Patent Grant
11280618
The present invention relates to a positioning system, and an associated positioning method.
It more particularly relates to a positioning system comprising:
It is common to equip a vehicle, a ship or an aircraft with a positioning system for locating it with respect to its environment.
It is known in particular to estimate the position of a ship or an aircraft by combining pieces of information coming, on the one hand, from an inertial measurement unit comprising an accelerometer and a gyrometer, and on the other hand, from a GPS positioning device, the combination of these pieces of information being performed by means of a Kalman filter.
For that purpose, the Kalman filter:
and so on, iteratively.
Such a Kalman filter makes it possible, taking into account the respective accuracies of the inertial measurement unit and the positioning device, to estimate optimally the position of the ship or of the aircraft (the estimated position mentioned hereinabove corresponding, after correction, to an optimum estimate of the real position of the ship or of the aircraft, i.e. an estimate minimizing the variance of the deviation between the estimated position and the real position of the system).
The system described hereinabove comprises a single inertial measurement unit, and a single GPS positioning device.
To improve the accuracy and reliability of such a system, it is interesting to equip it with several inertial measurement units, in the case where one of the measurement units would fail or would begin to strongly drift.
The question is then posed to know how to combine the information provided by these different inertial measurement units, so as to obtain again an optimum estimate (and herein better than that which would be obtained with a single inertial measurement unit) of the real position of the ship or of the aircraft.
For that purpose, a solution consists in:
Everything goes as if the system was equipped with a single, virtual, inertial measurement unit, having an improved accuracy with respect to one of the individual inertial measurement units of the system (thanks to the averaging between the different inertial signals).
This solution may lead to an optimum estimate of the position of the ship or of the aircraft and may be implemented with limited calculation resources. On the other hand, it does not make it possible to identify a measurement unit that would be defective or that would show a strong drift, because the signals provided by the different measurement units are fused with each other (and temporally integrated), before being compared with the position measured by the GPS positioning device.
Moreover, it is known from the document Neal A. Carlson: “Federated Square Root Filter for Decentralized Parallel Processes”, IEEE Transactions on aerospace and electronic systems, vol. 26, no. 3, May 1990, pages 517 to 525 (referred to hereinafter as “Carlson” document), another method for estimating the state of a navigation system, based on a set of several individual Kalman filters operating in parallel.
This system comprises several GPS positioning devices, and an inertial navigation device serving as a common reference. Each individual Kalman filter receives as an input a signal provided by one of the GPS positioning devices with which it is associated, as well as a common reference signal provided by the inertial navigation device. This filter then provides an estimate of the state vector of the navigation system.
A new whole state vector of the navigation system is then determined by calculating a weighted mean of the different state vectors respectively estimated by these individual Kalman filters.
The Carlson document then teaches that it is essential, for the whole state vector mentioned hereinabove to correspond to an optimum estimate of the state of the system, to reinject this whole state vector at the input of each individual Kalman filter and to reset the individual Kalman filter on the basis of this whole state vector at each iteration (at each iteration of the prevision and updating operations). In such a system, the individual Kalman filters hence do not operate independently from each other, which strongly limits the possibility of detecting a failure of one of the individual sensors.
In order to remedy the above-mentioned drawbacks of the state of the art, the present invention proposes a positioning system comprising:
the system being configured so that each individual navigation filter executes several times, successively, all the steps a) and b) without taking into account said mean estimate determined by the fusion module.
The mean calculated by the fusion module is an arithmetic mean, weighted or not.
In this system, as the mean estimate of the positioning parameter of the system is not reinjected at the input of the individual navigation filters, at least not at each calculation step, the different navigation filters operate independently from each other. It is hence possible, contrary to the solution described in the Carlson document, to detect that one of the inertial measurement units is defective, or that it has a strong drift (by comparing between each other the estimates of the positioning parameter produced by the different navigation filters). Moreover, due to this independence between filters, the positioning system may be implemented event with limited calculation means, and even if the filters do not operate synchronously.
The applicant has further observed that, surprisingly, such a positioning system without systematic reinjection of the mean estimate at the input of the individual navigation filters, may lead to an optimum estimate of the positioning parameter of the system. This surprising result goes against the teaching of the Carlson document: according to this document, the estimate of the system position is necessarily sub-optimum when the navigation filters operate independently from each other (conclusion of the Carlson document, at the end of page 524 of this document), so that this document dissuades from using individual filters without reinjection when an optimum estimate is searched for.
Moreover, it is also sufficient, in a non-limitative way, that a relative deviation between the respective signal-to-noise ratios of any two of said inertial signals respectively provided by said measurement units is lower than 30%.
The applicant has observed that using inertial measurement units having a same signal-to-noise ratio and setting each navigation filter with said augmented variance makes said mean estimate optimum. A mathematical justification of this interesting property is developed hereinafter in the description.
Using inertial measurement units having close signal-to-noise ratios, as indicated hereinabove, then ensures that said mean estimate of the positioning parameter of the system is close to an optimum estimate of the (real) positioning parameter of the system.
Other non-limitative and advantageous characteristics of the positioning system according to the invention, taken individually or according to all the technically possible combinations, are the following:
where k is the number of estimates of the positioning parameter whose mean is calculated by the fusion module to determine said mean estimate;
The invention also relates to a method for positioning a system, in which:
each individual navigation filter executing several times successively the set of steps a) and b) without taking into account said mean estimate determined by the fusion module.
The different optional characteristics presented hereinabove in terms of system may also be applied to the just-described method.
The following description in relation with the appended drawings, given by way of non-limitative examples, will allow a good understanding of what the invention consists of and of how it can be implemented.
In the appended drawings:
This system 1, whose main elements are shown in
The positioning system 1 comprises an inertial platform, which itself comprises several inertial measurement units U1, U2, . . . Ui, . . . , UN, which are N in number.
It also comprises:
The processing unit 10 comprises several navigation filters F11, . . . , Fik, . . . , FNN, respectively associated with the different inertial measurement units U1, . . . , Ui, . . . , UN (
Each navigation filter Fik has a structure close to that of a Kalman filter. This filter Fik determines a first estimate ŷk,i of a state vector y of system 1 (some components of this state vector are positioning parameters of the system), on the basis of the signals provided by the inertial measurement unit Ui with which this filter is associated. The navigation filer Fik then adjusts this first estimate, on the basis of the measurements of the positioning parameters of the system provided by the common sensors C1, . . . , Cp.
A same measurement of one of the positioning parameters of the system, provided by one of the common sensors, is hence used by several individual navigation filters (this measurement is in a way shared between these navigation filters). That is why these sensors are called common sensors. On the contrary, the signals provided by one of the inertial measurement units are specifically addressed to one of the individual navigation filters (or at most to a subgroup of individual navigation filters).
