| Literature DB >> 29382120 |
Jing Xu1, Zhongbin Wang2, Chao Tan3, Lei Si4, Xinhua Liu5,6.
Abstract
As a sound signal has the advantages of non-contacted measurement, compact structure, and low power consumption, it has resulted in much attention in many fields. In this paper, the sound signal of the coal mining shearer is analyzed to realize the accurate online cutting pattern identification and guarantee the safety quality of the working face. The original acoustic signal is first collected through an industrial microphone and decomposed by adaptive ensemble empirical mode decomposition (EEMD). A 13-dimensional set composed by the normalized energy of each level is extracted as the feature vector in the next step. Then, a swarm intelligence optimization algorithm inspired by bat foraging behavior is applied to determine key parameters of the traditional variable translation wavelet neural network (VTWNN). Moreover, a disturbance coefficient is introduced into the basic bat algorithm (BA) to overcome the disadvantage of easily falling into local extremum and limited exploration ability. The VTWNN optimized by the modified BA (VTWNN-MBA) is used as the cutting pattern recognizer. Finally, a simulation example, with an accuracy of 95.25%, and a series of comparisons are conducted to prove the effectiveness and superiority of the proposed method.Entities:
Keywords: bat algorithm; cutting pattern identification; disturbance coefficient; ensemble empirical mode decomposition; sound signal; variable translation wavelet neural network
Year: 2018 PMID: 29382120 PMCID: PMC5855047 DOI: 10.3390/s18020382
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Structure of the variable translation wavelet neural network.
Figure 2Foraging process of the bat swarm.
Figure 3The probability distribution curve of a bat classified as the explorer.
Figure 4The flowchart of the proposed variable translation wavelet neural network modified bat algorithm (VTWNN-MBA).
Figure 5The experimental site.
Figure 6Cutting sound signal of the four cutting pattern. (a) Sound of coal seam with f2; (b) sound of coal seam with f3; (c) sound of coal seam gripping gangue; and (d) sound of no-load.
Figure 7The ensemble empirical mode decomposition (EEMD) results of the cutting sound signal. The green line represents the original signal and the blue donates the IMF or Res of the EEMD result.
Feature vector of the acoustic series.
| Sample Number | Feature Vector |
|---|---|
| 1 | [0.493820, 0.018635, 0.002433, 0.003701, 0.001007, 0.000861, 0.000946, 0.000362, 0.000330, 0.000204, 0.000200, 0.000091, 0.000046] |
| 2 | [0.744507, 0.190640, 0.001730, 0.003545, 0.000902, 0.000844, 0.000783, 0.000187, 0.000305, 0.000197, 0.000167, 0.000080, 0.000140] |
| 3 | [0.700600, 0.081532, 0.001633, 0.004464, 0.000536, 0.000669, 0.000517, 0.000216, 0.000437, 0.000244, 0.000163, 0.000132, 0.000025] |
| 4 | [0.363571, 0.066428, 0.003079, 0.004894, 0.000692, 0.000852, 0.000895, 0.000415, 0.000399, 0.000256, 0.000155, 0.000107, 0.000003] |
| 5 | [0.480629, 0.035871, 0.009238, 0.014017, 0.001057, 0.001220, 0.003743, 0.000455, 0.000014, 0.000180, 0.000214, 0.000052, 0.000125] |
| 6 | [0.767436, 0.023610, 0.002480, 0.002233, 0.000964, 0.000818, 0.000401, 0.000157, 0.003202, 0.000255, 0.000136, 0.000823, 0.000227] |
| … | |
| 799 | [0.772048, 0.016429, 0.021885, 0.009308, 0.002668, 0.000636, 0.000302, 0.004158, 0.000097, 0.000159, 0.001217, 0.000137, 0.000038] |
| 800 | [0.268025, 0.015486, 0.001868, 0.007008, 0.000349, 0.001086, 0.001178, 0.000568, 0.000233, 0.000230, 0.000118, 0.000140, 0.000049] |
Figure 8The iteration process of the VTWNN-MBA.
Figure 9The recognition result of the testing samples.
Comparisons between the different disturbance coefficients.
| Disturbance Coefficient | Iteration Time (s) | Fitness Value | Recognition Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 65.962150 | 0.150311 | 95.25% |
| 10 | 64.201883 | 0.154831 | 95.25% |
| 15 | 62.193844 | 0.163709 | 94.50% |
| 25 | 62.001930 | 0.180094 | 94.25% |
| 30 | 61.003760 | 0.183762 | 92.50% |
| 1000 | 60.227091 | 0.201358 | 91.50% |
Comparisons between the different cutting pattern identification methods.
| Compared Methods | Iteration Time (s) | Fitness Value | Recognition Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPNN | 82.675028 | 0.330370 | 78.75% |
| PNN | 89.002130 | 0.310938 | 82.50% |
| SVM | 83.309544 | 0.311052 | 82.50% |
| VTWNN | 92.395211 | 0.310279 | 84.75% |
| VTWNN-PSO | 56.009550 | 0.229624 | 87% |
| VTWNN-GA | 79.362199 | 0.160962 | 95.25% |
| VTWNN-BA | 60.227091 | 0.201358 | 91.50% |
| VTWNN-MBA | 64.201883 | 0.154831 | 95.25% |