Research on turbulent phase detection method based on phase generated carrier and unwrapping technology

TONG Jie; MEI Haiping; REN Yichong; TAO Zhiwei

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1007-5461.2025.02.012

Journals >Chinese Journal of Quantum Electronics >Volume 42 >Issue 2 >Page 265 > Article

Chinese Journal of Quantum Electronics
Vol. 42, Issue 2, 265 (2025)

Research on turbulent phase detection method based on phase generated carrier and unwrapping technology

TONG Jie^1,2,3, MEI Haiping^1,3,*, REN Yichong^1,3, and TAO Zhiwei^1,3

Author Affiliations

¹Key Laboratory of Atmospheric Optics, Anhui Institute of Optics and Precision Mechanics, HFIPSChinese Academy of Sciences, Hefei 230031

²Science Island Branch, Graduate School of University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China

³Advanced Laser Technology Laboratory of Anhui Province, Hefei 230037, China

show less

DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-5461.2025.02.012 Cite this Article

Jie TONG, Haiping MEI, Yichong REN, Zhiwei TAO. Research on turbulent phase detection method based on phase generated carrier and unwrapping technology[J]. Chinese Journal of Quantum Electronics, 2025, 42(2): 265 Copy Citation Text

show less

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of optical fiber turbulence measurement system

Download full size | View in the Article

Fig. 2. Flow chart of the basic algorithm for phase unwrapping

Download full size | View in the Article

Fig. 3. Comparison of the demodulated phase of the two algorithms with the simulated phase (left) and comparison of the absolute error between the two algorithms (right) under the conditions of strong turbulence (a)(b),medium turbulence (c)(d) and weak turbulence (e)(f)

Download full size | View in the Article

Fig. 4. Before (a)(b) and after (c)(d) dynamic tracking of modulation frequency, comparison of demodulation phase (left) and absolute difference (right) between the two algorithms

Download full size | View in the Article

Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of the fiber optic turbulence system measurement device

Download full size | View in the Article

Parameter	Strong turbulence		Medium turbulence		Weak turbulence
	PGCU	DCM	PGCU	DCM	PGCU	DCM
Mean / $r a d$	$- 2.7984 \times 10^{- 8}$	$- 3.1650 \times 10^{- 1}$	$\begin{matrix} - 1.1103 \end{matrix} \times 10^{- 11}$	$4.71 \times 10^{- 2}$	$\begin{matrix} 2.7968 \times 10^{- 14} \end{matrix}$	$- 2.4017 \times 10^{- 3}$
Variance / $r a d^{2}$	$3.5831 \times 10^{- 6}$	$1.6021 \times 10^{- 3}$	$\begin{matrix} 2.5500 \times 10^{- 12} \end{matrix}$	$1.0231 \times 10^{- 4}$	$2.8263 \times 10^{- 18}$	$2.9646 \times 10^{- 7}$

Table 1. Comparison of mean error and variance between PGCU and DCM algorithms under different turbulence intensities

		Absolute error/rad
Amplitude/rad		100 Hz	200 Hz	300 Hz	400 Hz	500 Hz	600 Hz	700 Hz	800 Hz	900 Hz
4	PGCU	$4.77 \times 10^{- 4}$	0.25	0.84	3.89	3.55	3.97	4.47	4.38	5.24
4	DCM	0.0302	0.919	3.14	4.48	3.89	4.05	4.25	4.63	4.93
0.4	PGCU	$2.60 \times 10^{- 12}$	$5.29 \times 10^{- 6}$	$9.29 \times 10^{- 5}$	$2.82 \times 10^{- 3}$	$1.26 \times 10^{- 2}$	$2.57 \times 10^{- 2}$	$2.57 \times 10^{- 2}$	$2.21 \times 10^{- 2}$	$2.57 \times 10^{- 2}$
0.4	DCM	0.0289	0.029	0.0292	0.0346	0.00429	0.0337	0.0348	0.728	0.0375
0.04	PGCU	$2.29 \times 10^{- 12}$	$5.46 \times 10^{- 11}$	$5.63 \times 10^{- 9}$	$2.68 \times 10^{- 6}$	$1.33 \times 10^{- 5}$	$1.68 \times 10^{- 4}$	$1.68 \times 10^{- 4}$	$1.56 \times 10^{- 4}$	$1.68 \times 10^{- 4}$
0.04	DCM	0.01261	0.01263	0.01264	0.01274	0.01265	0.01277	0.01286	0.01287	0.01287

Table 2. Comparison of absolute demodulation error of sine wave signals with different frequencies and amplitudes between PGCU and DCM algorithms

Modulation frequency/Hz	Range of error/rad		Mean/rad		Variance/rad²
Modulation frequency/Hz	PGCU	DCM	PGCU	DCM	PGCU	DCM
2000	$- 0.020 ~ 0.017$	0.353 $~$ 0.532	$- 4.854 \times 10^{- 8}$	0.443	$2.927 \times 10^{- 6}$	0.001
3000	$- 3.540 \times 10^{- 3} ~ 3.547 \times 10^{- 3}$	0.438 $~$ 0.451	$- 8.832 \times 10^{- 9}$	0.445	$9.253 \times 10^{- 8}$	$7.299 \times 10^{- 7}$
4000	$- 7.362 \times 10^{- 4} ~ 6.921 \times 10^{- 4}$	0.442 $~$ 0.444	$1.713 \times 10^{- 10}$	0.443	$2.238 \times 10^{- 9}$	$2.970 \times 10^{- 8}$
5000	$- 1.890 \times 10^{- 4} ~ 1.904 \times 10^{- 4}$	0.442 $~$ 0.444	$- 9.260 \times 10^{- 11}$	0.443	$9.293 \times 10^{- 11}$	$2.658 \times 10^{- 8}$
6000	$- 3.317 \times 10^{- 6} ~ 3.791 \times 10^{- 6}$	0.442 $~$ 0.444	$1.996 \times 10^{- 15}$	0.443	$\begin{matrix} 2.816 \times 10^{- 14} \end{matrix}$	$2.649 \times 10^{- 8}$
7000	$- 1.238 \times 10^{- 6} ~ 1.316 \times 10^{- 6}$	0.442 $~$ 0.444	$9.288 \times 10^{- 14}$	0.443	$1.092 \times 10^{- 15}$	$2.648 \times 10^{- 8}$

Table 3. Comparison of absolute demodulation errors between PGCU and DCM algorithms when modulation frequency increases in strong turbulence

The actual phase difference/rad	6.76	7.90	8.85	10.51	10.53	12.19	12.39	12.56	13.70	15.30	17.53	18.34	19.66
Demodulation phase difference/rad	6.84	7.71	8.68	9.29	9.96	10.94	12.14	12.82	13.93	14.84	16.06	16.86	17.86
Absolute difference/rad	0.08	0.19	0.17	1.22	0.57	1.25	0.25	0.26	0.23	0.46	1.47	1.48	1.8
Relative difference value/%	1.18	2.41	1.92	11.61	5.41	10.25	2.02	2.07	1.68	3.00	8.39	8.07	9.18

Table 4. Comparison of demodulation phase from PGCU algorithm and measurement phase

Download Citation

Save the article for my favorites

Paper Information

微信扫一扫：分享

微信扫一扫：分享