Inertial Navigation

Systems Analysis

INERTIAL NAVIGATION
SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
K E N N E T H R. B R I T T I N G , Sc. D.
Lecturer in Aeronautics and Astronautics
Measurement S y s t e m Laboratory
Massachusetts Institute of techno loo?^

WILEY-INTERSCIENCE, a Division of John W i l e y & Sons, Inc.

N e w York
London
Sydney
Toronto

Copyright

0 1971, by John Wiley

& Sons, Inc.

All rights reserved. Published simultaneously in Canada.

Reproduction or translation of any part of this work beyond that

permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States
Copyright Act without the permission of the copyright owner is
unlawful. Requests for permission or further information should be
addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 70- 168635

ISBN 0-471-10485-X

Printed in the United States of America

To the memory of

KATHERINE ANNE

Foreword

Although the technique of inertial guidance can be said to have originated

more than sixty years ago with the appearance of the gyrocompass, i t did not
attain full navigational status until the impetus of technology after World
War I1 made it practical as well as feasible. During this period the basic
inertial components-gyroscopes and accelerometers-remained
essentially
the same but continually improved in performance. Extensive studies led to a
fairly complete understanding of the theory of inertial systems. Improvement both in inertial components and in the associated signal-processing
equipment led from systems with a volume of over a cubic yard t o those with
less than a cubic foot. Accuracy and reliability produced systems that not
only met the military needs in air and underwater but also allowed the
successful rtccomplishment of the Apollo space missions and the installation
of inertial systems in commercial aircraft.
During this time different general configurations produced systems with
very different types of performance, although with the same basic components. Accordingly, a common basis for meaningful comparison of the
performance of these systems was lacking, and discussions by proponents and
opponents of a given configuration generated more heat than light. This
book, based largely on the author's several years of study leading to his
doctorate, is the first definitive attempt that successfully provides a basis for
a realistic comparison of performance of various inertial system configurations-geometric, semi-analytic, or analytic. The solution is not a simple,
rule-of-thumb technique, but i t is of sufficient simplicity and directness for a
skilled person to formulate his own comparisons reasonably quickly, effectively, and accurately.
I n producing this book Dr. Britting presents a "Rosetta Stone" to the
inertial guidance profession. As one of his faculty advisors during his doctoral

viii

FOREWORD

studies, I am very pleased and proud to have the privilege of introducing

a former student's noteworthy accomplishment.

WALTERWRIGLEY,SC.D.
Professor of Instrumentation and Astronautics
Educational Director, Charles Stark Draper Laboratory
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Preface

Part of this book evolved from a set of lecture notes prepared in the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics a t the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology for a one-semester graduate course in inertial navigation systems.
In addition, a portion of the book was adapted from my doctoral thesis.
Since the lecture notes were prepared for students who had already completed a comprehensive introductory course in classical mechanics, kinematics, inertial instrument theory, and inertial platform mechanization, a
fairly advanced level of preparation is assumed. Nevertheless, i t has been
found through experience that the book is reasonably self-contained, allowing the student to follow the development with a modicum of referral t o
the technical literature.
The material is intended principally for the avionics system engineer who
wishes to compare the performance of the various types of system mechanizations. While i t is applicable t o spacecraft and undersea navigation, the
thrust of the book is aimed at terrestrial applications on, or slightly above,
the surface of the earth. Because of the current interest in navigation
systems for aircraft, the relevant navigation equations are developed for this
application.
Perturbation techniques are extensively used t o develop linearized system
equations whose solutions closely approximate those obtained by a solution
of the nonlinear differential equations. Since linear systems theory is applicable to linearized system equations, these equations are quite amenable
to physical interpretation, providing an insight into system behavior not
readily obtainable from computer solution of the nonlinear equations. The
developed linear system models are, of course, essential to the application
of optimal filtering techniques which are currently being applied to aided
inertial systems.
Chapter 1 emphasizes concepts common to all inertial navigation system

PREFACE

configurations. The mathematical notation and techniques used in this book

are discussed in Chapter 2 . Chapter 3 defines a number of coordinate frames
that are essential to the description of the operation of inertial navigation
systems. The relationships between the various coordinate frames are developed, and the nonorthogonal instrument-platform relationships are defined.
Chapter 4 models certain of the geometric aspects of the earth as they apply
t o the study of inertial navigation systems. Analytic expressions for the
earth's gravity and gravitational fields and the specific force vector are
developed in this chapter. Chapter 5 contains material on the performance
and mathematical modeling of the single-degree-of-freedom gyroscope.
Material on gyro redundancy and reliability is included.
Chapters 6, 7, and 8 are devoted to the error analysis of terrestrial inertial
navigation systems. I n Chapters 6 and 7, the error equations for spacestabilized and local-level mechanizations are developed, and the effects of
externally supplied altitude information are studied. A unified error analysis
that applies to virtually all terrestrial inertial navigation systems is developed
in Chapter 8. It is shown that if the system state vector is chosen to consist
of the system's attitude and position errors, the error behavior can be
described by one relatively simple vector differential equation. The unified
theory is applied to obtain the error equations for space-stabilized, locallevel, free azimuth, rotating azimuth, and strapdown configurations. I n
Chapter 9, self-alignment techniques are discussed and developed.
I express my sincerest appreciation t o Professors Winston Markey and
Walter Wrigley of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and to Robert
Wedan of the United States Department of Transportation for their criticism,
advice, and encouragement throughout the preparation of this book. I n
addition each of these men deserves special recognition: Professor Markey,
as director of the Measurement Systems Laboratory, provided the stimulating
environment for the research summarized herein; Professor Wrigley, as
Educational Director of the Draper Laboratory, was instrumental in guiding
my academic research; and Robert Wedan was responsible for the support
for much of my research over the years. I would also like t o thank John
Hatfield of the Man Vehicle Control Laboratory a t MIT for providing many
very helpful suggestions.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Electronics Research Center, and the Department of Transportation, Transportation
Systems Center, receive my thanks for the financial support for much of my
research.
The many typists who have struggled over the years with the notation
peculiar to inertial navigation and with my handwriting are t o be thanked
profusely. I n particular, Mrs. Ann Preston deserves special recognition for
her skill in preparing parts of this book. The many students of inertial

PREFACE

xi

navigation a t MIT who have contributed to this document, both directly

and indirectly, are recognized and thanked.
Lastly, I would like t o thank my family for their encouragement in this
endeavor.
KENNETH
R. BRITTING
Cambridge, Massachusetts
ApriZ 1971

Contents

I Introduction
The Concept of Inertial Navigation, 1
Types of Inertial Navigation Systems, 3
A Critique of Previous Analysis Techniques, 4
A Unified Approach to the Error Analysis, 7
2

Mathematical Notation and Techniques

Notational Conventions, 12
The Time Derivative of the Direction Cosine Matrix, 16
Column Matrix Time Derivatives, 17
Analogies to Vector Analysis, 18
Perturbation Techniques, 20
Symbology, 24
3

Reference Frames

Inertial Frame, 30
Geographic Frame, 33
Earth Frame, 34
Geocentric Frame, 34
Body Frame, 34
Tangent Frame, 35
Reference Frame Relationships, 35
Platform, Accelerometer, and Gyro Frames, 38
4

Geometry of the Earth

The Geocentric Position Vector, 44

The Deviation of the Normal, 46
xiii

xiv

CONTENTS

4.3 The Earth Radius Magnitude, 47

4.4 The Earth's Gravitational Field, 49
4.5 The Earth's Gravity Field, 56
4.6 Analytic Expressions for the Specific Force Vector, 61

5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4

Single-Degree-of-Freedom Gyroscope Performance

Principle of Operation, 65
Dynamic Model for SDE" Gyro, 69
Uncertainty Torque Compensation, 74
Instrument and System Redundancy and Reliability, 75
6

The Space-Stabilized Terrestrial Navigator

6.1 Description of System, 79

6.2 Mechanization Equations, 81
6.3 Error Analysis, 86
7

The Local-Level Terrestrial Navigator

Description of System, 109

Mechanization Equations, 11 1
Error Analysis, 114
The Two-Accelerometer Local-Level System, 123
8

Development of a Unified Error Analysis

A General Terrestrial Navigator Model, 153

Generalized Mechanization and Error Equations, 156
Canonical Form of the Error Equations, 176
Specialization of the Generalized Theory, 183
Effect of Altimeter Uncertainty, 195
9

Self-Alignment Techniques

Analytic Coarse Alignment Method, 198

Physical Gyrocompass Alignment, 203
Alignment of Strapdown Systems, 209
Appendix A

Development of a System Error Model

System Description, 2 17
Derivation of System Differential Equations, 219
Solution of System Differential Equations, 220
Approximations to the Solutions, 224
Development of an Error Model, 227

CONTENTS

Appendix B

B.l
33.2
B.3
B.4

State Transition Matrix for Inertial

Navigation Systems

xv
229

Formula-trionin State Space Notation, 229

State Transition Matrix, 230
State Transition Matrix for Short Sampling Times, 232
Examples, 232
Appendix C

Statistical Error Analysis Methods

235

C.1 Response of a Linear System to Random Inputs, 235

C.2 Response to the Ensemble of Constant Functions, 236
C.3 Response t o White Noise, 237
References

24 1

Index

245

Inertial Navigation
Systems Analysis

CHAPTER

7
Introduction
"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts;
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end
in certainties. "
FRANC1S BACON

1.1

T H E CONCEPT O F INERTIAL N A V I G A T I O N

Navigation is the determination of a physical body's position and velocity

relative t o some reference coordinate frame or coordinate grid. A simple,
one-dimensional example of navigation would consist of determining the
position and speed of a train along a track connecting two points on the
earth. The general case of terrestrial navigation involves the determination
of a vehicle's position and velocity relative to the earth. The grid coordinates
usually used for this application consist of the spherical coordinates, latitude,
longitude, and altitude.
An inertial navigation system utilizes the inertial properties of sensors
mounted aboard the vehicle t o execute the navigation function. The system
accomplishes this task through appropriate processing of the data obtained
from force and inertial angular velocity measurements. Thus an appropriately
initialized inertial navigation system is capable of continuous determination
of vehicle position and velocity without the use of external radiation or
optical information. While inertial navigation systems have obvious advantages for military applications, the trend toward automatic flight control
systems in civil aircraft applications will require an extensive reliance on
inertial systems.
All inertial navigation systems must perform the following functions :
Instrument a reference frame
Measure specific force
Have knowledge of the gravitational field
Time integrate the specific force data to obtain velocity and position
information

INTRODUCTION

The first function is accomplished by the use of gyroscopic instruments.

Gyroscopes are bodies that display strong angular momentum characteristics.
Since the inertially referred time rate of change of angular momentum is
proportional t o the applied torque, gyroscopic devices can maintain a known
spatial direction through appropriate torque control. Thus three such devices
are capable of instrumenting a three-dimensional cartesian coordinate frame.
Each is typically used as the sensing element in a closed-loop servo system
which operates to maintain the gyro's spatial direction. Thus if three untorqued gyros are mounted on a gimbaled platform whose gimbals are driven
to maintain the gyros' orientation, an inertially nonrotating cartesian coordinate frame will be instrumented by the platform.* The inertial platform
can, of course, be commanded to instrument rotating frames of reference,
platforms instrumenting the local geographic coordinates, north, east, and
down, being in common use. An alternate method of utilizing the gyro
information structurally mounts the gyroscopic instruments on the vehicle.
I n this configuration each gyro is used as the sensing element in a closedloop servo system which results in a torque being applied to the gyro which
is proportional to the gyro's inertially referenced angular rotation. While
the gyro no longer remains nonrotating relative to inertial space, the applied
torquing signal which is proportional to the inertially referred angular velocity can be used to analytically calculate the relative angular orientation
between the gyro's initial and present spatial direction. If three structurally
mounted gyros are used, the relative orientation between the initial and
present vehicle coordinate frame can be determined. Systems which analytically instrument a reference frame are popularly referred to as strapdown
systems.
The second function, the specific force measurement, is accomplished with
devices commonly called accelerometers. Although there are many ways of
making force measurements, most of the devices in common use are sophisticated variations of the simple pendulum. The motion of the pendulous element is related to the motion of the platform or structural element upon which
the accelerometer is mounted via Newton's second law of motion. According
to Einstein's principle of equivalence, however, it is impossible to distinguish
between the effects of inertial acceleration and gravitational fields, the two
phenomena being manifestations of the same physical process. Thus in order
for the navigation system to correlate the motion of the pendulous element
with the inertial acceleration, detailed knowledge of the local gravitational
field is necessary, the third function of the list.

It is noted in passing, that two-degree-of-freedominstruments can be used; therefore

two gyros are required to instrument a coordinate frame. The development in this book
is confined to inertial systems that use single-degree-of-freedominstruments, although
the material is easily adapted to apply to the two-degree-of-freedomcase.

TYPES O F INERTIAL NAVIGATION SYSTEMS

Having obtained a measure of the inertial acceleration, it follows that one

time integration will yield velocity information, and that a second time integration will yield position information. This data processing function, which
constitutes the fourth function necessary for inertial navigation, is accomplished by an onboard digital computer in modern systems.

1.2

TYPES OF INERTIAL N A V I G A T I O N S Y S T E M S

Inertial navigation systems can be classified into three basic categories:

rreometric, semianalytic, and analytic. Because these systems utilize similar
w
inertial sensors t o mechanize the kinematic equations of motion, i t is not
surprising t h a t the similarities among the various types of systems are much
more apparent than the differences. While inertial navigation systems exhibit
the same modes of oscillation when excited by the system's error sources, i t
is found that the nature of the error source behavior gives rise t o significant
differences in performance among the various mechanizations.
The geometric system was the first practical inertial navigation system
because the navigational information was available in analog fashion directly
from the gimbal angles. To provide this information it is necessary t o physically instrument two reference frames : an inertially nonrotating frame and a
local navigational frame. I n order to provide the navigational quantities of
interest, namely latitude, longitude, and vehicle roll, pitch, and yaw, a t
least five gimbals are required. On the other hand, only minimal computation
capacity is required. Because of the mechanical complexity and size of this
type of system and t h e recent development of appropriately sized, highspeed, digital computing equipment, the geometric system has in practice
given way t o the semianalytic types of systems. For this reason the geometric
system is not discussed further in this book. For more information on the
geometric system mechanization, the reader is referred to the book by Draper,
Wrigley, and Hovorka.18* This reference also contains an interesting historical survey and a comprehensive discussion of inertial guidance concepts.
Semianalytic systems physically instrument only one reference frame,
either an inertially nonrotating frame or a local navigationa1,frame. At least
three gimbals are necessary t o effect this coordinate frame instrumentation,
the computation of latitude and longitude being accomplished in a computer.
Virtually all the inertial navigation systems in use today are of the semianalytic type. since the inertial platform can be maintained in a n arbitrary
orientation, the choice of instrumented coordinate frames is rather broad.
If the gyros are untorqued, then an inertially nonrotating frame will be
instrumented. The semianalytic system that physically instruments an

* Superscript numbers refer to the references in the back of the book.

INTRODUCTION

inertially nonrotating coordinate system is commonly referred to as a spacestabilized inertial navigation system (SSINS). Chapter 6 is devoted to a
detailed discussion and error analysis of the SSINS.
The other class of instrumented coordinate frames which are in general use
in current navigation systems comprises the local level coordinate frames.
I n these frame mechanizations the sensitive axes of two accelerometers and
two gyros are constrained to lie in the local horizontal plane. Because the
accelerometers' sensitive axes lie in the local horizontal plane, explicit calculation of the gravitational field vector is avoided. Semianalytic systems that
physically instrument local-level coordinate frames are called local-level
inertial navigation systems (LLINS). These systems are discussed in Chapter 7.
Analytic inertial navigation systems do not physically instrument a
reference frame but rather use the gyro outputs to calculate analytically the
relative orientation between the system's initial and present state. This type
of system mechanization is commonly called a strapdown inertial navigation
system (SDINS). Strapdown system design is currently a subject of intense
technical interest since computer limitations have until quite recently limited
their application. The lack of gimbal structure in strapdown systems affords
a reduction in system size, weight, power consumption, and, potentially,
cost. Because the strapdown system imposes a very large dynamic range on
the inertial instruments, i t does not yet challenge the two types of semianalytic systems from an accuracy standpoint. Recent advances in component development may soon overcome this disadvantage. Strapdown
systems are discussed in Chapter 8.

1.3

A CRITIQUE

O F PREVIOUS ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

The principles of inertial navigation, which have been well understood for
many years, possess a simplicity and elegance that border on the sublime.
Consider that a properly initialized inertial navigation system can completely
specify the position, velocity, and attitude of an arbitrarily moving vehicle
via a simple measurement of force, providing that the force measurement is
made in a known reference frame and gravitational field. It is somewhat
enigmatic, therefore, that it is necessary to use rather sophisticated mathematical techniques and notation in order to describe the dynamic behavior
of these systems. On the other hand, it should be recognized that the complete specification of the dynamic behavior of an inertial navigator requires
a ninth-order differential equation since there are three degrees of rotational
freedom and the three translational equations are second order. While this
book advances no panacea in regard to the problems of notation and algebraic

A CRITIQUE O F PREVIOUS ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

complexity, i t does formulate the final error equations in such a convenient

form, and for such a broad class of inertial navigation systems, i t is h0pe.d
that these algebraic complexities need never be faced again.
Although a large body of technical literature exists on the theory of
inertial navigation systems, certain questions of a rather fundamental
nature have not been satisfactorily answered. I n particular it has been
established t h a t although all of the various system mechanizations utilize
the same physical principles t o extract navigational information (i.e.,
Newtonian mechanics), the error propagation has been found to differ widely
from system t o system. This conclusion is based both on the author's res e a r c h , ' ~and
~ on the research of other workers in the field.12,23
For example,
in comparing the performance of space stabilized and local level inertial
navigation systems in response to constant gyro drift,12 i t is observed that
the latitude and azimuth errors grow linearly with time for the space-stabilized
mechanization, while, for the local level mechanization, they are bounded.
For both systems, the longitude error grows linearly with time.
I n Reference 12 t h e explanation is given that for the space stabilized
mechanization t h a t computes in geographic coordinates, the constant gyro
drift is modulated by the earth rate frequency in the transformation from
inertial t o geographic coordinates. It is then hypothesized that since the
earth's inertially referenced angular rate is a system natural frequency, the
unbounded behavior results from the system being forced a t one of its
natural frequencies. On the other hand, if the navigational computations are
performed in a n earth-centered inertial frame,' the system natural frequency
consists of only the Schuler frequency, and yet the same unbounded behavior is observed. The interpretation in this case is the physically plausible
argument t h a t constant gyro drift causes the instrumented platform frame
to rotate relative to the reference inertial frame with an angular velocity
equal t o the gyro drift rate vector. It is then easy to see how an unbounded
platform rotation would result in unbounded navigation errors. This example
raises the question as t o why systems composed of identical complements of
inertial instruments measuring the same physical quantities display firstorder performance differences.
A second question is raised when i t is considered that the complete solution of the three-dimensional terrestrial navigation problem requires a n
explicit computation of the earth's gravitational field vector. The wellknown system stability problem,58a manifestation of Einstein's principle of
equivalence, associated with this computation has for the most part been
avoided by the design of terrestrial inertial systems that navigate in only two
dimensions ; latitude and longitude. This type of system, the two-accelerometer local-level system and its variants, has been the most widely used of
the terrestrial navigator configurations. System configurations t h a t do not

INTRODUCTION

constrain the accelerometers to lie in the local horizontal plane or that

navigate in three dimensions must be designed to deal with the ramifications associated with the gravitational field calculation. Aside from the
stability problem i t has been observed that systems that compute latitude,
longitude, and altitude based on a computed geocentric position vector can
have an additional dependence on external altitude information.' I n particular it was noted that for a space-stabilized mechanization, the spectral
content of the latitude error expression depends on the computational relationship used t o extract the latitude information.
While much excellent research has been performed in the area of error
analysis of inertial systems, none of the analyses can successfully answer the
questions posed above. A shortcoming in the approaches taken in References
8, 12, and 23 is that while many system configurations are analyzed, the
system differential equations are not written in terms of the same dependent
variables. Physical insights to be gained by direct comparison of the behavior of the various system configurations are therefore somewhat lacking,
and i t is difficult to make qualitative judgments as to the suitability of a
particular system to a given application.
I n References 4, 47, 48, 55, and 58 general methods of error analysis are
developed in which the position error differential equations are uncoupled
from the platform error angle differential equations through the expedient
of defining a "small" error angle vector which relates a set of "computer"
axes with the platform axes. Aside from the fact that the computer axes
cannot be physically defined, each of the cited analyses suffers from several
of the following shortcomings :
1. The unforced error equations depend on the system configuration.
2. The analysis is valid only for the case where the platform and computation frames are identical.
3. Vertical information is either ignored or the analysis is only valid for
the unstable mechanization.
References 16 and 20 do not define a set of "computer" axes, but the developed theories are only valid for purely inertial systems, that is, the unstable mechanization. I n addition the approach taken in Reference 16
requires that all coordinate transformations take place a t the velocity level,
a constraint t h a t limits the applicability of the theory. Finally, a recent
paper"9 analyzes a number of guidance and navigation systems, but the
theory is developed for the inertial computation frame only and the unforced
error equations depend on the system configuration.
One of the objectives of this book is to clarify the performance differences
cited above by developing a unified error analysis which is applicable to as
broad a class of system configurations as possible. I n Chapter 8, a generally

A UNIFIED APPROACH TO THE ERROR ANALYSIS

applicable error analysis is

between the various system
enhancing the understanding
the developed unified theory
forming future error analyses

1.4

developed and the performance differences

configurations are reconciled. I n addition t o
of the dynamic behavior of inertial systems,
provides a greatly simplified method for perand trade-off studies.

U N I F I E D A P P R O A C H TO T H E E R R O R A N A L Y S I S

As has been mentioned, one of the more formidable problems involved in

describing the performance of inertial system is t h a t of notation. The fact
that Chapter 2 is entirely devoted t o notational and matrix algebra and
calculus techniques bears witness t o the importance of a well-formulated
set of notation. A matrix system of notation has been chosen because it
leads t o very concise descriptions of the three-dimensional navigation problem. I n addition it is recognized that in current systems, a digital computer
is utilized to perform the navigational calculations. Since the computer is
programmed t o perform a series of scalar operations based on scalar measurements, matrix notation seems most appropriate for the error analysis task.
The notion of a "computer" reference frame is not introduced into the error
analysis although, as previously mentioned, many analysts favor this approach. The rejection of this notion is philosophically motivated since i t is
the author's opinion t h a t the approach taken t o describe a physical process
should be based on physical reality. I n the case of inertial systems this
reality is that the navigation computer executes a program based on equations that are written in a reference coordinate frame and the notation is
designed to represent this fact.
Certain assumptions will be made pertaining to the type of system considered such t h a t the scope of the analysis will be broad enough t o encompass all of the important configurations :
1 . A minimum of three accelerometers are available to provide a measurement of the specific force vector.
2. The accelerometers are mounted on.a platform whose angular orientation either is controlled in some fashion or is determined through direct
measurement. Note t h a t strapdown systems are included under this assumption.
3. The system's earth referenced velocity and its three-dimensional position-latitude,
longitude, and altitude-is
calculated based on the gravitational field compensated specific force measurements.
4. An external source of altitude information, such as that from an altimeter, is available for use in the gravitational field calculation.

INTRODUCTION

5. A computer is available t o process the navigational information. The

computation errors are taken t o be negligible when compared t o the other
system errors.
6. Both the mechanized coordinate frame (the frame tracked by the platform) and the computation frame (the frame in which the force measurements
are resolved t o extract the position and velocity) are arbitrary.
Assumption 1 would appear t o rule the two-accelerometer local-level system
out of consideration, but as shown in Chapter 7, the general error equation
is easily modified (by a simple deletion of a row and column of the characteristic matrix plus a slight modification of the forcing function) t o apply
to this configuration. Assumption 5 appears t o be rather weak when applied
t o strapdown systems since computer word length and cycle-time considerations are sometimes such t h a t the computation errors are of the same order
of magnitude as the instrument err0rs.~7The major computation error in
strapdown systems is associated with the high-speed calculation of the
direction cosine matrix relating body frame coordinates t o computational
coordinates. If suitable orthogonalization techniques are employed, such
errors can be treated in the same manner as the gyro uncertainties and require no modification of the unforced system error equation.
The error analysis will consider all of the known major sources of error:
Gyro drift rate errors
Gyro torquing errors
Accelerometer errors
Accelerometer alignment errors
Gyro alignment errors
System alignment errors
Altimeter error
Geodetic errors
The gyro errors are defined and discussed in Chapter 5 while the accelerometer errors are specified in Section 6.3.1.2. Accelerometer and gyro alignment errors, which account for the inability t o specify the relationship
between the nonorthogonal instrument axes and the platform frame, are
discussed in Section 3.8. The system alignment errors account for the inability t o specify the relationship between the platform and mechanized
reference frames and are discussed in Chapter 9. The altimeter error is
modeled as a simple additive error via Eq. 6-30, while the geodetic errors
(gravity anomalies and deflections of the vertical) are defined by Eq. 4-39.
The error equations are so formulated t h a t the error state vector for all

A U N I F I E D A P P R O A C H TO T H E ERROR ANALYSIS

mechanizations is composed of the system's attitude and position errors:

x

where (eihT,FE,

~ =
)

eD, 6 L , 61, ahi)

(eN, e,,

north, east, and down components of t h e system's

attitude error

d L = latitude error
61 = terrestrial longitude error
ah, = inertially computed alt,itude error
The attitude error will be defined as the orthogonal transformation error between platform and geographic axes, coordinatized in geographic axes. Note
t.hat since this definition corresponds to the transformation error involved in
resolving a physical measurement made on the platform into geographic axes,
the attitude errors do not, in general, correspond t o the platform error angles.

T h e derivation of the system diflerential equations in terms of attitude errors

rather than platform errors i s one of the keys to the successful development of a
unijted theory. Note t h a t while all of the elements in the error state vector
are of physical significance to t h e navigation problem, it is necessary t o
calculate the velocity errors separately. The velocity error components are
shown t o be very simply related t o the latitude, longitude, and altitude rate
errors.
I n order t o answer the questions raised concerning the use of a n external
source of altitude information, i t is desirable t o formulate t h e required
relationships in as general a manner as possible. The external altitude information can enter the system in two locations-in
the computation of
the gravity field magnitude and in the latitude, longitude, and altitude
calculations. I n both of these situations i t is necessary t o use a n estimate of
the magnitude of the geocentric position vector (the vector from the center
of the earth t o the system's location). Because both the navigational and
gravitational calculations are nonlinear, these calculations are considered
separately by defining two separate estimators with different weighting
factors, oc and K,which determine the "mix" of inertial and external altitude
data. I n this way, the stability problems associated with the value of t h e
gravitational field weighting factor, K , can be divorced from t h e effects
introduced by the navigational weighting factor, oc.
For the gravitational field calculation, the inertial and external sources of
altitude information are combined using a nonlinear estimator of t h e following form :
(?In =

n =2,3;

all

10

INTRODUCTION

where f

?a =

geocentric position vector magnitude estimate

geocentric position vector magnitude estimate based on external
altimeter information

Pi = geocentric position vector magnitude estimate based on inertial

information
K

gravitational weighting factor

For the purposes of the latitude, longitude, and altitude calculations, the
estimator was of the same form as above:
? = (?a)a(fi)l-a,

all a

where cc = navigational weighting factor.

Other forms of estimators are investigated, in particular a linear estimator
(see Section 8.2.4), but it is found that the nonlinear estimators yield slightly
simpler final error equations.
After Chapter 2, which develops the necessary notation and mathematical
tools which are useful in the analysis of inertial navigation systems, t h e
mathematical methods are brought t o bear on the space-stabilized and locallevel mechanizations (Chapters 6 and 7 ) . This approach was taken as opposed
t o an initial development of a general theory in order t o explore t h e analytic
approaches t o the problem while working with systems whose dynamical
behavior is well established. I n addition, these two configurations represent
quite disparate approaches t o the terrestrial navigation problem, the spacestabilized system navigating based on a computed geocentric position vector
and the local-level system navigating by directly computing the system's
earth referenced spherical coordinates. The reader familiar with the material
and comfortable with the notation can, of course, omit Chapters 6 and 7
and go directly to Chapter 8.

CHAPTER

2
M a t h e m a t i c a l Notation and
Techniques
"A good notation has a subtlety and suggestiveness'which a t
times make i t seem almost like a live teacher."
BERTRAND RUSSELL

The notation used in this book has evolved from the vector notation of
Wrigley and Hollister,'l from the work of Broxmeyer12 a t the Draper Laboratory a t M.I.T., and from the lively discussions the author has had with his
colleagues and with students enrolled in the study of inertial systems a t
M.I.T.
Since the purpose of this book is to describe the operation of systems as
opposed t o components, a matrix method of notation seems most suitable.
Matrix notation lends itself to very concise formulations which, for the threedimensional navigational problem, are almost essential if the necessary
algebraic manipulations are to be carried out. I n addition i t is recognized
that in current inertial system design, a digital computer which deals with
scalars and not vectors is relied on t o perform the necessary calculations. For
example the computed inertially referenced geocentric position vector exists
as three numbers in the computer: P,, FY, and P,, which represent the estimated components of the actual vector in the inertial coordinate frame.
These three components can be grouped into a vector array, denoted as fi,
such t h a t matrix manipulations can be performed. The grouping of these
three scalars into vector, or more precisely, column matrix form is merely
a matter of mathematical convenience and carries with i t no philosophical
import.
Although the computer is programmed to carry out arithmetic operations
based on an assumed reference coordinate frame, the computer knows
nothing of reference frames and merely carries out a series of scalar operations. A "computed" reference frame55is sometimes introduced which "is a n

12

MATHEMATICAL NOTATION A N D TECHNIQUES

arbitrary system which can never be physically defined," representing

"that coordinate system which would result because of computed position
errors." For the example above of the geocentric position vector, P i , the
notation used herein is designed to indicate only the physical reality of the
situation; t h a t is, the "hat," (A), is used to denote a computed quantity.
Thus f i represents the computed estimate of the three scalar quantities
which would ideally correspond to the components of the physical geocentric
position vector in the inertial frame. No attempt will be made to associate
"computed" reference frames with words stored in computer registers.
The subject of reference frames is discussed in Chapter 3. The necessary
coordinate frames are defined therein.

2.1

NOTATIONAL CONVENTIONS

Many comprehensive texts exist on the theory of matrix algebra,5~34

and matrix techniques have found widespread use in the field of control
systems engineering.56Thus for the purpose of this book, i t does not seem
appropriate to do more than state certain of the principal results which
directly pertain to the analysis of inertial navigation systems, and to describe
the notational conventions used.
2.1.1

Vectors

Physical vectors will be denoted by boldface type.

Example
r = geocentric position vector

2.1.2

Column Matrices

If the physical vector is coordinatized in a particular reference frame as

indicated by a superscript, i t becomes a column matrix (CM).
Example

Note that when the components are explicitly stated in an array, as above,
the frame denoting superscript is omitted since the frame reference is denoted
by the subscript of the components. I n the example x, y, z refers to the
components in an inertial frame (see Section 3.1). The heavy braces { )

NOTATIONAL CONVENTIONS

13

and rour form are introduced t o save space in the written text and should be
distinguished' from a row matrix.
Besides vectors, any appropriate group of quantities can be arranged in
column matrix form such that matrix algebra techniques can be used.
Example

6n

In,, n2, . . . , n,}

Note t h a t a coordinate frame need not be involved in the specification of a

column matrix. The terms "vector" and "column matrix" are interchangeable both in this book and in the pertinent technical literature. The superscript distinguishes between the two quantities.
2.1.3

Coordinate Transformations

Column matrices t h a t are coordinatized in a particular reference frame can

be transformed t o another frame by the direction cosine matrix (DCM).
Example
i b
ri = Chr

where C i = DCM transforming a column matrix from body coordinates,

b, to inertial coordinates, i. The sub/superscript convention is easily remembered if it is observed that the subscript on t,he DCM "cancels" with the
superscript on the column matrix being transformed.
Transformation from one frame to another can be accomplished through
an intermediate frame or frames.

Note the cancellation feature of this notation takes into account t h a t the
order of transformation is important, t h a t is, c;c,"rb # CrC;rb.
As indicated by its name, the DCM is an array of direction cosines :

where, for this particular case, cj, = direction cosine between the j t h axis in
the i frame and the kth axis in the b frame. If each of the two frames is
orthogonal then the inverse of the DCM is equal t o its transpose where the
transpose of a matrix quantity is indicated by a superscript T.
Example

c; = (CqlT

14

MATHEMATICAL NOTATION AND TECHNIQUES

The matrix transpose operation is, of course, a simple interchange of rows

with columns.
The transformation properties between nonorthogonal frames are discussed
in Chapter 3.
2.1.4

Similarity Transformations

Consider the set of equations:

where A = matrix of dimension 3 x 3 (3 rows and 3 columns)

6rb = column matrix of dimension 3 x 1

Fb = column matrix of dimension 3 x 1

I n order t o express this equation set in another frame, the i frame for example, premultiply both sides of the equation by C; and note that 6rb =
:
C 6ri. Thus
C ~ A C ;dri = Fi
The matrix A is then said to transform under a "similarity" transformation
accomplished by premultiplying by the DCM and postmultiplying by the
inverse (transpose) DCM.
Note t h a t if A contains differential operators, that is, if the original equation is a differential equation, then the indicated transformation is not valid.
See Section 2.3.
2.1.5

Angular Velocity

The relative angular velocity of two frames is usually denoted as a column

matrix with the subscript indicating the rotational direction.
Example

wpb= ( y R 0

my)

where w:b = angular velocity of the b frame relative t o the i frame coordinatized in the b frame.
Because they are vector quantities, angular velocities follow the usual rules
of vector addition. If rotations are occurring between a number of coordinate
frames, the subscript notation facilitates the statement of the mathematical
relationship.

Example

NOTATIONAL CONVENTIONS

15

~ t is. seen that in this case the notation allows the inner subscript indices t o
"cancel." Changing the direction of the rotation vector merely reverses the
order of the subscript indices.

Example
-aib
= Wbi

I n the matrix algebra of rotations it is frequently necessary t o express the

angular velocity in its skew-symmetric form. (See Section 2.2.) The skewsymmetric form of w is denoted by its upper case form as S2.
Example

The sub-superscript conventions for skew-symmetric matrices are the same

as those for the column matrices. Note that skew-symmetric matrices transform under similarity transformations.=
Example

a:,= c;npbcp
2.1.6

Computed and Measured Quantities

As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter it is necessary to distinguish between physical vectors and arrays of scalar quantities in the
computer. It is also convenient to denote quantities measured by the
instruments in a special manner.
A quantity t h a t is measured by the instruments is denoted by a "tilde,"
(- 1Example

&pb

(G,, o?,,

o?,)

where &ib, is the array of three rate gyro outputs in a strapdown inertial
navigation system.
A quantity which is computed on the basis of the instrument measurements
and on other geometric considerations is denoted by a "hat," ( A ) .
Example
A

w z =
A

(jcos L, -L -A

sin

(see Eq. 3-8) where oi",is the array of the three geographic components of the
angular velocity of the n frame with respect to the i frame.

16

2.2

MATHEMATICAL NOTATION AND TECHNIQUES

T H E T I M E DERIVATIVE OF T H E DIRECTION
C O S I N E MATRIX

Consider the relative rotational motion of two right-handed cartesian

coordinate frames. To fix ideas let the two frames be the i and b frames,
although the derivation that follows is valid for aribitrary coordinate frames.
At time t, t h e i and b frames are related through t h e direction cosine matrix,
Ci(t). During the next instant of time, At, frame b rotates t o a new orientation
At is given by ~ i ( t At).
such t h a t the direction cosine matrix a t t
By definition, the time rate of change of C x t ) is given by:

C: = lim

+ At) - C:(t)

AC:
c:(t
- = lim

From geometrical considerations, the C$(t

product of two matrices:

+ At) matrix can be written as a

Aeb is the "smallM-angle direction cosine matrix relating the

where I
b frame a t time t to the rotated b frame a t time t
At. It is seen from
Figure 2.1 t h a t A e b is given by :

heb=

hey
[-AOp

-AOzO

--he,

AO.;

Ae,

sin

he,,

Ic

R,P , Y

where heR, AOp, AOy are the "small" rotation angles through which the b
frame has rotated in time At about its positive roll, pitch, and yaw axes.
Note t h a t because t h e rotation angles are small in the limit as At --t 0, smallangle approximations are valid and the order of rotation is immaterial.
Substituting Eq. 2-2 into Eq. 2-1 shows that

..

c; = C:(t)

neb

lim at+o

At

But in the limit as At -+0, Aeb/At is the skew-symmetric form of the vector
angular velocity of the b frame relative to the i frame during time At. Note
that because of the limiting process the angular velocity can also be referenced t o the i frame. Thus

Aeb

lim - =
A t - 0 At

COLUMN MATRIX TlME DERIVATIVES

17

+ At)

R(t 4- At 1
F i g u r e 2.1

Small-angle rotation geometry.

and it is seen t h a t the time rate of change of a direction cosine matrix is

related to the angular velocity matrix via

cbi- c@p,
where from Section 2.1.5

It is to be emphasized t h a t Eq. 2-4 is a perfectly general relationship and in

no way depends on the particular coordinate frames involved.

2.3

COLUMN M A T R I X T l M E D E R I V A T I V E S

Consider the transformation of the components of the geocentric position

vector from geographic (navigational) t o inertial coordinates :

Finding the time derivative of the expression above is a simple extension of

the concept of differentiating a scalar quantity. Thus

18

MATHEMATICAL NOTATION A N D TECHNIQUES

where the product rule of differential calculus has been invoked. But from
thus Eq. 2-5 becomes
Eq. 2-4, c', = CLP:,;

Equation 2-6 is the matrix formulation of the familiar Coriolis law of classical
mechanics.
A second time differentiation of Eq. 2-6 yields an expression for the inertially referenced acceleration as a function of geographically referenced
quantities :
i;"
CCl,(pn
2QIn,in
hpnrn P Z P L P )
(2-7)

Note the presence of the familiar Coriolis, tangential, and centripetal acceleration terms in Eq. 2-7.
Observe that vectors must be written in column matrix form before
derivatives can be taken since in the notation of this book the symbol i.
has no meaning. This requirement would be a serious constraint if general
vector relationships, independent of coordinate frames, were to be developed.
For the purposes of inertial system design and analysis, however, the coordinatization requirement is not in the least constraining since it is impossible
to make physical measurements without referring these measurements to a
coordinate frame.