The different components of system 1, and the overall structure of the processing unit 10 will now be described in more detail.
The inertial measurement units U1, U2, . . . Ui, . . . , UN are rigidly connected to each other. Herein, they are further rigidly connected to the structure of the ship 2 (for example to the ship frame).
Each inertial measurement unit Ui comprises three accelerometers and three gyrometers (or, in other words, a three-axis accelerometer and a tree-axis gyrometer).
Each accelerometer provides an acceleration signal representative of the acceleration undergone by the inertial measurement unit equipped with it, along a given axis (attached to this inertial measurement unit).
Each gyrometer provides an angular speed signal representative of an angular speed of rotation of the measurement unit equipped with it, about a given axis (attached to this inertial measurement unit).
These acceleration and angular speed signals are inertial signals, giving information about the dynamics of this inertial measurement unit Ui.
The acceleration and angular speed signals provided by the accelerometers and gyrometers equipping any one of the inertial measurement units U1, U2, . . . Ui, . . . , UN make it possible to fully determine the three components of the acceleration vector of this inertial measurement unit, as well as the three components of the angular speed vector of this measurement unit.
Each acceleration signal and each angular speed signal:
The performances of the different inertial measurement units U1, U2, . . . Ui, . . . , UN, in terms of signal-to-noise ratio, are close to each other.
More precisely, a relative deviation between the respective signal-to-noise ratios of two of the acceleration signals, respectively provided by any two of said measurement units U1, U2, . . . Ui, . . . , UN, is herein lower than 30%, or even lower than 3%.
The biases respectively shown by these two acceleration signals have then variances that differ from each other by only 30% at most, or even by 3% at most. Likewise, the white noises that respectively affect these two acceleration signals have variances that differ from each other by only 30% at most, or even by 3% at most.
Likewise, a relative deviation between the respective signal-to-noise ratios of two of the angular speed signals, respectively provided by any two of said measurement units U1, U2, . . . Ui, . . . , UN, is herein lower than 30%, of even lower than 3%. Hence, the biases respectively shown by these two angular speed signals have variances that differ from each other by only 30% at most, or even by 3% at most, and the white noises that respectively affect these two signals have variances that differ from each other by only 30% at most, or even by 3% at most.
In this case, in the embodiment described herein:
The following vales of these variances are given by way of example:
poa_UMI=(30 μg)2
(i.e. squared 30 micro-g, where g is the mean value of the acceleration of gravity, equal to 9.8 meters per square second, 1 micro-g being equal to 10−6·g)
qa_UMI=(5 μg/√Hz)2
(i.e. 5 micro g per square root Hertz, the whole being squared)
pog_UMI=(5 mdeg/h)2
(i.e. 5 millidegrees per hour, the whole being squared), and
qg_UMI=(5 mdeg/√h)2
(i.e. 5 millidegrees per square root hour, the whole being squared).
In the embodiment described hereinabove, at least one of the common sensors comprises a radio positioning system, herein of the GPS type. This GPS positioning system provides a set of measurements respectively representative of:
locating the positioning system 1 in the terrestrial reference system.
As a complement, the GPS positioning system could also provide measurements representative of a heading angle, a roll angle and/or a pitch angle of the positioning system 1, with respect to the terrestrial reference system.
The positioning system 1 may also comprise other common sensors, made for example by means of:
For each of these sensors, the measured positioning parameters may comprise one or several of the following magnitudes:
The measurement provided by any one of the common sensors may also be representative of a deviation between, on the one hand, one of the magnitudes mentioned hereinabove, and, on the other hand, a value of this magnitude otherwise evaluated (for example evaluated by integration of one of the inertial signals).
As will appear hereinafter, the measurement provided by one of the common sensors may also be representative, indirectly, of one of the following magnitudes:
The measurements provided by the common sensors are each affected by a measurement noise.
The measurement noises respectively affect the longitude, latitude and altitude measurements provided by the GPS positioning system have herein variances that are close to each other, or even equal two by two. Each of these measurement noises comprises a white Gaussian noise component, and a temporally correlated noise component. The variance of the white measurement noise is noted r_GPS, and that of the temporally correlated noise is noted q_GPS.
The following values of these variances are given by way of example:
r_GPS=(10 meters)2
q_GPS=(5 meters)2·2Δt/τGPS
where Δt is a time step and where τGPS is a correlation time of the temporally correlated measurement noise.
It is noted that a temporally correlated noise is a noise that affects a variable X as follows: under the influence of this correlated noise, the variable X follows the following equation:
where τ is the correlation time of this noise, σ is a standard deviation, and b is a white Gaussian noise of unit variance.
The electronic processing unit 10 comprises at least a processor, a memory, inputs for acquiring the signals provided by the inertial measurement units, and inputs for acquiring the measurements provided by the common sensors.
As can be seen in
Each module of the processing unit 10 may be made by means of a set of dedicated electronic components and/or by means of a set of instructions stored in the memory (or in one of the memories) of the processing unit 10. The processing unit 10 may be made as an electronic unit which is distinct from the inertial measurement units and external to these latter. It may also be made as several electronic circuits, or comprise several groups of instructions, certain of which may be integrated to the inertial measurement units themselves.
Each navigation filter Fik:
As will be explained in detail hereinafter (with reference to
The corrected estimates ŷcork,i, . . . , ŷcorN,N determined by the navigation filters Fik, . . . , FNN (k≠1) are intended to be fused, i.e. averaged together, by means of the fusion filters Fusk, . . . , FusN, to obtain different mean estimates ŷFk,l of the state vector y of the system.
The joint data of one of these mean estimates ŷFk,l and of a covariance matrix of the errors affecting this estimate is sometimes called “navigation solution” in the specialized literature.
Each mean estimate ŷFk,l comprises several components, certain of which are mean estimates of the positioning parameters of the system. Other components of the mean estimate ŷFk,l correspond to estimates of the environmental parameters (variation of the value of gravity, sea current), or to estimates of operating parameters of the common sensors or of the inertial measurement units (biases of the inertial measurement units, for example).
However, some of the navigation filters, noted F11, . . . , Fi1, . . . , FN1, are made by means of individual conventional Kalman filters that provide outputs that are not intended to be fused together. Each of these filters F11, . . . , Fi1, . . . , FN1, is configured to provide a corrected estimate ŷcor1,i, which, in itself, in the absence of later fusion, corresponds to the better estimate of the state vector y that can be obtained on the basis of the signals Si provided by the inertial measurement unit Ui and of the measurement provided by the common sensors (ŷcor1,i is an optimum estimate in the absence of later fusion), or that is at least close to such an optimum estimate of the state vector y. For that reason, the filters F11, . . . , Fi1, . . . , FN1 are called “1-fusionable” filters hereinafter.
