Journal of Applied Geophysics 204 (2022) 104719

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Applied Geophysics

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

UAV source: A new economical and environmentally friendly source for

seismic exploration in complex areas
Zhenning Ma, Rongyi Qian *, Yuchen Wang, Jun Zhang, Xu Liu, Jianyu Ling
China University of Geosciences (Beijing), School of Geophysics and Information Technology, Beijing, China

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

Keywords: Active-source seismic exploration is a high-resolution detection method for obtaining underground information.
UAV In the past, active-source seismic exploration in certain types of complex terrains, such as mountains, forests, and
Seismic source rivers, had to be abandoned because of the difficulty in obtaining a suitable source. In this study, we design a
Complex area
seismic source based on a UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) platform that can adapt to various complex conditions
Experiments
for seismic exploration. The principle of the UAV source is that the impact object is carried to a specified height
and then released by a drop controller. Subsequently, the impact object strikes the ground to produce seismic
waves. The impact object contains a vibration switch and a wireless signal transmitter that transmits the shock
signal back to a GPS module to record the start time of the seismic record. We compare the UAV source at
different wind speeds and flight altitudes, and results show that wind speed affects deviation from the source
drop point, and flight altitude is a crucial factor that determines the energy of the source. A series of experiments
in the Yarlung Zangbo River Valley, China, proves that the UAV source can aid seismic exploration in complex
regions, with high-quality results and very low cost.

