1. Field of the Invention
This invention pertains generally to systems for monitoring railroad vehicles and, more particularly, to such systems for determining the position of a train. The invention also pertains to methods for determining the position of a railroad vehicle.
2. Background Information
In the art of railway signaling, traffic flow through signaled territory is typically directed by various signal aspects appearing on wayside indicators or cab signal units located on board railway vehicles. The vehicle operators recognize each such aspect as indicating a particular operating condition allowed at that time. Typical practice is for the aspects to indicate prevailing speed conditions.
For operation of this signaling scheme, a track is typically divided into cascaded sections known as “blocks.” These blocks, which may be generally as long as about two to about five miles, are electrically isolated from adjacent blocks by typically utilizing interposing insulated joints. When a block is unoccupied, track circuit apparatus connected at each end are able to transmit signals back and forth through the rails within the block. Such signals may be coded to contain control data enhancing the signaling operation. Track circuits operating in this manner are referred to as “coded track circuits.” One such coded track circuit is illustrated in U.S. Pat. No. 4,619,425. When a block is occupied by a railway vehicle, shunt paths are created across the rails by the vehicle wheel and axle sets. While this interrupts the flow of information between respective ends of the block, the presence of the vehicle can be positively detected.
In the case of trains in signaled territory, control commands change the aspects of signal lights, which indicate how trains should move forward (e.g., continue at speed; reduce speed; stop), and the positions of switches (normal or reverse), which determine the specific tracks the trains will run on. Sending the control commands to the field is done by an automated traffic control system, or simply control system. Control systems are employed by railroads to control the movements of trains on their individual properties or track infrastructures. Variously known as Computer-Aided Dispatching (CAD) systems, Operations Control Systems (OCS), Network Management Centers (NMC) and Central Traffic Control (CTC) systems, such systems automate the process of controlling the movements of trains traveling across a track infrastructure, whether it involves traditional fixed block control or moving block control assisted by a positive train control system. The interface between the control system and the field devices is typically through control lines that communicate with electronic controllers at the wayside, which in turn connect directly to the field devices.
In dark (unsignaled) territory, forward movement of trains is specified in terms of mileposts (e.g., a train is given the authority to move from its current location to a particular milepost along its planned route), landmarks or geographic locations. Controlling the movements of trains is effected through voice communication between a human operator monitoring the control system and the locomotive engineer. The operator is responsible for authorizing the engineer to move the train and to manually perform state-changing actions, such as throwing switches, so that the train is able to follow the operator-specified route. Typical railroad voice exchanges are prescribed conversations involving specific sequences of sentences that fit the situation. For example, the engineer will periodically report the train's position by telling the dispatcher “Train BX234 is by Milepost 121.4”. The operator will repeat the position report back to the engineer while entering it into the Computer Aided Dispatching system. The engineer will validate the entry by saying “That is correct” or some similar phrase, standard for that railroad. In this way, the operator knows where all trains are and the limits of their movement authorities so that the operator is able to direct their movements in a safe manner.
At least one alternative train positioning system (ERTMS) utilizes a system of short range radio frequency transmitter/receiver pairs. As the train approaches a protected area, such as a grade crossing or switching interchange, the onboard transmitter emits a signal that elicits a response from the wayside installation. The exchange between the system onboard the train and the wayside installation causes the train to update its position (by observed proximity to the transmitter) and be granted movement authority (delivered to the train by a wayside transmitter from a network operations center). The ERTMS system has been observed to require considerable preparation and careful installation.
