final report to the seg gwb program seg/gwb/projects/2011... · 2019-09-07 · the advancement of...
TRANSCRIPT
The advancement of humanitarian geophysics in Southeast Asia: a student-based approach
A 2011 final report to the SEG Geoscientists Without Borders program
Lee M. Liberty – Associate Research Professor Center for Geophysical Investigation of the Shallow Subsurface
(CGISS)/Department of Geosciences Boise State University
and the team of instructors
http://cgiss.boisestate.edu/gwb
Executive Summary This report summarizes the operational activities of the 2011 geophysics field
camp that Boise State University (BSU), in conjunction with Chiang Mai University (CMU), conducted through a Geoscientists Without Borders (GWB) SEG Foundation grant. Faculty, technicians, and students from seventeen participating institutions from eleven countries acquired, processed and interpreted geophysical data at three separate sites in Chiang Mai, Thailand. These field sites were selected to train participants in the use of a variety of geophysical methods to address groundwater, archaeology, and earthquake hazards problems. Many of the planning and initiation of this field camp mimicked the 2010 field program.
The second annual Geoscientists Without Borders funded Southeast Asia geophysics field camp took place from 2-15 January, 2011 in Chiang Mai, Thailand with 38 student participants and 19 instructor/technicians at two field sites. Geophysical methods include electromagnetic, resistivity, seismic reflection, seismic refraction, seismic surface wave, gravity, magnetic and ground penetrating radar.
This report is a summary of a week-long data acquisition session followed by a week-long data analysis session where seismic, ground penetrating radar, electrical, electromagnetic, gravity, and magnetic data were acquired, processed, and interpreted at the Mae Jo and Wiang Kum Kam sites near Chiang Mai, Thailand. Mae Jo is the site of a M5.1 earthquake in 2006. Geophysical surveys were conducted along rural roads and adjacent farm fields to identify geologic structures and faults related to the seismically active region. Wiang Kum Kam is the site of an abandoned city where buried walls, temples, and related structures are of important historical significance to Thailand. Geophysical surveys focused on identifying and characterizing the paleo Ping River and identifying buried walls and structures related to the 13th century city. The field work conducted at Wiang Kum Kam during the 2011 field camp was an extension of the 2010 geophysics field camp survey. The 2011 geophysics field camp final report, photos, and related documents can be downloaded at http://cgiss.boisestate.edu/gwb.
Table of Contents The advancement of humanitarian geophysics in Southeast Asia: a student-based approach .............................................................................................................................. 1 A 2011 final report to the SEG Geoscientists Without Borders program ........................... 1 Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ 2 Acknowledgements and Financial Support ........................................................................ 4 Equipment used for training................................................................................................ 8
Boise State University..................................................................................................... 8 Chiang Mai University .................................................................................................... 8 Thailand Department of Mineral Industries .................................................................... 8 Siam Tone Ltd/Geonics Ltd ............................................................................................ 8 Royal Irrigation Department ........................................................................................... 8 Mahidol University ......................................................................................................... 8
Summary of 2010 GWB-related publications..................................................................... 9 Logistics and site survey locations ..................................................................................... 9 Site and project descriptions ............................................................................................. 10
Wiang Kum Kam – archaeology/ river channel characterization ................................. 11 Mae Jo – archaeology characterization site .................................................................. 13
Project overview and relevance to the GWB mission statement .............................. 14 GWB Mission Statement .......................................................................................... 15 GWB Program goals ................................................................................................. 15 Program strengths and weaknesses ........................................................................... 15
Summary of written evaluations ....................................................................................... 16
Acknowledgements and Financial Support This geophysics field camp could not have been possible without the support of many organizations and individuals. We greatly appreciate the generous financial contributions made by the Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) Geoscientists Without Borders (GWB) program, our primary sponsor. In addition to the SEG financial support, significant contributions were provided by Boise State University (faculty release time, graduate student participation, equipment), Chiang Mai University (faculty and staff release time, facilities and equipment), Thailand Department of Mineral Resources (instructor participation, equipment, travel expenses), Colorado School of Mines (undergraduate student participation), Geonics Limited (instructor participation, travel expenses), University of Western Australia (faculty release time), Royal Irrigation Department (instructor participation, equipment), Siam Tone Company Limited (equipment), Mahidol University (equipment, teaching assistants) and many individuals within this group that provided time, effort and personal funds to make this field training a success.
