| Literature DB >> 29925782 |
Wenrong Si1, Chenzhao Fu2, Delin Li3,4, Haoyong Li5,6, Peng Yuan7, Yiting Yu8,9.
Abstract
Extrinsic Fabry⁻Perot (FP) interferometric sensors are being intensively applied for partial discharge (PD) detection and localization. Previous research work has mainly focused on novel structures and materials to improve the sensitivity and linear response of these sensors. However, the directional response behavior of an FP ultrasonic sensor is also of particular importance in localizing the PD source, which is rarely considered. Here, the directional sensitivity of a microelectromechanical system (MEMS)-based FP ultrasonic sensor with a 5-μm-thick micromechanical vibrating diaphragm is experimentally investigated. Ultrasonic signals from a discharge source with varying incident angles and linear distances are measured and analyzed. The results show that the sensor has a 5.90 dB amplitude fluctuation over a ±60° incident range and an exciting capability to detect weak PD signals from 3 m away due to its high signal⁻noise ratio. The findings are expected to optimize the configuration of a sensor array and accurately localize the PD source.Entities:
Keywords: Fabry–Perot; fiber-optic sensors; partial discharges; ultrasonic sensor
Year: 2018 PMID: 29925782 PMCID: PMC6022144 DOI: 10.3390/s18061975
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Schematic of the proposed ultrasonic sensing system. DAQ, data acquisition; SMF, single mode fiber.
Figure 2Intensity response of Fabry–Perot (FP) cavity.
Figure 3The schematic of fabrication process and the sensor chip structure. SOI, silicon-on-insulator; DRIE, deep reactive ion etching.
Figure 4Photographs of (a) SOI diaphragm structure and the sensor chip; (b) a packaged extrinsic Fabry–Perot interferometric (EFPI) sensor probe.
Comparison with the four latest EFPI ultrasonic sensors.
| Sensor Fabrication | Ref. [ | Ref. [ | Ref. [ | Ref. [ | Present Work | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EFPI diaphragm | material | PPS * | graphene | silica | PTFE * | silicon |
| thickness | 1.2 μm | 0.1 μm | 75 μm | 30 µm | 5 μm | |
| diameter | 4.9 mm | 0.125 mm | 1.8 mm | 2 mm | 1.12 mm | |
| resonant frequency | 40 kHz | 10 kHz | 252 kHz | 300 kHz | 60 kHz | |
| sensitivity | / | 1100 nm/kPa | 3.9 nm/kPa | / | 733 nm/kPa | |
| fabrication process | FP cavity length control | nanometer displacement table | translation stage | translation stage | micrometer | self-adjusted by the stepped hole |
| assembling | ferrule, capillary, and fiber fixed by epoxy | ferrule and fiber held by curable gel, grapheme diaphragm transferred from the sample | silica diaphragm, ferrule, and sleeve with fiber bonded by thermal laser welding | PTFE diaphragm, tubes, and fiber bonded by glue | sensor chip, tube, and fiber fixed by glue | |
| productivity | low | low | low | low | high | |
* Where PPS is polyphenylene sulfide and PTFE is polytetrafluoretyhylene.
Figure 5(a) Photograph of the experimental setup; (b) The detected ultrasonic signal from the pulse igniter.
Figure 6Ultrasonic signals detected at different incident angles and distances.
Figure 7Ultrasonic signals detected at different linear distances.
Figure 8Ultrasonic signal waveforms at d = 100 cm, 200 cm, and 300 cm in (a) the time domain; (b) the frequency domain.