Corresponding Author: Nur
Rachman Supadmana Muda
E-mail: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
Seismic sensors are a component system based on the
principle of sensitive inertia to ground vibrations originating from sound
propagation, while the inertial mass is constant (Ding et al., 2022); (Li et al., 2014). So, the difference between the two components helps
measure seismic waves. Geophone is a sensitive ground movement transducer
sensor (Hou et al., 2021); (Cheng et al., 2014). This tool converts seismic energy, or vibrations,
into electrical voltage that can be measured accurately (Attia et al., 2020); (Tzavaras et al., 2012). Simply put, a geophone uses a mass wrapped around a
wire that is in a magnetic field.
Seismic velocity and elastic modulus of rock vary
significantly with application stress, indicating that these materials exhibit
nonlinear elasticity (Yurikov et al., 2022). Monochromatic waves in Nonlinear elastic media
produce higher harmonics and combinational frequencies (Rushchitsky, 2014). The first field experiment used two vibration
sources to produce signals with two monochromatic frequencies (Bellino et al., 2013). The second field experiment uses a surface orbital
vibrator with two eccentric motors at different frequencies. The resulting
wavefield was recorded in a drilled hole using distributed optical fibers
acoustic sensing cable in both experiments. Both experiments show
combinational, harmonic, and other frequencies' fundamental frequency
intermodulation products at the surface and depth. Laboratory experiments
replicated field test setups with vibration sources and showed similar results
in a nonlinear combination of fundamental frequencies. Observed nonlinear
signal amplitude in the laboratory shows variations in fluid saturation (Yunzhen, 2014).
The research objective of obtaining high hitting
accuracy for main battle tanks is challenging when the tank moves (Dursun et al., 2017); (Wei et al., 2012). This can be achieved with properly designed weapon
controls and weapon systems. To design an effective weapons system while the
tank is in motion, a better understanding of the dynamic behavior of the
weapons system is required. In this study, the dynamic behavior of weapons
systems is discussed. Methods such as using muzzle reference systems (MRS),
vibration dampening, and active vibration control technology for control and
reduction of muzzle tip deflection are also reviewed (Banerjee et al., 2021); (Dai et al., 2015); (Fu*, 2015). MRS can be useful in controlling weapon barrel
deflection with estimation/prediction algorithms for existing weapon systems
without major modifications.
Based on the background above,
the aim of the research in this paper is to detect ground vibrations generated
by tank movements on the surface. The vibrations received by the seismic sensor
are converted into digital values through artificial neural network algorithms,
enabling the specific attribution of the received vibration specifications to
the tank. The benefits of this research include the development of more
efficient seismic sensor technology for detecting tank or military vehicle
movements, which can enhance the security system's reliability in potentially
militarily threatened areas. Additionally, it contributes to the development of
signal processing technology and artificial intelligence algorithms in the
context of vibration detection and identification, with broad applications in
security and defense fields.
METHOD
A magnet is a
permanent magnet placed together with the earth's surface to follow the earth's
vertical vibrations when seismic waves spread across the earth's surface. Wire
Coil Wire coils rely on springs and will move when seismic waves arrive. This
tool is flexible enough for applications, earthquake approaches, and landslide
detection. Oil and gas exploration, structural strength analysis, road strength
testing, and bridge vibration detection. As shown in Figure 1, the principal of
the seismic sensor.
Figure 1.
Principal of Seismic Sensor
These tools are connected and inserted in the ground to a
depth of 40 cm. They will be connected to a battery that provides vibrations.
The installation of these sensors will be carried out continuously to obtain
soil characteristics. The working principle of this tool is that when a
vibration occurs, the geophone sensor will start working. The vertical seismic
movement of the earth hitting the geophone causes the spring inside to
oscillate. The oscillatory motion of the spring creates flux due to changes in
the position of the coil relative to the magnet or vice versa. Due to the
presence of flux, an induced EMF appears. The induced voltage detected in the
wire coil is proportional to the magnitude of the vibration captured by the
sensor. The output is a voltage that can be visualized as a sinusoidal signal.