2.4

ANALOGIES T O VECTOR ANALYSIS

All of the familiar relationships of vector algebra can, of course, be written

in matrix notation. A few of the more useful relationships are listed herein.
Let a, b, and d be arbitrary three-dimensional vectors and A, B, and D the
skew-symmetric matrices corresponding to these vectors.

2.4.1

Dot Product

The dot or inner product of two column matrices is constructed by transposing one of the column matrices and performing an ordinary matrix
multiplication. The order of multiplication is unimportant. Thus

a-b=aTb=bTa
Example

ANALOGIES TO VECTOR ANALYSIS

19

Note that the product (Pi) (Pi)T, the dyadic product, also has definition in
with the rules of matrix multiplication.
I n general, the individual matrices in any matrix product must be conformable, that is, the number of columns in the first matrix must equal the
,umber of rows in the second.
2.4.2

Cross Product

The cross product is constructed by writing the first column matrix in

skew-symmetric form and performing a n ordinary matrix multiplication.
Thus
Example

SZ&rb =

Note that interchanging the order of multiplication reverses t h e sign of the

result. The skew-symmetric form of the cross product can be written in
terms of only skew-symmetric matrices, since

where (Ab)* = skew-symmetric form of Ab.

Another relationship that can be useful in matrix analysis is

where I
2.4.3

identity matrix.

Vector Triple Product

The centripetal acceleration term in Eq. 2-7 corresponds t o the vector

triple product; a x (b x d). I n terms of skew-symmetric matrices,
a x (b x d) = ABd

(2-12)

the standard triple product vector identity is written:

ABd = aTdb - bTad

(2-13)

Note that parentheses are not needed on the left-hand side of the equation
since A(Bd) = (AB)d. As a consequence the second triple product of vector

20

MATHEMATICAL NOTATION AND TECHNIQUES

analysis is written as

(a x b) x c = (Ab)*d

(2-14)

(Ab)*d = aTdb - bTda

(2-15)

which can be expressed as

2.5

PERTURBATION TECHNIQUES

The error analysis in this book utilizes perturbation methods t o linearize

the nonlinear system differential equations. Perturbation analysis of this
type, taking velocity as a n example, involves the substitution
A

v=v+6v
A

where v

computed velocity

true velocity

dv

computed velocity error

When substitutions of the type above are made for dependent variables
in the nonlinear differential equations and products of error quantities are
neglected, linear differential equations involving only the error quantities
emerge. These error equations, which may be timevarying, are simpler in
form than the original differential equations and are analytically more tractable. It is within the framework of this philosophy that products of the error
variables and other "small" quantities such as the earth's ellipticity and
higher order terms in the gravitational field equations will be negligibly
small and consequently will not appear in the final error equations. Computer
solution of the nonlinear system equations and direct analytical solution of
the navigator equations under certain restrictive conditions (see Appendix
A) have confirmed the validity of the linearized approach. It is t h e author's
experience t h a t perturbation analysis is to be preferred over direct computer
studies because of the insight gained into the system behavior by examining
only the linear error response. However, i t must be kept in mind t h a t the
linearized solutions are only valid for "small" perturbations around the true
solutions such that extrapolations are not made and conclusions not drawn
outside of the region of validity.

2.5.1

Transformation Matrix Perturbations

In order t o mechanize certain inertial navigation system configurations,

it is frequently necessary t o compute coordinate transformation matrices.
The question then arises as to certain properties of these computed transformations, in particular, the orthogonality property. Three cases are of
interest in t h e analysis of inertial navigation systems.

21

PERTURBATION TECHNIQUES

2.5.1 .I Transformations with lmplicit Orthogonality Constraint.

In this case a transformation is computed between two orthogonal reference
frames whose relative orientation can be specified as a function of certain
An example would be the C: transformation, the transpose of Eq.
3-10. If the computed latitude, , and computed celestial longitude, 2,
are specified, then t h e computed transformation is written as
Since
5 = L 6L and 1 = 1 61, the transformation matrix can be expanded
in series and arranged in the following form :

e,".

where the matrix 6CF is a function of the elements of :

C and the error perturbations 6L and 62. It is then algebraically convenient t o post factor
C,: yielding

To examine the form of the matrix product GC~C;, it is observed t h a t since

6; is orthogonal, then from Section 2.1.3,

which shows t h a t t h e matrix product, GCPC;, is skew symmetric, and

SC:C",
can be interpreted as a n orthogfurthermore t h a t the matrix (I
onal "small-angle" transformation between two almost coincident coordinate
frames. Thus G C ~ C ; can be written in geographic components as follows:

where, for this particular transformation,

v,

62 cos L ,

v,

-dL,

and

vD

==

-62 sin L

The parameters VN, vE, vD are interpreted as the error angles about the
positive north, east, and down directions, respectively, which account for the
transformation error in 63.

2.5.1.2 Transformations with Explicit Orthogonality Constraint'.

In this case a transformation is computed between two orthogonal reference
frames based on the relative angular velocity between the two frames. Unless a suitable orthogonality constraint is explicitly specified, there is no

22

MATHEMATICAL NOTATION A N D TECHNIQUES

guarantee that the computed transformation will be orthogonal. Take as an

example the computed transformation between body and inertial coordinates
which is calculated by solving the matrix differential equation 2-4 :

a:b

If the equation above is solved based on estimates of the elements of

along with suitable initial conditions, then the computed transformation will
be of the form:

e: = c; + sc;

(2-19)

e:

If
is not explicitly orthogonalized, then it follows that 6 ~ will
: in general be
nonorthogonal and of the general form :

I n order to maintain the very desirable manipulative and interpretive propcan be orthogonalized using the formula
erties of orthogonal matrices,

et

(e;),

is the optimal orthogonal approximation to ei in the sense that the

where
trace of [(e;), - e:lT [(e:), - c:] is minimized. If Eq. 2-19 is substituted
into Eq. 2-20 and the square-root term is expanded in series, the result is

The bracketed term on the right-hand side of Eq. 2-21 is seen t o be skew
symmetric since i t involves the difference between a matrix and its transpose.
Unfortunately, there are no general rules which can be applied in determining the square root of a matrix. Equation 2-21 is a possible algorithm if i t is
used frequently enough such that 6 ~ satisfies
;
a "small" quantity criterion.
Equation 2-21 can be written:

where

23

PERTURBATION TECHNIQUES

and the elements of Bi are given by:

~t is seen from t h e expressions above for pX,P,, and Bz that since, in general,
the elements of C; (the cij; i = 1, 2, 3 ; j = 1, 2, 3) are time varying it is
inconvenient to associate the /3's with the elements of 6~:. Fortunately, for
the purposes of this development it is sufficient t o work directly with the
error angles, P,, P,, and P,.
2.5.1.3
Nonorthogonal Transformations. I n this case a transformation is computed between a nonorthogonal and orthogonal set of axes
such as the accelerometer-platform transformation of Eq. 3-34 :

The six small misalignment angles are perturbed in the - ~ ~ smanner

~al
by
letting Oij = Oij
doij, i = z, y, z, j = 2, y, z, i # j.~ h u s
n

I-

=I -

(AC:)~

+ 8(ACa)T
P

(2-24)

where
0

s(Ac:)T

-30x2

w,

&,

As expected six independent error angles are necessary t o specify the transformation error for a nonorthogonal transformation. Since in Eq. 2-24 the
~ desired transformation matrix, it is again rnathequantity I - ( A C ~ is) the
matically convenient to substitute Eq. 2-24 into Eq. 2-23 and postfactor the
desired transformation matrix, yielding

In obtaining Eq. 2-25 it was observed that

where the first-order approximation was invoked.

24

2.6

MATHEMATICAL NOTATION AND TECHNIQUES

SYMBOLOGY

This section summarizes the symbology used in this document and is

divided into four subsections: coordinate frames, sub/superscripts, error
angle designations, and symbols. Where practical, reference is made to the
section or equation where the symbol in question is first defined. Note that
equation designations contain a hyphen while section designations contain
periods. Thus the designation (3-4)refers to Eq. 3-4 and the designation 3.4
refers to Section 3.4.

2.6.1

Coordinate Frames

The following is a list of the coordinate frames defined and used in this
document.

Frame

Sub/Superscript

Components

Location

Inertial (absolute)
Inertial (operational)
Geographic
Earth
Geocentric
Body
Tangent
Platform
Accelerometer
Gyro
Gyro housing (case)
Gyro float
Mechanized
Computation

Note. I n the writing of the final gyro error equations in Chapter 8, the
error components are designated with x, y, z subscripts.

I n the following, the symbol "( )" is used to designate a general quantity
to which the symbology in question is applied.

25

SYMBOLOGY
-

Description

Symbol

Location

Estimated or computed quantity

Transpose of vector or matrix array
Commanded quantity
Measured quantity
Determinant of quantity
Orthogonal version of quantity
Skew-symmetric form of vector quantity
Perturbation of quantity
Time derivative of quantity
Summing index
Summing index over all bodies in universe except the
earth

2.6.3

Error Angle Designations

It is frequently necessary to describe the relationship between the coordinate frames which are almost coincident such as described in Section
2.5.1.1. This relationship can be equivalently described either as a skewsymmetric matrix or as a "small-" angle rotation vector. The general notational procedure will be t o designate the skew-symmetric matrix by a n
uppercase symbol and the rotation vector by a lowercase symbol. The rotations are defined to occur about the positive axes of the coordinate frame
in which the rotation takes place.

Transformation

Rotation Vector

Location

26
2.6.4

MATHEMATICAL NOTATION A N D TECHNIQUES

Symbol L i s t
Symbol

Description
Accelerometer scale factor error matrix
Scale factor error of accelerometer k
Gyro float output axis rotation
Magnetic field strength
Accelerometer bias error
Six element matrix relating nonorthogonal
instrument axes to platform axes
Gyro viscous damping coefficient
Coordinate transformation relating the
subscript axes, j, t o the superscript
axes, k
Nonorthogonal transformation
Mass density of earth
Deviation of the normal
Deviation of the normal a t the point on the
earth directly under the system's location
Earth's ellipticity
Specific force exerted on instrument set
Accelerometer measurement uncertainty
Gravitational acceleration due to the earth
Gravitational acceleration due t o the kth
body in universe
Gravitational acceleration a t earth's center
of mass due t o the kth body in universe
Radial component of G
Colatitude component of G
Gravitational acceleration associated with
reference ellipsoid
Deviation of gravitational field from t h a t
associated with reference ellipsoid
Gravity acceleration due t o earth
Gravity magnitude associated with reference
ellipsoid
Gravity anomoly
Gyro float angular momentum
Altitude above the reference ellipsoid
Altitude based on inertial computations
Error in h

Location

SYMBOLOGY

Symbol

Description
Identity matrix (1's on diagonal, 0's
elsewhere)
Principal moment of inertia of gyro float
Experimentally determined gravitational
field coefficients
Gyro compliance along the j t h axis due to a
force acting along the kth axis.
Gyro torquing sensitivity
Uncertainty in knowlege of K t ,
Equatorial gravitational field constant
Polar gravitational field constant
Eccentricity of reference ellipsoid
Sensitivity vector
Sensitivity vector
Geographic latitude
Initial geographic latitude
Geocentric latitude
Geocentric latitude a t the point on the earth
directly below the system
Terrestrial longitude
Initial terrestrial longitude
Change in terrestrial longitude
Torque applied to the gyro float
Gyro output axis uncertainty torque
Torque applied by gyro torque generator
Gyro temperature torque coefficient
Gyro float nondeterministic, random torque
Magnetic torque coefficient
Sensitivity matrix
Sensitivity matrix
Sensitivity matrix
Mass of the earth
Universal gravitational constant
Power spectral density of white noise
Navigation error vector
Unbiased white noise
kth Legendre polynomial
Differential operator, dldt
Distance from origin of I frame t o origin
of i frame

27
Location

28

MATHEMATICAL NOTATION AND TECHNIQUES

Symbol

Description
Attitude forcing function for platform system
Attitude forcing function for strapdown
system
Group of vector terms
Group of vector terms
Forcing function for canonical error equation
for the jth mechanized frame
Forcing function for two accelerometer
local level system
Distance from hypothetical origin of I
frame to system's location
Distance from origin of earth-centered
frame to system's location
Fixed gyro torque
Geocentric position vector to the point on
the earth directly below the system
Equatorial earth radius
Polar earth radius
Position vector magnitude based on noninertial information
Position vector magnitude based on inertial
computations
Gyro torquer scale factor uncertainty matrix
Gyro temperature deviation from calibration
temperature
Time
Mass unbalance along gyro's positive input
axis
Mass unbalance along gyro's positive spin
axis
Earth's gravitational potential
Earth referenced velocity
Skew-symmetric form of v
Accelerometer random uncertainty
System weighting function
Equatorial projection of the earth's radius
vector
Polar projection of the earth's radius vector
Error state for general terrestrial navigator
Initial value of x

Location

29

SYMBOLOGY

Symbol

Description

Location

Error state for two accelerometer system

Gyro output pulse
Position vector weighting factor
Prime deflection of the vertical
Meridian deflection of the vertical
Vector gradient operator
Angular increment about the gyro's input
axis
Component of Oi resulting from a rotation
about the j t h platform axis
Angles between the x, and xu,y, and y,,
and x, and xu axes, respectively
Small rotation angles
Component of + iresulting from a rotation
about the j t h platform axis
Autocorrelation function
Angles between the x, and x,, y, and y,,
and x, and z, axes, respectively
Platform rotation rate
Gravitational field weighting factor
Weighting factor for linear estimator
Angular velocity of the j frame relative
t o the i frame
Skew-symmetric form of oij
Constant gyro drift rates
Schuler frequency
Earth's inertial angular velocity
Celestial longitude
Scale factor uncertainty of gyro k
Gyro time constant
Characteristic matrix for general terrestrial
navigator
Characteristic matrix for the two
accelerometer system
Transformation error between computational
and inertial frames
Spherical coordinates of point a t which
gravitational field is evaluated
Spherical coordinates of earth's differential
mass element
Standard deviation

(7-44)
5.2.2
(6-15)
(4-34)
(4-34)
(4-23)
5.2.2
(3-30)
3.8.4.1
2.2
(3-36)
C.l
3.8.4.2
(8-126)
(6-8)
(8-46)
2.1.5
2.1.5
(A-11)
6.3.2
(3-7)
(7-15)
5.2
(8-110)
(7-44)
(8-95)
Fig. 4.2
Fig. 4.2
C.3.1

CHAPTER

3
Reference Frames
Tous les problemes de geometrie se peuvent facilement reduire
a tels termes, qu'il n'est besoin par apr6s que de connaitre la
longeur de quelques lignes droites, pour les construire."

Inertial navigation theory requires the precise definition of a number of

coordinate frames. Five of these are related to the geometry of the earth
relative to an inertial frame of reference, while a sixth defines a set of body or
vehicle axes. These six frames are orthogonal, right-handed coordinate
frames. Three additional frames are introduced to define sets of platform,
gyro, and accelerometer axes. The gyro and accelerometer axes, which are
physically instrumented by the sensitive axes of the instruments, comprise
nonorthogonal axis sets, and special treatment is necessary to relate these
axes to the orthogonal platform set.

3.1

INERTIAL FRAME (i frame; x, y , z axes)

The concept of an inertial frame is of fundamental philosophical importance

in the history of science, evolving from the combined genius of Galileo
Galilei (Italian, 1564-1642), Isaac Newton (English, 1642-1727) ; Ernst
Mach (Austrian, 1838-1916), and Albert Einstein (German, 1879-1955) .62
Newton conceived of an "absolute space" to which the acceleration in his
second law refers. Difficulties in distinguishing between absolute and relative rotation led Mach t o conclude that rotation could only be conceived as
occurring relative to the matter in the universe. He further defined inertial
frames as those which are unaccelerated relative to the "fixed stars."
Einstein synthesized the observation by Galileo that a body's acceleration
in a gravitational field is independent of its mass with the theories of Newton
and Mach to arrive a t the so-called principle of equivalence. According to

INERTIAL FRAME

31

this principle7 i t is impossible t o distinguish instantaneously between gravitational and inertial forces since inertial forces that are measured in a noninertial frame of reference are, in fact, gravitational forces exerted by the
stars.
The question arises as t o how one can refer measured forces and motions
to an inertial frame t h a t has physical significance t o the problem of navigation in the vicinity of t h e earth. As will be
a frame that has its origin
a t the mass center of the earth and that is nonrotating relative t o the stars
can be considered to be an inertial frame for measurements made in the
vicinity of the earth.
Consider the vector output of an ideal set of accelerometers whose sensitive
axes are mutually orthogonal. I n its simplest form an accelerometer can be
conceived of as a suitably damped, spring-restrained reference mass whose
displacement is measured relative to a coordinate frame fixed in the instrument case. From Newton's second law the output from such an instrument
package is proportional to the difference between the inertially referenced
acceleration and the net gravitational accelerations a t the instrument's
location. This difference between inertial and gravitational acceleration is
identically equal t o the contact force exerted on the accelerometer set by its
support structure.71 Thus the accelerometer output is symbolically written
as :

where

coordinate transformation matrix relating the inertial axes 1

to accelerometer axes a.

C;

R
'

= inertially

referenced acceleration

G , = gravitational acceleration a t the system location due t o the

kth body in universe
f = specific force (nonfield contact force per unit mass) exerted on
instrument set.
The accelerometer frame in which the measurements are coordinatized is
represented by the sensitive axis of each of the instruments. I n Eq. 3-1,
note that the gravitational effect is completely described by the spatial
distribution of t h e k bodies in the universe and does not depend on their
motion, the motion being fully accounted for by the R
' term.
Because the inertially referenced position vector, R', involves galactic
distances, it is convenient to refer the accelerometer outputs t o an earthcentered "operationally inertialvg2frame which is nonrotating relative t o the
fixed stars. This referral is accomplished by letting

32

REFERENCE FRAMES

and

c; = cqc;
where R = vector from hypothetical inertial frame origin to the instrument
location.
vector from earth-centered frame origin to the instrument
location.
vector from hypothetical inertial frame origin to the earth's
center of mass.
coordinate transformation matrix relating the inertial axes,
I , to the earth-centered inertially nonrotating axes, i.
Equation 3-1 is thus written:

It is next observed that since the mass center of the earth is in free fall, then
the acceleration of the earth is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction
to the net gravitational accelerations a t the earth's center, that is,

"

where Gk = gravitational acceleration a t earth's center of mass due to all of

the k bodies in the universe (the effect of the earth's field is zero
a t this point).
Substituting Eq. 3-3 into Eq. 3-2 yields,

But because the earth centered, i frame, is nonrotating relative to the inertial,
I frame, then C ~ ? I= Fi. Finally, the effect of the earth's gravitational field
is taken out from under the summat,ion in Eq. 3-4, yielding

fa = Cq$-

Ga

[G,. - G,4]
k'

where k' = summation over all the bodies of universe except the earth.
G = gravitational acceleration a t the instrument location due to the
earth.
Equation 3-5 demonstrates that the gravitational effect of all of the other
bodies in the universe on the accelerometer output appears as a term which
is the difference between the gravitational acceleration a t the center of the
earth and that a t the instrument location. Fortunately, these difference
terms are on the order of lo-' JG1 for the bodies in the universe causing the

GEOGRAPHIC FRAME

Local meridian

Figure 3.1 Coordinate frame geometry. (N, E, D)-geographic;

(x,, ye,2,)-earth;
(x,, y,, 2,)-geocentric.

(x, y, 2)-inertial;

largest effect, namely the moon and the sun. Thus for instruments whose
resolution does not extend down t o lo-' earth G7s, which is t h e case for
practical navigational instruments, the output of the accelerometer triad
can be approximated as:
fa

C;fi - Ga

(3-6)
Equation 3-6 points out the important fact t h a t the vector output of a n
accelerometer triad will be proportional t o the nonfield specific force, coordinatized in the particular frame t h a t happens t o be mechanized by t h e
accelerometers.
Thus the inertial frame of importance for practical terrestrial navigation
systems has been shown t o consist of a frame t h a t is nonrotating relative t o
th.e stars and t h a t has its origin a t the earth's center. The inertial frame is
illustrated in Figure 3.1. The axis directions have been chosen such t h a t t h e
x and y inertial axes lie in the equatorial plane and the z axis is coincident
with the earth's angular velocity vector.
3.2

G E O G R A P H I C FRAME (n frame; N , E, D axes)

The geographic frame is a local navigational frame which has its origin a t
the system's location and its axes aligned with t h e north, east, and down

34

REFERENCE FRAMES

directions. Down, D, is defined to be the normal to the reference ellipsoid,

an analytically defined surface which is an approximation to the mean sea
level gravity equipotential surface, the geoid.18 The north axis, N, is in the
direction of the projection of the earth's inertial angular velocity vector into
the local horizontal plane (the plane which is perpendicular to down
direction). The east direction, E , completes the right-handed orthogonal set.
The geographic frame is illustrated in Figure 3.1.
3.3

E A R T H F R A M E (e frame; x,, ye, ze axes)

The earth frame is a coordinate frame which has its origin a t the earth's
center of mass and has axes which are fixed in the earth. The axes are
arranged such that the earth and inertial frames are coincident a t a time,
t = 0, the navigation starting time. Specifically, from Figure 3.1 i t is seen
that a t t = 0, the inertially fixed reference meridian, earth frame meridian,
and local meridian are coincident, such that the following relationship holds :

I = I,

+ il - miet

(3-7)

where I = terrestrial longitude from Greenwich

il = celestial longitude
I, = initial terrestrial longitude
m i , = earth's inertial angular velocity

t
3.4

time

G E O C E N T R I C F R A M E (c frame; x,, y,, z, axes)

The local geocentric frame has its origin a t the system's location, coincident
with the origin of the geographic frame. The x , axis lies in the direction
opposite to the geocentric position vector, r. The y, axis lies along east, and
the x, axis, which lies in the local meridian plane, completes the righthanded orthogonal axis set. This frame is also illustrated in Figure 3.1.
3.5

BODY FRAME (b frame; R, P, Y axes)

The body frame constitutes the familiar vehicle axes of roll, pitch, and
yaw which has its origin a t the vehicle center of mass. Note that the origin
of the body frame does not, in general, coincide with the location of the
navigation system. As illustrated by Figure 3.2, the roll axis points forward,
the pitch axis points out the right-hand side, and the yaw axis points down,
all with respect to the vehicle.

35

REFERENCE FRAME RELATIONSHIPS

Figure 3.2

3.6

Body frame.

T A N G E N T F R A M E (t frame; x,, y , , z , axes)

The tangent coordinate frame is defined to be an earth-fixed frame which

is aligned with a geographic frame a t a fixed location on the earth. Typically,
this location is taken to be coincident with a landing site, guidance radar,
or some other convenient point of reference.

3.7

REFERENCE F R A M E R E L A T I O N S H I P S

The relationships between the various coordinate frames defined above

are given in terms of the relative angular velocity and coordinate transformation between the two frames.

w:,

( L sin 1, -L cos 1,A)

-sinLcosil
-sin

L sin 1

cos L
where L = geographic latitude.

--sinil
cos 1

-cosLcosA
-COS

L sin il

-sin L

36
3.7.2

REFERENCE FRAMES

l nertial-Eart h
i

W i e = Wie,

(0, 0,w i e )
wiet -sin q e t

wiet

cos wiet

1-

0
3.7.3

Inertial-Geocentric

wfc =
wj, =

(1 cos L C ,- L C , - A

(3-13)
(3-14)

sin L C )

(LCsin A, -LC cos A , A }

-sin LCcos A

-sin A

sin LCsin A

cos A

cos LC

- cos LCsin

-sin LC

where LC= geocentric latitude.

3.7.4

-cos LCcos A

(3-15)

Geographic-Geocentric

w;, = w:,

CO;

c;

(0,

A, 0 )

L-sin D
( L - L,)
D = deviation of the normal

where

3.7.5

Earth-Geographic

sin D-

cos D-

wz = { t cos L, -L, -t

sin L)

w,Bn= ( L sin Al, -L cos Al,

-sin L cos A1
sin L sin A1
cos L
where A1 = I - 1,

i)

-sin A1

-cos L cos A1

cos A1

- cos L sin A1

-sin L

(3-21)

(3-22)
= change in terrestrial longitude from start of navigation ( t = 0)

37

REFERENCE F R A M E R E L A T I O N S H I P S

3.7.6

Inertial-Body
b
Wib

(3-23)
my)
here m ~ cop,
, c o y are the vehicle's inertially referenced roll, pitch, and yaw
angular velocities, respectively. The coordinate transformation relating the
body frame to the inertial frame is, of course, a function of the complete time
history of the vehicle's angular motion and normally cannot be specified a

3.7.7

= {wR? u

Inertial-Tangent
t
wit
= (mi, cos Lo, 0,-mi,
sin Lo)
- sin Lo cos m,,t
- sin Losin m,,t
cos Lo

Cit =

-sin

wiet

cos miet

-cos Lo cos miet

-cos Lo sin miet

-sin Lo-

where Lo = geographic latitude a t origin of tangent plane.

3.7.8

Tangent-Geograp

hic

o:n=

{i

cos L,

-L,

-,?sin L)

'sin L sin Locos (I - I,)

cos L cos Lo

- sin L sin ( I - lo)

sin Losin ( I - I,)

cos (1 - lo)

sin Locos L cos ( I - I,)

- sin L cos Lo

-cos L sin ( I - I,)

sin L cos Locos (I - 1,)- sin Locos L

cos Losin (I - I,)
cos L cos Locos (1- I,)
sin L sin L,

The transformation matrix above can be approximated through series expansion to apply t o situations where the origin of the tangent and geographic frames are separated by only a short distance. The second-order
approximation t o Eq. 3-27 is given by :
AL2
A1
1 - - - sin2Lo2
2

A12
4

-A1 (sin Lo + AL cos Lo) AL - -sin 2L0

A1 sin Lo

-AL

A1

- -sin 2Lo
4

A1 cos Lo
-Al(cos Lo- AL sinL,)

AL2

AZ2

1 - -- -cos2Lo
2
2

38

REFERENCE FRAMES

where AL = L - Lo
A1 = 1 - I,

It follows t h a t the linear approximation t o Eq. 3-27 is given by:

1

-AL
3.8

-A1 sin Lo

A1 cos Lo

-AlcosLo

AL
1

(3-29)

P L A T F O R M , ACCELEROMETER, A N D G Y R O FRAMES

The specification of these three frames is necessary t o relate measurements

made by the instruments t o the reference frames previously defined. These
axes are best determined through specialized test procedures35 which shall
be referred t o as instrument alignment procedures.
3.8.1

Platform Frame

(p frame;

x,, y,

z, axes)

Platform axes are defined as a right-hand orthogonal set which can be

thought of as three fiducial lines which are physically inscribed on the
platform. This frame origin is, of course, a t the system location.
3.8.2

Accelerometer Frame (a frame; x,, y,, z, axes)

The accelerometer frame is a nonorthogonal frame which is defined by

the input or sensitive axes of each inertial instrument. I n situations where
nonorthogonal clusters of instruments are used for reliability purposes,29
a large-angle nonorthogonal transformation must be used t o relate the
instrument outputs t o their appropriate components in one of the reference
frames. I n the more usual case where only three instruments are used in an
attempt t o instrument an orthogonal set, considerable effort is made t o
mount the instruments so t h a t their input axes are mutually orthogonal.
Since perfect physical alignment can never be achieved, test procedures have
been developed as part of the instrument alignment procedures t o account
for the effects of instrument nonorthogonality.
3.8.3

Gyro Frame (g frame; x,, y,

z, a x e s )

The gyro frame, like the accelerometer frame, is defined by the input or
sensitive axes of each gyro. All of the comments made about the accelerometer frame apply to the gyro frame.

PLATFORM. ACCELEROMETER, A N D G Y R O FRAMES

3.8.4

39

The Instrument-Platform Transformations

Despite the most careful assembly procedures it is impossible t o mount

physically the inertial instruments so that their sensitive axes form an
orthogonal triad of axes. This unavoidable situation is recognized and
procedures have been developed to compensate mathematically for the
physical misalignment.
3.8.4.1 The Accelerometer-Platform Transformation. To be
specific, consider the case of force measurements made by three accelerometers whose sensitive axes are nonorthogonal but differ by only "small"
angles with the orthogonal set of platform axes. The geometry is illustrated
in Figure 3.3. The angles between x, and x,, y, and y,, and z, and z, are
denoted by O,, 8,, and O,, respectively. These three angles are each broken
up into two separate, independent rotations about orthogonal platform
axes as illustrated in Figure 3.3. Thus the coordinate transformation relating the accelerometer axes to platform axes is given b y :

where

Fi gu re 3.3

Platform-instrument geometry.

REFERENCE FRAMES

Figu r e 3.4

and I

Two-dimensional force measurement.

identity matrix
Oij = component of 8, resulting from a rotation about the j t h platform
axis.
=

The six independent angles, Bij, are estimated via the instrument alignment
procedures mentioned previously.
It is insufficient to merely multiply the specific force measurements by the
Cg transformation of Eq. 3-30 to obtain the platform referenced specific force.
This situation arises because a physical vector measured by a nonorthogonal
set of instruments and coordinatized in orthogonal axes will not be the same
vector as that measured by an orthogonal set of instruments.
To illustrate this concept, consider Figure 3.4, which shows the twodimensional situation resulting from instrument misalignment about the
x axis only. I n the figure, recall that an accelerometer will measure the
orthogonal projection of specific force along its sensitive axis. Then the two
accelerometers will sense the quantities :

Using Eq. 3-30, these components transform into the platform frame as
follows :
cos
+fez, sin y
sin y

+ fe,,

cos y

where it was noted that Ow,, as shown in Figure 3.4, is negative in Eq. 3-30.
Carrying out the matrix multiplication yields

PLATFORM, ACCELEROMETER, A N D G Y R O FRAMES

41

~ u the
t force as measured by an orthogonal set of instruments would be
given by :
F" = f (cos y, sin y )

It is clear that the force, as measured in the nonorthogonal frame and transformed into the orthogonal platform frame, c;fa,is not equal to t h e force as
would be measured in platform axes, p p .
For the three-dimensional case, this transformation error can be evaluated
analytically by expressing f p in terms of cZfa using Eq. 3-30:
where it was noted that the specific force transforms from the orthogonal
platform frame t o the nonorthogonal accelerometer frame via the transpose
of Eq. 3-30:
fa = (C,)P T-P
f
(3-32)
Note that the transformation properties between nonorthogonal and orthogonal frames differ from those between two orthogonal frames since

C:(C;)T
=I
nc: (AC,) # I
Nevertheless for the two-dimensional case illustrated by Figure 3.4, i t is
evident that Eq. 3-32 holds. The amount that the matrix product, C,P(Cz)T
differs from the identity matrix is the transformation error. Thus

Cz(CE)T

%Z

0 Z Y - %Y

OYZ

BZz - OY,

BY,

%,

(3-33)

0
The transformation used in resolving the force measurements into platform
%Y

- ex,

- 6ZX

f
'
Y
X

axes, a,nd which recovers the original force vector, Cz, is given by subtracting
the bracketed symmetric matrix term of Eq. 3-33 from 3-30 :

*P

or

c,

C,P - [Cap(C,)

I]

Note that Eq. 3-34 reduces to t h e usual small-angle transformation for the
orthogonal case of Ox, = 8,,, 8,, = O,,, and OZX = O,,.
Thus t o transform specific force measurements made in a nonorthogonal
axis set t o an orthogonal platform axis set, the following relationship is used :

42

REFERENCE FRAMES

where Aeg is given by the computed version of Eq. 3-34, f is the specific
force as measured in the nonorthogonal instrument axes, and f p is the
measured specific force so resolved in the orthogonal platform frame that the
physical specific force vector is recovered.
A

3.8.4.2 The Gyro- Platform Transformat ion. Similarly, if angular

velocities or integrated angular velocities are measured by rate or rate integrating gyros, as would be the case for a strapdown inertial navigation
system, the six misalignment angles of Eq. 3-34, appropriately defined to
relate the gyro and platform axes, would be determined through suitable
instrument alignment procedures. I n this case, the gyro-platform transformation is given by :

*
&" = Caw
p-CJ

[I - ( A e : ) T ] ~ g

(3-36)

where ACZ is identical in form to ACE of Eq. 3-30 :

where +ij = component of +iresulting from a rotation about the jth platform axis; i = x, y, z, j = x, y, z , and $=, +,, and 4, denote the angles between x, and x,, y, and y,, and z, and z,, respectively; but in this case,
G g is the inertially referenced angular velocity vector as measured in the
nonorthogonal gyro axes and
is the measured angular velocity resolved
in the orthogonal platform frame such that the physical angular velocity
vector is recovered.
The situation is slightly different if it is desired to so command the platform a t a specified angular velocity that a particular reference frame is
instrumented by the platform axes. I n this case appropriate rate commands
must be supplied to each gyro via torquing signals, recognizing the fact that
the gyro input axes are not orthogonal. Analogous to Eq. 3-32, the platform
inertially referenced angular velocity in platform coordinates transforms
into gyro coordinates via

a*

Thus to achieve a given platform angular velocity the desired angular velocity is premultiplied by
:

(ez)T

where

W:

&:,

commanded .gyro angular velocity

desired platform referenced angular velocity

P L A T F O R M , ACCELEROMETER, AND G Y R O FRAMES

43

3.8.4.3
Uncompensated Instrument-Platform Transformation.
In situations where no attempt is made t o measure the six misalignment
angles of Eq. 3-34, the instrument outputs are accepted as being coordinatized in platform axes. I n this case the specific force measurements are given
by Eq. 3-32 as:
P" = fa = (C,)P Tf P= [I (AC,)D TIfP
(3-39)

Similarly, measured angular velocities are given by :

I n situations where a platform is commanded a t some inertially referenced

angular velocity through gyro torquing and no provision is made for gyro
nonorthogonality, t h e commanded angular velocity is given by :

where, as before,

0: =

G:P

commanded gyro angular velocity

desired platform referenced angular velocity

But since the commanded platform angular velocity actually takes place
in the nonorthogonal gyro axes, the inertially referenced platform angular
velocity is given by :

coyP = C6)WZ = (I

+ Ac:)GrP

where Eqs. 3-30 and 3-41 were employed.

CHAPTER

Geometry of t h e E a r t h
"Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly
according t o certain laws; but whether this agent be material
or immaterial I have left t o the consideration of my readers."
ISAAC NEWTON

I n the development of the equations governing the behavior of inertial

navigation systems it is necessary t o model certain of the geometrical aspects
of the earth. Since the usual terrestrial navigation problem involves the
determination of velocity and position relative t o a navigational grid based
on the reference ellipsoid, the gravitational and gravity fields associated
with this reference surface must be specified. I n addition certain useful
relationships between the system position vector, r, and the analytic figure
of the earth must be established.

4.1

T H E GEOCENTRIC P O S I T I O N VECTOR

Perhaps the most natural and convenient way t o specify the inertially
determined position relative t o the earth is in terms of the system geocentric
position vector, r. The use of the geocentric position vector is particularly
appropriate because the gravitational field compensated accelerometer
outputs are proportional t o the second time derivative of the inertially
referenced geocentric position vector. (See Eq. 3-6.) From Figure 3.1, the
inertially referenced geocentric position vector is given by :
ri

( r cos LCcos A, r cos LCsin

where r = geocentric position vector magnitude

LC= geocentric latitude

celestial longitude

A, r sin LC)

(4- 1)

T H E GEOCENTRIC POSITION VECTOR

45

Local
meridian

plane

Figure 4.1

Earth radius-altitude relationships.

From this same figure it is seen that the resolution of the geocentric
position vector in the geographic frame is
r n = ( - r sin

D ,0, - r cos D)

where D = L - LC
D = deviation of the normal
The geocentric position vector can be written in terms of the geocentric
earth radius and the altitude above the reference ellipsoid, as illustrated
by Figure 4.1.

where ro = geocentric position vector t o the point directly under the

system's location

altitude vector of system above the reference ellipsoid

Since
'
r$ =

{-yo

sin Do, 0, -ro cos D o )

and

hn = (0'0, - h ) ,

(4-4)
(4-5)

Then the alternate expression t o Eq. 4-2 is given by:

rn =

{-yo

sin Do, 0,-ro cos Do - h )

(4-6)

An exact expression for the square of the geocentric radius vector is given
by the sum of the squares of the components of Eq. 4-6:
r2 = r$

+ 2roh cos Do + h2

(4-7)

46

GEOMETRY O F T H E EARTH

The magnitude of the geocentric position vector is found by completing

the square for r,
h and taking the square root of Eq. 4-7 :

+ h)2

[(rO

2hro(l - cos Do)]%

+ h) term yields
2hr0(l - cos Do)
r = (r, + h)

Factorization of the (r,

0-0

+ h)2

but the quantity (1 - cos Do) m 0,212 to an accuracy of greater than 1

part in lo9; thus expansion of the expression above for r in series yields

The terms beyond first order in the expansion above will be a maximum a t
latitude 45" where Do
&-rad. Even for an altitude of 200,000 ft, an
evaluation of the expression above yields

Thus the error involved in evaluating the geocentric radius magitude with
the expression
r=ro+h
is less than 1 f t for aircraft altitudes.

