kristoffer t. walker, mark zumberge, michael hedlin, jon berger, and peter shearer

41
Resolving infrasound signals with arrays of optical fiber infrasound sensors (OFIS): Low wind noise, superb back azimuth (and elevation angle) resolution, and a compact design Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin, Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego This work is funded by the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command See also OFIS poster (different paper).

Upload: lovie

Post on 02-Feb-2016

65 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Resolving infrasound signals with arrays of optical fiber infrasound sensors (OFIS): Low wind noise, superb back azimuth (and elevation angle) resolution, and a compact design. Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin, Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

Resolving infrasound signals with arrays of optical fiber infrasound sensors (OFIS): Low wind noise, superb back

azimuth (and elevation angle) resolution, and a compact design

Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin, Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego

This work is funded by the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command

See also OFIS poster (different paper).

DISTRIBUTION A. – Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

Page 2: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

Motivation: Why an OFIS?

• Last 4 years: a. further development research to optimize the sensor. b. Signal direction determination with field experiments at

PFO, synthetic experiments, and theoretical calculations.

• We seek to improve wind noise reduction, instrument response, phase velocity direction resolution, and more compact array designs

• Summary:• OFIS technology has matured• Phase velocity direction resolution is better• Instrument response is always better• Wind noise reduction: more research needed• More compact array designs than rosette pipe arrays• Real time calibration permissible• No resonance issues• Well suited for permanent arrays

Page 3: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

What is an OFIS – Optical Fiber Infrasound Sensor

OFIS is a Directional Microphone (similar to satellite dish)

Laser Interferometry Base: Low self noise, high dynamic range (real*64)

Page 4: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

OFIS – Optical Fiber Infrasound Sensor

Page 5: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

OFIS – Optical Fiber Infrasound Sensor

60- m OFIS Recording of Atlantis Reentry at Camp Elliott (2007)

Typical N-wave imprinted on top of long-period calibration signal

Page 6: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

OFIS – Optical Fiber Infrasound Sensor

Vandenberg Delta II recorded at I57US

Three sensors: - I57US L2 pipe array - porous hose - buried 90-m OFIS (perpendicular to back azimuth)

The OFIS and hose array recorded the signal well. The pipe array had a resonance issue.

Page 7: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

OFIS – Optical Fiber Infrasound Sensor

Low Self Noise, High Dynamic Range: ~1 m/sOFIS “self noise” lower than MB2K.

Microbaroms apparent.

OFIS “Acoustic noise floor” lowest.

Ambiguity with L2 porous hose and MB2K noise floor?

OFIS might be quieter; TBD with calibration/noiseexperiment.

Page 8: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

OFIS – Optical Fiber Infrasound Sensor

Low Self Noise, High Dynamic Range: ~1 m/sOFIS “self noise” lower than MB2K.

Microbaroms apparent.

OFIS “Acoustic noise floor” lowest.

Ambiguity with L2 porous hose and MB2K noise floor?

OFIS might be quieter; TBD with calibration/noiseexperiment.

Page 9: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

OFIS – Optical Fiber Infrasound Sensor

Wind Noise Reduction: ~3 m/s

Wind noise increases at all frequencies.

Microbaroms not apparent anymore.

OFIS and hose “Acoustic noise floor” match.

OFIS is at least just as good at wind noise reduction.

Page 10: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

OFIS – Optical Fiber Infrasound Sensor

Acoustic/Infrasound Sensing Directionality

Page 11: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

OFIS – Optical Fiber Infrasound Sensor

Acoustic/Infrasound Sensing Directionality

Page 12: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

OFIS – Optical Fiber Infrasound Sensor

Acoustic/Infrasound Sensing Directionality

Time delays lead to omnidirectional attenuation at

grazing elevation angles.

70 m rosette (I57US L*)

Page 13: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

OFIS – Optical Fiber Infrasound Sensor

OFIS versus Pipe Array Response

70 m OFIS vs. 70 m rosette filter (I57US L2)

In terms of signal detection for 5-36 array, “worst” positioned OFIS always

attenuates about the same as rosette.

