3.1 Motion Data of an AUV and Simulation of the USBL Measurements
A navigation simulation involving the USBL outlier rejection algorithm was performed using a dataset of the 1-hours surface navigation of an AUV owned by Hanwha Systems Co., Ltd. The experiment was conducted at surface by reciprocating an arbitrary short-range path within Jangmok Bay at Jeoje Island. The sensors equipped on the AUV were a global positioning system (GPS), an inertial measurement unit (IMU FI200P), a Doppler velocity log (DVL RDI), an attitude heading reference system (AHRS) (TCM-XB), and a depth meter. To realize a situation in which a large navigation error occurred during blackout, a dead-reckoning navigation system integrated with the horizontal velocities and heading angle was introduced. The uncorrelated error model of USBL was applied to the navigation system.
Fig. 7 presents the experimental data of the AUV used in the simulation.
Fig. 7(a) shows the forward, lateral and vertical velocities measured by the DVL,
u,
v,
w ;
Fig. 7(b) shows the AUV’s latitude and longitude measured by the GPS,
y and
x, and
Fig. 7(c) shows the heading, roll and pitch angles of the AUV by the AHRS. All the sensor information was stored at 100 sps (samples per second) rate, and the sampling rate of the DVL was 10 sps.
The experiment was performed on the sea surface to acquire the absolute position with the GPS, so the USBL measurement was not conducted. Instead, the USBL positioning data was simulated by adding the errors, generated with the stochastic features of the USBL sensor and a certain bound of outlier, to the absolute position. We used the specifications of the USBL EvoLogics 18/34 in the simulation and produced the USBL positioning data from a reference station to the current position of the vehicle at every 2 seconds. Additionally, we supposed the outlier ratio of the USBL would be set as 20%, so the outlier was generated at 10-seconds interval. The bearing-angle error of the USBL was set as 1.0° rms to consider the heading sensor specifications of the USBL built-in AHRS, as shown in
Table 2. The range error of the USBL was set as 1.0 m rms to consider the motion compensation error of the moving vehicle and the variation of the acoustic propagation media. The outliers were generated by adding uniformly distributed random variables in [0, 30] m displacement and in [0, 360]° angle, which is independent of the current position of the vehicle.
Fig. 8 shows the USBL positioning data generated according to the AUV trajectory as
Fig. 7(b) in case of no outlier, where the initial position of the vehicle was set at (0, 0) and the reference station of the USBL transceiver was located at (−100, 300). The error increased in the direction perpendicular to the radial direction as the distance from the reference station to the USBL increased. The error of the simulated USBL measurements increased in the orthogonal direction of the radial axis of the range from the reference station to the vehicle as the range increased. In addition to changing the magnitude, the principal axis of the error changed according to the location of the reference station.
Fig. 9 shows the process of generating the simulated error of the USBL measurements: The upper parts are the simulated position error of the USBL measurements in the
x- and
y-directions; The middle parts are outliers generated as explained previously; The lower parts show the simulated error of the USBL measurements including the two components of the errors.
3.2 Simulation of USBL-aided Underwater Navigation with the Uncorrelated Error Model
A simulation was performed for the USBL-aided navigation system with the uncorrelated error model of USBL measurement. The range and angular rms error of the USBL used in the simulation was characterized by σr = 1.0 m and σψ = 1.0°, respectively. The procedure of the simulation was as follows: (1) Define the rms error σr in the radial direction and the rms error σψ in the orthogonal direction to the radial direction; (2) Calculate the first principal axis PC1 and the second principal axis PC2 through PCA at the estimated position of the vehicle; (3) Decorrelated the error covariance matrix by obtaining the σ1 and σ2 corresponding to the principal components of PC1 and PC2 with the rotation matrix at the time instant when the USBL measurement is received; (4) Apply the decorrelated covariance matrix to the Kalman filter of the navigation system.