Other known systems and methods determine train position. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 4,790,191 discloses a dead reckoning and map matching process in combination with Global Positioning System (GPS) sensors. When relative navigation sensors (e.g., vehicle odometer; differential odometer) are providing data within an acceptable error, the system does not use the GPS data to update the vehicle's position. The system does use GPS data to test whether the data from the relative sensors are within the acceptable error. If not, the system resets the vehicle's position to a position calculated based on the GPS data and then the system performs a “dead reckoning” cycle followed by “map matching”.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,862,511 discloses a vehicle navigation system and method that uses information from a GPS to obtain velocity vectors, which include speed and heading components, for “dead reckoning” the vehicle position from a previous position. If information from the GPS is not available, then the system uses information from an orthogonal axes accelerometer, such as two or three orthogonally positioned accelerometers, to propagate vehicle position. The system retains the accuracy of the accelerometers by repeatedly calibrating them with the velocity data obtained from the GPS information.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,948,043 discloses a navigation system for tracking an object, such as an automobile as it moves over streets, using an electronic map and a GPS receiver, and claims that the system functions without using data from navigation sensors other than one or more GPS sensors. The GPS receiver accepts data from a number of satellites and determines a GPS derived position and velocity. Based on the previous position of the object, the GPS derived position, the velocity, the dilution of precision (DOP), and the continuity of satellites for which data is received, the system determines whether the GPS data is reliable. When determining whether the GPS data is reliable, the first step is to compare the GPS derived position to the previous position (e.g., from map matching). If the GPS data is reliable, then the previous position of the object is updated to the GPS derived position. The updated position is then matched to a map of roads.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0236598 discloses an integrated railroad traffic control system that links each locomotive to a control center for communicating data and control signals. Using on-board computers, GPS and two-way communication hardware, rolling stock continuously communicate position, vital sign data, and other information for recording in a data base and for integration in a comprehensive computerized control system. The position of each train is determined in real time by the use of a conventional positioning system, such as GPS, and is communicated to the dispatcher, so that the progress of each train can be followed and compared to the expected schedule expressed in the relevant train graph and panel. A separate channel is used to receive, record and transmit signals from mile-mark tag readers placed along the tracks in order to periodically confirm the exact position of the train. These signals are emitted by sensors that detect and identify specific tags placed wayside while the train is passing by. Since they are based on precisely fixed markers, the train positions so recorded are used to double-check and, if necessary, correct corresponding GPS positioning data. An input/output channel is provided to receive, record and transmit data from vital sign sensors on the train, such as pressure and/or temperatures of hydraulic systems and other operating parameters deemed important for safe and efficient maintenance and operation.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,496,778 discloses three conventional approaches for integrating GPS and an inertial navigation system (INS). The first approach is to reset directly the INS with the GPS-derived position and velocity. The second approach is cascaded integration where the GPS-derived position and velocity are used as the measurements in an integration Kalman filter. The third approach is to use an extended Kalman filter which processes the GPS raw pseudorange and delta range measurements to provide optimal error estimates of navigation parameters, such as the inertial navigation system, inertial sensor errors, and the global positioning system receiver clock offset.
A Kalman filter is an efficient recursive filter that estimates the state of a dynamic system from a series of incomplete and noisy measurements. For example, in a radar application, where one is interested in tracking a target, information about the location, speed and acceleration of the target is measured with a great deal of corruption by noise at any instant of time. The Kalman filter exploits the dynamics of the target, which govern its time evolution, to remove the effects of the noise and get a good estimate of the location of the target at the present time (filtering), at a future time (prediction), or at a time in the past (interpolation or smoothing). The Kalman filter is a pure time domain filter, in which only the estimated state from the previous time step and the current measurement are needed to compute the estimate for the current state. In contrast to batch estimation techniques, no history of observations and/or estimates are required. The state of the filter is represented by two variables: (1) the estimate of the state at time k; and (2) the error covariance matrix (a measure of the estimated accuracy of the state estimate). The Kalman filter has two distinct phases: Predict and Update. The Predict phase uses the estimate from the previous time step to produce an estimate of the current state. In the Update phase, measurement information from the current time step is used to refine this prediction to arrive at a new, (hopefully) more accurate estimate.
