Journal of Applied Geophysics 208 (2023) 104887

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Applied Geophysics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jappgeo

A novel weight-drop seismic energy source for subsurface characterization

Abul Aas *, Satish Kumar Sinha
Department of Petroleum Engineering and Geoengineering, Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Petroleum Technology, Uttar Pradesh, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) studies for subsurface characterization in Central Ganga Basin
Surface waves of India, where thick cover of alluvium absorbs most of the vibrations generated by a sledgehammer source, give
Sledgehammer low quality seismic data at large offsets and generally provide imaging depth lesser than 30 m due to low quality
Weight-drop
of dispersion curves at lower frequencies. Therefore, a novel seismic energy source is designed and developed to
Source comparison
Repeatability
produce large amplitude surface waves even at longer offsets and for deeper depths of imaging using dispersion
Dispersion curve analysis of surface waves. The developed source for seismic data acquisition is low-cost, repeatable, portable, and
easy to operate with no environmental impact. Unlike the sledgehammer source where the quality of surface
waves generated also depends on the person hitting the metal plate, the seismic data quality from the novel
weight-drop source is independent of the operator.
The developed source is an impact type where a free-falling mass accelerated due to gravitational pull hits
onto a base plate coupled with the earth generating vibrations in the ground. The performance of the source was
evaluated in a field trial. A receiver array of 24-channel cabled geophones with 3 m spacing was planted on the
ground. Seismic data were acquired using the source at 5 m negative offset inline from the first geophone.
Seismic data were also recorded with the sledgehammer as a source for comparison. Five shot gathers for each
source were acquired with the same acquisition geometry and source position.
Shot gathers were analyzed and compared using trace attributes, 1D and 2D Fourier spectra, signal-to-noise
ratio, relative energy, and dispersion images. The study shows that the developed source produces low fre­
quency high amplitude signal and better dispersion image, notably in the lower frequency range, in comparison
with the sledgehammer source. Therefore, the developed source is adapted to investigate deeper subsurface
velocity structure with dispersion curve from high amplitude surface wave analysis. Moreover, the repeatability
study suggests that the repeat shot gathers acquired from the developed source have remarkably high degree of
similarity. Therefore, seismic data acquisition with the developed source does not require repeat shots for ver­
tical stacking as often done in case of a hammer source. Sound pressure level measurement indicates that the
developed source has no adverse environmental impact on the operator. From the field trial of the developed
source, it is convinced that the source is cost-effective, portable, easy to operate and handle and is environ­
mentally friendly.

1. Introduction
A man-made energy source is required for seismic imaging of sub­
surface in which seismic waves generated by the source propagate
through various layers in the subsurface and are recorded by the re­
ceivers planted on the surface (Schuck and Lange, 2007; Steeples, 2005).
The acquired seismic signals are further processed and analyzed for
different application purposes, for example, detection of faults and
fractures, groundwater exploration, geotechnical site characterization,
evaluating karst condition, glaciated valley, and others (Büker et al.,
1998; Giustiniani et al., 2008; Rubin and Hubbard, 2005; Shtivelman,
2003).
Some of the important factors that need to be considered in the se­
lection of a seismic source are: depth of investigation, cost of seismic
data acquisition, operational challenges and environmental impacts etc.
(Evans, 1997). Commonly used seismic sources for seismic character­
ization of shallow subsurface include thumper, minivib, airgun, mini
sosie, HydraPulse, and VIBSIST, among others (Barbier et al., 1976;
Brocher and Hart, 1991; Evans, 1997; Ganguly and Moissa, 2005).
Although some of these seismic sources generate high energy signal,

