Sixth International Conference on Geotechnique, Construction Materials and

Environment, Bangkok, Thailand, Nov. 14-16, 2016, ISBN: 978-4-9905958-6-9 C3051

VELOCITY STRUCTURE AND EARTHQUAKE RELOCATIONS AT

CENTRAL PENINSULAR MALAYSIA REGION
Abdul Halim Abdul Latiff1 and Amin Esmail Khalil2
1
Faculty of Geoscience and Petroleum Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Malaysia
2
School of Physics, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia

ABSTRACT

In between 2007 to 2009, there are several earthquake occurrences in Bukit Tinggi and Janda Baik, which are
located 50 km from Malaysia capital, Kuala Lumpur. However, the absent of subsurface structural information
and crustal velocity data for central peninsular Malaysia region had prevent further analysis on the potential
seismic hazard in the area. Thus, this study was carried out in determining the new velocity structure of central
Peninsular Malaysia region, while relocate the hypocenter of the local earthquake. Initially, a data conditioning
procedure was carried out for both weak and strong motion data from various sources. Then, P-wave and S-wave
arrivals were picked on the waveform recorded, before we derived a 1-D velocity model through simultaneous
inversion process. The process involved also produced a new hypocenter location based on the new 1-D velocity
structure, correcting the original earthquake location. The outcome from the data analysis was used to understand
the subsurface images and tectonics system of the central peninsular Malaysia region while overcome the
uncertainty surrounding the earthquakes occurrences in the area. In addition, the study also contributes to
updating current geological and geophysical map as well as tectonic regime of Peninsular Malaysia while having
the 1-D velocity model will be used as an initial reference model for 3-D tomography inversion.

Keywords: Earthquake, 1-D Model, Peninsular Malaysia

INTRODUCTION
Although Peninsular Malaysia lies on the stable
Sundaland and generally safe from major earthquake
disaster (5.0 Mw and above), the small scale tremors
that occurred in Bukit Tinggi, Pahang in between
2007 to 2009, might give a cause of concern [1]. Up
till today, there is no proof that these seismic
activities are stable and will not strike again in the
near future. It was deduced that the short-time frame
but frequent small scale tremors could have occurred
due to re-activation of paleo-faults lines that pass
through the Peninsular Malaysia, such as Bukit
Tinggi and Kuala Lumpur fault lines (Fig. 1).
However, due to the limitation of Peninsular
Malaysia seismological data analysis and its
associate information, previous research unable to
confirm the current state of fault line movements.
Without proper study and research work on
subsurface imaging, these small earthquakes which
release an equivalent 15,000 tons of TnT energy,
might re-occur in the future with a larger amount of
energy and strength. The existing magnetic and Fig. 1 The seismotectonic of Peninsular Malaysia,
gravity image data of Peninsular Malaysia showing the Bukit Tinggi and Kuala Lumpur fault
subsurface might able to reveal the basinal structures lines.
of these zones, but were less accurate compare to
available seismic methodology which is very The Bukit Tinggi and Kuala Lumpur fault lines
expensive. With this in mind, there is an urgency to are the two paleo-fault lines that are said to be in the
develop the local velocity structure before further process of re-adjustment in order to accommodate
analysis can be carried out. the build-up tectonic pressures originating from

