Time-frequency Analysis of Seismic

Signals Yanghua Wang

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/time-frequency-analysis-of-seismic-signals-yanghua-
wang/
Time–Frequency Analysis of Seismic Signals
Time–Frequency
Analysis of
Seismic Signals

Yanghua Wang
Imperial College London
This edition first published 2023
© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this
title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

The right of Yanghua Wang to be identified as the author of the work has been asserted in accordance
with law.

Registered Offices
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

Editorial Office
The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester PO19 8SQ, UK

For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products
visit us at www.wiley.com.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some content
that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty

The contents of this work are intended to further general scientific research, understanding, and
discussion only and are not intended and should not be relied upon as recommending or promoting
scientific method, diagnosis, or treatment by physicians for any particular patient. In view of ongoing
research, equipment modifications, changes in governmental regulations, and the constant flow of
information relating to the use of medicines, equipment, and devices, the reader is urged to review and
evaluate the information provided in the package insert or instructions for each medicine, equipment,
or device for, among other things, any changes in the instructions or indication of usage and for added
warnings and precautions. While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing
this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness
of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation
any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be
created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for
this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation
and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse
the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it
may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering
professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation.
You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites
listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it
is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial
damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data applied for

[HB ISBN: 9781119892342]

Cover Design: Wiley

Cover Image: Courtesy of Yanghua Wang

Set in 10/1 4 pt MeridienLTStd by Straive, Chennai, India

This book is dedicated to my wife, Guo-ling, and
my two children, Brian and Claire.
Contents

Preface ix
1 Nonstationary Signals and Spectral Properties 1
1.1 Stationary Signals 1
1.2 Nonstationary Signals 5
1.3 The Fourier Transform and the Average Properties 7
1.4 The Analytic Signal and the Instantaneous Properties 10
1.5 Computation of the Instantaneous Frequency 13
1.6 Two Groups of Time–Frequency Analysis Methods 16
2 The Gabor Transform 19
2.1 Short-time Fourier Transform 19
2.2 The Gabor Transform 23
2.3 The Cosine Function Windows 26
2.4 Spectral Leakage of Window Functions 31
2.5 The Gabor Limit of Time–Frequency Resolution 33
2.6 Implementation of the Gabor Transform 36
2.7 The Inverse Gabor Transform 40
2.8 Application in Inverse Q Filtering 42
3 The Continuous Wavelet Transform 47
3.1 Basics of the Continuous Wavelet Transform 47
3.2 The Complex Morlet Wavelet 51
3.3 The Complex Morse Wavelet 54
3.4 The Generalised Seismic Wavelet 58
3.5 The Pseudo-frequency Representation 62
3.6 The Inverse Wavelet Transform 65
3.7 Implementation of the Continuous Wavelet Transform 67
3.8 Hydrocarbon Reservoir Characterisation 69
4 The S Transform 73
4.1 Basics of the S Transform 74
4.2 The Generalised S Transform 77
4.3 The Fractional Fourier Transform 79
4.4 The Fractional S Transform 83
4.5 Implementation of the S Transforms 86
4.6 The Inverse S Transforms 88
4.7 Application to Clastic and Carbonate Reservoirs 93
5 The W Transform 95
5.1 Basics of the W Transform 95
5.2 The Generalised W Transform 99

vii
viii Time–Frequency Analysis of Seismic Signals

5.3 Implementation of Nonstationary Convolution 106

5.4 The Inverse W Transform 108
5.5 Application to Detecting Hydrocarbon Reservoirs 109
5.6 Application to Detecting Karst Voids 112
6 The Wigner–Ville Distribution 117
6.1 Basics of the Wigner–Ville Distribution (WVD) 117
6.2 Defining the WVD with an Analytic Signal 120
6.3 Properties of the WVD 123
6.4 The Smoothed WVD 126
6.5 The Generalised Class of Time–Frequency Representations 132
6.6 The Ambiguity Function and the Generalised WVD 134
6.7 Implementation of the Standard and Smoothed WVDs 140
6.8 Implementation of the Ambiguity Function and the
Generalised WVD 147
7 Matching Pursuit 151
7.1 Basics of Matching Pursuit 151
7.2 Three-stage Matching Pursuit 153
7.3 Matching Pursuit with the Morlet Wavelet 157
7.4 The Sigma Filter 159
7.5 Multichannel Matching Pursuit 163
7.6 Structure-adaptive Matching Pursuit 168
7.7 Three Applications 170
8 Local Power Spectra with Multiple Windows 175
8.1 Multiple Orthogonal Windows 176
8.2 Multiple Windows Defined by the Prolate Spheroidal
Wavefunctions 178
8.3 Multiple Windows Constructed by Solving a Discretised
Eigenvalue Problem 180
8.4 Multiple Windows Constructed by Gaussian Functions 184
8.5 The Gabor Transform with Multiple Windows 187
8.6 The WVD with Multiple Windows 191
8.7 Prospective of Time–Frequency Analysis without Windowing 195
Appendices 197
A The Gaussian Integrals, the Gamma Function, and the Gaussian
Error Functions 197
B Fourier Transforms of the Tapered Boxcar Window, the Truncated
Gaussian Window, and the Weighted Cosine Window 200
C The Generalised Seismic Wavelet in the Time Domain 203
D Implementation of the Fractional Fourier Transform 205
E Marginal Properties and the Analytic Signal in the WVD Definition 206
F The Prolate Spheroidal Wavefunctions, the Associated and the
Ordinary Legendre Polynomials 211
References 219
Author Index 227
Subject Index 229
Preface

The aim of this book, Time–Frequency Analysis of Seismic Signals, is to reveal

the local properties of nonstationary seismic signals. Their local properties,
such as time period, frequency, and spectral content, vary with time, and
the time of seismic signals is a proxy for geologic depth.
Time–frequency analysis is a generalisation of classical Fourier spectral
analysis for stationary signals, by extending it to spectral analysis of
nonstationary signals. All methods of time–frequency analysis can be
treated as a series of implementations of the classical Fourier transform. The
kernel of each Fourier transform is formed from a segment of the original
seismic signal. Therefore, the time–frequency spectrum is composed of the
Fourier spectra generated at different time positions, where the time
position corresponds to the centre of each segment.
Different methods of time–frequency analysis differ in the construction
of the local kernel, before the Fourier transform is applied. Because of the
differences in the construction of the Fourier transform kernel, the methods
of time–frequency analysis in this book are divided into two groups.
The first group of methods are the Gabor transform-type methods,
including the Gabor transform itself (Chapter 2), the continuous wavelet
transform (Chapter 3), the S transform (Chapter 4), and the W transform
(Chapter 5). This group of methods focuses on the properties of the
different forms of window functions. The window function, which acts as a
convolution operator, is applied to the nonstationary signal in a sliding
manner. The windowed signal segment is the local kernel for the Fourier
transform.
The second group of methods are the energy density distribution
methods, including the Wigner–Ville distribution (WVD) (Chapter 6), the
matching pursuit-based WVD (Chapter 7), and the local power spectrum
with multiple orthogonal windows (Chapter 8). While the resulting time–
frequency representation is the energy density distribution, this second

ix
x Time–Frequency Analysis of Seismic Signals

group of methods focuses on manipulating and reformulating the original

signal segment to form a time-varying kernel for the Fourier transform.
An essential difference between these two groups of methods is that the
Gabor transform-type methods produce complex spectra in the time–
frequency plane, while the energy density distribution methods produce
real spectra that do not contain phase information. The Gabor transform-
type methods have an inverse transform counterpart to reconstruct the
original nonstationary signal, and therefore the time–frequency spectra
produced by the Gabor transform-type methods can be used in signal
processing. However, the energy density distribution methods cannot
recover the original signal because the phase information in the time–
frequency plane is missing. Consequently, the time–frequency
representation of the energy density distribution methods can only be used
as a seismic attribute for geophysical characterisation.
With respect to the collective groupings, this book systematically
presents various time–frequency analysis methods, including some
techniques that have not yet been published or that the author has been
instrumental in developing. In presenting each method, the basic theory
and mathematical concepts are summarised, with emphasis on the
technical aspects.
As such, this book is a practical guide for geophysicists seeking to
produce geophysically meaningful time–frequency spectra, process seismic
data with time-dependent operations to faithfully represent nonstationary
signals, and use the seismic attributes of time–frequency space for the
quantitative characterisation of hydrocarbon reservoirs.

