Overcoming the challenges of low-cost inertial navigation

Inertial navigation is always available as a base for multisensor navigation systems on, because it requires no external signals. However, measurement errors persist and grow with time so accurate calibration is crucial. Large systematic errors are present in the micro-electro-mechanical sensors (MEMS) whose low cost brings inertial navigation to many new applications. Using factory-calibrated MEMS another navigation technology can calibrate these errors with in-run estimation using a Kalman filter (KF). However, the raw systematic errors of low-cost MEMS are often too large for stable performance. This thesis contributes to knowledge in three areas. First, it takes a simple GNSS-inertial KF and examines the levels of the various systematic errors which cause the integration to fail. This allows the user to know how well calibrated the sensors need to be to use in-run calibration. Second, the thesis examines how the end-user could conduct a calibration: it analyses one method in detail showing how imperfections in the procedure affect the results and comparing calculation methods. This is important as frequently calibration methods are only validated by demonstrating consistent results for one particular sensor. These two are primarily accomplished using statistical Monte Carlo simulations. Third, techniques are examined by which an array of inertial sensors could be used to produce an output which is better than the simple array average. This includes methods that reduce the array’s sensitivity to environmental conditions, this is important because the sensors’ calibration typically depends strongly on temperature. Also included in the thesis are descriptions of experimental hardware and experiments which have been carried to support and unify the other parts of the thesis. Overall, this thesis’ contributions will help make low-cost inertial navigation systems more accurate and will allow system designers to concentrate effort where it will make the most difference

A New Approach to Better Low-Cost MEMS IMU Performance Using Sensor Arrays

Over the past decade and a half, the combination of low-cost, lightweight micro-electro-mechanical sensors (MEMS) technology and multisensor integration has enabled inertial sensors to be deployed over a much wider range of navigation applications [1]. Examples include pedestrian dead-reckoning using step detection technology [2, 3], aiding of GNSS signal tracking during jamming [4, 5], and simultaneous localisation and mapping (SLAM) using radio signals [6]. However, for best performance, a MEMS inertial measurement unit (IMU) must be calibrated in the laboratory prior to use, which increases the cost by more than $1000 per unit. In this paper, we examine and present a range of techniques which use an array of inexpensive MEMS sensors to improve the performance of a MEMS IMU without requiring a full calibration prior to use. As the cost of calibration of a high-performance MEMS IMU far outweighs the cost of the hardware, there is considerable scope to improve the performance by adding additional sensors, before the cost of the IMU reaches that of a laboratory calibrated equivalent. Combining MEMS IMUs in an array has been studied before. However, the most common approach was simply to take an average of the input of several identical sensors [7]. If the sensor errors were independent, this could be expected to improve performance by a factor of root-n where, n is the number of IMUs combined. In this paper more sophisticated techniques are investigated that use knowledge of the sensor characteristics to obtain better performance. Three different properties of MEMS sensors may potentially be exploited: 1) The common-mode errors of different sensors of the same design; 2) The different characteristics of in-plane and out-of-plane sensors; and 3) The complementary properties of MEMS sensors with different dynamic ranges. In [8], it is shown that different individual sensors of the same design exhibit similar bias variation with temperature and that improved accuracy may be obtained by differencing the outputs of two gyroscopes mounted with their sensitive axes in opposing directions. Here, this approach will be