* Corresponding author at: Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Petroleum Technology, Jais, Amethi, Uttar Pradesh 229304, India.
E-mail addresses: pgp19001@rgipt.ac.in (A. Aas), ssinha@rgipt.ac.in (S.K. Sinha).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2022.104887
Received 26 July 2022; Received in revised form 19 October 2022; Accepted 20 November 2022
Available online 23 November 2022
0926-9851/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A. Aas and S.K. Sinha
they may not be cost effective and are also difficult to operate and
maintain. Furthermore, operational safety of a seismic source needs to
be considered, and local government permission may be needed for its
use (e.g., dynamite). No thumb rule exists for choosing a portable source
for the survey that would provide sufficient frequency range and energy
of seismic signal. The specified requirements that can be met may be
conditioned by the survey’s financial constraints (Wardell, 1970;
Yordkayhun et al., 2009). Several researchers have developed their own
seismic sources for their research projects, according to their budget
limitations (Bahar et al., 2019; Brom and Stan-Kłeczek, 2015; Hartantyo,
2016; Richter et al., 2018; Yordkayhun and Na Suwan, 2012). Brom and
Stan-Kłeczek (2015) utilized pyrotechnic materials for the development
of explosive type seismic energy source. Hartantyo (2016) developed a
mobile weight-drop system for generation of seismic wave. Yordkayhun
and Na Suwan (2012) designed an accelerated weight-drop seismic
source for shallow subsurface investigation. Yet another type of accel­
erated weight-drop (awd250 v1.0™) was built by Bahar et al., (2019) for
shallow seismic survey. Richter et al. (2018) designed pneumatic impact
and magnetostrictive vibrator seismic energy sources for geotechnical
investigations.
The type of source employed for seismic data acquisition has major
bearing on the data quality. Signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) and frequency
content of the data determines the quality of seismic image and its
resolution (Feroci et al., 2000; Steeples, 2005). When choice of the
source is limited due to the budget constraints, a sledgehammer seismic
source striking a steel base plate is commonly used. This source has the
advantage of being inexpensive, portable, and simple to operate and
maintain (Keiswetter and Steeples, 1995; Steeples, 2005). The disad­
vantages, however, are: (i) it produces low-quality seismic signal (i.e.,
low amplitude vibration and poor S/N ratio), and (ii) its functioning is
dependent on the available manpower causing variation in seismic
source signature from one shot to another (Yordkayhun and Na Suwan,
2012). Furthermore, a hammer source gives low quality dispersion
curve at lower frequency range and typically has an investigation depth
smaller than 30 m. Other seismic sources which can provide good
quality seismic data either require a certificate of permission to operate,
or have a difficult operational procedure, or are very expensive. These
limitations prompted us to develop a seismic source which would pro­
duce a better-quality seismic data for a relatively deeper depth of
investigation compared to a hammer source and would be cost effective,
portable, repeatable, and easy to operate.
Many researchers have suggested that the efficiency of a seismic
source, particularly for surface waves in lower frequency range, can be
increased using a heavy weight drop mass (Foti et al., 2018; Keiswetter
and Steeples, 1995; Mereu et al., 1963). The novel seismic energy source
is designed and fabricated for Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves
(MASW) studies keeping in mind the cost factor and ease of operation.
An attempt has been made to increase the depth of penetration for
seismic signal by using a heavy weight drop mass. The current study
outlines the design and testing of the novel weight-drop seismic source.
In this design essentially a weight-drop accelerated under gravity strikes
a base plate that is coupled to the ground. The amplitude and frequency
of seismic waves from the impact source depends on several factors
including mass and shape of weight-drop and base plate, material of the
coupler, falling height, and velocity of impact (Abe et al., 1990; Mereu
et al., 1963). The novel seismic energy source is a low-cost equipment
constructed from mild steel. It does not require any external power
mechanism and has no environmental impact. It can be easily moved in
the field and operated by an adult. A test survey is carried out to
demonstrate its utility for subsurface imaging using MASW and the
quality of seismic data is examined based on the spectral analysis and
dispersion curves of the seismic signal. The source’s performance,
repeatability of source signature, its portability and safety issues are
discussed.
2
Journal of Applied Geophysics 208 (2023) 104887
2. Development of novel seismic source
2.1. Source selection criteria for a survey
Selecting an energy source for acquisition of the seismic data is
crucial as the source characteristics affects signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) in
the data and typically controls imaging depth and resolution of the
image. Evans (1997) suggested the following five criteria for a source
selection:
1) Target depth of penetration - The geophysicists should choose a
source with sufficient energy to illuminate the target regions based
on the exploration objectives.
2) Frequency bandwidth necessary to achieve the desired resolution –
For high resolution imaging, the source should emit a wide range of
frequencies.
3) Signal to noise characteristics – Noise problem varies from one
location to another. The energy generated by the source is dependent
on the characteristics of impact surface. For example, an impact
source or a vibrator operating in a region of loose and dry sand may
generate a poor signal because of weak coupling of the metal plate or
vibrator pad to the soil.
4) Environment – A seismic source must be chosen keeping in mind the
operating environment/region. For example, it is difficult to use a
vibroseis truck in a populated area or on a vegetative region or in a
highly undulating terrain. Use of dynamite may be restricted by the
local government.
5) Availability and cost- The seismic sources such as vibroseis and
dynamite generate high energy signals, but they are costly, difficult
to operate and maintain. When choice of the source is limited by the
budget constraints, a hammer seismic is often used.
The energy and frequency content of the signal from the induced
source are the key parameters for selecting a viable source for seismic
data acquisition (Bühnemann and Holliger, 1998; Doll et al., 1998;
Feroci et al., 2000; Miller et al., 1986). From operational point of view,
repeatability of the source signal is also one of the important factors
(Aritman, 2001).
2.2. Design criteria for a weight-drop source
A weight-drop source is essentially a surface impact source, which
uses an accelerating mass striking onto a base plate coupled to the
ground. When the falling weight strikes the base plate, the kinetic en­
ergy is transmitted to the ground, producing seismic waves which
propagate within the subsurface. The amplitude and frequency of the
seismic waves generated from an impact source depends on several
factors, such as mass of weight dropped, height of falling, velocity of
impact, mass of base plate or coupler and material of coupler (Abe et al.,
1990; Mereu et al., 1963).
The novel weight-drop source is designed keeping in view of the
following criteria:
1) Impact Energy – Seismic energy is more efficiently generated if the
weight-drop is heavier and a rigid plate is used for impact (Mereu
et al., 1963). In the development of the novel source, a heavy, hollow
cylindrical and guided weight-drop has been used as it increases the
impact energy and reduces the bounce from the plate. A rigid base
plate with optimum weight is utilized for better coupling to the
ground.
2) Repeatability – The source signature or the waveform must be similar
from one shot to the next (Aritman, 2001).
3) Mobility and operation – The design and operation of the seismic
source should be simple, so that it can be transported / moved easily
from one shot location to another and can be operated by a single
operator at the surveying site.
A. Aas and S.K. Sinha Journal of Applied Geophysics 208 (2023) 104887

4) Cost – If its portability, ease of access, operation, maintenance is

simple, then it can be regarded as a low-budget seismic source.
5) Environmental Impact – The impact system mechanism and its
functioning should be simple enough for its environmental impact to
be minimal.

2.3. Structure and design of the novel source

1) The novel source has been designed with the specifications as given
in Table 1 and its structural representation is shown in Fig. 1. Its
various components have been discussed below:
2) Impact mass: The impact mass weighing 55 kg is molded from mild
steel. It has a hollow cylindrical form of the dimension: outer
diameter - 25 cm, inner diameter - 5 cm, and height - 15 cm.
3) Base plate-coupler: The base plate is square in shape with dimension
40x40x3.1 cm3 and is made from mild steel. It is placed at the base of
the instrument which assures good coupling with the ground.
4) Supporting system: It consists of one central rod, two side rods, and
two rectangular plates, one at the bottom and another at the top. The
central rod is fixed with the base plate and another end is fixed with
the upper rectangular plate as shown in Fig. 1. A small gap is pro­
vided between the base plate and the lower rectangular plate to
reduce the jerk. The impact mass is allowed to move freely along the
central rod. The lower and upper rectangular plates are supported by
the two side rods.
5) Transportation components: Two columns of mild steel are attached
to the lower plate at one end and with the handlebars at the other
end. Two wheels are provided at the base of the developed source for
its mobility and the equipment is moved by tilting and pushing it
forward using the handlebar.
6) Operating components: The holder is welded with the side rod 15 cm
below the upper plate and is used to hold the impact mass at the top.
When the holder is activated the impact mass is released. A pair of
handlebars jointed at the top side of the upper plate is also given to
increase the torque and reduce the magnitude of force required to lift
the source keeping the base plate pivoted to the ground.
Fig. 1. Design and description of the components of the developed source.
2.4. Operation of the developed source
1) The source is placed at the identified location for generating seismic
waves. The working procedures of the developed source are as fol­
lows (Fig. 2):
2) Typically, the impact mass rests on the base plate when the source is
transported to the survey area as shown in Fig. 2a. The impact mass is
brought on the topside by tilting the instrument to the ground using
the handlebars. In this position the topside is lower with respect to
the bottom of the instrument and therefore, the impact mass is easily
moved along the central rod to the top plate and is locked at the top
side using the holder (Fig. 2b).
3) The top is lifted with the help of two handlebars keeping the edge of
the base plate pivoted to the ground (Fig. 2c) and is thus placed in the
upright position (Fig. 2d). In this position the impact mass is at the
top side and has gained potential energy. Only the base plate is in
contact with the ground.
4) When the holder is released, the impact mass accelerates downward
along the central rod under the gravitational force and strikes the
base plate with significant amount of energy (Fig. 2a). The impact
generates seismic waves which propagates into the subsurface and