1
 GEOMATE- Bangkok, Nov. 14-16, 2016
Indo–Eurasian plates movements [2]. Generally, the
resultant faults re-activation can be proven through a
comprehensive 3-D velocity tomography with
magnetic, gravity and geological data correlation. In
the last ten years, seismologist discovered that the
reliable subsurface information can also be obtained
by correlating two or more seismometers data,
which will produce a result as if there had been a
real earthquake or seismic activity at the other
seismometers [3]. This technique, called seismic
interferometry is being developed further by
incorporating ambient noise signal to produce the
tomography update [4].
However, before we carry out the 3-D velocity
tomography of the area studied a 1-D priori velocity
model need to be established. While there are a
number of global velocity model available and been
used extensively such as iasp91 (Fig. 2) and ak135
models, the local crustal models are often been
ignored. This local information is essential in
processing the earthquake data, developing crustal
structure and locating the fault lines. Therefore, a
few local velocity model determination techniques
being experimented, among them are inversion of
arrival times and receiver function method.
Fig. 2 IASP91 model that was constructed as a
reference and parametrizes velocity model.
The inversion of arrival times works by
inverting the well-located hypocenters data to
improve the local structure as well as the existing
hypocenters. In this procedure, which commonly
implemented using VELEST software [5], the
calculation of a minimum 1-D model requires
multiple iterations with selected control parameters,
in order to achieve a unique solution. On the other
2
hand, the receiver function method is a phase
conversion technique, which requires P and S-waves
arrivals from the teleseismic data. The receiver
information then can be derived by deconvolving the
horizontal component from vertical component, thus
reveal the structure for crustal and upper mantle [6].
DATA DESCRIPTION
Data used for travel time inversion was obtained
from Malaysia Seismological Network (MSN),
which is being operated by Malaysia Meteorological
Department (MMD), a government agency under
Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation
(MOSTI). At the moment, there are 44 seismology
stations being used within Peninsular Malaysia,
Sabah and Sarawak, where 17 of them are the weak
motion stations. However, a number of stations were
only installed after the earthquake occurrences in
Bukit Tinggi. In order to enhance the recorded
seismological data in the affected area, three of the
stations were installed in Bukit Tinggi, Goh Tong
Jaya and Janda Baik (Fig 3).
Fig. 3 The location of ten earthquake in Bukit
Tinggi (blue pins), and the nearest seismology
stations (yellow pins).
For this study, we incorporate waveform time
series and arrival times from local earthquakes in
Peninsular Malaysia in between November 2007 to
August 2013 (Table 1). In the analysis conducted,
we manually picked the time arrivals for both the P
and S phases in all 31 earthquakes. After several
rounds of phase picking and analysis, it was decided
to discard 14 of the events due to poor data
 GEOMATE- Bangkok, Nov. 14-16, 2016

condition as the main phase information has been the area under study, the identification of the
masked with ambient noise signal. In this initial minimum 1-D model has been carried out based on
observation, it was found that the poor waveform 34 P-observations and 14 S-observations. All S-
data is due to unavailability of weak motion data phases were picked on the horizontal component
(not installed at that moment) which should be able stations which explain the smaller number of picks.
to detect weak earthquakes below 4.0 Mw. Further
analysis then eliminate another 8 earthquakes that
were not located in the central Peninsular Malaysia,
as our objective is to look into velocity structure in
central peninsular Malaysia region.