Another simulation of the navigation system having no outlier of the USBL was also conducted for comparison with a conventional method. In the navigation simulation, the outlier judge level (OJL) was determined by a certain level, e.g. 5-σ, in the principal axes. When the difference between the USBL measurement and the estimated position of the navigation system exceeds the OJL, the navigation system decides the USBL measurement as outlier and discards the signal. In the proposed navigation system, the OJL was determined by the five times of the MD, 5-σMD, for the difference between the USBL measurement and the estimated position. Whenever the USBL measurement was newly acquired, the MD σMD was calculated with the rms errors of the radial direction and its orthogonal direction, σr and σψ, respectively, at the estimated position of the vehicle. When the MD deviated from the OJL 5-σMD, the USBL measurement was discarded in the simulation.
Figs. 10 and
11 show the simulation results of the USBL-aided navigation system having the uncorrelated error model of USBL for the cases of no outlier and the outliers, respectively. The outliers occurred at 10-seconds interval as described previously.
Figs. 10(a) and
11(a) depict the trajectories of the USBL measurement and the estimated position of the vehicle in the
xy-plane. The USBL measurements were indicated by the blue dots and the estimated position was marked in the red solid lines.
Figs. 10(c) and
11(c) are enlarged plots in the time of [3,050 3,300] s for
Figs 10(a) and
11(a), respectively. The estimated positions of the two simulations exhibited a slight difference, which was attributed to the effect of the unrejected outliers within the OJL. Comparing the two simulation results, therefore, we can find the outliers larger than the OJL were almost completely rejected and the proposed navigation system stably produced the estimated position of the vehicle even when the USBL measurement contaminated by outliers.
Figs. 10(b) and
11(b) show the estimation errors of the navigation system in the
x- and
y-positions. The rms error of the estimated position was 3.50 m when only the intrinsic error of the USBL sensor was considered, and 3.87 m when the outliers were included additionally. The estimation error of the navigation system with the outliers increased by approximately 10% compared to that of the navigation system with no outlier. This increment was caused by the outliers less than the OJL, which was updated in the navigation system. However, the two estimation errors show a very similar pattern.
Figs. 10(d) and
11(d) show the MD for the errors between the USBL measurements and the estimated position of the navigation system. The vertical axis of these figures is on a logarithmic scale. The MD was calculated in three steps. After acquiring the error at each USBL measurement, the principal axis was obtained from the range and the relative azimuth angle between the estimated position and the USBL reference station. And then the MD was calculated by decomposing the error. In
Figs. 10(d) and
11(d), the outlier judge level 5-
σMD is indicated by the red dotted line. In the case of no outlier, the MD in
Fig. 10(d) did not exceed the OJL over the whole time. In the case with the outliers, the MD frequently exceeded the OJL due to the outliers, as shown in
Fig. 11(d). Although the differences between the estimated position and the USBL measurements were mostly within 4-
σMD, the OJL was set as 5-
σMD considering margin of the estimation error of the navigation system in these simulations. The navigation system stably detected and rejected the outliers larger than the criterion, as shown in the enlarged subplot in
Fig. 11(d).
3.3 Performance of Outlier Rejection
In order to examine the outlier removal characteristics of the USBL-aided navigation system, the estimated positions of the navigation system with the uncorrelated error model was compared to those of the navigation system with a conventional error model.
Fig. 12 (a) and (b) show the results of the estimated position of the two navigation systems in the
xy-plane for the time [2350 2600] s, respectively. In these figures, the black dashed lines indicate the GPS trajectories of the AUV, that is, the true positions, the blue points represent the measured positions with the USBL, and the colored solid lines indicates the trajectories of the estimated positions for the case of four different OJLs. In
Fig. 12(a), the estimated positions of the proposed method for the four levels of OJL between 3.5-
σMD and 5-
σMD were exactly the same, so the four colored solid lines were all overlapped on one trajectory. That is, the USBL-aided integrated navigation system with the USBL decorrelation model identified and removed the outliers in the same way even when the OJL was changed between 3.5-
σMD and 5-
σMD in the time period.
