
May/June 2015
Thinking SmallPrototyping an Accurate Position and Attitude Estimator for Small UAVs with Commercial IMUs and LowCost GNSSThis article describes the design and development of a lowcost attitude determination and navigation system based primarily on mass market OEM GNSS receivers and antennas, aided by MEMS inertial sensors. Advances presented here target optimization of cost, weight, size, and power consumption such that the overall system may be used for the control and navigation of small UAVs.
Share via: Slashdot Technorati Twitter Facebook Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) are finding increased application in both domestic and governmental applications. Small UAVs (maximum take off weight less than 20 kilograms) comprise the category of the smallest and lightest platforms that also fly at lower altitudes (under less than 150 meters). Designs for this class of device have focused on creating UAVs that can operate in urban canyons or even inside buildings, fly along hallways, and carry listening and recording devices, transmitters, or miniature TV cameras. Operational requirements for these kinds of UAVs typically encompass flying close to the ground and in relatively narrow spaces with a lot of obstacles. This introduces problems for a simplistic application of technologies used in larger UAVs. In particular, the rotary wing UAV platforms used in those scenarios provide vertical takeoff and landing and hovering capability, but they are intrinsically unstable systems requiring highrate and accurate attitude and position data to be automatically controlled. Automatic control of the degrees of freedom of such flying robots is the key factor to make them easily usable by a trained but not particularly skilled pilot; therefore, it is essential for such devices if intended for a wide commercial market. Small, lightweight, powerefficient, and lowcost microelectromechanical system (MEMS) inertial sensors and microcontrollers available in the market today help reduce the instability of such platforms making them easier to fly. Current MEMS inertial measurement units (IMUs) come in many shapes, sizes, and costs — depending on the application and performance required — and are widely used as sensors for relative position estimation. Although MEMS inertial sensors offer affordable, appropriately scaled units, they are not currently capable of meeting UAV requirements for accurate and precise navigation due to their inherent measurement noise. However, the accuracy of a MEMSbased inertial navigation system (INS) can be improved by integrating them with a GNSS receiver, simultaneously developing appropriate integration mechanisms. This article describes an integrated multiGNSS/INS system — developed and tested in both a car and on board a small quadrotor — that has been designed to achieve sufficiently accurate position and attitude control using lightweight and ultra lowcost components so as to be suitable for the technological and commercial aspects of the vehicle. The architecture combines the advantages of absolute satellitebased positioning with the high dynamic performance and data rates of inertial sensors. The article will describe the system architecture, its carrier phase–based methodology for positioning and attitude determination, and an evaluation of the system’s performance of achieved results during realtime tests.
System Architecture Definition The main goal of the final system is to achieve a compact and costeffective realtime position and attitude estimator, which is the reason why the components employed are relatively inexpensive compared to readily available platforms with costlier and bulkier elements. Therefore, an important investment of effort has been made in the system integration and in the development of specific techniques and algorithms to achieve high performance () with the combination of devices of individually moderate accuracy. These lowcost receivers provide information to the “Processing Unit” (PU) block shown in Figure 1 in the form of socalled raw measurements, that is, basic GNSS signalinspace data such as pseudoranges or carrier phase readings, in addition to standard position, velocity, and time (PVT) outputs. These outputs, along with the readings produced by the IMU (and possibly other sensors) are processed in the PU by a realtime microprocessorbased platform, which gathers and synchronizes these data and applies the fusion algorithms to compute the PVT and attitude (PVTA) of the platform. This PVTA estimator works on top of the standard vehicle control unit of the UAV. The system is designed to provide highaccuracy attitude performance based on precise GNSS carrier phase measurements, reducing the position errors by combining measurements from several receivers. Furthermore, the aid of the IMU allows the high data output rate necessary for active attitude control and increases the reliability of the GNSS based attitude solution when its information is used in the ambiguity resolution process. In the following sections we present an overview of the main functionalities developed within the processing unit, discussing their design principles and the criticisms associated with their practical implementation.