Table 1 The list of earthquake occurrences within

Peninsular Malaysia in between 2007 and 2013.
Earthquake
No. Date Time (UTC) Latitude Longitude Magnitude
Location
1 2013-08-20 00:26:27 5.4160 101.3600 4.10 Tasik Temenggor
2 2009-12-04 01:41:45 3.3726 101.8038 1.95 Bukit Tinggi
3 2009-11-30 06:29:48 2.7310 102.0670 3.50 Kuala Pilah
4 2009-11-30 01:12:30 2.7382 102.1432 3.04 Kuala Pilah
5 2009-11-29 16:15:05 2.7363 102.1169 3.30 Kuala Pilah
6 2009-11-29 06:26:51 2.7398 102.0910 3.10 Kuala Pilah
7 2009-10-08 04:05:55 3.2700 101.8270 0.98 Bukit Tinggi
8 2009-10-07 22:20:59 3.3438 101.8135 0.31 Bukit Tinggi
9 2009-10-07 22:09:45 3.3030 101.8340 3.16 Bukit Tinggi
10 2009-10-07 21:51:11 3.3538 101.8218 4.23 Bukit Tinggi
11 2009-10-07 21:26:05 3.3890 101.9020 1.02 Bukit Tinggi
12 2009-10-07 21:21:26 3.3495 101.8094 1.66 Bukit Tinggi
13 2009-04-29 13:53:54 4.1500 100.7290 2.76 Manjung
14 2009-03-27 01:46:25 3.8621 102.5194 3.24 Jerantut
15 2008-05-25 01:36:22 3.3600 101.7500 2.60 Bukit Tinggi
16 2008-03-15 00:50:57 3.3300 101.7100 3.30 Bukit Tinggi
17 2008-03-14 23:35:34 3.3000 101.8600 2.50 Bukit Tinggi
18 2008-03-14 23:16:18 3.3300 101.7400 2.90 Bukit Tinggi
19 2008-01-14 15:45:00 3.4200 101.8000 3.40 Bukit Tinggi
Fig. 4 The waveforms for earthquake on 4th
20 2008-01-13 10:18:00 3.3300 101.8300 2.40 Bukit Tinggi
21 2008-01-13 02:24:00 3.3100 101.8300 2.50 Bukit Tinggi
December 2009 which was recorded by stations in
22 2008-01-10 15:38:00 3.3900 101.7300 3.00 Bukit Tinggi Peninsular Malaysia.
23 2007-12-31 09:19:00 3.3200 101.8100 2.60 Bukit Tinggi
24 2007-12-12 10:01:00 3.4700 101.7600 3.20 Bukit Tinggi
In next step, the crustal model was determined by
25 2007-12-09 12:55:00 3.3300 101.8200 3.50 Bukit Tinggi simultaneously inverting the priori waves’ arrival,
26 2007-12-06 15:23:00 3.3600 101.8100 2.70 Bukit Tinggi initial 1-D models of both Vp and Vs, as well as
27 2007-12-04 19:57:00 3.3700 101.8000 3.30 Bukit Tinggi station coordinates (Fig. 5). In the 1-D minimum
28 2007-12-04 10:12:00 3.3600 101.8100 3.00 Bukit Tinggi model, the velocity of a given layer is considered as
29 2007-11-30 12:42:00 3.3100 101.8400 3.20 Bukit Tinggi
the best average lateral velocity that belongs to that
30 2007-11-30 02:42:00 3.3400 101.8000 2.80 Bukit Tinggi
31 2007-11-30 02:13:00 3.3600 101.8000 3.50 Bukit Tinggi
layer. Since the precision of routine earthquake
location is strictly linked to the accuracy velocity
model being used, we had chosen iasp91 velocity
METHODOLOGY
model as the initial velocity model for this region. In
To obtain the minimum local 1-D velocity model, addition, as our target velocity model of crustal area
several steps beforehand are needed. Once the data is in central Peninsular Malaysia region, we decided
was acquired and reformatted, waveform to discard other seismic events that located in other
conditioning and processing such as filtering and Peninsular Malaysia region, such as in Manjung and
phase picking were conducted, by using the SEISAN Temenggor, in the simultaneous inversion procedure.
software [7]. In the phase picking, only the clear P Eventually, there are only nine events that were used
or S arrivals will be chosen, while the ambiguous in determining 1-D velocity model of this region.
arrivals will be flag off. Throughout the process, The simultaneous inversion approaches provide
several earthquakes were discarded due to data three outputs; updated hypocentral parameters,
insufficiency. All the events in the list are local crustal model and station corrections. In addition, it
earthquake, thus it is natural that the station close to should be note that a single iteration of simultaneous
the event recorded clear phase arrival compare to the inversion is not sufficient, as the model produced is
one further away from the event (Fig. 4). Although not minimum.
the phase can also be read as P g and Sg, we picked
them as P and S-wave respectively. With regards to