4.2

T H E DEVIATION O F T H E N O R M A L

The deviation of the normal is defined as the angle between the geocentric
and geographic verticals, that is,
D =A L - L C

(4-3)

Figure 4.1 illustrates the pertinent geometric relationships. Applying the

law of sines to the triangle bounded by the geographic and geocentric radii
sin B - sin ( m - L )
-k2xe
r
where k

eccentricity of reference ellipsoid = (1 - rz/rE)G

re = equatorial earth radius (semimajor axis)

r, = polar earth radius (semiminor axis)

xe = equatorial projection of earth radius vector

47

T H E E A R T H R A D I U S MAGNITUDE

AS is justified in Section 4.1 the approximation involved in saying t h a t

r,
h is on the order of 1 ft. Furthermore, the equatorial projection
of the earth radius vector is equal to

x,

r, cos LC,

but since LC,= L - Do, x, can be written:

xe = r,(cos L cos D,

+ sin L sin Do)

(4-10)

Finally the eccentricity is related to the ellipticity by the relationship :

where
e = re

rp

ellipticity

(4-12)

re
Substituting Eqs. 4-8, 4-10, and 4-11 into 4-9 yields
sin D = e
ro

+ h (1 - i)sin 2L cos D, + 2e (1 - -2")r o"t h sin2L sin D~

Evaluating the expression above a t h

0 to find an expression for Do yields

Do = e sin 2L
where e = - (e2/2)sin 2L

+E

+ 2e2 sin 2L sin2 L +

(4-14)

< 1.6 arc-sec.

Expanding Eq. 4-13 in power series, an expression for the deviation of

the normal is obtained a t the altitude, h, above the reference ellipsoid.
D
where

E =

-e sin 2L(e/2
100,000 f t

e sin 2L

(4- 15)

+ hlr, + higher-order terms) I 4.5 arc-sec for h =

Note, however, t h a t if the expression for the deviation of this normal is

to be differentiated with respect t o time, for example, t o evaluate the relative
angular velocity of the geographic and geocentric frames, then the dependence of Eq. 4-15 on altitude must be included:

4.3

T H E EARTH RADIUS MAGNITUDE

The earth radius vector, for the purpose of inertial navigation computations, is defined as the vector extending from the center of the earth t o the

48

GEOMETRY O F T H E EARTH

surface of the reference ellipsoid. Since the reference ellipsoid is a solid of

revolution (symmetry existing about the earth's polar axis), it is only
necessary to work with the meridian plane equations. Referring to Figure
4.1, the equation for the meridian ellipse is given by:

but

x: = r t cos2LC,

and

x,2 = r,2 sin2LC,

then Eq. 4-17 can be written:

The bracketed quantity in the expression above is recognized as the square

of the eccentricity of the ellipse. Thus the denominator of Eq. 4-18 can be
expanded in series, yielding

where k = [l - (r,/re)2]M = eccentricity

but from Eq. 4-11, k2/2 = e(l - e/2). Also the cos LC,terms can be expanded
in series by noting that cos LC, = cos (L - Do) and applying Eq. 4-14 for
Do. The expression for r,, Eq. 4-19, then becomes
e

(1

+ cos 2L) + -4e2 (22-+ 2 cos 2L - 2 cos 4L) +

I
(4-20)

where e is the ellipticity as defined by Eq. 4-12. Equation 4-20 can be written
in a more convenient form by noting that the relationship between the
polar and equatorial radii is given by
rP = re(l - e)
Thus Eq. 4-20 becomes.
e

(1 - cos 2L)

+ &e2(1

- cos 4L) -

The error incurred by approximating

r,

as

is on the order of less than 150 ft, assuming that re can be precisely specified.
The expression for r, which includes the e2 terms, Eq. 4-21, is accurate t o

THE EARTH'S GRAVITATIONAL FIELD

49

on the order of 1 ft, again assuming that re can be precisely specified.

unfortunately, the uncertainty in the knowledge of re is about 80 ft. (See
Section 4.4.1 .)
4.4

T H E EARTH'S GRAVITATIONAL FIELD

Because the accelerometer outputs are proportional to the difference

between the inertially referenced acceleration and the gravitational accelerations a t the system location, it is obviously necessary to completely specify
the analytic form of the gravitational field such that the acceleration
information can be extracted from the accelerometer outputs.
This computation can be avoided if only two-dimensional navigation is
desired such as latitude and longitude information. I n this case the two
necessary accelerometers can be commanded to remain in the local horizontal
lane and thus are nominally perpendicular to the gravity field vector.
Indeed, not having to compensate for the gravitational field effect of the
earth is one of the primary reasons for the widespread use of local vertical
platform systems; a second, more important, reason is the need for only
two accelerometers. For the more general case where the accelerometers are
not rendered physically insensitive to gravity effects or where vertical
information is needed, it is necessary to compensate for gravitational effects.
For navigation in the vicinity of the earth it is appropriate to consider
only the gravitational effectsof the earth, ignoring the small gravity gradient
effects of the moon and sun. (See Chapter 3.) The following derivation is
adapted from Reference 3.
The gravitational field, G, is a vector field which is derivable from a
scalar function called the gravitational potential, 77,via the relationship :
where V

4.4.1

vector gradient operator, "del."

The Gravitational Potential

The gravitational potential is evaluated a t the system location specified

by the geocentric position vector, r, having the general spherical coordinates
(r, , A ) . The potential arises from the gravitational effects of the distributed
mass of the earth, which has mass density D(p, By 8 ) , which, as indicated
by the notation, is a function of the three spherical coordinates p, /3, and 8 .
The gravitational potential is defined by the equation :
U(r,

+, Al) = N

SSL

"I

50

G E O M E T R Y O F T H E EARTH

Figur e 4.2

Gravitational potential geometry.

where U(r, 4, Al) = gravitational potential a t the point on or above the

A1
earth having the coordinates r,
N = universal gravitational constant
~ dB dB = differential mass element
dm = D(p, B, 8 ) sin~ /S dp

+,

The geometry of the situation is illustrated in Figure 4.2. The denominator

of Eq. 4-24, the distance between the differential mass and the system's
position, lr - pi, is shown by the law of cosines as given by:
the right-hand side of which is recognized as the Legendre generating
function. If the potential is evaluated outside of the mass dm, that is,
r > p, [r - pi-l can be expanded in power series:

THE EARTH'S GRAVITATIONAL

FIELD

51

The expression above can be written as a series of Legendre polynomials

Thus the scalar potential function is given by:

The Legendre polynomial Pk(cosy ) can be expanded in terms the spherical

coordinates 4, p, 8, and A1 in accordance with the addition theorem of
spherical harmonic^,^ which yields a potential function of the form :
U(r,

4, Al) = 2
"O

k=O

Ak Pk(cos 4)
r

+ periodic functions of 8

and

For the reference ellipsoid model, symmetry exists about t'he polar axis, 2,.
Thus D ( p ; p, 8 ) = D(p, /3) and the periodic functions in 8 drop out of the
potential function, which can now be written :

As indicated by the notation U(r, +), the potential no longer depends on

the earth referenced longitude, Al. The first integral in the expression above
is just the total attracting mass, m, while the quantity p cos /3 in the second
expression is recognized as the distance from the equatorial plane t o dm.
Consequently, if the center of attracting mass coincides with the center of
coordinates, as it does for the reference ellipsoid, then

JflP

cos p dm

and

where p = Nm = product of the mass of the earth with the universal

gravitational constant
A further manipulation is made by multiplying numerator and denominator
by r:. Thus

52

GEOMETRY O F T H E EARTH

and

where

The coefficients, J k , are determined experimentally such as by the observation of satellite orbital deviations from orbits which would theoretically
result if the earth were s p h e r i ~ a l . ~ O ~ ~ ~
A consistent set of values for use in the expression above for the earth's
potential is based on References 40 and 14 and is as follows:

Note that in calculating these values from the numbers given in the
references, the conversion used in converting from kilometers to feet was

The constants above are consistent with a value for the earth's ellipticity
given by :
1
e=
298.30
Note that for k = 2 , 3, and 4, the Legendre polynomials are given by:

The even harmonics are seen to be symmetric about the pole giving rise to
the oblate terms, while the odd harmonics are antisymmetric giving rise to
the so-called pear-shaped term. Writing out the expression for the potential
through the J4 term:

53

THE EARTH'S GRAVITATIONAL FIELD

In summary, Eq. 4-26 is the desired analytical expression for the earth's
gravitational potential derived under the following three assumptions :

..
.

4.4.2

The potential is evaluated a t a point external to the mass of the earth.

The mass distribution of the earth is symmetric about its polar axis.
The earth's center of mass coincides with its geometric center and thus
with the origin of the earth frame.
The Gravitational Field in Spherical Coordinates

An expression for the earth's gravitational field in spherical coordinates

is found by evaluating Eq. 4-23 with U(r, +) given by Eq. 4-26 and

where i, and i4 a t the unit vectors in the directions of increasing radius and
colatitude, respectively. Note that the expression above for V excludes the
derivative with respect to the terrestrial longitude because symmetry has

4 in degrees

30

60

90

120

I
150

1
180

q5 in degrees
Figure 4.3

Oblate and pear contributions t o radial gravitational field component.

54

GEOMETRY O F T H E EARTH

C$

0.00021
0

Figure 4.4

I
30

in degrees

90
120
6 in degrees

60

150

180

Oblate and pear contribution to co-latitude gravitational field compcment.

been assumed about the earth's polar axis. The result is of the forw:

G = C,i, + C,i,
where the radial component is given by:
G7-

=--

1-

r2

$J~(:F~

eos2

+ - 1) - 25,

and the colatitude component is given by:

(4-27)

(r:

cos +(5 om2 4 - I)

THE

55

EARTH'S GRAVITATIONAL FIELD

As mentioned previously, the terms involving J, and J, are the oblate

terms while the J , term is the pear-shape term. Plots of the oblate and pear
components of (7, and G, are shown in Figures 4.3 and 4.4 for a point on the
surface of the earth where r = ree2
Equation 4-27 can also be written in terms of geocentric coordinates as
follows :
Gc = (-G,, 0, -G,)
(4-30)

4.4.3

The Gravitational Field in Inertial Coordinates

The expression for the earth's gravitational field in inertial coordinates

could be found in a similar manner from Eq. 4-23 with the use of a vector
gradient operator expressed in inertial coordinates, V(x, y, z ) . It is far simpler,
however, t o transform Eq. 4-30 into the inertial frame. Thus
Gi = CdGC
The transformation from geocentric to inertial coordinates, c',, is given by
Eq. 3-15, and the expression above for the inertially referenced gravitational
field can be written as follows:

(G,

+ a, t a n L,)

'
r

rz
(G, - G, cot LC)-

?- -

where i t was recognized from Eq. 4-1 t h a t :

ri 1; r z = (COS LCcos A, cos LCsin A, sin LC)

-r { ; , r 7 ; )
Note that since symmetry has been assumed about the earth's polar axis,
the gravitational field magnitude will be independent of longitude: as indicated by Eq. 4-31.
The expressions for G, and G, (Eqs. 4-28 and 4-29) are substituted into
Eq. 4-31, resulting in

Gx = - - l + B J 2(?)Z[lr2
QY = - { I
r2
z

= -~

r2

+J

$J~(?T

( 1

0(:1])2 +
r

error

((7.)

+ error ( G ~ )
- 5 (:)]}2 + error (GJ
r
- 5(:)1]]5

(4-32a)
(4-32b)
(4-32~)

GEOMETRY O F T H E EARTH

South

1.0

0.5

-1.0

-1.5

-2.0
-1.0

Figure 4.5

North
pole

Equator

pole

-0.5

0.5

1.O

Errors in approximation of gravitation vector.

The error incurred in neglecting the effects of J , and J , in Eqs. 4-32a and
4-323, the equatorial components, is plotted in Figure 4.5 for r,/r =
Because of polar symmetry the maximum G, and Gv errors are identical.
As is indicated the G, and G, errors are scaled by cos A and sin A, respectively.
The error for the polar component is also shown in this figure. The maximum
error in the equatorial components is seen to be 1.2 x
G a t LC= 64O
G a t the north pole.
and the maximum polar component error is 2.0 x
Thus i t has been shown that for accelerometers with resolution in the
10 m i c r o 4 range, Eq. 4-32 is a reasonable approximation to the gravitational
field vector.

4.5

T H E EARTH'S GRAVITY FlELD

The gravity field is defined as the acceleration field arising from the
combined effects of the earth's gravitational field and the inward centripetal
acceleration due to the earth's rotation :

THE EARTH'S GRAVITY FIELD

Polar axis

Figure 4.6

aplane l

Deflection of the vertical geometry.

where g = gravity field vector

= skew symmetric form of the earth's inertially referenced angular
velocity
r = geocentric position vector

a,,

If the earth conformed to the homogeneous ellipsoid model developed

in Section 4.4.1, the gravity vector would be normal t o the reference ellipsoid
and its magnitude could be precisely calculated. Since the actual earth's
surface deviates from the reference ellipsoid, the gravity vector lies in a
direction which is normal t o the gravity equipotential surface and which
a t mean sea level is known as the geoid, and the gravity magnitude deviates
from that which is calculated by reference formulae. These deviations, which
are both caused by disturbing mass anomalies, are related t o each other
~ ~ deviation of
through the formulae of Stokes and Vening M e i n e ~ z .The
the actual gravity magnitude from the formula derived value is known as the
gravity anomaly* while the deviation of the gravity vector direction from the
normal t o the reference ellipsoid is known as the deflection of t h e vertical.
The gravity vector deviations from normality t o the reference ellipsoid
are expressed in north and east components in accordance with Figure 4.6.
As is shown in the figure the geographically referenced gravity vector is
given by :
(4-34)
gn =
-y9, g )
where E = meridian deflection of the vertical (positive about east)
1;1 = prime deflection of the vertical (positive about north)
{&?7

* Strictly speaking, the gravity anomaly refers to the deviation

a t mean sea

58

GEOMETRY O F T H E EARTH

The error involved by invoking the small-angle assumption in arriving a t

Eq. 4-34 is on the order of 0.01 arc-sec, since the largest deflection
encountered over the entire earth is on the order of only 1 arc-min.
For the purposes of navigation with respect to the reference ellipsoid, i t
would be desirable to compensate for the deflection terms. Unfortunately
a large-scale gravimetric survey of sufficient accuracy has not been performed
although the concepts of airborne gravimetry which would enable such a
survey to be made are well-developed63and demonstration flight tests have
been performed.24I n the absence of a detailed specification, the deflection
of the vertical terms must be accepted as sources of error.
Figure 4.7 shows a plot of the deflections of the vertical along a west to
east path of constant latitude across the United States.'O Note how clearly
the effects of the earth's topographical features are seen in the prime

East coast

West coast

900

1200

1500

1800

2100

Distance in nautical miles

Figure 4.7 Prime and meridian deflections of the vertical along a west-to-east path
across United States.

59

THE EARTH'S GRAVITY FIELD

-8

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Distance from West Coast i n nautical miles

Figure 4.8

Autocorrelation functions for deflections of the vertical.

deflection curve. One easily discerns the effects of the continental shelf, the
Appalachian range, the gentle rise of the Great Plains ending in the Rockies,
the Sierra's, and finally the depths of the Pacific. These effects are not seen
in the meridian deflection curves because the major topographical features
have a north-south bias across the continental United States.
Autocorrelation functions for the prime and meridian deflections, based
on the information in Figure 4.7, are plotted in Figure 4.8. These curves
show that the root mean squared (rms) values for the prime and meridian
deflections are about 3.9 arc-sec and 2.2 arc-sec, respectively. Note that the
mean square value is just the value of the autocorrelation function at zero
distance.
The gravity vector can be expressed as a function of the gravity and
gravitational fields associated with the reference ellipsoid. The substitution
where Ag

9 = s,
=

gravity anomaly

ge = gravity magnit;de

+ A9

(4-35)

associated with the reference ellipsoid

is made in Eq. 4-34 and the result is substituted into Eq. 4-33.Carrying
out the matrix multiplication in geographic coordinates yields

C N - rcoz sin L cos LC

gn =

Lge+ A

~ J

LG,

- rw;@ cos L cos L,J

(4-36)

60

GEOMETRY O F T H E EARTH
1

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

- 1

800

Distance in nautical miles

Distance in nautical miles

Figure 4.9

Gravity anomaly characteristics along west-to-east path across United

States.

But the gravitational field vector associated with the reference ellipsoid is
given by :

G," = { r o z sin L cos LC,0, g,

+ r w t cos L cos L C )

(4-37)

where G, = gravitational field associated with the reference ellipsoid.

Thus Eq. 4-36can be written:
where
Figure 4.9 shows the gravity anomaly and the corresponding autocorrelation
function for the same west to east path across the United States as for
Figures 4.7 and 4.8. It is seen that the R M S value of the gravity anomaly
along this path is about 26 pg.

4.5.1

Analytic Expression for the Gravity Field Magnitude

To mechanize the vertical channel in an inertial navigation system, an

analytic expression for the earth's gravity field magnitude must be available.
If no attempt is to be made to compensate for the deflections of the vertical
and the gravity anomalies, the gravity field magnitude associated with the

A N A L Y T I C EXPRESSIONS F O R T H E SPECIFIC FORCE V E C T O R

61

reference ellipsoid is given by Eq. 4-36:

g,

Go - r ~ : cos
, L cos L C

The vertical component of the gravitational field vector is found by transforming the radial and colatitude components given by Eq. 4-30 into the
pographic frame using Eq. 3-17. This operation results in
GD = G+ sin D - G, cos D,

here G!, and G4 are given by Eqs. 4-28 and 4-29, respectively. If the
trigonometric functions above are expanded in series, then GD can be
approximated as follows without incurring an error of more t h a n about
1 0 - ~g :
GD
-G,
G4e sin 2L
(4-41)

where Eq. 4-15 was used t o approximate the deviation of the normal.
Equations 4-28 and 4-29 are now substituted into the expressions above
yielding

3 cos 2L)]

+8

where the error in the analytic expression is on the order of 2 x

g,
the approximate magnitude of the RMS gravity anomaly. Note t h a t if the
gravity anomaly is t o be compensated, then higher order terms in G, and
b
G4 will have t o be included in the analytic expression for GD.
Thus the desired expression for the magnitude of gravity is given by
substituting Eq. 4-42 into 4-40:

4.6

A N A L Y T I C E X P R E S S I O N S F O R T H E SPECIFIC F O R C E
VECTOR

The primary measurements on which the navigational computations a.re

based are the accelerometer measurements. These measurements are either
assumed t o be coordinatized in the desired computation frame, which is
the case for the local vertical and space stabilized platform systems, or
assumed t o be transformed into the desired computation frame, which is
the case for strapdown mechanizations. I n any event it is desirable t o have
analytical expressions for the specific force vector as coordinatized in several
coordinate frames since the computation schemes are based on these expressions. These expressions will, of course, correspond t o the instrument outputs
for an errorless system which mechanizes the particular frame in question.

62

GEOMETRY O F T H E EARTH

It was shown in Chapter 3 that for practical navigation systems operating

in the vicinity of the earth, the output of an accelerometer triad would be
proportional to
f a = Cqifi - Ga
(3-6)
where G

gravitational acceleration a t the instrument location due to the

earth

vector from earth-centered frame origin to the instrument

location

This expression is now transformed to several reference frames.

4.6.1

Inertial Frame

The analytical form for the specific force vector in inertial coordinates is
found from Eq. 3-6 by a simple coordinate transformation into the inertial
frame via c:. ~ h u s
f i = pi - Gi
(4-44)
where
f i = (fx, f,, f z l
2i = {Fx7rV7
rz]

Gi

{G,, G,, G,)

An alternate form for Eq. 4-44 is found by substituting into the above the
and
analytical expression for ri in terms of the spherical coordinates r , LC,
A, given by Eq. 4-1. This procedure, however, results in an unnecessarily
L
messy" expression which is difficult to work with.
6

4.6.2

Geographic Frame

The specific force expression in geographic coordinates is found by pre,: yielding

multiplying Eq. 4-44 by C

It is convenient to write Eq. 4-45 in terms of the geographically referred

earth referenced velocity, vn, where

were vn = {vN, v E , vD).

It is observed from Eq. 2-4, the matrix form of the theorem of Coriolis,
that i = Ct(k - 52ieri).Thus when Eq. 4-46 is differentiated, it is seen that:

63

A N A L Y T I C EXPRESSIONS F O R T H E SPECIFIC FORCE V E C T O R

substituting Eq. 4-33 for Gn and the equation above into Eq. 4-45 yields
an expression for the specific force of the form :
fn =

where
f

wk + 2-g

+" +

+ 252G)vn - gn

(4-48)

4 fN , f D )
= {(I + 2wie)cos L, -L, -(i
f

+ 2 w i e )sin L )

Thus Eq. 4-48 is written in component form as

fN
f,
fD

irN

= 6,
=

6,

+ v,(i + 2wie)sin L - LVD - Eg

- v,(t + 2w,,) sin L - vD(i + 204,) cos L + q g

+ v,(t+

2wie) cos L

(4-48a)
(4-48b)

+ LvN - g

(4-48c)

Note t h a t the velocity components are themselves functions of the terrestrial

longitude and latitude rates. This relationship is seen from Eq. 4-46 which
can be written as
v n = G"
S2rnrn
(4-49)
or in component form :

vn =

(fN -

r D i , - ( r D cos L

+ rN sin L$, f D + rNi;)

(4-49a)

where i t was observed t h a t the geocentric position vector is given by Eq. 4-6
as
rn =F { - r 0 sin Do, 0 , -ro cos Do - h )
(4-6)
Differentiating Eq. 4-6 and substituting into Eq. 4-4 gives

v,
v,
v,

=
=

+
+

(r, cos Do
h ) i - f 0 sin Do - roB0cos D,,
(rOcos Lc0 h cos L ) t
-h - iocos Do r , ~ sin
, Do - roL sin Do

(4-50a)
(4-50b)

(4-5Oc)

Equation 4-50 can be written in a much more convenient form in terms of

the principal radii of curvature of the reference ellipsoid. This is accomplished
by expanding the trigonometric terms involving Do in series and applying
the appropriate analytical expressions for ro and Do given by Eqs. 4-21 and
4-14, respectively, yielding

+ h ) L , ( r , + h)i cos L, -h)

vn = { ( r L

(4-51)

where from Reference 6 3 , rL and r , are defined by

1 - 2e cos 2 L

e2
+( 1 - 4 cos 2 L + 7 cos 4L) - . .
4

64

GEOMETRY O F T H E EARTH

The quantities rL and r , are commonly referred to as the meridional and

prime radii of curvature, respectively. For typical high performance aircraft
velocities and altitudes, the e2 terms in rL and r , can be omitted from the
calculation of the velocity components without incurring an error of more
than 0.02 ft/sec.
Equation 4-51 can be used in Eq. 4-48 to obtain an analytic expression
for the specific force vector which is a function of only the radii of curvature,
latitude, longitude, and altitude. Namely,

fN = ( r ,

+ h)& + +J+ 2hL + f(rz + h)i(i + 2wie)sin 2 L - e g

(4-52a)

+ h)Z cos L - (rL + r z + 2h)Li sin L 2(rL + h ) h i esin L

(4-52b)
+ 2h(t + w,,) cos L + +,i cos L + r / g
(4-52c)
fu = - h + (i,+ h)&i + 2 ~ 4 , cos2
)
L + ( r , + h ) i 2- g

f,

= (T,

For the purposes of error analysis, i t is sometimes convenient to use an

approximate expression for f n which contains only first-order terms, if in
the error analysis, the components of f n are multiplied by an error variable.
I n this case, Eq. 4-52 can be approximated as

+ +rt(t + 2w,) sin 2~

r ricos L - 2rL(i + o,,)sin L + 2h(i + w,,) cos L

fivr
rX + 2hL
f,

fo

-X

+ rl(t + 2wie)cos2L + rL2 - g

(4-53a)
(4-53b)
(4-536)

CHAPTER

Gyroscope Performance
Inertial navigation systems utilize gyroscopes t o provide a frame of reference
to which the force measurements can be referred. While a variety of gyroscope
configurations have evolved over the years, such as the two-degree-of-freedom
gyro,58the electrostatic gyro,15 and the laser gyroY4*
the single degree of
freedom (SDF), floated integrating gyro continues t o be the most ,widely
used instrument in present-day applications of inertial technology. This
instrument was originally developed by C. S. Draper and his associates a t
the Instrumentation Laboratory a t M.I.T.18 and design refinements made
over the years a t M.I.T. and by industrial organizations have resulted in
the evolution of the SDF gyro into one of the most precise devices in the
field of instrumentation.
The following is intended t o be a brief development of the S D F gyro's
salient characteristics as they pertain t o the study of inertial systems. See
Reference 7 1 for a more complete discussion of the material which follows
and for detailed information concerning the sciencelart of current gyro
design.

5.1

PRINCIPLE OF O P E R A T I O N

The operation of the SDF gyro is visualized with the aid of Figure 5.1,
which is a simplified cutaway view of a typical instrument. The inputoutput-spin (I,0 , S ) axis system constitutes a n orthogonal axis set which
is fixed in the gyro housing or case. The gyro rotor and its gimbal are housed
in the float which is immersed in a high density, high viscosity fluid which
serves t o provide support through floatation. I n an effort to minimize output
axis bearing friction, a magnetic suspension is provided to supplement the
floatation system; however, other means such as jewelled pivots, flexure
supports, and vibratory schemes are sometimes used t o provide the float

66

SINGLE-DEGREE-OF-FREEDOM

GYROSCOPE PERFORMANCE

Magnetic
suspension

Case

(gyro housing)

momentum

Figure 5.1

Single-degree-of-freedomgyroscope.

suspension. The clearance between the float and case is maintained a t a

small value such that a viscous torque is present to damp output axis float
rotations. As shown, a torque generator is provided to supply torques to
the float about the output axis and a signal generator or angular pickoff
is provided to measure the angular orientation of the float with respect
to the case.
The principal steady-state operational characteristics of the SDF integrating gyro are that both a case input axis angular velocity and a torque
applied t o the float by the torque generator gives rise t o a float output axis
angular velocity. Thus the output of the signal generator, the output angle
signal, will be proportional to the integral of both the input axis angular
velocity and the applied output axis torque, hence the name "integrating
gyro."
The operating characteristics above are deduced from the application of
Newton's. rotational law for a rigid body, which states that the applied
external torque about the center of mass is equal to the inertially referred
time rate of change of the angular momentum about the center of mass.
When applied to the gyro float, the following relationship holds :
where M
H

= torque

applied to the float

= float angular momentum

PRINCIPLE O F O P E R A T I O N

67

In addition to the inertial frame defined in Chapter 3 and the gyro case set
defined, i t will be convenient to define a float frame which has
a common origin with the case frame, namely at the float's center of mass,
but which is fixed in the float. The float and case frames differ by the small
~ u t p u axis
t
rotation, A,, as shown in Figure 5.1. The output angle is maintained a t a small value via servo techniques which are discussed later. The
transformation between float and case axes is given by:

where the superscripts h and f denote coordinatization in the case or gyro

housing and the float frame, respectively. Since the angular momentum
about the float's center of mass is most conveniently expressed in float axes,
Eq. 5-1 is first transformed into float axes:

Now, the objective of this derivation is to relate the applied torques to the
output angle, A,, and the inertial angular velocity of the case in the steady
state. To this end, the transient rate of change of angular momentum term
in Eq. 5-3 is neglected. I n addition i t shall be assumed that the gyro dynamics
can be completely characterized by the gyro spin angular momentum. Thus

Next, the angular velocity of the float with respect to inertial space, Qif,
is expressed as the sum of the angular velocity of the float with respect to
the case plus the angular velocity of the case with respect to inertial space:

or when Qi,is expressed in case axes,

=

Finally it is noted that

and

c;q,c; + a;,

68

SINGLE-DEGREE-OF-FREEDOM

GYROS.COPE P E R F O R M A N C E

Substituting Eqs. 5-2 and 5-4-5-8 into Eq. 5-3 and transforming the resulting
equation into the case frame yields

where products involving A: and A,A, have been neglected in comparison

with other larger terms. I n Eq. 5-10 the applied torque can be written in
case axes as Mh = (MI, Mo, Ms). Torques applied to the float about the
input axis, MI, can only be due t o the float's hydromechanical support.
The torque applied about the output axis, Mo, is equal t o the sum of the
torque applied by the t,orque generat,or, Mi,, the viscous torque which
opposes the output axis rotation, cA,, and an uncertainty torque, (u)M,
which is caused by unwanted floatation fluid pressure gradients, mass
unbalance, magnetic forces, and so on.
Mo

Mtg - C A ,

+- (u)M

As with the input axis torque, the torque applied about the spin axis, Ms,
is applied through the float's hydromechanical support. Thus Eq. 5-10
becomes
(5-1l a )
(5-11b )

(5-11c)
The steady-state gyro operating characteristics are obtained directly
from Eq. 5-11 . Equations 5-1l a and 5-1l c are the equations for the torques
which are applied t o the float by its support to sustain the angular velocities
on the right-hand side of these equations. Equation 5 - l l b is the equation
of importance for this development, since if os = 0, it becomes

where t o summarize

A,

= output angle rate

H = gyro angular momentum

C = gyro viscous damping coefficient
coI = input axis inertial angular velocity
Mtg = torque applied by torque generator
(u)M = uncertainty torque

DYNAMIC

MODEL FOR THE SDF GYRO

69

T ~ U Sit

is seen t h a t in steady state, both an input axis angular velocity, w,,

and a torque applied by the torque generator, M,,, give rise to a n output
axis angular velocity, A,.

5.2

D Y N A M I C M O D E L FOR T H E SDF GYRO

While the development leading t o Eq. 5-12 serves t o illustrate the SDF
gryro7s operating characteristics, the gyro dynamic behavior was, for the
sake of simplicity, ignored. The dynamic characteristics can be investigated
using a mathematical development similar t o that previously used t o determine the gyro's steady-state behavior. Although the following derivation
exposes the gyros principal dynamic characteristics i t should be understood
that certain simplifying assumptions will be involved :
The float can only rotate relative to the case about the output axis,
t h a t is, the float gimbal is rigid.
The gyro rotor gimbal is rigid.
All motions take place along principal float axes such that products
of inertia can be ignored.
The gyro rotor is maintained a t a constant speed relative to the float.
Derivations which take into account the effects of rotor and gimbal deflections are to be found in References 26 and 64.
The angular momentum will no longer consist solely of the rotor angular
momentum but is given by:

where J,,, J,, and J,

the principal float moments of inertia

rotor spin angular momentum

Note t h a t J, includes the moment of inertia of the rotor since perfect rotor
speed control has been assumed. Since the case and float frames share a
common axis along the case output axis, then in E q . 5-13, J o = J,,.
If Eqs. 5-6 and 5-13 are substituted into Eq. 5-3, and the resulting equation
is transformed into the case frame, the output axis equation is given by

70

SINGLE-DEGREE-OF-FREEDOM G Y R O S C O P E P E R F O R M A N C E

@)Multiplier

Figure 5.2

SDF integration gyro dynamics.

where it was again noted that

I n the above, all of the terms on the right-hand side except the first two are
unwanted and must be compensated or otherwise accounted for. The Hco,A,
term is referred to as "cross coupling" torque, the A , ( w ~- o g ) ( ~, ~Jz,)
term is referred as "anisoinertia coupling" torque, the ( J Z f- J Z f ) ~ , w s
is referred to as "anisoinertia" torque, and the Johois referred to as "output
axis acceleration" torque. Equation 5-14 can be arranged in block diagram
form as shown in Figure 5 . 2 . I n Figure 5.2, note that the gyro time constant,
r g , has been written for the quantity (J,/C). It as been demonstrated
experimentally that for certain gyros the gyro time constant is not accurately
specified by J,/C, and that it is necessary to consider the gimbal flexibility
along the input axis. Taking into account this effect, i t is seen that the time
constant is increased and is given by:

where KZfis the elastic restraint coefficient along the x, float axis.

71

DYNAMIC M O D E L F O R THE SDF G Y R O

5.2.1

Operation in Platform Mode

The most common inertial gyro application involves the rotational

stabilization of a gimbaled platform upon which the gyros are mounted.
The output of the gyro signal generator which is proportional t o the gyro
~ u t p u angle,
t
A,, is used to provide a torquing command t o the platform
gimbal structure such that A, is driven t o zero. Generally, three such gyros
are mounted on t h e platform to provide complete rotational stabilization.
Since the gimbal structure provides a significant amount of base motion
isolation, the gyros sense only a small portion of the full vehicle rates. The
inertially referenced angular velocity of a gimbaled but uncontrolled platform
is given as the vector sum of the angular velocity of the platform with respect
to vehicle (body frame) and the angular velocity of the vehicle relative t o
inertial space. Thus
=O

i b

Wb,

If the gimbal structure provided perfect base motion isolation, then

oz.
b = --w,,,
and indeed, no gyros would be needed. I n an actual physical
system perfect isolation cannot, of course, be achieved and w,, will have a
finite value, Aw,,. To achieve stabilization the platform is commanded a t
based on the signal generator outputs which
an angular velocity, -A&,,,
tend t o null the gyro output angles, and thus in the absence of applied torques
drives w,, to zero. With this platform servo scheme in mind, the dynamics
along one axis of a gyro stabilized platform can be represented as shown in
Figure 5.3. Note t h a t the cross coupling due t o angular rates and accelerations along the gyro's output and spin axes is not shown since it is assumed
that inertial stabilization is provided along these axes by similar gyrostabilized platform loops. If the platform were commanded by application

1/C

P ( T ~ P 1)

Signal
generator

H
I

Vehicle

Platform
torquer
Figure 5.3

Gyro operation in platform mode.

72

SINGLE-DEGREE-OF-FREEDOM GYROSCOPE PERFORMANCE

of torques through the torque generator such that an inertially rotating

reference frame were instrumented, then the effects due to cuI and coS shown
in Figure 5.2 would have to be accounted for. The fact that the various
cross
coupling torques are eliminated if an inertially nonrotatjng frame is instrumented represents one of the primary arguments in favor of mechanizing
an inertial frame of reference; namely that an inertial frame mechanization
subjects the gyros to the most benign rotational environment possible,
resulting in generally superior performance. Note from Figure 5.3, that in
order for steady-state conditions to be achieved,

that is, the inertial angular velocity of the platform about the gyro input
axis is proportional to the negative of the commanded angular velocity,
Mt,/H, and the uncertainty angular velocity, ( u ) M / H .
5.2.2

Operation in Rate Gyro Mode

The SDP gyro can be mechanized as a rate gyro if the gyro float is torqued
with a signal which is proportional to the output angle, A,. The torque
generator output is then given by:
Mtg = -K

Ag

tL7

where Kt, is the torquing sensitivity. For inertial applications, pulse torquing
techniques are used because of the difficulties inherent in analog torquing.
Neglecting the unwanted error torques in Eq. 5-14, the gyro operation in
the rate gyro mode can be illustrated as shown in Figure 5.4.

Pulse
torquer

Figure 5.4

control

Pulse output
Gyro operation in digital rate mode.

DYNAMIC MODEL FOR T H E SDF GYRO

73

From Figure 5.4 it is seen that in steady state the applied torque, M,,,
is just sufficient t o balance the gyro torque caused by the input axis angular
velocity, wI, and the spurious output axis torques, (u)M. That is,

Thus if analog torquing is used where Mtg =

velocity is calculated using :
fit,

w, = A

-K,,A,,

the estimated angular

A,

It is seen that the uncertainty in the knowledge of the torquer sensitivity

is of crucial importance in estimating wI, since if the expression for 2,
obtained from Eq. 5-16, A, = (H/Ktg)wI (u)M/Ktg,is substituted into
Eq. 5-17, there results

where 6Ktg = b,,- Kt,. It is seen from Eq. 5-18 t h a t if the estimate of the
scale factor is too high (positive 6Ktg),then too little torque is being applied
to the gyro float. Thus it is conventional t o state the scale factor error in
terms of the torque being applied t o the instrument by letting
T =

6%
-= instrument scale factor error
Kt,

Thus Eq. 5-18 becomes

Thus a positive scale factor error (scale factor too high) gives rise t o an
underestimate in the measured angular rate. I n addition, it is seen that
uncertainty torques applied about the positive output axis gives rise t o
an overestimate in the measured angular rate.
For the more usual case of digital torquing the gyro output pulses, suitably
scaled, represent changes in the input angular velocity; t h a t is,

where Ay = gyro output pulse. The relationship above holds because of the
presence of the integration in- the forward loop of Figure 5.4, but since
w,
dO,/dt, then it is seen that each output pulse represents an increment
of rotation about the gyro's input axis :

74

SINGLE-DEGREE-OF-FREEDOM G Y R O S C O P E PERFORMANCE

where h e , = angular increment about the gyro's input axis. Note t h a t it

has been tacitly assumed that the error torques of Eq. 5-14 have been
compensated. The development of precision torquers and the gyro compensation problem represent the most serious problems that must be faced if
pulse torqued instruments are to be used in an inertial application. Theoretically, the dynamic errors due to spin and output axis rates and the output
axis acceleration can be compensated based on the outputs from the other
gyros in the system. This interaxis compensation, however, introduces
additional information loops, and questions of stability must be considered.

5.3

UNCERTAINTY TORQUE COMPENSATION

The single degree of freedom gyroscope has been studied for many years
and reliable error models have been experimentally confirmed. Spurious
torques about the gyro output axis, represented by ( u ) M in Eq. 5-14, lead
t o errors jn the indicated angular velocity for the case of rate gyros, and to
a physical platform rotation for the case of a gyro stabilized platform. The
error torques consist of fixed torques, mass unbalance torques, anisoelastic
torques, and torques due to magnetic and temperature effects. The output
axis error torques are given by :28*41

where R = fixed torque

U s = mass unbalance along the positive spin axis

U , = mass unbalance along the positive input axis
fk = specific force acting along the gyro's kth axis, k

= I,

d: S

K j k = compliance along the jth axis due to a force acting along the
kth axis
MT = temperature torque coefficient

6T

gyro temperature deviation from calibration temperature

MB
B
6M

magnetic torque coefficient

= magnetic

field strength

= nondeterministic

random torque

The numerical values for the various torque coefficients in Eq. 5-20
depend, of course, on the particular gyro design and are evaluated via a series
of specialized gyro test procedure^.^^ Having established the values for the
B

I N S T R U M E N T A N D SYSTEM R E D U N D A N C Y A N D RELIABILITY

75

coefficients, compensation is provided as a function of the system's force,

temperature, and magnetic environment.