The other navigation filters Fik, . . . , FNN (k≠1) are specifically configured so that the corrected estimates ŷcork,i they provide are well adapted to be fused together.
More precisely, each navigation filter Fik is configured so that the corrected estimate ŷcork,i of the state vector y it provides leads, once fused with a determined number k−1 of such estimates (chosen among the corrected estimates ŷcork,1, . . . , ŷcork,i, . . . , ŷcork,N), to a mean estimate ŷFk,l of the state vector y that is more accurate than what would be obtained by fusing a number k of corrected estimates provided by individual conventional Kalman filters, such as the navigation filters F11, . . . , Fi1, . . . , FN1 described hereinabove.
Preferably, the navigation filter Fik is even configured so that the mean estimate ŷFk,l of the state vector y of the system, obtained by fusing the corrected estimate ŷcork,i with a number k−1 of such estimates, i.e. an optimum estimate of the state vector of the system. The configuration of the navigation filter Fik, which allows the mean estimate ŷFk,l (fused) to be optimum, is described in more detail hereinafter with reference to
Because the filters F1k, . . . , Fik, . . . , FNk hence provides corrected estimates ŷcork,1, . . . , ŷcork,i, . . . , ŷcork,N intended to be fused together by groups of k estimates, they are called hereinafter “k-fusionable” filters.
The fusion module Fusk is associated with all the Fk “k-fusionable” navigation filters F1k, . . . , Fik, . . . , FNk (
The fusion module Fusk receives as an input the N corrected estimates ŷcork,1, . . . , ŷcork,i, . . . , ŷcork,N provided by these navigation filters, and provides, as an output, one or several mean estimates ŷFk,l of the state vector y.
Each mean estimate ŷFk,l is equal to the arithmetic mean, weighted or not, of a set of k corrected estimates, chosen among the N “k-fusionable” corrected estimates ŷcork,1, . . . , ŷcork,i, . . . , ŷcork,N.
Several combinations of k estimates chosen among N estimates are conceivable (except for k=N). Indeed, the number of distinct sets, which each comprise k corrected estimates chosen among the N corrected estimates ŷcork,1, . . . , ŷcork,i, . . . , ŷcork,N is equal to
(where the quantity N! is the factorial of N).
In the embodiment described herein, the fusion module Fusk is configured to determine a mean estimate of the state vector y, for each of these sets of k corrected estimates.
The number of mean estimates ŷFk,l (with I comprised between 1 and CNk), determined by the fusion module Fusk, is hence equal to CNk.
For example, if the inertial measurement units are 3 in number (N=3), the fusion module Fus2, which is dedicated to the “2-fusionable” navigation filters, determines C32=3 distinct mean estimates of the state vector y, by fusing respectively:
Hence, each fusion module determines several distinct mean estimates of the state vector y, except from the fusion module FusN that determines a single mean estimate, equal to the mean of the N “N-fusionable” corrected estimates.
It is moreover reminded that each corrected estimate ŷcork,i comes from the signals produced by the inertial measurement unit Ui with which is associated the navigation filter Fik.
Each mean estimate ŷFk,l determined by the fusion module Fusk is hence obtained from the signals produced by a given subset of k inertial measurement units, chosen among the N inertial measurement units U1, . . . , Ui, . . . , UN.
As just seen, the processing unit 10 is configured to determine several distinct mean estimates ŷFk,l of the state vector y, obtained from the signals respectively provided by different subgroups of inertial measurement units (chosen among the N inertial measurement units of the system 1).
Having these different mean estimates ŷFk,l advantageously allows detecting a possible dysfunction of one of the inertial measurement units.
Moreover, this makes the system particularly robust against a potential failure of one (or several) of the inertial measurement units. If such a failure occurs, the mean estimates ŷFk,l obtained from the signals provided by the failing measurement unit are discarded, whereas the other mean estimates ŷFk,l are still usable and are not degraded by the failure in question.
The number of distinct subgroups of inertial measurement units, chosen among the N inertial measurement units of system 1, is equal to Σk=1K=N CNk=2N−1.
In the embodiment described hereinabove, the processing unit 10 determines a mean estimate (ŷFk,l) of the state vector y for each of these subgroups. The processing unit hence determines 2N−1 distinct mean estimates ŷFk,l of the state vector of the system. These 2N−1 mean estimates are obtained by means of only N2 individual navigation filters, that operate independently from each other.
By way of comparison, in a system in which the signals provided by the inertial measurement units are first fused with each other, and where the result of each of these fusion operations is then filtered by a navigation filter, 2N−1 distinct navigation filters are required (instead of N2) to obtain 2N−1 distinct mean estimates of the state vector of the system.
Comparably, in a system using individual (local) navigation filters with reinjection of one of the mean estimates as an input of the filters, 2N−1 distinct navigation filters would be required to obtain 2N−1 distinct mean estimates of the state vector of the system.
The present solution, in which the signals provided by the different inertial measurement units are locally (i.e. individually) filtered and without reinjection, hence requires far less calculation resources than the other solutions mentioned hereinabove (at least when the number N of inertial measurement units is high, higher than or equal to 5, because N2 is then lower than 2N−1). Moreover, this architecture permits an effective detection of a potential dysfunction of one of the inertial measurement units (as explained hereinafter during the presentation of the error detection module).
The structure of each navigation filters F11, . . . , Fik, . . . , FNN will now be described in more detail, with reference to
The magnitudes estimated thanks to the navigation filter Fik will be first described. The operations executed by the filter, and the structure of the noises taken into account by the latter will then be described.
In the embodiment described herein, the state vector y, whose corrected estimate ŷcork,i is determined by the navigation filter Fik, comprises:
The positioning vector yP herein comprises the 9 following components, which locate the positioning system in the terrestrial reference system:
The external parameters yE herein comprise:
More precisely, the external parameters yE herein comprise the 4 following scalar parameters:
It is to be noted that a spatially correlated noise is a noise that affects a variable X as follows: under the influence of this correlated noise, the variable X follows the following equation:
where L is the correlation length of this noise, v a displacement speed, a σ standard deviation, and b a white Gaussian noise of unit variance.
As for the operating parameters yUi of the inertial measurement unit Ui, they herein comprise:
The state vector y considered herein hence comprises 19 scalar components.
Each navigation filter Fik is configured to:
a) determine a first estimate ŷk,i of the state vector y, by time integration of the acceleration and angular speed signals S1 provided by the inertial measurement unit Ui, then to
b) determine the corrected estimate ŷcork,i of the state vector y of the system, by adjusting the first estimate ŷk,i of the state vector y on the basis of the measurements mesn provided by the common sensors C1, . . . Cp,
the filter executing steps a) and b) several times successively.