This seismic working principle is applied to detect ground vibrations produced
by tanks, as shown in Figure 2. Experimental setup :
Figure 2. Experimental Setup
Figure 2 shows the experimental setup, where
the sensor is placed in the detection area. It is planted to a depth of 40 cm.
On the sesmiseismic, a microcontroller and a data link modem send information
signals to the operator, who can see it via the laptop monitor. The seismic
sensor will be active in real-time when it receives a real-time vibration
signal originating from tank movement. This signal will be sent to the operator
in the form of a digital signal and, by the microcontroller at the receiver it
w, it will be converted into a coding signal which,h, is visualized in the form
of an active signal indicator and the control distance between tanks against
sensors. In this way, the presence and distance of the tank to the operator
will be known. Figure 3 shows the seismic sensor detection area, where the
seismic sensor can detect tanks.
Figure 3. Seismic
Detection Area
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The seismic sensor components used consist of 100
weber neodymium permanent magnets with sizes (l, w, t) 120mm, 120mm, 200mm;
mass 2kg, spring double 200mm, coil diameter 0.5mm, moving magnet connector.
The interface components consist of ADC Arduino Uno, laptop, Embarcadero Xe7
program application.
The focus of this research is limited to ground
vibrations produced by the Leopard 2 tank. Specifications for the Leopard 2
tank made in Germany in 1970: mass of 62.3 tonnes, Length of 9.97 m, Width of
3.75 m, Height of 3.0 m, Cruising range of 550 km, Speed of 72 km/h. The
results of vibration measurement trials include distance, frequency, and
amplitude, as shown in Table 1. Seismic testing on the Leopard Tank.
This seismic work process, if it receives vibrations
produced by the tank, the magnet in the seismic will vibrate vertically up and
down, the up and down movement of this magnet can generate electrical energy
and the frequency of electric current which is then connected to the Arduino
Uno interface, the output of the Arduino in the form of digital data which has
been converted and analyzed by the embarcadero application using an artificial
neural network algorithm to assess the vibration source into a seismic
detection distance to the tank.
Table 1. Result of Seismic Measurement
|
Test
|
Detection Range
(m)
|
Amplitude
Mean (V)
|
Frequency
(Hz)
|
|
1
|
50
|
12,1
|
334
|
|
2
|
100
|
8,8
|
332
|
|
3
|
200
|
7,6
|
332
|
|
4
|
500
|
5,2
|
332
|
|
5
|
1000
|
4,3
|
331
|
Figure 4.
Graph of Detection Range (m) VS Amplitudo (Volt)
Figure 5. Graph of�
Detection Range (m) VS Amplitudo (Volt)
As shown in
Figure 4, the graph of distance and amplitude, where at a distance of 50
meters, the resulting amplitude is 12.1 volts; at a distance of 100 meters, the
resulting amplitude is 8.8 volts; at a distance of 200 meters, the resulting
amplitude is 7.6 volts, at a distance of 500 meters the amplitude is 5.2 volts
produced and a distance of 1000 meters the resulting amplitude is 4.3 volts.
This shows that the farther the detection distance between the seismic sensor
and the tank, the lower the resulting amplitude; the closer the target
distance, the greater the resulting amplitude. As shown in Figure 5, the graph
of distance and frequency, where at a distance of 50 meters, the frequency
received is 334 Hz; at a distance of 100 meters, the frequency received is 332
Hz; at a distance of 200 meters, the amplitude produced by the frequency
received is 332 Hz, at a distance of 500 meters the frequency received is 332
Hz and a distance of 1000 meters, the received frequency is 330 Hz. This shows
that relative distance does not have a big effect on the frequency of seismic
vibrations, which, on average, is 332 Hz.
CONCLUSION
The results of this research can
conclude that the detection distance greatly influences the amplitude of the
signal received; the greater the amplitude received, the closer the detection
distance between the tank and the seismic sensor. The smaller the signal
amplitude, the farther the seismic detection distance to the tank. Meanwhile,
the effect of distance on the frequency of ground vibrations is relatively
constant on average, namely 332 Hz.
