Acta Optica Sinica, Volume. 44, Issue 1, 0106002(2024)
Advances in High-Performance Optical Frequency Domain Distributed Fiber Optical Measuring and Sensing Technology
Figures & Tables(31)
![Influence of the laser source phase noise on the PSF[66]. (a)(b) Influence of frequency tuning nonlinearity; (c) PSF under the influence of stochastic phase noise (linewidth is 200 kHz, tuning rate is 5 THz/s)](/Images/icon/loading.gif){kind=icon}
Fig. 4. Influence of the laser source phase noise on the PSF[66]. (a)(b) Influence of frequency tuning nonlinearity; (c) PSF under the influence of stochastic phase noise (linewidth is 200 kHz, tuning rate is 5 THz/s)
Fig. 5. Compensation results at each position when the measurement distance is 100 m[79]
Fig. 7. Compensation results of 8 km measurement distance[56]. (a) Comparison of the results by optimized deskew filter and PPNE deskew filter; (b) comparison of spatial resolution
Fig. 9. Mapping diagram of RBS in spatial domain, spectral domain and phase domain
Fig. 11. Validation of extremal relationships for strain accuracy measurements. (a) Signal-to-noise ratio versus strain accuracy; (b) sweep range versus strain accuracy; (c) strain spatial resolution versus strain accuracy
Fig. 13. Differential relative phase demodulation process based on RBS phase[107]
Fig. 15. Strain measuring results by SSM-OFDR[65]. (a) Results before and after spectral splicing; (b) close-up view; (c) large strain measuring
Fig. 20. SV-OFDR distributed strain measuring results. (a) Large strain demodulation results; (b)(c) vibration signal demodulation results
Fig. 21. Typical OFDR instruments. (a) Luna OBR-4600; (b) Mega-Sense Co. LGA50; (c) GDUT OFDS
Fig. 22. Ultra-long distance optical fiber and link measuring application[55]. (a) Fiber link loss of OFDR controlled by optical phase locking; (b)(c) measurement accuracies of optical fiber loss at 10 km and 100 km
Fig. 24. Typical application of distributed acoustic sensing[138]. (a) Observed acoustic signal in long-term deep sea floor observatory; (b)measured seismic profiles of the surface wave
Fig. 25. 3 km fiber coil strain measurement results. (a) Strain results under different temperature excitations; (b) interlayer strain; (c) interturn strain
Table 1. Connotation and extension of distributed testing and sensing technology
View tableTable 1. Connotation and extension of distributed testing and sensing technology
Location method Time
domain
Frequency
domain
Coherent
domain
Correlation domain
（Chaos，coding）
RBS Intensity （ν）OTDR［ 18 ］OFDR［ 19 ］OLCR/OCDR［ 20 ］Chaos-OTDR［ 21 ］Phase Φ-OTDR［ 22 ］Φ-OFDR［ 23 ］Φ-OLCR［ 24 ］— TGD-OFDR［
25 ］（coherent detection）
CP-Phi-OTDR［
26 ］（direct detection）
Polarization POTDR［ 27 ］POFDR［ 13 ］PS-OLCR［ 28 ］— Raman scattering Spontaneous ROTDR［ 29 ］ROFDR［ 30 ］— Chaos-ROTDR［ 31 ］Stimulated ROTDA［ 32 ］— — — Brillouin scattering Spontaneous BOTDR［ 33 ］BOFDR［ 34 ］BOCDR［ 35 ］Chaos-BOTDR［ 36 ］Stimulated BOTDA［ 37 ］BOFDA［ 38 ］BOCDA［ 39 ］Chaos-BOTDA［
40 ］BOCDA（coding）［
15 ］Forward coupling/ scattering Polarization crosstalk POTDR［ 41 ］OFDP［ 42 ］OCDP［ 43 ］— FSBS［ 44 ］FSBS-OTDA［ 45 ］— — — BGD BGD-BOTDA［ 46 ］— — —
Table 2. Comparison of frequency tuning nonlinearity compensation methods
View tableTable 2. Comparison of frequency tuning nonlinearity compensation methods
Method Year Laser parameter Performance RRP Linewidth Tunable range Frequency sampling Polarization diversity detection［ 13 ］2005 200 kHz 37.5 nm 22 μm@35m 1.59×106 Resampling algorithm HTCM［ 51 ］2005 100 kHz 1 nm 3 cm@3 m 1.00×102 Envelope detection［ 74 ］2009 1 MHz 1 nm 0.4 cm@150 m 3.75×104 NUFFT［ 75 ］2012 1.2 MHz 2 nm 5 cm@50 m 1.00×103 Time-scale factor［ 76 ］2019 100 kHz 9 nm 0.17 mm@155 m 9.12×105 Intergrated point［ 77 ］2020 — 20 nm 41 μm@50 m 1.22×106 Equal frequency［ 78 ］2021 200 kHz 130 nm 21.3 μm@191 m 8.97×106 Interpolation frequency［ 79 ］2023 200 kHz 150 nm 14.9 μm@100 m 6.71×106
Table 3. Comparison of phase noise compensation methods