Yanghua Wang
25 July 2022
1

Nonstationary Signals and

Spectral Properties

Stationary signals are any idealised signals that have time-independent

properties, such as time period, frequency, and spectral content. Seismic
signals, however, are nonstationary signals that violate the stationary rule
described above. When seismic waves propagate through the anelastic
media in the Earth’s subsurface, seismic signals have variable properties
that vary with the propagation path and travel time.
A stationary signal can be represented mathematically by a stack of
sinusoids, using the Fourier transform. In contrast, a nonstationary signal
cannot be properly represented by the Fourier transform because the
amplitude and frequency of a sinusoidal representation can change
dynamically as a function of travel time. To investigate the local properties
of a nonstationary signal, an analytic signal-based analysis method can be
used instead.

1.1 Stationary Signals

For seismic signals, an idealised stationary model is a stationary convolution

process. The physical meaning of the convolution process is ‘superposition’,
which is a fundamental principle in the analysis of seismic signals.
Consider an earth model with a layered structure (Figure 1.1). Each
layer has a different acoustic impedance, which is the product of velocity
and density. The contrast of this physical property between two layers
causes seismic reflections at the interface.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Time–Frequency Analysis of Seismic Signals, First Edition. Yanghua Wang.
© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2023 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

1
2 Time–Frequency Analysis of Seismic Signals

Figure 1.1 The principle of ‘superposition’. Each wavelet is scaled by the

reflectivity, which is the contrast in the acoustic impedance between two layers. A
seismic trace x(t) is formed by summing all scaled wavelets, which are reflected
from various interfaces.

The contrast of acoustic impedance is called reflectivity, or reflection

coefficient. The seismic reflectivity includes primary p(t) and multiple m(t),
where t is the travel time. The reflectivity series in time consists of both
types, r(t) = p(t) + m(t). Each reflectivity serves as a scaling factor to scale a
particular wavelet w(t). A recorded seismic trace x(t) is formed by
summing all scaled wavelets reflected from different interfaces.
This physical process is the ‘superposition’ and can be written as

 x0   w0         
 x   w  w       
 1   1   0       
       w1   w0     
           
    wn −1      w1     
   = r0   + r1  wn −1  + r2    +  + r − 2  w0  + r −1  ,
           
        wn −1   w1   w0 
 x            w 
  −1           1 
          n −1 
w   
x          w 
  + n−2           n −1 
(1.1)
1. Nonstationary Signals and Spectral Properties 3

where r = [r0 , r1 , r2 ,  , r −1 ]T is the vector of the reflectivity series, w =

[ w0 , w1 , w2 ,  , w n−1 ]T is the vector of the seismic wavelet, and x =
[ x 0 , x1 , x 2 ,  , x  + n− 2 ]T is the vector of the seismic trace. If the length of the
reflectivity series is  , and the length of the seismic wavelet is n, the
length of the resulting seismic trace is  + n − 1.
In the superposition process of Eq. (1.1), the wavelet is time shifted and
scaled by the reflectivity. Combining all the time-shifted wavelets to form a
wavelet matrix, W = [ w 0 , w1 , w 2 ,  , w  −1 ], the superposition process can
be expressed in a matrix–vector form, x = Wr, and written explicitly as

 x 0   w0 
 x   w w0 
 1   1 
 x 2   w2 w1 w0   r0 
    
     w2 w1    r1 
   w  w2    r 
   n−1  2 
 x −2  =  wn−1    w0    ,
 x   wn −1  w1 w0    
  −1    
 x    w2 w1  r −2 
   
      w2   r −1 
 x  + n −3   wn −1  
   
 x  + n−2   wn−1 
(1.2)
in which the size of the wavelet matrix W is ( + n − 1) × .
In the matrix–vector form of Eq. (1.2), the wavelet matrix W is a
Toeplitz matrix, because each diagonal of W is a constant, Wi , j = Wi +1, j +1.
Then, if we look at the wavelet matrix W row by row, we can see that
each row of the matrix consists of the discretised wavelet samples in time-
reversed order:

{wn−1 ,  , w2 , w1 , w0 }. (1.3)

Therefore, the matrix–vector form of superposition, x = Wr, is the

discretised form of ‘convolution’. The corresponding continuous form for
the convolution process can be expressed as

∞
x(t) =  w(t − τ)r(τ)dτ = w(t) ∗ r(t),
−∞
(1.4)
4 Time–Frequency Analysis of Seismic Signals

where w(t) is the seismic wavelet, r(t) is the subsurface reflectivity series, ∗
is the convolution operator, and x(t) is the seismic trace. In this convolution
process, the convolution kernel is the stationary wavelet w(t), which has a
constant time period, frequency, and spectral content, with respect to time
variation.
A wavelet is a ‘small wave’, for which the time period is relatively short
compared to the time duration of the reflectivity series and the resulting
seismic trace. With the stationary wavelet w(t), the stationary convolution
process of Eq. (1.4) can be depicted as in Figure 1.2.
The stationary wavelet, that is used in Figure 1.2 for the demonstration,
is the Ricker wavelet defined as (Ricker, 1953)
2 2
−π f p (t −t0 )2
w(t) = 1 − 2π 2 fp2(t − t0 )2  e , (1.5)

where f p is the dominant frequency (in Hz), and t0 is the central position
of the wavelet. The Ricker wavelet is symmetrical with respect to time t0
∞
and has a zero mean, −∞ w(t)dt = 0. Therefore, it is often known as Mexican
hat wavelet in the Americas for its sombrero shape.

Figure 1.2 A stationary convolution process, in which a vector of seismic trace x

is generated by the multiplication of a wavelet matrix W and a vector of reflectivity
series r. Each column vector of the wavelet matrix W is formed by a stationary
seismic wavelet w(t).
1. Nonstationary Signals and Spectral Properties 5

1.2 Nonstationary Signals

The stationary convolution process from the previous section is an idealised

model for seismic signals. In reality, however, seismic signals are
nonstationary due to the dissipation effect when seismic waves propagate
through the subsurface anelastic media.
The nonstationary convolution process can be expressed as follows,

∞
xa (t) =  w (t − τ)r(τ)dτ ,
−∞
a (1.6)

where wa (t − τ) is a nonstationary seismic wavelet, in place of the

stationary wavelet w(t). The nonstationary seismic wavelet wa (t − τ) evolves
continually according to a dissipation model:

∞
wa (t − τ) = w(t) ∗ a(t , τ) =  w(t − t')a(t' , τ)dt' ,
−∞
(1.7)

where a(t , τ) is the dissipation coefficient, and acts on the idealised stationary
wavelet w(t).
In the convolution expression of Eq. (1.7) for the nonstationary wavelet
wa (t − τ), the dissipation coefficient a(t , τ), within which τ indicates the time
dependency, is nonstationary. At any given time position τ , the dissipation
coefficient a(t , τ) can be defined by

e
− αˆ( f , τ)− iβˆ ( f , τ) i2π ft
a(t , τ) = e df , (1.8)
−∞

where i = −1, f is the frequency, αˆ( f , τ) is the frequency-dependent

attenuation coefficient, and βˆ( f , τ) is the associated dispersion, i.e. the
phase delay of different frequency components (Futterman, 1962).
The attenuation coefficient αˆ( f , τ) of seismic waves propagating through
the subsurface anelastic media is (Wang & Guo, 2004)

τ − γQ (t )
πf  f 
αˆ( f , τ) = 
0
 
Q(t)  fh 
dt , (1.9)

and the associated dispersion βˆ( f , τ) is

6 Time–Frequency Analysis of Seismic Signals

τ − γQ (t )
 f 

βˆ( f , τ) = 2π f  
0  fh 
dt , (1.10)

where fh is a reference frequency,

1
γQ (t) = , (1.11)
πQ(t)

and Q(t) is the quality factor of the subsurface anelastic media (Kolsky,
1956; Futterman, 1962; Wang, 2008). Because seismic signals have a
relatively narrow frequency band, it is reasonable to assume Q(t) to be
frequency independent. But Q(t) is time dependent, and the time t here is
a proxy for geologic depth.
For numerical calculation, the nonstationary convolution process of Eq.
(1.6) may also be expressed in a matrix–vector form as

x = Wa r , (1.12)

where Wa is the nonstationary wavelet matrix. Figure 1.3 depicts this

matrix–vector form of the nonstationary convolution process.

