Cargando…

Comparison of Four RTK Receivers Operating in the Static and Dynamic Modes Using Measurement Robotic Arm

While the existing research provides a wealth of information about the static properties of RTK receivers, less is known about their dynamic properties, although it is clear that the vast majority of field operations take place when the machine is moving. A new method using a MRA for the evaluation...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kadeřábek, Jan, Shapoval, Vadym, Matějka, Pavel, Kroulík, Milan, Kumhála, František
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8659645/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34883796
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21237794
_version_ 1784613012685979648
author Kadeřábek, Jan
Shapoval, Vadym
Matějka, Pavel
Kroulík, Milan
Kumhála, František
author_facet Kadeřábek, Jan
Shapoval, Vadym
Matějka, Pavel
Kroulík, Milan
Kumhála, František
author_sort Kadeřábek, Jan
collection PubMed
description While the existing research provides a wealth of information about the static properties of RTK receivers, less is known about their dynamic properties, although it is clear that the vast majority of field operations take place when the machine is moving. A new method using a MRA for the evaluation of RTK receivers in movement with a precise circular reference trajectory (r = 3 m) was proposed. This reference method was developed with the greatest possible emphasis on the positional, time and repeatable accuracy of ground truth. Four phases of the measurement scenario (static, acceleration, uniform movement and deceleration) were used in order to compare four different types of RTK receiver horizontal operation accuracy over three measurement days. The worst result of one of the receivers was measured at SSR = 13.767% in dynamic movement. Since the same “low-cost” receiver without an INS unit had SSR = 98.14% in previous static measurements, so it can be assumed that the motion had a very significant effect on the dynamic properties of this receiver. On the other hand, the best “high-end” receiver with an INS unit had SSR = 96.938% during the dynamic testing scenarios. The median values of the deviations were always better during uniform movements than during acceleration or braking. In general, the positioning accuracy was worse in the dynamic mode than in the static one for all the receivers. Error indicators (RMS(err) and Me) were found several times higher in the dynamic mode than in the static one. These facts should be considered in the future development of modern agricultural machinery and technology.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8659645
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86596452021-12-10 Comparison of Four RTK Receivers Operating in the Static and Dynamic Modes Using Measurement Robotic Arm Kadeřábek, Jan Shapoval, Vadym Matějka, Pavel Kroulík, Milan Kumhála, František Sensors (Basel) Article While the existing research provides a wealth of information about the static properties of RTK receivers, less is known about their dynamic properties, although it is clear that the vast majority of field operations take place when the machine is moving. A new method using a MRA for the evaluation of RTK receivers in movement with a precise circular reference trajectory (r = 3 m) was proposed. This reference method was developed with the greatest possible emphasis on the positional, time and repeatable accuracy of ground truth. Four phases of the measurement scenario (static, acceleration, uniform movement and deceleration) were used in order to compare four different types of RTK receiver horizontal operation accuracy over three measurement days. The worst result of one of the receivers was measured at SSR = 13.767% in dynamic movement. Since the same “low-cost” receiver without an INS unit had SSR = 98.14% in previous static measurements, so it can be assumed that the motion had a very significant effect on the dynamic properties of this receiver. On the other hand, the best “high-end” receiver with an INS unit had SSR = 96.938% during the dynamic testing scenarios. The median values of the deviations were always better during uniform movements than during acceleration or braking. In general, the positioning accuracy was worse in the dynamic mode than in the static one for all the receivers. Error indicators (RMS(err) and Me) were found several times higher in the dynamic mode than in the static one. These facts should be considered in the future development of modern agricultural machinery and technology. MDPI 2021-11-23 /pmc/articles/PMC8659645/ /pubmed/34883796 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21237794 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Kadeřábek, Jan
Shapoval, Vadym
Matějka, Pavel
Kroulík, Milan
Kumhála, František
Comparison of Four RTK Receivers Operating in the Static and Dynamic Modes Using Measurement Robotic Arm
title Comparison of Four RTK Receivers Operating in the Static and Dynamic Modes Using Measurement Robotic Arm
title_full Comparison of Four RTK Receivers Operating in the Static and Dynamic Modes Using Measurement Robotic Arm
title_fullStr Comparison of Four RTK Receivers Operating in the Static and Dynamic Modes Using Measurement Robotic Arm
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Four RTK Receivers Operating in the Static and Dynamic Modes Using Measurement Robotic Arm
title_short Comparison of Four RTK Receivers Operating in the Static and Dynamic Modes Using Measurement Robotic Arm
title_sort comparison of four rtk receivers operating in the static and dynamic modes using measurement robotic arm
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8659645/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34883796
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21237794
work_keys_str_mv AT kaderabekjan comparisonoffourrtkreceiversoperatinginthestaticanddynamicmodesusingmeasurementroboticarm
AT shapovalvadym comparisonoffourrtkreceiversoperatinginthestaticanddynamicmodesusingmeasurementroboticarm
AT matejkapavel comparisonoffourrtkreceiversoperatinginthestaticanddynamicmodesusingmeasurementroboticarm
AT kroulikmilan comparisonoffourrtkreceiversoperatinginthestaticanddynamicmodesusingmeasurementroboticarm
AT kumhalafrantisek comparisonoffourrtkreceiversoperatinginthestaticanddynamicmodesusingmeasurementroboticarm