Full Range and High Precision Laser CH<sub>4</sub> Sensor Based on Algorithm Fusion

Yunlong Liu; Songfeng Yin; Yue Cheng; Xiang Zou

doi:10.3788/LOP232594

Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, Volume. 61, Issue 17, 1728002(2024)

Full Range and High Precision Laser CH₄ Sensor Based on Algorithm Fusion

Yunlong Liu¹, Songfeng Yin^2,3、*, Yue Cheng^2,3, and Xiang Zou¹

Author Affiliations

¹School of Electronic and Information Engineering, Anhui Jianzhu University, Hefei 230601, Anhui, China

²Hefei Institute for Public Safety Research, Tsinghua University, Hefei 230601, Anhui, China

³Hefei Tsingsensor Technology Co., Ltd., Hefei 230601, Anhui, China

show less

Abstract Get PDF(in Chinese)

Figures & Tables(15)

Fig. 1. Structural design diagram of TDLAS full range laser CH₄ sensor. (a) Optical path structure diagram; (b) physical structure diagram

Download full size

Fig. 2. Logical structure diagram of system

Download full size

Fig. 3. PD received and demodulation signals. (a) PD receiving signal; (b) 2f/1f signal; (c) absorbance signal

Download full size

$Different volume fraction RMSE distribution. (a) Fuzzy upper bound RMSE distribution; (b) fuzzy lower bound RMSE distribution$

Fig. 4. Different volume fraction RMSE distribution. (a) Fuzzy upper bound RMSE distribution; (b) fuzzy lower bound RMSE distribution

Download full size

Fig. 5. S-type membership function

Download full size

$WMS-2f/1f calibration experiment. (a) 2f/1f signals at different volume fractions; (b) calibration fitting result$

Fig. 6. WMS-2f/1f calibration experiment. (a) 2f/1f signals at different volume fractions; (b) calibration fitting result

Download full size

$DAS calibration experiment. (a) Absorbance signals at different volume fractions; (b) calibration fitting results$

Fig. 7. DAS calibration experiment. (a) Absorbance signals at different volume fractions; (b) calibration fitting results

Download full size

Fig. 8. Full range retest results. (a) Retest results and errors; (b) linear fitting of retest values to true values

Download full size

Fig. 9. 3×10^-4 standard CH₄ gas 2f/1f measurement result

Download full size

$Stability test result. (a) Long-term measurement results of 1.0×10-2 volume fraction gas; (b) histogram Gaussian fitting$

Fig. 10. Stability test result. (a) Long-term measurement results of 1.0×10^-2 volume fraction gas; (b) histogram Gaussian fitting

Download full size

Table 1. C_WMSmeasurement results

View table

Table 1. C_WMSmeasurement results

Standard volume fraction /10^-2	Measurement volume fraction/10^-2
Standard volume fraction /10^-2	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
0.5	0.496	0.505	0.496	0.502	0.508	0.514	0.508	0.510	0.502	0.513
1.0	1.026	0.994	0.997	1.013	0.995	1.015	1.006	0.999	0.985	1.015
1.5	1.502	1.497	1.505	1.508	1.494	1.498	1.501	1.503	1.498	1.509
2.0	1.988	1.999	2.002	2.004	2.000	1.989	1.995	1.998	2.001	1.989
2.5	2.487	2.492	2.489	2.494	2.493	2.495	2.489	2.495	2.496	2.485
3.0	2.925	2.887	2.880	2.882	2.937	2.964	2.872	2.893	2.970	2.887
4.0	3.838	3.750	3.814	3.852	3.805	3.915	3.780	3.819	3.910	3.854
5.0	4.726	4.675	4.711	4.713	4.750	4.834	4.741	4.753	4.671	4.782

Table 2. C_DASmeasurement results

View table

Table 2. C_DASmeasurement results

Standard volume fraction /10^-2	Measurement volume fraction/10^-2
Standard volume fraction /10^-2	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
0.5	0.479	0.468	0.442	0.428	0.408	0.396	0.729	0.708	0.341	0.483
1.0	0.922	0.937	0.979	0.946	0.798	0.765	0.816	0.821	0.757	0.857
1.5	1.621	1.487	1.514	1.484	1.572	1.394	1.485	1.379	1.374	1.484
2.0	2.144	2.076	2.015	1.991	2.005	1.885	1.996	1.894	1.845	2.017
2.5	2.452	2.546	2.485	2.494	2.497	2.465	2.504	2.512	2.476	2.509
3.0	2.797	2.785	3.054	2.874	3.008	2.916	3.019	3.120	2.886	3.043
4.0	3.887	3.883	3.943	3.990	3.940	3.955	3.820	4.033	3.896	3.792
5.0	5.066	5.042	5.010	4.982	4.981	5.047	5.132	5.098	5.012	5.015

Table 3. RMSE comparison of different methods
View table
Table 3. RMSE comparison of different methods
Reference Method
Switch
threshold /10^-2
RMSE
［22］ DAS None 9.95×10^-2
［20，24，26］ WMS+DAS 3.1（optimized） 5.39×10^-2
This paper WMS+DAS 2.4-3.8 4.85×10^-2

Table 4. Retest results and error analysis

View table

Table 4. Retest results and error analysis

Standard volume fraction /10^-2	Measurement volume fraction /10^-2	Measurement error /10^-2	Relative error /%
0.30	0.302‒0.311	0.002‒0.011	0.67‒3.67
0.80	0.810‒0.826	0.010‒0.026	1.25‒3.25
1.25	1.250‒1.275	0.000‒0.025	0.00‒2.00
2.50	2.460‒2.497	-0.040‒-0.003	-1.60‒-0.12
12.00	11.366‒11.476	-0.634‒-0.524	-5.28‒-4.37
25.00	24.014‒24.270	-0.986‒-0.730	-3.94‒-2.92
50.00	49.299‒49.620	-0.701‒-0.380	-1.40‒-0.76
70.00	71.373‒71.832	1.373‒1.832	1.96‒2.62
99.98	100.358‒101.228	0.378‒1.248	0.38‒1.25

Table 5. Sensor performance comparison

View table

Table 5. Sensor performance comparison

Reference	Detectable range /10^-6	Detection limit /10^-6	Absorption length /m	Integral gas volume fraction /10^-6
［24］	Full range	227.00	0.06	13.62
［26］	Full range	64.80	0.10	6.48
［27］	0‒5×10⁴	29.52	0.40	11.81
This paper	Full range	30.40	0.07	2.13

Tools

Get Citation

Copy Citation Text

Yunlong Liu, Songfeng Yin, Yue Cheng, Xiang Zou. Full Range and High Precision Laser CH₄ Sensor Based on Algorithm Fusion[J]. Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, 2024, 61(17): 1728002

Download Citation

EndNote(RIS)BibTex Plain Text

Set citation alerts for article

Save article for my favorites