1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 20, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 20, Issue 4
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Ground‐penetrating radar (GPR) is commonly used to detect buried and near‐surface geophysical structures. GPR denoising is necessary because some level of interference, such as from clutter, random noise and/or the column artefact, are inevitable and can cause false geological interpretations. Existing sparse representation methods, including wavelet transformation, curvelet transformation and dictionary learning, are critical in GPR denoising. However, they perform poorly in some cases because GPR data cannot be represented efficiently under severe interference. Thus, this study proposes an approach that combines shearlet transformation (ST) and a data‐driven tight frame (DDTF) to improve data sparsity. The ST can provide the prior information of GPR data to the DDTF, while the DDTF can self‐adaptively represent GPR data. First, we separate significant reflections and interferences using ST. Second, we apply the DDTF to further suppress the interferences by setting different thresholds in different ST scales and directions. Finally, we adopt inverse transformations to recover the GPR data. In the experiments, ST is used to show the differences between the significant reflections and interferences of the synthetic GPR data. We also sequentially remove each interference of the synthetic GPR data to clearly highlight the performance of the method. To ensure the effectiveness of the ST‐DDTF approach, we test the method using synthetic GPR data from different models, along with some example field GPR data. The ST‐DDTF method, which is aimed at improving data sparsity, shows state‐of‐the‐art results relative to more standard GPR denoising methods. Although our approach is time consuming, it is useful in processing small GPR data and obtaining accurate denoising results.

© 2022 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2022 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12212
2022-07-13
2024-04-26