1. Introduction
Active source seismic exploration is an effective method for detecting
underground structures (for example, see Chen et al., 2017). It is usually
a complex procedure, and using an appropriate source is a key factor for
active source exploration (Miller et al., 1992; Chen et al., 2017; Ma and
Qian, 2020).
There are many kinds of seismic exploration sources, such as ex­
plosives, sledgehammers (Keiswetter and Steeples, 1994), weight drops
(Miller et al., 1986; Yordkayhun and Suwan, 2012), vibroseis (Wang
et al., 2013), airguns (Chen et al., 2017), pyrotechnics (Brom and Stan-
Kłeczek, 2015), and so on. To obtain the attribute parameters of
different seismic sources, many scholars have conducted comparative
experiments (for example, Miller et al., 1986; Miller et al., 1992; Miller
et al., 1994; Brom and Stan-Kłeczek, 2015). These experimental results
provide an important reference for scientists and engineers in choosing a
reasonable source for seismic exploration.
Recently, many kinds of non-destructive sources also have been
developed with an emphasis on environmental protection. Rashed
(2009) produced a new seismic source, named the gas-driven piston
(GDP), which is a portable, inexpensive, easy-to-operate, easy-to-
maintain, and highly repeatable seismic source. Yordkayhun and Suwan
(2012) designed a source based on the principle of accelerating weight
reduction, whereby an active mass of 30 kg is lifted by a mechanical rack
and pinion and then accelerated using a pre-installed spring.
Areas in complex terrains are regarded as extremely difficult loca­
tions for seismic exploration. These areas often lack accessible roads and
present many hidden dangers; so it is impractical to use conventional
seismic sources while working on the ground. Although there are many
sources to choose from, few are suitable for harsh environments.
Notably, Jolly et al. (2012) obtained estimates of seismic velocity and
attenuation by using 700 kg high-impact sandbags as a source, dropping
them from a height of 310–380 m by helicopter.
UAVs have been widely used in a variety of dangerous and complex
environments (Kendoul, 2012), and they have a lower risk and cost than
helicopters. We propose using a UAV source for seismic exploration in a
complex environment. According to our field test, the UAV source has
the advantages of high repeatability, low cost, and the ability to operate
in extreme environments. The UAV source has great potential in solving
the problem of seismic exploration in complex areas.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rongyiqian@cugb.edu.cn (R. Qian).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2022.104719
Received 29 August 2021; Received in revised form 19 March 2022; Accepted 28 May 2022
Available online 2 June 2022
0926-9851/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Z. Ma et al.
Fig. 1. Structure of the UAV source.
Fig. 2. Ground GPS (white box) and two impact objects with vibration switch
and radio transmission device.
2. UAV source configuration
The UAV source consists of three primary components: the UAV,
dropping controller, and impact object, such as a metal ball. We used the
DJI Matrice 600 Pro (M600 Pro) as the main engine of the UAV source. It
has a maximum load of 6 kg, and its maximum flight altitude is 500 m.
The dropping controller is an independent module, which is mounted on
the bottom of the UAV and has independent remote control. Therefore,
during operation, two people are required to cooperate and complete the
work. The impact object is a 5-kg solid metal ball with a diameter of 11
cm. Fig. 1 presents the overall structure of the UAV source.
In practical work, two major issues are the recording of the source
start time and the determination of the source position. Regarding the
source position, our solution is that after the UAV takes off, the operator
controls the UAV to reach the predetermined position at a low altitude
and then maneuvers it to rise vertically to the drop height. This method
will produce some errors under the influence of UAV positioning system
errors and wind, but it is a relatively cheap and simple solution for
fieldwork.
In the initial experiment, we recorded the approximate time of the
source impact object hitting the ground by using GPS instruments, then
obtained the shot gather by intercepting long-time seismic records with
processing software. Finally, we determined the precise start time of the
2
Journal of Applied Geophysics 204 (2022) 104719
data through waveform information of the zero-offset channel. How­
ever, when the source point deviates significantly from the pre­
determined position, the process becomes quite complicated, and it is
difficult to obtain an accurate start time.
In the improved scheme, which is shown in Fig. 2, the vibration
switch and the radio transmission device were integrated into the impact
object. After landing, the impact object generates seismic waves and
automatically turns on the vibration switch to generate an electrical
signal. At the same time, the radio transmission device transmits the
signal to the ground GPS unit, which records the start time of the source.
Generally, as long as the impact object can be found after dropping, it
can be used repeatedly. However, if it is lost, that is also tolerable, since
the cost of UAV sources is very low.
3. Field tests
We performed data acquisition experiments on a seismic line in the
Yarlung Zangbo River, China, to evaluate the seismic data acquisition
ability of the UAV source. The Yarlung Zangbo River is the fifth-longest
river in China (Liu et al., 2014), stretching 2057 km in length and
240,480 km2 in area (Yao et al., 2010).
The field experiment site is located in Linzhi Prefecture, Tibet, China,
in the lower reaches of the Yarlung Zangbo River Valley, where wind
speeds can reach up to 10 m/s. A map of the area and its location within
China are presented in Fig. 3.
There are forests, pebble beaches, rivers, mountains, and other ter­
rains in this section of the valley. Only some of the temporary roads in
the area can be used to transport mechanical seismic sources.
To analyze the sediment in the Yarlung Zangbo River Valley, we set
up several seismic lines and carried out UAV source experiments on one
of the North-South lines. The surface of the area that this survey line
passes through is quite complex, thus meeting the requirements of our
trial. The strata in the area are mainly composed of sediment of the
Yarlung Zangbo River.
Seismic records were collected using 348 SmartSolo IGU-16 1C 5 Hz
nodal seismographs, placed at a spacing of 5 m. Because the seismic line
crosses the Yarlung Zangbo River, we did not deploy 20 channels in the
river, so ultimately, we only used 328 channels. The acquisition pa­
rameters were determined after a series of comparative experiments
with a traditional cable seismograph. The data were recorded using a 1-
ms sampling interval for a record length of 1000 ms. Nodal seismo­
graphs can record seismic data continuously, so the record length can be
determined arbitrarily during processing. To suppress low-frequency
interference in the seismic data and to obtain a clearer reflected wave,
a 20-Hz high pass filter was used for all data displayed in this paper. All
the acquisition parameters are shown in Table 1.
To investigate the repeatability of the UAV source, the distribution of
the impact points, and the working stability of the UAV source at
different altitudes, we carried out drop experiment at varying heights.
From the same take-off point, we conducted ten drop experiments at
three different flight altitudes, 100 m, 300 m, and 500 m. Fig. 4a pre­
sents the distribution of ten impact points from 100 m altitude, Fig. 4b
shows the distribution of ten impact points from 300 m, and Fig. 4c
shows ten impact points from 500 m altitude. With increasing drop
height, the distribution of the impact points is more dispersed.
Table 2 exhibits the offsets of the UAV source drop experiment under
different conditions. In the ten experiments from 100 m height, the
minimum offset relative to the target was 0.6 m, the maximum offset
was 2.7 m, and the average offset was 1.2 m. The wind velocity during
the experiment was between 5 and 8 m/s. For the ten experiments from
300 m height, the minimum and maximum offsets relative to the target
were 1.6 m and 10 m, respectively, and the average offset is 5.4 m. For
these tests, the wind velocity was also about 5–8 m/s. For the 500-m
height tests, the wind speed in the valley changed rapidly, and the
maximum wind speed was close to 10 m/s. Therefore, we counted the
offsets in three distinct wind-speed groups. When the wind speed was
Z. Ma et al. Journal of Applied Geophysics 204 (2022) 104719