5.4

I N S T R U M E N T A N D SYSTEM R E D U N D A N C Y AND

RELIABILITY

Since the question of reliability plays an important role in the design of

inertial navigation systems, it is well to discuss certain aspects of the problem.
Considering first the system redundancy and reliability problem, it is selfevident that system reliability for a fixed set of components can be increased
by providing the redundancy a t as low a level as possible. For example,
consider that a space stabilized or strapdown system can function if any one
computer and any one inertial measurement unit functions. O n the other
hand, for the local-level configurations the operation of the inertial measurement unit is highly dependent on the operation of the computer since
computer generated torquing signals must be provided to the gyros. Thus
one would conclude that the space stabilized and strapdown configurations
have a higher potential reliability than do the local-level configurations.
This problem has been considered in detail during a study performed for the
Federal Aviation Agency by the M.I.T. Instrumentation L a b ~ r a t o r y . ~ ~
We consider next certain of the aspects of component reliability. Although
we could address ourselves to the reliability aspects of all of the inertial
system's components, it is generally conceded that the gyroscopes are the
least reliable of the system component^.^^ Thus various redundant gyro
configurations are considered although the conclusions are certainly valid
for other sets of redundant instruments. To motivate the discussion, consider an inertial measurement unit with three gyros mounted with their
input axes along three mutually orthogonal axes (the triad configuration).
Clearly the system will fail if any one gyro fails. If the gyros are assumed to
fail independently and to follow an exponential failure rate, the reliability
of such a system is given by the product of the reliabilities of the individual
components :
R = e-3~t
(5-21)
where R = reliability = probability that satisfactory performance will be
attained for a specified time period

112 = mean time to failure

t

= time

Thus t o achieve a reliability of 0.95 for 1 year requires a gyro mean time to
failure of 59 years. I n a commercial application some consideration should

76

SINGLE-DEGREE-OF-FREEDOM GYROSCOPE PERFORMANCE

be given to this aspect of system performance since a "cost of ownershipy7

criterion is generally applied to inertial navigation system procurement.
If it has been established that gyro redundancy is required for a particular
application, the problem still remains of choosing a gyro configuration which
gives the maximum reliability for the number of instruments used. This
problem has been studied by G i l m ~ r eHe
.~~
finds that symmetric arrays yield
optimal performance from a least squares weighting point of view and, in
addition, yield maximum redundancy for the number of instruments in the
particular array. Only three symmetrical arrays are shown to exist. (A
symmetrical array is defined by the placing of axes through the center of
a sphere such that the great circle angles between the axes are equal.) They
are as follows.

1. Triad = axes normal t o the faces of an angular hexahedron

2 . Tetrad = axes normal to the faces of a regular octahedron or tetrahedron
3. Hexad = axes normal to the faces of a regular dodecahedron
The coordinate transformations between the tetrad and hexad configurations
and the triad configuration are given by:

chexad triad -

sin a

-sin a

cos a

sin a

cos a

-sin a

cos a

cos a

cos a

(5-23)

0
sin a
-sin

where a = one half the great circle angle between gyro input axes =
3148'2.8". Both the tetrad and hexad arrays are capable of effecting a
solution if any three gyros are operating. Both systems have selficontained
failure detection and isolation capability, an advantage over systems
consisting of two redundant triads.
Having established the symmetric arrays as optimal, the task remains of
computing the configuration reliabilities. If we take the tetrad as an example

I N S T R U M E N T A N D SYSTEM R E D U N D A N C Y A N D RELIABILITY

77

we see that the system will function i f :

1. All four instruments operate.

2 . Any combination of three instruments operate.

Now the probability that all four will operate is given by (intersection of
independent events) :

P ( 4 operate) = R4 = e-4At

(5-24)

while the probability that any combination of three will operate is given by

P ( 3 operate) = 4 R 3 ( 1 - R) = 4e- 3At ( 1

eFAt)

Instrument reliability time constants, At

Figure 5.5

Reliability plots-perfect

failure isolation.

78

SINGLE-DEGREE-OF-FREEDOM GYROSCOPE PERFORMANCE

Then the configuration reliability is given by the sum of Eqs. 5-24 and 5-25
(union of mutually exclusive events) :
-

Rtetrad -

4e-3At - 3e-4At

(5-26)

Similar reasoning can be used to show that the reliability for the hexad array
is given by

Rhexad
= e-3At(20- 10e-3At+ 36e-2At- 45evAt)

(5-27)

Figure 5.5 shows plots of Eqs. 5-21, 5-26, and 5-27. I n addition, reliability
curves are shown for systems consisting of:
Two redundant triads
Three redundant triads
Six orthogonal gyros
Nine orthogonal gyros
The plots are made under the assumption that any failure can be detected
and isolated. Note that the reliability of the nonorthogonal arrays is quite
superior to that of the redundant orthogonal arrays.

CHAPTER

6
T h e Space-Stabilized Terrestrial
Navigator

The space-stabilized inertial navigation system physically instruments an

earth-centered inertially nonrotating frame. Such a frame is shown in
Chapter 3 to be an "operationally inertial" frame, which for operation in the
vicinity of the earth is suitable for terrestrial navigation purposes. The
inertial r ference frame is instrumented by a three-axis gyro-stabilized
platform or space integrator. Except for small compensation torques applied
to the gyros t o account for acceleration sensitivity, anisoelastic effects,
temperature sensitivity, and so on,41 the gyros are uncommanded. See
Chapter 5 for a discussion of gyro compensation.
A minimum of three accelerometers or integrating accelerometers are
mounted on the space-stabilized platform to measure the specific force which
is proportional to the difference between the inertially referenced acceleration and the earth's gravitational acceleration. It is assumed that a suitable
data processor is available to perform the necessary navigational computations.

6.1

D E S C R I P T I O N O F SYSTEM

The space-stabilized inertial navigator is conceptually the simplest of all

possible system mechanizations, since Newton's laws are most simply stated
in an inertial frame of reference. I n Chapter 3 i t is shown that for practical
navigational instruments, the output of an ideal triad of accelerometers,
suitably scaled, is given by
fa

= Cqfi -

Ga

(3-5)
where f = specific force (nonfield contact force per unit mass) exerted on
instrument triad
Hi = inertially referenced acceleration

80

THE SPACE-STABILIZED TERRESTRIAL NAVIGATOR

gravitational field acceleration a t the system's location due to the

earth.

The force measurements are, of course, referenced to the accelerometer

frame. (See Section 3.8.2.)
It is evident from the equation above that two time integrations of the
gravitational field compensated specific force outputs will, if proper initial
conditions are specified, yield the earth's geocentric position vector:

ri

= r(cos

LCcos A, cos LCsin A, sin LC)

(4-1)

It is seen from Eq. 4-1 that the system's latitude and longitude can then be
calculated. The terrestrial longitude, I , is calculated from the celestial
longitude, it, using the following relationship from Chapter 3 :

For terrestrial navigation systems i t is usually required that the system's

velocity with respect to the earth be determined. The velocity is defined as :

where ve = earth-referenced velocity. The velocity is conveniently coordinatized in geographic axes to obtain the north, east, and down components :
vn = {vN,vE, vD) = C:ie
(6-2)
Equation 6-2 can be written in terms of ri by noting that since

a time differentiation and application of Eq. 2-4 yields

je

- C:(ji

- Qieri)

Thus Eq. 6-2 becomes

CP( j i - B t r i )
(6-3)
Figure 6.1 shows a functional block diagram for an ideal space-stabilized
inertial navigator. Notice that the navigation computer processes only force
data t o obtain the desired navigational information. However, the system
must be supplied with suitable initial conditions and a time reference which
is implicitly contained in the computer be it digital or analog.
Figure 6.1 indicates that the system's altitude, h, is calculated. As is well
kn0wn,~8if the altitude computation is based only on inertially derived
information, the computation loop is mathematically divergent. This
problem is investigated in Reference 7 and two methods of bounding the
altitude computation are discussed, one involving the use of an altimeter and
{vN,vE, vD)

MECHANIZATION EQUATIONS
Initial conditions

f p

3-

Accelerometer
triad

fa

Navigation
computer

'

: L
-'I
= h

lnertially
stabilized
platform

Figure 6.1

Space-stabilized inertial navigation system.

a second using a precalculated "average" altitude. The altitude computation

poblem is explored in detail in the error analysis which follows.

Many variations on the scheme presented in Figure 6.1 can be envisioned.
For example, if the accelerometer outputs were proportional to inertially
referenced velocity rather than acceleration, which would be the case if
integrating accelerometers were used, the navigation computer would perform the navigational calculations by processing :

The gravitational field compensation would therefore have t o be integrated

in order to extract the navigational information.
Other configurations involve the use of different computation frames. For
example, if altitude information is not desired, the geographic computation
frame might be suitable since the gravitational field computation could then
be avoided. I n that situation, however, a case might be made for mechanizing the system as a local vertical navigator, thereby avoiding the use of the
third accelerometer. A space-stabilized inertial navigation system computing in an earth-fixed "tangent" computation frame was satisfactorily
used as part of a VTOL flight test p r ~ g r a m . ~ ~
This
, ~ Ochapter, however, is
devoted to the space-stabilized system which computes in geocentric
inertial coordinates and processes nonintegrated force data. The theory
presented herein is easily adapted to the other configurations.

6.2

MECHANIZATION EQUATIONS

The mechanization equations for the space-stabilized inertial navigation

system are as follows.

82
6.2.1

THE SPACE-STABILIZED TERRESTRIAL NAVIGATOR

Platform Commands

Since the space-stabilized system instruments an inertially nonrotating

coordinate system the gyros are nominally untorqued. As is pointed out in
Chapter 5, however, torques are supplied t o compensate for the various
deterministic causes of gyro drift. If single-degree-of-freedom integrating
gyros are used, then the coefficients in Eq. 5-20 must be determined for
each instrument via appropriate test procedures and compensation torques
provided. Naturally, if other types of gyros are used, such as the electrostatic
gyro,15 the form of the compensation will depend on the particular instrument design.
Ideally the compensation commands cancel with the deterministic drift
and the platform is nonrotating relative to the inertial frame. Thus the
commanded platform angular velocity is equal to the desired platform
angular velocity which is equal to zero (See Eq. 3-41):

where W: = commanded gyro angular velocity

w:~ = desired platform angular velocity
A

6.2.2

lnertially Referenced Acceleration

Prom Eq. 3-5, it is seen that if the specific force measurements are transformed to the inertial frame and if gravitational field compensation is provided, then the inertially referenced acceleration can be calculated. Thus

.Pi. = et p p

..

where f

hi

&

computed inertially referenced acceleration

f = specific force measurement
G = computed gravitational field acceleration
=

The computed accelerometer-platform matrix, CE, is in general a nonorthogonal transformation and requires special treatment. (See Section 3.8.4). The
determination of the computed platform-inertial transformation, q,via
appropriate system alignment techniques is a subject unto itself 7s4g and
is discussed a t length in Chapter 9. I n general self-alignment techniques are
preferred since the error in the system alignment matrix is then correlated
with the instrument errors, resulting in a lower final system error.55

MECHANIZATION EQUATIONS

6.2.3

83

Gravitational Field Calculation

The inertially referenced gravitational field vector is calculated using

Eqs. 4-32 :

In this equation the question arises as t o how the geocentric position vector
magnitude, 8, is calculated. This question is just another statement of the
altitude problem discussed in Section 6 . 1 , since if P is calculated using f i
alone, the computation of the navigational quantities is divergent. The
~ r o b l e mcan be formulated in a general manner by introducing a weighting
factor, K, into the calculation of P3 in the denominator of Eq. 6-7 via the
nonlinear estimator :
p3 = (+,)"(+i)3-"
(6-8)
where ri., = position vector magnitude based on external information such as
an altimeter

Pi

position vector magnitude based on inertial computations

weighting factor

An estimator can take on a variety of anaIytical forms and is not restricted

to that of Eq. 6 - 8 . Other estimators are discussed in Section 8.2.4. Note that
the dimensionality of Eq. 6 - 8 is satisfied for any value of K , but as will be
shown, K must have a value greater than 2 to prevent divergent navigational
error growth. The choice of K , which results in the least computational complexity, is K = 3, a stable mix of inertial and external altitude information
which results in a pure Schuler mode. See Eq. 8-118.
The position vector magnitude based on the inertial computations, pi,
is calculated as the square root of the sum of the squares of the components of
Pi.

pi

:;(

+ 9: + p)"

(6-9)

The calculation of the position vector magnitude based on external altitude information is complicated by the fact that the supplied altitude is
usually referenced t o the surface of the earth. It is shown in Chapter 4, Eq.
4-8, t h a t the geocentric position vector magnitude can be calculated via the

84

T H E SPACE-STABILIZED TERRESTRIAL N A V I G A T O R

expression :

Pa

= Po

+i

where 9, = calculated earth radius vector magnitude t o the point directly

under the system's location
= measured

altitude of system above the reference ellipsoid

See Figure 4.1 for a geometric interpretation of Eq. 6-10. The earth radius
magnitude is calculated based on Eq. 4-21 written as a function of the
geocentric latitude, LC:

where re = earth's equatorial radius

A truncated version of the above is used:

where i t was recognized that sin LC= r,/r. Additional computational accuracy can be achieved if the nontruncated version of Eq. 6-11, which includes
the e2 effects, is used. Considering the uncertainty in re, the gravity anomalies,
and the instrument uncertainties, a more complex expression for Po than
Eq. 6-11 does not seem warranted.
The +=,/Pa term on the right-hand side of Eq. 6-11 is treated in like manner
t o the P,/P and re/? terms which occur in Eq. 6-7. Because these terms are
second order, being multiplied by either J , or e, an evaluation of P using the
previously introduced weighting factor, K , does not appear justified. The
calculation of P will therefore be taken to be the same as that for ri., of Eq.
6-10.
To summarize, the gravitational field vector is calculated using the
following version of Eq. 6-7 :

where Pi is calculated using Eq. 6-9, Pa is calculated using Eq. 6-10, and the
weighting factor, K , remains to. be specified.

85

MECHANIZATION EQUATIONS

6.2.4

Earth Referenced Velocity

The earth referenced velocity, coordinatized in geographic axes, is given

by the computed version of Eq. 6-3:

Gn = Q(jf- f i : e f i )

(6-13)
here Pi and Pi result from integration of the equation for the inertially
referenced acceleration, Eq. 6-6. The skew-symmetric form of the earth
rate vector is given by Eq. 3-11 as

and the inertial-geographic transformation is given by the transpose of Eq.

3-10 as
-sin 2 cos 2 -sin 2 sin 2

47;

-sin
-cos

6.2.5

2 cos 2

cos

-cos

2 sin 2

-sin

Latitude, Longitude, and Altitude

The geocentric latitude is related to the polar component of position by the

expression, sin LC= r J r . (See Figure 3.1). But the geographic latitude, L,
is related to the geocentric latitude, LC,through the deviation of the normal,
D. Thus the computed geographic latitude is given by

I t is shown in Chapter 4, Eq. 4-15 that the deviation of the normal is related
to the geographic latitude via the expression, D
e sin 2L. Thus the equation above for L becomes
2 = sinw18,
e sin 2 2
(6-14)
r

In Eq. 6-14 the choice again exists as to how the geocentric position vector,
?, is calculated, since either Pi of Eq. 6-9, Fa of Eq. 6-10, or some combination
of both can be used. The calculation of i can be formulated in a general
manner by introducing another weighting factor, a, such t h a t :
The ramifications of the choice of a will be left to the error analysis.

86

T H E SPACE-STABILIZED TERRESTRIAL N A V I G A T O R

The celestial longitude, A, is related to the equatorial position components

by the expression, sin I = r,/(r,
r,)s. (See Figure 3.1). But from Eq. 3-7
the celestial longitude is related to the terrestrial longitude via, I = I, +
fl - o,,t. Thus the terrestrial longitude is calculated using

i = f, + sin-'

h
4

(P:

+P

- mi'$

where I, = estimated initial terrestrial longitude from Greenwich.

Altitude, h, is related to the geocentric position vector magnitude, r,
through the radius magnitude, r,, via Eq. 4-8. Thus if Eq. 6-11 is used to
calculate r,, the computed altitude is given by:

where the estimated position vector magnitude is again given by Eq. 6-15.
6.2.6

Mechanization Diagram

The mechanization equations can be graphically represented as shown in

Figure 6.2. Note that because the calculations are nonlinear, Figure 6.2
should not be interpreted as a signal flow diagram. Note also that the
mechanization diagram shows the situation where the weighting factor,
a = 0,is used; that is, the position vector magnitude is calculated using
r = Pi.
A

6.3

ERROR ANALYSIS

Because the space-stabilized terrestrial navigator has been described and

the mechanization equations have been specified, a determination of the
system's error response proceeds from the application of the perturbation
methods discussed in Section 2.5 to the mechanization equations. The error
equations will be valid for an inertial navigation system which is allowed
general motion in the vicinity of the earth's surface. Errorless numerical
computation will be assumed; for platform systems, this is a reasonable
assumption since the information bandwidth can be accommodated by a
modestly sized airborne computer.
The error analysis will consider the effect of all of the known major error

88

THE SPACE-STABILIZED T E R R E S T R I A L NAVIGATOR

sources :
Gyro drift rate errors
Accelerometer errors
Accelerometer alignment error
System alignment error
Altimeter error
Gravity anomalies and deflections of the vertical
Gyro-torquing uncertainty is not a major error source in the space-stabilized mechanization since the gyros are free of earth, vehicle, and body rate
torquing commands which are necessary in noninertial frame mechanizations.
Low-level gyro-compensation torques are, of course, provided to account for
the effects of gyro mass unbalance, anisoelasticity, and so on. (See Section
5.3.) Errors due to torquing uncertainty in applying these compensation
torques will therefore constitute second-order quantities and will be neglected
in the error analysis. Similarly gyro alignment errors, which account for the
inability to specify the relationship between the nonorthogonal gyro frame
and the platform frame (see Section 3.8.4.2) are second order for the spacestabilized mechanization since only low level compensation commands are
applied to the gyros and since the only motion of the platform is due t o gyro
uncertainty or drift.
6.3.1

Derivation of Error Equations

The general perturbation methods to be used, which involve first-order

Taylor series expansions about the steady-state operating points are discussed in the introduction to Chapter 2 and Section 2.5. These methods have
been validated by comparing the solution of the system equations obtained
using perturbation methods with the solution obtained by an exact solution of
the system differential equations (See Appendix A).
6.3.1 .I Platform Rotation Errors. The commanded platform inertial
angular velocity is equal t o the desired platform angular velocity, which is
zero (See Eq. 6-5). Thus
A

O i D=

Because of the gyro errors, the platform will possess a finite angular velocity,
o:,. This angular velocity is related to the individual instrument uncertainties through Eq. 5-15 which shows that the platform's inertial angular
velocity about the gyro's input axis, ol, is .gi'ven by

ERROR ANALYSIS

89

where (u)M = gyro output-axis error torques

H = gyro angular momentum
Since the gyro and platform frames are related by a "small-" angle transformation, albeit nonorthogonal, and because the platform rotation is a
"small" quantity, the angular velocity of the gyro frame can be taken as
being .equal to the angular velocity of the platform ; that is
v
wigs = wiv

Thus the platform rotation is related to the individua.1 gyro torque uncertainties as follows :

Note that the sub-subscript notation for the gyro frame; x,, y,, 2,; has for
simplicity been replaced by denoting the gyros as the x, y, z gyros. Hopefully
no confusion will result from this simplification since i t is obvious that the
instrument uncertainties, (u)M, must be referred to the individual instrument sensitive axes. The reader may reasonably inquire as to why, if gyro
compensation torques are being provided, the inertial angular velocity of the
~ l a t f o r mis proportional to ( u ) M ,the uncompensated gyro output axis error
torque specified by Eq. 5-20. The major reason for this treatment of the gyro
errors is to maintain generality in the error analysis such that the results of
the analysis can be used to establish sensitivities to the various classes of
gyro errors such as fixed, mass unbalance, anisoelastic, and so on. Moreover,
even if the gyro error coefficientsare determined and compensation torques
provided, there will invariably be shifts in the values of these coefficients.
If in Eq. 6-18 the substitution, (u)cuk= -(u)Mk/Hk, k = x, y, z is made,
then the inertial angular velocity of the platform is written :

If the platform has the angular velocity given by Eq. 6-19, then the direction
cosine matrix relating the platform and inertial frames is given by the
general relationship of Eq. 2-4:
with the initial conditions :

where the subscript, po, is used to denote the platform frame a t t = 0.

The equation above is seen to have the solution:

90

T H E SPACE-STABILIZED TERRESTRIAL N A V I G A T O R

where products of error quantities were neglected, and

Since each of the elements of D* represents a "small" angle, the matrix

(I DP) represents a "small-" angle transformation relating the general
platform frame orientation to the platform frame a t t = 0 ; t h a t is,

6.3.1.2
Specific Force Measurement Errors. The specification of a
detailed accelerometer error model depends, of course, on the particular
instrument design. As was argued for the case of gyro error modeling, the
analysis is as general as possible such that the results can be used to establish
error sensitivities. To this end the output of the three accelerometers can be
arranged in vector form as follows :

where I = measured specific force

(u)f = accelerometer measurement uncertainty
The accelerometer uncertainty is typically modeled as a fixed bias term, a
scale factor error, and a random error; that is,

where ba = (b,, by, b,) = accelerometer bias

w a = (w,,w y ,wZ)= accelerometer random uncertainty
Aa = accelerometer scale factor error matrix
The scale factor error matrix is given by

A" =

0'
0

a,

where a,, k = x, y, z, is the scale factor uncertainty associated with the kth
accelerometer, expressed as the ratio of two numbers. Note that as with the
gyros, the accelerometer sub-subscript notation has been replaced in favor
of simply denoting the individual instruments as the x, y, and z accelerometers.

ERROR ANALYSIS

91

6.3.1.3 Accelerometer Alignment Errors. As was pointed out in

Chapter 3, the accelerometer sensitive axes constitute a nonorthogonal
coordinate frame. The misalignments of the instrument sensitive axes from
orthogonality can be determined as part of the accelerometer alignment
procedures and can be expressed in direction cosine matrix form per Eq. 3-34.
This computed transformation was perturbed in Section 2.5.1.3.Note, however, that errors made in compensating for accelerometer nonorthogonality
constitute second-order quantities and, under the assumptions of this error
analysis, are neglected. Accelerometer nonorthogonality therefore are treated
as if no compensation were provided in order to establish the accelerometer
nonorthogonality error sensitivity. If the accelerometer outputs are accepted
as being in platform axes, then

and the measured specific force is given by Eq. 3-39.

6.3.1.4 System Alignment Errors, As has been pointed out, i t is

necessary to compute the transformation relating the platform axes to the
inertial axes. Since the platform is ideally inertially nonrotating, then the
alignment matrix,
is a matrix of constants. The methods used to determine the system alignment are discussed in Chapter 9. Suffice i t to say that
whatever the method used, be i t gyrocompassing, optical, or some combination of both, the alignment matrix cannot be determined without error. Thus
the computed transformation is written :

e:,

where
error :

Ziis the skew-symmetric matrix associated with the misalignment

c,

where the error angles,

k = x, y, x represent an effective small-angle
rotation about the kth positive inertial axis.

6.3.1.5 Gravitational Field Calculation Errors. As explained in

Section 6.2.3 the gravitational field is calculated using Eq. 6-12. If all of the
quantities necessary to compute the gravitational field vector were precisely
known, then Eq. 6-12 would yield an expression for the gravitational field
associated with the reference ellipsoid, Gd. Because of errors, Eq. 6-12 can be

92

THE SPACE-STABILIZED TERRESTRIAL NAVIGATOR

written :

bi = G: + 6Gi

(6-26)

where G: = gravitational field associated with the reference ellipsoid

6Gi = error in the computed gravitational field

To determine an expression for 6Gi, the two position vector magnitude equations for ri and r,, Eqs. 6-9 and 6-10, respectively, are first perturbed by letting
in Eq. 6-9,
(6-27)
Fk = rk ark
k = x, y,z
and in Eq. 6-10,
(6-28)
F, = r,
6r,
and
il= h
6ha
where 6h, = error in the measured altitude of the system above the reference
ellipsoid.

+
+

It is found t h a t

and
where products involving higher order error terms and products of an error
with the earth's ellipticity, e, have not been included because of their insignificantly small values.
Substitution of Eqs. 6-27, 6-29, and 6-30 into Eq. 6-12 yields the desired
expression for the error in the computed gravitational field :
(ri) 6riri - 6ri]
r2

(6-31)

where
6ri

(6r,, dry, 6r,)

6.3.1.6

lnertially Referenced Acceleration Errors. The error in

the computed acceleration is found from Eq. 6-6 by first substituting Eq.
6-24 for C,: Eq. 6-22 for
Ep. 6-25 for C:, and Eq. 6-26 for &, giving

ca,

where it was recognized from Eq. 3-32 that fa = [I + (ACz)T]f~,and terms

involving products of error quantities or other small quantities such as
(ACE)* have been neglected as being negligibly small.
The effects of gyro uncertainty are introduced into Eq. 6-32 by recognizing

ERROR ANALYSIS

93

substituting Eq. 6-33 and the perturbed acceleration expression :

into Eq. 6-32, and recognizing that fi = ri - Gi, yields

Note t h a t the "pO"sub/superscript has been replaced by p since the p and p,

frames differ by a "small-" angle transformation and products of error
quantities are involved.
Finally it is noted from Eq. 4-38 that

(6-35)
Gi = G% C ~ A G "
where t h e column matrix AGn contains the deflection of the vertical and
gravity anomaly terms, namely,

AGn

( E g , -q9,

As,

Thus when Eq. 6-35 is substituted for Gi and Eq. 6-31 for dGi, Eq. 6-34
becomes

I n arranging Eq. 6-36 in the form shown, the identity from vector analysis
given by Eq. 2-13 was employed:

where Ri is the skew-symmetric form of ri.

Equation 6-36 is a second-order coupled, linear, vector differential equation with time-varying coefficients which is forced by expressions involving
the various mechanization errors.
6.3.1.7
Latitude, Longitude, and Altitude Errors. Solution of Eq.
6-36 will by itself yield the position errors. However, for purposes of comparison with other system mechanizations it is convenient to write the error
vector, 6ri, in terms of the latitude, longitude, and altitude errors. This is
accomplished by perturbing the pertinent expressions developed in Section
6.2.5. I n particular the expressions for the latitude, Eq. 6-14; for the terrestrial longitude, Eq. 6-16; for the altitude, Eq. 6-17; and for the geocentric

94

THE SPACE-STABILIZED TERRESTRIAL NAVIGATOR

position vector magnitude, Eq. 6-15 are perturbed by substituting the

perturbed expressions for the altimeter derived geocentric position vector
magnitude, the inertially derived geocentric position vector magnitude, and
the computed position vector components ; namely,

?k = r,

+ 6r,

= x,y , z

The latitude error is seen t o be given by

6L= (a- 1)sinL

sin1-

6r
dh,
+ cos L ( l + a tan2L ) 2
- a -t a n L
r
r

(6-37)

while the longitude error is given by

sec L
(-sin I 6rx
cos ;ldry)
r
Note that the initial longitude error, 61,, has been ignored in Eq. 6-38. In
general the initial condition errors will be accounted for when the error
equations are solved. The altitude error is given by
61 =

Qh = (1 - a)(6r, cos L cos A

+ dry cos L sin A +- 6rz sin L ) + a dh,

(6-39)

Note that if all inertial information is used for the calculation of the geocentric position vector magnitude, then a = 0 and ? = ti. The navigation
errors are seen to be related t o the geocentric position error vector by the
following expression :

On the other hand, if all external or altimeter information is used t o calculate

the geocentric position vector magnitude, then a = 1 and i; = ?a. For this
case, it is seen that

95

E R R O R ANALYSIS

obviously, other choices of the weighting factor, a , will yield different relationships between the variables. The important point is that the method of
the latitude, longitude and altitude aflects the error response.
This is a point which is invariably overlooked in the standard references on
inertial navigation systems. This fact can be used to advantage under certain
circumstances; for example, by choosing a = 1 the latitude error can be
completely uncoupled from the two equatorial channels.
To explore this point in more detail recall that the latitude, longitude, and
&itude are found directly from the computed geocentric position vector,
since
ri = (rz, ry, rz) = { r cos LCcos A, r cos LCsin

A, r sin LC)

(4-1)

It is evident from the equation above t h a t there are many possible relationships between the inertially referenced position components and the latitude,
longitude, and position vector magnitudes. For example, the latitude could
be extracted either with the computation scheme of Eq. 6-14 or with the
following trigonometric relationship :

Similarly the longitude could have been extracted using, instead of Eq.
6-16, the following :

i = i, + sin-'

f,

(P2 - fZ)%

- w,,t

Obviously, other computation schemes are possible.

It might be expected that the two equations above would yield ident'ical
results t o that obtained using Eqs. 6-14 and 6-16. As will be shown, however,
the respective computation schemes are identical only if a = 0. This result
is seen by perturbing Eqs. 6-14a and 6-16a yielding

6 L = -(sin L

+ a cos2L csc L )

+ sin A -

6% +
+ (1 - a ) cos L r

GC

6ha cot L
r

(6-37a)

and
sec L
61 = -[-(1

- a ) sin

A 6r,

+ (cos A + a sin A t a n A ) 6r,

+ a t a n L t a n A 6rz - a sec L tan A dh,]

(6-38a)

96

T H E SPACE-STABILIZED TERRESTRIAL NAVIGATOR

Thus it is seen that unless all inertially derived information is used in extracting the latitude and longitude from the geocentric position vector components (a = 0 ) , then the error response depends on both the choice of a
and the chosen computation scheme.
The general expression relating the latitude, longitude, and altitude errors
to the geocentric position errors and the altimeter error is given by combining
Eqs. 6-37, 6-38, and 6-39 directly:

where
-a tan L'

-a

It is seen from the form of the M, matrix in the equation above that i t will
not be possible to solve for the vector 6ri as an explicit function of 6L,
61, and 6h because the inverse of M, contains a singularity a t a = 1. Thus
the relationship given by Eq. 6-42 cannot be inverted such that dr, and 6r,
can be independently specified. This difficulty is avoided if the variable dh
is written as a function of the error in the inertial computation of altitude,
6hi, and dh,. The inertially derived altitude is calculated using the relationship specified by Eq. 4-8 :
hi = Fi - i.o
(6-43)
where Fi is given by Eq. 6-9 and F0 is given by Eq. 6-11. But from Eq. 6-29,
(rilTri/r and if second-order quantities are neglected, f0 = ro.
i.i = r
Thus

r
where ah, = hi - h = error in the inertial computation of altitude above the
reference ellipsdid.
Substituting Eq. 6-44 into 6-39 shows that
Equation 6-45 is now substituted for 6h in Eq. 6-42, yielding
A
6ni =

I r 61

cos L

= M2C: 6ri

+ k2dh,

(6-46)

ERROR ANALYSIS

where

: :]

M 2 = b

-cctanL

-atan
and

k 2 [

6.3.1.8 Earth-Referenced V e l o c i t y Errors. The error in t h e computation of velocity is found directly from Eq. 6-13 by substituting

and from Eq
Thus the velocity error is given by

Equation 6-47 is nothing more than a relationship between the velocity error
vector and the navigation errors as given by 6ii, 6ri, and Nn.
For the case of a = 0 in the computation of the navigation errors, Eq.
6-40 shows t h a t
8ri = Ch Sn = CC(r 6L, r Sl cos L, -6h)
In addition from Eq. 4-51,
vn = ( ( r L

+ h)L, ( r l +- h)i cos L, - A )

Finally the elements of Nn are given by Eq. 2-17 as

V" =

(vN, VE,vD) = (61 cos L,

-6L,

-61 sin L)

where i t was noted t h a t if the initial conditions are ignored, 61 = 62. Substituting 'the expressions above for 6ri, vn, and vn into Eq. 6-47 yields after
some algebra and neglecting of second-order terms:

where the differential operator, p = dldt, has been employed. For most
applications, Eq. 6-48 can, with sufficient accuracy, be written as the three

98

THE SPACE-STABILIZED TERRESTRIAL NAVIGATOR

uncoupled equations :

-- r 6 i
6UE -- r 6i cos L
dun-

duo

-ah

Note that for the case of a = 1, i t is impossible t o express the velocity errors
as an explicit function of 6L, 61, and 6h. This difficulty is seen from the form
of the MI matrix of Eq. 6-42 as previously mentioned.
The alternate expression given by Eq. 6-46 can be used t o relate the velocity errors t o 6L, 61, and ah,. Substitution of Eq. 6-46 into 6-47 yields

Evaluation of the expression above shows t h a t :

'P

-ri sin L

r cos Lp

.
sec2 L
-Z

(1 - a sec2L)L - a t a n Lp(1

+ a tan2 L)i cos L

-p

- ai tan L

+ t a n Lp

sin2L sec L

L tan L

6ha

Comparison of Eqs. 6-50 and 6-48 reveals that a t a = 0, the relationships

are identical. For a = 1 in the expression above, i t is seen t h a t cross coupling
is still present between the latitude and longitude channels and the inertial
altitude channel.
6.3-1.9 Attitude E r r o r (Level and Azimuth Errors). I n a spacestabilized system, components of the system geocentric position vector can
be computed in geocentric inertial axes. From this knowledge and a clock,
latitude and longitude are computed. Thus the coordinate transformation
relating the geographic frame t o the inertial frame is available via the transformation of Eq. 3-10. It can be inferred t h a t knowledge of the vertical and
north is implicitly contained in this transformation. One is, in fact, tempted
t o directly associate the level and azimuth errors with the appropriate
elements of t h e error matrix, Eq. 2-17, which results from the perturbation
of Eq. 3-10. The inadequacy of this association is illustrated by a n exampleTo fixideas, assume that the platform is being used as a stabilized reference t o measure some physical quantity such as specific force. The mechanization of an airborne gravimeter63 would be an example of such an application.
For the airborne gravimeter and for general terrestrial applications, it is

99

E R R O R ANALYSIS

reasonable t o refer the physical measurements to a local earth referenced

coordinate frame, the local geographic frame being most appropriate. The
geographically referred measured specific force would then be given by
A

Ci CpCEfa

ez,

substituting Eq. 2-16 for e;, 6-25 for ei, 3-30 for
and 6-21 for C ~ into
O the
above yields
f * = [I - N n - CZ0DpC:o - C;ZiCi,]Czfa
(6-51)
A

where it was observed t h a t

It is seen from Eq. 6-51 t h a t i t is the combination of elements in the bracketed

term which determine the transformation errors from instrument coordinates
to the geographic frame. Moreover it is seen t h a t the Nn and Dp matrices are
time varying, the matrix Nn depending on the latitude and longitude errors
and the matrix DP depending on t h e gyro uncertainties. Therefore Nn is a
function of DP, since the gyro uncertainties result in latitude and longitude
errors. The other element of the bracketed term represents the constant system
alignment error.
From the example above, it would appear reasonable from a physical point
of view t o regard the attitude error (the level and azimuth errors) as t h e
orthogonal transformation error between the platform axes and geographic
axes, expressed. in geographic axes. The constant system misalignment error
is regarded as an initial condition for the attitude error. That is,

with, since DP(0) = 0, the initial condition:

En(0)= C;ZiCb +$n6b)c.,

. ..

(6-53)
.

,$"

where the attitude error is of the form:

It is t o be emphasized t h a t the attitude errors as deJined by Eq. 6-52 are not

equal to the conventional platform error angles for this configuration. Note
also that t h e accelerometer nonorthogonality error was not included in t h e
definition above since nonorthogonality is a measurement error a s opposed
to a transformation error. This is not to say that the effect of accelerometer
nonorthogonality does not in fact result in a n attitude error, as d o all error
sources, but t h a t this effect must be treated separately.

100

THE SPACE-STABILIZED TERRESTRIAL NAVIGATOR

I n veoior form, Eq. 6-52 is written as

cn - v n = C,dn

+ C?ri

where
zn = {+,

"=)

v n = {6l cos L, -6L, -62 sin L )

6.3.2

Canonical Form of Error Equations

U

As was previously mentioned, solution of Eq. 6-36 will by itself yield the
position errors in inertial coordinates. Equation 6-42 or 6-46 could then be
used t o compute the corresponding latitude, longitude, and altitude errors;
Eq. 6-47 could be used to compute the velocity errors, and Eq. 6-52 could be
used t o compute the level and azimuth errors. This was basically the
approach taken in Reference 7. The approach taken herein is to combine these
equations in a canonical form having an error state vector composed of the
attitude and position errors ; namely,

The velocity errors can then be extracted from the computed state vector
via Eq. 6-48. The formulation above of the state vector appears to be a reasonable compromise between the concise formulation represented by solution of
Eq. 6-36, for

and a more complex formulation which includes the velocity errors, particularly since the velocity and position errors are so simply related by Eq. 6-48.
Please note that the vector x is not a "state vector" in the usual sense,
since i t will be seen that nine initial conditions will be needed to solve for x.
The three additional initial conditions are required because the differential
equations describing the behavior of dL, 61, and 6 h will be shown to be second
order.
The system equations are manipulated into the canonical form by making
use of the relationships between the inertially referenced position errors and
the navigation errors as given by Eq. 6-40. Note that as previously discussed
in Section 6.3.1.8, the error equations cannot be written as a function solely
of the dependent variables 6L, 61, and 6 h for the case of a = 1.

101

ERROR ANALYSIS

Thus Eq. 6-36 is writt3n as a function of 6rn via Eq. 6-40:

quat ti on 6-36 is first premultiplied by CT, and it is observed that if Eq.