The PVTA Processing Unit This works at a clock frequency of 400 megahertz, includes two separate data and instruction cache memories of 32 kilobytes each, and two high performance sets of ROM and RAM memories of 64 and 32 kilobytes, respectively. Additionally, the board includes a SDRAM controller to interface external memory, addressable linearly up to 64 megabytes, and allowing back switching with eightchip selects. Moreover, QNX has been selected as the realtime operating system that offers specific support for this platform and can be easily run on the board without needing to adapt it to the particular hardware setup.
Sensor Synchronization The selected IMU uses its own clock (nominally 100 hertz), providing sensor data samples not aligned with the GNSS time reference or even synchronized, as this internal clock is very low precision. The IMU also generates interrupt requests (IRQ) to notify the PU whenever new inertial measurements are sampled. Figure 3 depicts the adopted synchronization scheme, which is based on two conceptual modules (the host and the synchronization hardware [SHW]), both residing in the PU. The general time reference is given by the 1PPS signal from the base GNSS receiver, which is followed by all four GNSS modules sending their respective observables to the “host” with a small latency on the order of a few milliseconds. The GNSS data is also used to obtain the integer number of GPS seconds to which the last onehertz pulse and subsequent carrier/pseudorange measurements belong. The SHW includes a timer module or counter N_{CNT}. This timer is aligned with every 1PPS cycle and runs at one megahertz (f_{CNT}). Consequently the output of this timer is modulof_{CNT}. Between pulses this counter runs using its own reference, but the periodic alignment removes any possible drift as long as GNSS updates are present. The IMU generates an IRQ with each new set of data, triggering the SHW to immediately store the value of N_{CNT}, thus allowing a time accuracy on the order of 1/f_{CNT}. The SHW then reads the data from the IMU and forwards this information to the PU with N_{CNT}, which serves as the timestamp of the measurements. The combination of the GNSS seconds and the GNSSsynchronized onemegahertz counter allows the tagging of inertial measurements with absolute time values within plus/minus one microsecond. The misalignment between IMU IRQs and GNSS observables is solved via extrapolation: the microcontroller keeps a 100hertz timer synchronized with GNSS time to generate an estimation of the inertial inputs using the most uptodate measurements from the IMU (which runs at nearly 100 hertz). This way there are always exactly 100 inertial samples for every onehertz pulse. In practice, both the SHW module and synchronization host are elements of the same microcontroller unit. Several integrated hardware modules within this controller, with their corresponding drivers, take care of the timing tasks to provide an abstraction layer so that the fusion application only sees perfectly aligned 100hertz and 1hertz data.
Attitude Estimation by Using GNSS CarrierPhase Measurements The attitude of the vehicle is determined using the relative positions of the antennas; if the relative position between two antennas is known, yaw angle can be solved. With the relative position of three antennas forming a plane, the 3D attitude can also be determined. In this case, a fourth antenna is used to increase the accuracy of the solution. Although GNSS receivers can measure the fractional carrier phase with millimetric precision, the number of wavelengths from the receiver to the satellite is unknown, a factor commonly known as integer ambiguity. To resolve the relative position between each pair of antennas, this ambiguity must be fixed. Once all the phase ambiguities are resolved correctly, accurate relative positioning at the centimeterlevel will be readily achievable using at least four satellites. A common way to solve these ambiguities is the differencing technique, with a single phase difference between receivers expressed as: ΔΦ^{i}_{αβ} = Δρ^{i}_{α} + Δdρ^{i}_{α}  c · dT_{α} + λΔΝ^{i}_{αβ}  Δd_{ion} + Δd_{trop} + Δε(Φ) (1) Assuming