Fig. 3. Location of the experimental area (inset map) and seismic line (b).

higher signal-to-noise ratios, and the energy of reflected waves, first-

Table 1
arrival waves, and surface waves are also stronger than at lower drop
Acquisition parameters and equipment.
heights.
No. Content Instruments or value Through these experiments, we established that more accurate
1 Seismograph SmartSolo IGU-16 5 Hz landing positions and stronger energy are always contradictory. We
2 Length of seismic line 1735 m suggest conducting a large number of comparative tests to find suitable
3 Receiver station spacing 5m drop heights for a UAV source. For subsequent complex terrain experi­
4 Total number of channels 348
5 Number of channels missed in the river 20
ments, we selected a constant height of 500 m and low wind speed
6 Sample interval 1 ms conditions.
It is often challenging to use conventional seismic sources in remote
areas, due to inaccessibility. However, a UAV seismic source makes the
work easier. We tested the UAV source on several complex surfaces in
4–6 m/s, which occurred four times, the maximum offset was 10.3 m, the Yarlung Zangbo River Valley, as illustrated in Fig. 6.
the minimum offset was 2.1 m, and the average offset was 5.6 m. Be­
sides, the wind speed was 5–8 m/s for four drops, and the maximum,
3.1. Forest site
minimum, and average offsets were 11.7 m, 3.1 m, and 7.2 m, respec­
tively. When the wind speed was 8–10 m/s, the maximum offset was
The test point (Point 1 in Fig. 6) for the seismic source in the forest
12.6 m, the minimum offset was 12.2 m, and the average offset was 12.4
was located at about 1/3 of the survey line length from the northern end
m. A wind speed of 8–10 m/s occurred twice during the 500-m height
of the line, and there was a nearby platform that can be used for a more
source drops. From the data, we can conclude that wind speed has a
conventional 500-kg weight-drop source. Fig. 7 displays raw shot
great influence on the offset (relative to the target) and greater wind
gathers recorded using the UAV source (Fig. 7a) and the 500-kg weight-
speeds lead to larger offsets. Offsets relative to the target of more than
drop source (Fig. 7d), along with their amplitude spectra (Fig. 7b and
10 m are generally difficult to accept in high-resolution seismic explo­
Fig. 7e) of the data and photographs of the environment around the
ration. Therefore, considering both safety factors and the accuracy of the
impact point (Fig. 7c and Fig. 7f). Compared with the 500-kg weight-
source, UAV sources should work in environments with low wind
drop-source seismic record, the seismic record collected using the
speeds.
UAV source has higher frequencies, and the seismic energy is substan­
The kinetic energy of the impact object is essentially obtained from
tially weaker. The reflection characteristics of the UAV seismic record
the conversion of its gravitational potential energy. We conducted six
are similar to those of the weight-drop source between 300 ms and 600
sets of experiments at different heights of 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, and
ms.
500 m using the the same take-off point. We set up 292 channels on the
north side of the river, with a line length of 1455 m, and the target point
was located near channel 72. Fig. 5 displays some of the shot gathers we 3.2. River site
collected at varying heights. By comparing shot gathers, it can be
concluded that flight height can greatly enhance the output force of the We generated UAV seismic sources within the river and compared
UAV source. Seismic data obtained from the 500-m drop height have them with weight-drop sources near the edge of the river. It is generally

3
Z. Ma et al. Journal of Applied Geophysics 204 (2022) 104719

Fig. 4. (a) Location distribution (relative to the target) of ten impacts from 100 m altitude, (b) 300 m altitude,
and (c) 500 m altitude.