Figure 1.3 The nonstationary convolution process. The wavelet matrix Wa is

formed by column vectors, each of which is a nonstationary seismic wavelet
wa(t − τ), and thus the seismic trace x(t) is a nonstationary signal.
1. Nonstationary Signals and Spectral Properties 7

The essential distinction between stationary and nonstationary

convolution models is the nonstationary wavelet matrix Wa . While the
example symmetrical wavelet in Figure 1.2 is a zero-phase wavelet, the
form of the wavelet in Figure 1.3 changes continuously. The amplitude
decreases and the phase varies with the travel time. The form of the
wavelet gradually changes from symmetrical to asymmetrical.
In general, the differences between stationary and nonstationary signals
can be captured in three characteristics.

(1) Time period: The time period for a stationary signal always remains
constant, whereas the time period for a nonstationary signal is not
constant and varies with time.
(2) Frequency: The frequency of a stationary signal remains constant
throughout the process, while the frequency of a nonstationary signal
changes continuously during the process.
(3) Spectral content: The spectral content of a stationary signal is constant,
while the spectral content of a nonstationary signal varies
continuously with respect to time.

For seismic signals, there would be several sets of frequency contents

within a given time interval, and these frequency contents are likely to
change dynamically with respect to travel time. Therefore, the statistical
properties of nonstationary seismic signals also change with time. These
statistical properties include the mean, variance, and covariance.

1.3 The Fourier Transform and the Average Properties

The Fourier transform represents a stationary signal as a stack of sinusoids,

each of which has a constant frequency and a constant amplitude.
Therefore, the Fourier transform is a static spectral analysis that provides
only the average characteristics of a nonstationary seismic signal.
For a seismic trace x(t), the Fourier transform is defined as (Bracewell,
1965)
∞
xˆ( f ) =  [ x(t)] =  x(t)e
− i2π ft
dt , (1.13)
−∞

where xˆ( f ) is the frequency spectrum of x(t).

8 Time–Frequency Analysis of Seismic Signals

The physical meaning of the Fourier transform can be understood by

expressing the transform kernel in Euler’s formula,

e− i 2π ft = cos(2π ft) − i sin(2π ft), (1.14)

and rewriting the Fourier transform as follows,

∞ ∞
xˆ( f ) = 
−∞
x(t)cos(2π ft)dt − i  x(t)sin(2π ft)dt .
−∞
(1.15)

The first integral is a cross-correlation between the seismic signal x(t) and a
cosine function, cos(2π ft), and the second integral is a cross-correlation
between the seismic signal x(t) and a sine function, sin(2π ft). These two
cross-correlations reflect the content of a harmonic component f that is
contained in the seismic trace.
Figure 1.4a−e demonstrate the cross-correlations between a seismic trace
and the cosine function at five frequencies of 5, 20, 35, 50, and 65 Hz. The

Figure 1.4 The Fourier transform is the cross-correlation between the seismic
trace (black curve) and a cosine function (red curve). (a−e) The cross-correlations at
five sample frequencies 5, 20, 35, 50, and 65 Hz. (f) The correlations are marked
(solid circles) in the frequency spectrum.
1. Nonstationary Signals and Spectral Properties 9

five cross-correlation values are marked in the frequency spectrum that is

displayed in the right-hand panel (Figure 1.4f).
The pair of cross-correlations is presented as a complex value, xˆ( f ),
which is the frequency spectrum. The cross-correlation with the cosine
function is assigned to the real part, xˆ R ( f ), and the cross-correlation with
the sine function is assigned to the imaginary part, xˆ I ( f ). The magnitude of
a complex value xˆ( f ) is called the amplitude at the given frequency:

xˆ( f ) = xˆ R2 ( f ) + xˆ I2( f ). (1.16)

The ratio of these two cross-correlations distinguishes their respective

weights. Because the ratio of a sine and a cosine function is a tangent
function, the inverse function of the ratio is intuitively the phase angle:

θ( f ) = arg { xˆ( f )}. (1.17)

Therefore, the frequency spectrum xˆ( f ) can be expressed in terms of the

amplitude spectrum xˆ( f ) and the phase spectrum θ( f ), as

xˆ( f ) = xˆ( f ) eiθ( f ) . (1.18)

The original seismic trace x(t) can be reconstructed precisely from the
frequency spectrum xˆ( f ), if the amplitude and phase information of all
frequencies of the seismic trace is known. This is the inverse Fourier
transform, defined as
∞

[ xˆ( f )] =  xˆ( f )e
−1 i2π ft
x(t) =  df . (1.19)
−∞

The invertibility of the Fourier transform can be easily verified as follows:

∞ ∞ ∞ 

−∞
xˆ( f )ei2π ft df =   x(τ)e− i2π f τ dτ  ei2π ft df

−∞  −∞


∞ ∞

 x(τ)dτ  e
i2π f (t − τ)
= df (1.20)
−∞ −∞

∞
=  x(τ)δ(t − τ)dτ = x(t).
−∞
10 Time–Frequency Analysis of Seismic Signals

One of the important properties of the Fourier transform is energy

conservation in both the time and frequency domains (Champeney, 1987):
∞ ∞

 
2 2
x(t) dt = xˆ( f ) df . (1.21)
−∞ −∞

This is known as Parseval’s theorem, and can be proved thus:

∞ ∞

  x (t)x(t)dt
2 ∗
x(t) dt =
−∞ −∞

∞ ∞ 
= 
−∞

 −∞

x ∗(t)  xˆ( f )ei2π ft df  dt


(1.22)
∗
∞
∞ 
 
=  x(t)e− i2π ft dt  xˆ( f )df

−∞  −∞


∞ ∞

 xˆ ∗( f )xˆ( f )df = 
2
= xˆ( f ) df ,
−∞ −∞

where the superscript ∗ represents a complex conjugate.

According to the definition of the Fourier transform, in which the time
integral covers the range of (−∞, ∞), the frequency spectrum is an average
quantity over the entire time duration of a seismic trace.
However, a field seismic trace is composed of signals that travel to and
are reflected at different depths, and the signal properties such as amplitude
and phase are time dependent. Seismic signals with such time-dependent
properties are nonstationary signals.

1.4 The Analytic Signal and the Instantaneous Properties

The classical Fourier transform examines the average properties of a fairly

large portion of a seismic trace, but it does not permit the local properties of
a nonstationary signal to be examined. The analytic signal analysis method
is a transformation method that retains local significance, and the
transformation is called the Hilbert transform.
The analytic signal refers to a signal whose spectrum is zero for negative
frequencies (Ville, 1948; Ackroyd, 1971). For a real-valued seismic trace
1. Nonstationary Signals and Spectral Properties 11

x(t), the Fourier transform xˆ( f ) has Hermitian symmetry about the f = 0
axis:

xˆ(− f ) = xˆ ∗( f ). (1.23)

Because of Hermitian symmetry, the negative frequencies are superfluous

to the Fourier transform of a real-valued signal x(t). Meanwhile, it seems
physically incomprehensible that a real signal has a negative frequency
component at all.
The basic idea in building an analytic signal is that such a signal has no
negative frequency components:

zˆ( f ) = xˆ( f ) + sgn( f )xˆ( f ), (1.24)

where ‘sgn’ is the signum function,

 −1, f < 0,

sgn( f ) =  0, f = 0, (1.25)
1, f > 0.