In
Fig 12(b), the estimated positions of the navigation system with conventional USBL error model were depicted with the colored solid lines, of which the OJL was 11, 16, 21, and 24m, respectively. It was shown that the estimated positions with the conventional error model were more affected by the outliers, which were not rejected when the OJL was specified larger. The smaller the OJL, the better the outliers were rejected. In such a conventional navigation system, it is required to make the OJL small in order to remove the outliers. However, if the OJL is not set larger than the intrinsic error bound of the USBL, the valid data of the USBL measurements will also be cut off.
The outlier reject characteristics were also reviewed, according to the OJL selection in the navigation system with the conventional error model of USBL. Because the total simulation time was 4,094 s, the number of the USBL measurements used in the simulation was 2,047. Among these signals, the number of the outliers included
NOL was 410. The number of the outliers’ magnitude exceeding the OJL would be less than 410. Because the magnitude of the random outliers used in the simulation was uniformly distributed within the range of [0
Lmax (= 30)]
m, the expected number of outliers can be expressed as
Nexpected =
NOL ×(1−
OJL/
Lmax ) in case of when there was no navigation error. The simulations were performed by adjusting the OJL for the navigation system with the conventional error model of USBL.
Fig. 13 shows the estimated position errors with the conventional error model according to the OJL, as well as the number cut off the normal USBL signals needed for the navigation system.
The estimated position error showed a tendency to decrease as the OJL increased in the range of
OJL ≤ 13 m, had minimum value in the range of 14 m ≤
OJL ≤ 21 m, and gradually increased at
OJL > 21 m. The OJL should be set larger than 21 m to design the navigation system so that the normal USBL signals were not cut off. Otherwise, some of the normal signals larger than the OJL would be discarded. When the OJL was 22 m, 116 signals were judged as outliers and discarded without losing normal signal. In this case, the expected number of outliers will be
Nexpected = 109. Because the estimated position of the navigation system included errors, it is reasonable that the number of the blocked outliers differed from the expected value by approximately 6%. When the OJL was 16 m, the position estimation error was minimized, as shown in
Fig. 13 and
Table 3, while the number of the total blocked signal was 228. Among them, 47 normal USBL signals were blocked. The number of the blocked outliers in the simulation was 181, which differed approximately 5% from the expected number of 191. When the OJL was adjusted from 16 to 22 m, the blockage of the 47 normal signals was prevented. However, the 65 outliers were additionally considered as normal signals.
Therefore, in the navigation system using the conventional error model of USBL, the loss of the normal USBL signals is inevitable for ensuring outlier rejection. When a large OJL is specified to avoid losing the normal signals of USBL, outliers within the OJL are identified as signals and adversely affects the navigation system. Conversely, when a small OJL is specified, some normal signals are lost, which also adversely affects the navigation system.
In contrast, the navigation system with the uncorrelated error model of USBL can designate the OJL according to the Mahalanobis distance, so it is possible to design a navigation system robust to outliers while preventing the loss of normal USBL signals.
Fig. 14, similar as
Fig. 13, shows the positioning errors of the proposed navigation system designed with
OJL = 3.5-
σMD and
σR = 2.0 m, the number of the signals detected as outliers and cut-off (including the USBL signals), and the number of the cut-off normal USBL signals. In the figure, the horizontal axis represents the change of the OJL, of which the angular rms error of the USBL
σψ is varying within the range [0.5 1.5]°. In the simulations, the rms error
σψ was also related with the covariance of the noise vector in the navigation system. From the point of view of outlier rejection, a value larger
σψ than 1.2 is required because the normal USBL signals were lost when it was designed with
σψ ≤ 1.2°.