Best positioned OFIS has response at least as good as

the blue dashed line.

Same response for all pipe array BAZ. Must go to H*

pipe arrays for less attenuation, but at cost of

wind noise reduction.

Page 14: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

All exploit “spectral resolution” and can include time-separation resolution

1.Water Level Deconvolution Beamforming (WLD)a. Typical decon. Yields BAZ, ELE, signal. Moderate speed.

2. Simultaneous Array Deconvolution Beamforming (SAD)a. Least-squares inversion decon. Yields BAZ, ELE, signal. Slowest.

3. Common Spectrum Identification Beamforming (CSI)a. Convolution-only approach. Yields BAZ, ELE. Fastest.

All these techniques are fast enough to run in real time.

3 Instrument-Response-Dependent Beamforming Techniques:

Pinpointing Phase Velocity Direction

Page 15: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

Pinpointing Phase Velocity Direction

Water Level Deconvolution Beamforming (WLD)

Page 16: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

Pinpointing Phase Velocity Direction

Water Level Deconvolution Beamforming (WLD)

Page 17: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

Simultaneous Array Deconvolution Beamforming (SAD)

Pinpointing Phase Velocity Direction

Page 18: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

Pinpointing Phase Velocity Direction

Simultaneous Array Deconvolution Beamforming (SAD)

Page 19: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

Common Spectrum Identification (CSI)

Pinpointing Phase Velocity Direction

Page 20: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

Common Spectrum Identification (CSI)

Pinpointing Phase Velocity Direction

Page 21: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

Real Data Tests: PFO 3-120º OFIS versus 3-element I57US H* subnet

CSI has smallest 95% uncertainty region, greatest range, and smoothest misfit.CSI likely more accurate than TDB (3 elements of I57US H* subnet).

Reason for the consistent offset: airplane signal and systems not collocated.

Pinpointing Phase Velocity Direction

Page 22: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

CSI yields results that are more consistent with I57US H* subnet.CSI OFIS BAZ has a mean deviation from TDB of 0º.

Real Data Tests: PFO 3-120º OFIS versus 3-element I57US H* subnet

Pinpointing Phase Velocity Direction

81 Signals with elevation angles < 60º

Page 23: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

Airplane Signal at PFO

SNR ~ 3 (10 dB)

CSI works well at high elevation angles

as well.

Reason for offset: not collocated sensors.

Pinpointing Phase Velocity Direction

Real Data Tests: PFO 3-120º OFIS versus 3-element I57US H* subnet

Page 24: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

Synthetic Data Results

Time separation is not needed for the 5-72º config

Pinpointing Phase Velocity Direction

Page 25: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

Flexibility and Compactness

5-72º OFIS Configurations: Same Spectral Resolution Power

a-d: (5-72º) same spectral and time separ. res.

e: (5-36º) no time separ. res., but most compact design (75% less area)

Page 26: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

Three Possible OFIS Array Configurations

Page 27: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

Three Possible OFIS Array Configurations

Page 28: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

Three Possible OFIS Array Configurations

Page 29: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

OFIS Array Layout

Page 30: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

Data Flow and Operational Management

• The details of the interferometer are transparent to the data processer, although are available if desired.

• Real-time system inherited from the IDA global seismic network data hub (ISI – Ida System Interface).

• Pressure ISI packets stream to any local unix/linux OS from remote locations in real time (< 2 s delay) and can be converted in real time to other formats (e.g. CSS3.0).

• Data acquisition control is through a simple web interface that also contains a real-time JAVA waveform plotting option. Single/double precision, sampling rate, output channels are all options.

• State of health and log files can be queried/investigated with the same web interface.

• 100% uptime with a Sabeus Inc. wavelength-locked laser that is remotely controllable.

Page 31: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

OFIS Array JAVA Control Interface

Has been tested for a year now and is stable.

Works with Data Translation Inc. 8-channel DSPs.

