| Literature DB >> 35898019 |
Yongtao Wang1,2, Jian Liu1, Rong Li1, Xinyu Suo1, Enhui Lu3.
Abstract
In this paper, we present a nutrient solution control system, designing a nutrient solution electrical conductivity (EC) sensing system composed of multiple long-range radio (LoRa) slave nodes, narrow-band Internet of Things (NB-IoT) master nodes, and a host computer, building a nutrient solution EC control model and using the particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm to optimize the initial weights of a back-propagation neural network (BPNN). In addition, the optimized best weights are put into the BPNN to adjust the proportional-integral-derivative (PID) control parameters Kp, Ki, and Kd so that the system performance index can be optimized. Under the same initial conditions, we input EC = 2 mS/cm and use the particle swarm optimization BP neural network PID (PSO-BPNN-PID) to control the EC target value of the nutrient solution. The optimized scale factors were Kp = 81, Ki = 0.095, and Kd = 0.044; the steady state time was about 43 s, the overshoot was about 0.14%, and the EC value was stable at 1.9997 mS/cm-2.0027 mS/cm. Compared with the BP neural network PID (BPNN-PID) and the traditional PID control approach, the results show that PSO-BPNN-PID had a faster response speed and higher accuracy. Furthermore, we input 1 mS/cm, 1.5 mS/cm, 2 mS/cm, and 2.5 mS/cm, respectively, and simulated and verified the PSO-BPNN-PID system model. The results showed that the fluctuation range of EC was 0.003 mS/cm~0.119 mS/cm, the steady-state time was 40 s~60 s, and the overshoot was 0.3%~0.14%, which can meet the requirements of the rapid and accurate integration of water and fertilizer in agricultural production.Entities:
Keywords: PSO-BPNN-PID; nutrient solution EC regulation; simulation and experiments; wireless sensor network acquisition device
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35898019 PMCID: PMC9330439 DOI: 10.3390/s22155515
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1The working principle of the integrated water and fertilizer system. 1. Fertilizer pump; 2. Buffer mixing tank; 3. Venturi jet; 4. Control box (including controller, operation screen and data acquisition module, etc.) system; 5. EC sensor; 6. PH sensor; 7. Float valve; 8. Pressure gauge; 9. Upper branch pipe filter; 10. Pressure-sensitive switch; 11. Check valve; 12. Water source main pipeline water pump (optional); 13. Main pipe filter; 14. Pressure reducing valve; 15. Fertilizer storage tank; 16. Fertilizer injection valve; 17. Butterfly filter; 18. Flow meter; 19. Water source.
Figure 2Network structure of EC regulation system of nutrient solution.
Figure 3Multi-node LoRa communication structure diagram.
Master node–child node protocol nesting.
| Sender | Receiver | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Target group address | 0xXXXX | local group address | 0x5678 |
| Module channel | 0xXXXX | module channel | 0x18 |
| Send data | Receive address high + receive address low + receive channel + data (data) | Output Data | User data (data) |
| 0x56 0x78 0x18 0x11 0x22 0x33 | 0x11 0x22 0x33 | ||
Serial transmission format of user data bytes: 1 start bit; 8 data bits; 1 stop bit, no parity check.
Data frame format.
| Serial Number | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of bytes | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | n | 2 | 1 |
| Code | STA (E8) | AD | C | LEN | DATA | CRC | END (E6) |
Definition of control codes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| If D15~D8 = 0, it is the communication between the collector and the background; if D15~D8 = 1, it is the communication between the collector and Bluetooth. | |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Transmission direction | Exception flag | Function code | |||||
Figure 4System task diagram.
Figure 5PSO-BP-PID controller structure.
Figure 6Nutrient EC control BPNN structure.
Initial weights of the PSO-BP-PID controller.
|
|
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −0.3234 | 0.3269 | −0.3827 | −0.0136 | 0.0208 | 0.3921 | 0.0192 | −0.4522 | −0.0991 |
| 0.4135 | −0.2866 | −0.3405 | −0.4651 | −0.4179 | 0.0088 | −0.1617 | −0.4256 | −0.3543 |
| 0.2692 | 0.2864 | −0.4887 | 0.1367 | −0.3415 | 0.1173 | 0.1547 | 0.4085 | 0.3075 |
| −0.1759 | 0.1077 | −0.1479 | 0.2126 | |||||
| 0.3873 | −0.0634 | 0.3556 | 0.1271 | |||||
Figure 7Flow chart of the PSO-BPNN-PID algorithm.