an interferometric model as depicted in Figure 4, the single phase difference between receivers α and β (e.g., α = 1 and β = 2) tracking satellite i can be formed in order to eliminate the orbital errors and, in the case of short baselines (0.5 meter baseline here), the spatially correlated ionospheric and troposheric errors as well. The ambiguity term is also differenced (λΔΝ^{i}_{αβ}). In the case of lowcost receivers without a common clock, the receiver clock error needs to be eliminated by double differencing two single differences related to two different satellites. The remaining error term — containing effects such as multipath or receiver errors — is doubled in the worst of cases as a consequence of double differencing. Multipath errors depend on the reflecting environment and cannot be avoided, although in highend antennas the use of ground planes. On the other hand, the undifferenced carrier phase receiver noise is usually less than one millimeter, so that the combined receiver error on double differences is usually less than two millimeters in modern GNSS receivers. Undifferenced phase measurements must be extrapolated to the time of the reference receiver before forming the differences. However, carrier phase measurement is also affected by Doppler shifts, produced by the relative motion of the satellites and the GNSS antennas. Thus, the phase extrapolation scheme employs the Doppler shift information and clock offsets to compensate for errors caused by the Doppler effect (which still remains after double differences as the shift varies from one instant of time to another). Extrapolation solves the lack of a clock steering mechanism in lowcost receivers. Once the ambiguities are solved, using the approach discussed in the next section, carrier phase double differences are formed to feed a tightly coupled GPS/INS architecture as part of the measurement update.
Ambiguity Resolution Algorithm
Furthermore, it exploits the fact that, considering Figure 4, λΔΝ^{i}_{αβ} can never exceed the number of wavelengths that fit in one baseline. Also, once the algorithm has fixed a solution, it uses the last timeupdated attitude information (roll, pitch, and yaw, and their related variances) to define the search space of the ambiguities. The ambiguity resolution algorithm is divided into several functional parts and two different strategies are envisaged, depending on the operational scenario, to provide a batch solution (when no a priori information of the attitude is known) or an onthefly solution (when the Kalman filter outputs are available). Ephemeris and latitude, longitude, and height (LLH) global coordinates from the reference receiver are used to form the unitary lineofsight vectors from the reference antenna to the GPS satellites. Previously, this information has been used to exclude lowelevation satellites from the position calculation. Doppler shifts, carrier phases, and clock offsets are used to extrapolate carrier phases to the time of the reference receiver before forming double differences. The Kalman filter provides the “measurement update” of the roll, pitch, and yaw angles and their estimated residuals. Then the ambiguity search space is defined by using the concept of guessed baselines that will be explained in the following sections. From the synchronized ambiguous carrierphase double differences and the search space definition, the baseline computation of all the candidate ambiguity solutions can start. This consists of testing individual (each baseline separately) and combined (combination of three individual baseline candidates, b_{1}b_{2}b_{3} solutions. When only one solution remains after the tests have been accomplished, ambiguities are considered to have been solved on the fly and can be provided at the PVT update rate. When the correct solution cannot be distinguished from the others, the solved carrier phase cannot be provided, thus the batch algorithm must be invoked. The batch algorithm is based on a test over the accumulated carrier phase residuals instead of the instantaneous ones. Consequently, several epochs are required to reach the solution for the integer ambiguities.
