1887
Volume 11 Number 4
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Ringing is a common type of coherent noise that degrades the quality of ground‐penetrating radar data. Conventional ringing attenuation or a background removal algorithm works by generating an average ensemble that is then subtracted from all traces in a GPR section. This study presents four alternative algorithms, usually used in stacking‐seismic reflection data, for generating such an ensemble. These algorithms include median stack, diversity stack, alpha‐trimmed stack and smart stack. The traditional algorithm and the four alternative algorithms are tested using two real GPR data sets. The outcomes of the five background removal methods are compared to each other and to the original data using statistical analyses and visual inspection. The results show that all the four alternative techniques are more efficient in background removal than the conventional technique, with the smart ensemble yielding the best results followed by the alpha‐trimmed ensemble.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013024
2013-02-01
2024-04-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BensonA.1995. Application of ground‐penetrating radar in assessing some geological hazards: Examples of ground water contamination, faults, cavities. Journal of Applied Geophysics33, 177–193.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. CagnoliB. and UlrychT.2001. Singular value decomposition and wavy reflections in ground‐penetrating radar images of base surge deposits. Journal of Applied Geophysics48, 175–182.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. ConyersL.2004. Ground Penetrating Radar for Archaeology . Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., 203.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. CurrieW.1982. Seismic velocity determination using random and non‐linear processes. Technical Program Abstracts and Biographies, SEG.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. EmbreeP.1968. Diversity seismic record stacking method and systems. US Patent 3398396, 1968.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. HaldorsenB. and FarmerP.1989. Suppression of high‐energy noise using alternative stacking procedure. Geophysics54, 181–190.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. HattonL., WorthingtonH. and MakinJ.1996. Seismic Data Processing, Theory and Practice . Blackwell Science Ltd, 177.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. JengY., LinC., LiY., ChenC. and HuangH.2009. Application of multi‐resolution analysis in removing ground‐penetrating radar noise. Frontiers + Innovation‐2009 CSPG CSEG CWLS Convention, 416–419.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. KanasewichE., HemmingsC. and AlpaslanT.1973. Nth‐root stack non‐linear multi‐channel filter. Geophysics38, 327–338.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. KimJ., ChoS. and YiM.2007. Removal of ringing noise in GPR data by signal processing. Geosciences Journal11, 75–81.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. KimJ., YiM., SonJ., ChoS. and ParkS.2005. Effective 3‐D GPR survey and its application to the exploration of old remains. IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium Proceedings, IEEE IGARSS, Seoul, Korea.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. KirkP.1981. Vibroseis processing. In: Developments in Geophysical Exploration Methods , Vol. 2, (ed. A.A.Fitch ). Applied Science Publishers Ltd, London.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. MayneA.1962. Common reflection point horizontal stacking techniques. Geophysics27, 927–938.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. MitchumR., VialP. and SangreeJ.1977. Seismic stratigraphy and global changes of sea level, Part 6. AAPG Memoir26, 117–133.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. MorsyM. and RashedM.2013. Integrated magnetic, gravity and GPR surveys to locate the probable source of hydrocarbon contamination in Sharm El‐Sheikh area, south Sinai, Egypt. Journal of Applied Geophysics88, 131–138.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. NaessO.1982. Single trace processing using iterative CDP‐stacking. Geophysical Prospecting30, 641–652.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. NaessO. and BrulandL.1985. Stacking methods other than simple summation. In: Developments in Geophysical Exploration Methods , Vol. 6, (ed A.A.Fitch ), 198–223. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers Ltd., London.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. NaessO. and BrulandL.1989. Improvement of multichannel seismic data through application of the median concept. Geophysical Prospecting37, 225–241.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. NobesD.1999. Geophysical surveys of burial sites: A case study of Oaro urupa. Geophysics64, 357–367.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. PruettR.1982. Long period multiple reflection suppression and enhanced velocity discrimination using a weighted stack. Technical Program Abstracts and Biographies, SEG, Dallas.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. RadzeviciusS., GuyE. and DanielsJ.2000. Pitfalls in GPR data interpretation: Differentiating stratigraphy and buried objects from periodic antenna and target effects. Geophysical Research Letters27, 3393–3396.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. RashedM.2003. Optimum‐offset weighted stacking: a novel processing technique to enhance signal‐to‐noise ratio in seismic data acquired in urban areas and its application on Uemachi fault, Osaka, Japan . PhD thesis, Osaka City University, Osaka, Japan, 147.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. RashedM.2008. Smart stacking: a new CMP stacking technique for seismic data. The Leading Edge27, 462–467.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. RashedM., KawamuraD., NemotoH., MiyataT. and NakagawaK.2003. Ground‐penetrating radar investigations across Uemachi fault, Osaka, Japan. Journal of Applied Geophysics53, 63–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. RashedM., YamamotoE., MitamuraM., TodaS., NishidaT., TeradaY.et al. 2002. Weighted stack of shallow seismic line acquired in downtown Osaka City, Japan. Journal of Applied Geophysics50, 231–246.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. SezginM.2011. Simultaneous buried object detection and imaging technique utilizing fuzzy weighted background calculation and target energy moments on ground penetrating radar data. EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing55, 1–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. ShepardD.1968. A two‐dimensional interpolation function for irregularly‐spaced data. Proceedings of the 23rd National Conference ACM, 517–524.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. ShonH. and YamamotoT.1992. Simple data processing procedures for seismic section noise reduction. Geophysics57, 1064–1067.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. SollaM., RiveiroB., AlvarezM. and AriasP.2012. Experimental forensic scenes for the characterization of ground‐penetrating radar wave response. Forensic Science International220, 50–58.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. WattT. and BednarJ.1983. Role of the alpha‐trimmed mean in combining and analyzing seismic common‐depth‐point gathers. Technical Program Abstracts and Biographies, SEG, Las Vegas.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. XiaJ., FranseenE., MillerR., WeisT. and ByrnesA.2003. Improving ground‐penetrating radar data in sedimentary rocks using deterministic deconvolution. Journal of Applied Geophysics54, 15–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. YelfR.2007. Application of ground penetrating radar to civil and geotechnical engineering. Electromagnetic Phenomena7, 103–117.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. YoungR. and SunJ.1999. Revealing stratigraphy in ground penetrating radar using domain filtering. Geophysics64, 435–442.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013024
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013024
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

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