基于激光诱导荧光技术的煤矿水源识别研究

doi:10.3964/j.issn.1000-0593(2020)07-2176-06

Abstract
References
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (4097 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract The rapid and accurate identification of coal mine aquifer water source is of great significance for coal mine water inrush warning and post-disaster rescue. It takes a long time for water source identification with the traditional method, and it is not suitable to construct an online early warning system. A method of using laser induced fluorescence technology to identify the type of coal mine water source is proposed. The laser is used to excite the water sample. Then the fluorescence spectrum is obtained, with pattern recognition the water source can be rapidly identified. Two kinds of water samples-goaf water and sandstone water of Xieqiao Coal Mine in Huainan Mining Area were collected, and five mixed water samples were prepared according to different mixing ratios. Firstly, according to the various noise and interference information that may exist in the obtained water source fluorescence spectrum, the spectral data were pretreated by SG, Normalize, Gapsegment derivation, Detrend and MSC. Secondly, PCA was used to reduce the dimension of fluorescence spectral data due to a large amount of data. As a comparison of the six pretreatment methods (including the original spectrum), the number of principal components was taken by 3, and the results showed that the cumulative contribution of SG pretreatment is the largest, which was 97.26%. The second was the original spectrum, which was 92.38%. The cumulative contribution of Normalize and Detrend were not much different, which were 88.04% and 87.59%, MSC was 66.41%, and Gapsegment was the worst with 22.65%. Finally, the linear model of LDA and nonlinear model of RBF-SVM were used to identified and compared with the data of reduced dimension by PCA. Using LDA for modeling, SG-PCA-LDA had the highest accuracy rate, which reached 98.86%. According to the LDA model established, the verification set data were identified, and the accuracy rate of SG-PCA-LDA was still the highest with 100%. Using RBF-SVM for modeling, Original-PCA-RBF-SVM, SG-PCA-RBF-SVM, and Normalize-PCA-RBF-SVM had the highest accuracy rate, both of which was 97.14%. Based on the RBF-SVM model established, verification set data were identified, and the accuracy rate of Original-PCA-RBF-SVM and SG-PCA-RBF-SVM was still the highest, which is 97.14%. Tt can be found that the accuracy rate of the LDA verification set was improved which compared with the modeling set, and the accuracy rate of the RBF-SVM verification set was slightly lower than the modeling set, which showed that LDA model had better generalization ability and higher accuracy rate for fluorescence spectral data of this coal mine water. The results showed that the SG-PCA-LDA model combined with laser induced fluorescence technology is a better method for local coal mine water source identification, and it verified the possibility of identification for goaf water, sandstone water and mixed water, which can be extended to identify other mixed water sources of coal mines.

Key words：Laser induced fluorescence technology; Water source identification; Coal mine aquifer; LDA; RBF-SVM

Received: 2019-11-30 Accepted: 2020-02-20

ZTFLH:

O657.3

Cite this article:

URL:

https://www.gpxygpfx.com/EN/10.3964/j.issn.1000-0593(2020)07-2176-06 OR https://www.gpxygpfx.com/EN/Y2020/V40/I07/2176

[1] WU Qiang, XU Hua, ZHAO Ying-wang, et al(武强, 徐华, 赵颖旺, 等). Journal of China Coal Society(煤炭学报), 2018, 43(10): 2661.
[2] Hu Feng, Zhou Mengran, Yan Pengcheng, et al. IEEE Access, 2019, 7: 107129.
[3] WU Jin-gang, MAO Jun-rui, CHAI Pei(吴金刚, 毛俊睿, 柴沛). Safety in Coal Mines(煤矿安全), 2019, 50(10): 239.
[4] LIU Shou-qiang, WU Qiang, ZENG Yi-fan(刘守强, 武强, 曾一凡). Coal Engineering(煤炭工程), 2019, 51(3): 1.
[5] YAN Peng-cheng, ZHOU Meng-ran, LIU Qi-meng, et al(闫鹏程, 周孟然, 刘启蒙, 等). Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis(光谱学与光谱分析), 2016, 36(1): 243.
[6] SUN Ji-ping, JIN Chun-hai(孙继平, 靳春海). Industry and Mine Automation(工矿自动化), 2019, 45(4): 1.
[7] WANG Tian-tian, JIN De-wu, LIU Ji, et al(王甜甜, 靳德武, 刘基, 等). Journal of China Coal Society(煤炭学报), 2019, 44(9): 2840.
[8] WANG Yang, ZUO Wen-zhe, WANG Bin-hai, et al(汪洋, 左文喆, 王斌海, 等). Modern Mining(现代矿业), 2018, 34(1): 69.
[9] TIAN Xiu-rong, WEI Fang, WEI Tian(田秀荣, 魏芳, 魏甜). Coal Geology of China(中国煤炭地质), 2015, 27(12): 53.
[10] Guan Zilong, Jia Zhifeng, Zhao Zhiqiang, et al. Journal of Earth System Science, 2019，128(7): 200.
[11] PENG Cheng, LIU Yong-tao, YOU Wen-qiang, et al(彭程, 刘永涛, 尤文强, 等). China Mining Magazine(中国矿业), 2019, 28(7): 176.
[12] ZHANG Shu-ying, HU You-biao, XING Shi-ping(张淑莹, 胡友彪, 邢世平). Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology(水文地质工程地质), 2018, 45(6): 36.
[13] MAO Zhi-yong, HUANG Chun-juan, LU Shi-chang, et al(毛志勇, 黄春娟, 路世昌, 等). China Safety Science Journal(中国安全科学学报), 2018, 28(8): 111.
[14] LIU Guo-wei, MA Feng-shan, GUO Jie, et al(刘国伟, 马凤山, 郭捷, 等). Gold Science and Technology(黄金科学技术), 2019, 27(2): 207.