Instructors/Technicians The following is a list of instructors for the 2011 GWB Thailand geophysics field camp. Instructor support was provided by individuals, institutions, and GWB. Instructor Name Email
Citizenship Affiliation
Lee Liberty
USA Boise State University
Spencer Wood
USA Boise State University
Kasper vanWijk [email protected]
Netherlands Boise State University
Thomas Blum
French Boise State University
Katie Decker [email protected]
USA Boise State University
Pisanu Wongpornchai [email protected]
Thailand Chiang Mai University
Fongsaward S. Singharajawarapan
Thailand Chiang Mai University
Sarawute Chantraprasert
Thailand Chiang Mai University
Siriporn Chaisri
[email protected] Thailand Chiang Mai University
Suwimon Udphuay
Thailand Chiang Mai University
Chanpen Silawongsawat
Thailand Chiang Mai University
Kachentra Neawsuparp [email protected]
Thailand Department of Mineral Resources
Wachirachai Sakapa [email protected]
Thailand Department of Mineral Resources
Rob Harris
Canada Geonics
Jeffrey Shragge
Canada Univ of Western Australia‐ Perth
Noppadol Poomvises [email protected]
Thailand Royal Irrigation Department
Dan Sturko
Canada
Adulaya Yawichai [email protected]
Thailand Chiang Mai University
Jirapong Sungkoon
Thailand Chiang Mai University
Participants The following is a list of participants for the 2011 GWB Thailand geophysics field camp. Student support for US students was provided by the student institution. Participant Name Email
Citizenship Affiliation
Maung Maung Tun [email protected]
Myanmar Chiang Mai University
Athitaya Chumkhong [email protected]
Thailand Chiang Mai University
Poramase Maskhoaw [email protected]
Thailand Chiang Mai University
Potpreecha Pondthai [email protected]
Thailand Chiang Mai University
Sukanya Konkuen [email protected]
Thailand Chiang Mai University
MingKhwan Kruachanta
Thailand Chiang Mai University
Penprapa Wutthijuk [email protected]
Thailand Chulalongkorn University
Praewpaka Chumtong [email protected]
Thailand Chulalongkorn University
Patchawee Nualkhow [email protected]
Thailand Chulalongkorn University
Banks Beasley [email protected]
USA Colorado School of Mines
Brent Putnam [email protected]
USA Colorado School of Mines
Catherine Cox [email protected]
USA Colorado School of Mines
Ocpasorn Occarach [email protected]
Thailand Dept of Groundwater Resources
Rattana Thirathititham [email protected]
Thailand Dept of Groundwater Resources
Tipwimon Chumphukawin
Thailand Dept of Groundwater Resources
Yongyuth Chatrapakpong
Thailand Dept of Mineral Resources
Tanad Soisa [email protected]
Thailand Dept of Mineral Resources
Pongsub Junngu [email protected]
Thailand Dept of Mineral Resources
Nuchit Siritongkham [email protected]
Thailand Depnt of Mineral Resources
Ni Made Wilasari [email protected]
Indonesia Gadjah Mada University
Chalermkiat Chanchai [email protected]
Thailand Kasetsart University
Thanagrit Wongpanit [email protected]
Thailand Kasetsart University
Ananya Satitpittakul [email protected]
Thailand Mahidol University
Puwis Amatyakul [email protected]
Thailand Mahidol University
Tawat Rungarunwan [email protected]
Thailand Mahidol University
Cheerkhang Vangdoua [email protected]
Laos Phu Bia Mining Ltd., Co
Anousone Keosonesinh
Laos Phu Bia Mining Ltd., Co
Kasemsak Saetang [email protected]
Thailand Prince of Songkla University
Usa Nilsuwan [email protected]
Thailand Prince of Songkla University
Mongkol Yotmaw [email protected]
Thailand Royal Irrigation Department
Tirawut Na Lampang [email protected]
Thailand Royal Irrigation Department
Benjamas Sawatdipong
Thailand Royal Irrigation Department
Attayut Rangsipaiboon [email protected]
Thailand Siam Tone
Apichat Phetdee [email protected]
Thailand Siam Tone
Wiwat Chankam
Thailand Siam Tone
Chackapong Chaiwong
Thailand Mae Jo University
Eko Widi Purnomo [email protected]
Indonesia Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
Nguyen Nhat Kim Ngan
Vietnam Vietnam National University
Equipment used for training Geophysical equipment used during this training was provided by a variety of sources. Boise State University, Chiang Mai University, Thailand Department of Mineral Industries, Siam Tone Thai Royal Irrigation Department and Mahidol University all contributed state-of-the-art instrumentation to provide participants with the best possible training to address near-surface problems. Shipping costs for much of the equipment was provided by the GWB grant.