View tableTable 3. Comparison of phase noise compensation methods
Method Year Laser parameter Performance RRP Linewidth Tunable range External modulation SSB-SC［ 80 ］2008 2 kHz 16 GHz cm-level@5 km 5.00×105 Active servo-loop OPLL［ 49 ］2019 5 kHz 1 GHz 72 cm@200 km 2.78×105 High-order OPLL［ 55 ］2020 5 kHz 8 GHz 4.3 cm@242 km 5.63×106 Multi-loop［ 81 ］2021 A few kHz 60 GHz 1.67 mm@3.23 km 1.93×106 Dual-loop［ 82 ］2021 5 kHz 8.2 GHz 3.7 cm@185 km 5.00×106 PNC-based method Bandwidth-division［ 83 ］2011 4 kHz 15 GHz 5 cm@40 km 8.00×105 Hardware-adaptive［ 84 ］2019 1 kHz 2 GHz 7 cm@100 km 1.43×106 Deskew-
filter-based algorithm
Deskew filter［ 53 ］2013 1 kHz 1 GHz 1.6 m@80 km 5.00×104 Optimized deskew filter［ 85 ］2014 1 kHz 1 GHz 0.8 m@80 km 1.00×105 PPNE deskew filter［ 56 ］2022 60 kHz 375 GHz 522 μm@8 km 1.53×107
Table 4. Analysis of constraints on OFDR sensing performance
View tableTable 4. Analysis of constraints on OFDR sensing performance
Performance degradation Mechanism Noise Effect Origins Poor sensing distance and spatial resolution Range
ambiguity，
RBS
distortion
Phase noise Nonlinear frequency sweeping Tunable laser
Environmental
Strain/Vibration
Temperature
…
Phase noise of laser Thermo-optic effect Elasto-optical effect Dispersion
…
Strain accuracy and range degradation Amplitude noise Parasitic amplitude modulation Polarization fading Spectral filtering of device
…
Table 5. Overview of OFDR sensing performance
View tableTable 5. Overview of OFDR sensing performance
Method Year Length Spatial resolution Strain/Temperature Rate Range Accuracy Intensity Spatial domain correlation analysis［96］ 2016 42 km 11.6 m N/A N/A 500 Hz Frequency controlled OTDR［94］ 2009 8 km N/A 2 με 89 nε Static（~s） 0.22 ℃ 0.01 ℃ Phase Phase accumulation［112］ 2022 13.5 m 18 mm 14000 με 0.48 με Static（~s） Scattering enhancement［110］ 2022 10.4 m 0.2 mm 1400 με 1.3 με Static（~s） Polarization diversity detection［111］ 2023 2.5 m 1 mm 400 με 5 με Static（~s） Spectral Spectral splicing［65］ 2023 1 km 1 cm 10000 με ±1.1 µε Static（~s） Nonlinear correction［73］ 2014 300 m 7 cm 568 με 2.3 με Static（~s） 50 ℃ 0.7 ℃ Static（~s） Kalman prediction［100］ 2022 50 m 5 mm 10000 με 5 µε Static（~s） 450 ℃ 0.5 ℃ Zero-mean normalized cross correlation［102］ 2018 22 m 1.6 cm 5000 με 50 με Static（~s） Distance compensation［98］ 2022 10.4 m 2 mm 10000 με N/A Static（~s） Spectral vernier 2023 10 m 20 cm 10856 με 0.4 με19 nε/Hz 2.4 kHz Spectrum registration & GPU（graphics processing unit）［92］ 2019 1.2 m 5 mm 200 με 20 με 100 Hz 1000 με 20 Hz
Table 6. Performance comparison of OFDR instruments
View tableTable 6. Performance comparison of OFDR instruments
Type Country Maker Model Length Spatial resolution Amplitude Measuring rate Range Accuracy RBS USA Luna Inc. OBR-4600 70 m 20 μm 80 dB -130 dB 3 s 2 km 1 mm 60 dB China Jun Long OFDR 120 m 5 mm 65 dB -65 dB 15 s BACIRI OFFD-L-2502 25 m 2 mm 50 dB -120 dB 1 s Mega-Sense Co. OCI 100 m 20 μm 80 dB -130 dB 12 s GDUT OFDR-D 100 m 20 μm 90 dB -135 dB 5 s OFDR-F 5 km 0.5 mm 70 dB -130 dB 10 s Japan Santec SPA-100 4.5 m 6 μm 70 dB -135 dB 5 s Sensing USA Luna Inc. OBR-4600 70 m 1 cm ±15000 με ±1 με 3 s ODiSI-6000 20 m 0.65 mm ±15000 με ±5 με 12.5 Hz 100 m 2.6 mm ±15000 με ±2 με 10 Hz China Mega-Sense Co. OSI-S 100 m 1 mm（min） ±12000 με ±1 με — OSI-D 20 m 0.65 mm ±12000 με ±4 με 50 Hz GDUT. OFDS-H 100 m 2 mm ±12000 με ±2 με 8 s OFDS-S 5 km 5 cm ±12000 με ±0.5 με 30 s
Tools
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
Jun Yang, Cuofu Lin, Chen Zou, Zhangjun Yu, Yuncai Wang, Yuwen Qin. Advances in High-Performance Optical Frequency Domain Distributed Fiber Optical Measuring and Sensing Technology[J]. Acta Optica Sinica, 2024, 44(1): 0106002
Paper Information
Category: Fiber Optics and Optical Communications
Received: Sep. 14, 2023
Accepted: Nov. 8, 2023
Published Online: Jan. 5, 2024
The Author Email: Yang Jun (yangj@gdut.edu.cn)
© Copyright 2018-2021 | Chinese Laser Press.
All Rights Reserved 沪ICP备15018463号-20