The Kalman filter technique depends critically on a well tuned covariance matrix, which, in turn, depends critically on the dynamics of the modeled system. Train dynamics, while well understood and predicable in controlled circumstances are notoriously variable in actual operation, due largely to the variability of the loads applied. Thus, claims of vitality for position systems that rely on the Kalman filtering technique are believed to be difficult to demonstrate.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,826,478 discloses that various auxiliary input data are provided to a Kalman filter which processes the auxiliary input data to determine and provide state corrections to an inertial navigation and sensor compensation unit. These state corrections from the Kalman filter are used by the inertial navigation and sensor compensation unit to enhance the accuracy of position, velocity, attitude and accuracy outputs, thereby enhancing the accuracy of the aided inertial navigation system (AINS). The auxiliary input data includes GPS data, speed data, map information, wheel angle data, and other discrete data, such as from transponders or rail detectors if the AINS is applied to a railcar or other similar applications. The AINS calculates the distance to the next map point. This information may be desirable for various applications in modern railcars, such as positive train control, in which various functions and operations of the train are automated. Such calculated distance is based on the best estimate of position, in which case there may be sudden changes if the quality of the input data improves suddenly, again for example, if GPS data is reacquired.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,826,478 also discloses that the calculated distance along the path is always smoothly changing. An illustration depicts a confidence value as a confidence circle. A mobile object is at a determined position along the path or track. The confidence circle indicates that the actual position of the mobile object is within the confidence circle from the determined position. As the confidence circle decreases in size, the distance that the determined position can deviate from the actual position of the mobile object decreases, and vice versa.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0062193 discloses a geospatial database access and query method, such as a map and Inertial Measurement Unit/Global Positioning System (IMU/GPS) navigation process. This supports real time mapping by using IMU/GPS integrated system as the positioning sensor. A point query is aimed at finding the node (connected or entity) in the vicinity of the query point. The vicinity area is defined as a circle on the screen with a radius and centered at the query point. The location data from the map matching process module is fed to a Kalman filter that blends the measurements from an Inertial Measurement Unit and a GPS receiver to further correct navigation errors.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,641,090 discloses a train location system and method of determining track occupancy. The system utilizes inertial measurement inputs, including orthogonal acceleration inputs and turn rate information, in combination with wheel-mounted tachometer information and GPS/DGPS position fixes to provide processed outputs indicative of track occupancy, position, direction of travel and velocity. Various navigation solutions are combined together to provide the desired information outputs using an optimal estimator designed specifically for rail applications and subjected to motion constraints reflecting the physical motion limitations of a locomotive. A rate gyro, a first accelerometer board and a second accelerometer board provide, respectively, rate of turn and three-axis acceleration information to processing electronics. Information vectors from sources having different error characteristics are geo-reconciled to reduce the adverse effect of short- and long-term errors. In the context of the velocity vector, for example, an inertially derived velocity vector is geo-reconciled with a geo-computed velocity vector obtained, for example, from the calibrated wheel tachometer and the train forward axis or track centerline axis. In general, the inertially obtained and tachometer derived velocity vectors will be different based upon the cumulative errors in each system. An optimal estimator functions to blend two such values to obtain the geo-reconciled velocity vector. With each successive computation sequence, the optimal estimator functions to estimate the error mechanisms and effect corrections to successively propagate position and the associated uncertainty along the track. A main process module fuses three inertial navigation solutions together, aided by exogenous GPS/DGPS receiver data and tachometer data in a position computation (Kalman) optimal estimator. The three navigation solutions include: (a) conventional strapdown navigation solution using a single Z-axis gyro and nulled x- and y-channels; (b) a projection of the inertial data along the occupied track profile reconstructed from parameters on the fly, and then being integrated appropriately (e.g., for position; speed); and (c) projection of the inertial data along the locomotive (cab) fixed reference axes and then being appropriately integrated for location. The three navigation solutions are optimally blended with the external GPS/DGPS receiver and the tachometer data, and the solution is subjected to motion constraints reflecting the physical limitations of how a locomotive can move.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0107954 discloses a collision warning and avoidance system which includes an integrated on-board Train Navigation Unit and a GPS Interface Subsystem to locate a train. The system includes a GPS location signal, fixed transponder stations, and a calibrated, rectified transponder identification subsystem for scanning the track based transponders for override of train controls in the event of a collision risk. A database includes all transponders, their location and the track ID on which they are located. A logic associative memory is in communication with a control signal generator, which is capable of emitting a signal responsive to input data to override train controls to effect braking in the event of a collision risk.
There is room for improvement in systems and methods for determining the position of a railroad vehicle with respect to both accuracy and vitality.
This need and others are met by embodiments of the invention, which provide an apparatus and method for vitally determining railroad vehicle position and uncertainty employing, for example, differential GPS position reports, which are cross-checked against a track map, and also employing plural diverse sensors, such as, for example, tachometers and accelerometers. The resulting railroad vehicle position information is sufficiently reliable for use in vital applications (e.g., without limitation, vital Automatic Train Protection or Automatic Train Operation (ATP/ATO) functions, such as vital braking applications).
The vitally-determined railroad vehicle position information can include, for example and without limitation: (1) (T,d): a best estimate of position (in terms of the track T and distance d along the track); (2) σ: a standard deviation from that position; (3) 4σ: a position uncertainty that acts as a safety envelope around the railroad vehicle for use by ATP/ATO functions; and (4) either a reliable position—i.e., its value has a high probability (to be specified) of falling within an acceptable range—or an indication that such a reliable position is unknown, in order for the ATP/ATO functions to move the railroad vehicle safely.