Ambiguity Search Space Definition If the baseline length is fixed and known, as in the present case, only a maximum number of integer cycles can fit between antennas. This number is reached when the baseline is rotated parallel to the satellite’s line of sight vector. The maximum number of integers is calculated as the baseline length divided by the carrier wavelength, rounded downwards, thus: Equation (2) (see inset photo, above right) The baseline can be rotated 180 degrees with the integer being negative, or can be at right angles with the satellite’s line of sight in such a way that the integer could be zero. In this way, the number of ambiguity candidates comes down to 2N_{max}+1. Not all combinations of integers are possible when combining several satellites, but if a brute force algorithm was used, the number of possible integers would be (2N_{max}+1)^{p} with p being the number of ambiguities. Attitude information from the inertial sensors combined with its predicted accuracy can be used to reduce the threedimensional search space containing the remote antennas. Figure 6 shows an example of this. The guessed baselines are generated in such a way that they cover the whole attitude range, while they are equally spaced. The angular step θ between two baselines is the angle that gives, at most, a whole wavelength of phase difference from one baseline to the other for any given satellite direction. To compute the individual baselines a least squares approach has been chosen due to its reliability and the reduced number of ambiguity candidates expected. Equation (3) represents the least squares problem: Hb = ∇ΔΦ  λ∇ΔN  ε(Δφ) (3) where H consists of doubledifferenced LOS vectors, b is the baseline, ∇ΔΦ represents the carrier phase double differences, and ε(Δφ) is the residual double difference (DD) noise. To obtain the coordinates of the individual baseline, the overdetermined equation system must be solved in the following way: b = (H^{T}H)^{1}H^{T}(∇Δφ  λ∇ΔN) (4) At this point a sequence of tests must be undertaken to reduce the number of candidates to one for each baseline. First, a test of residuals is executed. The phase residuals are defined as the difference between the carrier phase difference measured by two antennas/receivers forming a baseline and the computed phase difference derived from the baseline vector estimation and satellite lineofsight vectors. In formulas, the phase residuals can be defined as: V = —HB + ∇ΔΦ + λ∇ΔN (5) where V is the vector containing the phase residuals, H consists of doubledifferenced lineofsight vectors, b is the baseline, and ∇ΔΦ represents the carrier phase double differences. Errors in doubledifference carrier phase observations from a multiantenna system mainly arise from multipath effects and the receiver noise. Under favorable conditions when multipath is low, the doubledifferenced carrier phase residuals generally exhibit a Chisquare distribution (sum of squares of independent random observations having a standard Gaussian distribution). Based on this observation, the quantification of the agreement between measured and computed observations can be made using the quadratic form of residuals: V^{T}C^{1}_{obs}V ≤ x^{2}_{ƒ,1α} (6) Where x^{2}_{ƒ,1α} is the Chisquare percentile corresponding to the degrees of freedom f (equal to the number of satellites minus four) and the confidence level 1  α. C_{obs }is the covariance matrix of the observations. When the ambiguity candidate fails a test, the tested solution is discarded and removed from the list of candidates. At this point the baseline geometry test is invoked. A parameter K, selected by the designer, represents the array size of the surviving candidates (i.e., the ones that provide the best results after the geometry test is executed) with respect to the whole search space. In real conditions, K best solutions for each baseline should be considered to avoid discarding the correct solutions, i.e., retaining only the K solutions of each list of baseline candidates {b_{1}^{(K)},b_{2}^{(K)},b_{3}^{(K)}} with smaller baseline length errors obtained in the test of residuals. Then, these K best solutions are combined by means of the baseline geometry test which generates a list of baseline combinations rankordered by an associated error, which is obtained as a function of baseline length and known distances between baselines. The geometry test takes advantage of the knowledge of not only the baseline lengths but also the relative position and orientation of the baselines. As mentioned earlier, the baseline geometry test exploits the fact that the baselines are not actually independent of each other, as their body coordinates are considered fixed and accurately known. The list of baselinecombination candidates is shortened depending on the obtained error value, which keeps the lowererror candidates on top of the list. Finally, the first and secondbest candidates are used to compute an error ratio in order to ensure that the selected solution can be trusted: Equation (7) (see inset photo, above right, for equations) Once the baselines are computed, attitude can be solved for by minimizing the function Equation (8) where I_{i} is the actual i baseline coordinates in the body frame and b_{i} represents the corresponding vector coordinates in the local frame. The a_{i} terms are weight factors, and c is the unknown rotation matrix, which transforms vector coordinates from the local to the body frame. The c matrix that minimizes L(C) can be found using Davenport’s qmethod.
