| Literature DB >> 35042924 |
Weina Chen1, Zhong Yang2, Shanshan Gu3, Yizhi Wang3, Yujuan Tang3.
Abstract
For the airborne pod strapdown inertial navigation system, it is necessary to use the host aircraft's inertial navigation system for the transfer alignment as quickly and accurately as possible in the flight process of the aircraft. The purpose of this paper is to propose an adaptive transfer alignment method based on the observability analysis for the strapdown inertial navigation system, which is able to meet the practical need of maintaining the navigation accuracy of the airborne pod. The observability of each state variable is obtained by observability analysis of system state variables. According to the weight of the observability, a transfer alignment filter algorithm based on adaptive adjustment factor is constructed to reduce the influence of weak observability state variables on the whole filter, which can improve the estimation accuracy of transfer alignment. Simulations and experiment tests of the airborne pod and the master strapdown inertial navigation systems show that the adaptive transfer alignment method based on the observability analysis can overcome the shortage of the weak observability state variables, so as to improve the alignment and the navigation performance in practical applications, thus improving the adaptability of the airborne pod.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35042924 PMCID: PMC8766501 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-04732-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1The schematic diagram of master SINS and slave SINS.
Figure 2The discrete measurement sequence.
Figure 3Comparison of state observability degree under 4 different maneuvering modes.
Parameters of navigation sensors.
| Sensor | Error sources | Parameters value | Relevant time |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reference inertial navigation system | Gyroscope constant drift | 0.1° | 0 |
| Gyroscope first order Markov process drift | 0.1° | 3600 | |
| Gyroscope white noise measurement | 0.1° | 0 | |
| Accelerometer constant bias | 1 × 10-4 | 0 | |
| Accelerometer first order Markov process | 1 × 10-4 | 1800 | |
| Airborne pod inertial navigation system | Gyroscope constant drift | 10° | 0 |
| Gyroscope first order Markov process drift | 10° | 3600 | |
| Gyroscope white noise measurement | 10° | 0 | |
| Accelerometer constant bias | 3 × 10-4 | 0 | |
| Accelerometer first order Markov process | 3 × 10-4 | 1800 |
Figure 4Misalignment angle estimation comparison.
Figure 5Misalignment angle estimation comparison with abnormal noise measurement.
Figure 6The vehicle experiment test platform and the tested trajectory.
Figure 7The alignment estimation error comparison in the accelerated linear motion.
Results comparison in the accelerated linear motion.
| Errors (degree) | KF | VAKF | AEKF | Proposed AKF | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average | SD | Average | SD | Average | SD | Average | SD | |
| Roll angle | -0.079 | 0.134 | 0.032 | 0.104 | 0.071 | 0.097 | 0.024 | 0.075 |
| Pitch angle | 0.223 | 0.118 | 0.811 | 0.085 | 0.067 | 0.081 | -0.066 | 0.052 |
| Heading angle | 0.034 | 0.221 | 0.048 | 0.145 | 0.036 | 0.143 | 0.021 | 0.124 |
Figure 8The alignment estimation error comparison in the turning motion.
Results comparison in the turning motion.
| Errors (degree) | KF | VAKF | AEKF | Proposed AKF | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average | SD | Average | SD | Average | SD | Average | SD | |
| Roll angle | 0.080 | 0.161 | -0.004 | 0.124 | 0.015 | 0.092 | 0.024 | 0.073 |
| Pitch angle | 0.076 | 0.146 | 0.089 | 0.111 | 0.046 | 0.085 | 0.014 | 0.074 |
| Heading angle | 0.185 | 0.19 | 0.044 | 0.154 | 0.033 | 0.15 | 0.023 | 0.126 |