The frequency spectrum zˆ( f ) contains only the non-negative frequency

components of xˆ( f ). Then the analytic signal z(t) in the time domain is
obtained by the inverse Fourier transform of zˆ( f ):

z(t) =  −1 [ xˆ( f ) + sgn( f )xˆ( f )]

=  −1 [ xˆ( f )] +  −1 [sgn( f )] ∗  −1 [ xˆ( f )]

 i 
= x(t) + p.v.   ∗ x(t)
 πt 

= x(t) + i [ x(t)]

= x(t) + i y(t), (1.26)

where y(t) = [ x(t)] is the Hilbert transform of x(t), and ‘p.v.’ denotes the
Cauchy principal value (Hilbert, 1912; Hahn, 1996).
According to Eq. (1.26), the analytic signal z(t) is a complex signal, in
which the real part x(t) and the imaginary part y(t) are related to each
other by the Hilbert transform, which is a time-domain convolution:
12 Time–Frequency Analysis of Seismic Signals

∞
1 1 x(τ)
[ x(t)] = p.v.   ∗ x(t) = p.v.
π
 t π
−∞
t −τ
dτ 
t −τ ∞
x(τ) x(τ)
  t − τ dτ .
1 1
= lim dτ + lim (1.27)
π t →τ − t −τ π t →τ +
−∞ t −τ

The physical meaning of the Hilbert transform is a ± π 2 phase rotation.

According to Eq. (1.26),  −1 [sgn( f )xˆ( f )] = i y(t). Therefore, for the Hilbert
transform y(t) = [ x(t)], the Fourier transform is

yˆ( f ) =  [ y(t)] = − i sgn( f )xˆ( f ). (1.28)

Because − i sgn( f ) = e± i π 2 , for f ≠ 0, the Hilbert transform imparts a phase

shift of + π 2 to every negative frequency component of the original signal
and a phase shift of − π 2 to every positive frequency component of the
original signal. Because of the π 2 phase offset, x(t) and y(t) = [ x(t)] are
quadrature counterparties.
The analytic signal z(t), that is a complex function of time t , can be
written as (Taner et al., 1979)

z(t) = a(t)eiθ(t ) , (1.29)

where a(t) is the instantaneous amplitude of the original signal x(t),

a(t) = x 2(t) + y 2(t) , (1.30)

and θ(t) is the instantaneous phase of the original signal x(t),

 y(t) 
θ(t) = arg{z(t)} = tan −1  . (1.31)
 x(t) 

In addition to the instantaneous amplitude and the instantaneous phase,

another characteristic feature of the nonstationary signal is the
instantaneous frequency, which changes constantly with time.
According to Eq. (1.29), the instantaneous frequency is the frequency of
a sinusoid that best fits the complex signal locally. Therefore, the Fourier
transform of z(t) becomes
∞ ∞

 z(t)e− i2π ft dt =  a(t)e

i[ θ(t )− 2π ft ]
zˆ( f ) = dt . (1.32)
−∞ −∞
1. Nonstationary Signals and Spectral Properties 13

At time t , the phase is stationary,

d
[θ(t) − 2π ft ] = 0. (1.33)
dt

This stationary phase condition leads to the definition of the instantaneous

frequency:
1 dθ(t)
finst (t) = . (1.34)
2π dt

The physical meaning of the instantaneous frequency (Ackroyd, 1970) can

be understood as the centroid of the instantaneous spectrum at time t :

p(t , f ) = z(t)zˆ ∗( f )e− i2π ft . (1.35)

This is a time–frequency spectrum, representing the frequency spectrum of

signal z(t) at time t (Ville, 1948).

1.5 Computation of the Instantaneous Frequency

The instantaneous frequency finst (t) is defined in Eq. (1.34) as the rate of
change of the instantaneous phase θ(t). However, this definition cannot be
used directly to calculate the instantaneous frequency. The arctangent
calculation of Eq. (1.31) provides only the principal value of the
instantaneous phase θ(t), which must be unwrapped to remove the 2π
phase jumps and form a continuous function for the calculation of the
instantaneous frequency. Even though, the phase unwrapping process
cannot iron out the ± π phase jumps caused by spikes in the noisy seismic
trace (Wang, 1998, 2000) and, thus, cannot produce an idealised
continuous phase function θ(t) for the time differential.
A convenient way of computing the instantaneous frequency finst (t) is to
compute the time differentials, dx(t) dt and dy(t) dt . Rewriting the
arctangent function of Eq. (1.31) as
y(t)
tan θ(t) = (1.36)
x(t)

and differentiating both sides with respect to time t , we have

dy(t) dx(t)
x(t) − y(t)
1 dθ(t) dt dt
= . (1.37)
cos θ(t) dt
2
x 2(t)
14 Time–Frequency Analysis of Seismic Signals

If a 2(t) = x 2(t) + y 2(t) ≠ 0, substituting

x 2(t)
cos2 θ(t) = , (1.38)
x 2(t) + y 2(t)

we obtain the formula of the instantaneous frequency finst (t), as

dy(t) dx(t)
x(t) − y(t)
1 dt dt
finst (t) = . (1.39)
2π x 2(t) + y 2(t)

Note that, according to the definition of the analytic signal z(t) for a real
signal x(t) (Eq. 1.24), the instantaneous frequency must be non-negative,
finst (t) ≥ 0.
The noisy instantaneous frequency can be further smoothed by a
weighted averaging:
∞
ρ L(t − τ)a(τ) finst (τ)dτ
finst (t) = −∞
∞
, (1.40)
−∞ L(t − τ)a(τ)dτ

where L(t) is a low-pass filter along the time axis, and ρ is a scaling factor,
which is inversely proportional to the size of the low-pass filter. In the
averaging formula of Eq. (1.40), the instantaneous amplitude a(t) is used as
a weighting function to the instantaneous frequency finst (t). The averaging
of the instantaneous frequency finst (t) over a time window L(t) ensures
that the smoothed frequency finst (t) is no greater than the Nyquist
frequency of a discretised data series (Barnes, 1992).
Figure 1.5a shows a synthetic signal, composed of energy-normalised
Ricker wavelets, defined as

fp 2π − π 2 fp2t 2
w(t) = 2 (1 − 2π 2 fp2t 2 )e , (1.41)
3

where f p is the peak frequency. The peak frequencies of the five wavelets
are 60, 50, 40, 30, and 20 Hz, respectively. The energy normalisation mimics
an idealised situation with no energy attenuation during wave propagation.
It can be proved that the energy of this Ricker wavelet (Eq. 1.41) is unity:
∞

 w(t)
2
dt = 1. (1.42)
−∞
1. Nonstationary Signals and Spectral Properties 15

Figure 1.5 The concept of the instantaneous frequency. (a) A synthetic trace
composed of energy-normalised Ricker wavelets. (b) The instantaneous frequency
finst(t). (c) The smoothed instantaneous frequency finst(t).

The proof involves a Gaussian integral (Appendix A):

∞
1  n + 1
t e
n −at 2
dt = (n +1) 2
Γ , (1.43)
0
2a  2 

where n is a positive integer, and Γ(u) is the gamma function. In the

definition of Γ(u), the real part of variable u is positive, Re(u) > 0.
Figure 1.5b shows the instantaneous frequency finst (t) computed through
the time differentials of the original signal x(t) and the Hilbert transform
y(t) = [ x(t)]. The computation result contains strong numerical noise.
Figure 1.5c displays the smoothed frequency finst (t). The low-pass filter
L(t) that is used is a Gaussian function with the Gaussian spread parameter
σt = 4Δt , where Δt is the sampling rate in time. Numerical experiments
suggest that the scaling factor in Eq. (1.40) can be set as ρ = 2 for the low-
pass filter L(t) with σt ≥ 4Δt .
16 Time–Frequency Analysis of Seismic Signals

Figure 1.6 (a) A two-dimensional seismic profile. (b) The instantaneous frequency
profile, which is smoothed in both the time and distance directions.

