Research on microseismic data noise suppression method based on adaptive spectral segmentation

Abstract

Microseismic monitoring data are characterized by strong background noise and low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), posing challenges for effective signal identification and real-time processing. Existing methods generally suffer from poor adaptability, low processing accuracy, and insufficient computational efficiency. To address these issues, this study proposes an adaptive spectral segmentation method for microseismic signal extraction. First, the Ramanujan subspace method is employed to suppress periodic noise and eliminate spectral peak interference. Subsequently, an adaptive band number determination criterion based on the sampling rate is established, and adaptive empirical Fourier decomposition is adopted to achieve optimized spectral segmentation. Finally, the Gini coefficient is introduced to establish an adaptive threshold screening mechanism for automatic reconstruction of effective signals. For real-time processing of multi-channel data, a unified filtering strategy based on statistical overlapping bands is proposed, enabling rapid processing of subsequent data using common bands. Experiments on synthetic and field data demonstrate that the proposed adaptive spectral segmentation method yields significant advantages: on synthetic data, SNR improvements of up to 4.65 dB over modal decomposition methods (e.g., empirical mode decomposition, ensemble empirical mode decomposition, and variational mode decomposition) and wavelet packet decomposition, along with a 72% reduction in multi-channel processing time using the unified filtering strategy. These results highlight its high adaptability and practicality for low-SNR microseismic signal processing.

Keywords

Adaptive spectral segmentation / Microseismic signal processing / Noise suppression / Microseismic monitoring

References

[1] Shu H, Dawod AY. Microseismic monitoring signal waveform recognition and classification: review of contemporary techniques. Appl Sci. 2023; 13(23): 12739. doi: 10.3390/app132312739

[2] Zeng Z, Zhang D, Han P, et al. A review of microseismic source location techniques in underground mining. MetaResource . 2025; 2(3): 157-181. doi: 10.23919/METAR.2025.000011

[3] Li J, Stankovic L, Pytharouli S, Stankovic V. Automated platform for microseismic signal analysis: denoising, detection, and classification in slope stability studies. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens. 2020; 59(9): 7996-8006. doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2020.3032664

[4] Ma H, Qian Z, Li Y, Lin H, Shao D, Yang B. Noise reduction for desert seismic data using spectral kurtosis adaptive bandpass filter. Acta Geophys. 2019; 67(2): 123-131. doi: 10.1007/s11600—018—0232—0

[5] Feng Z. Robust ground roll noise suppression based on dictionary learning and bandpass filtering. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett. 2021; 19: 1-5. doi: 10.1109/LGRS.2021.3107722

[6] Donatus IB, Theopilus A. Noise reduction and signal estimation for 5G antenna using least mean square (LMS) algorithm and Kalman filter. Int J Latest Technol Eng Manag Appl Sci. 2026; 15(1): 246-264. doi: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2026.150100019

[7] Lin J, Du Y, Qiu Y, Lin Z, Huang B, Tong B. Implementation of an LMS adaptive noise filter with automated parameter configuration. In: Proceedings of the 2025 5th International Conference on Communication Technology and Information Technology (ICCTIT); December 26—28, 2025; Guangzhou, China. IEEE; 2025: 207-212. doi: 10.1109/ICCTIT68197.2025.11406624

[8] Yang Y, Nagayama T, Xue K. Structure system estimation under seismic excitation with an adaptive extended Kalman filter. J Sound Vib. 2020; 489: 115690. doi: 10.1016/j.jsv.2020.115690

[9] Xu R, Feng B, Wang H, Wu C, Nie Z. Nonlinear seismic signal denoising using template matching with time difference detection method. Remote Sens . 2025; 17(4): 674. doi: 10.3390/rs17040674

[10] Fang W, Fu L, Li H. Unsupervised CNN based on self—similarity for seismic data denoising. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett. 2021; 19: 1-5. doi: 10.1109/LGRS.2021.3131046

