A multi-sensor weighted decision method for a frame inertial measurement unit locking device

Abstract

The application discloses a multi-sensor weighting determination method for a frame type inertial measurement unit locking device, and belongs to the technical field of electromechanical control. Firstly, a weight coefficient is allocated to each sensor based on the reliability, feedback physical quantity importance, resolution and other factors of each sensor, and the sum of the total weight coefficients of all sensors is greater than 1.0. In the locking determination, the state signals of the sensors are weighted and superimposed with the weight coefficients to obtain a comprehensive determination value, and the comprehensive determination value is compared with a preset determination threshold value smaller than 1.0 to serve as the basis for determining whether the locking state is completed. The multi-sensor weighting determination method in the application guarantees correct determination of the system under abnormal working conditions of partial sensor failure through the redundant design of 'total weight coefficient > 1 and determination threshold value < 1', effectively avoids the false alarm or false alarm of the locking state, significantly improves the reliability and fault tolerance of the locking state determination, and has an excellent application prospect.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention belongs to the field of electromechanical control technology, specifically relating to a multi-sensor weighted determination method for a frame-type inertial navigation system locking device. Background Technology

[0002] The locking device is an important component of the frame-type inertial navigation system. Its main function is to lock the sensor to the frame-type inertial navigation system base when the inertial navigation system requires reliable strapdown connection of the sensor.

[0003] To ensure the reliability of the inertial navigation system, it is necessary to provide accurate and timely feedback on the actual status of the locking device during operation. Therefore, it is necessary to design a status feedback mechanism and status determination method for the locking device.

[0004] In current engineering practice, the locking status is generally determined by data from a single sensor or a simple combination of data from multiple sensors. While this method can determine the status of the locking device to a certain extent, the inconsistent reliability of each sensor means that if one sensor fails, the sensor data may not accurately reflect the locking device's status, leading to missed alarms or false alarms, which threatens the safety of the entire inertial navigation system. Summary of the Invention

[0005] In response to one or more of the above-mentioned defects or improvement needs of the prior art, the present invention provides a multi-sensor weighted determination method for a frame-type inertial navigation system locking device, which can accurately determine the locking state of the locking device and ensure the safe and reliable operation of the inertial navigation system.

[0006] To achieve the above objectives, the present invention provides a multi-sensor weighted determination method for a frame-type inertial navigation system locking device, comprising the following steps: (1) Determine the number and type of sensors involved in determining the locking state in the locking device; (2) Assign weighting coefficients to each of the sensors. ;in, And the sum of all weight coefficients ; (3) Acquire the status signals of each sensor in real time. ,in, Take a value between 0 and 1; and calculate the comprehensive judgment value. ; (4) The comprehensive judgment value Compared with the preset judgment threshold Compare; if If the locking is completed, then the locking is determined to be complete; wherein, the determination threshold is... <1.0.

[0007] As a further improvement of the present invention, the allocation of the weighting coefficients is based on at least one of the following factors: the statistical value of the failure probability of the sensor, the importance of the physical quantity fed back by the sensor in the locking determination, the data resolution of the sensor, and the derating coefficient of the components.

[0008] As a further improvement of the present invention, when the weight coefficients of two or more sensors calculated according to the allocation criteria are the same, the same weight coefficients are finely adjusted to make the weight coefficients of each sensor more uniform. It is unique.

[0009] As a further improvement of the present invention, when performing differential fine-tuning, a unique design is also performed where the sum of the weight coefficients of multiple sensors is made, so that the sum of the weight coefficients of any combination of sensors is neither equal to the weight coefficient of any sensor nor equal to the sum of the weight coefficients of any other combination of sensors.

[0010] As a further improvement of the present invention, when allocating weight coefficients, the weight coefficients of sensors that are functionally redundant are finely adjusted to ensure that when one of them fails, the weight coefficient of the other redundant sensor can still support the reliable determination of the system under the condition of partial sensor failure.

[0011] As a further improvement of the present invention, the failure probability of the sensor is calculated by a series system reliability model; The model determines the reliability of sensors based on factors including the sensor's principle characteristics, the number of peripheral devices, the installation location, and the historical statistical failure rate.

[0012] As a further improvement of the present invention, in process (4), after the locking is determined, the final result is not output immediately, but the time delay determination stage is entered: Within the preset delay time Within, continuously monitor the comprehensive judgment value. ;like exist The value of the substance remains not lower than the threshold value. Then, the final output will be a locking success signal.

