| Literature DB >> 32456034 |
Changpeng Li1, Tianhao Peng1, Yanmin Zhu1.
Abstract
During operation, the acoustic signal of the drum shearer contains a wealth of information. The monitoring or diagnosis system based on acoustic signal has obvious advantages. However, the signal is challenging to extract and recognize. Therefore, this paper proposes an approach for acoustic signal processing of a shearer based on the parameter optimized variational mode decomposition (VMD) method and a clustering algorithm. First, the particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm searched for the best parameter combination of the VMD. According to the results, the approach determined the number of modes and penalty parameters for VMD. Then the improved VMD algorithm decomposed the acoustic signal. It selected the ideal component through the minimum envelope entropy. The PSO was designed to optimize the clustering analysis, and the minimum envelope entropy of the acoustic signal was regarded as the feature for classification. We then use a shearer simulation platform to collect the acoustic signal and use the approach proposed in this paper to process and classify the signal. The experimental results show that the approach proposed can effectively extract the features of the acoustic signal of the shearer. The recognition accuracy of the acoustic signal was high, which has practical application value.Entities:
Keywords: acoustic signal; cluster analysis; drum shearer; parameter optimization; particle swarm optimization; variational mode decomposition
Year: 2020 PMID: 32456034 PMCID: PMC7288331 DOI: 10.3390/s20102949
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Effect diagram of variational mode decomposition (VMD) processing multi-harmonic signal. (a) The composite multi-harmonic signal graph, (b) the model component 1 after VMD processing, (c) the model component 2 after VMD processing, and (d) the model component 3 after VMD processing. The black in the figure is the original signal, and the other colors indicate decomposed signals.
Figure 2Frequency distribution of noisy multi-harmonic signals.
Figure 3Frequency distribution of variational mode decomposition (VMD) model components.
Figure 4Effect of different K and α on variational mode decomposition (VMD). (a): K = 2, α = 300, (b): K = 2, α = 3000, (c): K = 4, α = 300, (d): K = 4, α = 3000.
Figure 5Flow chart of particle swarm optimization (PSO) optimized variational mode decomposition (VMD).
Initial parameters of particle swarm optimization (PSO).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.5 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 20 | 20 |
Figure 6Results of variational mode decomposition (VMD) processing the simulation signal. (a) The simulation signal, , (b) the periodic impact signal, , (c) the cosine signal, , (d) the frequency mutation signal, . The black curve in the figure is the original signal, and other color curves indicate the model components after decomposition.
Figure 7Results of ensemble empirical mode decomposition (EEMD) processing the simulation signal.
Figure 8Shearer simulation platform.
Figure 9Structure of acoustic sensor.
Figure 10Sensor installation.
The performance parameters of PCIe-6323.
| Performance Parameter | Index Value |
|---|---|
| Number of analog input channels | 16 differential or 32 single ended |
| Analog–digital converter resolution | 16 bits |
| Single channel maximum sampling rate | 250 kS/s |
| Number of analog output channels | 4 channels |
| Digital–analog converter resolution | 16 bits |
| Signal channel maximum updated rate | 900 kS/s |
Figure 11Acoustic signal of the cutting system.
Figure 12Acoustic signal of the hydraulic system.
Figure 13Cutting system structure.
Transmission parameters of the secondary reduction gearbox.
| Transmission Parameters | High-Speed Gear Set | Low-Speed Gear Set |
|---|---|---|
| Gear modulus | 3 | 3 |
| Number of pinion teeth | 24 | 30 |
| Number of large gear teeth | 76 | 73 |
| Transmission ratio | 3.166 | 2.433 |
| Pressure angle (°) | 20 | 20 |
Figure 14Frequency spectrum of the acoustic signal.
Figure 15Envelope spectrum of the acoustic signal.
Figure 16Relationship between fitness value and evolutionary generation.
Envelope entropy of feature.
| Experience Group | Optimal Envelope Entropy |
|---|---|
| 1 | [7.4883, 7.4443, 7.3487, 7.4516, 7.5074, 7.7370, 7.9055, 7.5466, 7.3212, 7.3465, 7.3406, 7.2994, 7.4831, 7.4870, 7.2313, 7.4551, 7.6440, 7.3354, 7.4853, 7.4946, 7.5568, 7.4802, 7.4539, 7.4824, 7.3477, 7.4989, 7.3541, 7.5143, 7.4427, 7.5808, 7.8402, 7.5027, 7.2932, 7.3216, 7.6472, 7.4759, 7.4542, 7.4661, 7.4849, 7.2856] |
| 2 | [8.0925, 7.9822, 8.0960, 8.1214, 8.0436, 7.9766, 8.0436, 7.9983, 7.9526, 7.9896, 8.0836, 8.1699, 7.9583, 7.9885, 8.0601, 8.1000, 7.9492, 7.9937, 8.1170, 8.0792, 7.9660, 8.1463, 8.1404, 7.9877, 8.0229, 8.0735, 8.0397, 8.0138, 7.9815, 7.9750, 8.0153, 8.0927, 8.0774, 8.0119, 7.9693, 8.0375, 8.0345, 7.9721, 7.9597, 8.0176] |
Figure 17Classification results.
Comparison between different recognition methods.
| Compared Methods | Recognition Accuracy |
|---|---|
| WPT-PNN | 78.33% |
| EEMD-VTWNN | 84.75% |
| IEEMD-PNN | 92.67% |
| MFS-MEB-SVM | 94.42% |
| EEMD-VTWNN-MBA | 95.25% |
| The proposed method | 96.25% |