In accordance with one aspect of the invention, a system for vitally determining position of a railroad vehicle comprises: a plurality of diverse sensors structured to repetitively sense at least change in position and acceleration of the railroad vehicle; a global positioning system sensor, which is diverse from each of the diverse sensors, structured to repetitively sense position of the railroad vehicle; a track map including a plurality of track segments which may be occupied by the railroad vehicle; and a processor cooperating with the diverse sensors, the global positioning system sensor and the track map, the processor comprising a routine structured to: (1) provide measurement uncertainty for each of the diverse sensors and the global positioning system sensor, (2) cross-check measurements for each of the diverse sensors, and (3) cross-check the global positioning system sensor against the track map, and (4) provide the vitally determined position of the railroad vehicle and the uncertainty of the vitally determined position.
Preferably, the global positioning system sensor is the only direct measurement of location in the system.
As another aspect of the invention, a method of vitally determining a position of a railroad vehicle comprises: employing a plurality of diverse sensors to repetitively sense at least change in position and acceleration of the railroad vehicle; employing a global positioning system sensor, which is diverse from each of the diverse sensors, to repetitively sense position of the railroad vehicle; employing a track map including a plurality of track segments which may be occupied by the railroad vehicle; providing measurement uncertainty for each of the diverse sensors and the global positioning system sensor; cross-checking measurements for each of the diverse sensors; cross-checking the global positioning system sensor against the track map; and providing the vitally determined position of the railroad vehicle and the uncertainty of the vitally determined position from the sensed at least change in position and acceleration of the railroad vehicle from the diverse sensors and from the sensed position of the railroad vehicle from the global positioning system sensor.
A full understanding of the invention can be gained from the following description of the preferred embodiments when read in conjunction with the accompanying drawings in which:
As employed herein, the terms “railroad” or “railroad service” shall mean freight trains or freight rail service, passenger trains or passenger rail service, transit rail service, and commuter railroad traffic, commuter trains or commuter rail service.
As employed herein, the terms “traffic” or “railroad traffic” shall mean railroad traffic, which consists primarily of freight trains and passenger trains, and commuter railroad traffic, which consists primarily of passenger trains, although it can include freight trains.
As employed herein, the term “railroad vehicle” shall mean any rail vehicle (e.g., without limitation, trains; vehicles which move along a fixed guideway where lateral movement is restricted by the guideway) employed in connection with railroad service or railroad traffic.
The following symbols and/or definitions are employed herein:
T: Track segment. A track segment is assumed to be linear and less than about 100 feet in length. Certain track segments may be connected by switches, which are also represented as track segments. The about 100 foot length is determined by the requirements of Automatic Train Protection or Automatic Train Operation (ATP/ATO) functions, which length is sufficiently short such that curvature does not introduce significant error. Track segments also include segments of guideways.
d: Distance along a track segment from the reference end thereof.
σ: Standard deviation of a measurement. The units of σ match the units of the measured quantity. This standard deviation is distinct from both resolution and accuracy and may also be referred to herein as certainty or uncertainty, depending upon the context.
Q: Data quality. Data quality indicates whether a signal is usable (e.g., Q=1), independent of σ. For example, a single GPS reading is considered to have bad quality (e.g., Q=0; the signal is not usable) if too many previous GPS readings are unusable due to excessive orthogonal offset. Usability is defined for each type of measurement.
A: Acceleration.
V: Velocity.
SW: Switch position. The switch position is presumed to be vitally determined by another vital mechanism (e.g., without limitation, through vital transmissions to a vehicle; through vital communications from a switch controller; through voice communication of a person operating the switch with a central network operation center). Note that communication between humans is non-vital, although it is viewed as an acceptable level of safety in the absence of vital mechanisms for determining, for example, track occupancy or switch position. That is, it is accepted as safe for dark territory control or when such control is in force.
Map: Vitally accurate track map data containing track segments and switches (track map vitality depends on doing a survey, validating it, and then validating the encoding).
(Lat,Lon): A position on the earth (latitude and longitude), commonly obtained from a Global Positioning System (GPS) device, possibly augmented with a differential position signal (DPGS).
F(x) is a normal distribution function defined as:
wherein:
μ is the mean of the distribution; and
σ is the standard deviation.
