| Literature DB >> 29346323 |
Lingling Wang1, Li Fu2, Ming Xin3.
Abstract
In order to decrease the velocity sculling error under vibration environments, a new sculling error compensation algorithm for strapdown inertial navigation system (SINS) using angular rate and specific force measurements as inputs is proposed in this paper. First, the sculling error formula in incremental velocity update is analytically derived in terms of the angular rate and specific force. Next, two-time scale perturbation models of the angular rate and specific force are constructed. The new sculling correction term is derived and a gravitational search optimization method is used to determine the parameters in the two-time scale perturbation models. Finally, the performance of the proposed algorithm is evaluated in a stochastic real sculling environment, which is different from the conventional algorithms simulated in a pure sculling circumstance. A series of test results demonstrate that the new sculling compensation algorithm can achieve balanced real/pseudo sculling correction performance during velocity update with the advantage of less computation load compared with conventional algorithms.Entities:
Keywords: inertial measurement; pseudo sculling; sculling error; singular perturbation; two-time scale perturbation model; velocity update
Year: 2018 PMID: 29346323 PMCID: PMC5795565 DOI: 10.3390/s18010282
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The raw specific force data of X-axis with 1.6 KHz sampling frequency.
Figure 2Frequency response of filtered specific force: (a) Frequency spectrum of filtered specific force in Figure 1; (b) Sensor noise region with high frequency.
Figure 3Specific force measurement and the fourth-order fitting model over one sculling update interval.
Figure 4Gravitational search optimization algorithm.
Figure 5Velocity error.
Figure 6Velocity errors at the low frequency and high frequency: (a) Velocity error at the low frequency; (b) Velocity error at the high frequency.
Figure 7Error drifts: (a) Error drift of the conventional algorithm; (b) Error drift of the improved algorithm.
Performance comparison.
| Performance Index | Four-Interval Algorithm | Improved Algorithm |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (m/s) | −0.0399 | −0.0152 |
| Computational time (s) | 0.01432 | 0.00414 |
| Correction frequency (Hz) | 100 | 400 |