Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Optoelectronics

ISSN 2095-2759

ISSN 2095-2767(Online)

CN 10-1029/TN

Postal Subscription Code 80-976

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Optoelectron.    2019, Vol. 12 Issue (4) : 405-412    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12200-019-0865-x
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Experimental and simulation assessments of underwater light propagation
Fatah ALMABOUADA1,2(), Manuel Adler ABREU3, João M. P. COELHO3, Kamal Eddine AIADI4
1. Faculté des Mathématiques et des Sciences de la Matière, Département de Physique, Univérsité Kasdi Merbah Ouargla, Ouargla 30000, Algérie
2. Centre de Développement des Technologies Avancées, Division Milieux Ionisés & Lasers, Alger 16303, Algérie
3. Laboratório de Óptica, Laser e Sistemas, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa Campus do Lumiar, Estrada do Paço do Lumiar, Lisboa 1649-038, Portugal
4. Faculté des Mathématiques et des Sciences de la Matière, Laboratoire LENREZA, Univérsité Kasdi Merbah Ouargla, Ouargla 30000, Algérie
 Download: PDF(2058 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

This paper investigates the light propagation through several types of water by experimental and simulation. The Zemax-ray tracing software allowed to simulate the propagation of light in water and to observe the receiver response by reproducing the real conditions of propagation. The underwater environment has been reproduced by a 1.2 m long water tube and 20 cm in diameter with a glass window fitted on one side. The use of tap water with different amounts of sand leads toward three types of water with different attenuation coefficients (0.133, 0.343, 0.580 m−1). The light transmission in the three types of water was experimentally evaluated using a doubled Nd:YAG laser with energy of 4.3 mJ and a pulse width of 20 ns. Comparisons were done between simulation and experimental results.
Keywords underwater light propagation      attenuation coefficient      telescope      laser range finder     
Corresponding Author(s): Fatah ALMABOUADA   
Online First Date: 30 May 2019    Issue Date: 30 December 2019
 Cite this article:   
Fatah ALMABOUADA,Manuel Adler ABREU,João M. P. COELHO, et al. Experimental and simulation assessments of underwater light propagation[J]. Front. Optoelectron., 2019, 12(4): 405-412.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/foe/EN/10.1007/s12200-019-0865-x
https://academic.hep.com.cn/foe/EN/Y2019/V12/I4/405
water type c/m-1
clear ocean 0.151
coastal ocean 0.398
turbid harbor 2.190
Tab.1  Attenuation coefficient of several types of water at l = 530 nm
water type c/m-1
W1: tap water 0.130
W2: tap water+ 250 g of sand 0.343
W3: tap water+ 350 g of sand 0.580
Tab.2  Attenuation coefficients of the three types of water at l = 530 nm
Fig.1  Designed telescope (a) under Zemax software and (b) the detector area window
Fig.2  3-D profile of the receiving telescope
parameter value
laser wavelength/nm 532
transmitted laser power pout/W 2.15´105
estimated laser power at the object/´105 W 1.83, 1.42, 1.07, 0.155
attenuation coefficient of water/m-1 0.130, 0.343, 0.580, 2.190
estimated laser beam diameter at the object/mm 4.36
diameter of the telescope objective Dopt/m 0.05
distance between the object and telescope/m 5 (air) + 1.2 (water)
detector active area diameter/µm 800
temperature of water/℃ 20
Tab.3  Numerical values of parameters and constants for Zemax simulation
Fig.3  (a) 2-D and (b) 3-D profiles of the laser source
Fig.4  (a) 2-D and (b) 3-D profiles of the reflected laser beam recorded in the detector area for W1
Fig.5  (a) 2-D and (b) 3-D profiles of the reflected laser beam recorded in the detector area for W2
Fig.6  (a) 2-D and (b) 3-D profiles of the reflected laser beam recorded in the detector area for W3
Fig.7  (a) 2-D and (b) 3-D profiles of the reflected laser beam recorded in the detector area for turbid harbor
Fig.8  Experimental setups. (1) Hole; (2) water tank; (3) Q-switched Nd:YAG laser; (4) telescope; (5) CCD camera; (6) screen
Fig.9  (a) 2-D and (b) 3-D beam profiles of the laser source
Fig.10  (a) 2-D and (b) 3-D profiles of the reflected laser beam recorded in case of W1 (c = 0.130 m-1)
Fig.11  (a) 2-D and (b) 3-D profiles of the reflected laser beam recorded in case of W2 (c = 0.343 m-1)
Fig.12  (a) 2-D and (b) 3-D profiles of the reflected laser beam recorded in case of W3 (c = 0.580 m-1)
1 D Z Wan, C S Chin. Simulation and prototype testing of a low-cost ultrasonic distance measurement device in underwater. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 2015, 20(1): 142–154
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-014-0270-5
