| Literature DB >> 31795405 |
Thanh Trung Duong1, Kai-Wei Chiang2, Dinh Thuan Le2.
Abstract
Global navigation satellite systems (GNSSs) are commonly used for navigation and mapping applications. However, in GNSS-hostile environments, where the GNSS signal is noisy or blocked, the navigation information provided by a GNSS is inaccurate or unavailable. To overcome these issues, this study proposed a real-time visual odometry (VO)/GNSS integrated navigation system. An on-line smoothing method based on the extended Kalman filter (EKF) and the Rauch-Tung-Striebel (RTS) smoother was proposed. VO error modelling was also proposed to estimate the VO error and compensate the incoming measurements. Field tests were performed in various GNSS-hostile environments, including under a tree canopy and an urban area. An analysis of the test results indicates that with the EKF used for data fusion, the root-mean-square error (RMSE) of the three-dimensional position is about 80 times lower than that of the VO-only solution. The on-line smoothing and error modelling made the results more accurate, allowing seamless on-line navigation information. The efficiency of the proposed methods in terms of cost and accuracy compared to the conventional inertial navigation system (INS)/GNSS integrated system was demonstrated.Entities:
Keywords: GNSS; INS; error modelling; integration; navigation; on-line smoothing; visual odometry
Year: 2019 PMID: 31795405 PMCID: PMC6928881 DOI: 10.3390/s19235259
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Flowchart of visual odometry (VO).
Figure 2(a) Distorted image and (b) its correction.
Figure 3Illustration of feature matching.
Figure 4Principle of epipolar constraint in VO.
Figure 5Proposed VO/GNSS integration scheme.
Figure 6Error illustration of on-line smoothing.
Figure 7Flowchart of filtering and on-line smoothing.
Figure 8Testing platform.
Figure 9Positions of various solutions on the map.
Figure 10Graphical comparison of the positional error between various solutions.
Comparison of the positional root-mean-square error (RMSE) for the first test.
| RMSE (m) | Pure VO | VO/GNSS EKF | VO/GNSS on-line Smoothing |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 6.689 | 2.054 | 0.522 |
|
| 15.601 | 1.195 | 0.525 |
|
| 12.933 | 2.933 | 1.454 |
|
| 21.34 | 3.775 | 1.632 |
|
| - | 82.3 | 92.4 |
Figure 11Second test scenario.
Figure 12Ground trajectories.
Figure 13Graphical comparison of the positional error between solutions in the second test.
Comparison of the positional RMSE for the second test.
| RMSE (m) | VO/GNSS EKF | On-line Smoothing | On-Line Smoothing and Error Modelling |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 5.606 | 5.994 | 0.255 |
|
| 12.535 | 3.612 | 0.339 |
|
| 1.98 | 0.458 | 0.322 |
|
| 13.874 | 7.013 | 0.533 |
|
| - | 49.5 | 96.2 |