Batch Solution In the following example, the angular search space has been defined as a ±30degree search for roll and pitch (whose initial values are provided by the MEMS INS) and a full (0–360degree) search for the yaw angle. In these conditions, the latter angle is completely unknown for a lowcost IMU. The angular steps chosen are 10, 10, and 7 degrees for baselines 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The number of possible baseline solutions is reduced after residuals and baseline length tests, as detailed in Table 1. After completion of the geometry test, the candidate that shows the lowest error is selected as the “correct” solution and the algorithm can switch into “Onthe Fly” mode.
OntheFly Solution & Attitude Results Figure 7 shows an example of the effect of solved ambiguities for a static data collection for each baseline. In particular, it shows roll, pitch, and yaw angles computed from solved baseline vectors during a static data collection and by means of the batch solution, accumulating residuals during 10 epochs and using six satellites for the computation (so that five ambiguities are obtained: N1, N2, N3, N4, N5). The computed solution is compared with the one obtained from a GNSS reference receiver. From Figure 7 we can appreciate how our solution in the attitude estimation is quite good, in particular for the heading angle, and differs by only a few degrees for the pitch and roll angles with respect to the reference solution. On the other hand, Figure 7 shows the roll, pitch, and yaw angles computed from solved baseline vectors, during a static data collection and by means of the OTF solution, using again six satellites and one epoch. As expected, we can see that the OTF solution generates a more noisy solution compared with the results obtained with the batch solution. The attitude data computed through the multiGNSS antenna platform are then integrated with the INS according to a tightly coupled technique. Details will be explained in the next section.
Navigation Solution Determination The selected lowcost IMU provides three accelerometers and three gyro measurements at a nominal rate of 100 Hz. They are lowpass filtered to mitigate the mechanical vibrations of the UAV, then are used to compute the INS navigation solution according to strapdown mechanization equations described in the article by D. H. Titterton and J. L. Weston cited in Additional Resources. An efficient realtime implementation of the strapdown inertial navigation algorithm requires the splitting of the computing processes into low and highspeed segments. The lowspeed calculations are designed to take into account lowfrequency, largeamplitude body motions arising from vehicle maneuvers. These are used to determine attitude, velocity, and position, whilst the highspeed section involves a relatively simple algorithm designed to keep track of the highfrequency, lowamplitude motions of the vehicle (i.e., coning and sculling computations). See the articles by P. G. Savage in Additional Resources for more details. We have chosen a computation rate for the highspeed segment equal to 100 hertz while the lowspeed portion has a rate that can range from 10 to 20 hertz. The INS solution is blended with the GPS information in an extended Kalman filter (EKF) according to a tightlycoupled method. This filter estimates the navigation solution and the INS errors by using the following parameters as input:
The EKF incorporates a 17state error model that includes position error, velocity error, and attitude error, accelerometer bias, gyroscope bias, clock bias, and clock drift errors, represented as follows: Equation (9) Equation (10) Equation (11) where:
Observing the expression of H[n], it appears that the DD phase measurements are used to improve the attitude resolution only, not the position accuracy. This is by no means a conceptual limitation, and DD measurements could be similarly added as observations to the current tightly coupled position solution algorithm. Nevertheless, the main innovation of the new tightcoupling algorithm implemented in our navigation solution is in the use of the DD measurements that are given as input to improve the estimation of the attitude.