As employed herein, the term “vital” means that the acceptable probability of a hazardous event resulting from an abnormal outcome associated with an activity or device is less than about 10−9/hour (this is a commonly accepted hazardous event rate for vitality). That is, the Mean Time Between Hazardous Events (MTBHE) is greater than 109 hours (approximately 114,000 years). For example, for a train location system to be considered vital, the uncertainty of the position is of such a value that the probability of a hazardous event resulting from a failure of the system due to that uncertainty is less than about 10−9/hour. Also, it is assumed that static data used by such a vital system, including, for example, track map data, has been validated by a suitably rigorous process under the supervision of suitably responsible parties.
The invention is described in association with a system for vitally determining the position of a railroad vehicle, although the invention is applicable to a wide range of systems and methods for vitally determining the position of a railroad vehicle, or any system in which a vehicle moves along a fixed guideway where lateral movement is restricted by the guideway.
Referring to
Integrating over the probability density gives the probability that the railroad vehicle lies within a distance, r, of the GPS reading 4, which is equal to the probability of the railroad vehicle lying within a distance x=√{square root over (r2−β2)} along the railway 2 from location 12, which is the point where the line 6 perpendicular to the railway 2 intersects it.
Any GPS reading taken aboard a railroad vehicle (e.g., a locomotive; a maglev vehicle; a guideway vehicle) must be a point near a track segment 2′ represented in a track map (not shown) if the locomotive is on the railway (as opposed to being on an unmapped industrial siding). The requirement for a GPS reading to be near a track segment stems from the idea that it is statistically rare for a reading to be far from a track segment, implying that the reading is questionable (i.e., is likely to be unusable). Since radial GPS errors are distributed randomly in all directions around the railroad vehicle, virtually all readings will be some distance x from the intersection 12 of the railway 2 and the line 6 perpendicular to the railway 2 of
If a GPS position reading lies directly on the centerline of the railway 2 of
This distribution, when integrated, yields a total probability of 1. Now if the position reading is offset (line 6 of
Off-track GPS readings are mapped to on-track positions according to the following three rules. Referring to
As employed herein, measurement uncertainty is represented as a normal distribution, with a known standard deviation (this value is published). When the measurements are diverse indicators (i.e., obtained from different kinds of measuring devices) of the same process, the statistics may be combined. Equation 1 provides a slightly pessimistic standard deviation estimate for the combination of normally distributed samples (i.e., for each device).
wherein:
μ is the average measured value (or mean value);
σ is the standard deviation;
μi is the ith measured sample used to determine the average measured value μ;
n is the number of samples; and
σi is the deviation of the ith measured sample from the average measured value μ.
As employed herein, the standard deviation, σv, of a variable (e.g., velocity, v, of Equation 2A), derived from the integration (or differentiation) of a variable (e.g., the integration of acceleration, a, as shown in Equation 2A), is the numerical integration (or differentiation) of the standard deviation, σa (e.g., as shown in Equation 2B), of the integrated (or differentiated) variable.
v=∫adt (Eq. 2A)
σv=∫σadt (Eq. 2B)
Table 2 contains the probabilities that a randomly selected sample from a normally distributed set of measurements will be more than xσ away from the mean, wherein x is varied from 1 to 7.
The first column of Table 2 is the normalized statistical distance from the mean. The second column is the ordinary normal distribution for a one-tailed test, which is indicated by the rightmost portion (1−F(x)) of
Thus, for example, if a differential GPS (DGPS) position report has a typical standard deviation of 3 feet, then the probability that the actual position is more than 9 feet (3σ) away is about 0.0013. The probability that the actual position is more than 18 feet (6σ) away is about 9.8×10−10. The probability that three successive measurements are further than 6σ away is the product of the probabilities of the individual readings (9.8×10−10)3, or about 9.41×10−28. If there are 3600 such readings an hour, then the probability is about 3.4×10−24/hour of a sequence of three GPS readings being in error by more than 6σ. That is, there are approximately 3600 possible sequences of three successive readings further away than 6σ that could occur within an hour (assuming one reading per second), which is multiplied by the probability of three such successive readings.
Position uncertainty in the location of the locomotive of a train is accommodated by a buffer represented at the front and rear of the train. As shown in
As employed herein, a navigation state change model (NSCM) projects the change of state between a previous reading and the next reading of an instrument (e.g., a tachometer; GPS unit). To do this, the model maintains state information at time t−δ (e.g., position and velocity) and applies physical laws, and relationships derived from them, to generate the expected state at time t from it. The size of δ (or Δt) is chosen to be suitably small such that changes in acceleration can be safely ignored. For example, ATP/ATO functions commonly read an accelerometer and/or related instruments about four times per second. The typical maximum acceleration value for a locomotive in normal operation is limited by wheel grip characteristics, and is less than about 2 ft/sec2.