independently verified and the performance benefits assessed with a range of different MEMS accelerometers and gyros, including Bosch BMA180 accelerometers, Analogue Devices ADXL345 accelerometers, ST Microtronics L3G4200D gyroscopes. Preliminary indications are that there is considerable common bias variation with temperature for the in-plane sensors of L3G4200D gyroscopes, and some common mode behaviour for the low-cost accelerometers. The second idea presented is exploiting the differences between the in-plane and out-of-plane axis outputs of single-chip inertial sensor triads, to improve the performance of an array-based IMU. Early experiment s point to considerable differences between the two which could markedly affect navigation performance. Both accelerometer and gyro triads can exhibit smaller errors from the in-plane sensors than from the out-of-plane sensors. Therefore, experiments were conducted using mutually-perpendicular arrays of accelerometer and gyro triads to determine whether better performance could be obtained using only the in-plane sensors. The third idea is to combine the outputs of MEMS sensors with different dynamic ranges to exploit the lower noise exhibited by some lower-dynamic-range sensors compared to their higher-dynamic-range counterparts. The sensor outputs are thus weighted according to the platform dynamics. That is, predominantly using the high-precision sensor when dynamics are low and using the full-range sensor when the dynamics are high. Several versions of this weighted signal combination will be presented and compared. Early indications are that there can be a significant benefit in this approach for some sensor designs, but not others. Finally, this paper will also examine the efficacy of a once-only static calibration on purchase, performed by the user instead of the supplier, for improving navigation performance. It is essential for a user-performed calibration that the physical movements required of the sensor are very simple and easily understood and completed, even if the underlying method is complex. To this end data, recorded on different days from an array of MEMS sensors within a precisely manufactured rapid prototyped ‘calibration cube’, will be analysed. These measurements are taken at precisely orthogonal angles of the cubes six faces, and allow the scale factor errors, biases and axes alignments of the accelerometers to be determined. The computed calibration corrections over several days will be compared to enable the efficacy of the one-time calibration technique to be assessed. The development of a full calibration routine will be the subject of future research. In summary, this paper will present several new methods for utilising the output of an array of low-cost sensors to improve the performance of a MEMS IMU, and also expands on methods proposed in existing research. As uncalibrated MEMS IMUs are of low performance there is a great potential for new applications if the performance can be improved closer to the level of those which are factory calibrated. / References [1] Groves, P. D., Principles of GNSS, inertial, and multi-sensor integrated navigation systems, Second Edition, Artech House, 2013. [2] Gustafson, D., J. Dowdle, and K. Flueckiger, “A Deeply Integrated Adaptive GPS-Based Navigator with Extended Range Code Tracking,” Proc. IEEE PLANS 2000. [3] Groves, P. D., C. J. Mather and A. A. Macaulay, “Demonstration of Non-Coherent Deep INS/GPS Integration for Optimized Signal to Noise Performance,” Proc. ION GNSS 2007. [4] Ma, Y., W. Soehren, W. Hawkinson, and J. Syrstad, "An Enhanced Prototype Personal Inertial Navigation System," Proc. ION GNSS 2012. [5] Groves, P. D., et al., “Inertial Navigation Versus Pedestrian Dead Reckoning: Optimizing the Integration,” Proc. ION GNSS 2007. [6] Faragher, R. M., C. Sarno, and M. Newman, “Opportunistic Radio SLAM for Indoor Navigation using Smartphone Sensors,” Proc. IEEE/ION PLANS 2012. [7] Bancroft, J. B., and G. Lachapelle, “Data fusion algorithms for multiple inertial measurement units,” Sensors, Vol. 11, No. 7, 2011, pp. 6771-6798. [8] Yuksel, Y., N. El-Sheimy, N., and A. Noureldin, “Error modelling and characterization of environmental effects for low cost inertial MEMS units,” Proc. IEEE/ION PLANS 2010