Boise State University 1) Trimble GeoXH GPS system 2) Trimble netRS basestation GPS 3) Two-way radios 4) 6 laptop computers with software 5) Miscellaneous supplies
Chiang Mai University 1) Geometrics 859 magnetometer 2) ABEM Terrameter SAS 1000 DC resistivity 3) CG-3 gravimeter 4) Computer labs and lecture room for data analysis
Thailand Department of Mineral Industries 1) IRIS SYSCAL R1 PLUS 48-channel DC resistivity 2) GSSI SIR-20 ground penetrating radar unit 3) Geometrics G-856 proton precession magnetometer
Siam Tone Ltd/Geonics Ltd 1) EM34 – Frequency Domain Electromagnetics 2) ProTEM57 – Time Domain Electromagnetics 3) Generator for TEM
Royal Irrigation Department 1) 12-channel Oyo seismograph – MASW/refraction
Mahidol University 2) 24-channel Geometrics Geode seismograph - Reflection
Summary of 2010 GWB-related publications Copies of all the following publications can be found at http://cgiss.boisestate.edu/gwb Hinz, E.A., L. M. Liberty, S. H. Wood, F. Singharajawarapan, S. Udphuay, A. Paiyarom,
and J. Shragge, Student-based archaeological geophysics in northern Thailand, SEG Expanded Abstracts 29, 3848 (2010), Denver, Co, DOI:10.1190/1.3513651
Liberty, L.M., Wood, S.H., vanWijk, K., Hinz, E.A., Mikesell, T.D., Singharajawarapan, F., and Shragge, J.C, The establishment of a geophysics field camp in northern Thailand, The Leading Edge, v. 30, no. 4, 414-420, DOI:10.1190/1.3575288, 2011.
Liberty, L.M., Wood, S.H., Hinz, E.A., Mikesell, T.D., Singharajawarapan, F., and Shragge, J.C, Southeast Asia applied geophysics workshop: Geoscientists without borders, SEG Expanded Abstracts 29,Denver, Co, DOI:10.1190/1.3513651, 2010.
Liberty, L.M., Wood, S.H., Hinz, E.A., Mikesell, T.D., Singharajawarapan, F., and Shragge, J.C, Northern Thailand Geophysics Field Camp: Overview of Activities, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Applied Geophysics, Phuket, Thailand, 7 p., 2010
Poomvises, N., A. Kongsuk, L. Liberty, D. Mikesell, A. Satitpittakul, Multichannel Analysis of Surface Wave, an application to diagnose the dam body, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Applied Geophysics, Phuket, Thailand, 9 p.
Logistics and site survey locations This section briefly summarizes logistics in Chiang Mai with field site descriptions. Non-Chiang Mai University participants arrived either by rail, car, or by plane by January 2 and stayed at the Chiang Mai Hills and Phucome Hotels, adjacent to the Chiang Mai University campus. Each morning, participants met for the hotel-provided breakfast. Each day of the field component of the training, participants were transported to the field sites via 15-passenger van at 7:30 am and returned by 5:30 pm. During the second week of the training, students walked to the CMU campus. Optional processing sessions or extracurricular activities continued each evening. Extra activities included a visit to the temple and gardens at Doi Suthep, visits to the Night Market, and CMU campus tour.
Site and project descriptions Site visit and preparation
Site visit for all instructors/technicians to determine project plan, geophysical layout, objectives, and training as needed was carried out on January 1-2. Preparations included collecting field supplies, testing equipment, clearing fields, obtaining permits and finalizing a project plan. Participants arrived on January 2, were greeted at the airport and escorted to the Chiang Mai Hills Hotel.
Photos: (left) Prayer ceremony to commence the geophysical field work at Wiang Kum Kam. (right)Thai and Indonesian students operating the Mahidol University seismograph at Mae Jo. Introductory field and classroom lectures
Introductory lectures were presented in the field by local experts and visiting faculty to discuss field sites and an overview of geophysical methods. Participants researched and lectured on geophysical theory and field methods to the group, followed by informal discussions on project plans.
Photos: Field lecture by Noppadol Poomvises (Royal Irrigation Department) discussing seismic methods and Katie Decker (Boise State University) instructing on the use of gravimeter.
