| Literature DB >> 26528985 |
Jing Xu1, Zhongbin Wang2, Chao Tan3, Lei Si4,5, Xinhua Liu6.
Abstract
In order to guarantee the stable operation of shearers and promote construction of an automatic coal mining working face, an online cutting pattern recognition method with high accuracy and speed based on Improved Ensemble Empirical Mode Decomposition (IEEMD) and Probabilistic Neural Network (PNN) is proposed. An industrial microphone is installed on the shearer and the cutting sound is collected as the recognition criterion to overcome the disadvantages of giant size, contact measurement and low identification rate of traditional detectors. To avoid end-point effects and get rid of undesirable intrinsic mode function (IMF) components in the initial signal, IEEMD is conducted on the sound. The end-point continuation based on the practical storage data is performed first to overcome the end-point effect. Next the average correlation coefficient, which is calculated by the correlation of the first IMF with others, is introduced to select essential IMFs. Then the energy and standard deviation of the reminder IMFs are extracted as features and PNN is applied to classify the cutting patterns. Finally, a simulation example, with an accuracy of 92.67%, and an industrial application prove the efficiency and correctness of the proposed method.Entities:
Keywords: Improved Ensemble Empirical Mode Decomposition; Probabilistic Neural Network; coal mining; cutting pattern recognition; intrinsic mode function; sound signal
Year: 2015 PMID: 26528985 PMCID: PMC4701251 DOI: 10.3390/s151127721
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Flowchart of improved EEMD.
Figure 2Flowchart of the cutting pattern recognition method based on IEEMD and PNN.
Figure 3The experimental site.
Figure 4The initial sound series of the five patterns. (a) pure coal seam with the hardness of f2; (b) pure coal seam with the hardness of f3; (c) pure hard rock seam; (d) coal seam gripping gangue; (e) no-load.
Figure 5The decomposition result of C1.
The average correlation coefficients of the training samples.
| 0.0020 | 0.0029 | 0.0016 | 0.0035 | 0.0007 | 0.0012 | 0.0047 | 0.0021 | 0.0020 | 0.0031 | 0.0240 | 0.0019 | 0.0075 |
Feature vectors of the 600 sound samples.
| Training Sample Number | Feature Vector |
|---|---|
| 1 | [0.0672, 0.1010, 0.3673, 0.0809, 0.6901, 0.1071, 0.7625, 0.946, 0.9218, 0.3012, 0.0362, 0.0421, 0.0043, 0.056, 0.0026, 0.0192] |
| 2 | [0.7037, 0.1662, 0.8445, 0.1760, 0.2710, 0.3091, 0.7370, 0.2522, 0.3111, 0.1631, 0.0063, 0.0172, 0.0353, 0.0132, 0.0084, 0.0006] |
| 3 | [0.9808, 0.0153, 0.0395, 0.3762, 0.6742, 0.0559, 0.7328, 0.0186, 0.6364, 0.0138, 0.1120, 0.0022, 0.5197, 0.8962, 0.58806, 0.0015] |
| ...... | |
| 599 | [0.0650, 0.0163, 0.3948, 0.0138, 0.1327, 0.0096, 0.2402, 0.0033, 0.6132, 0.7146, 0.3410, 0.0004, 0.0578, 0.0053, 0.0297, 0.0307] |
| 600 | [0.0118, 0.0023, 0.03407, 0.0038, 0.1841, 0.0087, 0.7196, 0.0622, 0.0343, 0.0566, 0.5617, 0.0059, 0.2671, 0.0036, 0.0644, 0.0016] |
Figure 6Comparison between actual pattern and PNN prediction result.
Change rule of the reminder IMF number and the prediction accuracy at different ξ.
| ξ | Reminder IMF Number | Dimension of Feature Vector | Simulation Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.05 | 3 | 6 | 47.33% |
| 0.08 | 5 | 10 | 73.00% |
| 0.10 | 8 | 16 | 92.67% |
| 0.15 | 11 | 22 | 83.33% |
| 0.20 | 12 | 24 | 92.00% |
| 0.35 | 13 | 26 | 83.67% |
| 1.00 | 14 | 28 | 85.00% |
Comprehensive performance of related methods.
| Compared Methods | Reminder IMF Number | Recognition Accuracy | Recognition Time (s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Natural γ-ray detection | — | 66.67% | 92.7469 |
| WPT and PNN | — | 78.33% | 65.0264 |
| Traditional EEMD and PNN | 14 | 86.00% | 50.3133 |
| Yu’s method | 9 | 87.67% | 46.1962 |
| The proposed method | 8 | 92.67% | 45.0917 |
Figure 7Industrial application of the proposed method.
Figure 8Left cutting current curve in an hour.