Steps a) and b) are executed at each calculation step.
At the calculation step number n, at step a), the navigation filter determines the first estimate ŷnk,i of the state vector y, as a function of the acceleration and angular speed signals Si provided by the inertial measurement unit Ui, and as a function of the first estimate ŷn-1k,i of the state vector y at the previous calculation step (n−1) and/or as a function of the corrected estimate ŷcor,n-1k,i of the state vector y at the previous calculation step.
In the embodiment described herein, step b) comprises the following steps:
b1) determining an estimated error {circumflex over (x)}k,i, representative of a deviation between the state vector y and the first estimate ŷk,i of this state vector, the estimated error being determined as a function in particular of the measurements provided by the common sensor C1, . . . , Cp, then
b2) determining the corrected estimate ŷcork,i of the state vector y by summing the first estimate ŷk,i of this state vector y with the estimated error {circumflex over (x)}k,i: ŷcork,i={circumflex over (x)}k,i+ŷk,i.
The estimated error {circumflex over (x)}k,i is an estimate of the deviation x between the state vector y and the first estimate ŷk,i of this vector: x=y−ŷk,i. Hereinafter, the deviation x is called error vector.
The estimated error {circumflex over (x)}k,i is determined, at step b1), by an iterative correction process described hereinafter. The navigation filter Fki is hence configured to estimate, iteratively, the error shown by the position signal (ŷk,i) deduced from the acceleration and angular speed signals Si.
As a variant, the navigation filter could be made by means of a (modified) Kalman filter that, instead of determining the intermediate magnitude constituted by the estimated error {circumflex over (x)}k,i, would estimate directly the state vector y, based on the acceleration and angular speed signals S1 and on the measurements provided by the common sensors.
During the successive executions of step b1), the navigation filter Fik determines step by step, iteratively, the estimated error {circumflex over (x)}nk,i at the calculation step n, as well as an estimate Pnk,i of the covariance matrix of the error vector x.
This step by step determination is made starting from an initial estimate of the error vector, noted {circumflex over (x)}ok,i, and for an initial estimate of the covariance matrix of the error vector, noted P0k,i (this variance being previously augmented, as explained hereinafter).
This step by step determination is made by executing, at each repetition of step b1):
a step b11) of propagating the estimated error (sometimes called prediction step), then
a step b12) of updating this error (sometimes called adjustment step), during which the estimated error is adjusted on the basis of the measurements provided by the common sensors C1, . . . , Cp.
The navigation filter Fki executes the propagation and updating steps at each calculation step.
The time evolution of the error vector x, due in particular to the displacement of the system, is taken into account during the propagation step. This time evolution is governed by the following evolution equation (which models in particular the displacement dynamics of system 1):
xni=Fnxn-1i+vns+vne
where the index n is the number of the considered calculation step, where Fn is obtained by linearization of the non-linear evolution equation of yi in the vicinity of the state vector yni and where the processes vS= and ve=
are (vectorial) white Gaussian noises, respectively called specific propagation and external noises. The process vs represents the noise affecting the signal provided by the inertial measurement unit associated with the considered navigation filter, specific to this inertial measurement unit. The process ve represents the noise external to said inertial measurement unit, and which is independent of the considered inertial measurement unit.
During the execution number n of the propagation step (n higher than or equal to 1), the navigation filter Fik performs the following calculation operations:
xn_k,i=Fn{circumflex over (x)}n-1k,i, et
Pn_k,i=FnPn-1k,iFnT+Qns+Qn,auge,
where Qns is the covariance matrix of the specific propagation noise vns and Qn,auge is an augmented covariance matrix.
The augmented covariance matrix Qn,auge is determined as a function of the covariance matrix Qne of the external propagation noise vne. In a particularly remarkable way, the augmented covariance matrix Qn,auge is higher than the covariance matrix Qne of the external propagation noises (∀x∈d,xTQn,augex>xTQnex). Herein, the augmented covariance matrix Qn,auge is proportional to the covariance matrix Qne. More precisely, the covariance matrix Qn,auge is herein equal to the covariance matrix Qne of the external propagation noise, multiplied by the number k: Qn,auge=k Qne.
The taking into account of the measurements provided by the common sensors, during the updating step, will now be described.
As already indicated, the common sensors provide measurements representative of one or several components of the state vector y, affected by a measurement noise. The set of measurements provided by the common sensors, noted mesn, is connected to the state vector y by a measurement matrix Hn, as:
mesn=Hnyni+wn
where Ie process w= is a (vectorial) white Gaussian noise, whose different components comprise the measurement noises mentioned hereinabove. As for the measurement matrix Hn, its components correspond in a way to the respective measurement gains of the common sensors.
Herein, all the measurements provided by the common sensors, mesa, are taken into account by the navigation filter Fik in a modified form zn, so as to be representative of the error vector x, instead of the state vector y. This set of modified measurements zn is deduced from the measurements mesn in accordance with the following formula:
zn=mesn−Hnŷnk,i.
The set of modified measurements zn is hence also linked to the error vector x by the measurement matrix Hn mentioned hereinabove, by the following equation:
zn=Hnxni+wn.
During the execution number n of the updating step, the navigation filter performs the following calculation operations:
{circumflex over (x)}nk,i={circumflex over (x)}n_k,i+Kn(zn−Hn{circumflex over (x)}n_k,i), and
Pnk,i=(Id−KnHn)Pn_k,i, where Id is an identity matrix.
It is noted that the corrective term Kn(zn−Hn{circumflex over (x)}n_k,i) could also be expressed as: Kn(mesn−Hn[ŷnk,i+{circumflex over (x)}n_k,i]).
The correction gain Kn, which allows adjusting the estimate {circumflex over (x)}n_k,i as a function of the measurements mesn, is sometimes called Kalman gain. Preferably, it is determined so as to have, with an optimum gain Kn,opt, a relative deviation lower than 30%, or even lower than 3%. In the embodiment described herein, the correction gain Kn is even equal to the optimum gain Kn,opt.
Said optimum gain Kn,opt is given by the following formulas (at each execution of the updating step, the correction gain is hence determined in accordance with these formula):
Kn,opt=Pn_k,iHnTSn−1, and
Sn=HnPn_k,iHnT+Vaug
where HnT is the transposed matrix of the measurement matrix Hn, Sn−1 is the inverse of the innovation covariance matrix Sn, and Vaug is an augmented covariance matrix.
