Sparse Deconvolution Methods for Ultrasonic NDT

In this work we present two sparse deconvolution methods for nondestructive testing. The first method is a special matching pursuit (MP) algorithm in order to deconvolve the mixed data (signal and noise), and thus to remove the unwanted noise. The second method is based on the approximate Prony method (APM). Both methods employ the sparsity assumption about the measured ultrasonic signal as prior knowledge. The MP algorithm is used to derive a sparse representation of the measured data by a deconvolution and subtraction scheme. An orthogonal variant of the algorithm (OMP) is presented as well. The APM technique also relies on the assumption that the desired signals are sparse linear combinations of (reflections of) the transmitted pulse. For blind deconvolution, where the transducer impulse response is unknown, we offer a general Gaussian echo model whose parameters can be iteratively adjusted to the real measurements. Several test results show that the methods work well even for high noise levels. Further, an outlook for possible applications of these deconvolution methods is given.

[1]  New York Dover,et al.  ON THE CONVERGENCE PROPERTIES OF THE EM ALGORITHM , 1983 .

[2]  A. Walden Non-Gaussian reflectivity, entropy, and deconvolution , 1985 .

[3]  Ilan Ziskind,et al.  Maximum likelihood localization of multiple sources by alternating projection , 1988, IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process..

[4]  C. L. Nikias,et al.  Adaptive deconvolution and identification of nonminimum phase FIR systems based on cumulants , 1990 .

[5]  Stéphane Mallat,et al.  Matching pursuits with time-frequency dictionaries , 1993, IEEE Trans. Signal Process..

[6]  Asoke K. Nandi,et al.  Comparative study of deconvolution algorithms with applications in non-destructive testing , 1995 .

[7]  E. Bølviken,et al.  Blind deconvolution of ultrasonic traces accounting for pulse variance , 1999, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[8]  Pei Jung Chung,et al.  Comparative convergence analysis of EM and SAGE algorithms in DOA estimation , 2001, IEEE Trans. Signal Process..

[9]  J. Saniie,et al.  Model-based estimation of ultrasonic echoes. Part I: Analysis and algorithms , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[10]  J. Saniie,et al.  Model-based estimation of ultrasonic echoes. Part II: Nondestructive evaluation applications , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[11]  Joel A. Tropp,et al.  Greed is good: algorithmic results for sparse approximation , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[12]  Richard G. Baraniuk,et al.  ForWaRD: Fourier-wavelet regularized deconvolution for ill-conditioned systems , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing.

[13]  R. Mata-Campos,et al.  New matching pursuit-based algorithm for SNR improvement in ultrasonic NDT , 2005 .

[14]  T. Olofsson Computationally efficient sparse deconvolution of b-scan images , 2005, IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium, 2005..

[15]  J. C. Cuevas-Martinez,et al.  High-resolution pursuit for detecting flaw echoes close to the material surface in ultrasonic NDT , 2006 .

[16]  T. Olofsson,et al.  Sparse Deconvolution of B-Scan Images , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[17]  Mayer Aladjem,et al.  A matching pursuit method for approximating overlapping ultrasonic echoes , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[18]  Daniel Potts,et al.  Nonlinear Approximation by Sums of Exponentials and Translates , 2011, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[19]  Roberto Henry Herrera,et al.  Wavelet-based deconvolution of ultrasonic signals in nondestructive evaluation , 2012, ArXiv.

[20]  Jerry M. Mendel,et al.  Optimal Seismic Deconvolution: An Estimation-Based Approach , 2013 .