Table 1
Developed source specifications and its comparison with the hammer source and the seismic energy source developed by Yordkayhun and Na Suwan (2012) (OD –
Outer Diameter; ID – Inner Diameter; L – Length; W – Width; H – Height).
Characteristics Developed Source Hammer Source Seismic Source by Yordkayhun &
Suwan

Type Impact (Free Fall) Impact (Accelerated) Impact (Accelerated)

Weight Drop Mass Base Plate Hammer Base Plate Weight Drop Mass Base Plate
Weight (Kg) 55 39 7.5 2 30 30
Description Shape Hollow Cylindrical Square Cylindrical Square Cylindrical Square
Dimension OD x ID x H LxWxH DxH LxWxH DxH LxWxH
(length in cm) 25 × 5 × 15 40 × 40 × 3.1 9 × 14 20 × 20 × 2 10 × 50 35 × 35 × 3
Height of fall / Vertical height of suspended mass 135 cm Variable and user dependent 100 cm
Potential Energy at the top 728 J Variable Not known
Time taken by weight drop mass to hit the base plate 0.525 s Variable Not known
Velocity with which the mass will strike the base plate 5.144 m/s Variable Not known
Momentum delivered to the ground 283 Kg-m/s Variable Not known
Area of the base plate that comes in contact with the falling
471 sq. cm 78.5 sq. cm 78.5 sq. cm
weight when it hits the base plate
Lifting and shooting of weight drop Not used User driven Rack and pinion
Overall weight of instrument 120 kg 11.5 kg 90 kg
Accelerator Acceleration due to gravity User dependent Spring+rubber sling
Moderate
Repeatability High High
(user dependent)
Rate of shot production 1–2 min/shot 1–2 min/shot 1–2 min/shot
Total Cost (Make Year) 300 USD (2022) 20–60 USD (2022) 600 USD (2012)
Material Used Mild Steel (MS) Stainless steel (SS) Stainless steel (SS)
Manufacturing Location India India Thailand