Figure 1.6 is an example of seismic profile x(t , d), and the corresponding
profile of instantaneous frequencies finst (t , d). The instantaneous frequency
function is calculated and is smoothed trace by trace. In addition, it is also
smoothed along the horizontal direction, by using a Gaussian filter with the
spread parameter σ d = σt Δd (2Δt), where Δd is the trace interval.
While for nonstationary seismic signals the instantaneous frequency and
the instantaneous amplitude can be examined with the analytic signal
analysis method described above, the spectral contents, which also vary in
time, have to be examined in the time–frequency plane. Therefore, different
methods for analysing the time–frequency spectra of nonstationary seismic
signals are presented in this book.

1.6 Two Groups of Time–Frequency Analysis Methods

Time–frequency analysis can be considered as a generalisation of the

classical Fourier transform of a stationary signal, and applied to the spectral
analysis of a nonstationary signal. All methods of time–frequency analysis
1. Nonstationary Signals and Spectral Properties 17

can be implemented by the Fourier transform, but they differ in the

construction of the transform kernel. Based on the difference in the
transformation kernel, I divide the different methods of time–frequency
analysis into two groups.
The first group of methods is the Gabor transform-type method. This group
of methods applies various time-window functions to the seismic signal, to
form a signal segment, prior to initiating the Fourier transform. In the
short-time Fourier transform (STFT), a segment is taken directly from the
original signal for the Fourier transform, assuming that the signal segment
can be treated as stationary on a short-time basis. The signal segmentation
process can be understood as the application of a rectangular window. The
application of different time-window functions results in
(1) the Gabor transform (Chapter 2),
(2) the continuous wavelet transform (Chapter 3),
(3) the S transform (Chapter 4), and
(4) the W transform (Chapter 5).
I name this group of methods after Dennis Gabor (1946a, 1946b, 1946c),
the pioneer of the STFT method.
The second group of methods is the energy density distribution method. The
formulation of the transform kernel involves manipulation of the original
signal, and the time–frequency representation is the energy density
distribution. This group of methods includes
(1) the Wigner–Ville distribution (WVD) (Chapter 6),
(2) the WVD based on the matching pursuit (Chapter 7), and
(3) the local power spectra with multiple windows (Chapter 8).
The kernel in the WVD is the instantaneous autocorrelation of the signal,
and not the original signal. The kernel in the WVD based on matching
pursuit is the instantaneous autocorrelation of a wavelet, extracted from
the original signal by matching pursuit. The local power spectral analysis
method manipulates the transform kernel with multiple orthogonal
windows. It applies multiple windows in parallel to the same signal
segment, and the combined effect of these windows is optimal in retaining
the local spectral information of the signal segment.
For the Gabor transform-type method, there are two important features:
(1) The time–frequency spectra produced by the Gabor transform-type
method are complex, and the complex spectra consist of both the
amplitude spectrum and the phase spectrum.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
by the treaty of April 15, 1858, as were also the points
relative to the canal, the two governments jointly granted a
concession on May 1 of that same year to Mr. Felix Belly, a
distinguished French writer, to whom the Emperor Napoleon gave
his support to carry forward the undertaking. This failing of
accomplishment, the two governments, in perfect accord,
concluded the contract known as the Ayon-Chevalier, signed by
Nicaragua on October 16, 1868, and by Costa Rica on June 18,
1869, which, it is unnecessary to say, also failed to produce
any results whatever. Some years after the expiration of this
last contract Nicaragua promoted a discussion as to the
validity of the treaty and the meaning of some of its
stipulations, which Costa Rica upheld in its original form,
and the question was submitted to the decision of the
President of the United States, Mr. Cleveland, who in his
award of March 22, 1888, accepted by both parties, declared
the treaty valid and binding upon each Republic and
interpreted the points which in the opinion of Nicaragua were
doubtful. According to the provisions of both of these
documents, the treaty and award, even in the remote event that
the natural rights of Costa Rica should not be injured, Nicaragua
is bound not to make any grants for canal purposes across her
territory without first asking the opinion of the Republic of
Costa Rica. Three years prior, and while this question was
still pending, Nicaragua concluded the treaty known as the
Zavala-Frelinghuysen, signed in Washington on December 1,
1884, whereby the title to the canal was conveyed to the
United States, and Costa Rica adhered to this treaty under
date of February 23, 1885; but the negotiations remained
without effect, because, ratification having been denied in
the Senate, although a reconsideration of the subject had been
agreed to, President Cleveland, on inaugurating his first
administration, withdrew the document from the Senate. Things
then returned to the status they formerly maintained, and
Nicaragua in April, 1887, and Costa Rica in July, 1888,
respectively granted the concessions pursuant to which the
construction of the American waterway has been pending of late
 years. The Congress of the United States has been giving
special attention to this important matter since the year
1892, and commissions have been created charged with the
survey and location of the route, as well as the study of the
influence of the canal in its different aspects. Recently the
investigation is not limited to the route by Nicaragua and
Costa Rica alone, but extends to Panama."

Speech of Señor Calvo, Costa Rican Minister,

at the International Commercial Congress,
Philadelphia, October 24, 1899.

{66}

CANAL, Interoceanic, The Project of the: A. D. 1889-1899.

The Maritime Canal Company.
Investigation of Nicaragua routes.

"The failure of the Frelinghuysen-Zavala treaty [see above]

was a severe disappointment to the friends of the canal
project, but it did not discourage them. A company of private
citizens, capitalists and promoters, was organized, which at
length took the name of the Maritime Canal Company. Fair and
full concessions were secured from the government of
Nicaragua, while similar articles were also signed with the
Republic of Costa Rica on account of imagined ownership of a
portion of the territory through which the canal was to pass,
though it has been shown subsequently, in the settlement of
the boundary dispute between those two governments, that Costa
Rica's rights in the matter were solely riparian. In due time
Congress was called upon to grant a charter to the Maritime
Company, which asked nothing more than this." The chartering
act was passed by Congress in 1889, with an important
amendment proposed by Judge Holman of Indiana, providing that
"nothing in this act contained shall be so construed as to
commit the United States to any pecuniary liability whatever
for any account of said company, nor shall the United States
be held in any wise liable or responsible in any form or by
any implication for any debt or, liability in any form which
said company may incur, nor as guaranteeing any engagement or
contract of said company." But two years afterwards, the
company having failed to enlist the necessary capital for its
undertaking, an attempt was made to set aside the above
provision and to persuade Congress to guarantee $100,000,000
of bonds, taking $70,000,000 of stock and making the
government a partner in the enterprise. The proposal was
rejected. Congress "did not guarantee the company's bonds. The
company, without such guarantee, was unable to raise the
necessary capital, either in the United States or abroad, and
the financial crisis of 1893 so overwhelmed it that all active
operations on the isthmus were suspended, and they have never
been resumed. The same issue, the guaranteeing of bonds, has
come up from time to time in succeeding Congresses, but not
until the second session of the Fifty-fourth [1897] did it
appear to have much chance of being decided in favor of the
company. The opposition in the Senate, where it was first
considered, was strong, and the arguments advanced against the
bill were clear, sound and forceful. The advocates of the
measure were pressing for a vote, but almost at the supreme
moment a note was received from the State Department,
accompanied by a communication from Minister Rodriguez, the
representative of the Greater Republic of Central America,
setting forth several unassailable objections of his
government to the methods of procedure. This final thrust
determined the fate of the bill, and a vote on it was not
taken. … The material points of Minister Rodriguez's
criticism, which caused the Senate bill in 1897 to be
withdrawn, were that some of the vital provisions of the
cessions under which the Maritime Canal Company had the right
to construct the canal were violated."