[0013] As a further improvement of the present invention, a failure sensor location step is also included: When the comprehensive judgment value satisfy: When this occurs, a warning state is determined to be in effect due to sensor failure; the missing weight coefficient is calculated. and will Weighting coefficients of each sensor By comparison, we can locate the weight coefficient that is equal to or approximately equal to The sensor or sensor combination is used to identify the failed sensor.

[0014] As a further improvement of the present invention, the sensor includes a photoelectric switch, a current sensor, a Hall sensor, and an infrared encoder.

[0015] As a further improvement of the present invention, the weighting coefficient of the current sensor is 0.40; the weighting coefficient of the Hall sensor is 0.22; the infrared encoder and the Hall sensor are functionally redundant, and their weighting coefficient is 0.19; the weighting coefficient of the photoelectric switch is 0.20.

[0016] The aforementioned improved technical features can be combined with each other as long as they do not conflict with each other.

[0017] In summary, the beneficial effects of the above-described technical solutions conceived by this invention compared with the prior art include: The multi-sensor weighted judgment method for frame-type inertial navigation system (INS) locking devices in this invention first assigns a weight coefficient to each sensor based on factors such as reliability, importance of feedback physical quantities, and resolution, with the sum of the total weight coefficients of all sensors being greater than 1.0. During locking judgment, the state signals of each sensor are weighted and superimposed with their respective weight coefficients to obtain a comprehensive judgment value. This comprehensive judgment value is then compared with a preset judgment threshold less than 1.0 as the basis for determining whether the locking state is complete. Furthermore, by introducing time hysteresis judgment, transient interference can be further eliminated; and by introducing differentiated fine-tuning and unique design, the location of the fault can be accurately located when a sensor warning occurs, thereby improving fault location after the locking state judgment of the locking device and ensuring the convenience and reliability of the locking device.

[0018] In summary, the multi-sensor weighted judgment method in this invention, through the redundant design of "total weight coefficient > 1, judgment threshold < 1", ensures that the system can still make correct judgments under abnormal operating conditions where some sensors fail, effectively avoiding missed alarms or false alarms. At the same time, by comparing the missing coefficients after weighted superposition, the failed sensor can be located, which has the ability to diagnose faults and significantly improves the reliability and fault tolerance of locking state judgment, showing excellent application prospects. Attached Figure Description

[0019] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention, the accompanying drawings used in the embodiments will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some embodiments of the present invention. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort.

[0020] Figure 1This is a schematic diagram of the overall structure of the multi-sensor weighted determination method for the frame-type inertial navigation system locking device in an embodiment of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0021] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of this invention clearer, the invention will be further described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings and embodiments. It should be understood that the specific embodiments described herein are merely illustrative and not intended to limit the invention. Furthermore, the technical features involved in the various embodiments of this invention described below can be combined with each other as long as they do not conflict with each other.

[0022] In the description of this invention, it should be understood that, unless otherwise expressly specified and limited, the terms "center," "longitudinal," "lateral," "length," "width," "thickness," "upper," "lower," "front," "rear," "left," "right," "vertical," "horizontal," "top," "bottom," "inner," "outer," "clockwise," "counterclockwise," "axial," "radial," "circumferential," etc., indicating the orientation or positional relationship based on the orientation or positional relationship shown in the accompanying drawings, are only for the convenience of describing this invention and simplifying the description, and are not intended to indicate or imply that the device or element referred to must have a specific orientation, or be constructed and operated in a specific orientation, and therefore should not be construed as a limitation of this invention.

[0023] Furthermore, unless otherwise expressly defined, the terms "first" and "second" are used for descriptive purposes only and should not be construed as indicating or implying relative importance or implicitly specifying the number of indicated technical features. Thus, a feature defined as "first" or "second" may explicitly or implicitly include at least one of that feature. In the description of this invention, "a plurality of" means at least two, such as two, three, etc., unless otherwise expressly and specifically defined.

[0024] In this invention, unless otherwise explicitly specified and limited, the terms "installation," "connection," "linking," and "fixing," etc., should be interpreted broadly. For example, they can refer to a fixed connection, a detachable connection, or an integral part; they can refer to a mechanical connection or an electrical connection; they can refer to a direct connection or an indirect connection through an intermediate medium; they can refer to the internal communication of two components or the interaction between two components, unless otherwise explicitly limited. Those skilled in the art can understand the specific meaning of the above terms in this invention according to the specific circumstances.