Can control up to 4 OFIS arms.

Uses security certificates instead of passwords.

System is also used for an optical seismometer and strainmeter.

Page 32: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

Conclusions

• OFIS technology has matured in the last 3 years and is cable of operational use in a permanent array setting.

• A 3-120º OFIS array is just as capable as the I57US H* subnetwork in resolving phase velocity direction (baz and elev) with CSI for all SNR. Could ignore CSI altogether.

• The optimum OFIS array has at least 5 linear arms at carefully positioned azimuths.

• A 5-36º OFIS array can record signals with a much better signal to noise ratio than the same diameter rosette arrays.

• A single 90-m buried OFIS has the same wind noise reduction capabilities as an entire 70-m rosette array (I57US, L2, 3.5 m/s wind).

• OFIS can be used in many ways for a permanent array depending on the monitoring frequency range of interest, required wind noise reduction, and site logistics.

• OFIS now has a professional real-time data flow system and remote control interface.

Page 33: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

~1 m/s

Page 34: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

What’s Next?

Optimizing codes for real-time event detection experiment with video ground truth: Camp Elliott 5-72º array next to Miramar USMC Air Station (2007-2008)

Array consists of buried 60-m OFIS arms with real-time calibrators.

Page 35: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

[also see poster]

M-code signal generation to further investigate wind noise reduction capabilities of OFIS and other technologies at Elliott.

M-code with a portable speaker array can generate 8 Hz that is detectable at a range of 250 m.

What’s Next?

Page 36: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

• M-sequence research at Elliott to measure instrument response at various angles and frequencies.

• Real-time beamforming at Elliott with collocated video cam.

• Wind noise reduction experimentation with Chaparral sensors at Elliott and PFO with a very long OFIS.

• Seek remote locations and/or other researchers to independently evaluate/monitor an OFIS array.

• Continue measurements and experiments that lead to further optimization and ruggedization of the OFIS design and array configurations.

What’s Next?

Page 37: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

• We installed a 2-90º OFIS array at PFO during 2003-2004. This array only worked well with signals of excellent SNR.

• We installed a 3-120º OFIS array at PFO during 2005-2006 (see this presentation). This array worked very well for signals of all SNR and was equivalent to the I57US rosette H* subnetwork.

• OFISs are inherently delicate at the end where the fibers attach to the electronics. The black external tube has been kicked, pulled, and stepped on by horses and humans—no significant damage occurred. However, just as rabbits can damage cables, mice have been known to damage OFIS fibers if they are exposed.

• A buried 5-72º OFIS array with 180-m aperture for streaming data to IGPP costs ~$50-60k in materials and labor including DSP, lasers, and electronics (not incl. UCSD 52% overhead).

• OFISs can have 100% uptime, are protected from rodents, and are quieter if they are buried beneath 6” of coarse gravel. They can still be used above ground though (e.g. WSMR II at station BACA).

• OFIS sensor technology has matured to the point that it can be used for general infrasound research in an operational setting.

Additional Notes

Page 38: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

• We are not sure if calculating the array responses for a string of microphones is appropriate to evaluate OFIS array designs, but…

Additional Notes

Page 39: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

• We are not sure if calculating the array responses for a string of microphones is appropriate to evaluate OFIS array designs.

Additional Notes

Page 40: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

• We are not sure if calculating the array responses for a string of microphones is appropriate to evaluate OFIS array designs.

Additional Notes

Page 41: Kristoffer T. Walker, Mark Zumberge, Michael Hedlin,  Jon Berger, and Peter Shearer

OFIS – Optical Fiber Infrasound Sensor

Acoustic/Infrasound Sensing Directionality

No time delays with OFIS arrays.

Each OFIS records a unique measurement of the signal phase

velocity direction (spectral resolution).

Able to obtain direction from an OFIS array the size of a single

rosette.

At least one arm records the signal just as well as H* rosettes, yet the

OFIS 90 m length gives better wind noise reduction.

90 m 5-36 OFIS array