Tag: GNSS sensors

  • Hexagon | NovAtel: Creating a digital world

    Hexagon | NovAtel: Creating a digital world

    Photo: Hexagon | NovAtel
    Hexagon | NovAtel’s CPT7 integrates a GNSS receiver and an INS to deliver up to centimeter-level accuracy. (Photo: Hexagon | NovAtel)

    We discussed mobile mapping with Bryan Leedham, product manager of enclosures and post-processing software, NovAtel, Autonomy & Positioning division, Hexagon.


    How do you define mobile mapping?

    It is getting broader in scope, as more folks find reasons to map the world. The key goal is to capture reality from mobile platforms to build a digital representation of reality for some large area, such as a city, a road or a factory. Most of the time, that means from a ground vehicle on public roads.

    It’s also safer and faster than traditional surveying because you don’t have to stop traffic or dodge it.

    Right! In an ideal world, rather than spending days setting up traditional survey equipment, you could strap some sensors on a mobile platform and gather accurate map data in minutes.

    What are the key remaining technical challenges?

    Picture one of Google’s or Waymo’s mapping vehicles. The first sensors that come to mind are GNSS, inertial, lidar and radar. Each of those has its own unique strengths and weaknesses. The first technical challenge that remains is to mature each of those technologies for a lower enough cost that it’s affordable.

    Right now, mobile-mapping vehicles are quite expensive, especially in areas where some of these sensors will struggle more than others. To map very dense urban spaces — with underground areas, overpasses and tall buildings where GPS is challenged — you need a very strong localization system that can survive those conditions for however long it takes to drive through them. If I’m building a car to map rural Alberta, I could choose much cheaper sensors than if I were trying to map downtown Chicago every week.

    On the flip side, you must deal with the massive amounts of data collected.

    Yes, that is a very large challenge. Lidar data, in particular, is guilty of generating very large point clouds. It’s a balancing act. More accurate and higher resolution maps require lidar sensors with even denser point clouds. So, you need data management and sufficient processing power to get accurate results quickly.

    What are the key technical challenges in sensor fusion?

    Sensor fusion is how we approach the goal of mapping as accurately as possible in increasingly difficult environments. On their own, GNSS receivers struggle in obstructed areas but, when you pair them with other sensors, they become very complementary.

    Lidar and cameras, for example, are quite good at measuring the distance to nearby objects and at classifying them, but they have no idea where they are relative to one another. Likewise, if you let an IMU [inertial measurement unit] sit in your car, it will no longer know its location. However, once you give it a position update, it is very good at maintaining a trajectory over a short period of time. When you combine absolute and relative localization, all the sensors play to their own strengths.

    What is NovAtel’s SPAN software?

    It stands for synchronous position, attitude and navigation. It is the sensor-fusion software that combines the GNSS, inertial and whatever other sensors. It is based on core NovAtel GNSS receiver software. We can use NovAtel receivers in combination with IMUs from a wide range of manufacturers and, in the future, hopefully, other sensors from a variety of manufacturers as well.

    SPAN started with blending just GNSS and inertial but we’re now researching how to bring in such things as lidar and cameras. Autonomous Stuff, another Hexagon company, works on the greater sensor fusion using SPAN as well.

  • GNSS + sensors have transformed surveying

    GNSS + sensors have transformed surveying

    Photo: payamona / iStock / Getty Images Plus / Getty Images
    Photo: payamona / iStock / Getty Images Plus / Getty Images
    Matteo Luccio
    Matteo Luccio

    In this issue’s cover, a man with a backpack lidar unit, a GNSS receiver and a tablet computer is surveying in a complex and challenging urban setting. That same lidar unit also can be mounted on a UAV. One of the contributors to this month’s cover story describes the role of aerial photogrammetry in the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry. Satellite navigation, remote sensing, mapping software, a great variety of platforms, and ever more powerful handheld computers — those are the key ingredients in today’s ecosystem of geospatial technologies. The current generation of surveying equipment has more than halved fieldwork in the past two decades while greatly improving the quality of the data collected.

    The AEC industry relies on surveyors to be “a bridge between the existing landscape and the design landscape,” said another contributor to our cover story. Unlike traditional boundary surveying, he explained, surveying for AEC requires consideration of a detailed 3D world. It also involves many more stakeholders and much greater liability.

    The tight integration of GNSS, inertial systems, lidar sensors and 360° spherical imagery into mobile mapping systems makes 3D modeling possible and traditional GNSS or optical measurement instruments obsolete. However, while inertial systems are invaluable to bridge brief gaps in the availability and reliability of GNSS signals, they are far from the panacea they are sometimes claimed to be, as Brad Parkinson reminds us in an interview with Dana Goward, also in this issue.