Herein, the covariance matrix Vaug is equal to the covariance matrix Rn of the measurement noises, multiplied by the number k: Vaug=k. Rn.
With respect to a conventional Kalman filter, the estimated error {circumflex over (x)}nk,i and its covariance matrix Pnk,i are hence determined based in a way on an “augmented” variance of the external propagation noises and of the measurement noises, instead of being based directly on the respective variances (Qne) and (Rn) of these noises (in a conventional Kalman filter, the estimated error {circumflex over (x)}nk,i would be determined by means of the operations described hereinabove, but by replacing the augmented covariance matrices Qn,auge and Vaug by the covariance matrices Qne and Rn, respectively, between other modifications).
This is in particular thanks to this variance augmentation technique that the corrected estimate ŷcork,i determined by the navigation filter Fki, is well adapted to be fused with a number k−1 of other “k-fusionable” corrected estimates.
Hence, using the augmented covariance matrices Qn,auge and Vaug, instead of the covariance matrices Qne of the external propagation noises and Rn of the measurement noises, advantageously allows the mean estimate ŷFk,l of the state vector y of the system, obtained by fusion of k corrected estimates chosen among the corrected estimates ŷcork,1, . . . , ŷcork,i, . . . , ŷcork,N, to be an optimum estimate of the state vector y.
It is noted that the mean estimate ŷFk,l of the state vector y hence obtained is optimum, even when each individual navigation filter Fki executes steps a) and b), during which the corrected estimate ŷcork,i is determined, without taking into account this mean estimate ŷFk,l obtained after fusion.
In this positioning system 1, the mean estimates of the positioning parameters of the system are hence not reinjected as inputs of the individual navigation filters Fki (at least not at each calculation step), so that the different navigation filters operate independently of each other.
The fact that the above-mentioned variance augmentation makes the mean estimate ŷFk,l of the state vector y optimum may be understood as follows.
The k “k-fusionable” navigation filters, whose outputs ŷcork,i are fused together, operate independently of each other but share between each other common information coming from the environment and from the common sensors. For example, each of these filters undergoes the same gravity anomaly and uses the positioning data provided by the same above-mentioned GPS positioning system. The corrected estimates ŷcork,i provided by these filters have hence correlations between each other, which would have to be taken into account to optimally combine these estimates between each other. And, herein, it is difficult to evaluate these correlations.
The variance augmentation mentioned hereinabove makes is possible in a way to decorrelate the corrected estimates ŷcork,i determined by these navigation filters. Indeed, it may be considered that each of these k navigation filters receives only a k-th of the common information mentioned hereinabove (instead of the totality of these common information), and that, in compensation, the corrected estimate ŷcork,i it provides is formally independent of the other corrected estimates. An optimum estimate of the state vector of the system may then be obtained by calculating directly the mean (possibly weighted) of the k corrected estimates ŷcork,i provided by these navigation filters (because these estimates are strictly independent of each other). As the quantity of information is equal to the inverse of the covariance, to affect to the navigation filter Fki only a k-th of said common information, the covariance matrix Qne of the external noises and the covariance matrix Rn of the measurement noises must be multiplied.
A mathematical justification of the fact that the mean estimate ŷFk,l of the so-obtained state vector y is optimum is more fully described hereinafter (paragraphs relating to the optimality of the method).
It is however understood right now that it is desirable, for the mean estimate ŷFk,l of the state vector y to be optimum (or at least close to an optimum solution), to augment not only the variances of the external propagation noises (Qne) and of the measurement noises (Rn), but also the components of the initial covariance matrix P0 of the error vector that are common to all the filters.
More precisely, the covariance matrix of the initial error vector is decomposed into a block diagonal matrix:
with:
P0s the covariance matrix of the systematic errors (bias) of the inertial measurement unit Ui, and
P0e the covariance matrix of the initial errors of the positioning parameters, of the initial errors relating to the environment model (gravity anomaly), and of the initial errors of the common sensors.
Because the covariance matrix P0e is representative of noise or error sources that are common to the different navigation filters, it is provided, in the initial estimate P0k,i of the covariance matrix of the error vector, to take into account the matrix P0e by multiplying it by a coefficient higher than 1, preferentially by multiplying it by the integer k. Hence, the initial estimate P0k,i of the covariance matrix of the error vector takes herein the following form:
By way of example, the matrix P0s is herein a diagonal matrix 6×6 (this matrix could however be a non-diagonal matrix, according to the type of inertial measurement unit used), whose first three diagonal coefficients are respectively equal to the variances poa_UMI of the biases of the accelerometers of the measurement unit (that have been presented hereinabove). The three following diagonal coefficients of this matrix are respectively equal to the variances pog_UMI of the biases of the three gyrometers of the measurement unit.
The matrix P0e is a diagonal matrix 13×13, of which:
The covariance matrix Qne of the external propagation noise vne, common to the different inertial measurement units, is herein a diagonal matrix, four diagonal coefficients of which are null. One of these diagonal coefficients is equal to the variance of the gravity anomaly noise (stochastic portion of this noise, which is spatially correlated), noted q_grav. The three other coefficients in question are respectively equal to the variances q_GPS of the temporally correlated noise components affecting the longitude, latitude and altitude measurements provided by the GPS positioning system (these temporally correlated noise components have been described hereinabove, in the presentation of the common sensors).
The following value of the variance of the gravity anomaly noise q_grav is given by way of example: q_grav=(10 μg)2·2vΔt/Lgrav,
where Δt is a time step (between two successive calculation steps), v is the speed of the inertial measurement unit, and Lgrav is a correlation length of the gravity anomaly noise.
The covariance matrix Qns of the propagation noise vns, specific to each inertial measurement unit, is herein a diagonal matrix, six diagonal coefficients of which are null. Three of these diagonal coefficients are respectively equal to the variances qa_UMI of the white noises shown by the acceleration signals provided by the inertial measurement unit Ui. The three other coefficients in question are respectively equal to the variances qg_UMI of the white noises shown by the angular speed signals provided by this inertial measurement unit (these white noises have been described hereinabove, in the presentation of the inertial measurement units).
Finally, the covariance matrix Rn of the measurement noises is herein diagonal, and has three non-null diagonal coefficients, respectively equal to the variances r_GPS of the white noise components of the noises affecting the longitude, latitude and altitude measurements, provided by the GPS positioning system.
Optionally, the navigation filter Fik is configured to reset the estimated error 2k,i if the latter exceeds a predetermined threshold (for example, if a norm of the estimated error exceeds a predetermined threshold value). During this resetting, the following substitutions are performed:
It will be noted that this resetting is not a reinjection of one of the mean estimates ŷFk,l (in other words, one of the global solutions) at the input of the navigation filter Fik (this resetting remains an operation that involves only the local estimates determined by the navigation filter Fik).