3
A. Aas and S.K. Sinha
Fig. 2. Procedure for working of the developed source.
can be detected by the planted geophones. The same cycle is
repeated for the next shot.
The novel seismic energy source is designed and developed for
MASW study keeping in mind the cost factor. A weight-drop of 55 kg,
heavier than the base plate of 39 Kg with large plate area (1600 cm2), has
been used to increase the efficiency of transmitting the impact energy
and lower frequency component, so that the depth of penetration can be
increased (Foti et al., 2018; Keiswetter and Steeples, 1995; Mereu et al.,
1963). No external mechanism has been used for lifting and shooting the
weight drop mass; it is allowed to fall freely under gravity. Yordkayhun
and Na Suwan (2012) has developed a seismic energy source where
equal mass of weight drop and base plate (30 Kg) has been used.
Furthermore, a lifting and shooting system has been used for the weight
drop and is accelerated using spring and rubber sling. The specifications
of the novel weight drop seismic source, the hammer source, and the
seismic source developed by Yordkayhun and Na Suwan (2012) have
been compared in Table 1.
3. Performance analysis of the novel source and its comparison
with sledgehammer
In this section performance of the novel source is evaluated for its
efficiency and potential of generating good quality seismic data at a test
site for its future applications. Furthermore, in this study, performance
of the novel source is compared with that of a sledgehammer source as it
is the most commonly used seismic source for near surface or shallow
subsurface imaging. The sledgehammer and the base plate weigh 7.5 kg
and 2 kg, respectively. Detailed specifications of the hammer source
along with the novel source are listed in Table 1. The functioning of the
developed source is assessed in terms of amplitude, energy and fre­
quency content of the signal, signal-to-noise ratio (S/N), dispersion
curve analysis of the shot gathers, and repeatability of the measurements
(Aritman, 2001; Brom and Stan-Kłeczek, 2015; Doll et al., 1998; Har­
tantyo, 2016; Sopher et al., 2014). Moreover, its environmental impact
is also analyzed using sound pressure level meter (David et al., 2013).
4
Journal of Applied Geophysics 208 (2023) 104887
3.1. Data acquisition
The test site is situated in the central part of Ganga Basin of India,
where a thick cover of Quaternary sediments is present (Dinkar et al.,
2019; Sastri et al., 1971). The available borehole data near the test site
reveals that the subsurface up to 40 m depth consists of alternate layers
of sand and clays and it absorbs high frequency component of seismic
signal. Near surface geophysical studies in the area is important for
geotechnical purposes. There are several ridges and faults present in the
basement of the Ganga basin (Demudu Babu et al., 2020; Sinha et al.,
2010). Though, the seismicity of Ganga basin is relatively moderate in
comparison to the Himalayan region in the north, several earthquakes
have been recorded in last 100 years, magnitude of which can poten­
tially cause damages to bridges, dams, and building constructions (Singh
et al., 2015; Yön et al., 2017).
A test survey is carried out using GEA 24-channel seismograph with
4.5 Hz vertical geophones. Acquisition parameters and field geometry
for the data acquisition are listed in Table 2. Seismic data were collected
for both the sources with the same acquisition parameters and field
geometry. Five shots from 5 m offset were recorded using the novel
weight-drop source. Another five shots were recorded using the
sledgehammer source from the same source point for comparative
analysis. Each shot gathers having 24 traces is analyzed for the source
performance. The developed source is easy to operate, and it produces
1–2 shots per minute.
3.2. Analysis of collected data and results
All five shot gathers from the novel weight-drop source are stacked
and produced as one shot gather as shown in Fig. 3a. Similarly, five shot
gathers from the sledgehammer are also stacked and produced as a
single shot gather (Fig. 3b). Their normalized counterparts are shown in
Fig. 3c and d, respectively. Performance analyses of the developed
source and its comparison with the sledgehammer source are presented
based on the study of these normalized stacked shot gathers and their
spectra (Fig. 4-6). Energy ratio of both the sources and S/N ratio are
analyzed with offset in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8, respectively. Their dispersion
images are compared in Fig. 9 and shear wave profiles obtained from the
inversion of dispersion curves are presented in Fig. 10. Repeatability
analysis of the source signature is performed to assess the similarity
between the repeat shot gathers at the same source point (Fig. 11-13).
These results are also compared for the two source types.
3.2.1. Study of shot gather traces and its spectra
Shot gather traces from the two seismic sources have been compared
in terms of true amplitude, instantaneous amplitude, and frequency
spectra in Fig. 4, Fig. 5, and Fig. 6, respectively. Blue colored traces are
for the developed source whereas red color has been used for traces from
the hammer source. Only alternate traces are shown for pictorial rep­
resentation. It is evident from Fig. 4 that the seismic traces from the
Table 2
Acquisition parameters and field geometry for the data acquisition.
Description Acquisition Parameters
Seismic energy source Novel weight-drop source and sledgehammer
source
Seismograph GEA 24-channel
No. of geophones and type 24, 4.5 Hz vertical geophone
Distance of source from the 1st 5m
geophone
Geophone spacing 3m
Sampling Interval 0.5 ms
Record Length 2s
Number of shots from each source 5
type
Field Geometry Inline (source and receivers are along a
straight line)
A. Aas and S.K. Sinha
Fig. 3. Stacked shot gathers of five shots from developed source [(a) & (c)], and hammer source [(b) & (d)]. (a) and (b) are raw shot gathers whereas (c) and (d) and
normalized shot gathers.
developed source are stronger having high amplitude and surface wave
is prominently visible on all geophones in comparison to the hammer
source traces. The amount of energy released by a seismic source is
difficult to calculate, it can only be estimated which is proportional to
the peak amplitudes (Juhojuntti and Juhlin, 1998; Yordkayhun and Na
Suwan, 2012). In Fig. 5a, instantaneous amplitude has been shown and
stacked instantaneous amplitude from all twenty-four channels is shown
in Fig. 5b. Clearly, instantaneous amplitude of the signal generated by
the developed source is stronger (approx. 5 times) and deeper as the
hammer source signal weakens below 500 ms whereas energy from the
developed source can be seen up to 600 ms.
The frequency spectra of the signal from the developed source and
from the hammer source are compared in Fig. 6. It is evident that the
developed source is more powerful than the hammer source as the
amplitude of the frequency spectra of the developed source signal is
higher implying that it is sending a greater amount of energy into the
subsurface. Both the sources produced signal in the frequency range of
5–100 Hz (Fig. 6b), however, the frequency spectrum of the developed
source shows higher amplitude in the lower frequency range indicating
increased depth of penetration of the signal and therefore, it would
provide deeper imaging of the subsurface from MASW study.
5
Journal of Applied Geophysics 208 (2023) 104887
3.2.2. Relative energy ratio of the two sources (EDS/EHS)
In this section, relative energy from both the sources have been
evaluated and compared. It is essentially a single scalar in each fre­
quency range, which determine the estimate of relative amount of
seismic energy produced by an impact source. The relative energy is
computed by summing the squared amplitude of Fourier spectrum
(Miller et al., 1986). For each stacked trace of the developed source and
the hammer source, the relative energy was calculated and their ratio
EDS/EHS is plotted in Fig. 7. It clearly demonstrates that the relative
energy of the developed source is many times greater than the sledge­
hammer. Minimum value of EDS/EHS is 4.5 at near offset and maximum
is 266 at far offset. It also indicates that surface waves can be cleanly
recorded at larger offsets with the developed source.
3.2.3. Signal-to-noise ratio (S/N)
This is an important parameter for evaluating the quality of seismic
data. In order to compute signal-to-noise ratio (S/N), a model trace is
generated by stacking signals received at any given location from the
same source activated multiple times. The model trace with reduced
random noise is then cross correlated with the original signals to esti­
mate average S/N ratio for the geophone location. A plot of S/N ratios
with offset in Fig. 8 for both the sources shows that the developed source
has produced high S/N ratio in comparison with the hammer source.
A. Aas and S.K. Sinha
Fig. 4. Comparison of shot-gather traces generated by developed source (rep­
resented in blue color) and hammer source (represented in red color). (For
interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)
3.2.4. Dispersion study of surface waves
As seen from Fig. 3a, the novel weight-drop source generated surface
wave signal of high amplitude and was prominently observed on all 24-
channel geophones. Surface waves are dispersive in nature as its varying
wavelengths penetrate to different depths of the layered subsurface.
Dispersion of surface waves can be utilized for investigating subsurface
velocity structure and thus, for geotechnical site investigation and
geohazard analysis (Bajaj and Anbazhagan, 2019; Park et al., 1999;
Rehman et al., 2016; Tremblay and Karray, 2019). Dispersion curve
(DC), which is a plot of propagation velocity (phase velocity) against
frequency, can be obtained from the processing of multi-channel
recording of the surface waves (Gao and Pan, 2016; Lin et al., 2017;
Park, 2011; Park et al., 1998; Xia, 2014). Frequency–wavenumber (f-k)
spectra and dispersion images of the shot gathers from the novel weight-
Fig. 5. (a) Instantaneous amplitude of alternate traces, and (b) summation of instantaneous amplitude of all twenty-four traces. Blue color is for the novel source and
red color is for the hammer source. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
6
Journal of Applied Geophysics 208 (2023) 104887
drop source and the hammer source are shown in Fig. 9. Evidently, the
developed source produces better dispersion image at low frequency
range than the hammer source. The fundamental mode on both
dispersion images were picked to obtain dispersion curves as shown in
Fig. 9c&d and their comparison in Fig. 10a. Several attributes of the DCs,
such as lowest frequency and corresponding phase velocity, maximum
wavelength and corresponding penetration depth are listed in Table 4.
These DCs were inverted for shear wave velocity profiles as shown in
Fig. 10b for the developed source and in Fig. 10c for the hammer source.
Dispersion image from the developed source shows great improvement
in surface wave generation in the lower frequency range and the DC
could be easily picked up to 2.9 Hz. Whereas in case of the hammer
source, the lowest frequency that could be picked is 6.75 Hz. The
maximum depth of imaging is established by the lowest frequency,
which is approximately λ\2.5. The reduction of 3.85 Hz in the lowest
frequency pick increases the depth of imaging from 20 m to 50 m.
3.2.5. Repeatability study
Typically, while acquiring seismic data with a sledgehammer, mul­
tiple shots (usually two shots) are recorded at the same source point to
ensure good quality data acquisition. The performance of a sledge­
hammer source is mainly dependent on the available manpower, and
therefore, recorded data with a hammer source often shows frequency
and amplitude variation in the repeated shot gathers (Abe et al., 1990).
Vertical stacking of multiple shots at the same source position is often
carried out to improve the data quality of the acquired shot (Liu and
Xiao, 2011; Rietsch, 1980). The difference in source signatures between
repeat shot gathers may also arise due to source coupling (e.g. base plate
to hammer / earth), or site condition which is an issue that reduces the
resolution of the stack shot gather (Aritman, 2001; Mereu et al., 1963).
The seismic energy generated by striking the hammer on the base
plate may vary from one shot to another at the same location as the
operator might hit the base plate with different acceleration rate and/or
at different angle at different times. However, in case of the developed
source, falling height for the impact mass is fixed and is allowed to fall
freely under gravity to hit the base plate. Therefore, it is expected from
such a free fall mechanism that the same amount of seismic energy will
be generated each time. In this section, a repeatability analysis of the
source signature is performed to assess the similarity between the
repeated shot gathers from the novel weight-drop source as well as from
the hammer source for comparison.
A. Aas and S.K. Sinha Journal of Applied Geophysics 208 (2023) 104887