Figure 8Comparison of different control results.
Figure 9Error curve.
Figure 10Fitness curve.
Figure 11Kp, Ki, and Kd after PSO optimization.
Control parameters and performance indicators for different EC values.
| Control Method | Target EC (mS.cm−1) | Steady State EC (mS.cm−1) | EC Volatility (mS.cm−1) | Steady State Time (s) | Overshoot (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PSO-BPNN-PID | 1 | 0.9904–1.0003 | 0.0126 | 40 | 0.3 |
| 1.5 | 1.4990–1.5001 | 0.0011 | 45 | 0.06 | |
| 2 | 1.9997–2.0027 | 0.0003 | 43 | 0.14 | |
| 2.5 | 2.4901–2.5020 | 0.119 | 60 | 0.08 |
Close-range test results (within 1 and 100 m).
| Frequency | Startup Time/s | Time for Each Issued Command/s | Data Reporting Time/s | Data Receiving Interval/s | Delay/s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3.87 | 1.123 | 12.156 | 15.967 | 3.81 |
| 2 | 3.58 | 1.124 | 13.982 | 15.982 | 1.50 |
| 3 | 3.78 | 1.124 | 12.699 | 16.699 | 3.76 |
| 4 | 3.56 | 1.124 | 12.835 | 14.835 | 1.62 |
| 5 | 3.71 | 1.124 | 12.363 | 15.363 | 3.02 |
| 6 | 3.87 | 1.123 | 12.872 | 15.872 | 2.95 |
| 7 | 3.58 | 1.123 | 12.635 | 15.635 | 3.05 |
| 8 | 3.78 | 1.122 | 11.985 | 14.985 | 2.47 |
| 9 | 3.56 | 1.124 | 12.213 | 16.213 | 4.28 |
| 10 | 3.71 | 1.124 | 11.987 | 15.987 | 3.38 |
| Average value | 3.7 | 1.1235 | 12.5727 | 15.7538 | 2.984 |
Long-range test results (1000–1500 m).
| Frequency | Startup Time/s | Time for Each Issued Command/s | Data Reporting Time/s | Data Receiving Interval/s | Delay/s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3.87 | 1.123 | 12.156 | 20.544 | 8.39 |
| 2 | 3.58 | 1.124 | 13.982 | 22.563 | 8.58 |
| 3 | 3.78 | 1.124 | 12.699 | 21.512 | 8.81 |
| 4 | 3.56 | 1.124 | 12.835 | 20.367 | 7.53 |
| 5 | 3.71 | 1.124 | 12.363 | 23.762 | 11.40 |
| 6 | 3.87 | 1.123 | 12.872 | 22.634 | 9.76 |
| 7 | 3.58 | 1.123 | 12.635 | 20.318 | 7.68 |
| 8 | 3.78 | 1.122 | 11.985 | 21.024 | 9.04 |
| 9 | 3.56 | 1.124 | 12.213 | 21.356 | 9.14 |
| 10 | 3.71 | 1.124 | 11.987 | 20.946 | 8.96 |
| Average value | 3.7 | 1.1235 | 12.5727 | 21.5026 | 8.929 |
Figure 12Fertilizer test platform.
Test results of EC regulation system for nutrient solutions.
| Fertilizer Intake | EC Value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fertilizer Channel | Measured data of Fertilizer Intake(L/h) | Test Number | Target Value | Measured Value (mS/cm) | Error |
| 1 | 700.00 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.43 | −0.07 |
| 2 | 660.00 | 2 | 1 | 0.92 | −0.08 |
| 3 | 675.00 | 3 | 1.5 | 1.65 | +0.15 |
| 4 | 738.00 | 4 | 2 | 1.82 | −0.18 |
| average value | 693.25 | 5 | 2.5 | 2.57 | +0.07 |