    Surveying for AEC requires at least centimeter accuracy. The challenges of surveying in urban settings include urban canyons that occult signals and create multipath, traffic and multiple layers of underground, ground-level and above-ground infrastructure.

    Beyond the construction phase, 3D survey data is increasingly used to create digital twins of buildings, which facilitate their operation and maintenance throughout their life cycle and help lower their carbon footprint. Once they have completed an initial survey, surveyors often set control to be used for machine control — the theme of our cover story in next month’s issue.

    In this issue we also:

    • Inaugurate a “letters to the editor” section to make more room for debate in the GNSS/PNT community on the critical issues it faces.

    • Report on a Jet Propulsion Laboratory study of the impact on the ionosphere of the enormous volcanic eruption in Tonga and the beginnings of a GNSS-based early warning system for natural hazards.

    • Continue our series of articles on GNSS constellations, with an update from Japan’s QZSS constellation.

    • Feature three studies: one on real-time simulator testing using an NMEA data stream, one on the first transmission of L1C/B signals by QZSS, and one on self-driving cars in major metropolitan areas.

    All these advances, however, are threatened when GPS is threatened. Earlier in the month, three members of our editorial advisory board comment on the recent threat to GPS satellites by the Russian government.

    Matteo Luccio | Editor-in-Chief
    [email protected]

  • Early earthquake warnings: GNSS could enable 10-second alerts

    Early earthquake warnings: GNSS could enable 10-second alerts

    Previous research suggests that not until halfway through a rupture (90 seconds for a magnitude-9 quake) can magnitude be predicted. Geodetic GNSS data could bring this down to as little as 10 seconds — greatly extending and enhancing earthquake early warning systems.

    How soon can we predict the magnitude of an earthquake?

    Seismologists Diego Melgar of the University of Oregon and Gavin Hayes of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Golden, Colorado, tackled this question by chance while Melgar was writing code to simulate earthquakes to check the accuracy of Earthquake Early Warning systems in the Pacific Northwest.

    He reached out to Hayes, who curates a database for the USGS that contains “source time functions,” which show how the seismic energy release changes through time as the earthquake ruptures.

    As a rupture grows, the speed of growth changes, and source time function captures that change. Melgar and Hayes focused on the acceleration of the energy release in large (M>7) and great (M≥9) earthquakes, and found that acceleration wobbled between 2 and 5 seconds after the quakes began.

    In February 2016, the USGS rolled out the second-generation ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning test system in California. The diagram shows how the system would operate. (Image: USGS)
    In February 2016, the USGS rolled out the second-generation ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning test system in California. The diagram shows how the system would operate. (Image: USGS)

    However, with the approximately 250 M≥7 earthquakes in their database, they found that between 10 and 15 seconds after rupture began, these larger earthquakes started to behave similarly, and that behavior scales with their final magnitude, Hayes said. “In other words, the acceleration at 10 to 15 seconds is diagnostic of their final magnitude.”

    Earthquake ruptures sputter along for about 10 seconds, after which the big ones accelerate, according to Melgar and Hayes. Three different source time function databases showed the same consistency.

    Vertical movement near the source of large earthquakes can be between 3 and 5 meters, according to data from GNSS geodetic receivers. Analysis of near-source GNSS data from 12 M≥7 earthquakes showed that for the first 10 seconds after the first indication of an earthquake was recorded, the earthquakes made almost immeasurable movements. But between 10 and 15 seconds, the amount of vertical displacement began to rapidly diverge for the different magnitude groupings. By 20 to 25 seconds, the vertical movement was distinct.

    Previous research indicated roughly half the source duration must pass before an accurate prediction could be made. Cutting the prediction time down to 15 seconds would be invaluable to earthquake early warning systems and tsunami prediction algorithms, where every second counts.

    GNSS sensors are installed onshore across the globe, but the majority of megathrust earthquakes occur underwater. To integrate Melgar and Hayes’ findings effectively into earthquake early warning systems would require sensors installed along the seafloor, they noted. “You [would also] need to have fiber-optic cables from shore to the bottom of the ocean, winding around with sensors, and then eventually coming back on shore, and that’s not cheap,” Melgar said.

    An additional 10 to 30 seconds of warning to a city or nuclear reactor of an imminent quake would have enormous benefits. But if the hypothesis is wrong, using it now would lead to a greater rate of false alarms and missed quakes, eroding the value of these warnings to society. Melgar and Hayes acknowledged their finding needs to be rigorously tested.


    Summarized from Temblor’s website. The Temblor Android app and website provide earthquake, landslide, tsunami and flood information.

    Citation
    Tripathy-Lang A. (2019), “Can the size of a large earthquake be foretold just 10 seconds after it starts?”. Temblorhttp://doi.org/10.32858/temblor.029