1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 21, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 21, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

Abstract

The echo data of ground‐penetrating radar (GPR) have a low signal‐to‐noise ratio. Denoising and interference suppression are important for improving the accuracy of underground target recognition and detection. In this paper, a new method of noise analysis and suppression of 3D GPR is proposed, transforming the problem of noise reduction into an optimization problem regarding a third‐order tensor. This method is improved with the following features; a bidimensional empirical mode decomposition (BEMD) algorithm is employed to decompose the 3D GPR noise. The main source of the noise is determined by computing the standard deviation of each component decomposed. For the shortcoming of the existing GPR denoising methods that reduce the dimension of 3D GPR data, the proposed approach can denoise 3D GPR data directly to avoid the loss of data caused by reducing the dimension. This preserves the desired signal and extracts noise through the Tucker decomposition of 3D GPR data. An improved high‐order orthogonal iteration algorithm is utilized to optimize the decomposition. The peak signal‐to‐noise ratio (PSNR) of the signal for each survey line is calculated to evaluate the effectiveness of noise reduction. Simulations and real data sets are provided to compare the performance of algorithms. The results show that the mean PSNR after noise suppression with our method is 8.915 dB and 16.458 dB higher than wavelet transform and singular value decomposition algorithms, respectively. This demonstrates that the proposed approach can better suppress 3D GPR noise and provides technical support for improving 3D GPR data quality and road detection accuracy.

© 2023 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2022 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12246
2023-03-21
2024-04-25

