## 5 Engineering Cases
### Quantitative Analysis of the Test Results  
The motion path of the tamping device of the SBHS in the simulation testing model is shown in Figure 16. The model sensor module was used to output and analyze the path curve during the simulation process.  
The variations of the tamping device of the SBHS tamping angle and path under the control of two algorithms during the process simulation are shown in Figure 17.  
From Figure 17a,b, it can be seen that the response time of the old process action automatic-execution algorithm for controlling the tamping angle and tamping path is 32 s. The optimized process action automatic-execution algorithm for controlling the timing tamping angle and tamping path has a response time of 30 s, which improves the efficiency by 7%. In both cases, the tamping angle and path reach the target position \(C_{1}\)-\(C_{9}\) with a small amplitude difference and do not result in pose interference.  
The column path variations in the process simulation under the control of two algorithms are shown in Figure 18.  
Figure 18 shows that, during the 2.0 s operation of the column, a pose interference \(g_{1}\) occurs in the optimized process action automatic-execution algorithm. The optimized process action automatic-execution algorithm successfully conducts interference recognition \(s_{1}\) and autonomously regulates \(b_{1}\). The regulation is successful at around 3.2 s, and the columns overlap with the ideal state to achieve automatic avoidance. It reaches the target position \(A_{2}\) of the process in 3.5 s.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Design Object**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Key Design Information**} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Assembly design} & \multirow{2}{*}{Working environment} & Inclination angle/\({}^{\circ}\) & Mining height/mm & Device model \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 8 & 4400 & Four-column type \\ \cline{2-5}  & \multirow{2}{*}{Initial state} & Tamping angle/\({}^{\circ}\) & Tamping path/mm & Column path/mm \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 7 & 60 & 3000 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Drive design} & Drive cylinder & Front and rear columns & Slant-angle cylinder, tamping cylinder \\ \cline{2-5}  & Key parameters & Front and rear column paths & Tamping angle, tamping path \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Process plan} & Process category & Support process & Tamping process \\ \cline{2-5}  & Motion path & \(A_{1}\)-\(A_{2}\) & \(C_{1}\)-\(C_{2}\)-\(C_{3}\)-\(C_{4}\)-\(C_{5}\)-\(C_{6}\)-\(C_{7}\)-\(C_{8}\)-\(C_{9}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: SIB working-face test model design information.  
Figure 16: SIB process testing model diagram.  
Figure 17: Comparison of control effects of different algorithms on the tamping device.  
Figure 18: Comparison of control effects of different algorithms on the column.  
The motion path of the tamping device under the control of two algorithms during the process simulation is shown in Figure 19.  
Figure 19 shows no abnormalities in the \(C_{1}\)-\(C_{7}\) process. In \(C_{7}\)-\(C_{8}\) and \(C_{9}\)-\(C_{9}\), the tamping device and the perforated bottom discharge scraper conveyor collide. The interference-recognition algorithm identifies \(s_{2}\) and \(s_{3}\) values, automatically avoiding \(b_{2}\) and \(b_{3}\). However, automatic avoidance \(b_{3}\) still has a slight collision interference due to the low-accuracy control.