Fig. 6. (a) Frequency spectra of individual traces, (b) combined frequency spectra of all twenty-four traces. Blue color is for the novel source and red color is for the
hammer source. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

source is markedly repeatable. For quantitative assessment of the simi­

larity between traces, cross-correlation coefficients have been calculated
and are shown in Table 3. Most of the coefficients for the traces from the
developed source (i.e., DS-1, DS-12, and DS-24) are above 0.95. In case
of DS-1, some coefficients are below 0.9 and it could be due to near field
effect of the source. Traces from the hammer source are showing most of
the correlation coefficients below 0.85. Very low correlation coefficients
for HS-24 are due to low energy reaching the far offset geophones where
S/N ratio is poor. We have further analyzed frequency spectra of the shot
gathers (all 24 traces) and are plotted in Fig. 12. Clearly, the developed
source is showing almost identical spectra (Fig. 12a) in repeat shots. The
hammer source produced somewhat similar spectra in repeat shots
Fig. 7. The ratio shows energy of the developed source (EDS) relative to that of
having more differences in the lower frequency range up to 20 Hz.
the sledgehammer source (EHS).
Repeatability of the developed source signature is better due to high
amplitude signal at low frequencies. Repeatability of the developed
source is further analyzed in the frequency-wavenumber space
(Fig. 13a) and with phase velocity variation against frequency
(Fig. 13b). The presence of little variation in the F–K spectra and in the
dispersion images of the repeated shot gathers from the developed
source might be due to good source-to-ground coupling, site condition
and little background noise. As the dispersion curve of shot gather traces
produced from the developed source exhibit strong similarity in the
repeat test, there is no need for repeat shot with the novel weight-drop
source at any location for the investigation of subsurface velocity
structure.

3.2.6. Operational safety and cost evaluation

Fig. 8. Signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio calculated for both developed source and
hammer source at each geophone location.
Environmental impact of a seismic source and its cost are important
criteria for the decision making of a suitable source for seismic data
acquisition (Evans, 1997). A seismic source in operation may cause
Repeatability study between the multiple shots at the same source
harm, particularly from the sound intensity to the living beings sur­
location is evaluated by analyzing shot gather traces, its spectra and
rounding the source location. For example, explosives emit sound that
dispersion curves. Five shots from 5 m offset were recorded using the
range between 130 and 137 dB (Młyński et al., 2015). Such seismic
developed source (Fig. 3a) and for its comparative study another 5 shots
sources are harmful to the environment and also to the operators’ health
were recorded using the sledgehammer source (Fig. 3b) from the same
as it crosses the maximum permissible limit which may cause hearing
source location. In this study we have picked first, middle and end traces
loss. Therefore, environmental impact of a source is assessed, and safety
(i.e., trace #1, 12 and 24) from each shot gathers. These traces have
measures are taken accordingly. While a weight-drop or a hammer
been plotted in Fig. 11 to qualitatively assess the similarity between
hitting a metal plate produces elastic waves which travels in the sub­
traces. For example, Fig. 11a shows the 1st trace from each of the five
surface that are recorded by the geophones, it also produces acoustic
shot gathers acquired with the developed source (i.e. DS-1) whereas
wave in the surrounding space above the ground that may be harmful for
Fig. 11d shows the 1st trace from the shot gathers received using the
the living beings (Kulik and Malinowska-Borowska, 2018). Its environ­
hammer source (i.e., HS-1). Undoubtedly, data from the developed
mental impact is evaluated by measuring sound pressure at the source

7
A. Aas and S.K. Sinha Journal of Applied Geophysics 208 (2023) 104887

Fig. 9. Comparison of f-k spectrum and dispersion curve. (a) f-k spectrum and (c) dispersion curve obtained from shot gather traces of the developed source, (b) f-k
spectrum and (d) dispersion curve of the hammer source. Circled data points have been picked on the dispersion image and have been compared in Fig. 10.