2 G Grelowska, E Kozaczka, S Kozaczka, W Szymczak. Gdansk Bay sea bed sounding and classification of its results. Polish Maritime Research, 2013, 20(3): 45–50
https://doi.org/10.2478/pomr-2013-0034
3 H Cho, J Gu, H Joe, A Asada, S C Yu. Acoustic beam profile-based rapid underwater object detection for an imaging sonar. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 2015, 20(1): 180–197
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-014-0294-x
4 V Molebny, P McManamon, O Steinvall, T Kobayashi, W Chen. Laser radar: historical prospective—from the East to the West. Optical Engineering (Redondo Beach, Calif.), 2016, 56(3): 031220
https://doi.org/10.1117/1.OE.56.3.031220
5 Y Huang, F Cao, W Jin, S Qiu. Underwater pulsed laser range-gated imaging model and its effect on image degradation and restoration. Optical Engineering (Redondo Beach, Calif.), 2013, 53(6): 061608
https://doi.org/10.1117/1.OE.53.6.061608
6 L K Rumbaugh, E M Bollt, W D Jemison, Y F Li. A 532 nm chaotic Lidar transmitter for high resolution underwater ranging and imaging. In: Proceedings of Oceans-San Diego. San Diego: IEEE, 2013
7 J Szulwic, P Burdziakowski, A Janowski, M Przyborski, P Tysiąc, A Wojtowicz, A Kholodkov, K Matysik, M Matysik. Maritime laser scanning as the source for spatial data. Polish Maritime Research, 2015, 22(4): 9–14
https://doi.org/10.1515/pomr-2015-0064
8 M T M Khairi, S Ibrahim, M A M Yunus, M Faramarzi, Z Yusuf. Artificial neural network approach for predicting the water turbidity level using optical tomography. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 2016, 41(9): 3369–3379
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-015-1904-6
9 M Simileanu, R Radvan, N Puscas. Underwater LIBS investigations setup for metals’ identification. University Politehnica Of Bucharest Scientific Bulletin-Series A–Applied Mathematics And Physics, 2010, 72(4): 209–216
10 J Wojtanowski, Z Mierczyk, M Zygmunt. Laser remote sensing of underwater objects. In: Proceedings of SPIE Remote Sensing of the Ocean, Sea Ice, and Large Water Regions. Cardiff, Wales: SPIE, 2008
11 X Zeng, M Xia, Z Cheng, L Li, J Chen, P Du, K Yang. A small-size pulsed Lidar designed for obstacles detection in natural underwater environment. In: Proceedings of Applied Optics and Photonics China (AOPC2015). Beijing: International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2015
12 M C Amann, T M Bosch, M Lescure, R A Myllylae, M Rioux. Laser ranging: a critical review of usual techniques for distance measurement. Optical Engineering (Redondo Beach, Calif.), 2001, 40(1): 10–19
https://doi.org/10.1117/1.1330700
13 G R Osche. Optical detection theory for laser applications. In: Osche G R, ed. Optical Detection Theory for Laser Applications. New York: Wiley-VCH, 2002, 424
14 A V Jelalian. Laser Radar Systems. New York: Artech House: 1992
15 N Jerlov. Classification of sea water in terms of quanta irradiance. Journal du Conseil, 1977, 37(3): 281–287
https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/37.3.281
16 C D Mobley. Light and Water: Radiative Transfer in Natural Waters. San Diego: Academic press: 1994
17 A. Morel Optical properties of pure water and pure sea water. Optical aspects of oceanography, 1974, 1: 1–24
18 R C Smith, K S Baker. Optical properties of the clearest natural waters (200‒800 nm). Applied Optics, 1981, 20(2): 177–184
https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.20.000177 pmid: 20309088
19 L P Boivin, W F Davidson, R S Storey, D Sinclair, E D Earle. Determination of the attenuation coefficients of visible and ultraviolet radiation in heavy water. Applied Optics, 1986, 25(6): 877–882
https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.25.000877 pmid: 18231267
20 H U Sverdrup, M W Johnson, R H Fleming. The Oceans: Their Physics, Chemistry, and General Biology. New York: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1942, Vol. 7
21 Zemax Development Corporation. Zemax 13 Optical Design Program User’s Manual. 2014
22 Y Song, Y Chen, J Xin, T Sun. Two-dimensional beam shaping and homogenization of high power laser diode stack with rectangular waveguide. Frontiers of Optoelectronics, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12200-018-0831-z
23 A A Campazas, M X A Cid. Non-sequential modeling of commercial dichroic beamsplitters using Zemax. In: Proceedings of SPIE 9626, Optical Systems Design 2015: Optical Design and Engineering VI. Jena: SPIE, 2015, 96260C
[1] Yimei HUANG, Hongqin YANG, Yuhua WANG, Shusen XIE, Zhouyi GUO, Songhao LIU. In vivo experimental study of optical characteristics of human acupuncture points[J]. Front Optoelec Chin, 2011, 4(2): 223-227.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed