| Literature DB >> 30340312 |
Xiang Zhong1, Xicheng Gao2, Huaxia Deng3, Shisong Zhao4, Mengchao Ma5, Jin Zhang6, Jianquan Li7.
Abstract
A pulse-width multiplexing method for reducing the nuisance-alarm rate of a phase-sensitive optical time-domain reflectometer ( ϕ -OTDR) is described. In this method, light pulses of different pulse-widths are injected into the sensing fiber; the data acquired at different pulse-widths are regarded as the outputs of different sensors; and these data are then processed by a multisensor data fusion algorithm. In laboratory tests with a sensing fiber on a vibrating table, the effects of pulse-width on the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the ϕ -OTDR data are observed. Furthermore, by utilizing the SNR as the feature in a feature-layer algorithm based on Dempster⁻Shafer evidential theory, a four-pulse-width multiplexing ϕ -OTDR system is constructed, and the nuisance-alarm rate is reduced by about 70%. These experimental results show that the proposed method has great potential for perimeter protection, since the nuisance-alarm rate is significantly reduced by using a simple configuration.Entities:
Keywords: multisensor data fusion; nuisance-alarm rate; pulse-width multiplexing; ϕ-OTDR
Year: 2018 PMID: 30340312 PMCID: PMC6210468 DOI: 10.3390/s18103509
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the pulse-width multiplexing method.
Figure 2Examples of the optical structure. LS, laser source; EDFA, erbium-doped fiber amplifier; PD, photodetector.
Figure 3Experimental setup for determining the influence of the pulse-width on SNR. SOA, semiconductor optical amplifier.
Figure 4Experimental setup for characterizing the pulse-width multiplexing -OTDR system.
Figure 5Detection times and corresponding averaged SNR at different pulse-widths.
False-alarm times at different pulse-widths during 24 h.
| Pulse-Width | 100 ns | 200 ns | 300 ns | 400 ns | 500 ns | 600 ns | 700 ns | 800 ns | 900 ns | 1000 ns |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| False-alarm times | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 11 | 8 | 14 | 13 |
Figure 6The waveforms of H at different pulse-width.
Fusion results.
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.2 | 0 | 0.200 | 0 | 0.800 |
| 0.4 | 0.544 | 0 | 0.456 | 0 |
| 0.6 | 0.717 | 0 | 0.283 | 0 |
| 0.8 | 0.852 | 0 | 0.148 | 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.2 | 0 | 0.200 | 0 | 0.800 |
| 0.4 | 0 | 0.200 | 0 | 0.800 |
| 0.6 | 0 | 0.200 | 0 | 0.800 |
| 0.8 | 0.553 | 0 | 0.447 | 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Experimental results for the nuisance-alarm rate from traditional -OTDR, four-channel -OTDR and four-pulse-width -OTDR.
| Optical Structure | Traditional | Four-Channel | Four-Pulse-Width |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knocking times | 500 | 500 | 500 |
| Detection times | 452 | 473 | 489 |
| False alarm | 7 | 5 | 2 |
| Missing-alarm rate |
|
|
|
| False-alarm rate | 2.6 times/km/month | 1.9 times/km/month | 0.7 times/km/month |