back of SUV. The mobility of this
apparatus is very easy, but need an appropriate operator for operating procedure. Omnes and Ribert (1982) was
created the P-Shooter, a weight drop apparatus and the mass was accelerated with spring [12]. It also mounted in the
back of SUV vehicle, and use the weight of this SUV for getting a good couple between the steel plate and ground.
The giant model of weight drop was The Seismic Hammer [13]. It consists of high power accelerated tons of
mass in almost 30 m height and giving 16 Mjoule energy. The huge crane was used to operate this apparatus, due to
huge size and weight. Ths will create very wide frequency signal, from 10 Hz to 250 Hz, and this is enough for the
active seismic survey. Almost all of mentioned sources need a special certificate to operate, high cost, and too many
procedures for education purposes.

Advances of Science and Technology for Society

AIP Conf. Proc. 1755, 100004-1–100004-5; doi: 10.1063/1.4958533
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1413-6/$30.00

100004-1
 This paper will describe the final step design and building of a new mobile weight drop (MWD) which are low
cost, mobile (can be moved easily and practically), and easy to use for the student. As a previous apparatus, our
Laboratory has two kinds of seismic sources; one is hammers with several weights (from 4 kg to 15 kg) and a
relatively tall weight drop (up to 4 m height) with 40 kg of falling massive-steel as a source. This weight drop is
erected by at least three crew and hard to move for next shot points.
The new MWD was designed to operate and moved only by one person, and effectively use in common shot
gathers which are normally used in two-dimensional MASW survey (every shot in between each geophone) (see
Fig. 1). The height from dropping system to the base is 170 cm, and total height is 200 m while erected. We are
using a cylindrical steel approximately 15 kg as a free falling mass, and a metal base plate with 30 cm diameters and
2 cm thickness. The apparatus of falling mass was mounted permanently on the normal trolley.

FIGURE 1 Photograph of MWD. Base plate (left), a whole apparatus (center) and mechanical dropping system (right)

METHODOLOGY
The data acquisition was recorded by home-made seismic recording, which previously is a multichannel voltage
data logger. We are using 8 channels, and the input voltage of every channel is set to +/-100 mV pp. The location
test site was chosen as a moderate noise area, in a small park in FMIPA-UGM, which there is some cars or
motorcycle passing. The distance to the geophones lines approximately at 10 m distance. The seismic noise is
relatively high, and this is a right place for source energy testing compared by noise energy. Geometry of MWD test
is shown in Fig. 2, using end off spread with acquisition parameters summarised as: Num. of channels: 8; ADC:
14bit; sampling time: 7000/sec/8channels, which is nearly 1,1 ms/channel; natural freq. geophone: 4.5 Hz; geophone
spacing: 3 m; near offset: 5 m; trigger: none; shot-type: MWD and hammer.
Some sets of data from two shots (MWD and hammer) were conducted, and selected for analysis. The first
analyzed data was noise record up to 30 s, and it was enough for desired frequency range 5 Hz to 100 Hz, and the
second one is shot gathers data by MWD and hammer. The length of the second set was 700 ms, and 4 set of shots
were chosen for further analysis. We are conducting the pseudo-spectral density function (PSD), using Welch PSD
method (n=128 points and dn=30 points) provided by Matlab for every set of data [14]. By using this function, we
can analyze the smoothed version of Fourier spectra and compare both the frequency range and their respected
amplitudes.

100004-2
 FIGURE 2 Seismic test geometry. The seismic logger located in the center of geometry and shot (MWD and hammer) position
has a 5 m offset from the easternmost geophone.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Analysis of the noise was carried out with 28 s noise records, which was known as a mixture in the form of noise
due to the wind, the roots of the trees, the roar of the motor vehicles either car, as well as human (walking, sitting,
etc.) and construction activities. Figure 3 shows the eight channels of noise record (left) and their PSD amplitude
(grey-line, right) as well as their average (black line, right). For the amplitude of Welch PSD (black-line Fig. 3 right)
which was greater than 1x10-9 dB/Hz, the noise containing frequencies at a range of 10-60 Hz, with the maximum
amplitude is 2.4x10-9 dB/Hz at nearly 18 Hz frequency.

FIGURE 3 Seismogram of noise record (left) and their respective PSD (grey-line, right) as well as average PSD (black line,
right)

The data in Fig. 4a show the sample of a shot by using hammer source and their respective PSD values.
Seismogram data was (left) shown non-normalized, so the energy of far offset will smaller compared to the near
one. The averaged PSD data (black line) showed the range of frequency 30-80 Hz, with a peak value at a frequency

100004-3
of 40-60 Hz. Averaged PSD amplitude value ranges between (0.3 to 1.0) x 10-6 dB/Hz.If we look closely, at the
dominant frequency 40 Hz the averaged PSD is (0.3 to 0.5) x 10-6 dB/Hz, and at the dominant frequency 60 Hz is
(0.5 to 1.0) x 10-6 dB/Hz. We still not separate the body wave signal, ground roll and noise contained in before and
after the event appears [3]. Those third signal were still assumed to be mixed each other.
For the MWD source (Fig. 4b), which also chose from several data set by MWD (shows identical result), shows
the normalized seismogram (left), and their respective PSD (grey line) and averaged PSD (black-line). The averaged
PSD shows frequency range 30-90Hz, wider than hammer. The peak amplitude of averaged PSD, noted at the
frequency nearly 55 Hz, is 0.2x10-6 dB/Hz. Compared with hammer source, the averaged value of MWD is nearly
half, means the energy impact of the hammer is twice compared with MWD. The Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) of
averaged PSD of hammer and noise is around 76.2 times or 38 dB, otherwise for MWD and noise is 238 times or 47
dB.