6-40 is twice differentiated, then

Thus Eq. 6-36 becomes

A considerable simplification can be effected on the left-hand side of Eq. 6-56,

if the identity given by Eq. 2-11 is applied to the bracketed term representing
the gravitational effects. That is, since

RiRi = ri(rilT - ( ri ) Tri I

then
(K

- 2)1

(K

- 3)

(6-57)

K-2

I n obtaining Eq. 6-57, products of small quantities involving the earth's

ellipticity, e , and error variables were neglected. The simple result represented by Eq. 6-57 essentially points out the fact that the two equivalent
level loops, 6nN and anE, will be Schuler tuned and that only the vertical
channel depends on the gravitational weighting factor, K . The level loops will,
however, be affected by the choice of K because of other cross coupling terms.
The attitude error expression, as defined by Eqs. 6-52 and 6-53, is next
substituted into the right-hand side of Eq. 6-56, that is,

The resulting expression is transferred to the left-hand side of the equation,

102

THE SPACE-STABILIZED TERRESTRIAL NAVIGATOR

giving

I n the equation above, 6n is given by Eq. 6-40, and win, is given by Eq. 3-8.
These expressions are substituted into Eq. 6-58 and the necessary time differentiation and matrix algebra is performed. I n addition the analytic expressions for Nn given by Eq. 2-17 and for f n given by Eq. 4-53 are utilized
in the algebraic manipulations, resulting in Eq. 6-59 shown on Pg. 103.
I n obtaining Eq. 6-59 the definition of the Schuler frequency was employed,
namely,

w, = J g / r

Jp/r3

Note that the terms appearing in Eq. 6-59 are first-order error terms as
described in Section 2.5. Terms involving the earth's ellipticity, e, or equivalently, those involving the centripetal acceleration due to the rotation of the
earth are second order when multiplied by the error variables and are therefore neglected. Generally speaking the errors due to approximations in the
final error equations are commensurate with the uncertainty in the sensed
specific force for navigation quality accelerometers, about 2 x 10-5g.
Since the coefficients of the error equation are functions of the system's
motion over the earth, then the 2 x 10-5 g criteria is found to apply only
if the vehicle motion is that which one would expect to encounter in an
application such as the supersonic transport.' For an application such as a
hypersonic glider the equations would have to be modified to include secondorder effects in order to maintain the specified precision. On the other hand,
for a reentry vehicle application, the time of flight is so short that the errors
resulting from a violation of the 2 x 10-5 g criteria will not be appreciable.
I n any application care must be exercised to ensure that the equations are
not being applied outside the region of their validity.
Equation 6-59 is three equations in six unknowns. The other three necessary equations are those which describe the behavior of the attitude errors.
The differential equation for the attitude errors is found from Eq. 6-55 by
premultiplying by Cz and performing a time differentiation :

104

T H E SPACE-STABILIZED TERRESTRIAL N A V I G A T O R

But since :
C is approximately constant, C;
equation above is written :
i n - V"

Since, from Eq. 3-8,

,
:
o

C F C ~= c:c:P:,,

- yn) =

(I cos L, -L, -I

and the

Cpd
n .TJ

sin L )

and from Eq. 2-17,

v n = (61 cos L, -6L, -61 sin L )

then

[i
sin L

-<"

-'OS

- Qinnun =

LplT d ~ 1

A cos L

sin Lp
The differential equation for the attitude errors is then given by

cos L

C;(u)wTJ

(6-61)

sin ~p

Equations 6-61 and 6-59 form the desired error differential equation in
canonical form for the space-stabilized inertial navigation system. The
equation set is valid for the mechanization scheme shown in Figure 6.2.
Equations 6-61 and 6-59 are written in the form:
where the forcing function for the space-stabilized system is given by

The characteristic matrix A is shown in Figure 6.3 and the error state vector
is given by:
x = ( E EE
~ ED 6L 61 6h)
Since Eq. 6-62 is valid only for the case of a = 0, the variable 6h in the
above expression can be replaced by 6h,

6.3.2

Solution in Response to Constant Gyro Drift6

Solutions to Eq. 6-62 are available for the case of constant gyro drift end
for several constant terrestrial longitude rates. The navigation errors for this

106

T H E SPACE-STABILIZED TERRESTRIAL N A V I G A T O R

case, 6r" expressed in inertial coordinates, are given by Eq. A-18 in Appendix
A. The corresponding latitude and longitude errors are found by applying
Eq. 6-40:
6 n = :C 6ri
(6-40)
The operation above is carried out in Reference 6, and the results are shown
in Figures 6.4 and 6.5 for the case where the gyro drifts along all three axes

STATIONARY

SCHULER CELESTIAL
LONG. RATE

_I

12

18

24

TIME (hours)

Figure 6.4

Latitude errors.

ZERO CELESTIAL
LONG. R A T E

SCHULER CELESTIAL
LONG. RATE

STATIONARY

TIME (hours)

Figure 6.5

Longitude errors.

108

T H E SPACE-STABILIZED TERRESTRIAL N A V I G A T O R

are equal ; that is,

W,

= coy = mZ = w =

constant

The four longitude rates are as follows:

Stationary,

=0

Zero celestial longitude rate,

i = -oi,

Schuler celestial longitude rate,

Large celestial longitude rate,

= w, - mi,

i >> W ,

Note that for the large celestial longitude case, only the error envelope is
shown since the longitude rate is not explicitly specified. Note t h a t constant
gyro drift results in linear growth of the latitude and longitude errors with
an upper bound given by the product of the drift rate and elapsed time.

CHAPTER

7
T h e Local- Level T e r r e s t r i a l
Navigator

The local-level terrestrial navigation system physically instruments the

local geographic coordinate frame. I n this mechanization the platform axes
are therefore commanded into alignment with the local north-east-down
coordinate system. It will be assumed t h a t three accelerometers are present
to measure the geographically referred specific force. I n many applications
vertical navigation is not desired and the vertical accelerometer is therefore
omitted. For the purposes of comparison with other mechanizations, however, the vertical channel must be considered. The navigational quantities
of interest are again the system's position and earth referenced velocity.
It is also assumed that a suitable data processor is available to perform the
necessary navigational computations.

7.1

D E S C R I P T I O N O F SYSTEM

The system design is motivated by examination of the expression for the

specific force in geographic axes:
fn

C:[fi

- Gi]

As is shown in Chapter 4, the equation above can be conveniently written

as a function of the earth referenced velocity as follows:

+ vE(i + Zw,,) sin L - Lv, - g

- viY(i + 2~0,) sin L - ~ , ( i+ 204,) cos L + q g
i., + vZ(i + zmie)c~~ L + Lv, - g
v n = {(rL + h)L, ( r t + h)i cos L, -&)
.
,
j

where

(4-48)

(4-51)

where rL and rl are the meridional and prime radii of curvature, as defined in

109

110

T H E LOCAL-LEVEL TERRESTRIAL NAVIGATOR

Chapter 4. Navigational. information is readily obtained from fn, since if

velocity cross coupling and gravity compensation are provided in Eq. 4-48,
then
f"

r, "1
%

+ qg

(4-51)

The equation above is then integrated with suitable initial conditions to

obtain an estimate of vn. Equation 4-51, shown above, is then applied to
determine, via a time integration, the system's latitude, longitude, and
altitude.
The platform commands are readily generated through application of the
relationship between vn a n d o & as given by Eqs. 4-51 and 3-8, respectively.
Specifically, the ideal platform angular velocity is given by Eq. 3-8 as
mi", =

(1 cos L, -L, - A

where

sin L)

(3-8)

+ w,,

Figure 7-1 shows a functional block diagram for the local-level terrestrial
navigator. As indicated by Figure 7.1, the system computes the altitude.
The stability of this calculation is investigated in the error analysis.
The mechanization described in this chapter is just one of a class of inertial
navigation systems which have the common characteristic of maintaining
two of its accelerometers in the reference horizontal plane and a third along
the normal to the reference ellipsoid. The local-level system described herein,
which instruments the geographic coordinate frame, is undoubtedly the
most successful of all the inertial navigation system configurations. The class
of local-level systems today constitute the majority of operational inertial
navigation systems.
Initial conditions

S-

~ccelerometer
triad

fn

Navigation
computer

r~
Z

Geographically
stabilized
platform
command

Figure 7.1

Local-level inertial navigation system.

MECHANIZATION EQUATIONS

111

The "free-azimuth" system is a variation on the local-level system in which

the platform is space-stabilized in azimuth. This platform configuration
merely results from the elimination of torquing command to the azimuth,
or vertical, gyro. While the free azimuth system has the obvious advantage
of being insensitive to vertical gyro torquing uncertainty, the navigational
become slightly more complicated, since an additional coordinate transformation must be calculated t o relate the mechanized coordinate frame t o the geographic frame.
The "rotating azimuth" navigation system1 is another variation on the
local-level system in which the azimuth gyro is torqued a t a relatively high
angular rate, typically 3 to 6 deg/sec. The rotating azimuth system takes
advantage of the fact that inertial navigation systems behave like low pass
filters in response t o error sources. Thus constant or slowly varying uncertainties associated with the level gyros and accelerometers will be frequency
modulated a t t h e azimuth rotation rate and their contribution t o the system
error will be reduced. For a constant instrument uncertainty, the error
sensitivity is reduced by the ratio of the Schuler frequency to the azimuth
rotation frequency.27I n rotating azimuth systems a precision gimbal angle
resolver is usually required to determine the relative orientation between the
rotating platform and a fiducial gimbal line. Although the resolver uncertainty represents an additional error source, the use of a resolver eliminates the requirement for precision azimuth gyro torquing at the high
rotation rate.
7.2

MECHANIZATION EQUATIONS

The mechanization equations for the local-level terrestrial navigator are

as follows.

7.2.1

Platform Commands

The platform ~ ~ o uideally

ld
be commanded a t the angular velocity of the
geographic frame with respect to the inertial frame as given by Eq. 3-8.
However, the situation is complicated by two factors-the gyro compensation and gyro nonorthogonality. The gyro compensation is applied based on a
gyro error model and on coefficients determined during a calibration procedure, as discussed in Chapter 5. Errors made in applying the gyro compensation constitute second-order quantities and are ignored. Shifts in the
gyro error model's coefficients, however, are fully accounted for in the gyro
drift error model. The nonorthogonality of the gyro input axes are considered
for the case where no attempt is made t o measure the six misalignment angles
as discussed in Section 3.8.4.3.

112

T H E LOCAL-LEVEL TERRESTRIAL N A V I G A T O R

Thus the commanded platform angular velocity is given by a computed

version of Eq. 3-8 as

where &pn is the desired platform angular velocity.

7.2.2

Specific Force Calculation

For the local-level mechanization, it will be assumed that both the gyro
and accelerometer frames are nominally aligned with the platform frame
which, in turn, is nominally aligned with the local geographic frame. The
specific force measurements are not assumed to be compensated for the
effects of the accelerometer's input axis nonorthogonality. Since the assumption is made that the platform is aligned with the geographic frame, an
explicit alignment matrix is not necessary. The geographically referenced
specific force is then given by
A

fn

= fa = p p f r a

e: ez

ID

(74

where
=
= I.
The initial alignment of the platform frame with the geographic frame is
accomplished using either self-contained techniques such as leveling and
gyrocompassing or external techniques such as optical alignment.
7.2.3

Earth-Referenced Velocity

The estimates of the earth-referenced velocity are found from the integration of the appropriately compensated specific force data. Using the relationship between the specific force and velocity given by Eq. 4-48, the time
rate of change of the velocity is given by

Thus the computed velocity is given by

113

E R R O R ANALYSIS

7.2.4

Gra.vity Calculation

As is indicated by Eq. 7-3, the vertical channel requires an explicit computation of the magnitude of the earth's gravity field, g. An analytic ex~ressionfor the gravity field vector magnitude associated with t h e reference
ellipsoid is derived in Section 4.5.1 :
g e = lu
- [l - %J2(1
- 3 cos ZL)] - rcu:
r2

cos L cos LC

(4-43)

It is seen from the equation above that the choice again exists as t o how the
geocentric position vector magnitude, r, is calculated. The approach will again
be taken t o introduce the weighting factor, K , to allow a general treatment of
the mixing of external altitude information and inertially derived altitude
information. Thus
-

~2

(e,)"(~~)~-"

(7-4)

and the computed gravity field magnitude is given by

where, from Chapter 6,

Fa
and

Po

= Po

+h

re(1 - e sin2 &)

(6-10)
(6-11)

and, from Chapter 4, Eq. 4-8,

ei = eo + hi

(7-6)

where hi = computed altitude based on inertial computations. Note that the

weighting factor is not introduced in the calculation of the centripetal
acceleration term in Eq. 7-5 since this term is second order.

7.2.5

Latitude, Longitude, and Altitude

The latitude, longitude, and altitude are related to the earth-reference

velocities through Eq. 4-51, which is repeated in Section 7.1. Thus

114

T H E L O C A L - L E V E L TERRESTRIAL N A V I G A T O R

I n the computation of the latitude and longitude, the altitude associated with
the radii of curvature is calculated by introducing the second weighting factor,
a,to mix the altimeter-derived and inertially derived altitudes:

Thus the equations above become

GE

[jZ

hi = -6,

(%)"(Fri)l-']00s

f.

(7-9)
(7-10)

The latitude, longitude, and altitude are obtained by integrating the above
equations with the suitable initial conditions :

7.2.6

Mechanization Diagram

The mechanization equations are graphically represented as shown in

Figure 7.2. The diagram is drawn for the case of a = 0,that is, the inertial
information is used to calculate the system's altitude. Note that all of the
feedback paths are not shown.

7.3

E R R O R ANALYSIS

The error analysis for the local-level terrestrial navigator proceeds in

exactly the same fashion as did that for the space-stabilized system of
Chapter 6. Gyro torquing uncertainty, however, represents an additional
error source which must be considered in the error analysis of this system,
since the gyros must be torqued a t a rate which is proportional to the
angular velocity of the geographic frame relative to the inertial frame. For
the same reason errors due to gyro nonorthogonality represent a second
additional error source for the local-level system. (See Section 3.8.4.2).

116

T H E LOCAL-LEVEL TERRESTRIAL N A V I G A T O R

Thus the error sources listed in Section 6.3 are supplemented by the following two sources for the local-level navigation system :
Gyro torquing error
Gyro alignment error
7.3.1

Derivation o f Error Equations

The error equations are obtained by applying perturbation methods

to the mechanization equations derived in Section 7.2.
7.3-1.1 Platform Rotation Errors. The inertially referenced angular
velocity of the platform is given by the commanded angular velocity plus
the angular velocity due to gyro uncertainty. The commanded angular
velocity is given by Eq. 7-1 and the uncertainty angular velocity by Eq.
6-19, recognizing from Eq. 6-19 that

where (u)wP = gyro uncertainty induced, platform inertial angular velocity.

There are three sources of error involved in applying the angular velocity
command to the platform. (1)Because of navigation errors, the components
An
of win
given by Eq. 7-1 cannot be precisely calculated. (2) The required
torque cannot be precisely applied because of gyro torque generator scale
factor uncertainty. (3) The commanded angular velocity is applied to a nonorthogonal set of instruments as discussed in Section 3.8.4.2.
Taking the considerations above into account, the inertial angular velocity of the platform is given by Eqs. 7-1, 7-14, and 3-42 as

where

TP = gyro torque scale factor uncertainty matrix

rk,k = X, y, z, = scale factor uncertainty associated with the kth gyro.

AC; = small-angle misalignment matrix that describes the gyro

nonorthogonality as defined in Section 3 B.4.2.

The expression for Gpnas given by Eq. 7-1 is perturbed by substituting the
=L
6L and = 1 + 62, giving
expressions,

117

ERROR ANALYSIS

where

Note that the time derivative operator, p = dldt, was introduced into the
w,,, p61 = p61.
quation above and i t was recognized that, since 1 = t
The platform error angular velocity is found by substituting Eq. 7-16
into 7-15 and noting that the desired platform angular velocity is given by
W i n - Thus
(7-17)
d ~ =
: (T
~ D ACz)w& h i " ,
(u)w"
where 6wTp = platform error angular velocity.

7.3.1.2
Specific Force Measurement Errors. The accelerometer
error mode1 for the local-level system is taken as identical to t h a t for the
space-stabilized system ; namely,
where
and the various terms are defined in Section 6.3.1.2.
7.3.1.3
Accelerometer Alignment Errors. If the accelerometer
outputs are accepted as coordinatized in an orthogonal axis set, then an
explicit calculation of the transformation from accelerometer axes to platform axes is not needed. Thus
=1
(7-18)
The relationship between the accelerometer frame referenced and platform
frame referenced specific force is shown by Eq. 3-32 to be given by the
following :
fa = [I
(AC:)T]f"
(7-19)
7.3.1.4
A t t i t u d e Errors. The attitude errors are defined in exactly
the same fashion as for the space-stabilized system, that is, the orthogonal
transformation error between the platform and geographic axes coordinatized
in geographic axes. For the local-level mechanization, the platform is assumed
to be aligned with the local geographic frame. Thus the attitude errors are
equal to the platform errors as defined in Section 7.3.1. l .
The differential equation for the attitude errors is found by applying the
general relationship between the time rate of change of & direction cosine
matrix relating two frames and the frames' relative angular velocity. Thus
if Eq. 2-4 is applied to this case,

e:

where

Ci

= Cp:,

Cg

=I

+ En

(7-20)
(7-21)

T H E LOCAL-LEVEL TERRESTRIAL NAVIGATOR

and the attitude error matrix, En, is given by Eq. 6-54 as

The angular velocity of the platform frame relative to the geographic

frame is given by
oEZ,
= og, - w iZ,n
where ozZ,
is given by Eq. 7-15 and
n
w iZ,n = C Z,n o ni n = win
- Enwinn

Thus

WE,

+ Eno,",

(7-22)

where 6 4 , is given by Eq. 7-17.

Substituting Eqs. 7-21 and 7-22 into 7-20 gives, after some algebra and
neglecting of second-order terms,
where en is the vector form of the skew-symmetric error angle matrix, and
the analytic expression for d o & is given by Eq. 7-17.
7.3.1.5
System A l i g n m e n t Errors. For the local-level inertial
navigation system it is assumed that initial alignment procedures such as
gyrocompassing or optical methods have resulted in a nominal alignment of
the platform frame with the geographic frame. The initial platform misalignment can be expressed as the constant matrix :

where p, denotes the platform frame a t t = 0 and En(0)is interpreted as the

initial value of the attitude error matrix of the previous section.
7.3.1.6
E a r th-Referenced Velocity Errors. The earth-referenced
velocity error equation is found by perturbing the vector form of the velocity
mechanization equation given by Eq. 7-3:

Thus, if the following substitutions are made,

119

ERROR ANALYSIS

then Eq. 7-25 becomes

SGn + (a,", 2Q:)

Sv"

Vn(SO,",

+ 2 6 0 2 ) = bgn + 6fn

(7-26)

where

Vn

skew-symmetric form of the velocity vector

(1

an
e n + 2QG

+ 2 q e )sin L
0

-L
-

(i + 20,,) cos L

(i + 2 ~ , , )cos L

and

The geographically referenced specific force perturbation, 6fn, is expressed as

a function of the measurement and navigation errors by perturbing the
expression for t h e computed specific force :
But from Eq. 6-22, Fa = fa
Thus

+ (u)fa,and from Eq. 7-19, fa = [I + (AC,)a T]fp.

i n =

V T
f D + (AC,,
f

(7-28)

The platform-referenced specific force is expressed in terms of the geographically referenced specific force via the attitude matrix of Eq. 7-21, CE = I En.Thus the geographically referenced specific force perturbation is found
by substituting Eqs. 7-21 and 7-28 into 7-27, giving, after neglecting secondorder terms :
dfn = -Enfn
(ACz)Tfn (u)fa
(7-29)

7.3.1.7 Gravity Field Calculation Errors. The gravity field is

calculated under the assumption that the earth's deflections of the vertical
and gravity anomalies are not compensated. Thus
*n

07 gel
(7-30)
where the gravity field magnitude associated with the reference ellipsoid,
ge7is calculated using Eq. 7-5. The expression for cje is perturbed by substituting into Eq. 7-5, the quantities:
=
Po
h,
Pi = 9,
A,, i,= LC
*
64, 2 = L
6L, h = h
aha, and gi = h
Sh,. If second-order quantities are, as usual, neglected as being negligibly small in comparison t o the
remaining terms,
g

+
+

120

T H E LOCAL-LEVEL TERRESTRIAL NAVIGATOR

The error in the gravity field calculation is given by d i n

the analytic expression for gn is given by Eq. 4-36. Thus

in- gn, where

7.3.1.8 Latitude, Longitude, and Altitude Errors. The relationship

between the latitude, longitude, and altitude errors and the velocity errors is
found by perturbing Eqs. 7-7, 7-8, 7-9, and 7-10 by substituting the quantities: E = L
6L,Z = 1
&,hi = h
6hi,Gn = vn
6vn,%= h
ah,,
FL = rL
SrL, 8, = r,
6r,, and fi = h
6h.

Equation 7-7 yields the same relationship as that obtained for the spacestabilized system, Eq. 6-45
6h

(1 - a ) 6hi

+ a ah,

Equation 7-8 yields

+ (1 - a

6vN = rp 6L

) 6h,
~

+ a t Sh,

(7-32)

Equation 7-9 yields

dvE

r cos Lp 61 - rt sin L SL

+ (1 - a)t cos L ah, + at cos L 6ha

(7-33)

and Eq. 7-10 yields

6vD = -p 6hi

(7-34)

As usual second-order terms such as 6rL and 6r, were neglected in obtaining
the expressions above. It was also noted in the expressions above t h a t

The three equations above can be arranged in matrix form as follows :

rP
-ri

sin L
0

(1 - a ) L

r cos Lp

(1 - a),!cos

-P
,

(7-35)

Note that the vertical channel could be modified utilizing Eq. 6-45 to eliminate hi from Eq. 7-35. If this is done, Eq. 7-35 takes the alternate form :

121

E R R O R ANALYSIS

gotice that for the formulation of Eq. 7-36, a singularity is introduced into
tlie relationship when 6h approaches ah, as a approaches a value of one.
Therefore Eq. 7-35 will be used since i t is valid for all values of a.
Comparing Eq. 7-35 with its counterpart for the space-stabilized system,
~ q6-50,
.
i t is seen that it is only for a value of a = 0 that the two expressions
are identical.
7.3.2

Canonical Form o f Error Equations

The error equations of Section 7.3.1 are now combined in the canonical
form having an error state vector composed of the attitude and position
errors :
x = {eN,e ~E, ~6L,
, 61, ahi)
The velocity errors are extracted from the state vector using Eq. 7-35
and, if desired, the altitude error based on the weighted combination of
inertially computed altitude, hi, and altimeter computed altitude, ha, can
be found from Eq. 6-45.
The canonical error equation is derived in two steps. The attitude error
equation, Eq. 7-23, is first used to obtain an expression for three equations
in the five state variables: sn, bL, and 61. The velocity error equation, Eq.
7-26, is then used t o obtain a second set of three equations in the six state
variables: sn, bL, 61, and ah,.
Equation 7-23 is written in the desired form by substituting on the righthand side Eq. 7-17 for dwTDand Eq. 7-16 for 60;. This operation yields

2 sin L

- A sin L

i5

A cos L

--A

-A

cos L
P

sin L
23

1 cos L

sin L p

The other three necessary equations are found from the velocity error
equation, Eq. 7-26, with bgn given by Eq. 7-31 and 6fn by Eq. 7-29. Equation
7-35 is next substituted for 6vn and a simplified version of Eq. 4-51 for the
velocity, consistent with the first-order error analysis,
vn = ( T L , r,! cos L, -h}
is used in the subsequent, lengthy algebraic manipulations which result in
Eq. 7-38.

THE TWO-ACCELEROMETER LOCAL-LEVEL SYSTEM

123

Equations 7-37 and 7-38 comprise the error equations for the local-level
mechanization. For the case where all inertial information is used in the
calculation of the latitude and longitude rates, or = 0, these two equations
can be written in the canonical form as follows:

where

is given by Figure 6.3, the state vector, x, is given by

and the forcing function for the local-level system is given by

It is t o be emphasized that Eq. 7-39 is only valid for the case of cc = 0 and
that a vertical accelerometer is present in the system. Naturally, all of the
remarks made regarding A in Chapter 6, also apply t o this case.
Notice in t h e forcing function, Q,, that the major error sources are not
frequency modulated as they were for the space-stabilized system since the
instrument outputs are nominally aligned in the frame in which t h e errors
are expressed, the geographic frame. This fact accounts for the major
differences in the error propagation between the two sytems, but further
comparisons will be made in Chapter 8.

7.4

T H E TWO-ACCELEROMETER

LOCAL-LEVEL .SYSTEM

A case of important practical interest is the local-level terrestrial navigator

which has no vertical accelerometer. This type of system, which constitutes
the vast majority of systems manufactured t o date, is used when only twodimensional terrestrial navigation is desired. The system is composed of a
three-axis inertial platform, two accelerometers which are nominally
orthogonally mounted in the instrumented east and north directions, and a
computer which performs the necessary navigational computations.

124

T H E LOCAL-LEVEL TERRESTRIAL N A V I G A T O R

The instrumented north and east accelerometers are connected a t the

signal level with the east and north gyros, respectively. Since the vehicle
carrying the navigation system may move freely over and above the earth,
the gyros must be so torqued a t a rate proportional to the vehicle's longitude
and latitude rates that the platform can maintain its axes aligned with geographic axes. The required torquing signals are generated from the accelerometer outputs. Because the instrumented coordinate frame is rotating with
respect to inertial space, velocity cross-coupling terms are present in the
accelerometer outputs. The accelerometer output signals must therefore be
so compensated that gyro commands, as a function of only the north and
east velocity rates, may be obtained. Note, however, that no explicit computation of the gravity field is required, since neglecting the deflection of the
vertical terms, the north and east accelerometers are nominally perpendicular
t o the gravity field vector.
Since vertical acceleration information is not available, the altimeter
is used to extract the latitude and longitude rates
estimated altitude, i,
from the horizontal velocities. This procedure corresponds to the case of

a = 1 in the previous development. I n addition, estimates of h are used to

compute the vertical velocity-specifically,

7.4.1

gD

= -%.

Mechanization Equations

The commanded angular velocity is given, as before, by Eq. ,7-1. Equation

7-2 describes the transformation from accelerometer coordinates to platform coordinates, but with the understanding that the vertical component,
fD,is zero. The mechanization equations for the north and east velocity time
rates of change are, as before, given by Eq. 7-3; while the vertical velocity
is given by the time rate of change of the altimeter's output:

There is, of course, no explicit gravity calculation, and the latitude and
longitude rates are given by Eqs. 7-8 and 7-9, respectively, by letting a = 1.
The mechanization diagram for the two-accelerometer local-level terrestrial
navigator is shown in Figure 7.3.

7.4.2

Error Equations

The error analysis for the two-accelerometer local-level system proceeds in

exactly the same fashion as for the three-accelerometer system previously
discussed. The attitude error equations given by Eq. 7-37 apply with no
change to the two-accelerometer system. The relationship betwsen the

126

THE LOCAL-LEVEL TERRESTRIAL NAVIGATOR

velocity error and the latitude, longitude, and altitude errors is found from
Eq. 7-35 by setting oc = 1 and letting 6hi = aha, yielding
rP

-Ti sin L

r cos L p

[z]1
+

o
c:

L] aha

(7-42)

-2,

The error equations resulting from the processing of the specific force data,
the velocity error equakions, are considerably modified with the elimination
of the vertical accelerometer. The two-channel version of Eq. 7-26 for the
velocity error equations is written via a simple deletion of the vertical equation. Equation 7-42 is next substituted for 6vn and the simplified analytic
expression for vn given by Eq. 4-51 is substituted. Thus Eq. 7-26 becomes

fo

-f~

rA sin 2Lp

rrp2+ 2 h
rp

++ f i ( i +2wie)sin2L

2 ~ p +
=(u)fa -AGn+(ACz)Tfn-

cos L(2Ap

+1 -2

2 tan
~ L)

6ha

(7-43)

Equations 7-37 and 7-43 can be written in the following form:

A1x1

(7-44)

= Qnl

where

+ $- + &ft(t + 20,,) sin 2L

cos ~ ( 2 J +
p + - 22L t a n L )

2Lp

and

A, is given

by Figure 7.4.

6haJ

128

T H E LOCAL-LEVEL TERRESTRIAL NAVIGATOR

If the error equation for the two-accelerometer system is compared with

the corresponding equation for the three-accelerometer system ; that is,
if Eqs. 7-44 and 7-39 are compared, Eq. 7-44 is seen t o be obtained from
7-39 by the simple deletion of the bottom row of the matrices and the replacement of ahi with ah,.
This mechanization is frequently discussed in the literat~re8.5~
and the
solution of the equations has been effected for a wide variety of error sources.
For the stationary case, where 2 = o,,, t = L = h = 0, and fn = {0,
0, - g ) , the characteristic determinant is given by :
This system is seen t o have a pure mode a t the earth rate frequency, code.
The quartic term can be factored via the quadratic formula and has the
approximate factors :

Thus the quartic fa.ctors into two pairs of imaginary roots with frequencies :
o,
o,,sin L. The proximity of the imaginary pairs gives rise t o the
characteristic Schuler frequency with period of 84 min and the Foucault
frequency caused by a beating phenomena which has a period of

-+

( 2 n / o i esin L ) m 34 hr
7.4.3

at

45O.

Error Equation Solutions

The solution of the differential equations represented by Eq. 7-44 give the
error response for the two-accelerometer local-level navigator for arbitrary
vehicle motion within the constraints implied by a "first-order" analysis.
An analytic solution of Eq. 7-44 would be quite tedious since the coefficients
of the differential equations are time varying except for the case of constant
terrestrial longitude rate ; t = constant ; constant latitude, L = constant ;
and constant altitude rate, h = constant.
Considerable simplification occurs if the stationary case is examined where :
giving
-

mi, sin L

mi, sin L

-cos Lp

-mi, sin L

-mi, cos L

oieCOS L

mi, cos L

sin L p

-g

rp2

r o , , sin 2 L p

- 2 r o , , sin Lp

r cos Lp2

129

THE TWO-ACCELEROMETER LOCAL-LEVEL SYSTEM

Note that a nominal initial alignment of the instruments with the geographic
frame has been assumed such t h a t the subscripts x, y, and z have been
replaced by N, E, and D , respectively. The initial condition errors, 6L(O),
~ L ( o )61(0),
,
&0), and the initial misalignment errors, ~ ~ ~E ~( ( O0 ) ,~
) ~~ ( 0 ) .
are accounted for by taking the Laplace transformation of Eq. 7-46 :
-

wie sin L

wie sin L

- s cos L

-mie sin L

--aiecos L

wie cos L

mie cos L

s sin L

-9

rs

rco,, sin 2Ls

-2rw,, sin Ls

s2r cos L -

- cos L 61(0)

+ ~ ~ (-0sin) L 61(O)
gg + r[s 6L(O) + 6L(0)] + rwie sin 2L 62(0)

(UWD(u)fN -(u)&

csin
~

L)

+ q g + r cos L [ s 8 ( O ) + di(0)] - 2rwie sin L 6L(O)

where s is the Laplace operator, TN, TE, T~ are constant, and t h e overbar
denotes a Laplace transformed variable.
Note that the forcing functions due to the gyro nonorthogonality and the
altimeter rate error have been ignored in going from Eq. 7-46 t o 7-47. The
signal flow diagram corresponding t o the equation above is shown in Figure
!7.5,and the characteristic determinant for Eq. 7-47 is given by Eq. 7-45.
i
An alternate approach t o the solution of the error equations using state
transition matrix methods is developed in Appendix B.

131

T H E TWO-ACCELEROMETER LOCAL-LEVEL SYSTEM

7.4.3.1
Navigation and Level Errors for Constant Gyro Drift.
Considering the stationary case and letting constant gyro drift be the sole
error source, we have from Ey. 7-47 that
s

oiesin L

oiesin L

-mie sin L

- m i , cos L

mi, cos L

w i , cos L

--g

ys2

-2rwie sin L s

-s cos L

s sin L
Toie

sin 2 L s

s2r cos
0 L

k] I);
EN

ED

(U)WN/S

(u)mD/a

ax

(7-48)

where ( u ) c o(u)cuE,
~,
and ( U ) C Oare
~
the constant gyro drift rates associated
with the north, east, and azimuth gyros, respectively. Because of the
Foucault modulation, Eq. 7-48 is best solved via use of an analog or digital
computer. The results of such a solution a t latitude = 45" are shown in
Figures 7.6, 7.7, and 7.8. I n Figure 7.8 the level errors were f d n d t o be so

12

18

Time

Figure 7.6

'L

24

Hours

Navigation and level errors for constant north gyro drift.

30

36

T H E LOCAL-LEVEL TERRESTRIAL NAVIGATOR

Time

Figure 7.7

'L

Hours

Navigation and level errors for constant east gyro drift.

small (about 0.01 min/meru)* as to be buried in the analog computer noise.

Note that the effect of the Foucault terms is to modulate the Schuler oscillations a t a frequency given by mi,sin L (34-hr period a t L = 45O),the vertical
projection of earth rate. This modulation arises from the calculation of the
accelerometer compensation terms in Eq. 7-3 as will be seen when the equations are rederived, assuming perfect accelerometer compensation. It is seen
from these three figures that the Foucault modulation has only a second-order
effect on the amplitude of the latitude, longitude, and azimuth errors, the
predominant mode occurring a t the earth rate frequency. On the other hand,
for the level errors, E~ and E ~the
, Foucault modulation is a first-order effectThese results would suggest that for the purposes of design, i t would be convenient to neglect the Foucault modulation, obtaining equations that are
readily solved and yield solutions which, although differing slightly in

Meru = milliearth rate unit = 0.015 deglhr.

133

T H E TWO-ACCELEROMETER LOCAL-LEVEL SYSTEM

12

Time

Figure 7.8

18

24

30

Hours

Navigation errors for constant azimuth gyro drift.

frequency content, exhibit approximately the same amplitude information.

As indicated by the computer solutions, this approximation will be a very
good one for the latitude, longitude, and azimuth errors, but a relatively
poor one for the level errors. Fortunately, the level errors are of secondary
importance for navigational purposes.
Figures 7.9, 7.10, and 7.11 show the approximate effects of a constant east
terrestrial longitude rate (Z = 3oi,) on t'he navigation and level error plots
for constant gyro drift. At the 45" latitude this longitude rate corresponds
to an easterly vehicle velocity of about 1900 knots. The solutions for this
case are only approximate because they were obtained by a mere substitution
of 1 for mi, in Eq. 7-46. A careful examination of Figure 7.4 and the analytic
expressions for t h e specific force as given by Eq. 4-53 reveals t h a t Coriolis
and centrifugal effects are introduced by the vehicle's motion. Because these
effects enter into the equations as products involving the error variables the
overall effect on the equations has been assumed t o be small. If the navigation and level errors do not exceed 10 arc-min, the neglected effects are less
than
g. Comparison with the stationary case curves (Figures 7.6, 7.7,
and 7.8) indicates that the lowest modulation frequency has increased from
= o,, for the stationary case t o 1 = 4o,, for the moving case. This phenomenon is easily explained via an examination of the characteristic equation

THE LOCAL-LEVEL TERRESTRIAL NAVIGATOR

Time

2,

Hours

Figure 7.9 Navigation and level errors for constant north gyro drift at
terrestrial velocity of 1900 knots.

for the moving case, which is found by substituting

2 for

east

w,, in Eq. 7-45 :

The system modes are seen to be the space rate mode and the Foucault
modulated Schuler frequency. For this case of A = 4wie the space rate period
is 6 hours while the Foucault modulation now occurs with a period of about
8.5 hr instead of the 34-hr period for the stationary case. These 6-hr and
8.5-hr modes are easily identified in the figures.
Perhaps the most important feature revealed by the comparison is that the
latitude and azimuth error sensitivities are reduced from the stationary case
by the factor w,/i, or in this situation for 2 = 40,,, by a factor of 4. For
the cases that exhibit a longitude error which grows with time, namely the
responses to (u)o, and (u)w,, the vehicle motion aanears t o have little

THE T W O - A C C E L E R O M E T E R LOCAL-LEVEL SYSTEM

135

effect on the error growth. On the other hand, the sensitivity Gl/(u)oE,
which is bounded for the stationary case, is reduced by the factor oi,/A.
The level error sensitivities in response t o level gyro drift are seen t o remain
Unchanged while the level error response t o azimuth gyro drift is seen t o
emerge from the computer noise. A digital computer solution has revealed
~
E ~ / ( u ) c o ~have
,
in fact increased
that these error sensitivities, E ~ / ( Z L ) Wand
by the factor j/w,,. Examination of the signal flow diagram (Figure 7.5)
reveals t h a t the coupling sensitivity between the azimuth and east level loop
is increased by the required factor of j/oi,.
An interesting limiting case arises when the vehicle is flying west with
i = -mi,. This case is readily analyzed by setting mi, to 0 in Figure 7.5,
thereby eliminating the Foucault and space rate coupling. The level error
sensitivities remain unchanged sans the Foucault modulation, but the
latitude, longitude, and azimuth errors grow in proportion to the product of

Time

Hours

Figure 7.10 Navigation and level errors for constant east gyro drift a t east terrestrial
velocity of 1900. knots.

