| Literature DB >> 34141892 |
Abstract
As the necessity of wireless charging to support the popularization of electric vehicles (EVs) emerges, the development of a wireless power transfer (WPT) system for EV wireless charging is rapidly progressing. The WPT system requires alignment between the transmitter coils installed on the parking lot floor and the receiver coils in the vehicle. To automatically align the two sets of coils, the WPT system needs a localization technology that can precisely estimate the vehicle's pose in real time. This paper proposes a novel short-range precise localization method based on ultrawideband (UWB) modules for application to WPT systems. The UWB module is widely used as a localization sensor because it has a high accuracy while using low power. In this paper, the minimum number of UWB modules consisting of two UWB anchors and two UWB tags that can determine the vehicle's pose is derived through mathematical analysis. The proposed localization algorithm determines the vehicle's initial pose by globally optimizing the collected UWB distance measurements and estimates the vehicle's pose by fusing the vehicle's wheel odometry data and the UWB distance measurements. To verify the performance of the proposed UWB-based localization method, we perform various simulations and real vehicle-based experiments. ©2021 Lee.Entities:
Keywords: Electric vehicles; Localization; Ultrawideband (UWB); Vehicle pose estimation; Wireless power transfer systems
Year: 2021 PMID: 34141892 PMCID: PMC8176549 DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.567
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ Comput Sci ISSN: 2376-5992
Figure 1Wireless power transfer (WPT) for electric vehicles (EVs).
When the power transmitter and receiver coils are kept close to each other, electric energy can be used to charge the battery. The alignment of the two coils is significant for the high performance and efficiency of the WPT.
Figure 2Dual-anchor and dual-tag (DADT) ultrawideband (UWB)-based localization system.
Two UWB anchors are placed on both corners of the parking slot and two UWB tags are mounted on the vehicle. The observability of the vehicle’s pose estimated by the proposed DADT UWB system is analyzed based on the Fisher information matrix.
Figure 3Numerical distribution of the determinant of the Fisher information matrix in Eq. (12) around the UWB anchors placed at and with different vehicle’s heading angles for every position.
(A) θ = 0 deg or 180 deg; (B) θ = 30 deg or 210 deg; (C) θ = 60 deg or 240 deg; (D) θ = 90 deg or 270 deg.
Figure 4Flowchart of the proposed DADT UWB localization algorithm.
In the first step, the vehicle’s pose is initialized by globally optimizing the UWB distance measurements. In the second step, based on the initialized vehicle pose, the wheel odometry and UWB distance measurement collected as the vehicle moves are fused to estimate the pose of the vehicle in real time.
Figure 5Four simulation tests.
The vehicle starts from four different positions and moves along the path for front-end parking or back-in parking.
Initial pose estimation results by the Levenberg–Marquardt and the proposed globally optimizing DADT UWB measurements for the four selected poses (unit: m, rad).
| True pose | Levenberg–Marquardt | Proposed DADT | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimated Pose | Estimated Pose | ||||
| Test 1 | 2.05 | 1.42E–02 | |||
| Test 2 | 2.37 | 2.24E–02 | |||
| Test 3 | 0.48 | 5.83E–02 | |||
| Test 4 | 0.76 | 2.24E–02 | |||
Figure 6Simulation results of Test 1.
The vehicle starts from its initial pose and moves along the path for front-end parking.
Figure 9Simulation results of Test 4.
The vehicle starts from its initial pose and moves along the path for back-in parking.
Figure 10Boxplots of the simulation results.
Comparison of pose estimation error by odometry and the proposed DADT UWB system while the vehicle moves. (Unit: m).
| Odometry | Proposed DADT | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Min | Max | Std | Mean | Min | Max | Std | |
| Test 1 | 0.3396 | 0.0012 | 0.8322 | 0.2613 | 0.0691 | 0.0016 | 0.2831 | 0.0476 |
| Test 2 | 0.3555 | 0.0140 | 0.6925 | 0.1414 | 0.0720 | 0.0129 | 0.2220 | 0.0397 |
| Test 3 | 0.3930 | 0.0034 | 0.7266 | 0.2362 | 0.0714 | 0.0035 | 0.2075 | 0.0382 |
| Test 4 | 0.3831 | 0.0032 | 0.5838 | 0.1525 | 0.0732 | 0.0030 | 0.2344 | 0.0401 |
Figure 11Experimental setup.
(A) Two UWB anchors are installed near both corners of the parkingslot. (B) two UWB tags and DGPS are mounted on the vehicle roof.
Figure 12Snapshots of the experiment with a real vehicle.
The vehicle is performing front-end parking.
Figure 13Results of Exp. 1.
The black dashed-dotted line shows the DGPS trajectory, the red dotted line shows the odometry trajectory, and the blue solid line shows the proposed DADT UWB-based localization results.
Figure 14Results of Exp. 2.
The black dashed-dotted line shows the DGPS trajectory, the red dotted line shows the odometry trajectory, and the blue solid line shows the proposed DADT UWB-based localization results.
Comparison of the final position estimation error by odometry and the proposed DADT UWB system with a real vehicle. (unit: m).
| Distance error | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.4690 | 0.5826 | 0.7479 | ||
| 0.0493 | 0.0763 | 0.0908 | ||
| 0.9038 | 0.1604 | 0.9179 | ||
| 0.0328 | 0.0031 | 0.0329 |
Figure 15Average computation time required to update the vehicle’s pose at each time instant.