| Literature DB >> 35746193 |
Ningke Xu1,2, Xiangqian Wang3, Xiangrui Meng1,3, Haoqian Chang3.
Abstract
In this study, to further improve the prediction accuracy of coal mine gas concentration and thereby preventing gas accidents and improving coal mine safety management, the standard whale optimisation algorithm's (WOA) susceptibility to falling into local optima, slow convergence speed, and low prediction accuracy of the single-factor long short-term memory (LSTM) neural network residual correction model are addressed. A new IWOA-LSTM-CEEMDAN model is constructed based on the improved whale optimisation algorithm (IWOA) to improve the IWOA-LSTM one-factor residual correction model through the use of the complete ensemble empirical model decomposition with adaptive noise (CEEMDAN) method. The population diversity of the WOA is enhanced through multiple strategies and its ability to exit local optima and perform global search is improved. In addition, the optimal weight combination model for subsequence is determined by analysing the prediction error of the intrinsic mode function (IMF) of the residual sequence. The experimental results show that the prediction accuracy of the IWOA-LSTM-CEEMDAN model is higher than that of the BP neural network and the GRU, LSTM, WOA-LSTM, and IWOA-LSTM residual correction models by 47.48%, 36.48%, 30.71%, 27.38%, and 12.96%, respectively. The IWOA-LSTM-CEEMDAN model also achieves the highest prediction accuracy in multi-step prediction.Entities:
Keywords: CEEMDAN decomposition and reconstruction; LSTM; coal mine safety; gas concentration prediction; whale optimisation algorithm
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35746193 PMCID: PMC9230321 DOI: 10.3390/s22124412
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Data attributes of each measurement point at the working face.
| Measurement Point Name | Measurement Point Description | Unit | Max Value | Min Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MGas | Mixed methane concentration in air entry | %CH4 | 0.7 | 0 |
| EGas | Methane concentration of back air in air inlet drift | %CH4 | 0.7 | 0 |
| Gas1 | Methane concentration in downwind side of tunnel | %CH4 | 0.79 | 0.16 |
| Gas2 | Methane concentration in working face of air entry | %CH4 | 0.4 | 0 |
| YCO1 | Concentration of carbon monoxide in downwind side of tunnel drilling | ppm | 6 | 0 |
| YCO2 | Concentration of carbon monoxide at head of belt conveyor in air inlet lane | ppm | 6 | 0 |
| WS | Back air speed in air entry | m/s | 1.2 | 0.2 |
| FC | Dust on working face of air entry | mg/m3 | 0 | 0 |
| ET | Back air temperature in air entry | °C | 13.3 | 10.8 |
| GD | Mixed instantaneous flow in air inlet pipeline | m3 | 19.29 | 0 |
| SM | Smoke on downwind side of belt head belt driven into air entry | mg/m3 | 0 | 0 |
Figure 1LSTM structure diagram.
Figure 2CEEMDAN decomposition flow chart.
Figure 3IWOA-LSTM-CEEMDAN residual correction model prediction flow chart.
Figure 4Line chart of cumulative contribution of parameters.
Comparison of data prediction errors before and after dimensionality reduction for each model.
| Model Name | Raw Data Prediction Error | Data Prediction Error after Dimensionality Reduction |
|---|---|---|
| BP model | 0.0233 | 0.0218 |
| GRU model | 0.0198 | 0.0181 |
| LightGBM model | 0.0211 | 0.0193 |
| LSTM model | 0.0190 | 0.0177 |
Functional expressions of benchmark functions.
| Function Name | Function Formula | Dimensionality | Search Interval |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sphere |
| 30 | [−100,100] | 0 |
| Schwefel’Sp2.22 |
| 30 | [−100,100] | 0 |
| Quadric |
| 30 | [−100,100] | 0 |
| Schwefel’Sp2.21 |
| 30 | [−50,50] | 0 |
| Rosenbrock |
| 30 | [−30,30] | 0 |
| Noise |
| 100 | [−10,10] | 0 |
| Step |
| 100 | [−100,100] | 0 |
| Schwefel |
| 100 | [−500,500] | 0 |
| Rastrigin |
| 100 | [−10,10] | 0 |
| Ackley |
| 100 | [−50,50] | 0 |
Figure 5Convergence curves of each test function. (a) Comparison of the two algorithms on f1; (b) Comparison of the two algorithms on f2; (c) Comparison of the two algorithms on f3; (d) Comparison of the two algorithms on f4; (e) Comparison of the two algorithms on f5; (f) Comparison of the two algorithms on f6; (g) Comparison of the two algorithms on f7; (h) Comparison of the two algorithms on f8; (i) Comparison of the two algorithms on f9; (j) Comparison of the two algorithms on f10.
Figure 6CEEMDAN decomposition of residual sequences.
Prediction errors and weights of each subsequence.
| Subsequence Name | Mean Absolute Error | Weighting |
|---|---|---|
| IMF1 | 0.00568 | 0.0518 |
| IMF2 | 0.00625 | 0.0471 |
| IMF3 | 0.00513 | 0.0573 |
| IMF4 | 0.00309 | 0.0952 |
| IMF5 | 0.00574 | 0.0512 |
| IMF6 | 0.00272 | 0.1081 |
| IMF7 | 0.00204 | 0.1442 |
| IMF8 | 0.00367 | 0.0802 |
| IMF9 | 0.00125 | 0.2353 |
| RMSE | 0.00124 | 0.2372 |
Figure 7Predicted and actual results for each model.
Comparison of model evaluation indicators.
| Model Name | Single-Step Prediction | Multi-Step Prediction | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAE | RMSE | MAE | RMSE | |
| BP | 0.01611 | 0.02068 | 0.03091 | 0.04468 |
| GRU | 0.01332 | 0.01769 | 0.02697 | 0.03524 |
| LSTM | 0.01239 | 0.01644 | 0.02778 | 0.03727 |
| WOA-LSTM | 0.01165 | 0.01513 | 0.02417 | 0.03069 |
| IWOA-LSTM (Residual correction model) | 0.00972 | 0.01323 | 0.02011 | 0.02796 |
| IWOA-LSTM-CEEMDAN (Residual correction model) | 0.00846 | 0.01239 | 0.01843 | 0.02518 |
Figure 8Case study of coal and gas outburst accident.
Figure 9Model evaluation indicators for different coal mines.