Analyzing the subsurface structure using seismic refraction method: Case study

STMKG campus
,
Bagus Adi Wibowo , Drajat Ngadmanto, and Daryono

Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 1658, 040002 (2015); doi: 10.1063/1.4915035

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4915035
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1658/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics
 Analyzing The Subsurface Structure Using Seismic
Refraction Method: Case Study STMKG Campus
Bagus Adi Wibowo1,a), Drajat Ngadmanto 2, , Daryono3
1
The State College of Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics (STMKG), The Indonesian Meteorology,
Climatology, and Geophysics Agency (BMKG), Perhubungan 1 Street, South Tangerang, 15221, Indonesia
2
The Center of Research and Development (PUSLITBANG),The Indonesian Meteorology, Climatology, and
Geophysics Agency (BMKG), Angkasa I, Jakarta, 10620, Indonesia
3
The Mitigation of Earthquake and Tsunami, The Indonesian Meteorology, Climatology, and Geophysics Agency
(BMKG), Angkasa I, Jakarta, 10620, Indonesia
a)
bagusadiwibowo1993@gmail.com

Abstract.A geophysic survey is performed to detect subsurface structure under STMKG Campus in Pondok
Betung, South Tangerang, Indonesia, using seismic refraction method. The survey used PASI 16S24-U24. The
waveform data is acquired from 3 different tracks on the research location with a close range from each track.
On each track we expanded 24 geofons with spacing between receiver 2 meters and the total length of each
track about 48 meters. The waveform data analysed using 2 different ways. First, used a seismic
refractionapplication WINSISIM 12 and second, used a Hagiwara Method.From both analysis, we known the
velocity of P-wave in the first and second layer and the thickness of the first layer. From the velocity and the
thickness informations we made 2-D vertical subsurface profiles. In this research, we only detect 2 layers in
each tracks. The P-wave velocity of first layer is about 200-500 m/s with the thickness of this layer about 3-6
m/s. The P-wave velocity of second layer is about 400-900 m/s.From the P-wave velocity data we interpreted
that both layer consisted by similar materials such as top soil, soil, sand, unsaturated gravel, alluvium and clay.
But, the P-wave velocity difference between those 2 layers assumed happening because the first layer is soil
embankment layer, having younger age than the layer below.
PACS: 91.30.pb

INTRODUCTION
Seismic Refraction Method is a geophysics methods to acquire an information about shallow subsurface
structures. This method became populer because it is requiring only few workers, having a cheap operational cost
and taking a short time [1]. When the seismic waves spread through Earth’s interior, the waves creeping through
many mediums. When its meet with layer boundaries, half of the waves reflected and others half refracted. Then the
refracted waves arrive at each receiver as the P-waves arrivals. The analysis of P-waves arrivals at each receiver is
implemented to create the 2-D seismic profilling from the velocity of P-waves when spreading through the layers
and the thickness of the layers itself. From the profilling, we can determine the materials that arranging the layer and
the the thickness of the layer.
The research was held in the STMKG Campus, located at 6°15'54.38" S and 106°44'55.17" E (Figure 1).
Generally, the areas around the STMKG Campus in South Tangerang City are the flat terrain. In geological
viewpoint, the region of South Tangerang consisted by coastal and river alluvium deposits (Qa), plistosen sediment
rocks (Qps) and oligosen sediment rocks (Toss) [2].

4th International Symposium on Earthquake and Disaster Mitigation 2014 (ISEDM 2014)
AIP Conf. Proc. 1658, 040002-1–040002-7; doi: 10.1063/1.4915035
© 2015 AIP Publishing LLC 978-0-7354-1300-9/$30.00

040002-1
FIGURE 1.The Java Island, Indonesia, and a half region between The Capital Province of Jakarta and South Tangerang City,
and then the Research Area. The Researched Lines (red line) are shown in following order: The 1 st Line (1a-1b), The 2nd Line
(2a-2b), and the 3rd line (3a-3b) .(Google Earth, 2014)