Wiang Kum Kam – archaeology/ river channel characterization Wiang Kum Kam is the 13th century settlement of the Chiang Mai region,
abandoned due to repeated floods of the Ping River. After the establishment of Chiang Mai, Wiang Kum Kam continued to exist as a satellite town to the new Lanna capital until the end of the Mangrai Dynasty in 1558. Archaeological remains were excavated at sites over the past 20 years, such as stone tablets with Mon inscriptions, pottery, earthenware moulds, but the extent of city walls and structures are incomplete. We visited this site again for a second year, and acquired additional ground penetrating radar, magnetic, and resistivity data to identify and characterize abandoned river channels of the Ping River and old temple brick walls. Geophysical surveys were carried out above known brick walls and where additional walls were suspected. New buried walls were identified in the vicinity of other buried walls with GPR data, and an old levee system was characterized with GPR, resistivity, and magnetic data. We believe this is the first documented geophysical survey of this type of levee system.
Figure. Ground penetrating radar, magnetic, and resistivity results from Wiang Kum Kam showing fluvial architecture, wall outline, and resistive near surface layers.
Mae Jo – archaeology characterization site The Mae Jo is the site of a 2006 M5.1 earthquake. The objective of our survey was to identify and characterize near surface deformation related to the active fault. We acquired seismic reflection, surface wave, refraction, resistivity, magnetic, and gravity data. The Mae Jo site is covered by Quaternary and Tertiary sediment (shown as Qt in Figure 3-8) that includes gravels, sands, silts, clays and laterites. Seismic, TEM, resistivity, gravity and magnetic results all suggest the Chiang Mai Basin contains Tertiary and younger sediments and sedimentary rocks that generally increase in depth toward the basin center. Faults that offset strata and influence groundwater depths may be active and warrant further investigation. Follow up investigations are funded and planned by Chiang Mai University and the Thai Royal Irrigation Department.
Figure. Seismic and magnetic results from Mae Jo showing offset strata and locations of faults that may be related to active tectonism.
Project overview and relevance to the GWB mission statement To assess the success of our program, we revisit the mission statement of the
GWB program, discuss the program strengths and weaknesses, and the results from an anonymous participant survey (hosted by http://www.surveymonkey.com).
Our goal was to connect geophysicists and students with modern geophysical instrumentation and software to address environmental and engineering applications in their home country. By gathering professional and student participants from seven countries and thirteen institutes, we believe we have directly honored the GWB mission. Our vision was to not directly address geoscience problems, but to provide scenarios to train local professionals and future geophysicists to directly address and solve their countries hazards or geosciences problem. By providing the tools and skills necessary to address groundwater, geotechnical, and archaeology problems, we hope to provide a larger impact on projects throughout southeast Asia for many years to come.
GWB Mission Statement “Connect universities and industries with communities in need through projects using applied geophysics to benefit people and the environment around the world“
GWB Program goals
• Provide funding to projects that will bring benefits to communities in need where conditions and hazards can be mitigated or removed using geoscience technology.
• Provide opportunities for professionals and students to exercise their passions for both the science and philanthropy as they conduct humanitarian and community projects around the world, thereby raising the profile of geophysical science.
• Strengthen the global geophysical community through beneficial multidisciplinary partnerships and cooperation with other organizations active in engineering and geoscience.
• Strengthen and encourage SEG Student Sections by energizing students and introducing them to the broad range of geoscience careers while also strengthening university programs in the geophysics and geoscience.
Program strengths and weaknesses Interest in the GWB training was strong and participant applications from a range
on institutes showed the program was well advertised. The on-line application form produced 70 applicants and web site (>20,000 hits) proved popular and effective to disseminate information. Interest in the Year 2 project was significantly greater due to student testimonials, faculty communication, and a summary of the field camp operations at a regional geophysical conference in Phuket, Thailand, November, 2010.
To improve future trainings, we encouraged participants to fill out a survey (below) and share their training experience. From this feedback, we believe the team of instructors provided a strong training for participants using real-world tools to address real-world problems. Instruction from university, government, and private sector provided participants not only a chance to learn from active members of the geophysics community, but to engage in applied geophysical applications outside of past education and trainings and to discuss various aspect of applied geophysics. Participants from Thailand and neighboring countries, integrated with US students with previous field camp experience, provided a geographically well-rounded participant list and much of the equipment use (in excellent condition) was donated by local institutions.
Participants and instructors were pleased with selected field sites with regard to the proximity to the CMU campus, geophysical data quality, and the geologic and cultural objectives. We minimized transportation time and maximized the geophysical acquisition and processing time. The variety of geophysical tools and methods was also noted in the survey. Students were exposed to new methods (e.g. MASW), were offered a chance to operate equipment not presently available within their community or outside of past experiences, and participated in survey design. Data processing and interpretation yielded exciting results and we observed strong synergy between and within participants and instructors. Students and instructors addressed a variety of problems worthy of further study, and brought home knowledge, data, and (freely available) software to reproduce field camp results. Both technical and educational results were presented at
national and international conferences (including SEG) and through journal publications. Additional publications are planned.
The largest challenge for the field training was also the largest learning experience for both western and eastern participants. Procedures to address permitting, acquiring field supplies, general communication, and teaching/learning styles were all encountered in 2010, and our 2011 field camp worked hard to improve these aspects of the field camp. Although there was limited time for all participants to master all geophysical methods, there were no comments that learning was restricted or time was not well spent. We strived to provide participants with free or inexpensive processing options, but this provided some difficulty in 2010. For example, our plan to use SeisUnix (freely available from Colorado School of Mines) for seismic and GPR processing proved ineffective because of the participant inexperience with Unix and general programming skills. As a result, we instructed students on basic unix and scripting skills that allowed the students to work more independently in data processing.
Summary of written evaluations 1. Which field method do you understand MUCH better because of this course? Which method can you perform by yourself (given you have the equipment and software)? Which method would you like to learn better next year if you came back to the field session? Is there a method that we did not offer at the field course that you would like added next year? 1.I understand in both of seismic methods because I have done processing in reflection group and I got hospitality and good many answers the questions from P' Kob. 2. The methods performing by myself should be reflection seismic but I have to learn much more technical in program processing and stack interpretation. 3. I would like to learn GPR and TDEM with Jeff and Rob. Their technics are useful on my way. 4. It may be gravity and magnetic but I think you should keep all methods in the next year. All are useful for all participants who have never got these experience before especially bachelor's degree students. I hope you share more knowledge in geophysics in next year. Resistivity,gravity,magnetic and GPS are method that I can perform by myself and understand much better. GPR is method that I want to learn better next year. Surface wave seismic, GPR Would like to learn more about MASW and would like to set up MT arrays Why are there so many questions to answer? We didn't have frequency domain EM this year. 2. How can we improve the teaching of the seismic methods (i.e. reflection, refraction, and MASW) next year? 1. present teaching is good
2.
You should improve by teaching more basic using processing program. What these command means , why we must key this command for or are there any same command? You should control some students working in the field much more and fairly, both natives and Americans.
3. I think, for seismic reflection if you have more time please teach more about SU program for someone that use it first time.
4. Spend more time teaching the whole group about MASW before field days 5. We may need more time for both data acquisition & processing. 3. How can we improve teaching gravity and magnetic methods next year? 1. present teaching is good
2. Teaching processing programs such as MONTAJ. All participants in this camp should get a chance to learn it.
3. No, I have not any recomment for these method. I think, it is ok. 4. Make sure reference books are available for writing about theory 5. Reduce no. of student participants. 4. How can we improve teaching EM, TEM, GPR, and resistivty methods next year? 1. present teaching is good
2. We would like to learn some processing program more than MatLab or teach us in some advance command of Matlab.
3. I think, it is ok. 4. Each participant should have a background on theory of each method.
5. How can we improve teaching the survey methods (i.e., GPS and total station) next year?
1. present teaching is good
2. After field working we would like to spend more time for rest. We were so tried. Teaching in each method should be explained step by step from basic to advance with fit time. Sometimes explain what we are in which step.
3. I think, it is also ok. 6. Which software did you learn the most about? What software would you like to use for processing or reporting if you took this course again? 1. Matlab, MASW
2. The most is MatLab (Wish to be an expert. It's so cool.). I would like learning all software. It will be better if we will learn in some license program.
3. Su is the sofware which I learned a lot from this camp. Next camp I will learn this software more. Thank you very much.
4. I learned the most about matlab and would like to use Geosoft software 5. SU/MATLAB 7. Did you have any experience with the UNIX operating system before this course? Did you have any experience with computer coding (e.g., MATLAB, JAVA, C++, FORTRAN) before this course?
1. no 2. No nothing. 3. I have the basic with linux and I don't have any experience with computer coding . 4. Yes 5. yes 8. How can we improve the overall data processing and report writing next year? Would more time for data processing help? Would more lectures on geophysical theory or geological processes help? 1. lectures on geophysical theory or geological process 2. More time specially lecture and processes for bachelor's student. 3. I think, seismic reflection step in SU should explain more with undergraduate.
4. Having a day to correlate data processing results between groups would be helpful to understand how the methods work together
5. more time more lecture would help 9. Are there any geophyscial problems that you would suggest for future field courses in Thailand? 1. no
2. Field work is harder. I would like you to take care everyone daily more by food, talking or something else if you wish this level success. It's so harder for beginner and everyone. Resident, processing work and others are good.
3. I think, KMF fault in Southern Thailand . 4. Groundwater would be interesting 5. haven't thought about it yet