136

T H E LOCAL-LEVEL TERRESTRIAL N A V I G A T O R

12

18

Time

24

30

Hours
Figure 7.11 Navigation and level errors for constant azimuth gyro drift at east
terrestrial velocity of 1900 knots.
%

the drift rate and time. Specifically, for times greater than a Schuler period,

61 w -(u)mNt sec L
E=

m (u)wNttan L

+ (u)wDt

(7-51)
(7-52)

Thus a maximum navigational error sensitivity of about 1 arc-min/hr/meru

drift represents an upper bound on the sensitivity to individual gyro drift
regardless of vehicle motion, except for operation near the earth's poles.
A similar uncoupling effect occurs for operation near the equator for
arbitrary celestial longitude rate. If we let the latitude approach 0 deg in
Figure 7.5, i t is readily seen that the terms responsible for the Foucault
modulation, the 2rwi, sin L terms, disappear and in addition the north level
loop becomes completely uncoupled from the latitude, azimuth, and east
level loops.
Since i t has been shown that the Foucault modulation of the Schuler
oscillations have only a second-order effect on the navigational errors, it is
useful to obtain analytical expressions for the system gyro drift which are
not com~licatedbv the Foucault terms. It follows from the development

T H E TWO-ACCELEROMETER LOCAL-LEVEL SYSTEM

137

leading t o Eq. 7 - 4 3 t h a t if the accelerometer compensation is performed without error, the appropriate equations corresponding t o Eq. 7 - 4 3 for the
stationary case is given by

'6L - geE

-Ey

+ ga,

r,~g

r cos L

at'

(7-53)

(u)fiV

+ (u)f E

(7-54)

where the effects of accelerometer nonorthogonality and altimeter uncertainty

has been dropped from the forcing function.
Equations 7 - 5 3 , 7 - 5 4 , and 7-37 can be written in Laplace transformed
matrix form as follows :
s

mi, sin L

mi, sin L

- s cos L-

-mi, sin L

- w i a cos L

mi, cos L

mi, cos L

--g

rs2

s2r cos L -

+~

~ (-0sin
) L 81(0)

s sin

I-

TDmiesin L

WGD-

(7-55)

Equation 7-55 represents the Laplace transformed error equation for a

stationary, two-accelerometer local-level system in which the accelerometer
compensation is performed without error. The characteristic equation is
given by the determinant of the 5 x 5 matrix:

Solution of Eq. 7-55 for the case of constant gyro drift yields

138

THE LOCAL-LEVEL TERRESTRIAL NAVIGATOR

EE

6E

mie sin L s .
( s 2 m:,(s2

m:mie sin L

s(s2

+ m:)(s2 +

( U ) ~ L ) N

+ < s 2+ m 3s( s 2 + mi2,)

( u ) ~ N

(s2

(,2+%

+ mWi2,)

The inverse Laplace transformation of the equation above is given by

1
mie sin L
e , e - sin mst(u)mN(COS miet - cos ~ , t ) ( u ) m ~
4
ms

mie sin L cos L sin miet(u)mD

-m:
mie sin L
EE

m",

(COS

1
miet - cos ~ , t ) ( ~ ) m ,- sin mst(u)mE
ms

T H E TWO-ACCELEROMETER LOCAL-LEVEL SYSTEM

tan L
cD ~5-sin wiet(u)co,

coie

sec L

139

(1 - cos coiet)(u)coE

mie

1
+sin wiet(u)coD
mi e

6L

rsi

- (1 - cos coiet)[sin L(u)coN+ cos L(u)wD]

*i e

1
+sin wiet(u)co,
mie

coiet cos L

L
+ sin2
cos L

L
+ sin
--- (coiet - sin coiet)(u)coD
Q'i e

>

In obtaining Eqs. 7-62-7-66 i t was noted that co,

mi,, allowing certain
terms whose coefficients were of t h e form wie/msand (coi,/cos)2 t o be neglected.
If Eqs. 7-65 and 7-66 are compared with the computer generated solutions
of Figure 7.6, it is seen t h a t the simplified expressions for latitude and longitude do not contain the small amplitude Schuler-Foucault terms. However,
the dominant earth rate mode is accurately specified by the simplified equations. Thus Ey. 7-55 can be taken as a representative error model for the
stationary or slowly moving local-level system in response t o constant gyro
drift.
Root sum squared (RSS) plots of Eqs. 7-62-7-66 for the case of equal drift
for each gyro are shown in Figure 7.12. The analytic expressions used in
Figure 7.12 are given by

6LRSs = -- JZ
sec L
"RSS

(U)W
*ie

O
W
(1 - COS Wiet)l/i
mi e

[ ~ : ~ t 2(1
~ - cos w i e t ) p

a t L = 45"

(7-69)

T H E LOCAL-LEVEL TERRESTRIAL N A V I G A T O R

Time, hr

Time, hr

&
4-

25

" 20 d

(
*
[wie2t2
Oie

+ 2 (1 - COS uiet)]%

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Time, hr

Figure 7.12 Local vertical INS navigation errors (perfect coriolis compensation);
root sum squared.

Note that the level, azimuth, and latitude errors are bounded, but that the
longitude error increases without bound with a rate which is approximately
given by the gyro drift rate uncertainty. These plots also describe the situation where the gyro drift rates can be described as members of an ensemble
of constant functions with an RMS value of 1 meru. See Appendix C for a
description of the statistics of the ensemble of constant functions.

141

THE TWO-ACCELEROMETER LOCAL-LEVEL SYSTEM

7.4.3.2

Navigation and Level Errors for Accelerometer Bias.

If

bias is the sole error source, we have from Eq. 7-47 that

w i e sin L

- a i e sin

w i e sin

0
-mi,

cos L

-8

mi, cos L

-9

rs2

- 2 r w i e sin L s

mi, cos

cos L

s sin

r w i , sin 2 L s
s2r cos

L -

here (u)fNand (u)fEare the constant north and east accelerometer biases,
respectively. Figures 7.13 and 7.14 show the results of a computer solution of

12

18

Time
F i g u r e 7.13

'L

24

Hours

Navigation and level errors for north accelerometer bias.

30

THE LOCAL-LEVEL TERRESTRIAL NAVIGATOR

12

Figure 7.14

24

18
Time

n
,.

30

Hours

Navigation and level errors for east accelerometer bias.

Eq. 7-70. Note that the Schuler mode predominates since the accelerometer
bias directly excites the relatively "high gain" level loops. The Schuler
oscillations are modulated a t the Foucault mode frequency of 1 cycle134 hr.
The maximum sensitivity of latitude error to accelerometer bias is seen t o
be in the range of 7 arc-min/mg bias. Similarly, the longitude sensitivity has
a maximum value of about 9 arc-min/mg bias.
If the effect of the accelerometer compensation is neglected, as was done
in obtaining analytic solutions for gyro drift, Eq. 7-55, the following solutions are obtained :
EN

4 f
= ( 1 - COS cost)(
-

&E =

4 f
- ( 1 - COS cost) (
5'

= -tan

4 f
L ( l - cos cost) (
n

36

Time

Hours

Figure 7.15 Navigation and level errors for accelerometer bias at east terrestrial
velocity of 1900 knots.

144

T H E TWO-ACCELEROMETER LOCAL-LEVEL SYSTEM

6 L = (1 - cos cost) (Wiy

9

N~E
61 = sec L ( l - cos cost) (-

(7-75)
g
Note that these solutions neglect the effects of the Foucault modulations,
first-order effects. I n addition, the cross coupling effects shown in Figures
7.13 and 7.14 are completely neglected. If, however, the analytic solutions
above are compared with the computer generated solutions, i t is concluded
t h a t neglecting the accelerometer compensation yields results which are quite
accurate for periods of time up to about one Schuler period (84 min). Thus if
one is interested in modeling a local vertical inertial navigation system for
short periods of time, which would be the case for an aided inertial system,
the simplified model obtained by neglecting the accelerometer compensation
would be perfectly adequate.
E'igure 7-15 shows the effect of a 1900 knots east terrestrial velocity on the
error response t o accelerometer bias. The Foucault modulating frequency is
increased by a factor of j/co,, = 4 and the error sensitivities are seen to remain unchanged. I n the limiting case mentioned previously when 1 = -mi,,
the Foucault modulation disappears completely leaving a pure Schuler
oscillation. In addition, the cross coupling is eliminated and the response is
accurately described by Eqs. 7-71-7-75.
7.4.3.3
Latitude and Longitude Rate Errors. Figure 7.16 shows
computer derived plots of latitude and longitude rate errors for the case of
constant gyro drift and accelerometer bias. These errors are easily related t o
the north and east velocity errors, since for the stationary case, Eq. 7-42
shows that
BUN = r d j
(7-76)

6v,

=r

Bt cos L

(7-77)

where 6vN is the north velocity error and 6vE is the east velocity error.
It is seen, therefore, that the north and east peak velocity sensitivity to
1.7 ft/sec), while
level gyro drift is about 1.35 nm*/hr/meru drift (1nm/hr
the sensitivity t o azimuth gyro drift is about 0.75 nmlhrlmeru drift. Peak
velocity errors due to accelerometer bias are seen to be about 1.25 nm/hr/10e4
g bias. Note the particularly interesting effect of the three system modes of
oscillation in response to level gyro drift.
Latitude and longitude rate error plots are shown in Figure 7.17 for the
case of a constant east terrestrial velocity of 1900 knots. Comparison of
Figures 7.17 and 7.16 reveals that the rate error magnitudes are unaffected

nm = nautical mile.

T H E TWO-ACCELEROMETER LOCAL-LEVEL SYSTEM

Time

Figure 7.16

Hours

Latitude and longitude rate errors.

by the vehicle motion, a result which is not too surprising since the level
error magnitudes were previously shown to be virtually unaffected by vehicle
motion. Note that for the case of this rather high terrestrial longitude rate,
Eq. 7-77 does not yield the total east velocity error. I n particular, for
A # o,,,
the appropriate expression for the east velocity error is given by

7.4.3.4 Initial Condition Errors. Figures 7.18-7.22 show computer

solutions of the error response to initial north level, east level, latitude,
latitude rate, and longitude rate errors, respectively. Please note t h a t the
response is shown for negative initial condition errors. The response t o initial
longitude error is not shown because, as seen in Figure 7.5, longitude is uncoupled from the other computation loops. Thus the system response to

Figure 7.17

12
Time

18

Hours

Latitude and longitude rate errors a t east terrestrial velocity of 1900 knots.

T i mesHours

Figure 7.18

System errors for initial north level errors.

12

18
Time

Figure 7.19

24

Hours

System errors for initial east level errors.

149

THE TWO-ACCELEROMETER LOCAL-LEVEL SYSTEM

12

18

Time

Figure 7.20

'L

24

30

3'6

Hours

System errors for initial latitude errors.

initial longitude error is simply:

A constant initial condition error therefore results in a longitude error growth

rate of 1 arc-min/hr/arc-min uncertainty. The response t o initial azimuth
error is also not shown since i t is seen from Figure 7.5 that the response is
identical t o t h a t due t o constant east gyro drift. Thus Figure 7.7 and the

150

T H E LOCAL-LEVEL TERRESTRIAL N A V I G A T O R

12

Time

Figure 7.21

18

24

30

Hours

System errors for initial latitude rate errors.

(u)coEresponse of Figure 7.16 can be used with the sensitivity given by

for the case of Figure 7.7 and the same numerical sensitivity with the appropriate units for the case of Figure 7.16.
For the purposes of design, i t is convenient to obtain analytic expressions

36

151

THE TWO-ACCELEROMETER LOCAL-LEVEL SYSTEM

12

18
Time

F i g u r e 7.22

'L

24

30

Hours

System errors for initial longitude rate errors.

for the response t o initial condition errors. As before, this solution is most
conveniently effected by solving the matrix Equation 7-47 with the Foucault
modes omitted. The results of such a solution for arbitrary finite constant
celestial longitude rate, A = constant, is given by the following equation:

where x2 = {

E ~ E, E , E

6 ,L , 61, 6 ~61),

36

CHAPTER

8
Development of a Unified Error

Analysis
I n Chapters 6 and 7, two inertial system mechanizations were described in
detail and their mechanization equations were developed. A linear, perturbation type error analysis has shown t h a t these two systems, while mechanizing
and computing in two different reference frames, have identical characteristic equations, providing t h a t position estimates are obtained using
inertially derived altitude information. An external source of altitude information, mixed with the inertially derived altitude information, was used in
the gravitational field calculation. The major error sources, t h e gyro and
accelerometer errors, have been shown t o force the system dynamical equation
a t frequencies which depend on the relative motion between platform and
geographic coordinates. These results indicate that i t ought t o be possible
to develop a generally applicable error analysis for a wide class of inertial
navigation systems, providing that the general system model is properly
formulated.
8.1

A G E N E R A L TERRESTRIAL N A V I G A T O R M O D E L

The results of Chapters 6 and 7 would suggest that i t should be possible

to express the error equations for any terrestrial inertial navigation system
in the canonical form previously shown t o apply for the space-stabilized
and local-level terrestrial systems. Certain assumptions will be made such
that the scope of the analysis will be broad enough t o encompass all of the
important configurations. These assumptions are as follows :
A minimum of three accelerometers are available to provide a measurement of the specific force vector.
The accelerometers are mounted on a platform whose angular orientation either is controlled in some fashion or is determined through
direct measurement.

153

154
0

DEVELOPMENT O F A UNIFIED ERROR ANALYSIS

The system's earth-referenced velocity and three-dimensional position-latitude,

longitude, and altitude-is
calculated based on the
gravitational field compensated specific force measurements.
An external source of altitude, such as that from an altimeter, is
available for use in the gravitational field calculation.
A computer is available t o process the navigational information. The
computation errors are taken t o be negligible compared to the other
system errors.

The second assumption allows the treatment of the important class of

inertial navigation systems in which both the accelerometers and gyroscopes
are rigidly attached t o the vehicle-the strapdown system. The final assumption, which allows the computation errors t o be ignored, appears to be rather
weak when applied t o strapdown systems. I n these systems computer word
length and cycle time considerations are sometimes such t h a t the computercaused transformation errors are of the same order of magnitude as the other
system errors.67 It turns out, however,* t h a t the computer-caused transformation errors can be treated in much the same manner as gyro uncertainty
since they both directly result in errors in the system's attitude. Thus gyro
or angular velocity uncertainty can be thought of as including the computation errors for the strapdown system case. I n any event, the general theory
t o be developed will take on the form of Eqs. 6-62 and 7-39:

Thus the forcing function, Qj, must be evaluated for each of t h e system
configurations. Note t h a t under the assumptions above, both the mechanized
frame (the frame tracked by the platform) and the computation frame (the
frame in which the measurements are resolved to extract the position and
velocity) are arbitrary.
A functional block diagram, incorporating the assumptions above, for the
general terrestrial inertial navigation system is shown in Figure 8.1. An
accelerometer triad is mounted on a platform which can be either stabilized
or considered as part of the vehicle, in which case rate gyroscopes are
available t o measure the vehicle's angular velocity. Mixed platform-strapdown systems which are not stabilized along all three axes are included in
this model. The measured specific force, Fa, is first transformed into the
h
platform frame obtaining ", which is used to provide gyro compensation.
(See Chapter 5).Next a transformation is made into the mechanized reference
frame, the j frame, via an initial system alignment procedure. Note that the
transformation can represent either a computed transformation matrix
which was the case for the space-stabilized system treated in Chapter 6
or a physical transformation where the platform and mechanization frames

ci

triad

torquers

Gyro stabilized
platrorm

rrraa

6:

lj

ijk

compensation

A
rk

ik

===+

Velocity
computation

Position and
angular rate
computation

Platform command

Gyro
nonorthogonality

Initial system
alignment

Figure 8.1 General terrestrial inertial navigator functional diagram.

Accelerometer
nonorthogonality]

Gravitational
field
calculation

Altitude
measurement

(2i iil

Signal level coupling

Physical coupling

longitude
altitude
conversion

156

DEVELOPMENT O F A UNIFIED ERROR ANALYSIS

are assumed t o be aligned, which was the case for the local-level system
treated in Chapter 7. The mechanized frame-referenced specific force is then
transformed into the computation frame, the 7c frame, via a coordinate
transformation matrix, e:, which is computed on the basis of the system's
computed position and/or on the rate gyro measurements if the system is
of the strapdown variety. Note that in general a transformation matrix is
computed relating the gyro axes to platform axes,
as discussed in Section
3.8.4.2. I n the error analysis, however, it will be assumed t h a t both the
and
matrices are equal t o the identity matrix such that the effects of
gyroscope and accelerometer nonorthogonality can be evaluated.
The computation frame referenced specific force, f k , is compensated for
the gravitational field effects t o obtain the computational frame referenced,
inertial acceleration, e:gi. The acceleration is then integrated twice with
appropriate initial conditions in velocity and position t o obtain a n estimate
I
of the earth's geocentric position vector, coordinatized in the k reference
frame. The position vector, 1", is used to compute the system's latitude,
longitude, and altitude and, with the aid of external altitude information,
the gravitational field compensation. The system's earth-referenced velocity
is calculated based on computation frame-referenced velocity, and position
information and angular velocity information is utilized t o provide the
platform commands and t o update the
matrix.
I n deference t o John Harrison,ll a n accurate clock is needed for a complete
solution of the navigation problem. The clock is, of course, implicitly present
in the guise of the computer.

e:,

e;

e,9

8.2

GENERALIZED M E C H A N I Z A T I O N A N D ERROR
EQUATIONS

The mechanization and error equations for the general terrestrial inertial
navigation system model will now be developed. Note that both the computation frame, k, and the ideal platform mechanization frame which shall be
referred to as the j frame are completely arbitrary. Typically the j and k
frames will correspond t o one of the reference frames dischssed in Chapter 3,
but other reference frames can be used as well.

8.2.1

Specific Force Computation

As illustrated in Figure 8.1, the specific force measurements are transformed from accelerometer axes, a , t o computation axes, k, via

GENERALIZED MECHANIZATION A N D ERROR EQUATIONS

As before, the accelerometer-platform transformation,

157

cz, is mechanized

as the identity matrix such t h a t the effects of accelerometer nonorthogonality

can be studied. Thus
a =I
(8-2)

e"

and the platform and accelerometer frame-referenced specific forces are

related, as shown in Section 7.3.1.3, by the relationship,

The platform-mechanization frame transformation, c i , is a constant

computed transformation which is based on initial system alignment procedures. An example of such a transformation is demonstrated by the spacestabilized navigator which is initially aligned t o the geographic frame, where
the transformation
would correspond to C,: superscript no referring t o
the geographic frame a t t = 0.
The platform-computation frame transformation,
=
is a matrix
of constants for systems which compute in the same reference frame as that
mechanized by the platform, for example, the previously discussed local= I, and the
level and space-stabilized systems. For such systems,
matrix is obtained using system alignment techniques such as physical
gyrocompassing and optical methods. For certain platform systems which
compute in a frame other than the mechanized Wame, such as a spacestabilized mechanization which computes in geographic coordinates, the
C: matrix must be continuously updated to reflect the relative frame orientation. If, for example, the
matrix were given by c:, then the matrix could
be updated by merely supplying computed estimates of latitude and longitude
matrix is updated by
(see Section 2.5.1 -1). For the more general case the
computing the relative angular velocity between the j and k frames and
applying the basic relationship from Eq. 2-4 :

eEO

e;

e;e&

e:

e:

ef

If the system is of the strapdown type, then rate gyros are available t o
measure the vehicle's inertial angular velocity. I n this case the vehicle or
body frame corresponds to the platform frame and the platform and j
frames are coincident. The angular velocity,
can then be computed
based on the rate gyro measurements and the platform-computation frame
transformation can be computed via

er, = c:(PL~,- fig)

(8-4)

where the computation frame's inertial angular velocity is calculated on

the basis of the navigational computations. I n calculating the vehicle's
inertial angular velocity from the rate gyro outputs, it will be assumed that

158

D E V E L O P M E N T O F A U N I F I E D E R R O R ANALYSIS

the "small-" angle gyro nonorthogonality will not be compensated. Thus

the gyro and platform frame-referenced angular velocities are related to each
other through the relationship :

mi",= [I

+ (AC,) 10%
v T

as shown in Section 3.8.4.3.

8.2.1 -1 Platform Systems. Following the development of Section

7 -3.1.1, the platform's inertial angular velocity is proportional t o the commanded angular velocity, taking into account the effects of gyro torquing
uncertainty, gyro nonorthogonality, and gyro drift uncertainty :

where wlj = computed estimate of the desired platform inertial angular

velocity and the error effects, T*, ACBp, and (u)w* are defined in Section
7.3.1 .l. The left-hand side of the equation above can be separated into a
sum of two angular velocities:

Note that the angular velocity, c&, is ideally equal to 0 but because of the
system's errors, has a small but finite magnitude. The computed estimate of
the desired platform inertial angular velocity can be written as the sum of
the platform's ideal angular velocity and an error angular velocity :

Substituting Eqs. 8-7 and 8-8 into 8-6 and neglecting products of error
quantities shows that the platform error angular velocity is given by

The equation sbove is conveniently interpreted in terms of the coordinate

transformation between platform and ideal mechanized axes, which satisfies
the matrix differential equation :
with the initial conditions :

c; = c;s;v
Ci(0) = CL0

where the subscript p, is used to denote the platform frame a t t = 0.

Equation 8-10 is satisfied by an expression for C z of the form:

GENERALIZED MECHANIZATION A N D ERROR EQUATIONS

159

where the skew-symmetric matrix DP is written in terms of its components

Each of the elements of DP represents a small-angle transformation relating

the platform frame a t t = 0 t o its orientation a t some later time. For the
three-dimensional case,
"

CgO= [I

+ D"]

(8-12)

The elements of DP are found from Eq. 8-9 by substituting Eq. 8-11 and
recognizing t h a t
(8-13)
cox = (d,, d,, d,] = d"
Thus Eq. 8-9 yields a vector differential equation for the platform error
angles of the form :

The computed transformation between platform and mechanized axes,

is based on an initial alignment scheme and is, of course, a matrix of
constants. Taking into account the effects of initial system misalignment
errors as discussed in Section 6.3.1.4, the
matrix is given by

eg,

ez

c,

<, and <,, are

where the elements of the skew-symmetric error matrix,
the error angles which represent the transformation errors in the initial
estimate of C i .
As was discussed previously, the computed transformation between the
mechanized and computation frames,
satisfies the differential equation:

eg,

Because of the system's errors, the relative angular velocity between these
two frames cannot be precisely calculated, and the transformation will be
in error. The computed transformation in general is given by

where, as usual, the elements of the skew-symmetric matrix, I?, are the
error angles which represent t h e transformation errors between the
mechanized and computation frames. The computed angular velocity can
be written as
= C:(Q:,
m:,)Cj
(8-17)

160

DEVELOPMENT O F A U N I F I E D ERROR ANALYSIS

where dQgj = error in the computed angular velocity of the mechanized

frame with respect t o the computation frame. Thus substitution of Eqs.
8-16 and 8-17 into 8-3 shows t h a t the differential equation for the transformation error vector between the mechanized and computation frames is
given by
(8-18)
fk
Pkyk= - d o k kj

where yk is t h e vector form of the skew-symmetric matrix rk.

Note that in
assuming a computed transformation having the analytic form given by
Eq. 8-16, i t has been assumed that the transformation matrix is orthogonal.
If the transformation is not implicitly orthogonal, then computation schemes
are assumed t o be applied t o guarantee an orthogonal transformation. (See
Sections 2.5.1.1 and 2.5.1.2.)
Substitution of Eqs. 8-15 and 8-16 into 8-14 allows the platform error
angle differential equation t o be written as

where products of error quantities were neglected.

Equation 8-19 is t h e differential equation for the error angle vector
resulting from the rotation of the platform frame relative t o the ideal
mechanized frame. It is t o be emphasized t h a t this equation is valid for all
platform systems which can be described by Figure 8.1, independent of the
mechanized coordinate frame. Reading from left to right, the forcing function
represents t h e effects of initial platform misalignment, Zj; transformation
errors between the mechanized and computation frames due t o the navigstion errors, r k ; gyro torquer scale factor uncertainty, T P ; gyro input axis
nonorthogonality ACZ; errors in the commanded angular velocity due to
system navigation errors, 6wtj; and errors due to gyro uncertainty, (u)op.
The expression for t h e computed, computation frame-referenced specific
force, f k , of E q . 8-1 is expressed in terms of the analytic expressions derived
for the computed transformations by substituting Eqs. 8-2, 8-15, and 8-16
into Eq. 8-1, yielding
A

f k = (I -

rk- c;zjc;)cD0r
k

(8-20)

The accelerometer measurement error is modeled as described in Section

6.3.1.2 :
(6-22)
fa = fa (u)fa

Thus if Eq. 6-22 and the analytic expression for fa given by Eq. 7-19 are
substituted into Eq. 8-20, there results

GENERALIZED MECHANIZATION AND ERROR EQUATIONS

161

Finally it is noted in the equation above that CEofD = CioC7fj. Thus the
analytic expression for C; given by Eq. 8-11 can be used' to introduce the
of the platform error angles into the expression above, resulting in

Note t h a t in obtaining Eq. 8-21, products of error quantities were neglected

as being negligibly small. The bracketed term in the equation above represents
the transformation error resulting from, reading from left to right, the error
in computing t h e relative angular velocity between the mechanized and
computation frame, the error in initial system alignment, the platform error
angles, and the effect of accelerometer nonorthogonality.

8.2.1.2 S t r a p d o w n Systems. For strapdown systems both t h e gyros

and accelerometers are mounted directly on the vehicle. The mechanized
frame is therefore the body frame of Section 3.5. The system fits into the
notation of Figure 8.1 by regarding the body frame as the platform frame.
I n addition t h e platform frame corresponds t o the mechanized frame,
that is, j = p, and in Figure 8.1,

As is pointed out in Section 8.2.1, the transformation from platform t o

computational coordinates is based on the solution of the matrix differential
equation :

a$

where the angular velocity,

is
is supplied by the rate gyros and
based on the navigational calculations and/or on the known relationship
matrix is orthogonal
between k and i. As before, i t will be assumed that the
(see Sections 2.5.1.1 and 2.5.1.2).
Equation 8-4 is perturbed by expressing the transformation error between
the platform (body) and computational frames as

ez

and letting
and

where 6S2&, = error in the computation of S2&,

6fi:k

error in the computation of

162

DEVELOPMENT O F A UNIFIED ERROR ANALYSIS

Pk = skew symmetric matrix representing the transformation error

angles between platform and computation coordinates

If Eqs. 8-23, 8-24, and 8-25 are substituted into Eq. 8-4, the resulting expression can be written in vector form as follo.cvs:

The computed inertial velocity of the platform, &&, is found directly from
t h e rate gyro outputs. From Section 5.3.2, i t is seen t h a t t h e output of the
rate gyro triad can be expressed as

Tg = matrix of instrument torquing scale factor errors.

As is seen from Eq. 8-27, positive uncertainty torques [+(u)M] give rise to
a n overestimate of the platform's inertial angular velocity. Thus t o conform
t o the sign convention used for the platform system Section 6.3.1. l , it is
necessary t o let

Substituting of Eqs. 8-5 and 8-28 into Eq. 8-27 and recognizing t h a t G&, =
o i p shows t h a t
(8-29)
6w$, = (AC:)Tw:P - TPw;! - (u)wP
The angular velocity of the reference computation frame relative t o the
inertial frame is based on the system's computed position unless, of course,
t h e inertial frame or some other "nonlocal" frame is chosen as the computation frame. (See Section 8.2.7) Thus a n analytic expression for t h e error in
this computation, 6wFk, cannot be expressed in terms of the navigation
errors without first specifying the computation frame. It is seen, however,
t h a t this angular velocity, O:k, must be coordinatized in platform axes for
use in Eq. 8-4. Thus
*P

Wik

ekwik
PAk

GENERALIZED MECHANIZATION A N D ERROR EQUATIONS

~~t if the analytical expression for

e:

163

from Eq. 8-23 is substituted into the

expression above, i t is seen that

P k
(8-30)
6wTk = C z 6wtk
C$ wfk
substitution of Eqs. 8-29 and 8-30 into 8-26 shows that the vector differential
equation for the platform-computational frame error angles is given by

k - P
(8-31)
[jk S2kpk= Sw?,
C,LT - (AC:)T]w&
C:(u)wp
The initial condition for the differential equation above, pIc(O), is the initial
system misalignment error arising from the inability t o specify t h e precise
initial relationship between the platform and computation frames.
The expression for the computed computational frame-referenced specific
force, f k , is expressed in terms of the error sources by substituting Eq. 8-23
into 8-1. Note t h a t from Eq. 8-22, ei = I, and that
= I since accelerometer
nonorthogonality is not compensated. Thus
A

e:

Expressing fa in terms of the accelerometer uncertainties via Eq. 6-22 and

utilizing Eq. 7-19 t o account for accelerometer nonorthogonality shows t h a t
the equation above can be written as
h

f '" = [I - Pk

+ C:(AC:)TC:]C,Lfp + C,k(u)fa

(8-32)
It is seen from the equation above that the transformation error is due t o
the error arising from the solution of the transformation matrix relating
platform t o computational coordinates, Eq. 8-4, and the error caused by
accelerometer nonorthogonality. The transformation matrix, Pp, has been
shown to satisfy Eq. 8-31 and is therefore a function of the error in the
computed inertial angular velocity of the computational frame, the
gyros' torquing uncertainty, input axis nonorthogonality, and drift
uncertainty.

8.2.2

Attitude E r r o r (Level and Azimuth Errors)

The attitude error for the general terrestrial navigator is defined as the
orthogonal transformation error between platform and geographic axes,
coordinatized in geographic axes. This definition corresponds the transformation error involved in expressing a physical measurement made on the
platform in geographic axes. As was pointed out in Section 6.3.1.9, the
attitude errors do not, in general, correspond t o the platform errors, although
this correspondence holds for the local-level system treated in Chapter 7.
The attitude errors are derived separately for platform systems and strapdown systems in what follows; however, i t is shown that the resulting error
equations are independent of the system mechanization.

164

DEVELOPMENT O F A UNIFIED ERROR ANALYSIS

For either type of system, the evaluation of the attitude errors proceeds
from an evaluation of the transformation from platform coordinates to
geographic coordinates,
It is necessary to define a transformation
between computational and geographic coordinates, eg, which is calculated
based on the system's navigational information. It is assumed t h a t 6; is,
or is constrained t o be, orthogonal such that the following differential
equation holds

eg.

C;

C;PLk,,

(8-33)

The computed angular velocity can be written as

can be written in the form

ea

= SL;,

and

where Yn is the skew-symmetrical form of the error angle vector, rLn, which
describes the transformation error. These error angles are taken t o be positive
as measured about positive geographic axes. If the expression for the computed angular velocity and Eq. 8-34 are substituted into Eq. 8-33, i t is seen
that the error angle differential equation is given by

where dm:, = error in the calculation of Ok,, due t o navigation errors.

8.2.2.1 Platform Systems. For platform systems, t h e attitude error

is the error in the matrix product:

ei;

The computed transformation matrices are given by Eq. 8-15 for

Eq.
and Eq. 8-34 for e i . If in addition it is noted from Eq. 8-12 that
8-16 for
j P
C& = C,Cp0
= C~(I
- Dp), then Eq. 8-36 can be written

e:;

e; = ( I - En)C:
where the attitude error, En, is given by

The differential equation for the attitude error is found by writing Eq. 8-38
in vector form, premultiplying by Cg and performing a time differentiation.
are then used t o arrive at
Equations 8-18 for f k , 8-19 for dp, and 8-35 for
the intermediate result :

ILn

GENERALIZED MECHANIZATION A N D ERROR EQUATIONS

165

where i t was noted from Eq. 8-38 that

Because the mechanized reference frame, j,is rotating relative t o the platform
frame, p , with a "small-" error angular velocity, the terms involving
are second-order and o F j can be replaced by o&
in t h e differential equation
for the attitude errors. These modifications result in

Finally i t is seen that since

then
where

Thus the differential equation for the platform system's attitude errors is
given by

i n+

- CE do:,

+ AC:)wrP + Cg(u)wv

- S2rn$n = Cg(TD

(8-39)

I n carrying out the matrix algebra involved in obtaining Eq. 8-39, products
of error quantities were neglected.

8.2.2.2 St rapdown Systems. For strapdown systems, t h e attitude

error corresponds to the error in the matrix product:

It is again noted that the p frame corresponds t o the body or vehicle frame
for the strapdown system, and that the p and j frames are identical. Thus if
Eq. 8-23 is substituted for
and Eq. 8-34 is substituted for
Eq. 8-40
.can be written as

e:
q = (I

e;,

En)C;

(8-41)

where, in this case,

En = Y n+ C g Pk Cnk

(8-42)

The corresponding differential equation is obtained by writing Eq. 8-42 in

vector form, premultiplying by Ck,, and performing a time differentiation.
The resulting expression is simplified by utilizing Eqs. 8-31 and 8-35 for
bk and $ n , respectively. The result after some algebra and neglecting of

166

DEVELOPMENT O F A UNIFIED ERROR ANALYSIS

second-order terms is

kn

+ a:,& - c;

as,.,
+n

+ c ~ ( u m V(8-43)

23 T
- (AC,)

= c;[T'

Comparison of Eqs. 8-39 and 8-43 reveals that the attitude error expression
for platform systems is identical in form to its counterpart for strapdown
systems, differing only in the gyro nonorthogonality forcing term.
8.2.3

Specific Force-Attitude Relationship

The computed analytic expressions for the computation frame-referenced

specific force, f k (Eq. 8-21 for platform systems, and Eq. 8-32 for strapdown
systems) reduce to identical equations if they are written as a function of
the attitude errors. This result is obtained for platform systems by substituting Eq. 8-38 for En into Eq. 8-21 and Eq. 8-42 into Eq. 8-32. Thus for either
platform or strapdown systems,
A

fk = [I - CE(En - Wn)C:

+ C;(AC:)*C$]fk + CpL(w)fa

(8-44)

where the differential equation for En is given by either Eq. 8-39 or Eq.
8-43 and that for Yn is given by Eq. 8-35.
8.2.4

Geocentric Position Vector Magnitude Computation

I n the description of space-stabilized and local-level inertial navigation

systems of Chapters 6 and 7, i t was seen that a computation of the geocentric position vector magnitude was involved in the gravitational field
and the latitude, longitude, and altitude calculations. The following nonlinear estimators were introduced :

which are of the general form:

pn = (+a)K(pi)n-K

1, 2, 3 ;

all

(8-45)

It was shown that the resulting system equations could be written in the
following canonical form :
Ax = Qj
where for the space-stabilized system, j = i, and Q, is given by Eq. 6-63;
and for the local-level system, j = n, and Q, is given by Eq. 7-40. The
canonical matrix, A, as given by Figure 6.3 was shown to apply to both

GENERALIZED MECHANIZATION A N D ERROR EQUATIONS

167

systems for an arbitrary value of K , but only for the case of a = 0. I n other
words, for the canonical form t o be applicable it is necessary to use all inertial
information in the calculation of the system's latitude, longitude, and
&itude, but in the gravitational field calculation, any ratio of inertial t o
external altitude data may be used.
These seemingly inconsistent results are obtained because the navigational
calculations are, in general, nonlinear in nature. I n addition, i t should be
recognized that inertial systems which use external information t o stabilize
the vertical channel or t o calculate the system's position are properly
classified as nonlinear hybrid systems. Thus it is not too surprising, for
instance, t h a t in the calculation of latitude, longitude, and altitude from t h e
system's geocentric position vector magnitude (Section 6.3.1.7), it is found
that the linearized error relationships depend on both the choice of a and the
chosen computation scheme. It is then reasonable t o expect t h a t the error
response will depend on the method of combining the inertial and external
altitude information, that is, on the analytic form of the ri- estimator.
Obviously, other forms for the ri- estimator could have been chosen.
Instead of the nonlinear estimators which were used in the analyses of
Chapters 6 and 7, consider the linear estimator given by

where the weighting factor, v, can have the range of values 0 < v 5 1,
with v = 0 corresponding t o the all inertial case and v = 1 corresponding
to the all external information case. If the equation above is perturbed by
substituting from Chapter 6,

.i., = r

+ 6ha

It is seen that

whereas, if the nonlinear estimator of Eq. 6-15 is similarly perturbed, the

result is of the same form as Eq. 8-47

Thus it is concluded that both the nonlinear and linear estimators yield
identical linearized error equations for all values of the weighting factors in
the range 0 < ( a = v) _( 1.

168

DEVELOPMENT O F A UNIFIED ERROR ANALYSIS

The situation is quite different, however, if the nonlinear estimators for

P2 and P3 are compared with estimators obtained by squaring and cubing
the linear estimator of Eq. 8-46. Perturbing the square and cube of the linear
estimator shows t h a t

8ri

2v aha]
r

and

whereas the corresponding perturbed nonlinear estimators are found from

Eqs. 7-4 and 6-8 t o be given by

Thus it is seen that error equations obtained using Eqs. 8-49 and 8-50 will
differ from the corresponding equations obtained using Eqs. 8-51 and 8-52
even though there is a one t o one relationship between K and v, since for the
calculation of i2, K = 2v, and for the calculation of i3, K = 3v. Note, however,
that u is limited t o values between 0 and 1 while K can take on any value,
although as a practical matter K 2 2 t o ensure a stable altitude calculation,
a fact t h a t was previously gleaned from Figure 6.3.
The system error equations for the case where P is calculated using the
linear estimator of Eq. 8-46 are found by letting K = 3v in Eq. 6-62 for the
space-stabilized system and K = 2v in Eq. 7-39 for the local-level system.
This substitution, however, results in an expression for A which is slightly
different for t h e two systems, the A,, term containing the term,

for t h e space-stabilized system and the term,

for the local-level system. I n order t o keep the final error equations as general
as possible, i t is therefore recommended that the nonlinear estimator of the
form given by Eq. 8-45 be used in the gravitational field calculation:

p = (+a)K(+i)n-K

n = l,2,3,

where, from Chapter 6,

Pa

+, + h

...

all

(8-45)

169

GENERALIZED MECHANIZATION A N D ERROR EQUATIONS

and the inertially derived position vector magnitude is calculated using

Fi = [(r~k ) Trk] 'A

8.2.5

(8-53)

Gravitational Field Computation

The calculation of the gravitational field vector for the general terrestrial
inertial navigator proceeds from the analytic expression given by Eq. 4-32,
which can be written as follows:

where the equatorial and polar constants, K , and K,, are given by

The analytic expression for the gravitational field in the arbitrary k computational frame is found by a simple coordinate transformation of Eq. 8-54
into the 7c frame. Thus
K,
0
0
(8-55)

r3

If the geocentric position vector magnitude is calculated using the nonlinear

estimator as discussed in the previous section, then the gravitational field
vector is computed using

The derivation of the gravitational field error equation is identical t o t h a t

for the space-stabilized system of Section 6.3.1.5. Thus i t is seen t h a t

where
A

= G" -

G"

170

DEVELOPMENT OF A UNIFIED ERROR ANALYSIS

The gravitational field associated with the reference ellipsoid is found from
Eq. 4-38 to be given by
(8-59)
G: = Gk - CtAGn
where
(4-39)
AG" = { E g , -qg, 4 7 )
Substitution of Eq. 8-59 into 8-58 shows that
A

Gk = Gk
8.2.6

+ dGk - C S G n

Acceleration, Velocity, and Position Computations

The acceleration computation proceeds from the fact that the computation
frame-referenced specific force is ideally given by

But the inertially referenced acceleration is related to computational framereferenced acceleration via the relationship given by Eq. 2-7 :
F

c;(rk + 2ZL%tk+

+ PtkP:gk)

(8-61)

Thus the computation frame-referenced acceleration is calculated using

A

$k

=f

+ GL - 2fi:kik
A

h:kp -fifkfgkP

(8-62)

The computation-referenced velocity and position is then given by successive

integrations of the expression above :

Equation 8-62 is perturbed by letting

Fk

= rk

+ ark

a:k+

and substituting Eq. 8-60 for Gk, Eq. 8-44 for ?k, and Eq. 8-57 for 6Gk,
giving

GENERALIZED MECHANIZATION AND ERROR EQUATIONS

171

where i t was noted, as in Eq. 6-36, that

where
Rk = skew-symmetric form of rk
and
Ws

8.2.7

JG

JP/+

Schuler frequency

Latitude, Longitude, and Altitude Computations

The computed estimate of the k frame-referenced geocentric position

vector, Pk, must be related to the latitude, longitude, and altitude in order
to navigate with respect t o the earth. Because the k frame is a n arbitrary
computation frame i t is not possible to state the explicit relationship between
the components of Pk and the latitude, longitude, and altitude.
For systems which compute in a local frame the computation of the
geocentric position vector, Pk, does not yield information on the system's
latitude and longitude. For example, if the geographic frame is instrumented,
then the position vector would ideally be given by Eq. 4-6 as
rn = (-r,

sin Do, 0,- r , cos Do - h )

Note t h a t while altitude information is available from the above, latitude

and longitude information is not. If the computation frame is a local frame,
then the computational frame-referenced position vector will have t o be
transformed to an auxiliary reference frame such as the inertial frame t o
deduce t h e system's latitude and longitude. As a practical matter, if a local
frame is selected as the computation frame then a computational scheme
similar t,o the one shown for the local-level system of Chapter 7 is usually
chosen ; t h a t is, the system's latitude and longitude are based on integrating
the system's linear velocity data along with the appropriate radii of curvature. It will be shown, however, t h a t the error equations are independent
of the computation scheme, providing t h a t only inertial information is used.
For systems t h a t compute in a reference frame that is defined relative
to the inertial frame and whose orientation does not depend on the system's
computed position, such as the earth frame, tangent frame, and, of course,
t h e inertial frame itself, then a functional relationship exists such that

This functional relationship might well be nonlinear as was the case for the
space-stabilized system as shown by Eqs. 6-14, 6-16, and 6-17. The important
point is t h a t this relationship can be specified in the computational frame.