The fact that the navigation filter Fik is configured to first determine the intermediate magnitude constituted by the estimated error {circumflex over (x)}k,i, then to deduce therefrom the corrected estimate ŷcork,i of the state vector y of the system, allows, in particular thanks to the above-mentioned resetting, benefitting from propagation and updating equations that, with a very good approximation, are linear (which simplifies in proportion the implementation of the method).
Each navigation filter Fik provides, at each calculation step, the corrected estimate ŷcor,nk,i of the state vector y and the estimate Pnk,i of the covariance matrix of the error vector x (relating to the state vector y).
The corrected estimate ŷcork,i is determined by the navigation filter Fik for a point and a reference direction proper to the inertial measurement unit Ui. Indeed, the accelerometer of the measurement unit Ui measure the acceleration of system at a given point of this system, and its gyrometers measure the angular speed of the system about rotation axes proper to the considered inertial measurement unit. Hence, by way of example, the heading angle estimated by the navigation filter Fik is herein a heading angle of the inertial measurement unit Ui, with respect to the terrestrial reference system.
The inertial measurement units are preferably aligned with respect to each other. But slight misalignments (generally lower than one degree) may however subsist between the different inertial measurement units.
Moreover, the inertial measurement units are located at a reduced distance from each other (a distance separating any two of the inertial measurement units is preferably lower than 3 meters, or even, as herein, lower than 1 meter). Nevertheless, they are not located exactly at the same point. The speeds of these different measurement units (with respect to the terrestrial reference system) may hence be slightly different from each other (when the angular speed of system 1 is not null).
To take into account these slight differences of alignment and position, the different corrected estimates ŷcork,1, . . . , ŷcork,i, . . . , ŷcork,N and the estimates Pnk,1, . . . , Pnk,i, . . . , Pnk,N of the corresponding covariance matrices, are projected in a same common reference system. Those are the projected estimates ŷcor,nk,1(u), . . . , ŷcor,nk,i(u), . . . , ŷcor,nk,N(u), and the projected covariance matrices Pnk,1(u), . . . , Pnk,i(u), . . . , Pnk,N(u), resulting from these projections, that are then averaged between each other to obtain the mean estimates ŷFk,l, and the corresponding covariance matrices PFk,l. The common reference system may be a reference system specified by a user of the positioning system 1.
The projection of the corrected estimate ŷcor,nk,i and of the estimate Pnk,i of the corresponding covariance matrix in the common reference system is a reference system change operation, from a reference system proper to the inertial measurement unit to the above-mentioned common reference system. This projection is performed herein during a sub-step b3) of step b) (
As already indicated, the mean estimate ŷFk,l is determined by fusing k corrected estimates chosen among the N corrected estimates ŷcork,1, . . . , ŷcork,i, . . . , ŷcork,N. The set of these k corrected estimates is hereinafter noted El.
The mean estimate ŷFk,l is determined more accurately by calculating an arithmetic mean of the k projected estimates corresponding to the set El.
This arithmetic mean is weighted if the estimates Pnk,1(u), . . . , Pnk,i(u), . . . , Pnk,N(u) of the covariance matrices are in particular different from each other (for example, if they have, relative to each other, deviations higher than a given threshold), or if the navigation filters Fik are set differently from each other (i.e. they operate on the basis of distinct covariance matrices, or on the basis of distinct gain matrices K).
Otherwise, this arithmetic means is not weighted.
When this arithmetic mean is calculated in a weighted manner, this is in accordance with the following formula:
ŷF,nk,l=PF,nk,lΣE
the sum ΣE
When this arithmetic mean is calculated in a non-weighted manner, this is in accordance with the following formula:
the sum ΣE
The covariance matrix of the errors affecting the mean estimate ŷF,nk,l is then estimated in accordance with the following formula:
The fusion module Fusk outputs both the mean estimate ŷF,nk,l and the estimate PF,nk,l of the corresponding covariance matrix.
It is noted that, in the exemplary embodiment described herein, the different inertial measurement units of system 1 have signal-to-noise ratios that are very close, or even equal. Moreover, as these inertial measurement units are close to each other and are rigidly fixed to the same support, their respective dynamics have only slight differences that are averaged over time and counterbalance each other.
In a very good approximation, it may hence be considered herein that the matrices P0k,i, Qns, Qn,auge and Vaug of any two “k-fusionable” navigation filters are identical for these two filters.
Moreover, as regards the estimate Pnk,i of covariance matrix, and the correction gain Kn, the same matrix Fn (relating to the dynamics of the inertial measurement units) and the same matrix Hn (relating to the measurement) may be used for the different “k-fusionable” filters.
The correction gain Kn and the estimate Pnk,i of the covariance matrix have then identical values for each of the “k-fusionable” navigation filters Fik. It is hence provided herein, at each calculation step, to calculate these magnitudes only once for all the “k-fusionable” navigation filters, and to then distribute the result of this calculation to each of these filters (which then operate synchronously), as schematically shown in
This latter arrangement then advantageously allows reducing the time and/or the calculation resources required for obtaining the corrected estimates ŷcork,1, . . . , ŷcork,i, . . . , ŷcork,N.
As mentioned hereinabove, the covariance matrices are then identical, Pnk,1= . . . =Pnk,i= . . . =Pnk,N, their common value is noted Pnk. The covariance matrix of the errors affecting the mean estimates ŷFk,l then does not depend on the set El of the averaged estimates. It is determined in accordance with the following formula:
PF,nk=1/kPnk.
The fact that the mean estimate ŷF,nk,l is an optimum estimate of the state vector y of the system is mathematically justified hereinafter, in a slightly simplified case for which the different inertial measurement units are placed at a same point, and have the same direction relative to each other.
To show that the mean estimate ŷF,nk,l is optimum, it is compared with a reference estimate, which is known to be optimum.
The reference estimate is an estimate that would be obtained by the following operations:
This latter Kalman filter receives fused signals, coming in a way from a virtual (“fused”) inertial measurement unit, which is more accurate than one of the inertial measurement units considered alone. It provides:
The inertial measurement units are supposed to have the same signal-to-noise ratio. The Kalman filter associated with the virtual inertial measurement unit mentioned hereinabove must then be set with:
(which translates that the virtual inertial measurement unit is in a way √{square root over (k)} times more accurate than one of the inertial measurement units considered alone).
It is known that the quantity ŷREF,nk,l+{circumflex over (x)}REF,nk,l, determined by this Kalman filter, is the optimum estimate of the state vector y of the system.
We will now show, by recurrence, that the mean estimate ŷF,nk,l is, at each calculation step, equal to the reference estimate ŷREF,nk,l+xREF,nk,l and that it is hence also optimum.
