Advertisement

The comparative sense of sparse deconvolution and least-squares deconvolution methods in increasing the temporal resolution of GPR data

  • Sadegh Moghaddam
  • Behrooz OskooiEmail author
  • Alireza Goudarzi
  • Asghar Azadi
Original Paper
  • 28 Downloads

Abstract

Improving the temporal resolution of ground-penetrating radar (GPR) data is a fundamental factor in presenting the characteristics of the underground structures. The advantages of sparse signal processing using the majorization-minimization (MM) method in GPR signal compression are investigated. In this method, minimizing the cost function is determined with L1 and L2 norms; also, the banded structures of matrices resulting from the sparse deconvolution problem are regarded. Then, the MM algorithm has been implemented with least-squares deconvolution (LSQR) on the synthetic and real data collected by a system with dual-frequency antennas of 300 and 800 MHz. The compression process has resulted in a high-resolution image from the subsurface layers and anomalies. Analysis of the outputs reported that the reflection coefficient improved significantly by application of the MM algorithm to the synthetic and real data compared with the least-squares deconvolution which only filters the data. The power spectrum after using the MM algorithm shows acceptable compression. Moreover, this algorithm leads to a considerable improvement on the amplitudes so that the hidden anomalies are better restored.

Keywords

Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) Compression Majorization-minimization (MM) method Least-squares deconvolution (LSQR) 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors highly appreciate the Pishgam Tajhiz Bonyan and Zamin Physic Pouya companies for their instrumental supports. We also thank Mr. Abedini and Ms. Faeghi for collecting the data.

Funding information

This work was originally funded by the research council of the University of Tehran (UT) in Iran. Behrooz Oskooi received funding from the UT under the mission commandment no. 155/96/1894 dated December 23, 2017, for a 1-year sabbatical leave starting from January 21, 2018, at the Luleå University of Technology in Sweden.

References

  1. Baraniuk RG, Candes E, Elad M, Ma Y (2010) Special issue on applications of sparse representation and compressive sensing. Proc IEEE 98:6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bednarczyk Z, Szynkiewicz A (2015) Applied engineering geology methods for exemplar infrastructure projects in Malopolskie and Podkarpackie provinces. Springer International Publishing In Engineering Geology for Society and Territory, v.6, pp: 203–210Google Scholar
  3. Benedetto A, Manacorda G, Simi A, Tosti F (2002) Novel perspectives in bridges inspection using GPR. Nondestruct Test Eval 27(3):239–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ebrahimi, A., Gholami, A., and Nabi-Bidhendi, N., 2017. Sparsity-based GPR blind deconvolution and wavelet estimation. J Ind Geophys. V:21, no:1, treats: 7–12.Google Scholar
  5. Figueiredo MA, Dias JB, Oliveira JP, Nowak RD (2006) On total variation denoising: a new majorization-minimization algorithm and an experimental comparison with wavelet denoising. In International Conference on Image Processing, IEEE. pp. 2633–2636Google Scholar
  6. Hoerl AE, Kennard RW (1970) Ridge regression: biased estimation for nonorthogonal problems. Technometrics 12(1):55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Irving J, Knight R (2006) Numerical modeling of ground-penetrating radar in 2-D using MATLAB. Comput Geosci 32:1247–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jazayeri S, Kazemi N, Kruse S (2019) Sparse blind deconvolution of ground penetrating radar data. In: IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2018.2886741 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jazayeri S, Ebrahimi A, Kruse S (2017) Sparse blind deconvolution of common-offset GPR data. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2017. pp. 5140–5145. doi: https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2017-17791251.1
  10. Pakmanesh P, Goudarzi A, Kourki M (2017) Hybrid sparse blind deconvolution: an implementation of SOOT algorithm to real data. J Geophys Eng 128(114):228.241–228.626.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-2140/aaa3d1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rodriguez V, Gutierrez F, Green AG, Carboel D, Horstmeyer H, Schmelzbach C (2014) 2014. Characterizing sagging and collapse sinkholes in a mantled karst by means of ground penetrating radar (GPR), Environ. Eng. Geosci. 20(2):109–132Google Scholar
  12. Schmelzbach C, Huber E (2015) Efficient deconvolution of ground-penetrating radar data. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 53(9):5209–5217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Schmidt M (2005) Least squares optimization with L1-norm regularization. Technical report, University of British Columbia. Project ReportGoogle Scholar
  14. Selesnick I (2012) Sparse deconvolution (an MM algorithm), Connexions. http://cnx.org/content/m44991/1.5/
  15. Xiao J, Liu L (2016) Permafrost subgrade condition assessment using extrapolation by deterministic deconvolution on multifrequency GPR data acquired along the Qinghai-Tibet railway. IEEE J Sel Topics Appl Earth Observ Remote Sens 9(1):8390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Yilmaz Ö (2001) Seismic data analysis. Tulsa Soc Explor Geophys 1:74170–72740Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sadegh Moghaddam
    • 1
  • Behrooz Oskooi
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Alireza Goudarzi
    • 3
  • Asghar Azadi
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of GeophysicsUniversity of TehranTehranIran
  2. 2.Division of Geosciences and Environmental Engineering of the Department of Civil, Environment and Natural Resources EngineeringLuleå University of TechnologyLuleåSweden
  3. 3.Graduate University of Advanced TechnologyKermanIran
  4. 4.Payam Noor University of ParandTehranIran

Personalised recommendations