172

DEVELOPMENT O F A UNIFIED ERROR ANALYSIS

I n Chapter.6, it was shown that if the computations were performed in

inertial axes and if only the position vector components (the elements of
Pi) were used in t h e calculations, then the latitude, longitude, and altitude
errors were seen t o be related t o the error vector components via Eq. 6-40:
6n = (r 6L, r 61 cos L, --ahi) = CP Bri

(8-66)

Note t h a t 6h of Eq. 6-40 has been replaced by 6hi in the above t o emphasize
the fact that the altitude is calculated using the components of the computed
position vector. Equation 8-66 has the simple physical interpretation that
6L, r61 cos L, and ahi are, respectively, the north, east, and down projections
of the computation frame-referenced error vector. The navigation error
vector 6n should not be looked upon as being coordinatized in the geographic
reference frame, since t h e elements of 6n are in fact generated by three scalar
calculations involving inertially referenced position components. The errors
resulting from these scalar calculations have been arranged in t h e form
shown by Eq. 8-66 strictly for mathematical convenience.
The array of error quantities denoted as 6n is not equal t o the error vector
6rn, defined in the usual sense. To illustrate the distinction, consider the
case where the computed geocentric position vector is transformed from
inertial t o geographic axes. Since a computed coordinate transformation
matrix must be used t o effect the transformation,

The error vector 6ri can be found in terms of 6rn from the equation above
by letting Pn = rn
6rn, Pi = ri
6ri, and substituting :
C = (I - Nn)Cf
from Eq. 2-16, yielding

It is observed t h a t
6n # 6rn
Thus Eq. 8-66 is properly interpreted as a relationship between error vectors
rather than a relationship between the components of the computed position
vectors, 3" and Pi.
If the computation frame is a local frame as previously discussed, it is
necessary to transform the computed position vector, Pk, into an auxiliary
reference frame in order t o extract the latitude, longitude, and altitude.
It would then appear t h a t a n error relationship of the form given by Eq8-66 might not apply because of the possible introduction of transformation
errors. To investigate the possibility, consider the case where the computed
position vector is transformed into inertial axes and the methods of Section
6.2.5 are used t o compute the latitude, longitude, and altitude. The inertially

GENERALIZED MECHANIZATION A N D ERROR EQUATIONS

173

referenced geocentric position vector is calculated using

The error vector, 6ri, can be found in terms of 6rk by perturbing the expresmust first be specified.
sion above in the usual manner, but the form of
Recall that the computation, k, frame, while completely arbitrary, is
related t o the inertial reference frame in some definite manner. This translates
into the practical requirement that the computer must be able t o calculate
8: based on the system's computed position and/or on predetermined
relationships between the two reference frames. There are three possibilities
the first being that the k frame is related to the i frame
for the matrix
through some fixed relationship, that is, ei is a matrix of constants. Since
this transformation does not depend on computed navigational quantities,
can be calculated without error, that is, ci = c:. The second possibility
is that the k frame is rotating with respect to the i frame with some arbitrary
but a priori specified angular velocity, an example being the case where the
computation frame is taken t o be the earth frame, k = e . It is again argued
that since the transformation does not depend on the navigational quantities,
= c;. See Eq. 3-12 for the example of k = e. The third possibility
then
is t h a t the orientation of the k frame relative t o the i frame depends on the
system's computed position; that is, the computation frame is a local frame.
If this is the case then the
transformation can be written as a matrix
product such t h a t previously derived relationships can be used; t h a t is,

c:

e:,

e:

e:

e;

The equation above is written in terms of the transformation errors by

= ei(1
Nn)and
= (I -\Y")C,",
substituting from Eqs. 2-16 and 8-34,
respectively. These substitutions yield

ci

c,"

Since the transformation above must satisfy the differential equation:

then substitution of Eq. 8-69 into 8-70 shows that

jrn

\in

yn)

k
- C k n 6wik

(S-71)

where
h

k
8wik
= wik - wik

Unless the computation frame is a local frame, 6 0 % = 0 and if the initial

conditions are 0, then

174

DEVELOPMENT OF A UNIFIED ERROR ANALYSIS

If on the other hand the computation frame is a local frame, then 60Fk # 0.
The computed angular velocity can in this case be written as

because, if the frame is local, then Gnk can be computed without error. It
follows, therefore, that
= 6-ik, = Ck, 80in, and

$"= 0

k local

Equation 8-71 reduces to

+"

+ QLvn = dw,,

k local

(8-74)

Equation 8-67 is now perturbed by substituting Eq. 8-69 and letting

Fi = ri
6ri and 3" = rk
6rk, yielding

Sri = C: 6rk

+ CL( N n - Yn)rn

Substitution of this result into Eq. 8-66 shows that

Per the previous discussion, if the k frame is local then Vn = 0; otherwise
'4" = Nn.
8.2.8

Earth-Referenced Velocity Computation

The earth-referenced velocity is expressed in terms of the computation

frame-referenced position and velocity by working with the definition of the
earth-referenced velocity given by Eq. 4-46 :
vn = C z r e
Since ie = C g ( i k

(4-46)'

+ S2Ekrk),then the equation above becomes

vn = C:(ik

fkrk)

(8-77)

The computed velocity is then given by a computed version of the above:

The velocity errors are found from the above by substituting

Pk = rk
ark,
=
dQ2, and from Eq. 8-34,
Equation 8-78 then yields

Gn

= vn

+ 6vn,

e; = (I - Yn)C;.

The expression above can be written in terms of the navigation errors by

substituting 6rk = C: Sn
c:(Yn - Nn)rn from Eq. 8-76, but i t is algebraically convenient to consider the two cases of local and nonlocal computation frames separately.

175

GENERALIZED MECHANIZATION A N D ERROR QUATIONS

If the computation frame is nonlocal, then Eq. 8-72 shows that Y n= N n ,

and Eq. 8-76 can be written:

d;rn = C t 6n

k nonlocal

(8-80)

I n addition, Gek can be calculated without error if the computation frame is

nonlocal. Thus
Satk =0
k nonlocal
(8-81)
Substituting Eqs. 8-80 and 8-81 into 8-79 yields

6vn = 6 i

+ a:nd n - N n v n

(8-82)

If the computation frame is local, then '

I
!
= 0 and Eq. 8-76 becomes

6rk = C t 6n - C t N n r n

k local

(8-83)

An analytic expression for 6 a z k can be found from an examination of the

computed angular velocity of the computation frame with respect t o the
earth frame:
"k
we,
=

Enwc- E,wie+ unk

k A

k" i

"k

"k
Because the computation frame is local, conk
= wk,, and
&i
i
An
n
" k
k
6wTny and w e , = W e k 6 ~ : Thus
~ .
i e = O i e yW i n = Oin

~ = :6; 8~~ "72

2

en = C,.
k

C;Nhwje

Also
(8-84)

Substituting Eqs. 8-83 and 8-84 into Eq. 8-79 and observing t h a t
rn = vn - Sznrn
from Eq. 4-49 yields

where it is recalled from Chapter 2 t h a t the notation ( ) * denotes the skewsymmetric form of the quantity within the brackets. The bracketed quantity
premultiplying rn in Eq. 8-85 is now examined and found t o be equal t o 0.
To obtain this result, the order of this quantity is reversed and it is observed
from Eq. 2-10 t h a t -S2,",Nn
NnS2:n = -Qznvn. Thus

-+

Equation 8-74 is now substituted into the above showing that

Thus the earth-referenced velocity error is related t o the navigation error

via Eq. 8-82 for a n arbitrary computation frame. Substitution of Eq. 8-66

176

D E V E L O P M E N T O F A U N I F I E D ERROR ANALYSIS

for 6x1,Eq. 4-51 for vn, and Eq. 2-17 for the elements of Nn into Eq. 8-82
shows that

The expression above is seen to be identical to that previously obtained for

the space-stabilized and local-level systems, as a comparison with Eq. 6-48
and 7-35 shows.

8.3

C A N O N I C A L FORM O F T H E ERROR E Q U A T I O N S

To manipulate the error equations into the canonical form:

i t will be necessary to group the attitude error equations, Eq. 8-39 for
platform systems and Eq. 8-43 for strapdown systems, with the position
error equation given by Eq, 8-65. To accomplish this grouping, the error
,
and
equations must be written as a function of the attitude errors, E ~ cE,
cD; and the navigation errors, 6L, 61, and ahi.
Examination of the attitude error equations reveals that a relationship is
needed between the computation-geographic frame transformation error,
$", and the error in the computed geographic-inertial angular velocity,
6mfn. The required relationship is found from the basic relationship given by
Eq. 2-4 when applied to the geographic-inertial transformation :

The computed angular velocity is calculated using computation framereferenced components :

a;

c?:PL:nc:

Substituting the equation above into Eq. 8-87, letting

Eq. 2-16,
= (I - Yn)Cg from Eq. 8-34 and firn =

e;

Gn

+ SFnvn=

C:(I

+s

+ C i dm,,

where in obtaining Eq. 8-88 it was noted from Eq. 2-10 that
and

-+ Nn) from
P yields
~
(8-88)

177

CANONICAL FORM O F THE ERROR EQUATIONS

Equation 8-88 is a very useful relationship between vn and $" since i t can
be used to eliminate *n from the 'attitude error differential equations.
Equation 8-88 can also be used t o effect a closed form solution for the
geographic-inertial error angles, since
"k

+ v n ) ( ~ ; , + SW:,)

enwin = C:(I
k A n

Thus i t follows that since &fn

+ 6wFn, then

= w:,

SOL= C2(6w:,

+ 'YnwYn)

(8-89)

Substituting Eq. 8-89 into 8-88 shows that the differential equation for vn
is given by
Si",vn = 6 ~ : ~
(8-90)

+" +

The right-hand side of the equation above can be written as a function of

the latitude and longitude errors, since from Eq. 3-8
A

min =

{jcos L,

-i,-;i sin E )

Thus
Sw:,

(-A

sin L 6 L

+ cos L 61, - 6 ~ ,--A

cos L 6L - sin L 61)

and Eq. 8-90 is seen t o have the solution:

vn = (62 cos L ,

-6L,

-61 sin L )

(8-91)

Note that the initial longitude error has been ignored such t h a t 61 = 6A.
The solution for vn is, of course, the same expression as that obtained from
direct perturbation of the C r matrix of Eq. 3-10. (See Section 2.5.1.1.)
Equations 8-88 and 8-91 are substituted into Eqs. 8-39 and 8-43 showing
that the attitude error equation can be written as

-1

sin

-L

A sin L

-2

A cos L

A sin L

cos L

-c;

Lp] r n 6L

A cos L

61

sin Lp

where for platform systems,

q j = q,

+ C:TDwrD + CEACzwiP,

= C%(u)wD

and for strapdown systems,

qj = Pa

= C;(u)wb

+ C;T~W!~ - C:(ACQ) T w!~

53

Note that the body frame, b , designation has replaced the platform frame
designation in the strapdown system forcing function given by Eq. 8-94.
The forcing functions for the two classes of systems are seen t o differ only

178

DEVELOPMENT O F A UNIFIED ERROR ANALYSIS

in the terms due to gyro input axis nonorthogonality which introduce an

asymmetry into the equations. It is interesting to note that if AC; were
orthogonal then AC; = - ( A c : ) ~ . Equation 8-92 represents three equations
in six unknowns.
The three additional equations necessary for a complete specification of
the system dynamical behavior are found by expressing the position error
equation given by Eq. 8-65 in terms of the navigation error, dn, defined by
Eq. 8-76. The development of the required relationship is quite lengthy, but
its importance to this book is such that a detailed exposition is necessary.
Instead of considering the cases of local and nonlocal computation frames
separately as was done for the velocity relationship developed in Section
8.2.8, both cases are considered together by substituting Eq. 8-76 directly.
Equation 8-76 is rewritten as

where Yn = V n- Nn, and it is recalled from Section 8.2.7 that if the computation frame is local, then Yn = -Nn, otherwise Yn = 0.
Equation 8-95 is first substituted into Eq. 8-65 and the resulting expression
is premultiplied by C i . Similar to the development of Eq. 6-57 i t is noted
that

Thus Eq. 8-65 can be written as

The bracketed terms premultiplying 6x1 and Yn in Eq. 8-97 are simplified
by observing that
and that

CANONICAL FORM OF THE ERROR EQUATIONS

179

Thus the 6n term becomes

)an = ( a ;

+ LRS,:,:

+ w:Mg)

6n

(8-100)

and the Yn term becomes

(

)Yn =

(a&,
-I- S2:nQL + w:M3)Yn

(8-101)

I n addition it is observed in Eq. 8-97 t h a t from the definition of Yn given

in Eq. 8-95,
(En - V n ) f n = ( E n - Nn)fn - Ynfn
(8-102)
But since f n

CpFi - Gn7i t is seen from Eq. 2-7 that

f n = Fn

+2

P 3

+ d?,rn + SZrnI,Pnrn - Gn

(8-103)

Thus Eq. 8-102 can be written as

(En - V n ) f n = (En- Nn)fn - Y n ( P

+ 2Q:ni.n + a$rn+ SZ;aYnrn

- Gn)
(8-104)

Substitution of Eqs. 8-100, 8-101, and 8-104 into 8-97 yields

6ii

+ 2SLc 6d + (a:, + SZzSZZ + w:M3)

6n

+ (En - Nn)fn + 4, = q1
(8-105)

where
q2 = 2(Jin

+ nPnyn- YnS2Yn+ C:

6Qkzkck)Gn
n

+ 2 P n yn+ hnYn - yn&inn

+ P ~ n S 2 ~ n y-n YnS2BPk + o:M3Yn
+ c;(6afk + 26Q:kQ:n + 6S2fkaFk+ 6Pfk)Ct]rn + YnGn

4- [ y n

zn

2n

The expression above can be shown to be equal to 0. The skew-symmetric

form of Eq. 8-71 is written as
Yn -/- Q.ynyn- ynQ&
= -C:

6QfkCz

(8-106)

and its time derivative a s

yn + aYnyn
+ Bipn - yna;n
- ynfi:,
- -C:[(Qfk

nfn)

- Q:,)]C;

(S-107)

Thus substitution of Eqs. 8-106 and 8-107 into the expression for q, shows
that
q, = c . o : ~ , Y ~ r ~ YnGn

Since Gn is multiplied by an error quantity in the expression above it may

be approximated from Eqs. 4-38 and 4-37 as
Gn E
- {O, 0 , rw:)

-wsr2

Thus q, is written as
q2 = w:(M3Yn - Yn)rn

180

DEVELOPMENT OF A UNIFIED ERROR ANALYSIS

Substituting the expression for M, from Eq. 8-96 shows that, independent
of the values assigned to the error angles of Yn,

Thus Eq. 8-105 can be written as follows

This equation is recognized as being identical to that obtained for the spacestabilized system as a comparison with Eq. 6-58 shows. Thus Eq. 8-109 is
written in component form as Eq. 6-59. Combining Eq. 8-92 for the attitude
errors and Eq. 6-59 for the position errors results in the error equation for
general terrestrial navigator :
Ax = Qj
where the characteristic matrix, A, is given by Figure 6.3, the state vector
x is given by
(8-111)
x = ( E ~ eE,
,
E ~6L,
, 61, ahi)
and the forcing function, Qj, has the general form:

Note in the expression above for the forcing function that it was necessary
to distinguish between the strapdown and platform cases when evaluating
the effects of gyro nonorthogonality. I n particular, it is seen from Eqs. 8-93
and 8-94 that for the platform case the nonorthoganality term appears with
the plus sign, while for the strapdown case this term appears with the minus
sign and the transpose.
For the case of K = 0,that is, the case where all inertial information is
used t o specify the magnitude of the gravitational field vector, the characteristic matrix can be partitioned into four 3 x 3 matrices:

where Fnis the skew-symmetric form of f n given by Eq. 4-53 ando:, is given
by Eq. 3-8. Note that A is a function of only two quantities, o
:
,
, and fn,

CANONICAL F O R M O F THE ERROR EQUATIONS

181

which points out the dependence of the system's motion over the earth on
the unforced error equation.
It has been shown, therefore that the error equations for the general
terrestrial inertial navigation system can be written in the form shown by
Eq. 8-110. Note that the dynamical behavior of all systems is identical, as
evidenced by the fact that the characteristic matrix, A, does not depend on
either the system's mechanization or its computation frame. Equation
8-110 is a complete specification of the system's dynamical behavior in
response to error sources. Since the equations for 6L, 61, and ah, in Eq. 8-110
are second order, a total of nine initial conditions are needed t o effect a
solution :

The velocity errors are then related to the navigation errors through Eq.
8-86.
The forcing function, Qj, is characterized by the fact that the major sources
of system error, due to gyro and accelerometer uncertainty, C;(u)wP and
C;(u)fa, are frequency modulated a t a rate which depends on the angular
motion between the instrument coordinates and the geographic coordinates.
This fact accounts for the major differences in performance between the
various mechanizations. Errors due to gyro torquing uncertainty, C;T%&,,
are similarly modulated by the rotation of the platform with respect to the
geographic frame, but in addition are proportional to the inertial angular
velocity of the platform. Error effects due to gyro input axis nonorthogonality, -&C:(AC:)',~~%, depend on the commanded inertial angular velocity
of the platform for the case of platform systems and on the inertial angular
velocity of the vehicle for the case of strapdown systems. Errors due t o
accelerometer input axis nonorthogonality , Ci(ACz)TCzfn, are identical for
all systems depending on both specific force and platform-geographic frame
rotations. The effects due to altimeter uncertainty depend on the value of
the weighting factor, K , and are seen t o be independent of the motion of the
system. Similarly, effects due to the inability to specify an exact analytic
expression for the earth's gravitational field, AGn, do not depend on the
system's motion.
The dynamic behavior of the inertial navigation system can be investigated by examining the system's characteristic determinant which, for the
stationary case, is given by the following ninth-order polynomial.

182
,

DEVELOPMENT OF A UNIFIED ERROR ANALYSIS

The dynamical behavior of the system depends on both the nature of the
forcing function, Qj, and the roots of the characteristic determinant. It is
immediately seen that the terrestrial navigator has an imaginary pair of
roots a t p = &oje, the so-called space rate frequency. I n addition to the
root a t the origin, p = 0, the other six roots depend on the gravitational
field weighting factor, K . See Eq. 8-56.
For a value of K = 0, the system uses all inertial information t o calculate
the earth's gravitational field. The characteristic determinant is given by

Because the coefficients of the sixth-order polynomial above in brackets do

not all have the same sign, the pure inertial system is seen to be unstable,
a well-known result.12 As a matter of fact, i t is seen from Eq. 8-114 that the
system is unstable unless K 2 2.
For a value of K = 2, the borderline stability case, Eq. 8-114 shows that
there are two additional root6 a t the origin, since

1 A1

= --r2

+ 02)[p4 + 2 ( 4 + 202)p2+ w:(w: + 4 0 2 dos2L)]

cos Lp3(p2

K=2

The quadratic formula can be used to factor the quartic polynomial in the
expression above, yielding, for the case where the system is not near the
equator,

and-forthe case where the system is near or a t the equator,

The factorization given by Eq. 8-116 is the same as that obtained for the
two-accelerometer local-level system. (See Section 7.4.2.) This system, like
the two-accelerometer local-level system, will therefore exhibit both the
Schuler and Foucault frequencies.
For a value of K = 3, the gravitational field magnitude is calculated using
a stable mix of external and inertial altitude information. For this case the
characteristic-determinant is given by

SPECIALIZATION OF THE GENERALIZED THEORY

183

The quartic polynomial has the approximate factors :

The beat frequency a,ssociated with the equation above corresponding t o

the Foucault frequency of Eq. 8-116, will occur a t the earth rate frequency
for K = 3.
I n the solution of the error equations, i t is of course the combination of
the system's dynamical behavior and the spectral content of the forcing
functions which determines the response. The highest system natural
frequency t h a t was noted during the previous discussion occurred at about
the Schuler frequency. The system will then attenuate error sources which
occur a t frequencies higher than the Schuler frequency; that is, the system
will act like a low-pass filter in response to these error sources. On t h e other
hand, error sources which occur a t one of the system's natural frequencies
will give rise t o errors which grow in an unbounded manner with time.

8.4

SPECIALIZATION O F T H E

GENERALIZED THEORY

The error equations for the general terrestrial navigator having been
obtained, i t is now a relatively simple matter t o write down the error equations for a variety of inertial navigation system configurations. The specification of the error equations has been reduced t o the specification of the
forcing function, Qj, given by Eq. 8-112. Note that because the error equations are completely independent of the chosen computation frame, it is
only necessary t o evaluate various platform configurations. For example, a
space-stabilized system which computes in inertial coordinates will behave
in identical fashion to a space-stabilized system which computes in geographic
coordinates.
I n writing down the final error equations for a particular system i t is
instructive t o formulate the forcing function in terms of the various types
of gyro errors, such as mass unbalance and anisoelastic. (See Chapter 5.)
Since certain of these errors depend on the orientation of the gyro relative
to t h e platform, i t is necessary t o specify a gyro orientation. It is t o be
emphasized t h a t the gyro orientation chosen here is completely arbitrary
and, in a practical situation, is chosen based on the expected dynamic
environment. For example, if i t were desired t o minimize errors due t o gyro
mass unbalance in a local-level system, the level gyros would be mounted
with their output axes along the vertical, thereby aligning the level gyros'
spin-input planes orthogonal t o the gravity vector. Designating the gyro by
the direction of its sensitive axis, the orientation of the output and spin axes

184

DEVELOPMENT O F A UNIFIED ERROR ANALYSIS

for the x, y, and z gyros is arbitrarily chosen to be

x gyro = 0 along z ; S along -y

y gyro = 0 along x ; S along x
z gyro = 0 along x ; S along y
With these definitions and the assumption that the gyro frame is nominally
aligned with the platform frame, the "major" uncertainty and dynamic
torques for the gyro triad are given by Eqs. 5-14 and 5-20 as

where

Please note that both the choice of instrument orientation and the choice
of the "major" terms from Eqs. 5-14 and 5-20 are rather arbitrary. If gyros
of known design are to be analyzed then all of the terms in Eqs. 5-14 and
5-20 must be evaluated to determine the "major" terms. This procedure is
in general quite complex since the platform's dynamics, the gyros' temperature control systems and magnetic environment, and the vehicle's dynamic
behavior must all be evaluated.
If the terms given in Eq. 8-119 are indeed the major terms, then compensation is usually provided which theoretically reduces the gyro's deterministic
uncertainty to a second-order quantity. The gyro uncertainty is then modeled

SPECIALIZATION O F T H E GENERALIZED THEORY

185

as a random uncertainty and consequently a great deal of research has gone

into the statistical modeling of gyro drift data.17.19.31For the purposes of
this document, all of t h e "major" error terms are carried through into t h e
final specification of Qj. For platform systems, however, the gyro uncertainties due t o angular rotations can safely be assumed to be second-order since
the gyro's moments of inertia can be specified quite accurately and are not
subject to shifts in value.
The gyro uncertainty, ( u ) o p ,of Eq. 8-112 is written as a function of the
terms in Eq. 8-119 by recognizing from Eq. 6-18 that .the angular rate is
equal to the torque divided by the gyro's angular momentum:

where
For the purposes of modeling the accelerometer errors, the model given by
Eq. 6-23 is used; t h a t is, the accelerometer uncertainty is modeled as the
sum of a bias, scale factor, and random uncertainty.

8.4.1

Space-Stabi lized Mechanization

The error equations for the space-stabilized inertial navigator have been
independently derived in Chapter 6, Eq. 6-63 being the analytic expression
for Qi. The general expression given by Eq. 8-112 is now applied to the
space-stabilized mechanization, and the detailed instrument uncertainties
given by Eqs. 8-119 and 6-23 are applied. It is assumed for simplicity t h a t
the platform is nominally aligned with the inertial frame; thus p is replaced
t
by i in Eq. 8-112 and Qiis written as

la:(u)fa - AGn

+ xm, r-rn aha + c;(Ac:)Tc;fn

2

(8-120)

It is seen, as previously noted, t h a t the gyro torquing and gyro nonorthogonality terms are negligible for this mechanization.
I n evaluating Eq. 8-119 for this case, it is noted that the terms which are
proportional t o angular velocity and angular acceleration drop out, since
mi,= oZi
= 0. It should be recognized, however, that in practice i t is not

186

DEVELOPMENT O F A UNIFIED ERROR ANALYSIS

possible to provide perfect base motion isolation unless the bandwidth of

the gimbal servo loops is sufficient to eliminate the effects of high frequency
angular motions. Because these effects can be quite significant, gyro design
and test procedures have been developed to cope with this problem.12 The
instrument errors are then written with

an analytic expression for fp being given by Eq. 4-44. The transformation

matrix Cp is given by Eq. 3-10.
The fact that the C? matrix premultiplies the error terms means that the
error terms are frequency modulated a t the earth rate frequency for the
stationary system case. This is an undesirable feature of the space-stabilized
mechanization since the modulated error source excites the system a t one
of its undamped natural frequencies-the
earth rate frequency for the
stationary case. This phenomena, which was observed by Broxmeyer,12 is
illustrated by Figure A.2 in Appendix A. NoOe that the error growth is linear
and not exponential.
8.4.2

Local-Level Mechanization

I n Chapter 7 the local-level system was described in detail and its error
equations were specified. Equation 8-112 is now applied and the detailed
instrument uncertainties specified. It is again assumed for simplicity that
the platform and instrument frames are nominally aligned with the mechanized frame. Replacing p with n in Eq. 8-12 shows that

The equation above is recognized as being identical to Eq. 7-40.

The expression for (u)wnis obtained directly from Eq. 6-18 when Eq.
8-119 is substituted. For this case

and an analytic expression for fn is given by Eq. 4-53. Also the inertially
referenced platform angular velocity is given by Eq. 3-8 as
w
,:

= mi", =

(CON, W E , COD) =

(1. COs L, - L ,

-j, sin L )

and the accelerometer uncertainty is given directly by Eq. 6-23:

SPECIALIZATION O F T H E GENERALIZED THEORY

187

It is seen from Eq. 7-40 t h a t the gyro error terms are not frequency modulated and thus do not excite the system a t one of its natural frequencies.
Note, however, t h a t this system mechanization is sensitive to gyro torquing
scale factor uncertainty. Note also that with the chosen gyro orientation
that the north and east gyros are insensitive t o gravity-induced mass
unbalance errors.
8.4.3

Free Azimuth Mechanization

Free azimuth systems are essentially local-level systems with a spacestabilized vertical or azimuth channel; that is, the platform is commanded
t o remain in the local horizontal plane but is uncommanded in azimuth.
The relationship between the platform coordinate frame and the geographic
frame is specified by defining an azimuth rotation angle measured clockwise
from indicated north to a fiducial line on the platform. Thus the coordinate
t,ransformation relating the platform frame to the geographic frame is given
ios

[JOtA

sin L dt]

sin[Jot~sinLdt]

- sin

[c

sin L dt]

0-

c o ~ [ ~ ~ ~ ~ s i n l ;0d t ]

1-

The angular velocity of the platform frame with respect t o the inertial frame
is found by transforming w,",, given by Eq. 3-8 sans the vertical component,
into the platform frame using the equation above, that is,
w;D = c;{A cos L, -L, 0)

An analytic expression for f p is found from the relationship :

f D= C z f n

(8-124)

where C," is given by Eq. 8-122 and f" is given by Eq. 4-53.
Because the platform of the free azimuth system is inertially nonrotating,
the system has the obvious advantage of being insensitive t o azimuth gyro
torquing uncertainty.

8.4.4

Rotating Azimuth Mechanization

The rotating azimuth mechanization is basically a local-level navigator

with relatively high-speed azimuth rotation. Because the level gyros and
accelerometers are rotating relative to the geographic frame, the instrument
uncertainties will be frequency modulated a t t h e azimuth rotation rate.

188

DEVELOPMENT O F A U N I F I E D ERROR ANALYSIS

Since, as ha.s been previously pointed out, inertial navigation systems behave
a s low pass filters in response t o error sources, the frequency modulated
instrument errors will be attenuated in the ratio of the Schuler frequency
t o the modulation f r e q ~ e n c y . ~The
'
accuracy and alignment requirements
for the level instruments is thereby reduced. The system is not without its
problems, however, since utmost care must be exercised to assure that the
level gyro's sensitive axes are truely orthogonal t o the azimuth rotation
angular velocity vector.
While other mechanizations utilizing azimuth rotation are possible,l it
is assumed t h a t the inertial angular velocity of the platform is given by
where

Thus the constant azimuth rotation rate, 4, is defined as relating the platform
and geographic coordinates through the relationship :

r cos $t

G: = -sin 4t

sin $t
cos 4t

01
o

As a practical matter, the azimuth gyro is torqued a t the variable inertial

rate given by
- A sin L.
An analytic expression for f p in Eqs. 8-119 and 6-23 is found by applying
Eq. 8-126:
f P= C;fn

Note that the azimuth torquing uncertainty error will be relatively large
for this mechanization since the uncertainty is multiplied by the large
angular rate
- A sin L. This error can be reduced if t h e system is
mechanized t o provide a constant level of azimuth gyro torquing.*

8.4.5

Strapdown Mechanization

Strapdown systems are characterized by their lack of gimbal support

structure. The system is mechanized by mounting three gyros and three
accelerometers directly t o the vehicle for which the navigation function is
t o be provided. An onboard digital computer keeps track of t h e vehicle's
attitude with respect t o some reference frame based on information from the
gyros. The computer is thus able t o provide the coordinate transformation
necessary t o coordinatize the accelerometer outputs in a computational

SPECIALIZATION O F T H E GENERALIZED T H E O R Y

189

reference frame. See Section 8.2.1.2 for a description of the computation of

this coordinate transformation.
Many arguments are heard, both pro and con, concerning the viability
of strapdown systems. Weight and size comparisons between strapdown and
gimballed systems involve a trade-off between a more extensive computer
for the strapdown system versus the gimbal structure for the conventional
system. With t h e advent of microcircuits the advantage of strapdown
systems would appear t o be increasing. The strapdown system also would
appear t o have a definite adva*ntageover the gimbal system in terms of power
consumption, packaging flexibility, ease of maintenance, and perhaps cost.
It should be pointed out, however, t h a t these considerations should be
weighed according to accuracy. The fact is that strapdown systems are not
yet capable of competing with conventional systems in applications where
accuracy is the primary criterion of excellence. From a reliability standpoint,
i t would appear t h a t the binary devices in a strapdown system would be
less susceptible t o such factors as line voltage variations, power supply
transients, and so on. I n addition i t would be expected t h a t the environmental control problem would be considerably eased since the strapdown
sensors remain fixed with respect t o the vehicle.
The major disadvantage of the strapdown system is summarized in one
word-inaccuracy. The primary cause of the strapdown system's inaccuracy
is the fa>ctthat the inertial angular velocity of the platform frame is equal
to the inertial angular velocity of the vehicle. Thus from Eq. 3-23

Thus i t is seen that the instruments are subjected t o a relatively harsh

dynamic environment since there is no gimbal structure to isolate the sensors
from t h e angular motion and vibration of the vehicle. Because of these
environmental factors, the instruments must be designed with a larger
dynamic range which usually results in a compromise in accuracy. It should
be pointed out, however, that most testing has been performed with instruments which were designed for use in gimbaled systems. Current design
research toward the development of sensors which have improved performance in the strapdown environment may alter the current "accuracy gap"
which exists between gimbaled and strapdown ~ y s t e m s . l ~ . ~ *
The forcing function for the strapdown mechanization is given by Eq.
8-112 as

190

D E V E L O P M E N T O F A U N I F I E D E R R O R ANALYSIS

where o:Pis given by Eq. 8-127 and the platform-referenced specific force
is given by
f P= C:fn
(8-129)
The Cz matrix depends on the vehicle's motion and cannot be specified in
advance. For the purposes of error analysis a trajectory must be assumed
and an attitude specified.
I n addition to the error sources treated for gimbal systems, the strapdown
mechanization gives rise to several other error sources which are usually
m ~ d e l e d . ~These
. ~ ' errors can be analyzed by expressing the error contribution as an equivalent angular velocity and including in (u)oP.A partial list
of additional sources would include the following :
Gyro torquing asymmetry
Noncommutivity errors arising from the use of angular data
Truncation error
Gyro and accelerometer quantization error
Computer round-off error

It is first noted from Figures 5.2 and 5.4 that in the rate gyro mode the
signal generator output, which is a voltage proportional to A,, is affected by
ol, A,ws, and tho. The gyro output signal must therefore be compensated
for these dynamic effects if high accuracy is to be achieved. This compensation is readily accomplished since coo and ws are obtainable from the other
gyros. Note, however, that the addition of this cross coupling between the
gyros introduces the possibility of a computational i n ~ t a b i l i t y . ~ ~
8.4.5.1
Gyro Torquing Asymmetry. Errors due t o torquing asymmetry arise from the fact that the gyro torquer may have a scale factor
error which depends on the polarity of the torque being applied. Symmetric
scale factor error effects are discussed in Sections 5.2.2 and 8.2.1.2. The
effects of torquing asymmetry are best seen if an angular vibration environment is considered. For the symmetric case, i t is seen from Eq. 5-19 that
a sinusoidal angular oscillation about the gyro's input axis results in a zero
mean angula; velocity error equal to

(u)w = -w,

sin wt

where w1 = amplitude of input angular velocity

w = vibration frequency
If the scale factor error is asymmetric, however, sinusoidal angular vibrations can give rise to a growing error. Let the scale factor error for positive
inputs be given by T+ and for negative inputs by T-. Then for each cycle

SPECIALIZATION O F THE GENERALIZED THEORY

191

the accumulated angular error is given by:

7r

( u )=
~ -T+wIAJ

sin cot dt - <corA[:in

mt dt

But for sinusoidal vibration, mr = Om, where O is the vibration amplitude.

Thus
(u)8 = 2 8 ( ~ -- r + )

(8-130)

Thus for each vibration cycle an angular error results which is proportional
t,o scale factor asymmetry. Let us evaluate an example to see what the magnitude of this buildup might be. Let us say that the vehicle is vibrating a t
cu = 10 Hz(cps) with an amplitude of 1 arc-min. Thus if we assume that
the per cycle angular error is
(7- - T+) =
arc-min
( u p = 2 x 10-~
cycle
For a 2-hr flight, the accumulated error is equal to

[(U)O],,
,=2
.Y

arc-min
10-~
cycle

10Hz x 2 h r x

3600 sec
hr

1.44 arc-min

This effect would appear to be quite significant and probably requires that
the designer make a detailed evaluation of the angular vibration environment. I n a particularly severe case, shock mounting would probably have
to be employed. For a constant sinusoidal vibration along each gyro input
axis, Eq. 8-130 in vector form can be expressed as an angular velocity
uncertainty :

where 8, = vibration amplitude about kth gyro axis

cob

= vibration frequency

Obviously, for Eq. 8-131 to be used effectively, the angular vibration spectrum must be known. This type of data are rather scarce for aircraft applications and, in addition, would tend to be strongly influenced by the aircraft
type, mission, inertial measurement unit location, and so on.

192

DEVELOPMENT O F A UNIFIED

E R R O R ANALYSIS

8.4.5.2
N o n c o m m u t i v i t y Errors. Noncommutivity effects result
from the fact that the attitude matrix computer processes finite sized angular
outputs from the rate gyros. See Section 5.2.2 for a description of the digital
torquing process. To investigate the form of the error introduced into the
calculation of the attitude matrix as a result of noncommutivity, consider
the case of three successive rotations about the body's positive x, y, and z
axes. The coordinate transformation relating the rotated coordinates to the
original body coordinates is given by

cos 6 ,
where b' denotes the rotated frame.
If the rotation angles are equal to the A0 pulse sizes, we can expand the
expression above, keeping up to second-order terms. We get an expression
of the form:
C,bf = (1

where

+ Ae1)(I + Ae2)

-Ae,

Ae,

A
0

AO,]

A8,

and

The off-diagonalterm ABj A8, occurs if a rotation about the j t h axis precedes
a rotation about the kth axis. The second-order term represents the noncommutivity error. Thus a direct error, as given by Eq. 8-134, occurs in
the computation of the attitude matrix.
Since the commutivity error is on the order of Aei, we choose angle increments as small as possible, consistent with computer speed and roundoff
error considerations. Unfortunately, the prediction of the commutivit~
error with time requires a complete time history of the input angular velocity.
Farre1122has evaluated the error buildup in response to angular oscillations
and finds the commutation error to be quite significant if the A8 pulse
sizes are not kept below about 20 arc-sec. Systems are currently being built
w i t h ~ u l s esizes in the 1 to 2 arc-sec range.

