| Literature DB >> 27058540 |
Lei Si1,2, Zhongbin Wang3, Xinhua Liu4, Chao Tan5, Lin Zhang6.
Abstract
In order to achieve more accurate and reliable identification of shearer cutting state, this paper employs the vibration of rocker transmission part and proposes a diagnosis method based on a probabilistic neural network (PNN) and fruit fly optimization algorithm (FOA). The original FOA is modified with a multi-swarm strategy to enhance the search performance and the modified FOA is utilized to optimize the smoothing parameters of the PNN. The vibration signals of rocker transmission part are decomposed by the ensemble empirical mode decomposition and the Kullback-Leibler divergence is used to choose several appropriate components. Forty-five features are extracted to estimate the decomposed components and original signal, and the distance-based evaluation approach is employed to select a subset of state-sensitive features by removing the irrelevant features. Finally, the effectiveness of the proposed method is demonstrated via the simulation studies of shearer cutting state diagnosis and the comparison results indicate that the proposed method outperforms the competing methods in terms of diagnosis accuracy.Entities:
Keywords: Kullback–Leibler divergence; distance-based evaluation; feature extraction; fruit fly optimization algorithm; probabilistic neural network; shearer cutting state diagnosis
Year: 2016 PMID: 27058540 PMCID: PMC4850993 DOI: 10.3390/s16040479
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The structural diagram of probability neural network.
Figure 2Diagram of the procedure structure of proposed model.
Figure 3The diagnosis system for shearer cutting state based on proposed method.
Figure 4Self-designed experimental system for shearer cutting coal: (a) the experiment bench of shearer cutting coal; and (b) the installation sketch of sensor.
Figure 5Different geological conditions of coal seam.
Figure 6Measured vibration signals in different cutting states.
Figure 7The effectiveness factor β of all the 45 features.
Eight selected features for the samples.
| Feature ID | 5 | 9 | 16 | 21 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feature type | ||||
| β | 5.54 | 4.28 | 3.86 | 3.74 |
| Feature ID | 28 | 35 | 36 | 39 |
| Feature type | ||||
| β | 4.82 | 3.75 | 4.81 | 3.96 |
Figure 8The diagnosis results based on proposed model (a) The testing results; (b) the diagnosis accuracies of different cutting states.
Figure 9The diagnosis results based on different methods (a) The comparison of diagnosis accuracy; (b) the comparison of standard deviation of diagnosis accuracy.
Figure 10The diagnosis accuracies of the five methods with different numbers of selected features.
Figure 11The diagnosis accuracies of the five methods with different numbers of training samples.