Table 2 with the UAV source (Fig. 8c). Fig. 8 presents raw shot gathers recorded
Experimental data for UAV source drop. using the UAV source in the river (Fig. 8a) and the 500-kg weight-drop
source near the river (Fig. 8d), along with their amplitude spectra
Dropping Wind Maximum Minimum Average Number of
height (m) speed offset offset offset tests (Fig. 8b and Fig. 8e). The seismic records obtained by the two sources
(m/s) (m) (m) (m) have obvious reflection waves and the amplitude spectra are also
100 5–8 2.7 - 0.6 1.2 10
similar. The high-quality seismic data we obtained using the UAV source
300 5–8 10.0 - 1.6 5.4 10 in the river demonstrates great potential for the application of this
500 4–6 5.7 - 2.1 4.5 4 technology.
500 5–8 11.7 - 3.1 7.2 4
500 8–10 12.2 - 12.6 12.4 2

3.3. River bank site

infeasible for conventional weight-drop seismic sources to produce
seismic waves in rivers (Point 2 in Fig. 6). However, with a UAV source,
it can be easily realized. When using the UAV source, we only lose a
metal ball, which is very inexpensive. For this test, we used a 5-kg metal
ball, dropped from a height of 500 m. The depth of the water column in
the river is unknown because it was not practical to measure it during
the experiment. The weight-drop source could not be performed in the
river, so we use a source point (Fig. 8f) close to the river to compare it
The bank of the river (Point 3 in Fig. 6) mainly consists of fine sand,
which makes it difficult to access with the weight-drop source equip­
ment, so we only tested the UAV source here. Fig. 8 presents raw shot
gathers recorded using the UAV source at the river bank (Fig. 9a) with
amplitude spectra (Fig. 9b) and the environment around the UAV-source
impact point (Fig. 9c). The seismic-wave energy in the sand is relatively
weak, mainly caused by the strong absorption and attenuation of seismic
waves in the soft surface layer. However, we observe the obvious hy­
perbola of a reflected wave near 400 ms (zero offset).

4
Z. Ma et al. Journal of Applied Geophysics 204 (2022) 104719

Fig. 5. Shot gathers for varying UAV-source drop heights: (a) 50 m; (b) 100 m; (c) 200 m; (d) 300 m; (e) 400 m; (f) 500 m.

5
Z. Ma et al. Journal of Applied Geophysics 204 (2022) 104719

Fig. 6. Aerial photo of the UAV test area. Point 1 is the forest test site, Point 2 is the river test site, and Point 3 is the river bank test site.

Fig. 7. (a) Shot gathers collected using a UAV source in the forest; (b) Amplitude spectra of the data shown in Fig. 7a; (c) Photo of the area around the UAV-source
impact point; (d) Shot gather collected using a 500-kg weight-drop source from a height of 2.5 m in the forest; (e) Amplitude spectra of the data shown in Fig. 7d; (f)
Photo of the area around the 500-kg weightdrop impact point.

6
Z. Ma et al. Journal of Applied Geophysics 204 (2022) 104719

Fig. 8. (a) Shot gather collected using the UAV source in the Yarlung Zangbo River; (b) Amplitude spectra of the data from Fig. 8a; (c) Photo of the UAV source and
the impact point (before rising of the UAV); (d) Shot gather collected using a 500-kg weight-drop source from a 2.5-m height near the Yarlung Zangbo River; (e)
Amplitude spectra of data from Fig. 8d; (f) Photo of the 500-kg weight-drop source and location.

4. Conclusions more powerful UAV, specialized impact object.

In this study, we proposed a UAV seismic source that uses the kinetic
energy generated by dropping a impact object from various heights to
the ground surface. The UAV source can operate in complex environ­
ments that have previously been inaccessible to seismic exploration.
Experiments in the Yarlung Zangbo River Valley show that the UAV
source has the advantages of easy operation, high repeatability, low
purchase and operating costs, and high frequency seismic energy.
However, the UAV source poses some safety issues and is not rec­
ommended for use in densely populated areas. Users must ensure that
people or animals are not near the UAV source target area when oper­
ating the UAV source. Some experiments on flat terrain showed that the
impact object falls quickly and is often embedded in the ground, so there
may be no secondary source of energy, such as that generated by mul­
tiple bounces of the dropped ball. However, secondary source energy
may be produced in some areas of relatively steep topography or on hard
surfaces.
Compared with the 500 kg weight drop under the same conditions,
the seismic wave produced by the UAV source has a higher frequency.
Although the penetration depth is not as deep as the 500 kg weight drop,
it is stronger than most other small sources. The working mode of the
UAV source means that it has more modification possibilities, such as a
The UAV and impact objects can be reused, so the main costs are the
purchase cost of the UAV and the cost of battery charging. Thus, the
average cost per shot using the UAV source will be very low. The UAV
we used has a loading capacity of just 6 kg and can only carry one impact
object, so a great deal of electrical energy is wasted on frequent take-off
and landing. This has a significant impact on the application efficiency
of the UAV source. We aim to improve the efficiency of the UAV source
by enabling a single UAV to carry multiple impact objects or by oper­
ating multiple UAVs at the same time.
The UAV seismic source technique is a revolutionary technology for
seismic exploration in complex environments.
Author statement
None.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declared that they have no conflicts of interest to this
work.We declare that we do not have any commercial or associative
interest that represents a conflict of interest in connection with the work
submitted.