C. M. Stadden,
Latest Aspects of the Nicaragua Canal Project
(North American Review, December, 1898).
Congress now (June 4, 1897) passed an Act which created a
commission to examine all practicable routes for a canal
through Nicaragua, and report its judgment as to the best,
with an estimate of the cost of the work on such route. The
commissioners appointed were Admiral Walker, Professor Haupt,
and Colonel Hains. Their report, submitted to the President in
May, 1899, unanimously recommended the route described as
follows: "This line, leaving Brito, follows the left bank of
the Rio Grande to near Bueno Retiro, and crosses the western
divide to the valley of the Lajas, which it follows to Lake
Nicaragua. Crossing the lake to the head of the San Juan
river, it follows the upper river to near Boca San Carlos;
thence, in excavation, by the left bank of the river to the
San Juanillo and across the low country to Greytown, passing
to the northward of Lake Silico." But while the commissioners
agreed in finding this route preferable to any others in the
Nicaragua region, they disagreed seriously in their estimates
of cost, Colonel Hains, putting it at nearly $135,000,000,
while Admiral Walker and Professor Haupt placed the cost at
little more than $118,000,000. Before the report of this
Nicaragua Canal Commission was made, however, Congress (March
3, 1899) had directed the appointment of another commission to
examine and report upon all possible routes for an
interoceanic canal, in the Panama region and elsewhere, as
well as through Nicaragua and to determine the cost of
constructing such a canal and "placing it under the control,
management and ownership of the United States." This later
commission, known as the Isthmian Canal Commission, was made
up as follows:
Rear-Admiral John G. Walker, U. S. N.;
Samuel Pasco, of Florida;
Alfred Noble, C. E. of Illinois;
George S. Morrison, C. E., of New York;
Colonel Peter C. Hains, U. S. A.;
Professor William H. Burr, of Connecticut;
Lieutenant-Colonel Oswald H. Ernst, U. S. A.;
 Professor Lewis M. Haupt, C. E., of Pennsylvania;
Professor Emory R. Johnston, of Pennsylvania.

In his Message to Congress the next December, President

McKinley stated: "The contract of the Maritime Canal Company
of Nicaragua was declared forfeited by the Nicaraguan
Government on the 10th of October, on the ground of
nonfulfillment within the ten years' term stipulated in the
contract. The Maritime Canal Company has lodged a protest
against this action, alleging rights in the premises which
appear worthy of consideration. This Government expects that
Nicaragua will afford the protestants a full and fair hearing
upon the merits of the case." But another company had been put
into the place of the Maritime Canal Company, by action of
President Zelaya, of Nicaragua, who, in 1898, granted to
Edward Eyre and E. F. Cragin, who represented an American
Syndicate, the right to construct the canal when the contract
with the Maritime should have lapsed. This transaction,
however, lacked confirmation by Costa Rica and the United
States.

CANAL, Interoceanic, A. D. 1893-1900.

The Panama Canal Concession twice extended.
Formation of new company.

See (in this volume)

COLOMBIA: A. D. 1893-1900.

CANAL, Interoceanic, A. D. 1899 (December).

Transfer of the Panama Canal to an American company.

The transfer of the Panama Canal from the later French company
to an American company, chartered in New Jersey, was
accomplished in December, 1899. The new company received all
the property, rights, and powers of its French predecessor,
the consideration to be paid to the latter being mainly in the
form of shares in the American company.
Map of Central America showing the Isthmian Canal Routes
{67}

CANAL, Interoceanic, A. D. 1900 (November).

Preliminary report of the Isthmian Canal Commission in
favor of the Nicaragua route.

The preliminary report of the Isthmian Canal Commission,

appointed under the Act of March 3, 1899, was presented to the
President on the 30th November, 1900, and communicated to
Congress at the opening of the session. The Commission
reported in favor of the Nicaragua route, essentially on the
lines laid down by the previous Nicaragua Canal Commission, as
defined above. It found that the choice of routes lies between
this and the route of the partly constructed Panama Canal, and
its discussion of the question presented the following views:

"(a) Between New York and San Francisco, the Nicaragua Canal
route would be 377 nautical miles shorter than the Panama
route. Between New Orleans and San Francisco 579 miles would
be saved, and, in general, the distances between the Atlantic
and Pacific ports of the United States are less by way of
Nicaragua. Between our east coast and Yokohama and Shanghai
the Nicaragua route is somewhat shorter, but for the trade of
our eastern ports with the west coast of South America the
Panama route is not so long as the Nicaragua.

(b) A part of the saving in distance effected by using a

Nicaragua canal instead of one at Panama would be offset by
the longer time of transit at Nicaragua. An average steamer
would require twelve hours to make the passage through the
Panama Canal, and thirty-three through one across Nicaragua.
For a 10-knot steamer this difference of twenty-one hours
would be equivalent to 210 knots difference in distance, and
for a 13-knot steamer, the difference in time of transit would
be equivalent to 273 knots.
(c) The Nicaragua route would be the more favorable one for
sailing vessels because of the uncertain winds in the bay of
Panama. It would not be impossible for sailing vessels to use
the Panama Canal, but for average voyages between the two
seaboards of the United States, a sailing vessel would require
about nine days additional time to make the passage by way of
the Panama Canal. However, neither route would be much used by
sailing vessels, because of their inability to compete with
steamers. They would certainly not be able to compete with
steamers, both using the Panama Canal.

(d) For the promotion of the domestic trade of the United

States, the Nicaragua route would possess advantages over the
Panama route, because the distance between our two seaboards
is less. For our trade with Japan, China, the Philippines, and
Australia, the advantages of the two routes are nearly equal,
the distance by way of the Nicaragua route being slightly
less. For our trade with South America the Panama route is
shorter and more direct.

(e) The industrial changes which the Nicaragua Canal would

produce in the countries through which it will pass would be
great. Nicaragua and Costa Rica comprise a region capable of
producing a large amount of tropical products for which there
is a demand in Europe and the United States. A canal across
their territory would give a great impetus to their economic
development.

"A careful examination has been made of all the rights,

privileges, and franchises held and owned by corporations,
associations, and individuals at the different canal routes.
This necessarily included a study of the treaties relating to
the establishment of an interoceanic communication made by the
Republics, whose territory is to be occupied, and by the
United States, with one another, and also with foreign
governments. The treaties heretofore made exclude all idea of
a relinquishment of sovereignty over any of the proposed
routes. In most of them the right of transit and the innocent
use of the communication, whether by railway or canal, is
granted to the other contracting party, its citizens and
subjects, to be enjoyed upon equal terms with other
governments and people; and the leading commercial nations of
the world have committed themselves to the policy of
neutrality at the different routes, and some of them have
obligated themselves to use their influence to induce other
nations to agree to the same policy. No existing treaties
between the United States and the Republics of Nicaragua and
Costa Rica, or of Colombia, give our Government the right to
excavate and operate a maritime canal through any of these
countries. The concessions granted by the different Republics
through whose territory the lines of the projected canals
extend, in terms, exclude the right of the companies holding
them to transfer them to any foreign government, and further
treaty rights must be acquired to enable the United States to
undertake the excavation of a navigable waterway between the
two oceans in a governmental capacity. The only prior
obligations to corporations, associations, or individuals in
the way of a direct agreement between the United States and
Nicaragua authorizing our Government to construct a canal
across the territory of the latter, to be under its control,
management, and ownership, have been eliminated by the
forfeiture and termination of the contracts with the Maritime
Canal Company of Nicaragua and the Interoceanic Canal Company.
In view of this declaration the Commission has not made any
effort to ascertain the cost at which the concessions of these
companies can be purchased, for if these forfeitures are final
the rights formerly granted to these companies are not in the
way of diplomatic negotiations with the Government interested
to acquire the consent and authority necessary for the
construction of a canal by this route. The situation in Costa
Rica is practically the same.

