Fig. 1. The overall process of the proposed method
Fig. 2. Mach-Zehnder system sensing schematic diagram
Fig. 3. BLCD-IF screening process
Fig. 4. Deep belief network structure
Fig. 5. Measured climbing signal envelope
Fig. 6. Comparison of decomposition results of different decomposition methods
Fig. 7. Four typical intrusion signals
Fig. 8. Comparison of four characteristic parameters
Fig. 9. Comparison of convergence iteration times of different methods
Linewidth of a laser | Power | Sensor module | Sampling rate of the collector | Collected number |
---|
2 kHz | 25 mW | Standard single mode fiber | sample/s | 100 000 |
|
Table 1. Experimental instruments and related parameters
Decomposition method | Correlation coefficient | Root mean square error |
---|
ISC1 | ISC2 | ISC3 | ISC1 | ISC2 | ISC3 |
---|
LCD | 0.751 5 | 0.513 3 | 0.509 5 | 0.041 7 | 0.041 0 | 0.046 4 | BLCD | 0.763 0 | 0.577 5 | 0.522 2 | 0.040 1 | 0.040 4 | 0.044 7 |
|
Table 2. Comparison of results of different decomposition methods
Filtering method | Signal | Signal to noise/ dB | Root mean quare error |
---|
Add larger ISC | Rain | 21.59 | 0.002 3 | Climb | 7.372 | 0.019 5 | Knock | 6.955 | 0.032 5 | Wind | 8.132 | 0.028 3 | IF | Rain | 27.09 3 | 0.001 2 | Climb | 12.11 6 | 0.011 3 | Knock | 17.29 8 | 0.009 9 | Wind | 9.732 | 0.007 4 |
|
Table 3. Comparison of the effects of two filtering ways
Feature | Rain | Climb | Knock | Wind | Recognition rate | Recognition time |
---|
Direct | 40% | 100% | 90% | 46.67% | 69.17% | 2.64 s | Fisher | 93.33% | 100% | 100% | 83.33% | 94.17% | 0.83 s |
|
Table 4. Recognition results before and after feature dimensionality reduction
Method | Rain | Climb | Knock | Wind | Recognition rate | Recognition time |
---|
BP | 76.67%(23/30) | 96.67%(29/30) | 17.86%(5/30) | 100%(30/30) | 73.48% | 1.499 s | ACO-BP | 90%(27/30) | 86.67%(26/30) | 80%(24/30) | 93.33%(28/30) | 87.50% | 1.362 s | DBN | 76.67%(23/30) | 100%(30/30) | 93.33%(28/30) | 83.33%(25/30) | 83.33% | 1.523 s | ACO-DBN | 93.33%(28/30) | 100%(30/30) | 93.33%(28/30) | 96.67%(29/30) | 95.83% | 0.715 s |
|
Table 5. Comparison of recognition results of different methods
Method | knock at one point | knock at two points | Recognition rate | Recognition time |
---|
BP | 63.33%(19/30) | 50%(15/30) | 56.67% | 1.214 s | ACO-BP | 80%(24/30) | 73.33%(22/30) | 76.67% | 1.327 s | DBN | 90%(27/30) | 86.67%(26/30) | 88.34% | 1.163 s | ACO-DBN | 96.67%(29/30) | 90%(27/30) | 93.33% | 0.815 s |
|
Table 6. Comparison of multi-point vibration identification results