Field Tests Results We first tested and validated the hardware and software of the developed navigation system on a car and then mounted on board the target UAV. We used two antenna arrays for the land applications two antenna arrays: The first consists of four lowcost GNSS antennas with a relative distance of 50 centimeters, while the second set is formed by professionalgrade antennas with stable phase centers and connected to a professional reference receiver. Figure 9 shows the test equipment and the various settings of the GNSS antennas. Attitude accuracy tests were conducted first in an opensky situation, then in a challenging urban scenario. Hereafter, we show the results obtained during a drive in downtown Santander, Spain, the whole trace of which is shown in Figure 10. Narrow streets, boulevards, and the presence of high buildings characterize that urban environment, which affected the correct reception of the satellite signals. Moreover, in such a scenario, the DD carrier phase resolution becomes very difficult to achieve, and often attitude must be estimated by using only the IMU information. Figure 11 depicts the three Euler angles for yaw, pitch, and roll during the test drive. As reflected in the figure, we can only compare the two attitude estimations at a limited number of points because the receiver often experienced time instants where the three Euler angles were not available. In the part of the trajectory where we can measure such angles, we can observe the error in the INS output of pitch and roll with mean errors of 0.5 and 0.8 degrees, respectively. In comparison, the yaw has a mean error that is slightly bigger the one degree. After having validated the performance of the system on a land vehicle, we further tested it on board the target UAV. The selected enduser application is a fourrotor rotary wing UAV named Anteos (See Figure 12). The integration within the UAV required three different integration activities board electrical/mechanical, GNSS antennas mechanical, and software integration. The mechanical integration of the navigation system processor required the board to be free of most of the vibration that a UAV can generate. For this reason, the board was mounted on the payload docking bay of the UAV. The board is aligned with the UAV INS (namely, an attitude/heading reference system, or AHRS) to obtain directly comparable measurements. The electrical integration consisted of providing the main batteries voltage to a switching power supply. The integration of the GNSS antenna required a specific carbon fiber structure prototype to be mounted on top of the UAV, allowing the required 50centimeter baseline between the antennas. Special care was taken to decrease vibration and the flexion of the structure as much as possible during UAV flights. Moreover compared to other low cost antennas, the chosen unit presents an excellent tradeoff between minimization of phase center variation and antenna compactness. On the UAV side, a serial line has been dedicated to communication with the platform. The purpose of this communication is to gather real time measurements from the navigation system and incorporate them on the UAV realtime telemetry daemon, a portion of the UAV control code dedicated to logging telemetries both for instantaneous use within the UAV control law, and for the logging and postprocessing of the mission data. The flight tests compared the measures taken from the new navigation platform and the onboard INS alone, allowing a realtime comparison of the position/attitude solutions taken from the two independent units. As an example, in Figure 13 the latitude and longitude for both units have been converted in the planar displacement with respect to a common point in order to compare the results in terms of meters. The depicted test was taken from motors power on (i.e., around 40 seconds on ground with UAV motors on) and then about 200 seconds of flight. In Figure 14 we have plotted the attitude solution obtained with our navigation system compared with the reference one. The integration showed the capability of the system components to be easily combined and to provide accurate measurements on a demanding platform such as a rotarywing UAV (no preferred directions, no clamping on ground, side movements, strong electromagnetic fields induced by the four electric motors, vibrations, high dynamics). Once the UAV is in flight the general trend of the measurements follows those of the UAV’s INS, even though at some points the reported attitude differs by some degrees from that of the UAV, which would lead the attitude controller onboard the UAV to overreact.
Conclusions
Acknowledgment
Additional Resources ManufacturersThe custom board used for the PVTA Estimator was developed by Acorde Technologies, S.A., Santander, Spain. The GNSS reference receiver used for the testing described in the “On the Fly Solution” section was a AsteRx2eH OEM from Septentrio nv, Leuven, Belgium. The fourrotor UAV used for testing was from Aermatica SPA. The UAV’s attitude/ heading reference system was the MTIAHRS from Xsens Technologies, b.v., Enschede, The Netherlands. The Bullet III GPS antenna from Trimble Navigation, Sunnyvale, California USA, was used as the lowcost antenna during testing.Author Profiles
Gianluca Falco
María CampoCossío Gutiérrez
Esther López Casariego
Fabio Zacchello
Serge Bories Copyright © 2018 Gibbons Media & Research LLC, all rights reserved. 