In
Fig. 14 and
Table 4, as
σψ was set smaller, the number of the cut-off USBL signals increased. When
σψ is set larger than 1.2, no signal was lost. In the range of
σψ ≥ 0.8°, as the value of
σψ increases, the number of the rejected outliers decreased, but the change was very small. In
σψ < 0.8°, the number of the rejected outliers was independent of the level of
σψ. When
σψ = 1.2°, one normal signal was lost, and the 282 outliers were rejected. In this case, an equivalent OJL in the Euclidean space would be 9.3 m. From the simulations, the proposed method has shown better performance of outlier rejection than the conventional method. In these simulations, on the other hand, the measurement error model of the navigation system was related with the level of
σψ of the OJL 3.5-
σMD . When
σψ was larger than 0.8°, the estimated position errors increased as
σψ increases in the measurement error model of the system. So, it is required to designate a fixed value for
σψ in the error covariance of the navigation system. Therefore, the navigation system with the uncorrelated model of USBL is more robust to outliers than the navigation system with a conventional error model of it.
3.4 Blackout Response Characteristics
When the position measurement is not valid for a long time, the error of the navigation system increases in proportion to the blackout time. As the blackout time increases, the measured position of the USBL after the blackout might be significantly different from the estimated position of the navigation system. The outlier rejection method proposed in this paper can be applied when the navigation error is no larger than the order of the USBL position measurement error. Although it is beyond the scope of this article, the method of determining the integrity of the received USBL signal after a blackout requires the development of an algorithm that integrates the error characteristics of the navigation system and the intrinsic features of the USBL. In this study, after a blackout, the operation status of the navigation system was examined by applying a simple method of setting the outlier decision level to twice the existing OJL.
A simulation was performed on the position estimation of the navigation system with the error model of USBL. We supposed that when an AUV surveying under an ice-shelf received a new USBL measurement during a homing activity after performing its mission in a remote sea area where the USBL signal did not reach. It was assumed that a blackout occurred in [1000, 2400] s of the total simulation time of 4,094 s in the previous simulation. The rms errors of the radial and angular direction was σr = 1.0 m, σψ = 1.0°, respectively, and the outlier decision criterion was designed as 4-σMD in normal operation. In the simulation, the new reception of the USBL after the blackout occurred was considered a valid signal when the position deviation of Δx = x̃− x̂, i.e., the difference between the measured position and the estimated position, was within 8-σMD .
Fig. 15 shows the simulation results of the navigation system with the uncorrelated error model of USBL for the event in which a USBL blackout occurred. In
Fig. 15(a), which presents the horizontal-plane trajectory, the estimated position denoted by the red solid line, the USBL measurements with outliers are shown as blue dots, and the USBLs that have not been received in the time zone of blackout are depicted in light gray. During the USBL blackout, the navigation system operated only with speed, attitude, and depth information. So, the AUV estimated the position that deviated from the true trajectory after 1,000 s of the blackout occurrence. The estimation error of position was up to about 81 m.
When the USBL positioning signal was received again after 2,400 s, it was judged as a valid signal when and if the difference between the measured USBL position and the estimated position of the navigation system was within 8-σMD . So, even if a normal USBL signal is received, the measurement cannot be used immediately as the innovation of the navigation system under a large deviation Δx.
As shown in
Fig. 15(b), the MD between the measured position of USBL and the estimated position at 2,400 s was 47.1-
σMD, exceeding the threshold level of 8-
σMD . So, the AUV judged this signal as an outlier and did not use it as an innovation signal for the navigation system. Even when the normal USBL position measurement data were subsequently received, the navigation system continued to discard the USBL position measurement, because the deviation
Δx exceeded the OJL. At 2,540 s, when the position error was within the range of 8-
σMD, the navigation system used the USBL position measurement signal to update the error covariance, and the estimation error of the navigation system rapidly decreased and converged to the true position within 10 seconds. A further study on the integrity judgment reflecting the USBL positioning data received after a blackout and the navigation error is required.