Fieldcamp 2023: Culminating Field Experience in My Bachelor’s Degree
Published:
Fieldcamp 2023 was the culminating field lecture for the Geophysics program at Universitas Gadjah Mada. This year, organized by the 2020 cohort. Under the theme “Exploring Geothermal Potential as Renewable Energy and Preventing Geohazard Risks using Geophysical Methods,” we spent two weeks in the Banjarnegara, Dieng, Central Java, Indonesia, deploying both deep‑probing surveys for geothermal mapping and methods to assess landslide and subsidence hazards. This immersive “field laboratory” blended hands‑on acquisition with daily data review, teaching us how to turn raw measurements data into processed and interpretable data.
Over ten days of acquisition, we divided into several acquisition teams to tackle every geophysical method:
- Gravity & GPS
- Magnetic
- Audio-magnetotellurics (AMT)
- Self‑Potential (SP) & Thermal
- Induced Polarization (IP)
- Very-Low Frequency (VLF)
- Ground‑Penetrating Radar (GPR)
- Refraction & MASW
- Microseismic
Each day we moved to a new target area, performed a different acquisition protocol, and collectively amassed a rich dataset. I was assigned to Acquisition Group 7. This dual role—acquiring data in the field by day and processing, interpreting, and presenting results by night—gave me a holistic view of the entire field geophysical acquisition workflow. This reinforces the important link between careful field procedures and processing, interpreting and displaying data in a short period of time, within a single day, which teaches us the importance of time management and efficiency in the field.
Leading the Microseismic Learning Team
Parallel to acquisition, we were divided into Learning Teams focused on each method’s theory, processing, and advanced analysis. I had the honor of leading the Microseismic Learning Team, whose mission was to transform the raw ambient‑noise recordings into seismic‑hazard maps that feed directly into geohazard prevention. Our workflow began with converting WDQ‑format data into analysis‑ready traces that performed daily by each acquisition team, then running HVSR processing in Geopsy to extract dominant frequency (F₀) and amplification (A₀). We followed with OpenHVSR inversion (MATLAB) to derive shear‑wave velocity (Vs30) and sediment thickness (H), and finally computed a Ground Shear Strain (GSS) index to highlight slopes most at risk of failure.
In conclusion, the landslide potential analysis in this study provides a more in-depth understanding of the potential and non-potential landslide areas. Based on the results of the processing that has been done by considering various parameters, it is concluded that the research area is dominated by high landslide potential with an area of 1.20814 km² and moderate landslide potential with an area of 1.82012 km² with a fairly even distribution where areas with high vulnerability dominate the western part of the study. This landslide potential analysis can then be used as a basis for environmental recommendations for the study area.