[0025] In this invention, unless otherwise explicitly specified and limited, "above" or "below" the second feature can mean that the first feature is in direct contact with the second feature, or that the first feature is in indirect contact with the second feature through an intermediate medium. Furthermore, "above," "over," and "on top" of the second feature can mean that the first feature is directly above or diagonally above the second feature, or simply that the first feature is at a higher horizontal level than the second feature. "Below," "below," and "under" the second feature can mean that the first feature is directly below or diagonally below the second feature, or simply that the first feature is at a lower horizontal level than the second feature.

[0026] Below, for reference Figure 1 A multi-sensor weighted determination method for a frame-type inertial navigation system locking device is described according to a preferred embodiment of the present invention.

[0027] Specifically, the multi-sensor weighted determination method in the preferred embodiment aims to determine the locking state of the frame-type inertial navigation system locking device, and includes the following steps: (1) Determine the number and type of sensors involved in determining the locking state in the locking device; (2) Assign weighting coefficients to each of the sensors. ;in, And the sum of all weight coefficients ; Specifically, when allocating sensor weight coefficients, the allocation basis preferably includes at least one of the following factors: the statistical value of the sensor's failure probability, the importance of the physical quantity fed back by the sensor in the locking determination, the sensor's data resolution, and the derating coefficient of the components.

[0028] Among them, the failure probability of the sensor is preferably calculated by the reliability model of the series system; and the reliability judgment factors of the sensor in this model include the sensor's principle characteristics, the number of peripheral devices, the installation location, and the historical statistical failure rate.

[0029] Meanwhile, to better differentiate between sensors, in actual setup, when two or more sensors have the same weight coefficient calculated based on the allocation criteria, it is preferable to fine-tune the weight coefficients of the same sensors to ensure that the weight coefficient of each sensor is adjusted accordingly. It is unique. Therefore, it can be determined based on the weighting coefficients. The differences are used to distinguish the sensors.

[0030] More specifically, when performing differentiated fine-tuning, a unique design is preferred, where the sum of the weight coefficients of multiple sensors is such that the sum of the weight coefficients of any sensor combination is neither equal to the weight coefficient of any individual sensor nor equal to the sum of the weight coefficients of any other sensor combination. In this way, the corresponding sensor combination can be determined based on the actual measured difference in weight coefficients.

[0031] In addition, when allocating weight coefficients, the weight coefficients of sensors that are functionally redundant are finely adjusted to ensure that if one of them fails, the weight coefficient of the other redundant sensor can still support the reliable judgment of the system under the condition of partial sensor failure.

[0032] As an example, the locking device in the preferred embodiment includes sensors such as a photoelectric switch, a current sensor, a Hall sensor, and an infrared encoder. The photoelectric switch is an externally mounted integrated device without onboard circuitry; its optical signal is susceptible to interference, but its statistical failure rate is low. The infrared encoder consists of an externally mounted discrete device and onboard circuitry; its optical signal is susceptible to interference, but being placed in a sealed space, it has high anti-interference capabilities, and its statistical failure rate is generally low. The Hall sensor is embedded in the motor, consisting of a sensitive element in the motor and onboard circuitry; its magnetic signal is susceptible to interference, but being placed in a sealed space, it also has high anti-interference capabilities, and its statistical failure rate is low. Meanwhile, the current sensor is an onboard integrated device; its signal is not easily interfered with, and its anti-interference capability can be further improved through software filtering, resulting in the highest reliability.

[0033] Furthermore, in the aforementioned example, the infrared encoder and the Hall sensor are functionally redundant, and their weighting coefficients are finely adjusted in a correlated manner, which can further improve the reliability of the device.

[0034] (3) Acquire the status signals of each sensor in real time. ,in, Take a value between 0 and 1; and calculate the comprehensive judgment value. .

[0035] Specifically, when When the value is 1, it indicates that the sensor's feedback signal is normal; when When the value is 0, it indicates that the sensor's feedback signal is abnormal.

[0036] It is understandable that, assuming all sensor status signals are normal, the aforementioned comprehensive judgment value... equal If the status signal of any of the sensors becomes abnormal, the aforementioned comprehensive judgment value will be... It will be smaller than .

[0037] (4) The comprehensive judgment value Compared with the preset judgment threshold Compare; if If the locking is completed, then the locking is considered complete; where the preset threshold value is... <1.0.

[0038] Specifically, in actual settings, the preset judgment threshold The optimal value is determined based on the sensor composition of the locking device and the system requirements, and is generally taken as 0.70~0.80.

[0039] More specifically, in actual judgment, once the locking is determined, that is... Instead of immediately outputting the final result, it enters the time lag judgment stage, which checks whether the relationship between the comprehensive judgment value and the judgment threshold changes within a certain period of time to determine the accuracy of the output result.

[0040] Specifically, within the preset hysteresis time Internally, continuously monitor the comprehensive judgment value. ;like exist The value of the substance remains not lower than the judgment threshold. Only then will a locking success signal be output.

[0041] Furthermore, the multi-sensor weighted determination method in the preferred embodiment also includes a fault sensor location step, in order to determine which one or more sensors are faulty.

[0042] Specifically, when the comprehensive judgment value satisfy: When a sensor malfunction is detected, an early warning state is established; at this time, the missing weight coefficient is calculated. and will Weighting coefficients of each sensor By comparison, we can locate the weight coefficient that is equal to or approximately equal to The sensor or sensor combination is used to identify the failed sensor.

[0043] Furthermore, the aforementioned multi-sensor weighted determination method will be further explained in detail through the following specific embodiment 1.

[0044] Example 1: In this embodiment, the multi-sensor weighted determination method specifically includes the following process: (1) Determine the number and type of sensors involved in determining the locking state in the locking device. The sensors include current sensors, photoelectric switches, infrared encoders, and Hall sensors.

[0045] (2) Assign weighting coefficients to each sensor, where the weighting coefficient for the photoelectric switch is: The weighting coefficient of the infrared encoder is The weighting coefficient of the Hall sensor is The current sensor has the highest weight, and its weighting coefficient is... .

[0046] at this time, =0.20+0.19+0.22+0.40=1.01>1.0, which meets the requirements of redundancy design.

[0047] Accordingly, for the locking device, its preset judgment threshold is... The preferred value is 0.75.

[0048] (3) Acquire the status signals of each sensor in real time. Calculate the comprehensive judgment value And on this basis, the determination process is performed; When all sensors are functioning normally If 1.01 > 0.75, then the locking is considered complete.

[0049] When some sensors fail, the output... The value is reduced by determining its relationship with... The size relationship between them can be used to determine whether the locking state is complete.

[0050] As an example, if the photoelectric switch fails, then ,but =0+0.19+0.22+0.40=0.81>0.75, the system can still correctly determine that the locking is complete, which reflects the fault tolerance.

[0051] As another example, if the current sensor fails, then ,but =0.20+0.19+0.22+0=0.61<0.75, the system determines that locking is not complete.

[0052] (4) Locate the failed sensor; In the first example mentioned above, The system triggers an alert; at this point, the missing weight coefficient is calculated. By comparing the weighting coefficient table, the faulty sensor can be quickly identified as a photoelectric switch, thus pinpointing the location of the fault.

[0053] Furthermore, when determining the locking state in Example 1, when After the initial value is ≥0.75, a timer is started (at this time, the preset hysteresis time is used). During this time period, if If the value is consistently ≥0.75, the final output will be "locking successful".

[0054] The multi-sensor weighted judgment method for frame-type inertial navigation system (INS) locking devices in this invention first assigns a weight coefficient to each sensor based on factors such as reliability, importance of feedback physical quantities, and resolution, with the sum of the total weight coefficients of all sensors being greater than 1.0. During locking judgment, the state signals of each sensor are weighted and superimposed with their respective weight coefficients to obtain a comprehensive judgment value. This comprehensive judgment value is then compared with a preset judgment threshold less than 1.0 as the basis for determining whether the locking state is complete. Furthermore, by introducing time hysteresis judgment, transient interference can be further eliminated; and by introducing differentiated fine-tuning and unique design, the location of the fault can be accurately located when a sensor warning occurs, thereby improving fault location after the locking state judgment of the locking device and ensuring the convenience and reliability of the locking device.