Taking into account the linearity of the operation of projection of the corrected estimates in the common reference system, the mean estimate ŷF,nk,l may also be written as:
ŷF,nk,l=ŷF,uncorr,nk,l+{circumflex over (x)}F,nk,l
where
and where
To simplify, let suppose that the estimated errors {circumflex over (x)}nk,i are simultaneously reset for all the navigation filters considered.
Just after this resetting, at the initial calculation step n=0, the following equalities are hence verified: ŷF,uncorr,0k,l=ŷREF,0k,l and {circumflex over (x)}F,0k,l={circumflex over (x)}REF,0k,l. Moreover, it is noted that PF,0k,l=P0,REF.
The hypothesis of recurrence is that, at the calculation step n−1, the following equalities are verified: ŷF,uncorr,n-1k,l=ŷREF,n-1k,l, {circumflex over (x)}F,n-1k,l={circumflex over (x)}REF,n-1k,l, and PF,n-1k,l=PREF,n-1.
It is then shown that these equalities are still true at the calculation step n.
As for the first estimates ŷF,uncorr,nk,l and ŷREF,nk,l (obtained by time integration of the acceleration and angular speed signals), they are independent of the navigation filter considered; they depend only on the prior estimates and on the acceleration and angular speed signals. Herein, this latter dependence to the linear type. We hence have ŷF,uncorr,nk,l=ŷREF,nk,l.
Moreover, taking into account:
the estimated mean error {circumflex over (x)}F,nk,l, and the estimate PF,nk,l of its covariance matrix follow the following propagation equations:
{circumflex over (x)}F,nk,l=Fn{circumflex over (x)}F,n-1k,l, and
PF,nk,l=FnPF,n-1k,lFnT+Qn,auge/k+Qns/k.
Now, the reference estimated error {circumflex over (x)}REF,nk,l and the estimate PREF,n Of its covariance matrix satisfy the following propagation equations:
{circumflex over (x)}REF,n_=Fn{circumflex over (x)}REF,n-1k,l, and
PREF,n_=FnPREF,n-1FnT+QREF,ne+QREF,ns.
The covariance matrix QREF,ne of the external propagation noise of the (fused) virtual inertial measurement unit is equal to Qne, and is hence equal to Qn,auge/k. The covariance matrix QREF,ns of the specific propagation noise is equal to Qns/k.
The propagation equations are hence identical for {circumflex over (x)}F,nk,l and PF,nk,l on the one hand, and for {circumflex over (x)}REF,nk,l and PREF,n on the other hand.
The recurrence hypothesis is hence preserved by the propagation step.
The updating step will now be considered.
For each “k-fusionable” navigation filter, the innovation covariance matrix Sn is calculated, at the calculation step n, in accordance with the following formula: Sn=Hn Pn_k,lHnT+k. Rn.
As a consequence, Sn=k·(Hn PREF,n_HnT+Rn)=k·SREF,n.
The correction gain Kn, determined by each “k-fusionable” navigation filter may hence be expressed as follows:
Kn=Pn_k,lHnTSn−1=(k·PREF,n_)HnT(k·SREF,n)−1=PREF,n_HnTSREF,n−1=KREF,n
The correction gain Kn, determined by each “k-fusionable” navigation filter is hence equal to the correction gain KREF,n determined by the Kalman filter associated with the virtual inertial measurement unit.
Taking into account:
The reference estimated error {circumflex over (x)}REF,nk,l and the estimate PREF,n Of its covariance matrix fulfill the following updating equations:
{circumflex over (x)}REF,nk,l={circumflex over (x)}REF,n_k,l+KREF,n(mesn−Hn[ŷREF,nk,l+{circumflex over (x)}REF,n_k,l]), and
PREF,n=(Id−KREF,nHn)PREF,n_.
Now, it has been shown that Kn=KREF,n and that ŷF,uncorr,nk,l=ŷREF,nk,l.
The updating equations are hence identical for {circumflex over (x)}F,nk,l and PF,nk,l on the one hand, and for {circumflex over (x)}REF,nk,l and PREF,n on the other hand.
The recurrence hypothesis is hence also preserved by the updating step.
By recurrence, it is hence finally deduced therefrom that the mean estimate ŷF,nk,l, is, at each calculation step, equal to the reference estimate ŷREF,nk,l+{circumflex over (x)}REF,nk,l (that is the optimum estimate of the state vector y of the system), and that the estimate PF,nk,l of the covariance matrix of its error is also the better estimate of this matrix.
The use of modified individual Kalman filters (with augmentation of the variances), followed with a fusion of the estimates, hence allows obtaining an estimate that is as good as if the acceleration and angular speed signals of several inertial measurement units where previously fused, before filtering them by means of a single individual Kalman filter.
It is reminded on that subject that the fact to make the filtering before the fusion allows having to implement only N2 navigation filters (instead of 2N−1) to estimate the 2N−1 distinct mean estimations ŷFk,l.
Finally, as regards the demonstration hereinabove, it is noted that a potential difference between the resetting thresholds of the estimated errors {circumflex over (x)}nk,i has only a negligible influence (influence of order 2 or less, with respect to the corrective term mentioned hereinabove, for example) on the mean estimation ŷF,nk,l or on the covariance matrix that is associated therewith.
It may occur that one of the external sensors C1, . . . Cp provides measurements of the positioning parameters of the system in an intermittent way (case of a sonar, for example), or only in certain circumstances (for example, if the positioning system equips a submarine, the GPS positioning system is available only when a submarine antenna is emerged or is located at the surface of the water).
One or several adjustment scenarios are hence to be defined. Each adjustment scenario is data of the time instants and methods of taking into account, by the navigation filters, of the measurements mesn provided by the common sensors C1, . . . , Cp.
An example of such an adjustment scenario is the following:
To improve the robustness of the positioning system 1 with respect to a failure or a potential unavailability of one of the common sensors, it may be provided that the processing unit 10 determines the 2N−1 mean estimates in parallel for M different adjustment scenarios Sc1, . . . , ScM (
For each adjustment scenario, within each set of navigation filters Fk, 1≤k≤N (for example, within the set FN of the “N-fusionable” navigation filters), the measurements provided by the common sensors are taken into account in the same way by the different navigation filters F1k, . . . , Fik, . . . , FNk of said set Fk. Thanks to this arrangement, the mean estimates ŷFk,l keep their optimum (or almost-optimum) character.
