| Literature DB >> 32192087 |
Siyuan Liang1, Weilong Zhu1, Feng Zhao1, Congyi Wang1.
Abstract
With the rapid development of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) technology, low-cost MEMS inertial devices have been widely used for inertial navigation. However, their application range is greatly limited in some fields with high precision requirements because of their low precision and high noise. In this paper, to improve the performance of MEMS inertial devices, we propose a highly efficient optimal estimation algorithm for MEMS arrays based on wavelet compressive fusion (WCF). First, the algorithm uses the compression property of the multiscale wavelet transform to compress the original signal, fusing the compressive data based on the support. Second, threshold processing is performed on the fused wavelet coefficients. The simulation result demonstrates that the proposed algorithm performs well on the output of the inertial sensor array. Then, a ten-gyro array system is designed for collecting practical data, and the frequency of the embedded processor in our verification environment is 800 MHz. The experimental results show that, under the normal working conditions of the MEMS array system, the 100 ms input array data require an approximately 75 ms processing delay when employing the WCF algorithm to support real-time processing. Additionally, the zero-bias instability, angle random walk, and rate slope of the gyroscope are improved by 8.0, 8.0, and 9.5 dB, respectively, as compared with the original device. The experimental results demonstrate that the WCF algorithm has outstanding real-time performance and can effectively improve the accuracy of low-cost MEMS inertial devices.Entities:
Keywords: MEMS array; compressive fusion; inertial navigation
Year: 2020 PMID: 32192087 PMCID: PMC7146152 DOI: 10.3390/s20061662
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The flowchart of the WCF algorithm.
Figure 2Ideal great circle trajectory.
Figure 3Coordinate variation during operation.
Figure 4The output of ideal inertial sensor.
Figure 5Optimization results of pitch angle (east) error.
Figure 6Optimization results of roll angle (north) error.
Figure 7Optimization results of yaw angle (sky) error.
Optimization results of pitch angle (east) error.
| Algorithm | Zero-Bias Stability | Angle Random Walk | Ramp Rate | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Original signal | MAX | 0.066 | 21.448 | 5.554 |
| MIN | 0.038 | 12.495 | 3.236 | |
| WCF | 0.004 | 1.407 | 0.371 | |
| Improved | 9.8 dB | 9.5 dB | 9.3 dB | |
Optimization results of roll angle (north) error.
| Algorithm | Zero-Bias Stability | Angle Random Walk | Ramp Rate | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Original signal | MAX | 0.059 | 19.147 | 4.957 |
| MIN | 0.031 | 10.077 | 2.609 | |
| WCF | 0.004 | 1.523 | 0.394 | |
| Improved | 8.9 dB | 8.2 dB | 8.2 dB | |
Optimization results of yaw angle (sky) error.
| Algorithm | Zero-Bias Stability | Angle Random Walk | Ramp Rate | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Original signal | MAX | 0.120 | 39.258 | 10.160 |
| MIN | 0.093 | 30.257 | 7.831 | |
| WCF | 0.016 | 5.059 | 1.310 | |
| Improved | 7.6 dB | 7.8 dB | 7.7 dB | |
Parameters of the gyro sensor.
| Parameter | MEMS Gyro Sensor ( | |
|---|---|---|
| MIN | MAX | |
| Drive frequency | 49.000 ( | 50.150 ( |
| Scale factor stability | −2 ( | +2 ( |
| Scale change due to temperature | −3 ( | +3 ( |
| Range | −100 (°/ | +100 (°/ |
| Zero-bias stability | 20 (°/ | 100 (°/ |
| Angle random walk | ~ | ~ |
| Scale factor nonlinearity | −0.5% | +0.5% |
Figure 8Hardware platform.
Figure 9Comparison of the original wavelet coefficients and the optimal estimate of the wavelet coefficients.
Figure 10Processing results (only five groups of the original data are visualized).
Figure 11Double logarithmic graph of the Allan variance method (the Allan variances of the five original data points are visualized).
Online processing results of different algorithms.
| Algorithm | Average Time Delay | Zero-Bias Stability | Angle Random Walk | Ramp Rate | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Original signal | MAX | ~ | 97.20 | 0.1800 | 51.470 |
| MIN | ~ | 17.57 | 0.0490 | 7.740 | |
| Traditional algorithm | 0.379 | 8.86 | 0.0156 | 4.479 | |
| WCF | 0.075 | 2.80 | 0.0078 | 0.855 | |