Fig. 10. Shear wave velocity profiles (b) and (c) are obtained from inversion of dispersion curves as show in (a). Developed source is represented by blue curve
whereas hammer source is represented by red curve. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)

point and in the surrounding using sound pressure level meter (David 2015).
et al., 2013; Kinsler et al., 2000). According to the health agencies, the Sound pressure measured at 0.25 m from the base plate of the
sound emitted by forging hammers below 80 dB practically causes no developed source is 92 dB and it is 84 dB measured for the sledge­
hearing loss to human beings (Berglund et al., 2000; Młyński et al., hammer source. From this measured value sound pressure is calculated

8
A. Aas and S.K. Sinha
Fig. 11. Subfigures (a), (b) and (c) are for the traces from the developed source (DS) whereas subfigures (d), (e) and (f) are for the traces from the hammer source
(HS). 1st, 12th and 24th traces have been selected from each five shot gathers and superimposed on one another. Here, DS-1 represents 1st trace each from the five
shot gathers for developed source and so on.
for the surrounding using the inverse square law (Dubey et al., 2021;
Kinsler et al., 2000). Generally, height of a source operator is more than
1.2 m and sound pressure at that height reduces to 78.37 dB for the
developed source. At a height of 2.4 m the sound pressure reduces to
72.35 dB. Therefore, the sound pressure level from the novel weight-
drop source will not harm the operator, even though the sound pres­
sure at the source position on the ground is above permissible limit of 80
dB. Thus, utilization of the developed source for seismic data acquisition
has no health hazard risk on the operator and it is environmentally
friendly. Furthermore, while working with the developed source, the
operator should wear safety shoes, preferably steel-toe boots, to ensure
that they have right foot protection and should stand at a minimum
distance of 20 cm from the source while releasing the impact mass
(Fig. 2d).
When the choice of a seismic source is limited due to the budget
constraints, a sledgehammer seismic source striking the steel base plate
9
Journal of Applied Geophysics 208 (2023) 104887
is frequently used. However, it produces low quality seismic data.
Therefore, an attempt was made to develop a novel cost-effective
seismic source. Mild steel was used for the fabrication of the source as
it is low-priced compared to stainless steel. The total cost for
manufacturing and fabrication of the novel source is INR 25000 (or USD
330) which is very low as compared to other seismic sources used for
shallow subsurface investigation.
4. Discussion
In the current study, a heavy mass for the weight-drop and large area
for the base plate have been used to increase efficiency of the seismic
energy and to enhance lower frequency component in the signal. Surface
waves are observed on the shot gathers and are characterized by its
prominent high amplitude signal in low frequency range and is consis­
tent with the findings of earlier field studies (Abe et al., 1990; Foti et al.,
A. Aas and S.K. Sinha
Fig. 12. Amplitude spectra of all five shot gather traces of (a)Developed source,
(b)Hammer source.
2018; Keiswetter and Steeples, 1995; Park et al., 1999). Comparative
analyses of the shot gathers reveal that the developed source produces
considerably higher energy with good S/N ratio than the hammer
source. Dispersion analysis of the shot gather from the developed source
Fig. 13. Developed source (a) f-k spectra, and (b) dispersion images of all five shot gathers at the same source position.
10
Journal of Applied Geophysics 208 (2023) 104887
shows huge improvement in the mapping of dispersion curve at lower
frequencies, thereby, increasing the imaging depth in comparison with
the hammer source. It is also observed that the proportion of higher
frequency vibrations appears to be lesser in the developed source. This is
in line with the other field studies where it has been observed that as the
weight-drop mass increases, the vibration amplitude increases and the
higher frequency component decreases (Abe et al., 1990; Herbst et al.,
1998). Surface waves emanating from the source which travel longer
distances with high amplitude at low frequencies will provide better
velocity structure of the subsurface for site characterization using
MASW (Foti et al., 2011; Park et al., 1999) and the developed source has
that advantage over the hammer source.
Since the signal strength and the quality of dispersion curves in lower
frequency ranges depend on the geological settings and the site condi­
tions, it is suggested that more field trials be conducted at different
geographical locations to reach the conclusions obtained from the cur­
rent site. Moreover, the developed source was tested with 24-channel
seismograph, it is suggested that more geophones be added and offset
be increased in the field trials for high resolution seismic data. In this
study, the developed source was only compared with the sledgehammer,
a readily available seismic source, its comparative performance should
also be made against other commercial sources. The current paper
mainly focuses on the MASW study, its effectiveness should also be
investigated for reflection seismic.
The current design of the developed source has its body without
cover, consequently environmental conditions may have an adverse
influence on its operation. The holder which locks the impact mass at the
top side should be released carefully. Additionally, the source energy
can further be enhanced by using a spring system at the top side for
accelerating the mass. In case of the hammer source, the base plate being
light weight, a rebound is often observed as the hammer strikes it.
Whereas in case of the developed source, when the heavy impact mass
drops on the heavy baseplate fastened with the frame, no bounce is
observed. The developed seismic source equipment has the capability to
avoid any unwanted body shaking. It is also advised that a shield be
added to the source and that the equipment be cleaned and greased on a
regular basis.
A. Aas and S.K. Sinha Journal of Applied Geophysics 208 (2023) 104887

Table 3
Correlation table of shot gather traces taken at same source position. 1st trace from each five shot gathers is
correlated and their values are presented in the table. Similarly, 12th and 24th traces are correlated.

interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence

Table 4
the work reported in this paper.
Comparison between dispersion curve attributes from the developed source (DS)
and hammer source (HS).
Data availability
Source Lowest Corresponding Maximum Maximum
Frequency f Phase Velocity wavelength (λ) Penetration
in Hz (Vphase)(m/s) Vphase Depth(m)=
Data will be made available on request.
(m) =
f λ/2.5
Acknowledgements
DS 2.90 364.91 125.74 50.29
HS 6.75 330.994 49.02 19.60
The authors would like to thank the Director of Rajiv Gandhi Insti­
tute of Petroleum Technology, India for providing financial support for
5. Conclusions this project. Our special thanks to M/s Alico Engineers for their technical
support during development of the source.
In this study we have described the design and testing of a novel
seismic energy source which is based on the principle of free fall of a References
weight-drop. The design and operation of the source is uncomplicated
which makes it low budget energy source for MASW study. The field trial Abe, S., Kobayashi, Y., Ikawa, T., 1990. Seismic characteristics of the weight-dropping
source. J. Phys. Earth 38, 189–212. https://doi.org/10.4294/jpe1952.38.189.
of the source convinces that it is easy to carry and operate and is also
Aritman, B.C., 2001. Repeatability study of seismic source signatures. Geophysics 66,
suitable for usage in the restricted environments. The novel seismic 1811–1817. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1487123.
source produces significant amount of energy such that large amplitude Bahar, A., Fatkhan, Rachmat Sule, M., 2019. A field test and performance evaluation of
surface wave is recorded in all 24-geophones and the multi-channel accelerated weight drop (awd250 v1.0) for shallow seismic survey. IOP Conf Ser
Earth Environ. Sci. 311, 012063 https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/311/1/
record of surface wave is suitable for dispersion analysis for geo- 012063.
environmental and geotechnical investigations. Repeatability and Bajaj, K., Anbazhagan, P., 2019. Seismic site classification and correlation between VS
environmental impact study demonstrates that the developed source is and SPT-N for deep soil sites in Indo-Gangetic Basin. J. Appl. Geophys. 163, 55–72.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAPPGEO.2019.02.011.
highly repeatable and there is no health hazard risk associated with it Barbier, M.G., Bondon, P., Mellinger, R., Viallix, J.R., 1976. Mini-Sosie for land
and is environmentally friendly. The novel source requires further seismology*. Geophys. Prospect. 24, 518–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
testing in different geological settings and different geometry with 2478.1976.tb00952.x.
Berglund, B., Lindvall, T., Schwela, D.H., 2000. New WHO guidelines for Community
increased number of channels for its performance evaluation in com­ Noise. Noise Vibration Worldwide 31, 24–29. https://doi.org/10.1260/
parison with other seismic sources. 0957456001497535.
Brocher, T.M., Hart, P.E., 1991. Comparison of vibroseis and explosive source methods
for deep crustal seismic reflection profiling in the Basin and Range Province.
Declaration of Competing Interest J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 96, 18197–18213. https://doi.org/10.1029/
91JB01656.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