The implications of these findings are
significant. Firstly, it highlights the importance of considering detection
distance when deploying seismic sensors for military applications.
Understanding how distance affects signal amplitude can inform the placement
and configuration of sensor networks to optimize detection capabilities.
Secondly, the consistent frequency of ground vibrations regardless of distance
suggests that frequency analysis may not be as reliable for determining
proximity to the tank as amplitude analysis. This insight can guide the
development of more accurate and efficient detection algorithms. Overall, the
research underscores the practical implications of distance-related variables
in seismic detection technology, enhancing its effectiveness in military and
security applications..
REFERENCES
Attia, H., Gaya, S., Alamoudi, A., Alshehri, F. M.,
Al-Suhaimi, A., Alsulaim, N., Al Naser, A. M., Eddin, M. A. J., Alqahtani, A.
M., & Rojas, J. P. (2020). Wireless geophone sensing system for real-time
seismic data acquisition. IEEE Access, 8, 81116�81128.
Banerjee, S., Balamurugan, V., & Krishna Kumar, R.
(2021). Vibration control of a military vehicle weapon platform under the
influence of integrated ride and cornering dynamics. Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part K: Journal of Multi-Body Dynamics,
235(2), 197�216.
Bellino, A., Garibaldi, L., & Godio, A. (2013). An
automatic method for data processing of seismic data in tunneling. Journal
of Applied Geophysics, 98, 243�253.
Cheng, F., Liu, J., Qu, N., Mao, M., & Zhou, L. (2014).
Two-dimensional pre-stack reverse time imaging based on tunnel space. Journal
of Applied Geophysics, 104, 106�113.
Dai, K., Li, X., Lu, C., You, Q., Huang, Z., & Wu, H. F.
(2015). A low-cost energy-efficient cableless geophone unit for passive surface
wave surveys. Sensors, 15(10), 24698�24715.
Ding, B., Zhao, G., Watchi, J., Sider, A., & Collette, C.
(2022). An interferometric inertial sensor for low-frequency seismic isolation.
Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, 335, 113398.
Dursun, T., B�y�kcivelek, F., & Utlu, �. (2017). A review
on the gun barrel vibrations and control for a main battle tank. Defence
Technology, 13(5), 353�359.
Fu*, Z. (2015). Low frequency improvement with a new designed
duo-coil closed-loop geophone accelerometer. In SEG Technical Program
Expanded Abstracts 2015 (pp. 297�301). Society of Exploration
Geophysicists.
Hou, Y., Jiao, R., & Yu, H. (2021). MEMS based geophones
and seismometers. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, 318, 112498.
Li, S. C., Liu, B., Sun, H. F., Nie, L. C., Zhong, S. H., Su,
M. X., Li, X., & Xu, Z. H. (2014). State of art and trends of advanced
geological prediction in tunnel construction. Chinese Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Engineering, 33(6), 1090�1113.
Rushchitsky, J. J. (2014). Nonlinear elastic waves in
materials. Springer.
Tzavaras, J., Buske, S., Gro�, K., & Shapiro, S. (2012).
Three-dimensional seismic imaging of tunnels. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 49, 12�20.
Wei, W., Fu, L., & Blacqui�re, G. (2012). Fast
multifrequency focal beam analysis for 3D seismic acquisition geometry. Geophysics,
77(2), P11�P21.
Yunzhen, L. I. U. (2014). Comparison and Contrast between
TGP206 and TSP203 Advance Geology Prediction System: Advantages of
TGP206. Tunnel Construction, 34(3), 198.
Yurikov, A., Gurevich, B., Tertyshnikov, K., Lebedev, M.,
Isaenkov, R., Sidenko, E., Yavuz, S., Glubokovskikh, S., Shulakova, V., &
Freifeld, B. (2022). Evidence of Nonlinear Seismic Effects in the Earth from
Downhole Distributed Acoustic Sensors. Sensors, 22(23), 9382.
