| Literature DB >> 33110424 |
Miao Wan1,2, Zhongbin Wang1,3, Lei Si1, Chao Tan1, Hao Wang1.
Abstract
The shearer is one of the core equipment of the fully mechanized coal face. The fast and accurate positioning of the shearer is the prerequisite for its memory cutting, intelligent height adjustment, and intelligent speed adjustment. Inertial navigation technology has many advantages such as strong autonomy, good concealment, and high reliability. The accurate positioning of the shearer based on inertial navigation can not only determine its operating position but also measure the direction of movement. However, when inertial navigation is used to locate the shearer in motion, the cumulative errors will occur, resulting in inaccurate positioning of the shearer. The accuracy of the initial alignment is directly related to the working precision of the inertial navigation system. In order to improve the efficiency and accuracy of initial alignment, an improved initial alignment method is proposed in this paper, which uses a fruit fly-optimized Kalman filter algorithm for initial alignment. In order to improve the filtering performance, the fruit fly-optimized Kalman filter algorithm uses an improved fruit fly algorithm to realize the adaptive optimization of system noise variance. Finally, simulation and experiments verify the effectiveness of the fruit fly-optimized Kalman filter algorithm.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33110424 PMCID: PMC7578721 DOI: 10.1155/2020/8876918
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Coordinate systems schematic diagram.
Figure 2Student's t-distribution.
Figure 3Algorithm flowchart.
Algorithm 1
Figure 4Comparison of the optimization process of the four algorithms. (a) Ackley. (b) Griewank. (c) Zettl. (d) Testtubeholder. (e) Helicalvalley. (f) Wood.
Optimal value of different algorithms.
| Name | PSO | FOA | GFOA | IFOA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ackley | 0.440788 | 0.049512 | 0.017546 | 7.11∗10−15 |
| Griewank | 0.001394 | 9.29∗10−5 | 2.43∗10−5 | 3.33∗10−16 |
| Zettl | 0.013575 | 0.002592 | 0.001333 | 3.07∗10−11 |
| Testtubeholder | −10.843774 | −10.700662 | −10.766711 | −10.872299 |
| Helicalvalley | 6.926416 | 0.739871 | 0.679324 | 0.389474 |
| Wood | 1.777238 | 0.852053 | 1.414687 | 1.61∗10−4 |
Simulation parameters.
| Name | Value | Unit |
|---|---|---|
| Longitude | 110 | deg |
| Latitude | 40 | deg |
| Height | 40 | m |
| Average radius | 6371393 | m |
| Gravity acceleration | 9.7803267714 | m/s2 |
| Simulation time | 5 | s |
Figure 5Errors of angles.
Comparison of initial alignment errors for the four algorithms.
| Name | Pitch | Roll | Yaw | Average error |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PSO-KF | 0.000050336 | 0.000065926 | 0.000045396 | 0.000053886 |
| FOA-KF | 0.000047334 | 0.000062827 | 0.000006588 | 0.000038916 |
| GFOA-KF | 0.000042335 | 0.000057818 | 0.000004314 | 0.000034822 |
| IFOA-KF | 0.000036726 | 0.000052809 | 0.000000242 | 0.000029257 |
Experimental parameters.
| Name | Value | Unit |
|---|---|---|
| Longitude | 117.18 | deg |
| Latitude | 39.84 | deg |
| Height | 36 | m |
| Average radius | 6371393 | m |
| Gravity acceleration | 9.7803267714 | m/s2 |
| Experimental time | 50 | s |
Figure 6Experimental platform.
Figure 7Initial alignment of three angles.