| Literature DB >> 35808314 |
Zhenhuan Long1, Yang Xiang1, Xiangming Lei1, Yajun Li1, Zhengfang Hu1, Xiufeng Dai1.
Abstract
Conventional mobile robots employ LIDAR for indoor global positioning and navigation, thus having strict requirements for the ground environment. Under the complicated ground conditions in the greenhouse, the accumulative error of odometer (ODOM) that arises from wheel slip is easy to occur during the long-time operation of the robot, which decreases the accuracy of robot positioning and mapping. To solve the above problem, an integrated positioning system based on UWB (ultra-wideband)/IMU (inertial measurement unit)/ODOM/LIDAR is proposed. First, UWB/IMU/ODOM is integrated by the Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) algorithm to obtain the estimated positioning information. Second, LIDAR is integrated with the established two-dimensional (2D) map by the Adaptive Monte Carlo Localization (AMCL) algorithm to achieve the global positioning of the robot. As indicated by the experiments, the integrated positioning system based on UWB/IMU/ODOM/LIDAR effectively reduced the positioning accumulative error of the robot in the greenhouse environment. At the three moving speeds, including 0.3 m/s, 0.5 m/s, and 0.7 m/s, the maximum lateral error is lower than 0.1 m, and the maximum lateral root mean square error (RMSE) reaches 0.04 m. For global positioning, the RMSEs of the x-axis direction, the y-axis direction, and the overall positioning are estimated as 0.092, 0.069, and 0.079 m, respectively, and the average positioning time of the system is obtained as 72.1 ms. This was sufficient for robot operation in greenhouse situations that need precise positioning and navigation.Entities:
Keywords: UWB/IMU/ODOM/LIDAR; greenhouse; indoor positioning; robots
Year: 2022 PMID: 35808314 PMCID: PMC9269595 DOI: 10.3390/s22134819
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the positioning system.
Figure 2Integrated positioning frame diagram based on UWB/IMU/ODOM/LIDAR.
Figure 3Schematic diagram of greenhouse experiment site.
Figure 4Greenhouse mapping with different combinations of sensors. (a) IMU/ODOM/LIDAR. (b) UWB/IMU/ODOM/LIDAR.
Comparison of mapping error of different combinations of sensors.
| Feature Area | Actual Measured | Map Measured Value (m) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| IMU/ODOM/LIDAR | UWB/IMU/ODOM/LIDAR | ||
| 1 | 8.40 | 8.46 | 8.43 |
| 2 | 1.90 | 1.96 | 1.89 |
| 3 | 1.90 | 1.89 | 1.88 |
| 4 | 1.90 | 1.79 | 1.90 |
| 5 | 1.90 | 1.85 | 1.88 |
Figure 5Compare the trajectories of different positioning methods. (a) Trajectories. (b) Lateral error.
Statistics and analysis of lateral error of different positioning methods.
| Positioning Method | Average Error | Maximum Error | RMSE (m) |
|---|---|---|---|
| UWB | 0.047 | 0.157 | 0.051 |
| IMU/ODOM/LIDAR | 0.067 | 0.234 | 0.103 |
| UWB/IMU/ODOM/LIDAR | 0.027 | 0.091 | 0.034 |
Figure 6Comparison of lateral error between two integrated algorithms.
Analysis of lateral error of two integrated algorithms.
| Integrated | Average Error | Maximum Error | RMSE (m) |
|---|---|---|---|
| EKF | 0.039 | 0.101 | 0.044 |
| EKF/AMCL | 0.027 | 0.091 | 0.034 |
Figure 7Lateral error at different moving speeds.
Statistics and analysis of lateral error at different moving speeds.
| Moving Speed | Average Error | Maximum Error | RMSE (m) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.3 m/s | 0.021 | 0.067 | 0.03 |
| 0.5 m/s | 0.027 | 0.091 | 0.034 |
| 0.7 m/s | 0.036 | 0.095 | 0.04 |
Figure 8Different positioning methods compared for accuracy of target point positioning. (a) Positioning results. (b) Positioning error.
Error analysis of target points positioning with different positioning methods.
| Positioning Method | RMSE (m) | Overall Maximum Error (m) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| x-Axis | y-Axis | Overall | ||
| UWB | 0.140 | 0.083 | 0.145 | 0.233 |
| IMU/ODOM/LIDAR | 0.127 | 0.072 | 0.135 | 0.281 |
| UWB/IMU/ODOM/LIDAR | 0.092 | 0.069 | 0.079 | 0.102 |
Figure 9Positioning time.