During this navigation phase, the common sensors used are:
The respective standard deviations of the estimated errors {circumflex over (x)}1,1(u), {circumflex over (x)}1,2(u), {circumflex over (x)}1,3(u), {circumflex over (x)}3,1(u), {circumflex over (x)}3,2(u), {circumflex over (x)}3,3(u) and {circumflex over (x)}F3 are noted σ1,1, σ1,2, σ1,3, σ3,1, σ3,2, σ3,3 and σF3. Their time evolution is schematically shown in
It is observed, on this navigation phase example, that:
The processing unit 10 can, as herein, comprise an optional error detection module for automatically detecting a potential failure of one of the inertial measurement units.
The error detection module is configured so as, for each couple of 2 inertial measurement units Ui and Uj, to:
The difference rnij is determined more accurately by calculating the difference between truncated versions cor,n1,i and
cor,n1,j of the corrected estimates ŷcor,n1,i(u) and ŷcor,n1,j(u), as explained hereinafter.
The corrected estimate ŷcor,n1,i(u) is a vector of dimension d=de+ds, whose index coordinates l=1, . . . , de are the estimates of the different navigation magnitudes (latitude, longitude, . . . ) and environment magnitudes, common to all the inertial measurement units, and the following ds coordinates of which are proper to the inertial measurement unit Ui (bias and scale factor of this inertial measurement unit).
The restriction of the corrected estimation ŷcor,n1,i(u) to its first de coordinates is noted cor,n1,i, and the difference vector rnij is equal to:
rnij=cor,n1,j−
cor,n1,i.
Comparably:
Remarkably, the expected covariance matrix Mnk is determined as follows:
The integer number k plays the role of an adjustable parameter, allowing adjusting the sensitivity of the error detection module. The value of the number k is fixed as a function of the desired detection sensitivity.
Indeed, the matrix Mnk depends on the value chosen for k, and the smaller this matrix, the more sensitive the error detection.
For k=1, the potential correlations between the two corrected estimates ŷcor,n1,i(u) and ŷcor,n1,j(u) are not taken into account in the calculation of the covariance matrix Mnk (because Mn1=Pen1,i+Pen1,j), and its corrected estimates are then considered as independent from each other.
For k>1, these correlations are taken into account, via the term
which allows reducing the values of the matrix Mnk, and making the test advantageously more sensitive than a test that would ignore the existence of these correlations.
It will be noted that, even for k>1, the variance of the difference vector rnij is lower than the matrix Mnk (if the inertial measurement units Ui and Uj have rather close signal-to-noise ratios).
The compatibility of the difference vector rnij with the expected covariance matrix Mnk for this vector may then be wholly tested, by considering all the coordinates of this vector (of size de).
In this case, the quantity (rnij)T·(Mnk)−1·rnij r is calculated. If this quantity is higher than or equal to χ2(de)1-α, the difference vector rnij is considered as incompatible with the estimate Mnk of its covariance matrix, and it is determined that one of the inertial measurement units of the couple Ui, Uj is defective (at this step, it is not necessarily known if either one or both of the inertial measurement units of this couple are defective).
On the contrary, if the quantity (rnij)T·(Mnk)−1·rnij turns out to be lower than χ2(de)1-α, the operation of each of the two inertial measurement units Ui and Uj is declared as being normal (non-defective).
χ2(de)1-α is the quantile of order 1−α of the χ2 law at de degrees of freedom.
It may be mathematically shown that this compatibility test, which is originally based on said covariance matrix Mnk, has a false alarm probability lower than or equal to the parameter a (which shows the relevance of this test, based on the comparison of the matrix Mnk with the khi2 coefficients mentioned hereinabove). The parameter a may for example be chosen equal to 1%, or to 5%.
The statistic test mentioned hereinabove may also be applied to the non-truncated difference vector, equal to ŷcor,n1,i(u)−ŷcor,n1,i(u), with the expected covariance matrix given by the following formula
The statistic test mentioned hereinabove may also be applied to another truncation of the difference vector, with the corresponding truncation for the expected covariance matrix.
The statistic test mentioned hereinabove may also be applied to the residue vector rnij, coordinate by coordinate, instead of wholly testing the compatibility of this vector with the expected covariance matrix Mnk.
In this case, for each coordinate (in other word, for each component) rnij(l) of index l comprised between 1 and de, the quantity Mnk(l,l)−1·rnij(l)2 is calculated, and if it is higher than or equal to χ2(1)1-α, it is determined that one of the inertial measurement units of the couple Ui, Uj is defective.
On the contrary, if the quantity Mnk(l,l)−1·rnij(l)2 is lower than χ2(1)1-α for each component of the residue vector, the operation of each of the two inertial measurement units Ui and Uj is declared as being normal.
This compatibility test is performed for all the couples of two inertial measurement units Ui, Uj, i.e., for N·(N−1)/2 distinct couples of two inertial measurement units. Based on all the results of these tests, the defective inertial measurement units are identified. More precisely, one of the measurement units is identified as being defective if, for all the couples comprising this measurement unit, the above-mentioned test of compatibility indicates that the error vector rnij is incompatible with the estimate Mnk of its covariance matrix.
During the navigation phase shown in
It is observed in this navigation phase example that:
In practice, the error detection module is hence preferably set by choosing for k a fixed value, comprised between 2 and N.
Different variants of the just-described positioning system 1 may be provided.
For example, in a simplified variant, the positioning system according to the invention may comprise only the N “N-fusionable” navigation filters (and the corresponding fusion module FusN), instead of the N2 navigation filters of the embodiment described hereinabove. In this case, in addition to the mean estimation yFN (which is optimum), it may be provided to calculate additional mean estimates by averaging between each other only a part of the projected estimates ŷcor,nN,1(u), . . . , ŷcor,nN,i(u), . . . , ŷcor,nN,N(u) provided by the “N-fusionable” navigation filters. These additional mean estimates are suboptimum, but however useful (in this simplified variant) in terms of robustness, in the case where one the inertial measurement units turns out to be defective.
In another simplified variant, the positioning system according to the invention may comprise only (instead of the N2 navigation filters of the complete embodiment described hereinabove):
so as to implement the error detection module described hereinabove.
| Number | Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18 00973 | Sep 2018 | FR | national |
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20120166134 | Yost | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20160223683 | Boyarski | Aug 2016 | A1 |
| 20210295718 | Robert | Sep 2021 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 103941273 | May 2017 | CN |
| Entry |
|---|
| French Search Report, FR 1800973, dated Aug. 21, 2019. |
| Carlson, “Federated Square Root Filter for Decentralized Parallel Processes”, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, May 1990, vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 517-525. |
| Carlson, “Federated Square Root Filter for Decentralized Parallel Processes”, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems vol. 26, No. 3 May 1990, pp. 517-525. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20200088521 A1 | Mar 2020 | US |