11
A. Aas and S.K. Sinha
Brom, A., Stan-Kłeczek, I., 2015. Comparison of seismic sources for shallow seismic:
sledgehammer and pyrotechnics. Contempor. Trends Geosci. 4, 39–45. https://doi.
org/10.1515/ctg-2015-0004.
Bühnemann, J., Holliger, K., 1998. Comparison of high-frequency seismic sources at the
Grimsel test site, Central Alps, Switzerland. Geophysics 63, 1363–1370. https://doi.
org/10.1190/1.1444438.
Büker, F., Green, A.G., Horstmeyer, H., 1998. Shallow seismic reflection study of a
glaciated valley. Geophysics 63, 1395–1407. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444441.
David, N., Nina, A.C.V., Nwamaka, E.I., Opeyemi, A.A., 2013. Library sound level meter.
J.of Electron. Commun. Eng. Res. 1, 20–29.
Demudu Babu, M., Manglik, A., Thiagarajan, S., Suresh, M., 2020. Electrical resistivity
image of a basement ridge in the foreland central Ganga basin. J. Appl. Geophys.
179, 104097 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2020.104097.
Dinkar, G.K., Farooqui, S.A., Singh, V.K., Verma, A.K., Prabhat, P., 2019. Geology of
South and Southwest part of Uttar Pradesh and its Mineral significance. J. Geosci.
Eng. Environ. Technol. 4, 51. https://doi.org/10.25299/jgeet.2019.4.2-2.3554.
Doll, W.E., Miller, R.D., Xia, J., 1998. A noninvasive shallow seismic source comparison
on the Oak Ridge Reservation, Tennessee. GEOPHYSICS 63, 1318–1331. https://doi.
org/10.1190/1.1444433.
Dubey, R., Bharadwaj, S., Zafar, M.I., Mahajan, V., Srivastava, A., Biswas, S., 2021. GIS
mapping of short-term noisy event of diwali night in Lucknow City. ISPRS Int. J.
Geoinf. 11, 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi11010025.
Evans, B.J., 1997. A handbook for seismic data acquisition in exploration. Soc. Explor.
Geophysic. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.9781560801863.
Feroci, M., Orlando, L., Balia, R., Bosman, C., Cardarelli, E., Deidda, G., 2000. Some
considerations on shallow seismic reflection surveys. J. Appl. Geophys. 45, 127–139.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-9851(00)00024-0.
Foti, S., Parolai, S., Albarello, D., Picozzi, M., 2011. Application of surface-wave methods
for seismic site characterization. Surv. Geophys. 32, 777–825. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10712-011-9134-2.
Foti, S., Hollender, F., Garofalo, F., Albarello, D., Asten, M., Bard, P.-Y., Comina, C.,
Cornou, C., Cox, B., di Giulio, G., Forbriger, T., Hayashi, K., Lunedei, E., Martin, A.,
Mercerat, D., Ohrnberger, M., Poggi, V., Renalier, F., Sicilia, D., Socco, V., 2018.
Guidelines for the good practice of surface wave analysis: a product of the
InterPACIFIC project. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 16, 2367–2420. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10518-017-0206-7.
Ganguly, A., Moissa, I., 2005. The Digipulse III accelerated weight drop seismic source
systems applications and performance of the series model 1180 GC/TR. Geohorizons
28–32.
Gao, L., Pan, Y., 2016. Acquisition and processing pitfall with clipped traces in surface-
wave analysis. J. Appl. Geophys. 125, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jappgeo.2015.12.004.
Giustiniani, M., Accaino, F., Picotti, S., Tinivella, U., 2008. Characterization of the
shallow aquifers by high-resolution seismic data. Geophys. Prospect. 56, 655–666.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2008.00705.x.
Hartantyo, E., 2016. A test of mobile weight-drop for surface wave seismic data
acquisition. In: AIP Conference Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4958533,
pp. 100004-1–5.
Herbst, R., Kapp, I., Krummel, H., Lück, E., 1998. Seismic sources for shallow
investigations: a field comparison from Northern Germany. J. Appl. Geophys. 38,
301–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-9851(97)00037-2.
Juhojuntti, N., Juhlin, C., 1998. Seismic lower crustal reflectivity and signal penetration
in the Siljan Ring area, Central Sweden. Tectonophysics 288, 17–30. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0040-1951(97)00279-5.
Keiswetter, D.A., Steeples, D.W., 1995. A field investigation of source parameters for the
sledgehammer. Geophysics 60, 1051–1057. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1443833.
Kinsler, L.E., Frey, A.R., Coppens, A.B., Sanders, J.V., 2000. Fundamentals of Acoustics,
4th ed. Willey.
Kulik, A., Malinowska-Borowska, J., 2018. Exposure to impulse noise at an explosives
company: a case study. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 24, 366–372. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10803548.2017.1420583.
Lin, C.-P., Lin, C.-H., Chien, C.-J., 2017. Dispersion analysis of surface wave testing –
SASW vs. MASW. J. Appl. Geophy. 143, 223–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jappgeo.2017.05.008.
Liu, G., Xiao, M., 2011. The application of new stacking method to enhance seismic
signal. In: 2011 International Conference on Consumer Electronics, Communications
12
Journal of Applied Geophysics 208 (2023) 104887
and Networks (CECNet). IEEE, pp. 4498–4501. https://doi.org/10.1109/
CECNET.2011.5768588.
Mereu, R.F., Uffen, R.J., Beck, A.E., 1963. THe use of a coupler in the conversion of
impact energy into seismic energy. GEOPHYSICS 28, 531–546. https://doi.org/
10.1190/1.1439226.
Miller, R.D., Pullan, S.E., Waldner, J.S., Haeni, F.P., 1986. Field comparison of shallow
seismic sources. Geophysics 51, 2067–2092. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1442061.
Młyński, R., Kozłowski, E., Adamczyk, J., 2015. Assessment of impulse noise hazard and
the use of hearing protection devices in workplaces where forging hammers are used.
Arch. Acoust. 39, 73–79. https://doi.org/10.2478/aoa-2014-0008.
Park, C.B., 2011. Imaging dispersion of MASW data—full vs. selective offset scheme.
J. Environ. Eng. Geophys. 16, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.2113/JEEG16.1.13.
Park, C.B., Miller, R.D., Xia, J., 1998. Imaging dispersion curves of surface waves on
multi-channel record. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 1998. Society
of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 1377–1380. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1820161.
Park, C.B., Miller, R.D., Xia, J., 1999. Multichannel analysis of surface waves. Geophysics
64, 800–808. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444590.
Rehman, F., El-Hady, S.M., Atef, A.H., Harbi, H.M., 2016. Multichannel analysis of
surface waves (MASW) for seismic site characterization using 2D genetic algorithm
at Bahrah area, Wadi Fatima, Saudi Arabia. Arab. J. Geosci. 9, 519. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12517-016-2544-1.
Richter, H., Hock, S., Mikulla, S., Krüger, K., Lüth, S., Polom, U., Dickmann, T., Giese, R.,
2018. Comparison of pneumatic impact and magnetostrictive vibrator sources for
near surface seismic imaging in geotechnical environments. J. Appl. Geophys. 159,
173–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2018.08.010.
Rietsch, E., 1980. Estimation of the signal-to-noise ratio of seismic data with an
application of stacking*. Geophys. Prospect. 28, 531–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1365-2478.1980.tb01241.x.
Rubin, Y., Hubbard, S.S., 2005. Hydrogeophysics, Water Science and Technology
Library. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3102-5.
Sastri, V.V., Bhandari, L.L., Raju, A.T.R., Datta, A.K., 1971. Tectonic Framework and
Subsurface Stratigraphy of the Ganga Basin. J. Geol. Soc. India 12, 222–233.
Schuck, A., Lange, G., 2007. Seismic Methods. In: Environmental Geology. Springer,
Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 337–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
540-74671-3_11.
Shtivelman, V., 2003. Application of shallow seismic methods to engineering,
environmental and groundwater investigations. Boll. Geofis. Teor. Appl. 44,
209–222.
Singh, C.K., Venkatesh, H.S., Gopinath, G., Pichamuthu, D.V., Sawkar, R.H.,
Krishnamurthy, P., 2015. Middle Ganga plain; May be on the verge of seismic shock.
J. Geol. Soc. India 85, 511–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12594-015-0244-1.
Sinha, R., Tandon, S.K., Gibling, M.R., 2010. Shallow sub-surface stratigraphy of the
Ganga basin, Himalayan foreland: present status and future perspectives. Quat. Int.
227, 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2010.07.015.
Sopher, D., Juhlin, C., Huang, F., Ivandic, M., Lueth, S., 2014. Quantitative assessment of
seismic source performance: Feasibility of small and affordable seismic sources for
long term monitoring at the Ketzin CO2 storage site, Germany. J. Appl. Geophys.
107, 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2014.05.016.
Steeples, D.W., 2005. Shallow Seismic Methods. In: Rubin, Y., Hubbard, S.S. (Eds.),
Hydrogeophysics. Springer, Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 215–251. https://doi.org/
10.1007/1-4020-3102-5_8.
Tremblay, S.-P., Karray, M., 2019. Practical considerations for array-based surface-wave
testing methods with respect to near-field effects and shear-wave velocity profiles.
J. Appl. Geophys. 171, 103871 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2019.103871.
Wardell, J., 1970. A comparison of land seismic sources. Geoexploration 8, 205–229.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7142(70)90033-5.
Xia, J., 2014. Estimation of near-surface shear-wave velocities and quality factors using
multichannel analysis of surface-wave methods. J. Appl. Geophys. 103, 140–151.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2014.01.016.
Yön, B., Sayin, E., Onat, O., 2017. Earthquakes and Structural Damages, in: Earthquakes -
Tectonics, Hazard and Risk Mitigation. InTech. https://doi.org/10.5772/65425.
Yordkayhun, S., Na Suwan, J., 2012. A university-developed seismic source for shallow
seismic surveys. J. Appl. Geophys. 82, 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jappgeo.2012.02.008.
Yordkayhun, S., Ivanova, A., Giese, R., Juhlin, C., Cosma, C., 2009. Comparison of
surface seismic sources at the CO 2 SINK site, Ketzin, Germany. Geophys. Prospect.
57, 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2008.00737.x.