| Literature DB >> 30781648 |
Qing Lu1, Lixin Pang2, Haoqian Huang3, Chong Shen4, Huiliang Cao5, Yunbo Shi6, Jun Liu7.
Abstract
High-G MEMS accelerometers have been widely used in monitoring natural disasters and other fields. In order to improve the performance of High-G MEMS accelerometers, a denoising method based on the combination of empirical mode decomposition (EMD) and wavelet threshold is proposed. Firstly, EMD decomposition is performed on the output of the main accelerometer to obtain the intrinsic mode function (IMF). Then, the continuous mean square error rule is used to find energy cut-off point, and then the corresponding high frequency IMF component is denoised by wavelet threshold. Finally, the processed high-frequency IMF component is superposed with the low-frequency IMF component, and the reconstructed signal is denoised signal. Experimental results show that this method integrates the advantages of EMD and wavelet threshold and can retain useful signals to the maximum extent. The impact peak and vibration characteristics are 0.003% and 0.135% of the original signal, respectively, and it reduces the noise of the original signal by 96%.Entities:
Keywords: EMD; High-G calibration; Hopkinson Bar; MEMS accelerometer; noise reduction; wavelet threshold
Year: 2019 PMID: 30781648 PMCID: PMC6412373 DOI: 10.3390/mi10020134
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Micromachines (Basel) ISSN: 2072-666X Impact factor: 2.891
Figure 1Block diagram based on empirical mode decomposition (EMD) wavelet threshold algorithm.
Figure 2High-G MEMS accelerometer (HGMA) structure schematic and size.
Figure 3Mode simulation of HGMA structure (a–d) are 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th order modes.
Structural parameters of the HGMA.
| Beam | Mass | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameters | Length ( | Width ( | Height ( | Length ( | Width ( | Height ( |
|
| 350 | 800 | 80 | 800 | 800 | 200 |
Resonant frequencies of the four modes.
| Mode Shapes | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 408 | 667 | 671 | 1119 |
Figure 4Overall photo, confocal microscopy photo and SEM photo of HGMA.
Figure 5Hopkinson Bar calibration system.
Figure 6EMD decomposition of the original signal.
Figure 7Signals before and after denoising.
Figure 8Frequency characteristic of original signal and denoising results.
Figure 9Allan derivation results of the denoising method during “Preparation Stage”.
Comparison of three denoising algorithms.
| EMD | Wavelet | EMD + Wavelet | Original | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 2.9241 × 104 | 3.7970 × 104 | 3.6162 × 104 | 1.0591 × 106 |
|
| 97.2% | 96.6% | 96.4% | - | |
|
|
| 2.7712 × 107 | 1.9523 × 107 | 2.8701 × 107 | 2.8702 × 107 |
|
| 3.49% | 32.1% | 0.003% | - | |
|
|
| 1.3410 × 105 | 2.2503 × 107 | 4.4251 × 107 | 4.4310 × 107 |
|
| 99.70% | 49.22% | 0.135% | - |