"The situation at Panama is different. The Republic of

Colombia first granted a concession to the Panama Railroad
 Company, giving it exclusive privileges on the Isthmus, which
will continue according to modifications afterwards made for
ninety-nine years from August 16, 1867. A later concession to
the Panama Canal Company required it to enter into some
amicable arrangement with the railroad company under which the
former might occupy the territory along or near its line. The
canal company acquired by purchase a majority of the railroad
stock, and the necessary arrangements were made. This stock is
now under the control of the New Panama Canal Company, which
gives it a directing influence in both organizations. The
canal concession is to continue according to its latest
extension for ninety-nine years from the day on which the
canal shall be wholly or partially opened to public service,
and the date fixed for this in the contract is October 31,
1910. Should it fail and the concession be forfeited the
company will still have exclusive control of the territory
through which its line extends till 1966 under the railroad
concession. The canal company is absolutely prohibited to cede
or mortgage its rights under any consideration whatever to any
nation or foreign government under penalty of forfeiture.
{68}
The contract with the railroad company contains a like
prohibition and declares further that the pain of forfeiture
will be incurred by the mere act of attempting to cede or
transfer its privilege to a foreign government and such an act
is declared absolutely null and of no value or effect. These
concessions, if acquired by the United States, would not give
to the Government the control and ownership evidently
contemplated by the law, that is, an absolute ownership in
perpetuity. The right under the contract with the railroad
company is designated as 'the use and possession' of the
property for ninety-nine years, and it is provided that 'at
the expiration of the term of the privilege' and by the sole
fact of the expiration, the Government of Colombia shall be
substituted in all the rights of the company and shall
immediately enter into the enjoyment of the line of
communication, its fixtures, dependencies and all its
products. The right of the canal company is substantially of
the same character. … An examination of the charter rights of
the New Panama Canal Company under the general incorporation
laws of France and the special legislation in its behalf
resulted in finding an enactment, included in a law passed
June 8, 1888, requiring that all the plant necessary for the
construction of the canal shall be manufactured in France and
that the material must be of French origin. This being the
situation, it was manifest that, even if the privileges of the
companies could be purchased by and transferred to the United
States, they were encumbered with charges and conditions that
would not permit this Government to exercise all the rights of
complete ownership over a canal constructed by it at the
Panama route. A new arrangement is necessary if the United
States is to undertake such a work. The relinquishment by the
canal company, with the consent of Colombia, of the privileges
it has under existing concessions, for a consideration to be
agreed upon with the United States, would leave the way open
for treaty negotiations between the two governments to
ascertain whether Colombia will consent to the occupation of
its territory by the United States for the construction of a
canal to be under Government control, management, and
ownership, and, if so, whether they can agree upon terms
mutually satisfactory. The situation is peculiar, as there are
three parties in interest. The United States can enter into no
agreement with Colombia that does not have the approval of the
company, and the concessions do not permit the company to
transfer or attempt to transfer its rights to a foreign
government.

"The Commission has, however, attempted to ascertain the views

of the New Panama Canal Company with reference to a
disposition and transfer of its rights. Interviews were had
with its president and other officers during the visit to
Paris and on several occasions from time to time since then,
and on the 10th day of April last a formal letter was
addressed to Mr. Maurice Hutin, the president and
director-general, asking whether he was in a position to name
terms upon which the company would dispose of its property and
interests to the United States. At different times since then
the subject has been discussed by the representatives of the
company with the Commission and its committee on rights,
privileges, and franchises, but no formal reply to the letter
was received until this report was being closed. These
conferences and correspondence have resulted in no offer to
dispose of the property and privileges of the company to the
United States upon any terms, even with the consent of the
Colombian Government, nor has the company expressed any desire
or wish to enter into any negotiations with the United States
with reference to such a disposition of its property and
rights. It was proposed by President Hutin that the United
States might obtain control of the canal scheme as a majority
stockholder of a new organization to which the present company
could contribute its concession, plant, unfinished work, and
other property, at a valuation to be determined by
arbitration, and he expressed the opinion that such an
arrangement could be made without violating the concessions.
But this must include some plan for the protection of the
minority stockholders in the financial management, for they
would favor a policy that would realize liberal dividends in
proportion to the commercial value of the canal, while the
policy of this Government might be to reduce tolls and charges
to the cost of maintenance or even below it, if the interests
of the people would be thereby advanced. The plan, however,
which the company prefers is that outlined in its letter of
February 28, 1899, addressed to the President of the United
States, which has been published in Senate Document No. 188,
Fifty-Sixth Congress, first session, pages 41 and 42. This was
to reincorporate under the laws of New York or some other
State, and accord to the United States such representation in
its board of directors and such opportunity to acquire an
interest in its securities as its concessions permitted. And
an assurance was added to the effect that if the United States
should desire to perpetuate or enlarge its existing rights and
privileges acquired under the treaty of 1846, the company
would conform to such supplemental treaty as might be entered
into between the United States and Colombia. The Commission
having no other authority than to make investigations and
obtain information submits this result of its efforts to
ascertain upon what terms the rights and privileges at the
Panama route can be obtained. It is proper to add that the
examination of the title of the present company to the canal
property under the laws of France and Colombia has satisfied
this Commission that the New Panama Canal Company has the
entire control and management of the canal property. …

"The estimated cost of building the Nicaragua Canal is about

$58,000,000 more than that of completing the Panama Canal,
leaving out the cost of acquiring the latter property. This
measures the difference in the magnitude of the obstacles to
be overcome in the actual construction of the two canals, and
covers all physical considerations such as the greater or less
height of dams, the greater or less depth of cuts, the
presence or absence of natural harbors, the presence or
absence of a railroad, the exemption from or liability to
disease, and the amount of work remaining to be done. The New
Panama Canal Company has shown no disposition to sell its
property to the United States. Should that company be able and
willing to sell, there is reason to believe that the price
would not be such as would make the total cost to the United
States less than that of the Nicaragua Canal. … In view of all
the facts, and particularly in view of all the difficulties of
obtaining the necessary rights, privileges, and franchises on
the Panama route, and assuming that Nicaragua and Costa Rica
recognize the value of the canal to themselves and are
prepared to grant concessions on terms which are reasonable
and acceptable to the United States, the Commission is of the
opinion that 'the most practicable and feasible route for' an
isthmian canal to be 'under the control, management, and
ownership of the United States' is that known as the Nicaragua
route."
 United States, 56th Congress,
2d Session, Senate Doc. Number 5.

{69}

CANAL, Interoceanic, A. D. 1900 (December).

The Hay-Pauncefote Treaty between the United States and
Great Britain, to facilitate the construction of the Canal,
as amended by the United States Senate.

In his annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1900, President

McKinley had the following to say on the subject of the
Interoceanic Canal: "The all important matter of an
interoceanic canal has assumed a new phase. Adhering to its
refusal to reopen the question of the forfeiture of the
contract of the Maritime Canal Company, which was terminated
for alleged non-execution in October, 1899, the Government of
Nicaragua has since supplemented that action by declaring the
so-styled Eyre-Cragin option void for non-payment of the
stipulated advance. Protests in relation to these acts have
been filed in the State Department, and are under
consideration. Deeming itself relieved from existing
engagements, the Nicaraguan Government shows a disposition to
deal freely with the canal question either in the way of
negotiations with the United States or by taking measures to
promote the waterway. Overtures for a convention to effect the
building of a canal under the auspices of the United States
are under consideration. In the mean time, the views of the
Congress upon the general subject, in the light of the report
of the Commission appointed to examine the comparative merits
of the various trans-isthmian ship canal projects, may be
awaited. I commend to the early attention of the Senate the
convention with Great Britain to facilitate the construction
of such a canal, and to remove any objection which might arise
out of the convention commonly called the Clayton-Bulwer
Treaty."
On the terms of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty:

See, in volume 4,
NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

The Convention thus referred to was negotiated by the

Secretary of State of the United States. Mr. John Hay, with
the British Ambassador to the United States, Lord Pauncefote.
It was signed at Washington on the 5th of February, 1900, and
communicated by the President to the Senate on the same day.
The action of the Senate on the Convention was not taken until
after the opening of the session of Congress in December. It was
then ratified (December 20), but with three amendments which
seriously changed its character. The following is the text of
the Convention as ratified, with the Senate amendments
indicated:

"ARTICLE I.
It is agreed that the canal may be constructed under the
auspices of the Government of the United States, either
directly at its own cost, or by gift or loan of money to
individuals or corporations or through subscription to or
purchase of stock or shares, and that, subject to the
provisions of the present Convention, the said Government
shall have and enjoy all the rights incident to such
construction, as well as the exclusive right of providing for
the regulation and management of the canal.