[0055] In summary, the multi-sensor weighted judgment method in this invention, through the redundant design of "total weight > 1, judgment threshold < 1", ensures that the system can still make correct judgments under abnormal operating conditions where some sensors fail, effectively avoiding missed alarms or false alarms. At the same time, by comparing the missing coefficients after weighted superposition, the failed sensor can be located, which has the ability to diagnose faults and significantly improves the reliability and fault tolerance of locking state judgment, showing excellent application prospects.

[0056] Those skilled in the art will readily understand that the above description is merely a preferred embodiment of the present invention and is not intended to limit the present invention. Any modifications, equivalent substitutions, and improvements made within the spirit and principles of the present invention should be included within the scope of protection of the present invention.

Claims

1. A multi-sensor weighted determination method for a frame-type inertial navigation system locking device, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: (1) Determine the number and type of sensors involved in determining the locking state in the locking device; (2) Assign weighting coefficients to each of the sensors. ;in, And the sum of all weight coefficients ; (3) Acquire the status signals of each sensor in real time. ,in, Take a value between 0 and 1; and calculate the comprehensive judgment value. ; (4) The comprehensive judgment value Compared with the preset judgment threshold Compare; if If the locking is completed, then the locking is determined to be complete; wherein, the determination threshold is... < 1.

0.

2. The multi-sensor weighted determination method for a frame-type inertial navigation system locking device according to claim 1, characterized in that, The weighting coefficients are allocated based on at least one of the following factors: the statistical value of the sensor's failure probability, the importance of the physical quantity fed back by the sensor in the locking determination, the sensor's data resolution, and the derating coefficient of the components.

3. The multi-sensor weighted determination method for a frame-type inertial navigation system locking device according to claim 2, characterized in that, When the weight coefficients of two or more sensors calculated based on the allocation criteria are the same, the same weight coefficients are finely adjusted to make the weight coefficients of each sensor more uniform. It is unique.

4. The multi-sensor weighted determination method for a frame-type inertial navigation system locking device according to claim 3, characterized in that, When making differentiated fine-tuning, a unique design is also carried out for the sum of the weight coefficients of multiple sensors, so that the sum of the weight coefficients of any combination of sensors is neither equal to the weight coefficient of any sensor, nor equal to the sum of the weight coefficients of any other combination of sensors.

5. The multi-sensor weighted determination method for a frame-type inertial navigation system locking device according to claim 2, characterized in that, When allocating weighting coefficients, for sensors that are functionally redundant, their weighting coefficients are finely adjusted to ensure that if one fails, the weighting coefficient of the other redundant sensor can still support the system's reliable judgment under partial sensor failure conditions.

6. The multi-sensor weighted determination method for a frame-type inertial navigation system locking device according to claim 2, characterized in that, The failure probability of the sensor is calculated using a series system reliability model; The model determines the reliability of sensors based on factors including the sensor's principle characteristics, the number of peripheral devices, the installation location, and the historical statistical failure rate.

7. The multi-sensor weighted determination method for a frame-type inertial navigation system locking device according to any one of claims 1 to 6, characterized in that, In process (4), after the locking is determined, the final result is not output immediately, but instead the time delay determination stage begins: Within the preset delay time Within, continuously monitor the comprehensive judgment value. ;like exist The value of the substance remains not lower than the threshold value. Then, the final output will be a locking success signal.

8. The multi-sensor weighted determination method for a frame-type inertial navigation system locking device according to any one of claims 1 to 6, characterized in that, It also includes the step of locating the failed sensor: When the comprehensive judgment value satisfy: When this occurs, it is determined to be a warning state indicating that a sensor has failed; Calculate the missing weight coefficient and will Weighting coefficients of each sensor By comparison, we can locate the weight coefficient that is equal to or approximately equal to The sensor or sensor combination is used to identify the failed sensor.

9. The multi-sensor weighted determination method for a frame-type inertial navigation system locking device according to any one of claims 1 to 6, characterized in that, The sensors include photoelectric switches, current sensors, Hall effect sensors, and infrared encoders.

10. The multi-sensor weighted determination method for a frame-type inertial navigation system locking device according to claim 9, characterized in that, The weighting coefficient of the current sensor is 0.40; the weighting coefficient of the Hall sensor is 0.22; the infrared encoder and the Hall sensor are functionally redundant, and their weighting coefficient is 0.19; the weighting coefficient of the photoelectric switch is 0.20.

Images