4.6 Article

A Comparison of Different Methods to Estimate the Effective Spatial Resolution of FO-DTS Measurements Achieved during Sandbox Experiments

期刊

SENSORS
卷 20, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s20020570

关键词

fiber-optic distributed temperature sensing; spatial resolution; laboratory experiment; active-DTS method

资金

  1. Agence de l'Eau Loire Bretagne
  2. ANR project EQUIPEX CRITEX [ANR-11-EQPX-0011]
  3. EC2CO program (HOTFLUX)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For many environmental applications, the interpretation of fiber-optic Raman distributed temperature sensing (FO-DTS) measurements is strongly dependent on the spatial resolution of measurements, especially when the objective is to detect temperature variations over small scales. Here, we propose to compare three different and complementary methods to estimate, in practice, the effective spatial resolution of DTS measurements: The classical 90% step change method, the correlation length estimated from experimental semivariograms, and the derivative method. The three methods were applied using FO-DTS measurements achieved during sandbox experiments using two DTS units having different spatial resolutions. Results show that the value of the spatial resolution estimated using a step change depends on both the effective spatial resolution of the DTS unit and on heat conduction induced by the high thermal conductivity of the cable. The correlation length method provides an estimate much closer to the value provided by the manufacturers, representative of the effective spatial resolutions along cable sections where temperature gradients are small or negligible. Thirdly, the application of the derivative method allows for verifying the representativeness of DTS measurements all along the cable, by localizing sections where measurements are representative of the effective temperature. We finally show that DTS measurements could be validated in sandbox experiments, when using devices with finer spatial resolution.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据