"ARTICLE II.
The High Contracting Parties, desiring to preserve and
maintain the 'general principle' of neutralization established
in Article VIII of the Clayton-Bulwer Convention, [Added by
the Senate] which convention is hereby superseded, adopt, as
the basis of such neutralization, the following rules,
substantially as embodied in the convention between Great
Britain and certain other Powers, signed at Constantinople,
October 29, 1888, for the Free Navigation of the Suez Maritime
Canal, that is to say:

1. The canal shall be free and open, in time of war as in time

of peace, to the vessels of commerce and of war of all
nations, on terms of entire equality, so that there shall be
no discrimination against any nation or its citizens or
subjects in respect of the conditions or charges of traffic,
or otherwise.

2. The canal shall never be blockaded, nor shall any right of

war be exercised nor any act of hostility be committed within
it.

3. Vessels of war of a belligerent shall not revictual nor

take any stores in the canal except so far as may be strictly
necessary; and the transit of such vessels through the canal
shall be effected with the least possible delay, in accordance
with the regulations in force, and with only such intermission
as may result from the necessities of the service. Prizes
shall be in all respects subject to the same rules as vessels
of war of the belligerents.

4. No belligerent shall embark or disembark troops, munitions

of war or warlike materials in the canal except in case of
accidental hindrance of the transit, and in such case the
transit shall be resumed with all possible despatch.

5. The provisions of this article shall apply to waters

adjacent to the canal, within three marine miles of either
end. Vessels of war of a belligerent shall not remain in such
waters longer than twenty-four hours at any one time except in
case of distress, and in such case shall depart as soon as
possible; but a vessel of war of one belligerent shall not
depart within twenty-four hours from the departure of a vessel
of war of the other belligerent. [Added by the Senate] It is
agreed, however, that none of the immediately foregoing
conditions and stipulations in sections numbered one, two,
three, four and five of this article shall apply to measures
which the United States may find it necessary to take for
securing by its own forces the defense of the United States
and the maintenance of public order.

6. The plant, establishments, buildings, and all works

necessary to the construction, maintenance and operation of
the canal shall be deemed to be part thereof, for the purposes
of this Convention, and in time of war as in time of peace
shall enjoy complete immunity from attack or injury by
belligerents and from acts calculated to impair their
usefulness as part of the canal.

7. No fortifications shall be erected commanding the canal or

the waters adjacent. The United States, however, shall be at
liberty to maintain such military police along the canal as
may be necessary to protect it against lawlessness and
disorder.

"ARTICLE III.
The High Contracting Parties will, immediately upon the
exchange of the ratifications of this Convention, bring it to
the notice of the other Powers [and invite them to adhere to
it].
[Stricken out by the Senate.]

"ARTICLE: IV.
The present Convention shall be ratified by the President of
the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate thereof, and by Her Britannic Majesty; and the
ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington or at London
within six months from the date hereof, or earlier if
possible."

United States, 56th Congress, 1st Session,

Senate Document Number 160.
{70}

Anticipating the ratification of the above Treaty with Great

Britain, the President of the United States, in December,
1900, concluded agreements with the governments of Costa Rica
and Nicaragua, both of which were in the following terms:

"It is agreed between the two Governments that when the

President of the United States is authorized by law to acquire
control of such portion of the territory now belonging to [Costa
Rica and Nicaragua] as may be desirable and necessary on which
to construct and protect a canal of depth and capacity
sufficient for the passage of vessels of the greatest tonnage
and draft now in use from a point near San Juan del Norte, on
the Caribbean Sea, via Lake Nicaragua, to Brito, on the
Pacific Ocean, they mutually engage to enter into negotiations
with each other to settle the plan and the agreements, in detail,
found necessary to accomplish the construction and to provide
for the ownership and control of the proposed canal. As
preliminary to such future negotiations it is forthwith agreed
that the course of said canal and the terminals thereof shall
be the same that were stated in a treaty signed by the
plenipotentiaries of the United States and Great Britain on
February 5, 1900, and now pending in the Senate of the United
States for confirmation, and that the provisions of the same
shall be adhered to by the United States and [Costa Rica and
Nicaragua]." No action on these agreements was taken in the
Senate.

CANAL, Interoceanic, A. D. 1901 (March).

Rejection by the British Government of the Hay-Pauncefote
Treaty as amended by the U. S. Senate.

Early in March, soon after the adjournment of Congress, a

communication from Lord Lansdowne, the British Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs, declining with courtesy and in
friendly terms to accept the Senate amendments to the
Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, was received by Lord Pauncefote, the
British Ambassador at Washington. The objections urged most
strongly are against those amendments which touch the
neutrality of the proposed canal and its unimpeded use in time
of war as well as in time of peace. "The first of them," said
Lord Lansdowne, "which reserves to the United States the right
of taking any measures which they may find necessary to secure by
their own forces the defence of the United States, appears to
His Majesty's government to involve a distinct departure from
the principle which has until now found acceptance with both
governments; the principle, namely, that in time of war, as
well as in time of peace, the passage of the canal is to
remain free and unimpeded, and is to be so maintained by the
power or powers responsible for its control. Were this
amendment added to the convention the United States would, it
is presumed, be within their rights, if, at any moment when it
seemed to them that their safety required it, in view of
warlike preparations not yet commenced, but contemplated or
supposed to be contemplated by another power, they resorted to
warlike acts in or near the canal—acts clearly inconsistent
with the neutral character which it has always been sought to
give it, and which would deny the free use of it to the
commerce and navies of the world. … If the new clause were to
be added, the obligation to respect the neutrality of the
canal in all circumstances would, so far as Great Britain is
concerned, remain in force; the obligation of the United
States, on the other hand, would be essentially modified. The
result would be a onesided arrangement, under which Great
Britain would be debarred from any warlike action in or around
the canal, while the United States would be liable to resort to
such action to whatever extent they might deem necessary to
secure their own safety."

To the contention that there is a specific prohibition in the

Hay-Pauncefote treaty against the erection of fortifications,
and that this would sufficiently insure the free use of the
canal, Lord Lansdowne replies that this "contention is one
which His Majesty's government are quite unable to admit." He
notes the vagueness of language in the amendment, and says:
"Even if it were more precisely worded it would be impossible
to determine what might be the effect if one clause permitting
defensive measures and another forbidding fortifications were
allowed to stand side by side in the convention. To His
Majesty's government it seems, as I have already said, that
the amendment might be construed as leaving it open to the
United States at any moment, not only if war existed, but even
if it were anticipated, to take any measures, however
stringent or far-reaching, which in their own judgment might
be represented as suitable for the purpose of protecting their
national interests. Such an enactment would strike at the very
root of that 'general principle' of neutralization upon which
the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was based, and which was reaffirmed
in the convention as drafted."

As to the third Senate amendment, which struck out the

provision inviting the adherence of other powers, Lord
Lansdowne says: "The amendment not only removes all prospect
of the wider guarantee of the neutrality of the canal, but
places this country in a position of marked disadvantage
compared with other powers which would not be subject to the
self-denying ordinance which Great Britain is desired to
accept. It would follow, were His Majesty's government to
agree to such an arrangement, that while the United States
would have a treaty right to interfere with the canal in time
of war, or apprehended war, and while other powers could with
a clear conscience disregard any of the restrictions imposed
by the convention, Great Britain alone, in spite of her
enormous possessions on the American Continent, in spite of
the extent of her Australasian colonies and her interests in
the East, would be absolutely precluded from resorting to any
such action or from taking measures to secure her interests in
and near the canal."