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The field survey was held on April 6 2014 for the first and the second line and on June 8 2014 for the third line .
Type of the seismic sensor in this research is Seismograph PASI 16S24-U24 Channels. On each line we used 24
receiver geofons, a vertical component, with spacing 2 meters between each receiver. The seismic disturbance was
generated from 5 different points in each line using a hammer that hitting the iron base (Figure 2).
Using the PASI USB Seismograph Acquisition Program we acquired the seismograms recordings in SEG-2 Data
Format . Data proccessing are implemented in 2 ways, first using a special application for seismic refraction
(WINSISM 12), second using a manual calculation table. From both ways, the result is collaborated to achieve the
best result.
The recordings of 5 seismic sources from each line are combined into a single Seismic Unix (.SU) data format in
WINSISM 12 application. In this application we picked the arrival of the P-waves in each receiver seismogram for
each seismic disturbance recording. The picked P-waves arrivals resulted a travel time curve Using Intercept Time
Method, the curve are proccessed to be a 2-D seismic profilling . The 2-D Seismic Profilling provide information
about the first layer thickness and the P-waves velocity (m/s) when spreading through the first and second layer [3].
The P-waves arrivals data from WINSISM 12 was used also to process seismic refraction survey data manually
in Microsoft Office Excel using The Hagiwara Method (1938). The Hagiwara method calculates the thickness of
first layer and the velocity of the first and the second layer. With a first layer thickness data, we created a graph to
show the first layer thickness and the shape of layer boundary between the first and second layer.

040002-2
 FIGURE 2.The receivers arrangement’s scheme and the location of seismic disturbance sources.

RESULT
Data Processing Result Using WINSISM 12 Application

The data proccessing result in the 2-D subsurface profilling using WINSISM 12 are shown in Figure 3, 4, and 5.
Figure 3 (Line 1) shown P-waves velocity in the first layer about 200-500 m/s with its thickness about 5-5,5 meters,
and the P-waves velocity in the second layer about 500-900 m/s. Figure 4 (Line 2) shown P-waves velocity in the
first layer about 200-300 m/s with its thickness about 3-4,5 meters and P-waves velocity in the second layer about
300-900 m/s. Figure 5 (Line 3) shown P-waves velocity in the first layer about 200-400 m/s with its thickness about
2,5-3,5 meters and the P-waves velocity in second layer about 400-600 m/s The range of P-waves velocity in each
layer and the range of first layer thickness are wrote completely in Table 1.

Figure 3. The 2-D subsurface seismic profilling from WINSISM 12 for Line 1

Figure 4. The 2-D subsurface seismic profilling from WINSISM 12 for Line 2

040002-3
 Figure 5. The 2-D subsurface seismic profilling from WINSISM 12 for Line 3

TABLE 1. The recapitulation of WINSISM 12 result

Line Number First Layer Velocity Second Layer Velocity First Layer Thickness
(m/s) (m/s) (meters)
1 200–500 500–900 4–5,5
2 200–300 300–900 3–4,5
3 200–400 400-600 2,5–3,5

Data Processing Result Using The Hagiwara Method

The 2-D subsurface profilling from the result of Hagiwara Method are shown in Figure 6, 7, and 8. Figure 6
(Line 1) shown P-waves velocity in the first layer about 307,6 m/s with its thickness about 3-5 meters, and the P-
waves velocity in the second layer about 672,7 m/s. Figure 7 (Line 2) shown P-waves velocity in the first layer
about 277,3 m/s with its thickness about 1,5-4 meters and P-waves velocity in the second layer about 415,6 m/s.
Figure 8 (Line 3) shown P-waves velocity in the first layer about 306,1 m/s with its thickness about 3,5-5,5 meters
and the P-waves velocity in second layer about 747,5 m/s The range of P-waves velocity in each layer and the range
of first layer thickness are wrote completely in Table 2.

Figure 6. The 2-D subsurface seismic profilling from Hagiwara Method for Line 1

040002-4
 Figure 7. The 2-D subsurface seismic profilling from Hagiwara Method for Line 2

Figure 8. The 2-D subsurface seismic profilling from Hagiwara Method for Line 3

TABLE 2. The recapitulation of Hagiwara Method result

Line Number Average of First Layer First Layer Velocity (m/s) Second Layer Velocity
Thickness (meters) (m/s)
1 3,7 307,6 672,7
2 2,6 277,3 415,6
3 4,92 306,1 747,5

DISCUSSIONS
The measurement result on the lines with total length 48 meters and spacing 2 meters between receivers in each
line detected only 2 upper layers. The proccessing result using 2 methods gave similar values. The first layer
thickness in all lines variated about 1,5-5,5 meters. The layer boundary is flat with unsignificant different in layer
thickness, and there is no steep layer boundary between both layers.
With a close distance between lines (Figure 1), we interpreted that for the first layer in this research location the
first layer P-waves velocity about 200-500 m/s and the second layer P-waves velocity about 400-900 m/s. From that
range of values in each layer, we assumed the materials that consisting the layers. According to [4], for P-waves
velocity about 200-700 m/s are associated with materials such as top soil, sand and unsaturated gravels. Almost
similar with [4], [5] assuming the layer with the P-waves velocity about 300-400 m/s are consisted by top soil and
alluvium materials. A layer with the P-waves velocity about 200-100 m/s are mainly consisted by unsaturated
materials like sand (dry) [6]. In same range of P-waves velocity values like [6], [7] assumed sand, soil, and little part