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12212
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ashour, M.W., Khalid, F., Halin, A.A., Abdullah, L.N. & Darwish, S.H. (2019), Surface defects classification of hot‐rolled steel strips using multidirectional shearlet features. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 44(4), 2925–2932.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bao, C., Ji, H. & Shen, Z. (2015), Convergence analysis for iterative data‐driven tight frame construction scheme. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 38(3), 510–523.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bi, W., Zhao, Y., An, C. & Hu, S. (2018), Clutter elimination and random‐noise denoising of GPR signals using an SVD method based on the Hankel matrix in the local frequency domain. Sensors, 18(10), 3422.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Cai, J.F., Ji, H., Shen, Z. & Ye, G.B. (2014), Data‐driven tight frame construction and image denoising. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 37(1), 89–105.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen, Y., Ma, J. & Fomel, S. (2016), Double‐sparsity dictionary for seismic noise attenuation. Geophysics, 81(2), V103–V116.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Diwakar, M. & Singh, P. (2020), CT image denoising using multivariate model and its method noise thresholding in nonsubsampled shearlet domain. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 57, 101754.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Easley, G., Labate, D. & Lim, W.Q. (2008), Sparse directional image representations using the discrete shearlet transform. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 25(1), 25–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Economou, N. & Kritikakis, G. (2016), Attenuation analysis of real GPR wavelets: the equivalent amplitude spectrum (EAS). Journal of Applied Geophysics, 126, 13–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Feng, W. & Lei, H. (2014), SAR image despeckling using data‐driven tight frame. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 11(9), 1455–1459.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Garcia‐Fernandez, M., Alvarez‐Lopez, Y., Arboleya‐Arboleya, A., Las‐Heras, F., Rodriguez‐Vaqueiro, Y., Gonzalez‐Valdes, B. & Pino‐Garcia, A. (2017), July. SVD‐based clutter removal technique for GPR. In: 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Antennas and Propagation & USNC/URSI National Radio Science Meeting. IEEE, pp. 2369–2370.
  11. Giannakis, I., Giannopoulos, A. & Warren, C. (2019), A machine learning‐based fast‐forward solver for ground penetrating radar with application to full‐waveform inversion. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 57(7), 4417–4426.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Giannopoulos, A. (2005), Modelling ground penetrating radar by GprMax. Construction and Building Materials, 19(10), 755–762.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Hajipour, S., Azadi Namin, F. & Sarraf Shirazi, R. (2021), A novel method for GPR imaging based on neural networks and dictionary learning. Waves in Random and Complex Media. Availablr online.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Karbalaali, H., Javaherian, A., Dahlke, S., Reisenhofer, R. & Torabi, S. (2018), Seismic channel edge detection using 3D shearlets—a study on synthetic and real channelised 3D seismic data. Geophysical Prospecting, 66(7), 1272–1289.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Kong, D. & Peng, Z. (2015), Seismic random noise attenuation using shearlet and total generalized variation. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 12(6), 1024–1035.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Li, J., Liu, C., Zeng, Z. & Chen, L. (2015), GPR signal denoising and target extraction with the CEEMD method. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 12(8), 1615–1619.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Liang, J., Ma, J. & Zhang, X. (2014), Seismic data restoration via data‐driven tight frame. Geophysics, 79(3), V65–V74.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Liu, J.C., Chou, Y.X. & Zhu, J.J. (2018), Interpolating seismic data via the POCS method based on shearlet transform. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 15(3), 852–876.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Lu, Y., Wang, S., Zhao, W., Zhao, Y. & Wei, J. (2017), November, A novel approach of facial expression recognition based on shearlet transform. In: 2017 IEEE Global Conference on Signal and Information Processing (GlobalSIP). IEEE, pp. 398–402.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Rashed, M. & Harbi, H. (2014), Background matrix subtraction (BMS): A novel background removal algorithm for GPR data. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 106, 154–163.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Rashed, E.A. (2015), GPR background removal using a directional total variation minimization approach. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 12(6), 897–908.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Safont, G., Salazar, A., Rodriguez, A. & Vergara, L. (2014), On recovering missing ground penetrating radar traces by statistical interpolation methods. Remote Sensing, 6(8), pp.7546–7565.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Schönemann, P.H. (1966), A generalized solution of the orthogonal procrustes problem. Psychometrika, 31(1), 1–10.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Sena, A.R., Stoffa, P.L. & Sen, M.K. (2006), Split‐step Fourier migration of GPR data in lossy media. Geophysics, 71(4), K77–K91.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Siahsar, M.A.N., Gholtashi, S., Abolghasemi, V. & Chen, Y. (2017), Simultaneous denoising and interpolation of 2D seismic data using data‐driven non‐negative dictionary learning. Signal Processing, 141, 309–321.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Terrasse, G., Nicolas, J.M., Trouvé, E. & Drouet, É. (2015), Application of the curvelet transform for pipe detection in GPR images. In: 2015 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS). IEEE, pp. 4308–4311.
  27. Terrasse, G., Nicolas, J.M., Trouvé, E. & Drouet, E. (2017), Application of the Curvelet Transform for clutter and noise removal in GPR data. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 10 (10), 4280–4294.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Wang, J. & Cai, J.F. (2015), Data‐driven tight frame for multi‐channel images and its application to joint color‐depth image reconstruction. Journal of the Operations Research Society of China, 3(2), 99–115.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Wang, X. & Liu, S. (2017), Noise suppressing and direct wave arrivals removal in GPR data based on Shearlet transform. Signal Processing, 132, 227–242.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Wang, Z., Simoncelli, E.P. & Bovik, A.C. (2003), November, multiscale structural similarity for image quality assessment. In: The Thrity‐Seventh Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems & Computers, 2003. IEEE, Vol. 2, pp. 1398–1402
  31. Warren, C., Giannopoulos, A. & Giannakis, I. (2015), An advanced GPR modelling framework: The next generation of gprMax. In: 2015 8th International Workshop on Advanced Ground Penetrating Radar (IWAGPR). IEEE, pp. 1–4.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Yu, S., Ma, J., Zhang, X. & Sacchi, M.D. (2015), Interpolation and denoising of high‐dimensional seismic data by learning a tight frame. Geophysics, 80(5), V119–V132.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Yu, S., Ma, J. & Osher, S. (2016), Monte Carlo data‐driven tight frame for seismic data recovery. Geophysics, 81(4), V327–V340.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Zhan, R. & Dong, B. (2016), CT image reconstruction by spatial‐radon domain data‐driven tight frame regularization. SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 9(3), 1063–1083.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Zhang, C. & van der Baan, M. (2018), Multicomponent microseismic data denoising by 3D shearlet transform. Geophysics, 83(3), A45–A51.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Zhang, H., Chen, X., Du, Z. & Yang, B. (2017), Sparsity‐aware tight frame learning with adaptive subspace recognition for multiple fault diagnosis. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 94, 499–524.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Zhang, L., Han, L., Chang, A., Fang, J., Zhang, P., Hu, Y. & Liu, Z. (2020), Seismic data denoising using double sparsity dictionary and alternating direction method of multipliers. Journal of Seismic Exploration, 29(1), 49–71.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Zhang, Y., Candra, P., Wang, G. & Xia, T. (2015), 2‐D entropy and short‐time Fourier transform to leverage GPR data analysis efficiency. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 64(1), 103–111.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Zheng, J., Peng, S.P. & Yang, F. (2014), A novel edge detection for buried target extraction after SVD‐2D wavelet processing. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 106, 106–113.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Zhou, H., Feng, X., Dong, Z., Liu, C. & Liang, W. (2021), Application of denoising CNN for noise suppression and weak signal extraction of lunar penetrating radar data. Remote Sensing, 13(4), 779.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Zhu, L., Liu, E. & McClellan, J.H. (2015), Seismic data denoising through multiscale and sparsity‐promoting dictionary learning. Geophysics, 80(6), WD45–WD57.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Zou, H., Hastie, T. & Tibshirani, R. (2006), Sparse principal component analysis. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 15(2), 265–286.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12212
Loading
GPR denoising via shearlet transformation and a data‐driven tight frame
Near Surface Geophysics 20, 398 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1002/nsg.12212
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12212
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12212
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Data processing; Filtering; Frequency; Ground‐penetrating radar

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error