lkd-aerospace
Inside GNSS: Engineering Solutions from the Global Navigation Satellite System Community
GPS Galileo Glonass BeiDou Regional/Augmentation
Inside Unmanned Systems
Thought Leadership Series
Fig1_4.jpg
(Click image to enlarge.)

SIDEBAR: In-Office Data Processing and Analysis

ALIGN.jpg (Click image to enlarge.)

Share via: SlashdotSlashdot   TechnoratiTechnorati   SIDEBAR: In-Office Data Processing and Analysis (Inside GNSS)TwitterTwitter   FacebookFacebook

Return to main article: "Winging It"

With high-quality data sets obtained in the foot-to-foot configu­ration, we set about on postprocessing the data to extract more information about the NovAtel wingsuit system’s performance in the free-fall environment.

This was a multi-step process involving several NovAtel utilities and techniques, which we will describe here.

Step 1:
Video Time-Synchronization

Each jump was videotaped by an in-air videographer. In order to correlate effects observed in the data with real-world dynamics seen on the video (including such important events as time of the jump itself), we created a very simple synchronization method.

After the videographer had begun filming during the air­plane’s flight up, he shot a short sequence of our wingsuit flyer, Andrew Levson, hitting a key on the collection PC to create a time mark in the GPS data itself. At this point, the data PC out­put an obvious visual cue (a color change), which was then cor­related with the GPS time mark in post-mission analysis.

For the rest of the jump, the video was run continuously with events measured from the synchronization mark. Using this method, we fairly easily correlated several events in the video with obvious changes in dynamics.

Step 2:
Base Station Coordinates

Our static base station at the Innisfail Airport collected data for approximately 12 hours continuously during the event day. To use it as a reference station for the individual jumps, we needed to determine its coordinates as precisely as possible.

We used GrafNav, a NovAtel product from our Waypoint Products Group, in PPP (precise point positioning) mode, accessing downloaded precise satellite ephemeris and clock information to estimate a position. The long (12-hour) data set, combined with precise post-mission information, yielded a base station estimate accurate to approximately two centimeters or better, based on the solution standard deviation. Given that this is roughly two orders of magnitude better than typical single-point accuracy, we deemed it accurate enough to serve as a refer­ence position for further postprocessing.

Step 3:
Aerial “Truth” Trajectories

In our wingsuit application, we lack a defined “truth” to com­pare against. To get our best possible estimate, though, we processed the raw range data collected by each airborne receiver (at 20 hertz) in differential mode with GrafNav. This software resolves carrier-phase ambiguities in much the same way as a real-time kinematic (RTK) application, but it processes the data both forwards and backwards to improve ambiguity resolution in the case of outages.

Using GrafNav, we were able to obtain a roughly centimeter-level of accuracy for each receiver for the majority of each flight (except as limited by data outages). Obviously the raw range data used to create the GrafNav “truth” is the same as that used to generate the real-time single-point solution; so, the two trajecto­ries are fundamentally correlated.

However, the addition of fixed base station data to the GrafNav solution allows us to detect and reject any major blunders in range data. With this, we are confident that those GrafNav solutions identified as having fixed-integer ambiguities are, in fact, correct to within about two centimeters. Howevers, the uncertainty in the base station position (± two centimeters) is still a factor.

“Truth”
Heading/Pitch

As with the single-point position, we also lack truth data for receiver-to-receiver heading and pitch.

We do have two methods to obtain semi-independent esti­mates of “truth” heading/pitch, though. The first is to use a differ­ence
of postprocessed GrafNav solutions (discussed previously). In concept, this would be similar to computing heading between two receivers operating in RTK mode, with the associated accuracy.

The second method involves using GrafMov software, another NovAtel product from our Waypoint Products Group, to compute a moving-baseline solution between the two air­borne receivers, in much the same way that ALIGN itself works. The added redundancy of having both forward and backward processing with an independent engine gives added confidence that we are likely to identify any major blunders.

In addition to the GrafMov/GrafNav ALIGN calculations, we have one further constraint on our data that serves as an excellent sanity check of the real-time ALIGN solution. With the antennas mounted on Andrew’s heels, the baseline length between them was constrained during free-fall to a maximum of roughly 90 centimeters by his wingsuit.

Given this knowledge, we can very easily identify any major blunders in the ALIGN solution when the baseline length is reported to be longer than this. So, even though we are operat­ing without a true “fixed” baseline, we still have an absolute limit based on physical parameters that provides us with more opportunity to check our performance.

Step 4: Extracting
Accuracy Statistics

For both position and ALIGN data, we have assessed accuracy using a proprietary position analysis utility — a console-based application specifically designed to compare unit-under-test data points to either a fixed or moving “truth.”

In all, we compared several different versions of test data with the reference data output by both GrafNav and GrafMov:

Figure 1 (see figures at the top of this article) compares the jumper’s heading in real-time ALIGN versus GrafMov postprocessed results. The results have been fil­tered to show only data when real-time ALIGN is in fixed ambi­guity mode. Note that the ALIGN trajectory is offset at right angles to the jumper’s heading as a result of the wingsuit setup and geometry (Figure 2).

Figure 3 compares the jumper’s real-time heading (purple data points) against results from two different postprocessed methods:

  • GrafMov heading (green data points) was established by processing forwards and backwards through the data, with an independent processing engine from that used by the real-time ALIGN firmware.
  • GrafNav (blue data points) shows two RTK trajectories cal­culated by processing forwards and backwards through the data, with the heading then computed from RTK position (right heel) to RTK position (left heel). This method produces statistically less accurate results than computing a relative heading.

Figure 4 compares the real-time ALIGN heading with that calculated by two types of postprocessing
software. (Results are filtered to show only data when real-time ALIGN is in fixed ambiguity mode.) Antenna separation between ALIGN Master and ALIGN Rover is approximately 60 centimeters on average.

The data indicate that the agreement between ALIGN and GrafMov is closer than ALIGN/GrafNav because the former heading is statistically more accurate than the GrafNav heading (based on two RTK positions).

Differences between GrafMov heading and ALIGN heading are as follows: <0.25° (50th percentile), <3.0° (90th percentile), <3.5° (95th percentile).

The heading “noise” appearing between 183 and 187 seconds is due to a high-dynamic turn that resulted in reduction in hori­zontal component of ALIGN Master-ALIGN Rover pair, which in turned decreased the heading accuracy.

Copyright © 2018 Gibbons Media & Research LLC, all rights reserved.

Signals
Trimble
Trimble
Jammer Dectector
Sensonor
Spectracom
CAST
NovAtel
globe Copyright © Inside GNSS Media & Research LLC. All rights reserved.
157 Broad Street, Suite 318 | Red Bank, New Jersey USA 07701
Telephone (732) 741-1964

Problems viewing this page? Contact our webmaster.