| Literature DB >> 28430146 |
Xin Li1,2, Peng Zhang3,4, Jiming Guo5,6, Jinling Wang7, Weining Qiu8.
Abstract
Ambiguity resolution (AR) is crucial for high-precision indoor pseudolite positioning. Due to the existing characteristics of the pseudolite positioning system, such as the geometry structure of the stationary pseudolite which is consistently invariant, the indoor signal is easy to interrupt and the first order linear truncation error cannot be ignored, and a new AR method based on the idea of the ambiguity function method (AFM) is proposed in this paper. The proposed method is a single-epoch and nonlinear method that is especially well-suited for indoor pseudolite positioning. Considering the very low computational efficiency of conventional AFM, we adopt an improved particle swarm optimization (IPSO) algorithm to search for the best solution in the coordinate domain, and variances of a least squares adjustment is conducted to ensure the reliability of the solving ambiguity. Several experiments, including static and kinematic tests, are conducted to verify the validity of the proposed AR method. Numerical results show that the IPSO significantly improved the computational efficiency of AFM and has a more elaborate search ability compared to the conventional grid searching method. For the indoor pseudolite system, which had an initial approximate coordinate precision better than 0.2 m, the AFM exhibited good performances in both static and kinematic tests. With the corrected ambiguity gained from our proposed method, indoor pseudolite positioning can achieve centimeter-level precision using a low-cost single-frequency software receiver.Entities:
Keywords: ambiguity function method; ambiguity resolution; improved particle swarm optimization; pseudolite positioning
Year: 2017 PMID: 28430146 PMCID: PMC5426917 DOI: 10.3390/s17040921
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Distribution of pseudolite antennas.
Figure 22-D contour map of pseudolite AFV for one epoch.
Figure 3Evolution of global optimal particle AFV using the IPSO method.
Figure 4Evolution of the global optimal particle 3-D coordinate component.
Figure 5AFM reliability with various preliminary coordinates.
The influence of initial coordinate bias (ICB) on the two different AR methods.
| ICB (m) | LAMBDA Method (Ratio Threshold: 3) | Proposed AR Method | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best Candidate (✓/×) | Ratio | Success (Y/N) | Time (ms) | Success (Y/N) | Time (ms) | |
| 0.05 | ✓ | 4.6 | Y | 2 | Y | 23 |
| 0.10 | ✓ | 2.3 | N | 2 | Y | 22 |
| 0.15 | × | 1.6 | N | 2 | Y | 25 |
| 0.20 | × | 1.5 | N | 2 | Y | 26 |
Figure 6AFM searching time with IPSO and traditional grid methods.
Comparison of AFM efficiency with two different searching methods (unit: s).
| IPSO | Grid | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Search Step (m) | ||||
| / | 0.01 | 0.005 | 0.001 | |
| 0.1 | 0.0211 | 0.0154 | 0.1486 | 13.9678 |
| 0.2 | 0.0265 | 0.1166 | 0.8923 | / |
| 0.3 | 0.0343 | 0.3809 | 3.0126 | / |
Figure 7Final pseudolite positioning results with two different AFM searching methods.
Figure 8Differences in positioning results between AFM and LS methods.
Static test with four other fixed points.
| Initial Coordinates | Total Epochs | Pseudolites Number | PDOP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Point #1 | (0.6, −0.6, 0.01) | 545 | 5 | 3.5 |
| Point #2 | (0.6, −1.2, 0.01) | 536 | 4 | 4.1 |
| Point #3 | (0.0, 0.0, 0.01) | 342 | 5 | 3.1 |
| Point #4 | (0.0, 0.6, 0.01) | 298 | 5 | 3.2 |
Figure 92-D positioning results with the static test.
Figure 10Fixed rail for the kinematic test.
Figure 11Kinematic trajectory based on the pseudolite positioning result.
Figure 12Kinematic positioning errors computed by LS method.