| Literature DB >> 29168735 |
Zheping Yan1, Lu Wang2, Tongda Wang3, Honghan Zhang4, Xun Zhang5, Xiangling Liu6.
Abstract
Due to its highly autonomy, the strapdown inertial navigation system (SINS) is widely used in unmanned underwater vehicles (UUV) navigation. Initial alignment is crucial because the initial alignment results will be used as the initial SINS value, which might affect the subsequent SINS results. Due to the rapid convergence of Earth meridians, there is a calculation overflow in conventional initial alignment algorithms, making conventional initial algorithms are invalid for polar UUV navigation. To overcome these problems, a polar initial alignment algorithm for UUV is proposed in this paper, which consists of coarse and fine alignment algorithms. Based on the principle of the conical slow drift of gravity, the coarse alignment algorithm is derived under the grid frame. By choosing the velocity and attitude as the measurement, the fine alignment with the Kalman filter (KF) is derived under the grid frame. Simulation and experiment are realized among polar, conventional and transversal initial alignment algorithms for polar UUV navigation. Results demonstrate that the proposed polar initial alignment algorithm can complete the initial alignment of UUV in the polar region rapidly and accurately.Entities:
Keywords: grid frame; initial alignment; polar region; unmanned underwater vehicle
Year: 2017 PMID: 29168735 PMCID: PMC5751045 DOI: 10.3390/s17122709
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The description of the grid frame.
Parameters for simulation.
| Parameters | Value |
|---|---|
| Simulation time (coarse) | 120 |
| Simulation time (fine) | 1200 |
| Filtering period | 0.01 |
| Latitude | 80 |
| Longitude | 126 |
| Amplitude of pitch/roll/yaw (°) | 3/1/2 |
| Period of pitch/roll/yaw (s) | 3/5/7 |
| Gyro constant drifts | 0.03 °/h |
| Gyro random drifts | (0.001 °/h)2 |
| Accelerometer constant bias | 1 × 10−4
|
| Accelerometer random bias | (1 × 10−5
|
Figure 2Estimates of in simulation: (a) Estimates of based on polar coarse alignment algorithm for polar UUV navigation; (b) Estimates of based on conventional coarse alignment algorithm for polar UUV navigation; (c) Estimates of based on transversal coarse alignment algorithm for polar UUV navigation.
The simulation results of coarse alignments.
| Parameters | Coarse Alignment Algorithm | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Mean of | Polar coarse alignment algorithm | 0.5331 |
| Conventional coarse alignment algorithm | −3.2030 | |
| Transversal coarse alignment algorithm | −0.5982 | |
| Mean of | Polar coarse alignment algorithm | −1.7753 |
| Conventional coarse alignment algorithm | 2.6893 | |
| Transversal coarse alignment algorithm | −2.1027 | |
| Mean of | Polar coarse alignment algorithm | 5.9691 |
| Conventional coarse alignment algorithm | 59.2882 | |
| Transversal coarse alignment algorithm | 6.3123 | |
| Standard deviation of | Polar coarse alignment algorithm | 0.118239 |
| Conventional coarse alignment algorithm | 0.000806 | |
| Transversal coarse alignment algorithm | 0.602804 | |
| Standard deviation of | Polar coarse alignment algorithm | 0.005283 |
| Conventional coarse alignment algorithm | 0.002867 | |
| Transversal coarse alignment algorithm | 0.502575 | |
| Standard deviation of | Polar coarse alignment algorithm | 0.570818 |
| Conventional coarse alignment algorithm | 0.000002 | |
| Transversal coarse alignment algorithm | 0.540643 |
Figure 3Estimation errors of in simulation: (a) Estimation errors of ; (b) Estimation errors of ; (c) Estimation errors of .
Estimation errors (RMS) of fine alignment algorithms in simulation.
| Parameters | Fine Alignment Algorithm | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Algorithm 1 | 0.0060 | |
| Algorithm 2 | 0.0481 | |
| Algorithm 3 | 0.1303 | |
| Algorithm 1 | 0.0039 | |
| Algorithm 2 | 0.0202 | |
| Algorithm 3 | 1.2560 | |
| Algorithm 1 | 0.2143 | |
| Algorithm 2 | 14.8649 | |
| Algorithm 3 | 0.2953 |
Figure 4Unmanned Underwater Vehicle during the experiment.
The practical measured data.
| Parameters | Value |
|---|---|
| Gyro constant drifts | 0.03 °/h |
| Gyro random drifts | (4.102 × 10−6 rad/s)2 |
| (4.296 × 10−6 rad/s)2 | |
| (2.375 × 10−6 rad/s)2 | |
| Accelerometer constant | 1 × 10−4
|
| Accelerometer random bias | (0.00162 m/s2)2 |
| (0.002001 m/s2)2 | |
| (0.0007122 m/s2)2 |
Figure 5Estimates of in experiment: (a) Estimates of based on polar coarse alignment algorithm for polar UUV navigation; (b) Estimates of based on conventional coarse alignment algorithm for polar UUV navigation; (c) Estimates of based on transversal coarse alignment algorithm for polar UUV navigation.
The experiment results of coarse alignments.
| Parameters | Coarse Alignment Algorithm | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Mean of | Polar coarse alignment algorithm | −0.4378 |
| Conventional coarse alignment algorithm | −0.1959 | |
| Transversal coarse alignment algorithm | −0.6256 | |
| Mean of | Polar coarse alignment algorithm | −1.7750 |
| Conventional coarse alignment algorithm | 2.5139 | |
| Transversal coarse alignment algorithm | −2.1249 | |
| Mean of | Polar coarse alignment algorithm | 5.5904 |
| Conventional coarse alignment algorithm | 59.8336 | |
| Transversal coarse alignment algorithm | 6.3255 | |
| Standard deviation of | Polar coarse alignment algorithm | 0.284479 |
| Conventional coarse alignment algorithm | 0.276744 | |
| Transversal coarse alignment algorithm | 0.385646 | |
| Standard deviation of | Polar coarse alignment algorithm | 0.279732 |
| Conventional coarse alignment algorithm | 0.312622 | |
| Transversal coarse alignment algorithm | 0.313164 | |
| Standard deviation of | Polar coarse alignment algorithm | 0.310097 |
| Conventional coarse alignment algorithm | 0.297141 | |
| Transversal coarse alignment algorithm | 0.286084 |
Figure 6Estimation errors of in experiment: (a) Estimation errors of ; (b) Estimation errors of ; (c) Estimation errors of .
Estimation errors (RMS) of fine alignment algorithms in experiment.
| Parameters | Fine Alignment Algorithm | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Algorithm 1 | 0.0064 | |
| Algorithm 2 | 0.0334 | |
| Algorithm 3 | 0.2195 | |
| Algorithm 1 | 0.0047 | |
| Algorithm 2 | 0.0130 | |
| Algorithm 3 | 1.3639 | |
| Algorithm 1 | 0.0926 | |
| Algorithm 2 | 14.0349 | |
| Algorithm 3 | 0.3468 |
Figure 7Relationship between and .