| Literature DB >> 30551635 |
Jie Li1,2, Zhengyao Jing3,4, Xi Zhang5,6, Jiayu Zhang7,8, Jinqiang Li1,2, Shiyao Gao9,10, Tao Zheng11.
Abstract
At present, existing wide range Micro-Electro-Mechanical-Systems (MEMS) inertial sensors have relatively lower precision and direct measurement of the missile's high-rotation motion inevitably uses a large-range sensor. To achieve high-precision navigation, this paper proposes a novel Semi-strap-down Stabilized Platform (SSP) based on the Missile-borne Semi-Strap-down Inertial Navigation System, which is used to mount sensors and lowers sensor range requirements through isolating the high-rotational motion of missile. First, the author innovatively puts forward a dynamic model under missile-borne environment, then analyses the influence of SSP quality on the range of gyro according to the dynamic model of the SSP. Finally, when the angle of attack of the missile is 2°, the best quality of the SSP with minimum roll angular rate amplitude was calculated through the Runge-Kutta method and the mass gradient control method. Experiments have been carried out by using a high-precision, tri-axial flight simulation turntable to validate the viability of the method. Experiments show that under the same conditions, the angular velocity of the new optimized SSP with the best quality design is reduced to 1/3 of the unoptimized SSP, and the measured roll angle error is reduced to 60% of the unoptimized measurement. The results indicate that the novel SSP has better performance segregating the high-speed rotational motion, and provides theoretical guidance for the high-precision small-range sensor instead of the low-precision wide-range sensor. In addition, the first proposed SSP quality selection method creates a new idea for the improvement of the positioning accuracy in the missile-borne environment.Entities:
Keywords: lift force; minimum roll angular rate; navigation accuracy; stabilized platform
Year: 2018 PMID: 30551635 PMCID: PMC6308997 DOI: 10.3390/s18124412
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Block diagram of the overall scheme of the SMNS.
Figure 2Arrangement of high precision Semi-Strapdown Inertial Navigation System (SSINS).
Figure 3The schematic diagram of the relative position of Micro Inertial Measurement Unit (MIMU).
Parameters of the Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) before the Semi-strap-down Stabilized Platform (SSP) is optimized.
| Characteristics | Range | Bias | Random Walk | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gyroscope ( | ±200°/s | 12°/h | 0.2 | |
| Gyroscopes ( | ±75°/s | 12°/h | 0.2 | |
| Accelerometer ( | ±10 g | 0.75 mg | 150 ug/ | |
| Accelerometer ( | ±2.5 g | 0.75 mg | 150 ug/ | |
Figure 4Dynamics diagram of the Semi-strap-down Stabilized Platform (SSP).
Figure 5Composition diagram of the newly designed SSP.
Parameters related to stable platform.
| Parameters’ Name | Value |
|---|---|
| Internal diameter R1 (mm) | 36 |
| External diameter R2 (mm) | 40 |
| Thickness H (mm) | 4 |
| Length L (mm) | 64 |
| Width K (mm) | 23.5 |
| The density of steel | 7.85 × 10−3 |
| The density of lead | 11.34 × 10−3 |
Figure 6Diagram of main forces acting on missile and the SSP.
Parameters of the missile.
| Parameters | Value |
|---|---|
|
| 0.690 m |
|
| 0.258 m |
|
| 0.325 m |
|
| 0.095 m |
|
| 0.0658 m2 |
|
| 0.125 m |
|
| 0.080 m |
|
| 0.1889 rad |
|
| 0.5236 rad |
Figure 7The speed of the missile.
Figure 8The lift force missile.
Figure 9Changing curve of the ratio of following .
