1887

Abstract

Summary

Blind deconvolution simultaneously solves for the reflectivity series and the wavelet given the noise corrupted seismic recordings. This is an ill-posed problem and difficult to solve. Developing a reliable single channel blind deconvolution technique is an ongoing research. Here, we formulated the blind deconvolution as a fully perturbed linear regression model and developed an efficient iterative algorithm based on Total least squares (TLS) method. Unfortunately, TLS method, with or without regularization, does not provide consistent estimators for the under-determined linear system of equations. To remedy this shortcoming, we added more constraints into the equations. We assume that the reflectivity series is sparse and moreover, to reduce the model space and the number of unknowns, the algorithm preserves the Toeplitz structure of the data matrix. In addition, there is no assumption about the phase of the wavelet. The developed algorithm is an alternating minimization method and can be used for different applications such as blind deconvolution, perturbed compressive sensing and dictionary learning. In this paper, we only focused on blind deconvolution. The performance of the algorithm is evaluated on synthetic and real datasets. Real data examples are belonging to lines A and D of the Teapot Dome seismic survey.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201800882
2018-06-11
2024-04-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Golub, G.H. and Van Loan, C.F.
    [1980] An analysis of the total least squares problem. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 17(6), 883–893.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Kazemi, N., Bongajum, E. and Sacchi, M.D.
    [2016a] Surface-consistent sparse multichannel blind de-convolution of seismic signals. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 54(6), 3200–3207.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Kazemi, N., Gholami, A. and Sacchi, M.
    [2016b] Modified Sparse Multichannel Blind Deconvolution. In: 78th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Kazemi, N. and Sacchi, M.D.
    [2014] Sparse multichannel blind deconvolution. Geophysics, 79(5), V143–V152.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Lee, K., Li, Y., Junge, M. and Bresler, Y.
    [2017] Blind recovery of sparse signals from subsampled convolution. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 63(2), 802–821.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Wang, L., Zhao, Q., Gao, J., Xu, Z., Fehler, M. and Jiang, X.
    [2016] Seismic sparse-spike deconvolution via Toeplitz-sparse matrix factorization. Geophysics, 81(3), V169–V182.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Zhu, H., Leus, G. and Giannakis, G.B.
    [2011] Sparsity-cognizant total least-squares for perturbed com-pressive sampling. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 59(5), 2002–2016.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201800882
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201800882
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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