040002-5
of clay as the main materials of the layer. According to the previous researchs that are mentioned before, we
concluded that 2 upper layers on this site (STMKG Campus) consisting by similar materials. The assumptions are
strengthened by the geological conditions in the South Tangerang City.
Even consisting by similar material, the different of P-waves velocity between the first and second layer shown
additional conclusions. The differents is assumed happening because the compactness different between each soil
granule in both layers. Older dan deeper layer had bigger pressure from the layer mass above . The second layer able
to spread P-waves faster than the first layer. It means the second layer older and more compact than the younger
layer above. We assumed the first layer in the research site as the soil embankment layer. This assumption is also
mentioned by [1]. They assumed the layer with P-waves velocity about 200-400 m/s as the soil embankment layer.
The soil embankment layer is also consisted by top soil, soil, sand, unsaturated gravel, coastal and river deposit
(alluvium) and clay [1].

CONCLUSIONS
The research have successfully detected 2 upper layers on the research site. The first layer, had the P-waves
velocity about 200-500 m/s, with the thickness about 3-6 meters below the surface.The second layer had the P-
waves velocity about 400-900 m/s. From the p-waves velocity data both layers are consisted by similar materials,
such as top soil, soil, sand, unsaturated gravels, coastal and river deposits and clay.The P-waves velocity different
between the first and the second layer happened because the first layer are assumed as the soil embankment layer
that used earlier to flat the research site for the construction purposes before.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The writers thank The State College of Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics (STMKG), The Indonesian
Meteorology, Climatology, and Geophysics Agency (BMKG) for the chances and support during the research and
The ISEDM ITB 2014’s Commitees for the opportunities to present our research result in their event.

REFERENCES
1. Zeinab Asry, Abdul Rahim Samsudin, Wan Zahari Yaacob, Jasni Yaakub. Geoeletrical Resistivity Imaging
and Refraction Seismic Investigastions at Sg. Udang, Melaka..(American J. Of Engineering and Apllied
Sciences, 2012)
2. Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Provinsi Banten 2010–2030: Peta Geologi Provinsi Banten (Government of
Banten Province, Republic of Indonesia, 2010) (Indonesian).
3. Instruction Manual For Windows ®:Seismic Refraction Processing Software:WinSism 12.8.2012, W-Geosoft,
France, see www.geo2x.com/index.php/site/softwares.
4. Nakif Nurcandra, Darsono, Soerja Koesuma. Penentuan Tingkat Kekerasan Batuan Menggunakan Metode
Seismik Refraksi di Jatikuwung Karanganyar. (Indonesian Journal of Applied Physics Vol.3 No.1, Indonesia,
2013), pp. 29 (Indonesian)
5. Binar Utami, Fahruddin, Simon S. Siregar. Analisa Lapisan Keras (Bedrock) dengan Menggunakan Metode
Seismik Refraksi. ( Jurnal Fisika FLUX Vol.6 No.2 Agustus 2009, Indonesia) (Indonesian).
6. Phillip Kearey, Michael Brooks, Ian Hill, An Introduction of Geophysical Exploration (Iowa State Univeristy
Press, Blackwell Sciences, Iowa, United States, 2002).
7. John Milsom, Field Geophysics (John Wiley & Sons Ltd., London, United Kingdom, 1989).
8. Arista Uniek Kartika, Gatot Yuliyanto, Udi Harmoko, Penentuan Struktur Bawah Permukaan dengan
Menggunakan Metode Seismik Refraksi di Desa Pleret, Kecamatan Pleret, Kabupaten Bantul .(Laboratorium
Geofisika, Jurusan Fisika, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang, Indonesia, 2007) (Indonesian).
9. Panduan Workshop Eksplorasi Geofisika: Teori dan Aplikasi (Geophysics Laboratorium, Faculty of Math and
Natural Sciences, University of Gajah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2001) (Indonesian)
10. Susilawati. Seismik Refraksi :Dasar Teori dan Akuisisi Data. 2004. Fakultas Matematika dan Ilmu
Pengetahuan Alam , Jurusan Fisika, Universitas Sumatera Utara (Indonesian)

040002-6
11. User Manual Edition 2011-Rev.2, PASI 16S24-U Seismograph,PASI, Turin, Italy, see http://www.pasisrl.it.

040002-7