(a) (b)
FIGURE 4. A dataset with hammer source (a) and MWD (b). For each figure, left is seismogram and right are respective PSD
(grey line) and average PSD (black-line)

The similar set data, comply with Fig. 4, also proceeded by stacking FV methods [15] for calculating the phase
velocity-frequency diagram for dispersion curve analysis in MASW. For each source, we choose 4 set data to
provide the dispersion diagram (see Fig. 5a and b). Visually, those diagram shows similar, but the MWD only give a
clear view from frequency 60 Hz down to 25 Hz, otherwise the hammer source continued to around 19 Hz. Small
artefact is seen for hammer source at frequency 48 Hz and not indicated in hammer source. From this point of view,
the quality of both sources is similar, with some plus point delivered by hammer source.

(a) (b)
FIGURE 5. The dispersion diagram by using stacking FV diagram methods of set data by hammer source (a) and MWD (b)

100004-4
 CONCLUSION
Design, implementation and test of mobile weight-drop (MWD) can be accomplished. The averaged PSD shows
frequency range 30-90 Hz, wider than hammer. The peak amplitude of averaged PSD, noted at the frequency nearly
55 Hz, is 0.2x10-6 dB/Hz. Compared with hammer source, the averaged value of MWD is nearly half, means the
energy impact of the hammer is twice compared with MWD. The Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) of averaged PSD of
hammer and noise is around 76.2 times or 38 dB, otherwise for MWD and noise is 238 times or 47 dB.
For the MASW purposes, both hammer and MWD shows a similar result, but the hammer source delivering
lower frequency than MWD. The accelerated MWD will be designed for the next research.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We thanks to Physics Department UGM for fund support by BOPTN scheme, Geophysics Laboratory for
providing the extended apparatus, and for anonymous reviewer for checking the paper. Also for Department internal
reviewer for suggestion and discussion during the evaluation of this project.

REFERENCES
1. K. Aki and P. G. Richard. A Quantitative Seismology: Theory and Methods, vol 1, (W.H. Freemann, New
York, 1980), pp. 12-14.
2. B. C. Scheffers, W. M. W. Otte, S. A. C. Meekes and R. J. Arts. Special aspects of the acquisition of 2D HRS
data using dynamite and Vibroseis sources: 59th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Expanded Abstracts, (1997)
Paper P045.
3. G. M. Suarez and R. R. Stewart. 2008. Seismic source comparison for a compressional and converted-wave
generation at Spring Coulee, Alberta. Part I: Heavy vibroseis-dynamite comparison, CREWES Research
Report – Vol 20.
4. B. Denness, B. W. Conway, D. M. McCann and P. Grainger. Jour. Engg. Geol, 18, 119-140 (1975).
5. V. A. Bogoslovsky and A. A. Ogilvy. Geophysics 42(3), 562-571 (1977).
6. D. Cummings and B. R. Clark. Bull. Assoc. Engg. Geologists, 25(4), 459-464 (1988).
7. P. deVita, D. Agrello and F. Ambrosino. Jour.Applied Geophys., 59, 126-139 (2006).
8. N.H. Al-Saigh and Th. H. Al-Dabbagh. Journal Geological Society of India, 76, 175-180 (2010).
9. Hartantyo & Suryanto, 2012. Velocity mapping of the possible land-slide plane by refraction seismic at
UNIKA campuss, Central Java. Report to Geological engg., UGM. Unpublished.
10. G. T. Al-Anezi, A. M. Al-Amri and H. Zaman. Arab J Geosci 5, 1347 – 1358 (2012).
11. D. Monk, M. Bahorich and P. Bahorich. Oil and Gas Journal, 99 issue 37. (2001)
12. G. Omnes and P. P. Robert. “P-shooter--A Fast Seismic Source for Shallow Exploration”. AAPG Bulletin, vol
66 – 10, pp1967.
13. Hampshire and Donnel, 2013. The Seismic HammerTM: A 16 MJoule Seismic Source with Flat Output
Spectrum from 10s to 250 Hz. Presentation product of The Seismic Hammer, USA.
14. P.D. Welch "The Use of Fast Fourier Transform for the Estimation of Power Spectra: A Method Based on
Time Averaging Over Short, Modified Periodograms." IEEE Trans. Audio Electroacoust. Vol. AU-15 (June
1967). pp. 70-73.
15. E. Hartantyo, K. Sri Brotopuspito, Sismanto, and Waluyo, Predicting the liquefaction phenomena from shear
velocity profiling: an Empirical approach to 6.3 Mw, May 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake. AIP Conf. Proc. 1658,
030017 (2015).

100004-5