The NSCM uses position, dt, velocity, Vt, and acceleration, At, the values of which, at time t, are respectively shown by Equations 3, 4 and 5, and are collectively shown by the matrix transformation of Equation 6.
The method and system 90 described below in connection with
As will be described, every key conclusion about position, velocity, acceleration and the associated measurement uncertainties thereof is cross-checked against independent measurements from other instruments or calculations for consistency. These cross-checks permit the system 90 (
Non-limiting examples of the disclosed instruments include a DGPS unit 100 (
DGPS σ (commonly known as the User Equivalent Range Error (UERE)) is determined in part from Differential Lock and Horizontal Dilution of Precision (HDOP) values reported by the DGPS unit 100 and is presumed to be on the order of about 1.6 meters (5 feet). HDOP depends on the relative geometric positioning of the satellites in view (higher values of HDOP indicate relative positions that give less accurate readings). For GPS without differential correction, GPS σ is presumed to be on the order of about 5.3 meters (18 feet), such that 6σ under GPS, without differential correction, is still only about 32 meters (108 feet), which is sufficiently small for railway applications. DGPS σ is smaller because the locations of ground-based reference stations, which are known, are used to correct for atmospheric distortion, ephemeris error, and satellite/receiver clock error. The actual UERE is tracked by the GPS Support Center of the Air Force, currently known as GPSOC. As new satellites are launched, the UERE is expected to decrease, thereby making the above uncertainty values conservative. For example, as of January 2006, GPS UERE is about 1.5 meters as opposed to about 5.3 meters.
At Map Location function 52 of
Next, at the Position Synthesis function 58, each usable DGPS reading is compared to the expected change of state as determined by the NSCM 55. The position quality output, Q, records whether the DGPS reading is consistent with the expected position for the last n (e.g., n=3, k=2; any suitable pair of integers) readings. These two positions (from DGPS, at the Map Location function 52, and the NSCM 55), which are constructed from diverse measurements, are considered to be k-consistent if they differ by no more than k standard deviations as represented by Equations 7 and 8. The DGPS quality is considered good if the last n readings are all k-consistent.
|dG−dN|<kσG (Eq. 7)
|dG−dN|<kσN (Eq. 8)
wherein:
σN is the NSCM standard deviation from function 55.
The output 57 of the Position Synthesis function 58 is the DGPS position (T,d) pair along with position quality, Q, as determined by the function 58 when both of the tests of Equations 7 and 8 are true, along with the DGPS σ. In other words, the track segment, offset and uncertainty (T,d,σ) produced by the Position Synthesis function 58 are the track segment, offset and uncertainty produced by the Map Location function 52.
The DGPS error propagation routine 50 may employ, for example, GPS reported Differential Lock and HDOP to calculate UERE. The UERE calculation is based on the observation that GPS without differential lock has a normal standard deviation of about 5.3 meters. Adding a differential GPS base unit signal will reduce the ULERE value to about 1.6 meters. Additionally, the grouping of the GPS satellites (not shown) used in the measurement has an effect, which is measured by the HDOP. For example, tightly clustered satellites lead to a relatively large HDOP, while more widely scattered satellites lead to a relatively lower HDOP.
HDOP is defined such that UERE=HDOP*√{square root over (URE2+UEE2)}, wherein UEE is User Equipment Errors (e.g., receiver noise; antenna orientation; EMI/RFI), which can be reduced to an insignificant value with appropriate equipment design, and URE is the User Range Error, which is due to atmospheric effects (e.g., propagation through the ionosphere), orbital calculation errors, satellite clock bias, multipath and selective availability). Since DGPS position reports are well known to be normally distributed, and because all actual locomotive locations are on a track segment, the orthogonal offset from the track segment is related to the radial DGPS error (see
To determine whether any particular value of the DGPS standard deviation, σ, is a good fit for the observed data, the system 90 collects the proportion, θ, of orthogonal offsets, xi, that are below the threshold, σ, of the last N readings of the GPS position, where N>44, and θ=(Σi=1N(xi<σ))/N (the sum over xi<σ in the equation for θ is the number of readings below the threshold). Given that DGPS readings are normally distributed (Equation 9, below) and knowing the DGPS standard deviation, σ, Equation 10 can be used to determine whether the difference between the proportion of readings below the threshold, θ, and the expected proportion of readings below the threshold, θ0, is statistically significant (i.e., whether the difference is too remote to have occurred by chance). Equation 10 is the basis for what is known as the z-test, which is a statistical test for determining if the difference between the mean of a data sample and the population mean (which is known) is statistically significant. The denominator of Equation 10 is a normal distribution standard deviation for proportions.
wherein:
θ0 is the expected proportion of the samples below the selected threshold, σ;
θ is the observed proportion of the samples below the threshold; and
N is the number of samples.