3
 GEOMATE- Bangkok, Nov. 14-16, 2016

Fig. 5 The workflow used in determining the Fig. 6 1-D VP model for Peninsular Malaysia
updated 1-D model of central Peninsular Malaysia before and after iterations.
DATA INVERSION
The inversion was run until the earthquake
locations, station delays and velocity values did not
vary significantly in the subsequent iterations. From
the resultant P-wave velocity model obtained (Fig.
6) it shows a significant velocity reduction of 4.5%
at the Moho boundary of 31 km depth. By assuming
the crustal depth is constant for both models, the
updated 1-D model indicate that central Peninsular
Malaysia region contain a slightly different material
compare to regional velocity of the world.
Meanwhile, the S-wave velocity (Fig. 7) shows a
slightly faster velocity at the Moho depth, compare
to the input model. These findings again reinforce
our belief that the central Peninsular Malaysia was
made up from slightly different granitic block
compare to surrounding region. Another importance
from this study was described by the earthquake
relocations (Table 2). From the outcome of
simultaneous inversion, there are slight differences
in the origin time of the earthquake, its longitude
and latitude as well as the depth of the seismic
events. Although the changes are minimal, the new
hypocenter parameters can be used for future
determination of 3-D velocity tomography analysis
in the region. Fig. 7 1-D VS model for Peninsular Malaysia
before and after iterations.

4
 GEOMATE- Bangkok, Nov. 14-16, 2016

Table 2 The hypocenter relocation parameter of 9 the earthquake waveforms and to Ministry of Higher
earthquakes in Peninsular Malaysia. Education, Malaysia for the financial grant support.
Time Latitude Longitude Depth
Date Time
Differences Differences Differences Differences REFERENCES
4th December 2009 0141 4.9 -0.029 -0.128 0.4
8th October 2009 0405 2.8 0.024 -0.011 0.5 [1] Malaysian Meteorological Department
4th December 2007 1011 -0.1 0 0.004 2.5 (MMD), 2008. http://www.
7th October 2009 2149 2.8 0.021 -0.013 0.7 kjc.gov.my/english/service/seismology/seismoevent.
7th October 2009 2121 3.5 -0.042 0.002 -2.3 html.
12th December 2007 1001 -0.6 -0.003 -0.016 0 [2] Shuib, M.K. (2009). The recent Bukit Tinggi
9th December 2007 1255 0.1 0.003 0.014 4.3 earthquakes and their relationship to major
30th November 2007 1242 -0.5 0.001 -0.011 0.1 geological structures, Bulletin of the Geological Society
of Malaysia 55, pp. 67 – 72.
30th November 2007 0213 -0.2 0.001 0.007 1.3
[3] Wapenaar, K., Draganov, D., Snieder, R.,
Campman, X., and Verdel, A., (2010). Tutorial on
seismic interferometry: Part 1 — Basic principles
CONCLUSION and applications, Geophysics, Vol. 75, No.5, pp..
195 - 209.
Although the results shown are encouraging, caution [4] Nicolson, H., Curtis, A., Baptie, B., Galetti,
must be exercised when interpreting the 1-D velocity E., (2012). Seismic interferometry and ambient noise
model as no other geological and geophysical tomography in the British Isles, Proceedings of the
models prove otherwise. The application of Geologists’ Association, Vol. 123, pp. 74–86.
simultaneous inversion techniques to a small scale [5] Kissling, E., Elssworth, W.L., Eberhart-
region, where the seismic networks are fully Phillips, D., Kradolfer, U., (1994). Initial reference
operational can improve the quality of the 1-D models in seismic tomography, Journal of
model, hypocenter parameter relocations and Geophysical Research, Vol. 99, No. B10, pp 19635
enhance station correction. It is suggested that the 1- – 19646.
D model produced is to be used as the initial 3-D [6] Ammon, C. J. (1991). The isolation of
velocity tomography model process. receiver effects from teleseismic P waveforms. Bull.
Seism. Soc. Am. Vol. 81, pp. 2504–2510.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS [7] Ottemoller, V. and Havskov, (2014). Seisan
We are grateful to Universiti Teknologi Eearthquake Analysis Software for Windows,
PETRONAS for the opportunity to conduct this Solaris, Linux and Macosx.
research, Malaysia Meteorological Department for