Author Affiliations
1State Key Laboratory of Precision Measuring Technology and Instruments, School of Precision Instrument and Opto-Electronics Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China2Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region Water Conservancy Engineering Construction Center, Yinchuan 750004, Ningxia, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of φ-OTDR system
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of internal structure of φ-OTDR integrated system
Fig. 3. Experimental site. (a) Experimental optical path; (b) position of sensing optical cable and experiment; (c) edge auxiliary positioning mark; (d) optical fiber; (e) internal structure of GYTA53 optical cable; (f) internal structure of GJA optical cable
Fig. 4. Comparison of response signals under action of vibration signals
Fig. 5. Variation of sensitivity with sensing distance. (a) Humidity 1; (b) humidity 2; (c) humidity 3; (d) humidity 4; (e) humidity 5
Fig. 6. Sensitivity comparison among different humidities. (a) Ball-0.8 m; (b) ball-0.3 m; (c) shovel; (d) motor
Fig. 7. Curves of response signal of GYTA53. (a) Time domain-static state; (b) frequency domain-static state; (c) time domain-impact state; (d) frequency domain-impact state
Fig. 8. Energy distribution of each frequency band under two states. (a) Ball-0.8 m; (b) ball-0.3 m; (c) shovel; (d) motor
Fig. 9. Distribution graphs of and under two states. (a) ; (b)
Fig. 10. Parameter distributions of two states. (a) ; (b) ; (c) ; (d) ; (e)
Fig. 11. Changes of parameters of continuous signal. (a) ; (b) ; (c) corresponding time-domain curve
Fig. 12. Values of and under different working conditions
Fig. 13. Example of suspected vibration point signal. (a) Vibration point signal; (b), (c), (d) non-vibration point signals
Soil environment | Humidity 1 | Humidity 2 | Humidity 3 | Humidity 4 | Humidity 5 |
---|
Water content /% | 0.05 | 5.60 | 9.45 | 16.42 | 20.68 | Density /(g·cm-3) | 2.42 | 2.48 | 2.52 | 2.57 | 2.64 |
|
Table 1. Water content and density of different soil environments
Data number | Actual record | Time domain | Frequency domain | Data number | Actual record | Time domain | Frequency domain |
---|
1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 19 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 22 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 23 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 26 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 29 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
Table 2. Judgment results of two methods at a distance of 1 m under dry soil conditions
Time domain-correct rate | Time domain-error rate | Frequency domain-correct rate | Frequency domain-error rate |
---|
80% | 20% | 93.30% | 6.67% |
|
Table 3. Summary of experimental results in Table 2
Working condition | Record times | Time domain | Frequency domain | Working condition | Record times | Time domain | Frequency domain |
---|
1 | 10 | 12 | 10 | 9 | 20 | 24 | 20 | 2 | 12 | 14 | 12 | 10 | 20 | 22 | 20 | 3 | 12 | 13 | 12 | 11 | 20 | 25 | 20 | 4 | 12 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 20 | 26 | 20 | 5 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 6 | 14 | 18 | 14 | 14 | 20 | 23 | 21 | 7 | 20 | 23 | 20 | 15 | 20 | 24 | 20 | 8 | 20 | 18 | 20 | 16 | 20 | 22 | 20 |
|
Table 4. Comparison of judgment results under various working conditions