7
Z. Ma et al. Journal of Applied Geophysics 204 (2022) 104719

Fig. 9. (a) Shot gathers collected using the UAV source on the riverbank; (b) Amplitude spectra of data shown in Fig. 9a; (c)Photo of the UAV-source impact point.

Acknowledgements for his assistance in the field.

The authors would like to thank the two reviewers for their helpful References
reviews and suggestions. This work is supported by the Second Tibetan
Plateau Scientific Expedition (Grant No. 2019QZKK0204), the National Brom, A., Stan-Kłeczek, I., 2015. Comparison of seismic sources for shallow seismic:
sledgehammer and pyrotechnics. Contemp. Trends Geosci. 4 (1), 39–45. https://doi.
Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.41974159), and the org/10.1515/ctg-2015-0004.
Natural Science Foundation of Beijing Municipality (Grant
No.8212016). The authors would especially like to thank Yuqing Wang

8
Z. Ma et al.
Chen, Y., Wang, B., Yao, H., 2017. Seismic airgun exploration of continental crust
structures. Sci. China Earth Sci. 60, 1739–1751. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-
016-9096-6.
Jolly, A.D., Chardot, L., Neuberg, J., Fournier, N., Scott, B.J., Sherburn, S., 2012. High
impact mass drops from helicopter: a new active seismic source method applied in an
active volcanic setting. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L12306. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2012GL051880.
Keiswetter, D., Steeples, D., 1994. Practical modifications to improve the sledgehammer
seismic source. Geophys. Res. Lett. 21 (20), 2203–2206. https://doi.org/10.1029/
94GL01957.
Kendoul, F., 2012. Survey of advances in guidance, navigation, and control of unmanned
rotorcraft systems. J. Field Robot. 29, 315–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/rob.20414.
Liu, Z., Yao, Z., Huang, H., Wu, S., Liu, G., 2014. Land use and climate changes and their
impacts on runoff in the Yarlung Zangbo River Basin, China. Land Degrad. Dev. 25,
203–215. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.1159.
Ma, Z., Qian, R., 2020. Overview of seismic methods for urban underground space.
Interpretation. 8 (4), SU19–SU30. https://doi.org/10.1190/INT-2020-0044.1.
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.
Journal of Applied Geophysics 204 (2022) 104719
Miller, R.D., Pullan, S.E., Steeples, D.W., Hunter, J.A., 1992. Field comparison of shallow
seismic sources near Chino, California. Geophysics. 57, 693–709. https://doi.org/
10.1190/1.1443283.
Miller, R.D., Pullan, S.E., Steeples, D.W., Hunter, J.A., 1994. Field comparison of shallow
P-wave seismic sources near Houston, Texas. Geophysics. 59, 1713–1728. https://
doi.org/10.1190/1.1443558.
Rashed, M.A., 2009. GDP: a new source for shallow high-resolution seismic exploration.
J. Appl. Geophys. 68, 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2008.11.005.
Wang, J.Q., Lin, J., Gong, X.B., Zeng, R., 2013. Study on vibroseis data preprocessing
method of metal mining seismic exploration. Appl. Mech. Mater. 448-453,
3751–3756. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.448-453.3751.
Yao, T.D., Li, Z.G., Yang, W., Guo, X.J., Zhu, L.P., Kang, S.C., 2010. Glacial distribution
and mass balance in the Yarlung Zangbo River and its influence on lakes. Chin. Sci.
Bull. 20, 2072–2078. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-010-3213-5.
Yordkayhun, S., Suwan, J.N., 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.