Context Detection, Categorization and Connectivity for Advanced Adaptive Integrated Navigation

Context is the environment that a navigation system operates in and the behaviour of its host vehicle or user. The type and quality of signals and environmental features available for positioning varies with the environment. For example, GNSS provides high-quality positioning in open environments, low-quality positioning in dense urban environments and no solution at all deep indoors. The behaviour of the host vehicle (or pedestrian) is also important. For example, pedestrian, car and train navigation all require different map-matching techniques, different motion constraints to limit inertial navigation error growth, and different dynamic models in a navigation filter [1]. A navigation system design should therefore be matched to its context. However, the context can change, particularly for devices, such as smartphones, which move between indoor and outdoor environments and can be stationary, on a pedestrian, or in a vehicle. For best performance, a navigation system should therefore be able to detect its operating context and adapt accordingly; this is context-adaptive positioning [1]. Previous work on context-adaptive navigation and positioning has focused on individual subsystems. For example, there has been substantial research into determining the motion type and sensor location for pedestrian dead reckoning using step detection [2-4]. Researchers have also begun to investigate context-adaptive (or cognitive) GNSS [5-7]. However, this paper considers context adaptation across an integrated navigation system as a whole. The paper addresses three aspects of context-adaptive integrated navigation: context detection, context categorization and context connectivity. It presents experimental results showing how GNSS C/N0 measurements, frequency-domain MEMS inertial sensor measurements and Wi-Fi signal availability could be used to detect both the environmental and behavioural contexts. It then looks at how context information could be shared across the different components of an integrated navigation system. Finally, the concept of context connectivity is introduced to improve the reliability of context detection. GNSS C/N0 measurement distributions, obtained using a smartphone, and Wi-Fi reception data collected over a range of indoor, urban and open environments will be compared to identify suitable features from which the environmental context may be derived. In an open environment, strong GNSS signals will be received from all directions. In an urban environment, fewer strong signals will be received and only from certain directions. Inside a building, nearly all GNSS signals will be much weaker than outside. Wi-Fi signals essentially vary with the environment in the opposite way to GNSS. Indoors, more access points (APs) can be received at higher signal strengths and there is greater variation in RSS. In urban environments, large numbers of APs can still be received, but at lower signal strengths [6]. Finally, in open environments, few APs, if any, will be received. Behavioural context is studied using an IMU. Although an Xsens MEMS IMU is used in this study, smartphone inertial sensors are also suitable. Pedestrian, car and train data has been collected under a range of different motion types and will be compared to identify context-dependent features. Early indications are that, as well as detecting motion, it is also possible to distinguish nominally-stationary IMUs that are placed in a car, on a person or on a table from the frequency spectra of the sensor measurements. The exchange of context information between subsystems in an integrated navigation system requires agreement on the definitions of those contexts. As different subsystems are often supplied by different organisations, it is desirable to standardize the context definitions across the whole navigation and positioning community. This paper therefore proposes a framework upon which a “context dictionary” could be constructed. Environmental and behavioural contexts are categorized separately and a hierarchy of attributes is proposed to enable some subsystems to work with highly specific context categories and others to work with broader categories. Finally, the concept of context connectivity is introduced. This is analogous to the road link connectivity used in map matching [8]. As context detection involves the matching of measurement data to stored context profiles, there will always be occurrences of false or ambiguous context identification. However, these may be minimized by using the fact that it is only practical to transition directly between certain pairs of contexts. For example, it is not normally possible to move directly from an airborne to an indoor environment as an aircraft must land first. Thus, the air and land contexts are connected, as are the land and indoor contexts, but the air and indoor contexts are not. Thus, by only permitting contexts that are connected to the previous context, false and ambiguous context detection is reduced. Robustness may be further enhanced by considering location-dependent connectivity. For example, people normally board and leave trains at stations and fixed-wing aircraft typically require an airstrip to take off and land. / References [1] Groves, P. D., Principles of GNSS, inertial, and multi-sensor integrated navigation systems, Second Edition, Artech House, 2013. [2] Park, C. G., et al., “Adaptive Step Length Estimation with Awareness of Sensor Equipped Location for PNS,” Proc. ION GNSS 2007. [3] Frank, K., et al., “Reliable Real-Time Recognition of Motion Related Human Activities Using MEMS Inertial Sensors,” Proc. ION GNSS 2010. [4] Pei, L., et al., “Using Motion-Awareness for the 3D Indoor Personal Navigation on a Smartphone,” Proc. ION GNSS 2011. [5] Lin, T., C. O’Driscoll, and G. Lachapelle, “Development of a Context-Aware Vector-Based High-Sensitivity GNSS Software Receiver,” Proc. ION ITM 2011. [6] Shafiee, M., K., O’Keefe, and G. Lachapelle, “Context-aware Adaptive Extended Kalman Filtering Using Wi-Fi Signals for GPS Navigation,” Proc. ION GNSS 2011. [7] Shivaramaiah, N. C., and A. G. Dempster, “Cognitive GNSS Receiver Design: Concept and Challenges,” Proc. ION GNSS 2011. [8] Quddus, M. A., High Integrity Map Matching Algorithms for Advanced Transport Telematics Applications, PhD Thesis, Imperial College London, 2006

<i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i> intensive care unit outbreak:winnowing of transmissions with molecular and genomic typing

Bioinformatics and computational biology analyses were supported by the University of St Andrews Bioinformatics Unit which is funded by a Wellcome Trust ISSF award [grant 097831/Z/11/Z]. BJP, KO, MP, MTGH, GP and SHG are funded by the Chief Scientist Office through the Scottish Infection Research Network, a part of the SHAIPI consortium grant reference number SIRN/10.Background: Pseudomonas aeruginosa healthcare outbreaks can be time consuming and difficult to investigate. Guidance does not specify which typing technique is most practical to base decisions on. Aim: We explore the usefulness of whole genome sequencing (WGS) in the investigation of a Pseudomonas aeruginosa outbreak describing how it compares with pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) and variable number tandem repeat (VNTR) analysis. Methods: Six patient isolates and six environmental samples from an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) positive for P. aeruginosa over two years underwent VNTR, PFGE and WGS. Findings:  VNTR and PFGE were required to fully determine the potential source of infection and rule out others. WGS results unambiguously distinguished linked isolates giving greater assurance of the transmission route between wash hand basin (WHB) water and two patients supporting control measures employed. Conclusion:  WGS provided detailed information without need for further typing. When allied to epidemiological information it can be used to understand outbreak situations rapidly and with certainty. Implementation of WGS in real-time would be a major advance in day-to-day practice. It could become a standard of care as it becomes more widespread due to its reproducibility and reduction in costs.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe