| Literature DB >> 31434313 |
Ji Ma1, Zhiqiang Yang2, Zhen Shi1, Xuewei Zhang1, Chenchen Liu1.
Abstract
Conventional wavelet transform (WT) filters have less effect on de-noising and correction of a north-seeking gyroscope sensor exposed to vibration, since the optimal wavelet decomposed level for de-noising is difficult to determine. To solve this problem, this paper proposes an optimized WT filter which is suited to the magnetic levitation gyroscope (GAT). The proposed method was tested on an equivalent mock-up network of the tunnels associated with the Hong Kong‒Zhuhai‒Macau Bridge. The gyro-observed signals exposed to vibration were collected in our experiment, and the empirical values of the optimal wavelet decomposed levels (from 6 to 10) for observed signals were constrained and validated by the high-precision Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) network. The result shows that the lateral breakthrough error of the tunnel was reduced from 12.1 to 3.8 mm with a ratio of 68.7%, which suggests that the method is able to correct the abnormal signal of a north-seeking gyroscope sensor exposed to vibration.Entities:
Keywords: filtering de-noising; magnetic levitation gyroscope (GAT); north-seeking gyroscope; time frequency analysis; wavelet transform
Year: 2019 PMID: 31434313 PMCID: PMC6720483 DOI: 10.3390/s19163624
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Scale function and wavelet function of Sym10.
Figure 2The flow chart of the experiment of the optimal wavelet decomposed level.
Figure 3Design of the experimental network.
Design of the experimental network.
| Type of Network | Number of Observations | Instrument | Precision Indexes | Standard Deviation of the Weakest Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) network | 10 points simultaneously observed by GPS for 76 hours | Trimble R7 GPS receiver [ | Static plane accuracy | 1.2 mm |
| Traverse network | Horizontal directions: 221 | Leica TS30 total station [ | Direction precision | 1.0 mm |
Summary of the gyro observations in the experimental network.
| Type of Survey Lines | Parameters of Survey Lines | Experimental Parameters of Gyro Observation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Length | Relative Accuracy of Grid Bearing | Repeat Observation Per Station | Observation Environment | Standard Deviation of Gyro Bearing | |
| Gyro calibration line (GNSS baseline) | 613 m | 0.4″ | 4 | Stable | 1.3″ |
| GNSS reference baseline for filtering experiment | 524 m | 0.5″ | 4 | Stable, vehicle passing or wind vibration | 6.2″ |
| Gyro line 1 | 744 m | 1.1″ | 3 | Wind vibration and vehicle passing | 2.3″ |
| Gyro line 2 | 696 m | 1.3″ | 3 | Vehicle passing | 1.5″ |
| Gyro line 3 | 319 m | 1.8″ | 3 | Stable | 1.3″ |
| Gyro line 4 | 692 m | 1.3″ | 3 | Weak wind vibration | 1.8″ |
| Gyro line 5 | 244 m | 1.9″ | 3 | Stable | 2.0″ |
Sampling frequency of gyro sensor: 20,000 in 75 seconds. Nominal accuracy of gyro orientation: 3.5″, the drift of gyroscope calibration is about 10″/year.
Figure 4Time series of observed signals: (a) steady; (b) periodic; (c) jitter; (d) jumping.
Figure 5Comparison of H for different types of reconstructed signals under different decomposed levels.
Figure 6Comparison of D for different types of reconstructed signals under different decomposed levels.
Figure 7Time series of reconstructed signals: (a) steady; (b) periodic; (c) jitter; (d) jumping.
Figure 83D time-frequency spectra of four types of signals under different decomposed levels: (a) steady (level = 0); (b) steady (level = 3); (c) steady (level = 6); (d) periodic (level = 0); (e) periodic (level = 8); (f) periodic (level = 12); (g) jitter (level = 0); (h) jitter (level = 6); (i) jitter (level = 9); (j) jumping (level = 0); (k) jumping (level = 7); (l) jumping (level = 10).
Optimal wavelet decomposed level of different types of observed signal.
| Criteria | Steady | Periodic | Jitter | Jumping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 12 | 10 | 12 | |
| 6 | 11 | 9 | 12 | |
| Comprehensive evaluation | 6 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
Figure 9The boxplots of D: (a) D for different filtering schemes; (b) D for each type of observed signal.
Figure 10Comparison of lateral breakthrough error (LBE) for different filtering schemes.