Parameters of bearing.
| Parameters’ Name | Value |
|---|---|
| R1 | 3.9 × 10−7 |
| R2 | 1.7 |
| S1 | 3.23 × 10−3 |
| S2 | 36.5 |
| 20 | |
| 22 | |
| 2 | |
| 68 | |
| N (r/min) | 20 |
Simulation Parameters.
| L (mm) | J (kg∙mm2) |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1029.97 | 518 | 19.16 | 715645.36 | 9.363 | 0.0596 |
| 1195.17 | 684 | 19.33 | 796875.50 | 10.865 | 0.0653 |
| 1311.25 | 800 | 19.17 | 858230.70 | 11.921 | 0.0662 |
| 1370.82 | 859 | 19.1 | 889924.76 | 12.462 | 0.0712 |
| 1431.32 | 920 | 18.97 | 923317.63 | 13.012 | 0.0732 |
| 1492.67 | 981 | 18.69 | 957770.86 | 13.570 | 0.0753 |
| 1554.81 | 1043 | 18.55 | 993279.38 | 14.135 | 0.0774 |
| 1617.67 | 1106 | 18.32 | 1029732.48 | 14.706 | 0.0795 |
| 1681.18 | 1170 | 18.01 | 1067066.03 | 15.283 | 0.0813 |
| 1745.3 | 1234 | 17.65 | 1105219.02 | 15.866 | 0.0816 |
| 1809.95 | 1298 | 17.41 | 1144145.55 | 16.454 | 0.0837 |
| 1875.09 | 1363 | 17.18 | 1183755.35 | 17.046 | 0.0858 |
The maximum angular rate and the maximum angle of the SSP with different quality.
| The Amplitude of the Angular Rate (°/s) | The Angle of Magnitude (°) | |
|---|---|---|
| 1029.97 | 5.277425125 | 0.6913055894 |
| 1195.17 | 5.401864992 | 0.6841432462 |
| 1311.25 | 4.742293892 | 0.5968631809 |
| 1492.67 | 4.444337347 | 0.55772058380 |
| 1617.67 | 4.789094705 | 0.6084000808 |
| 1681.18 | 4.752837345 | 0.6082058380 |
| 1745.30 | 4.464310826 | 0.5752954076 |
| 1875.09 | 4.621437347 | 0.6033058380 |
Figure 10Curves of the roll angular rate and the roll angle of the SSP change with the quality: (a) A curve of roll angular rate and roll angle vary with time when the quality of the SSP is 1029.97 g; (b) A curve of roll angular rate and roll angle vary with time when the quality of the SSP is 1492.67 g; (c) A curve of roll angular rate and roll angle vary with time when the quality of the SSP is1681.18 g; (d) A curve of roll angular rate and roll angle vary with time when the quality of the SSP is1875.09 g.
Figure 11Quality of the SSP after optimization.
Figure 12Quality of the SSP before optimization.
Technical parameters of tri-axial flight simulator.
| Position Accuracy (°) | Rotation Rate Accuracy (°/s) | Rotation Rate (°/s) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inner Frame | Middle Frame | Outer Frame | ||
| 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.001–12,000 | 0.001–400 | 0.001–400 |
Characteristics of IMU in the optimized Semi-Strapdown Inertial Navigation System (SSINS).
| Characteristics | Range | Bias | Random Walk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gyroscope ( | ±50°/s | 0.12°/h | 0.017 |
| Gyroscopes ( | ±25°/s | 0.1°/h | 0.015 |
| Accelerometer ( | ±10 g | 0.75 mg | 150 ug/ |
| Accelerometer ( | ±0.85 g | 0.75 mg | 50 ug/ |
Setting of the experiment conditions.
| Pitch | Yaw | Roll | Rotating Mechanism | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experiment 1 | +2 deg | 0 deg | 20 r/s | Before |
| Experiment 2 | +2 deg | 0 deg | 20 r/s | After |
Figure 13Flight simulator test.
Figure 14Feedback angular rate of flight simulation turntable.
Figure 15Angular rate in the direction of the roll axis.
Figure 16The angular rate of the pitch axis.
Figure 17The angular rate of the yaw axis.
Figure 18Roll attitude.
Figure 19Rolling attitude angle difference.