Article Figures & Data
Figures
- FIGURE 1
Illustration of the typical motion of the positioning pole manipulated as a walking stick. In phase 2, the pole tip maintains contact with the solid ground with a velocity of zero.
- FIGURE 2
Basic schematic of the algorithm for the proposed RTK extension solution
- FIGURE 3
Comparison of the velocity of INS and the pole tip when the pole is manipulated as a walking stick. Note that the pole tip landing on the ground is nearly stationary, while the INS mounted on the middle of the pole keeps moving.
- FIGURE 4
The inertial-aided positioning pole with a trigger that detects ground contact
- FIGURE 5
Diagram of the designed trajectories with three different shapes through the GNSS-denied area
- FIGURE 6
Comparison of the INS navigation errors using four different data processing modes. Assistance for RTK positioning is available at the beginning and end for only a few seconds.
- FIGURE 7
INS result aided by LA-ZUPT and RTK positioning with heading convergence at the end. The assistance of RTK positioning is available not only at the beginning but also at the end. Sufficient maneuvering will be required to facilitate the convergence of the INS heading.
- FIGURE 8
The positioning error of the proposed RTK extension solution in Cases 1–5
- FIGURE 9
Correlation of positioning accuracy with GNSS gap length
- FIGURE 10
Horizontal positioning error distribution in Cases 5–7
- FIGURE 11
The positioning error of the RTK extension solution with a back-and-forth combination in Cases 1–5
- FIGURE 12
Correlation of positioning accuracy with GNSS gap length
- FIGURE 13
Correlation of positioning accuracy with walking distance in the GNSS-denied area
Tables
Index Shape of trajectory GNSS gap length Repetitions Result
Group 1Result
Group 2Case 1 I shape 100 m 30 • Case 2 I shape 80 m 30 • Case 3 I shape 60 m 30 • Case 4 I shape 40 m 30 • Case 5 I shape 20 m 30 • • Case 6 L shape 20 m 19 • Case 7 U shape 20 m 17 • Note: The black dots in the two final columns means the corresponding case is added in the Result Group.
- TABLE 2
Positioning Errors of the Target Point Measured by the Inertial Pole for Different GNSS Gap Lengths
Unit: meters Case 1 (100 m) Case 2 (80 m) Case 3 (60 m) Case 4 (40 m) Case 5 (20 m) N E H N E H N E H N E H N E H RMSE 0.049 0.154 0.038 0.031 0.108 0.029 0.024 0.061 0.026 0.022 0.037 0.021 0.019 0.019 0.014 MEAN −0.005 −0.008 0.000 −0.002 0.015 −0.003 −0.004 0.014 0.007 −0.002 0.011 0.003 −0.004 0.007 0.001 MAX 0.101 0.391 0.094 0.059 0.312 0.061 0.045 0.159 0.061 0.031 0.101 0.063 0.021 0.035 0.027 Note: N denotes north, E denotes east and H denotes height.
- TABLE 3
Positioning Errors of the Target Point Measured by the Inertial Pole with Different Trajectory Shapes
Unit: meters Case 5 (I-shaped) Case 6 (L-shaped) Case 7 (U-shaped) N E H N E H N E H RMSE 0.019 0.019 0.014 0.053 0.056 0.026 0.038 0.111 0.047 MEAN −0.004 0.007 0.001 0.033 −0.049 0.021 −0.017 −0.083 −0.014 MAX 0.021 0.035 0.027 0.11 0.094 0.046 0.082 0.261 0.106 - TABLE 4
Positioning Errors of the Target Point Measured by the Inertial Pole with the Back-and-Forth Combination
Unit: meters Case 1 (100 m) Case 2 (80 m) Case 3 (60 m) Case 4 (40 m) Case 5 (20 m) N E H N E H N E H N E H N E H RMSE 0.011 0.071 0.028 0.011 0.059 0.019 0.008 0.036 0.015 0.011 0.02 0.013 0.008 0.014 0.009 MEAN 0.002 −0.017 −0.014 0.003 0.012 −0.011 −0.001 0.01 0.003 0.002 0.009 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.001 MAX 0.023 0.112 0.024 0.018 0.152 0.013 0.013 0.089 0.026 0.02 0.046 0.025 0.013 0.025 0.013
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.