Sensors (Dec 2022)

A GNSS/INS/LiDAR Integration Scheme for UAV-Based Navigation in GNSS-Challenging Environments

  • Ahmed Elamin,
  • Nader Abdelaziz,
  • Ahmed El-Rabbany

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/s22249908
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 22, no. 24
p. 9908

Abstract

Read online

Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) navigation has recently been the focus of many studies. The most challenging aspect of UAV navigation is maintaining accurate and reliable pose estimation. In outdoor environments, global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) are typically used for UAV localization. However, relying solely on GNSS might pose safety risks in the event of receiver malfunction or antenna installation error. In this research, an unmanned aerial system (UAS) employing the Applanix APX15 GNSS/IMU board, a Velodyne Puck LiDAR sensor, and a Sony a7R II high-resolution camera was used to collect data for the purpose of developing a multi-sensor integration system. Unfortunately, due to a malfunctioning GNSS antenna, there were numerous prolonged GNSS signal outages. As a result, the GNSS/INS processing failed after obtaining an error that exceeded 25 km. To resolve this issue and to recover the precise trajectory of the UAV, a GNSS/INS/LiDAR integrated navigation system was developed. The LiDAR data were first processed using the optimized LOAM SLAM algorithm, which yielded the position and orientation estimates. Pix4D Mapper software was then used to process the camera images in the presence of ground control points (GCPs), which resulted in the precise camera positions and orientations that served as ground truth. All sensor data were timestamped by GPS, and all datasets were sampled at 10 Hz to match those of the LiDAR scans. Two case studies were considered, namely complete GNSS outage and assistance from GNSS PPP solution. In comparison to the complete GNSS outage, the results for the second case study were significantly improved. The improvement is described in terms of RMSE reductions of approximately 51% and 78% for the horizontal and vertical directions, respectively. Additionally, the RMSE of the roll and yaw angles was reduced by 13% and 30%, respectively. However, the RMSE of the pitch angle was increased by about 13%.

Keywords