[11] Liu L, Song W, Zeng C, Yang X. Microseismic event detection and classification based on convolutional neural network. J Appl Geophys. 2021; 192(6): 104380. doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2021.104380

[12] Long L, Wen X, Lin Y. Denoising of seismic signals based on empirical mode decomposition—wavelet thresholding. J Vib Control. 2021; 27(3—4): 311-322. doi: 10.1177/1077546320926846

[13] Peng K, Guo H, Shang X. EEMD and multiscale PCA—based signal denoising method and its application to seismic P—phase arrival picking. Sensors. 2021; 21(16): 5271. doi: 10.3390/s21165271

[14] Qiao Y, Li Q, Qian H, Song X. Seismic signal denoising method based on CEEMD and improved wavelet threshold. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2nd International Conference on Geology, Resources Exploration and Development; January 15—17, 2021; Zhuhai, China. IOP Publishing; 2021; 671(1): 012036. doi: 10.1088/1755—1315/671/1/012036

[15] Sun M, Li Z, Li Z, Li Q, Liu Y, Wang J. A noise attenuation method for weak seismic signals based on compressed sensing and CEEMD. IEEE Access. 2020; 8: 71951-71964. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2982908

[16] Yao X, Zhou Q, Wang C, Hu J, Liu P. An adaptive seismic signal denoising method based on variational mode decomposition. Measurement. 2021; 177(2): 109277. doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2021.109277

[17] Liu W, Liu Y, Li S, Chen Y. A review of variational mode decomposition in seismic data analysis. Surv Geophys. 2022; 44(2): 323-355. doi: 10.1007/s10712—022—09742—z

[18] Zhou W, Feng Z, Xu YF, Wang X, Lv H. Empirical Fourier decomposition: an accurate signal decomposition method for nonlinear and non—stationary time series analysis. Mech Syst Signal Process. 2022; 163(9): 108155. doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2021.108155

[19] Zhu D, Liu G, Wu X, Yin B. An enhanced empirical Fourier decomposition method for bearing fault diagnosis. Struct Health Monit. 2024; 23(2): 903-923. doi: 10.1177/14759217231178653

[20] Vaidyanathan PP. Ramanujan sums in the context of signal processing—Part I: fundamentals. IEEE Trans Signal Process. 2014; 62(16): 4145-4157. doi: 10.1109/TSP.2014.2331617

[21] Vaidyanathan PP. Ramanujan sums in the context of signal processing—Part II: FIR representations and applications. IEEE Trans Signal Process. 2014; 62(16): 4158-4172. doi: 10.1109/TSP.2014.2331624

[22] Wang X, Zhang J, Huang Z. A Ramanujan subspace and dynamic time warping and adaptive singular value decomposition combined denoising method for low signal—to—noise ratio surface microseismic monitoring data in hydraulic fracturing. Geophys Prospect. 2025; 73(1): 251-265. doi: 10.1111/1365—2478.13634

[23] Huang W, Wang R, Li H, Chen Y. Unveiling the signals from extremely noisy microseismic data for high—resolution hydraulic fracturing monitoring. Sci Rep. 2017; 7(1): 11996. doi: 10.1038/s41598—017—09711—2

[24] Chen C, Xu W, Dai J, Zhou Y, Zhang Y. Performance analysis of Gini correlator for detecting known signals in impulsive noise. IEEE Access. 2019; 7: 153300-153316. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2948403

[25] Albezzawy MN, Nassef MG, Sawalhi N. Rolling element bearing fault identification using a novel three—step adaptive and automated filtration scheme based on Gini index. ISA Trans. 2020; 101: 453-460. doi: 10.1016/j.isatra.2020.01.019

[26] Stevenson PR. Microearthquakes at Flathead Lake, Montana: a study using automatic earthquake processing. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 1976; 66(1): 61-80. doi: 10.1785/BSSA0660010061