A suitable procedure to calculate θ is as follows: collect N samples; for each sample, calculate the orthogonal offset, x; count the samples where x>σ into C; and then θ=C/N.
By selecting σ as the offset threshold, approximately 68.29% of the radial errors are expected below σ, with the remainder of the radial errors being above σ. The choice of the number of readings, N, is driven by a trade-off between the sample count (i.e., more position measurements will increase the reliability of the sample) and the time needed to sample. In normal operation, 45 samples (i.e., N>44) will be collected over the last 45 seconds. Employing 120 samples would take at least 2 minutes, leaving a longer window in which the conditions may change (the sources of URE are continually changing). A significance level of 5% is assumed here (5% is a typical threshold value for statistical significance), which means that the probability of the difference between a proportion, θ, obtained from N readings and the expected proportion, θ0 (in this case, 68.29%) should be greater than 5% in order to be confident that the N readings are from a normal distribution with standard deviation, σ (i.e., that the difference can be attributed to chance).
If, for instance, the proportion of readings below the offset threshold is 0.55 and the number of samples is 45, then according to Equation 10, z would equal −1.91, which is the number of standard deviations difference between the observed proportion and the expected proportion. For a one-tailed test (i.e., only proportions below the expected value are important), assuming a normal distribution (Equation 9), −1.91 standard deviations corresponds to a probability of approximately 0.972, which means that 97.2% of the time, 45 samples from a normal population will have a greater proportion than 0.55 falling within one standard deviation (the offset threshold). The result is therefore statistically significant and, hence, the hypothesis that the readings came from a normal distribution with standard deviation, σ, is rejected. If the number of samples were increased to, say, 200, then for the same proportion, θ, z would equal −4.039, which corresponds to a probability of about 0.999973, meaning that about 99.9973% of the time, the proportion of 200 readings within the offset threshold would be greater than 0.55 for a normal distribution with standard deviation, θ. Again, the hypothesis that the readings came from a normal distribution with standard deviation, θ, is rejected.
The value of z from Equation 10, which is an indirect measure of statistical significance, expresses the tolerance for error in making a decision about the accuracy of σ as the standard deviation of the DGPS system. If that tolerance is based on a significance level of 5%, then the corresponding z values would lie between ±1.65 (positive for a proportion, θ, above σ, and negative for a proportion, θ, below σ). Rearranging Equation 10 for θ as a function of z and N (Equation 11), for N=45, the proportion of readings, θ, that fall within the offset threshold would lie between 0.568 and 0.797 for the hypothesis that the sample is from a normal distribution with standard deviation, σ, to be accepted.
Thus, using Equation 11, the accuracy of using the particular offset threshold can be immediately determined. This enables the system 90 to choose between several candidate estimates for UERE (DGPS σ) by comparing the proportion of readings that fall within the offset threshold for each UERE value and selecting the one that is closest to 0.6829 (i.e., assuming that one standard deviation is the offset threshold). An underlying assumption here is that the limited sample size is large enough to be representative of the population (i.e., of a normal distribution).
The DGPS error propagation routine 50 can employ a routine to verify DGPS veracity. In addition to selecting a suitable UERE value (e.g., Example 2, above), the system 90 preferably determines whether the DGPS unit 100 (
The initial location of the train is determined at system restart. One example method for doing this involves first determining whether the DGPS unit 100 (
At 61 of
At 66, a Distance function 66 determines the distance, d, and sigma from Equations 12 and 13, respectively.
d=kΣp (Eq. 12)
σo=σiΣp (Eq. 13)
wherein:
k in Equation 12 is the predetermined distance per pulse for the tachometer;
p in Equations 12 and 13 is the count of pulses; and
σi is the tachometer σ, which is a function of the wheel diameter and the tachometer gear tooth count (i.e., pulses per revolution). The calculated values of d and sigma are reset under good conditions by signals RESET d 88 and RESET σ86, respectively, from
Next, the NSCM function 68 selects the tachometer integrated distance from 66, unless the Hi/Low filter 64 detects slip/slide, in which case the distance is updated based on the best acceleration and velocity produced from the inertial instruments, at function 76 of
At 71, the accelerometer 106 of
V=∫adt (Eq. 14)
σ=∫σadt (Eq. 15)
wherein: σa is the accelerometer uncertainty.