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12246
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aharon, M., Elad, M. & Bruckstein, A. (2006) K‐SVD: an algorithm for designing overcomplete dictionaries for sparse representation. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 54, 4311–4322.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahmadi‐Asl, S., Abukhovich, S., Asante‐Mensah, M.G., Cichocki, A., Phan, A.H., Tanaka, T. & Oseledets, I. (2021) Randomized algorithms for computation of Tucker decomposition and higher‐order SVD (HOSVD). IEEE Access: Practical Innovations, Open Solutions, 9, 28684–28706.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Avallone, L., Mercandelli, M., Santiccioli, A., Kennedy, M.P., Levantino, S. & Samori, C. (2021) A comprehensive phase noise analysis of Bang‐bang digital PLLs. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers, 68, 2775–2786.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bengua, J.A., Phien, H.N. & Tuan, H.D. (2015) Optimal feature extraction and classification of tensors via matrix product state decomposition. 2015 IEEE International Congress on Big Data, 27 June–2 July 2015, 669–672.
  5. Boukhayma, A., Peizerat, A. & Enz, C. (2016) Temporal readout noise analysis and reduction techniques for low‐light CMOS image sensors. IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, 63, 72–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Cagnoli, B. & Ulrych, T.J. (2001) Singular value decomposition and wavy reflections in ground‐penetrating radar images of base surge deposits. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 48, 175–182.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Chachlakis, D.G., Prater‐Bennette, A. & Markopoulos, P.P. (2020) L1‐norm higher‐order orthogonal iterations for robust tensor analysis. ICASSP 2020 ‐ 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 4–8 May 20204826–4830.
  8. Chang, M., You, X. & Cao, Z. (2019) Bidimensional empirical mode decomposition for SAR image feature extraction with application to target recognition. IEEE access: Practical innovations, open solutions, 7, 135720–135731.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen, B., Huang, S., Li, C. & Kuo, S. (2018) Haze removal using radial basis function networks for visibility restoration applications. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 29, 3828–3838.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Chen, K., Pu, X., Ren, Y., Qiu, H., Lin, F. & Zhang, S. (2022) TEMDnet: a novel deep denoising network for transient electromagnetic signal with Signal‐to‐image transformation. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60, 1–18.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. De Lathauwer, L., De Moor, B. & Vandewalle, J. (2000) A multilinear singular value decomposition. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 21, 1253–1278.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Duan, P., Gu, B., Li, Z., Ren, Z. & Li, Q. (2020) An adaptive node‐distribution method for radial‐basis‐function finite‐difference modeling with optimal shape parameter. Geophysics, T1–T18.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Elad, M. & Aharon, M. (2006) Image denoising via sparse and redundant representations over learned dictionaries. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 15, 3736–3745.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Fonał, K. & Zdunek, R. (2019) Fast recursive nonnegative standard and hierarchical Tucker decomposition. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 26, 1265–1269.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Geng, X., Ji, L., Zhao, Y. & Wang, F. (2013) A small target detection method for the hyperspectral image based on higher‐order singular value decomposition (HOSVD). IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 10, 1305–1308.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Giannini, F., Bourdel, E. & Pasquet, D. (2008) A new method to extract noise parameters based on a frequency‐ and time‐domain analysis of noise power measurements. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 57, 261–267.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Gong, H., Yu, Y., Zheng, L., Wang, B., Li, Z., Fernando, T. et al. (2020) Nonlinear H∞ filtering based on tensor product model transformation. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, 67, 1074–1078.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Guo, Q., Zhang, C., Zhang, Y. & Liu, H. (2016) An efficient SVD‐based method for image denoising. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 26, 868–880.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Henneron, T., Pierquin, A. & Clénet, S. (2019) Mesh deformation based on radial basis function interpolation applied to low‐frequency electromagnetic problem. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, 55, 1–4.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Hou, W., Jia, R., Sun, H., Zhang, X., Deng, M. & Tian, Y. (2019) Random noise reduction in seismic data by using bidimensional empirical mode decomposition and shearlet transform. IEEE Access: Practical Innovations, Open Solutions, 7, 71374–71386.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Hussein, R., Shaban, K.B. & El‐Hag, A.H. (2015) Wavelet transform with Histogram‐based threshold estimation for online partial discharge signal denoising. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 64, 3601–3614.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Kopsinis, Y. & Mclaughlin, S. (2009) Development of EMD‐based denoising methods inspired by wavelet thresholding. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 57, 1351–1362.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Lei, B., Yi, P., Xiang, J. & Xu, W. (2021) A SVD‐based signal de‐noising method with fitting threshold for EMAT. IEEE Access: Practical Innovations, Open Solutions, 9, 21123–21131.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 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, 1615–1619.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Li, Q., Shi, X. & Schonfeld, D. (2013) Robust HOSVD‐based higher‐order data indexing and retrieval. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 20, 984–987.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Li, X., Su, J. & Yang, L. (2020) Building detection in SAR images based on bi‐dimensional empirical mode decomposition algorithm. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 17, 641–645.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Liu, Y., Shang, F., Fan, W., Cheng, J. & Cheng, H. (2016) Generalized higher‐order orthogonal iteration for tensor learning and decomposition. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 27, 2551–2563.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Looney, D. & Mandic, D.P. (2009) Multiscale image fusion using complex extensions of EMD. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 57, 1626–1630.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Meng, S., Huang, L.T. & Wang, W.Q. (2016) Tensor decomposition and PCA jointed algorithm for hyperspectral image denoising. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 13, 897–901.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Mignotte, M. (2007) A post‐processing deconvolution step for wavelet‐based image denoising methods. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 14, 621–624.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Potin, D., Duflos, E. & Vanheeghe, P. (2006) Landmines ground‐penetrating radar signal enhancement by digital filtering. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 44, 2393–2406.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Riaz, M.M. & Ghafoor, A. (2013) Ground penetrating radar image enhancement using singular value decomposition. 2013 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), 19–23 May 2013, 2388–2391.
  33. Salmi, J., Richter, A. & Koivunen, V. (2009) Sequential unfolding SVD for tensors with applications in array signal processing. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 57, 4719–4733.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Solimene, R., Cuccaro, A., Dell'Aversano, A., Catapano, I. & Soldovieri, F. (2014) Ground clutter removal in GPR surveys. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 7, 792–798.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Song, C., Lu, Q., Liu, C. & Gao, Y. (2016) Random noise de‐noising and direct wave eliminating in ground penetrating radar signal using SVD method. 2016 16th International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), 13–16 June 2016, 1–5.
  36. Terrasse, G., Nicolas, J., Trouvé, E. & É, D. (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, 4280–4294.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Tucker, L. (1966) Some mathematical notes on three‐mode factor analysis. Psychometrika, 31, 279–311.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Velazquez, Y.C. & Codorniu, R.A.T. (2021) Local adaptive bivariate shrinkage function for seisogram wavelet‐based denoising. IEEE Latin America Transactions, 19, 342–348.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Wang, Q., Wang, L., Li, Z., Tong, X. & Atkinson, P.M. (2020) Spatial‐spectral radial basis Function‐based interpolation for Landsat ETM+ SLC‐off image gap filling. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 1–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 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]
  41. Warren, C. & Giannopoulos, A. (2011) Creating finite‐difference time‐domain models of commercial ground‐penetrating radar antennas using Taguchi's optimization method. Geophysics, 76, G37–G47.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Wenda, B., Yonghui, Z., Cong, A. & Shufan, H. (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 (Basel, Switzerland), 18, 3422.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Wu, Y., Gao, G. & Cui, C. (2019) Improved wavelet denoising by non‐convex sparse regularization under double wavelet domains. IEEE Access: Practical Innovations, Open Solutions, 7, 30659–30671.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Xue, W., Dai, X., Zhu, J., Luo, Y. & Yang, Y. (2019) A noise‐suppression method of ground penetrating radar based on EEMD and permutation entropy. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 16, 1625–1629.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Yang, Y. & Rao, J. (2019) Robust and efficient harmonics denoising in large data set based on random SVD and soft thresholding. IEEE Access: Practical Innovations, Open Solutions, 7, 77607–77617.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Zare, A., Ozdemir, A., Iwen, M.A. & Aviyente, S. (2018) Extension of PCA to higher‐order data structures: an introduction to tensors, tensor decompositions, and tensor PCA. Proceedings of the IEEE, 106, 1341–1358.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Zhang, C., He, Y., Yuan, L. & Xiang, S. (2017) Capacity prognostics of lithium‐ion batteries using EMD denoising and multiple kernel RVM. IEEE Access: Practical Innovations, Open Solutions, PP, 1–1.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Zhang, X., Zheng, J., Yan, Y., Zhao, L. & Jiang, R. (2019) Joint weighted tensor Schatten p‐norm and tensor lp ‐norm minimization for image denoising. IEEE Access: Practical Innovations, Open Solutions, 7, 20273–20280.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhang, Z., Yang, X., Li, Y. & Chen, G. (2018) Sparse constrained transformation model based on radial basis function expansion: application to cardiac and brain image registration. IEEE Access: Practical Innovations, Open Solutions, 6, 42631–42646.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Zhu, Z., Zhou, X. & Liu, J. (2017) Noise analysis of common mode error in CMONOC GPS coordinate time series. 2017 Forum on Cooperative Positioning and Service (CPGPS), 19–21 May 2017, 190–193.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12246
Loading
Improved Tucker decomposition algorithm for noise suppression of 3D GPR data in road detection
Near Surface Geophysics 21, 138 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1002/nsg.12246
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12246
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12246
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): 3D GPR; bidimensional EMD; empirical mode decomposition (EMD); high‐order orthogonal iteration; noise suppression; Tucker decomposition

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