| Literature DB >> 30836619 |
Yaguang Kong1, Meng Guan2, Song Zheng3, Peng Jiang4, Ling Wang5, Xuefei Yao6, Jian Lu7, Chenfeng Xie8, Fang Wang9.
Abstract
In dealing with sudden hazardous chemical leakage accidents, the key to solving the evacuation and transfer of personnel and important property is to determine the location of the leakage source and the information of the source strength to gauge the scope of the impact of leakage. The particle swarm optimization algorithm with an adaptive mutation factor is applied to the inverse calculation of leakage source strength to obtain the leakage source information, and the leakage source location problem is transformed into an optimization problem. The mobile sensor is then introduced into the fixed sensor network. The mobile sensor moving strategy based on an extended Kalman filter is proposed. The estimated value of the previous moment and the current time are used to update the estimation of the state variable, and then the mobile strategy is planned. The interference of the random error of the optimization algorithm on the path planning of the mobile sensor is reduced by introducing the optimized result memory and, thus, location efficiency is improved. Simulation results showed that the proposed method, which combines mobile with fixed sensors, greatly expanded the monitoring function of the network, reduced the number of fixed sensors, and enhanced the positioning accuracy.Entities:
Keywords: adaptive mutation particle swarm optimization; cooperative localization; extended Kalman filtering; optimized result memory
Year: 2019 PMID: 30836619 PMCID: PMC6427279 DOI: 10.3390/s19051092
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Total number of deaths and total casualties of hazardous chemicals spills in China from 2010 to 2015.
Diffusion coefficient equation of the Gauss diffusion model.
| Stability Grade of Gauss Diffusion Model | ||
|---|---|---|
| Rural conditions | ||
| A | 0.22 × (1 + 0.0001×)−1/2 | 0.20× |
| B | 0.16 × (1 + 0.0001×)−1/2 | 0.12× |
| C | 0.11 × (1 + 0.0001×)−1/2 | 0.08 × (1 + 0.0002×)−1/2 |
| D | 0.08 × (1 + 0.0001×)−1/2 | 0.06 × (1 + 0.0015×)−1/2 |
| E | 0.06 × (1 + 0.0001×)−1/2 | 0.03 × (1 + 0.0003×)−1/2 |
| F | 0.04 × (1 + 0.0001×)−1/2 | 0.016 × (1 + 0.0003×)−1/2 |
| Urban conditions | ||
| A–B | 0.32 × (1 + 0.0004×)−1/2 | 0.24 × (1 + 0.0001×)−1/2 |
| C | 0.22 × (1 + 0.0004×)−1/2 | 0.20 × |
| D | 0.16 × (1 + 0.0004×)−1/2 | 0.14 × (1 + 0.0003×)−1/2 |
| E–F | 0.11 × (1 + 0.0004×)−1/2 | 0.08 × (1 + 0.0015×)−1/2 |
Figure 2Concentration distribution of hazardous chemicals after leakage in windy conditions.
Figure 3Schematic diagram of establishing coordinate system for the fixed sensor network.
Figure 4Flowchart of collaborative leak source localization algorithm for mobile sensor and fixed sensor network.
Figure 5Positioning the error of different sensor spacings with the same layout.
Average positioning error of different sensor intervals with the same layout.
| Sensor Layout | Sensor Spacing (m) | Sensor Layout Range (m × m) | Fixed Sensor Network Positioning Error (m) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9 × 9 | 10 | 80 × 80 | 10.49 |
| 50 | 400 × 400 | 40.63 | |
| 100 | 800 × 800 | 50.39 | |
| 500 | 4000 × 4000 | 55.16 | |
| 1000 | 8000 × 8000 | 63.01 | |
| 2000 | 16,000 × 16,000 | 90.30 |
Figure 6Positioning error of fixed sensor networks with different layouts at 1000 m intervals.
Figure 7Positioning error of fixed sensor networks with different layouts at 2000 m intervals.
Average positioning error of different layouts with the same sensor interval.
| Sensor Spacing (m) | Sensor Layout | Sensor Layout Range (m × m) | Fixed Sensor Network Positioning Error (m) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1000 | 3 × 3 | 2000 × 2000 | 249.32 |
| 4 × 4 | 3000 × 3000 | 176.09 | |
| 5 × 5 | 4000 × 4000 | 146.45 | |
| 9 × 9 | 8000 × 8000 | 63.01 | |
| 2000 | 3 × 3 | 4000 × 4000 | 397.55 |
| 4 × 4 | 6000 × 6000 | 239.94 | |
| 5 × 5 | 8000 × 8000 | 232.09 | |
| 9 × 9 | 16,000 × 16,000 | 90.30 |
Figure 8Mobile sensor path (a) before introducing the optimization result memory; and (b) after introducing the optimization result memory.
Figure 9Mobile sensor moving steps (a) before introducing the optimization result memory; and (b) after introducing the optimization result memory.
Figure 10Positioning error of cooperative location network with different layouts of sensors at 1000 m intervals.
Figure 11Positioning error of cooperative location network with different layouts of sensors at 2000 m intervals.
Test positioning error results of different sensor networks.
| Sensor Spacing (m) | Sensor Layout | Sensor Layout Range (m × m) | Fixed Sensor Network Positioning Error (m) | Collaborative Location Network Positioning Error (m) | Positioning Accuracy Improvement Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| +1000 | 3 × 3 | 2000 × 2000 | 249.32 | 91.22 | 63.41% |
| 4 × 4 | 3000 × 3000 | 176.09 | 16.50 | 90.62% | |
| 5 × 5 | 4000 × 4000 | 146.45 | 9.60 | 93.44% | |
| 9 × 9 | 8000 × 8000 | 63.01 | 7.01 | 88.87% | |
| 2000 | 3 × 3 | 4000 × 4000 | 397.55 | 130.48 | 67.17% |
| 4 × 4 | 6000 × 6000 | 239.94 | 108.67 | 54.70% | |
| 5 × 5 | 8000 × 8000 | 232.09 | 27.79 | 88.02% | |
| 9 × 9 | 16,000 × 16,000 | 90.30 | 13.97 | 84.52% |
Figure 12Comparison of positioning accuracy between the fixed sensor network and collaborative location network.
Figure 13Statistics of the average running time of the algorithm.