However, if the velocity synthesis quality does not depend on the accelerometer input (e.g., the quality, Q, from the Velocity Synthesis function 74 is otherwise good from the tachometers 102,104 of
The NSCM function 76 (e.g., Equations 3-5 and/or 6) takes the synthesized position, d (as will be discussed below in connection with output 84 of
For the output 86, if the synthetic quality, Q, is good, and if the DGPS quality, QG, is also good, then the position uncertainty, σ, is reset to the GPS uncertainty, σG (i.e., RESET σ includes a Boolean value, which is true, and the GPS uncertainty, σG). Otherwise, RESET σ includes a Boolean value, which is false, and the position uncertainty, σ, is not reset, and will tend to increase as the train moves.
For the output 88, if the synthetic quality, Q, is good, then the tachometer reference position will be reset (i.e., RESET d includes a Boolean value, which is true, and the synthetic position, d). Otherwise, RESET d includes a Boolean value, which is false, and the position, d, is a null.
The vital synthetic position uncertainty, σ, for vital braking is taken to be 4σ (as was discussed above in connection with
While for clarity of disclosure reference has been made herein to the example display 96 for displaying the synthetic output (T, d, σ, Q) 84, it will be appreciated that such information may be stored, printed on hard copy, be computer modified, or be combined with other data. All such processing shall be deemed to fall within the terms “display” or “displaying” as employed herein.
While specific embodiments of the invention have been described in detail, it will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that various modifications and alternatives to those details could be developed in light of the overall teachings of the disclosure. Accordingly, the particular arrangements disclosed are meant to be illustrative only and not limiting as to the scope of the invention which is to be given the full breadth of the claims appended and any and all equivalents thereof.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4619425 | Nagel | Oct 1986 | A |
4713767 | Sato et al. | Dec 1987 | A |
4790191 | Shultz, Jr. | Dec 1988 | A |
5129605 | Burns et al. | Jul 1992 | A |
5332180 | Peterson et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5394333 | Kao | Feb 1995 | A |
5529267 | Giras et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5617317 | Ignagni | Apr 1997 | A |
5623244 | Cooper | Apr 1997 | A |
5740547 | Kull et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5745868 | Geier | Apr 1998 | A |
5862511 | Croyle et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5867122 | Zahm et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5893043 | Moehlenbrink et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5902351 | Streit et al. | May 1999 | A |
5912643 | Chew et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5928309 | Korver et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5948043 | Mathis | Sep 1999 | A |
5986547 | Korver et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6014608 | Seo | Jan 2000 | A |
6081230 | Hoshino et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6127970 | Lin | Oct 2000 | A |
6128558 | Kernwein | Oct 2000 | A |
6205400 | Lin | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6218961 | Gross et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6298318 | Lin | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6311109 | Hawthorne et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6327533 | Chou | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6373403 | Korver et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6385534 | Yoshimura et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6401027 | Xu et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6456938 | Barnard | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6496778 | Lin | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6516273 | Pierowicz et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6641090 | Meyer | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6728637 | Ford et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6735523 | Lin et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6789014 | Rekow et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6824110 | Kane et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6826478 | Riewe et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6865454 | Kane et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6924736 | Oexmann et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
7395140 | Christie et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7542831 | Christie et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7650207 | Metzger | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7729819 | Rajaram | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7848881 | Tan et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7966126 | Willis et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
20020062193 | Lin | May 2002 | A1 |
20020077733 | Bidaud | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20030036849 | Ford et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030212488 | Oexmann et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030236598 | Villarreal Antelo et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040015275 | Herzog et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040026574 | Seifert | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040138788 | Herzog et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040140405 | Meyer | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040181320 | Kane et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040225432 | Pilley et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20050085961 | Kane et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050107954 | Nahla | May 2005 | A1 |
20070010940 | Tan et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20080039991 | May et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20090210154 | Willis et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20100312461 A1 | Dec 2010 | US |