SPECIALIZATION O F THE GENERALIZED THEORY

193

8.4.5.3 Truncation Error. Truncation error results from approximations in the computational algorithm which is used t o update the attitude
matrix as given by Eq. 8-4. Although we shall be concerned with the direct
updating of the direction cosine matrix, it should be pointed out t h a t other
schemes can be used t o effect the coordinate transformation such as fourparameter techniques and Euler angles. W e i n e F has studied the available
choices and concludes that for SDF, digitally torqued instruments utilizing
a DDA computer, the direction cosine approach requires minimum computation, although other i n v e ~ t i g a t o r s ~have
l . ~ ~ indicated a preference for the
Euler four-parameter method.
The direction cosine transformation is found quite easily for systems
which utilize electrostatic gyroscopes,15since ingenious pickoff schemes allow
the direction cosines t o be read directly from the instrument. The output of
each electrostatic gyro (ESG) pickoff is the direction cosine between the
spin axis and an appropriate fiducial line on the instrument case. Although
there are three of these pickoffs per ESG, in general, only two of the three
pickoffs provide useful information a t any given time. Thus if two ESG's
are used in a system, only four direction cosines will be available for computation a t any instant. The remaining five are found through application of
the orthogonality relationship for coordinate transformation matrices :

The solution of Eq. 8-4 for the direction cosines can, as mentioned previously, be performed in a variety of ways. If digitally torqued S D F instruments are used, i t is shown in Section 5.2.2 t h a t each output pulse is proportional t o the integral of the input axis angular velocity. Thus the output
of the instrument represents an incremental angular rotation about the
input axis equal to A6. This property can be exploited in the solution for
the direction cosine matrix if a Taylor series expansion for C,k in At is considered :
1
c(t At) = c(t) ~ ( t At
)
@ ( t ) At"
-c
+ . . (8-135)
3!
where C z = C for notational simplicity.
If the basic relationship given by Eq. 2-4 is substituted into the equation
above, there results

at3

The first two terms of Eq. 8-136 can be written as

C(t

+ At) = C(t) + C(t) A9

where i t was noted t h a t

S2 At

A9

194

D E V E L O P M E N T O F A U N I F I E D E R R O R ANALYSIS

and A0 is a skew-symmetric matrix composed of the. gyro outputs he,,

k = 2, y, 2.
If the computational algorithm of Eq. 8-137 is used, which corresponds
to a rectangular integration scheme, the truncation error is approximately
given by the third term of Eq. 8-136:

This error is seen to be proportional to

Thus i t would appear that the
truncation error would be reduced if higher order integration schemes were
used. This is indeed the case, but one must pay the penalty of a lengthier
computation and more roundoff error for a given computer word length.
The use of a high-order integration scheme does, however, result in the
truncation error being insignificant in comparison with the commutivity
error discussed previously. If general-purpose digital processing is used,
then the time step, At, must be chosen such that the errors resulting from
the vehicle's angular velocity, a,and the vehicle's angular acceleration,
9,
satisfy the error budget. The tradeoffs involved in choosing the appropriate
equipment and software for a given mission have been the subject of quite a
few s t ~ d i e s . ~ ~ s ~ ~ * 5 7

8.4.5.4
Quantization Error. Quantization error, which is t o be distinguished from commutation error, is defined to be the error which results
from the digital measurement or conversion of continuous physical
quantities such as the angular position of the gyro float assembly. I n the case
of the gyros, quantization effects can result in a t most one bit of information
being lost during a mission. This low sensitivity to quantization effects
occurs because the gyro is itself an analog device with a physical "memory."
Treated statistically, the resulting error appears in the form of a random
phase shift. Thus by appropriate choice of quantization levels, the requiting
navigation errors can be reduced to negligible proportions.
Quantization effects become very important during alignment, however.
It is readily seen that for fixed base alignment the pulse rate is likely to be
very low. Thus long filtering times are necessary to smooth the data. In
addition, complications can be introduced by instruments which limit cycle
because they are being pulse torqued.@
8.4.5.5 Corn puter Round- Off Error. Round-off error is associated
with the fact t h a t the compute'r7sword length is finite. Each time a computation is performed the computer must approximate the final digit. This effect
is readily analyzed using statistical methods in order to determine the word
length required to yield a specified RMS error after a specified number of
computer iterations.67

195

EFFECT O F ALTIMETER UNCERTAINTY

8.5

EFFECT O F A L T I M E T E R U N C E R T A I N T Y

The problem involving the choice of the gravitational field weighting

factor, K , has been investigated via a digital computer simulation.36 It has
been found that the choice of K does not significantly affect the system's
errors in response to gyro drift uncertainty. It was shown, however, that the
errors due t o uncertainty in the externally supplied source of altitude, dh,,
strongly depend on the choice of K . Figures 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 show plots of
the root-mean-squared navigation errors in response to a 1000 ft uncertainty
in ah, for the stationary case.
The RMS plots were obtained by squaring the error variable and performing a time average, that is, the ergotic hypothesis has been invoked. For
example, in the case of the latitude error response of Figure 8.2, the RMS
values were obtained from

a&,,

[+r 6 ~ ' ( t dt])

where T = elapsed navigation time.

Latitude = 45"

Navigation time, hr
Figure 8.2

R M S latitude error due t o altimeter uncertainty.

~ = 5 4
K

= 2.5

Latitude = 45'

Navigation time, hr
Figure 8.3

R M S longitude error due to altimeter uncertainty.

6000-

K=

13
Latitude = 45'

Navigation time, hr
Figure 8.4

R M S altitude error due to altimeter uncertainty.

197

EFFECT O F A L T I M E T E R U N C E R T A I N T Y

It is seen from Figures 8.2 and 8.3 t h a t for large values of

the R M S
latitude and longitude errors are quite sensitive to the altimeter uncertainty.
On the other hand, it is seen from Figure 8.4 that the altitude error decreases
for large values of K. A value of K = 3 appears to offer a reasonable compromise between these two opposing trends.
K,

CHAPTER

Self-Alignment

Techniques

The process of alignment is defined t o be the determination of the angular

relationship between the platform p, and computational k frames. I n situations where the computation frame differs from the mechanized frame, the
ideal mechanized frame, j , acts as an intermediate frame (see Figure 8.1).
Optical and other external alignment techniques can, of course, be used to
effect the system alignment,49 but this chapter focuses on self-alignment
methods.
Self-alignment techniques are addressed to t h e following question. How
does one use the outputs of the inertial instruments, which are resolved in
the platform frame to determine the relationship between t h e platform
frame and some reference frame? The reference frame of greatest interest
is, of course, the geographic frame since t h e majority of operational terrestrial
inertial navigation systems instrument either this frame or one of its variants.
Even the space-stabilized configuration could utilize the geographic frame
as a n alignment reference frame since the relationship between the geographic
and inertial frames is a function of t h e system's latitude and celestial
longitude-known or computed parameters.
Two methods of alignment are considered in detail: gyrocompass alignment and analytic alignment. Both of these methods are adaptable t o the
various system configurations, the analytic method serving as a method of
coarse alignment and the gyrocompass method as a fine alignment method.
Many variations of these methods are available13,5*and schemes utilizing
optimal estimation techniques have been developed.37,6O~61The goal of this
chapter, however, is to develop only t h e basic ideas involved with selfalignment methods.

9.1

ANALYTIC COARSE A L I G N M E N T M E T H O D

The problem of the alignment of inertial navigation systems is basically

t h a t of determining the transformation matrix which relates vectors in the

199

ANALYTIC COARSE ALIGNMENT METHOD

platform coordinate frame to the same vectors expressed in geographic

coordinates or equivalently, in some other computation frame. The transformation matrix can be directly computed using the knowledge of g and
o,,,
that is, the gravity and earth rotation vectors, in the two frames. These
vectors are precisely known in the geographic frame, but their platform
frame components are measured by the inertial instruments and therefore
contain instrument uncertainties.
9.1.1

Description of Alignment Methodg

The gravity and angular velocity vectors transform according to the following expressions :
n

gp = Cng

oi",= c;w;
If v is defined as v = g x o i e , we also have
up = c;vn

Since C: = (Cz)-1 = (c:)~ these three vector relations can be written

Thus the alignment matrix is uniquely defined provided that the inverse
indicated above exists. This inverse exists if no one row of the matrix is a
linear combination of the remaining rows. This condition is always satisfied
if the two vectors g and oieare not collinear. These vectors coincide only
at the earth's poles, where the analytic alignment procedure is useless. For
the general case, the inverse in Eq. 9-1 is given by

oie cos L

--aiesin L

gwie cos L

-1

-tan L

- sec L

mie

1
gmie

sec L

200

SELF-ALIGNMENT TECHNIQUES

Kasper38 shows that for fixed base alignment, the analytic scheme compares
favorably with the existing optical alignment methods.
Note that this method is not restricted to the case where the gravity and
earth rate vectors are the measured quantities, but can be applied to situations where sequential measurements are made of only one vector whose
components are changing with time. For example, in a platform system
such as the space-stabilized system (Chapter 6) the earth rate vector is not
a directly measurable quantity. The components of gravity are, however,
time varying in the platform frame. Thus the analytic alignment method
could be applied to determine the transformation between the platform
frame and a reference inertial frame. Note also that the method requires
that a vector quantity be measured and is, therefore, generally restricted to
three-accelerometer systems.

9.1.2

Error Analysis

An error analysis for this alignment scheme, which takes into account
the effect of instrument uncertainties and base motion is not readily amenable
to analytic methods. The analysis which follows is intended to indicate an
approach which will result in equations which are best solved on a digital
computer. The equation for C,"can be written in the form:

E:

MQ

where

The elements of M are constant a t any latitude and are given by Eq. 9-2,
but Q contains measurement uncertainties. The equation above can therefore
be written as
= M(Q
6Q)
where
A

e::

--

Thus
h

and G' and the angles between

them are required to be constant, then the matrix M 6QCg must necessarily

If the lengths of the measured vectors f',

&ye,

ANALYTIC COARSE ALIGNMENT METHOD

201

be of the skew-symmetric form:

When Eqs. 9-2 and 9-4 are substituted into Eq. 9-5 the resulting M 6QCg
matrix is, of course, not in the desired skew-symmetric form, since

Ma&=

where

and
Moreover, it is difficult t o directly apply the constraints so t h a t the lengths
of the measured vectors and the angles between them are constant. This
problem is resolved in a practical manner by requiring that the computed
transformation, C;, be orthogonal. This is accomplished, as shown in Section
2.5.1.2, by forming the matrix product :

where

(e3,T

e:

optimal orthogonal approximation t o

such t h a t trace
- e,]
is minimized.
Since from Eq. 9-5,
C; = (I M dQ C;)C;
then
(@), = (I
M dQ C;)C;(I
dQT MTC:
CZM 8 ~ ) - ~

[(e;),

[(e;), e;]

where products of error quantities have been neglected. If the square root
is expanded in series, there results

202

SELF-ALIGNMENT T E C H N I Q U E S

which is, by inspection, in the desired skew-symmetric form. Unfortunately

for arbitrary orientation of the platform frame relative to the geographic
frame, the analytic expressions for the misalignment angles as a function
of the instrument uncertainties are quite messy and not readily amenable
to physical interpretation.
A particularly simple result emerges if the platform frame is taken to be
aligned with the local geographic frame, Cz = I. I n this case i t is found that

and (E*),, k = N, E , D are the misalignment angles which result after the
orthogonalizing procedure and are given by

sec L )
mie
(ED),

=-

fy tan L +
9

sec L
mie

Thus i t is seen that one can expect to see a north level error of about
3.4 arc-minlmilli g east specific force uncertainty. The east level error due
to north specific force uncertainty is -1.7 arc-minlmilli g ; to down specific
force uncertainty,
1.7 arc-min tan Llmilli g ; and to azimuth angular
velocity uncertainty -1.7 arc-min sec Llmeru *. The aximuth error angle
due to the east specific force uncertainty is given by -3.4 arc-min tan Ll
milli g, and due to east angular velocity uncertainty is given by +3.4 arc-min
sec Llmeru. It should be pointed out that the uncertainties 6f, and 6wk,
k = x, y, z , represent the total specific force and angular velocity measurement uncertainties, respectively. These errors result from both the instrument
uncertainties and instrument nonorthogonality effects. See Section 3.8.4
for a discussion of these nonorthogonality effects.
If these results are compared with those which would-be obtained with
an acceleration coupled platform gyrocompass (Section 9.2), i t is seen that
the north level error, (EN),, is identical to that which would be obtained
using a platform gyrocompass. The east level error, (E,),, contains additional
terms due to the orthogonalizing procedure which are functions of the vertical
accelerometer and azimuth gyro uncertainties. Finally, the azimuth error,
(ED),, is seen to be identical for the two gyrocompassing systems.

meru = milli earth rate unit

0.015 deglhr.

PHYSICAL GYROCOMPASS ALIGNMENT

203

It is also interesting to compare the results of Eq. 9-9 with those which
would be obtained if the instrument package could be rotated such t h a t two
accelerometers were nulled and the angular velocity about indicated east
were zero. I n this situation the conditions for equilibrium are found to be
dfv - g e =
~ 0

6f,

+g

&=
~0
dm, - mi,cos L E -~mi, sin L e N = 0
These results are seen to be the same as those obtained for the acceleration
coupled gyrocompass of Section 9.2. Note the apparent discrepancy in sign
in the azimuth sensitivity to east angular velocity uncertainty when the
results of this section are compared to those of Section 9.2. This sign difference comes about because for the analytic method the angular velocity is
directly measured, while for the physical gyrocompass method the gyros are
operating in the platform mode. See Section 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 for further
discussion on this point.
9.2

PHYSICAL GYROCOMPASS ALIGNMENT7

The coordinate transformation between local geographic axes and platform

axes can be found by physical gyrocompassing, in which case the CE transformation matrix is physically driven to be the unit matrix. The physical
instrumentation is motivated by the following observations :
1 . An ideal uncommanded servo-driven gyro stabilized platform will

remain nonrotating with respect to inertial space.

2. If the gyro input axes are physically aligned with geographic axes
(north, east, and down), then the system will remain aligned if the
gyros are torqued a t a rate proportional to earth rate.
3. If the platform is level (north and east gyro axes lying in the local
horizontal plane) but not quite stabilized in azimuth, the platform will
rotate about the east axis with a rate given by :
gE

'

&DmieCOS L

where GE is the angular velocity about the east axis and cD is the
azimuth misalignment.
4. Since the signal from the north accelerometer is proportional to the
azimuth misalignment above, then that signal can theoretically be used
to drive the azimuth error to zero. Conceptually then, one could
mechanize a gyrocompass by (I) supplying earth rate commands to
the platform ; ( 2 ) providing tight level control ; (3) providing azimuth
nulling via the north accelerometer.

204

SELF-ALIGNMENT TECHNIQUES
Gravity coupling

East
accelerometer

North
gYro

KO

North
accelerometer

BE -

KE

- Instrumented
/

north

Azimuth
gYro

- Instrumented
azimuth

East
gYro

-- Instrumented
east

Gravity coupling
Figure 9.1

Acceleration coupled gyrocompass.

Consider Figure 9.1 which shows a simple version of a physical platform

gyrocompass. Because the accelerometers are directly coupled to the platform
gyros, this mechanization is referred to as an acceleration-coupled gyrocompass. I f the parameters K N , K E , and K D contain mathematical integrations, the gyrocompass is said to be velocity-coupled.52 We will focus on the
former type of mechanization herein. Gyrocompassing schemes of the type
in Figure 9.1 are capable of very high accuracies.

9.2.1

P l a t f o r m Gyrocompass E r r o r Analysis

To analyze the effect of component and mechanization uncertainties on

system performance, assume that the platform axes are almost coincident
with the local geographic axes. If we define error angles E ~EE,
, and ED
resulting from positive rotations of the platform axes relative to geographic
axes, 6hen the transformation between geogrsphic and platform axes is
given by

where E

I
p

= skew-symmetric matrix of misalignment

= identity matrix
= instrumented geographic axes

n = geographic axes

angles

205

PHYSICAL GYROCOMPASS ALIGNMENT

Now the angular velocity of the platform axes with respect to inertial space

Coordinatizing in platform axes :

or in component form :
Wie COS

coie cos L

-E D W i e cos L
EEOie

EEWie

sin L

+ iN

- E N C L ) ~sin
~
L

cos L - mi, sin L

+ ZE

+ iD

The expression above must be equal to the commanded angular velocity

which consists of the processed accelerometer outputs and earth rate commands plus effects due to mechanization uncertainties. Thus the commanded
angular velocity is given by

I::[

mi, cos L - K d e ,

+ 6mN + K N 6 f B

+ dmE K E 6fN
sin L - KDgeE + 6mD - K D d f N
-K..E~

(9-19)

-mi,
GD
where 6 0 " = ( d ~ r )6~w, E , dmD) = angular velocity uncertainty
6 f n = ( 6 f N ,d f E )

specific force uncertainty

Note that i t is being assumed that the earth rate terms are being supplied
exactly. Note also that the signs of K N , K E , and K D have been chosen to
drive the 6 terms to 0. Equating Eqs. 9-18 and 9-19 yields

I:'[

+ BCVN + K N d f E
= [-KEgcE
+ e N m sinL + e D m eCOSL+ amE - K E 6fN
-KDgeE 3- eEwie cos L + dmD - K D 6fN
-KNgeN - eEmie sin L

(9-20)

g~
Taking the Laplace transformation of Eq. 9-20 and arranging in matrix form :

SELF-ALIGNMENT T E C H N I Q U E S
n

Figure 9.2

Signal flow diagram-acceleration coupled gyrocompass.

where s denotes the Laplace variable and the superbar denotes a Laplace
transformed variable. The signal flow diagram for this system is shown in
Pigure 9.2. Note the similarity between Figure 9.2 and Figure 7.5, the signal
flow diagram for the local vertical navigation system.
Since the determinant associated with the characteristic matrix above is
given by

Eq. 9-21 is readily solved using Cramer's rule. The equations are first solved
for the steady-state errors assuming constant angular velocity and specific
force uncertainties by invoking the final value theorem :

lim f ( t ) = lim sf (s)

t - ' ~

s-bo

207

PHYSICAL GYROCOMPASS ALIGNMENT

Solution yields
&N,,

-[ B U N

9Kiv

KN

- - tan L
-

Caw,
K ~ s

'DSS

GfE]-

KN

mi, sin L

+ mi, cos L ) [dm, - K D GfNl

K,dK,g

afE] - mi, 1

COS

[dm, - K E GfNl

These equations are summarized in Figure 9.3.

The constants K N , K E , and K , are chosen to satisfy a specified error
budget and to provide adequate response time. A reasonable design emerges
from Figure 9.3 if the sensitivities are chosen as follows:

(9-26)
K N ~K' E ~KDS
,
>> mie
where the symbol ">>" implies a several orders of magnitude inequality.
Routh's criteria shows that for the inequality constraints above there is no
stability problem for this system providing that the K ' s are positive. Note,

tan L
--

K N ~
-

mi, COS L
'dm,

-mi, sin L

K i v g ( K ~ g mi, cos L
tan L
--

9
KDmiesin L
KNg(KDg mi, cos L

Figure 9.3

Acceleration coupled gyrocompass steady-state error coefficients.

208

SELF-ALIGNMENT TECHNIQUES

however, that platform dynamics, electronic component dynamics, and gyro

dynamics have been neglected. The combination of high gain in the north
loop and close coupling in the east-azimuth loop tends to decouple the north
loop which basically operates in a leveling mode. I n particular, with the
inequality of Eq. 9-26, the system characteristic equation as given by
Eq. 9-22 reduces t o
which shows that the natural frequency, con,, and damping ratio, 5, associated
with the east-azimuth loop are given by

Applying Eq. 9-26 to the steady-state coefficients of Figure 9.3, the coefficients take a simplified form as shown in Figure 9.4. Figure 9.4 points out
the important fact that the sensitivity E ~ / ( u ) Eis~ independent of system
gain. I t s magnitude of
- 3.4 arc-min meru drift
cos L

shows that ea,st gyro uncertainty is the limiting factor in gyrocompass

performance. Because of the magnitude of this error coefficient, special

COie COS

- wiesin L
K,K,g2

1
9
wie sin L
KNg2
Figure 9.4

Error coefficients with inequality constraints.

ALIGNMENT O F STRAPDOWN SYSTEMS

209

calibration techniques, known as wheel speed modulation and east-west

averaging, have been developed and are discussed in References 53 and 69.
A selection of the gyrocompass gains via optimal control techniques is
discussed in Reference 37.

9.3

A L I G N M E N T O F STRAPDOWN SYSTEMS

The problem of alignment in a strapdown inertial navigation system is

basically that of determining the initial transformation matrix which relates
the instrumented body frame to the reference computational frame. Because
the inertial instruments are mounted directly to the vehicle, ordinary gyrocompassing methods cannot be used. Moreover, if we address ourselves to
commercial applications of inertial navigation which are likely to appear in
the next decade, it is clear that a means of self-alignment will be essential.
Indeed, it would appear that initial alignment within the environment and
time constraints imposed by commercial aircraft operation is one of the
more critical problems the designers of these systems will face. The problem
is one of determining a suitably accurate initial transformation matrix in
the short period of time necessary for commercial success of the aircraft in
the face of deleterious motions of the aircraft caused by wind gusts, the
loading of passengers and cargo, fuel ingestion, and so on.
A two-stage alignment scheme appears promising in this regard.g The
first of "coarse" alignment stage would use the analytic alignment scheme
discussed in Section 9.1 which utilizes the measurement of the gravity and
earth rotation vectors to directly compute the transformation matrix
relating the body frame to the geographic frame. The analytic alignment
method can be used for high accuracy applications in only the most benign
of environment^,^^ since the performance deteriorates because of angular
disturbance vibrations and accelerations. The effect is twofold; first the
disturbances corrupt the measurements of g and w i , since the measured
quantitie~are
F= -g+fd
(9-30)

(9-31)
mib = w i e Od
where the subscript, d, indicates disturbance quantities. Secondly, gb and
b
oie
become functions of time to some extent. This can be seen from the fact
that since &Te = 0,
b
b
hie
= -QLbmie
where the elements of the skew-symmetric matrix nibare given by the
components of w,. It is, therefore, necessary to introduce some filtering in
order to reduce the effects of these vibrations. A simple low-pass filter could

210

SELF-ALIGNMENT TECHNIQUES

be used t o obtain the average values of the measured quantities. This would
tend t o give t h e average alignment matrix. It is clear, however, t h a t the
instantaneous position of the body frame can vary considerably from its
average position, depending upon t h e motion of the aircraft. As a result, a
large initial misalignment could exist when the system is switched t o the
navigation mode of operation if only a n average alignment were achieved.
If the statistics of the aircraft vibrations were available, a more elaborate
optimal filtering scheme could be constructed. However, i t could prove
difficult t o separate the perturbations of w:e and gb from the disturbances
o,and f, by linear filtering, since it is very likely t h a t these components
contain the same frequencies. I n addition some time lag would be introduced
by t h e filter. The analytic alignment method is therefore mainly useful as
an average alignment, which is a rapid way of obtaining an initial estimate
of the transformation matrix.
The second or "corrective" alignment stage refines the initial estimate of
the transformation matrix by using estimates of the error angles between
the known reference frame and the corresponding computed frame.

9.3.1

Self-corrective Alignment Scheme

If the geographic frame is used as a reference frame, then the corrective

alignment scheme can be mechanized as shown in Figure 9.5.
Because an initial estimate of the transformation matrix is available, we
can model the misalignment between the actual and computed geographic
frame as a small-angle rotation. The updating method consists of detecting
the error angles between these two frames via the processed accelerometer
6f
-g

+ fd

&g

J.

Body mounted
accelerometers

Zb

>fn

Ggb

J.
p)}

eb"

J.

ek

2 -

Filter

6ub

W e

+a d

mounted
g Y ros

Figure 9.5

;;b

Self-corrective alignment scheme.

6;

Gn

ALIGNMENT OF STRAPDOWN SYSTEMS

211

and gyro signals and generating a signal t o the transformation computer

in order t o drive these angles as close t o zero as possible. At the'same time,
compensation is provided for the disturbance angular vibrations. This angular
motion compensation provides "base motion isolation" similar to t h a t
provided in a gimbaled platform system.
The instrumented frame will be taken t o be stationary with respect t o
t h e earth except for the disturbances mentioned previously. Unfortunately,
no data are available a t this time on aircraft motion due to wind gusts and
other disturbances. We model t h e base motion as simple additive vectors
per Eqs. 9-30 and 9-31.

9.3.2

Error Analysis f o r Self-corrective Scheme

As shown in Figure 9.5, the transformation matrix

relationship given by Eq. 2-4 :

ii;

cr is updated using t h e

e;n;,

(9-32)

= skew symmetric matrix of the angular velocity hib.

The angular
where
velocity signal used to update the transformation matrix would ideally be
given by
b
b
b
(9-33)
O n b= W e b= w,
= 0.
where it was noted that one
As shown in t h e figure, an estimate of w, is obtained by substracting
which can be looked upon as being coordinatized in computed body coordinates, from the gyros' indication of angular velocity. But since sib, is not
b
equal t o wi,
and, in addition, i j b is corrupted by gyro uncertainty 6 w b , the
angular velocity signal used t o update t h e transformation matrix is given by
"b
(9-34)

ate,

I,na

but

w:~,

W:

+ awb +

w:e

(e;)-lo;

(e;)-' = ( I - En)Cz = C:(I + E n )

(9-35)

where E is the skew-symmetric error angle matrix, defined in the usual way.
Thus Eq. 9-34 becomes
b
&:a = w,,,

+ w, + Sw
b

- Ebwie

(9-36)

is found by substituting the

The differential equation relating E t o wCmd
skew-symmetric form of Eq. 9-36 into Eq. 9-32;

e-, = e;sz:,, + e ; ~ :+ e; sszb - c ; (E~w;;)*

where (EboL)*is the skew-symmetric form of E b o e .
Noting from Eq. 9-35 that

(9-37)

212

SELF-ALIGNMENT TECHNIQUES

and

c,"= c;a;

Eq. 9-37 becomes

where, as usual, products of small quantities were neglected. We can write

Eq. 9-40 in vector form:

zn = -olE",,
- 60" - a 2 c n
where it was noted that

-Eno;

n n
= Glie&

I n order t o drive E~ to zero, o T m d can be chosen to be a linear function of

the measured estimate of zn. We therefore choose
A

n
*cmd

=K&n

where K = 3 x 3 matrix to be specified

h

z n = computed error vector

Thus Eq. 9-41 becomes

Note that Eq. 9-43 represents three scalar differential equations which are
coupled through the term nin,sn, which represents earth rate coupling.
The elements of 2" in Eq. 9-43 remain to be specified. A direct indication
of the three components can be obtained from the computed horizontal
components of g and the computed east component ofo,,. Specifically since

and
then
A

=
g

f~

+6 f
+ faa + a

E f~f d N

-BEN

(9-44)

f ~

(9-45)

where fdN and fdz are the north and east components of the disturbance
specific force vector, and 6fN and 6fE are the north and east components of
the accelerometer uncertainties, respectively. The remaining element, ED,

21 3

ALIGNMENT O F STRAPDOWN SYSTEMS

is found by examining the expression for &in.From Figure 9.5.

The east component of the equation above is given by

G E = -mie cos L(e,

+ tan L E ~+) mdE + amE

(9-47)

where mdl and 60, are the east components of the disturbance angular
velocity and gyro uncertainty, respectively.
The system is designed t o process the fN, fE, and G E measurements assuming t,hat there are no error sources.
sec~9
mie
The error in the estimation, &, is found by substituting

(9-48)

E = E + ~ E

and Eqs. 9-44, 9-45, and 9-47 into Eq. 9-48:

1
- (fa,

f 6.f~)
(9-49)

(fa,

L
+ 6 f ~-) sec
mie

+ 8 w ~- )

(mdz

It is now necessary t o determine the form of the K matrix used to drive

the error angles t o zero. One can use Kalman filtering techniques t o determine
the elements of K. The determination of K is formulated in this manner in
Reference 9. We shall choose an easier method which illustrates the important
concepts but which falls short of the "optimal" method. We shall require
that K be chosen such that Eq. 9-43 becomes uncoupled. This can be accomplished since oi",is constant a.t a given latitude. Thus we are choosing t h e
offdiagonal terms of K equal to minus the corresponding terms of the skewsymmetric matrix S2Te; t h a t is, choose
-mie sin L
COic

KE
0

-COie

COS

cos L
&I
O

(9-50)

214

SELF-ALIGNMENT TECHNIQUES

Thus Eq. 9-43 becomes

where K - diagonal gain matrix, the diagonal elements of Eq. 9-50
d--*
BE = E - E = estimation error for the error vector defined by Eq.
9 -49
If the term K 6sn in Eq. 9-51 is examined in detail, i t is seen that if the
settling time of the system is to be reasonable,
KN, KE, KD >> m i ,
Thus Eq. 9-51 is rewritten as
Equation 9-52 is a first-order, uncoupled, vector differential equation for
the error angles. The contributions from the various error sources is best
seen by writing this equation in component form, where p = dldt.

(P

+ K D ~ =D

tan L
Wie

It is obvious by inspection of Eq. 9-53 that this alignment scheme, in an

analogous fashion to the physical acceleration coupled gyrocompass scheme,
deteriorates a t high latitudes, becoming inoperative a t the Earth's poles.
Observe that the error angles are a function of both the base motion and the
instrument uncertainty. The equations are readily solved using Laplace
transform techniques. Assuming that the forcing functions are general
functions of time, we have

ALIGNMENT O F STRAPDOWN SYSTEMS

215

Applying the convolution property,

di

2 - I

-+K & ( s ) =

e - K ( t - T ) ~ ( Td~
)

The unique solution to Eq. 9-54 for arbitrary inputs is given by

S:: : {

~ ~ (=t e -) K ~ t eK.'

-sec L[wdE(7) d w E ( ~ ) ]

Since the base motion is not specified, it is best to treat Eqs. 9-55 statistically. We find the mean-squared value by squaring Eqs. 9-55 and taking
the mathematical expectation of the result. If the statistics of the independent
variables are uncorrelated, that is, if the various random processes are
independent and if no more than one is biased, then the cross coupling
terms will drop out when the mathematical expectation is taken. This
laborious task is best left for computer solution.
We investigate the system dynamics for the simple case of zero base
motion, constant accelerometer uncertainty, and constant gyro uncertainty :

fdE(t) = f d N ( t ) = wdEW = 0
d f k ( t ) = dfk

constant

6 w k ( t ) = 6wk = constant

k:=N,E

=N,

E, D

Equations 9-55 then yield

f
dmE - tan L L
9

"D)
( 1 - .-KDt )
--

KD

E~(O)~-"D~

(9-56c)

216

SELF-ALIGNMENT T E C H N I Q U E S

0
0
l/g
0
F i g u r e 9.6

-'lKE

o
-119

0
l / m i e COS L

-'IK,

-tan L / g
0

Self-corrective alignment steady-state error coefficients.

The steady-state errors are seen t o be given by

These equations are summarized in Figure 9.6. Comparison with Figure 9.4,
which shows comparable information for an acceleration coupled physical
gyrocompass, reveals striking similarities between the two systems. Note
t h a t the primary error sources and sensitivities are the same for both systems.
That is the level errors are caused primarily by the accelerometer uncertainties, and the azimuth error is caused primarily by the east gyro drift. If
should be emphasized, however, that the effect of base motion is likely to
be very significant in the alignment of a practical system, whether one uses
a physical or analykic gyrocompass scheme.

APPENDIX

A
Development of a System Error

Model
I n this appendix the differential equations describing the dynamic behavior of
a space stabilized inertial navigation system in response to gyro uncertainty
are derived for arbitrary motion over and above the earth. Since the object
of this development is to establish a standard against which perturbation
techniques can be evaluated, certain simplifications are made. The equations
are derived using the approximation that the earth is a spherical homogeneous body. The errors that result from this assumption are on the order
of the products of the earth's ellipticity and the navigation errors. In addition
it is assumed that for the purposes of calculating the magnitude of the
earth's gravitational field vector, the altitude of the system above the earth's
surface is precisely known. I n a practical situation, this latter assumption
necessitates the use of an errorless altimeter.
The derived equations are then solved for the case of constant gyro
uncertainty and constant east west velocity over the earth, and the position
errors are computed. After these exact solutions are evaluated for the case
of "small-" angle platform rotation with respect to the inertial frame, tlhe
principle of superposition is used to obtain an expression for the position
error as a function of all three gyro uncertainties. A linearizing scheme is
then developed which duplicates the results obtained from the exact solutions.
The development of the exact solutions is adapted from Reference 6.

A.l

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

The inertial navigation system being considered consists of an uncommanded gyro stabilized inertial platform upon which are mounted threesingle-degree-of-freedom accelerometers with mutually orthogonal input
axes. A computation capability is assumed such that the specific force data
can be processed.

218

DEVELOPMENT O F A SYSTEM ERROR M O D E L

The ideal accelerometer output for this system consists of three signals
which are proportional to the nonfield specific force exerted on each
accelerometer along its sensitive axis. From Newton's second law the specific
force is equal to the difference between the inertially referenced acceleration
and the net gravitational acceleration a t the instrument's location. It is
sufficient to consider only the gravitational effect of the earth as shown in
Chapter 3. Thus the ideal output of the ideal accelerometer set can be
written :
f * = cpi;i- Gp
(A-1)
where

fp

CF

= specific force output vector

=

coordinate transformation from inertial to platform axes

Zi

= inertially

Gi

= gravitational

referenced acceleration vector

field acceleration of the earth

It is a consequence of the fact that the specific force measurements are made
in platform coordinates that the inertially referenced acceleration is also
coordinatized in this coordinate system. Since the center of the earth is
taken as the origin of the inertial coordinate frame, the vector r is interpreted
as the position vector extending from the center of the earth to the navigation
system's location.
The computation scheme for extracting position from the specific force
data is readily seen from Eq. A-1, since the position vector, ri, can be
obtained from two integrations of the gravitational field-compensated
specific force signals. I f the effects of gyro uncertainty are considered, then
the transformation CF is seen to be time varying since the platform is now
rotating relative to the inertial frame. The computer, on the other hand, is
programmed to process the data based on the assumption that the platform
frame is inertially nonrotating. Errors are thereby introduced into the
computation ; letting

Ei = computed inertially referenced acceleration vector

c?; = computed coordinate transformation from platform to inertial axes

Gi = computed gravitational field vector
= measured specific force

the computed inertially referenced acceleration is given by

Equation A-2 should be interpreted as three scalar equations which have

been grouped as column matrices for convenience. Figure A . l shows the

219

DERIVATION O F SYSTEM DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS

S(0)

Yp

Accelerometer
triad

ej

ei

lnertially
stabilized
platform

II
Figure A . l

Gravitation
computer

System block diagram.

described computation scheme. This block diagram should be interpreted

as three identical block diagrams, one for each of the position vector components.

A.2

D E R I V A T I O N O F SYSTEM DIFFERENTIAL E Q U A T I O N S

The system differential equations are found directly from Eq. A-2. The
gravitational field is computed from this expression :

where, as has been previously mentioned, the magnitude of the radius vector,
Irl, is available from an external source such as an altimeter. Clearly there
is a choice as t o how this external altimeter information is combined with
the computed information as is discussed in Section 8.3.4. For the purpose
of developing the perturbation model, however, Eq. A-3 is used.
An expression for the measured specific force in platform axes is given by
Eq. A-1, since i t is assumed that the measurement is errorless.

I n order to obtain exact solutions, it is necessary to separately evaluate the

expression above as a function of the gyro uncertainty along each of the
platform axes. The inertial t o platform transformation is specified in detail
along with the treatment of the individual cases which follows this section.
The differential equation for the computed position is found by substituting
Eqs. A-1 and A-3 into A-2, which yields

220

DEVELOPMENT O F A SYSTEM ERROR M O D E L

Noticing t h a t the constant p/r3 is the square of the Schuler frequency, and
that GP = C:Gi = -(p/r3)C?ri, then Eq. A-4 becomes

where co,2 = ,u/r3, square of Schuler frequency for spherical earth model.
Notice t h a t in the derivation of Eq. A-5, which represents three uncoupled,
linear, differential equations, no assumptions have been made as t o the form
of the matrix product e i C ? , no linearization techniques have been used
(although the equations are linear), and no restrictions have been placed
on the motion of the system.
The subsequent algebraic manipulations can be considerably simplified
if the platform frame is assumed t o be initially aligned with t h e inertial
= I, the identity matrix. This initial alignment
frame, in which case
assumption is by no means restrictive in nature and is introduced only for
clarity in this development. Notice that although the initial alignment has
been precisely determined, the navigation system is in error because the
platform is rotating relative t o the inertial frame. The transformation
between inertial and platform coordinates can therefore be written as a
function of the gyro uncertainties alone, Eq. A-5 being written as

e;

where it is understood that a t t = 0, C? = I ; that is, ideal platform alignment

is assumed.

A.3

S O - L U T I O N O F SYSTEM DIFFERENTIAL E Q U A T I O N S

To solve the system differential equation, Eq. A-6, the forcing functions
must be evaluated in terms of the time history of t h e gyro uncertainties, the
inertially referenced acceleration, and the system position. An analytic
expression for the inertially referenced acceleration is found by time
differentiating the expression for the geocentric position vector, ri, expressed
in spherical coordinates :
ri = ( r cos L cos A, r cos L sin

A, r sin L )

(A-7)

where r = position vector magnitude

latitude (for spherical earth, L = LC)

3,

celestial longitude

The solution t o Eq. A-6 becomes unwieldy if general system motion over
and above the earth is allowed. For this reason the assumption is made that
the system is moving in an arbitrary east-west path a t constant velocity

SOLUTION O F SYSTEM DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS

221

and altitude. That is,

where

f
i

constant

constant

+ of,)= c,onstant celestial longitude rate

(I

terrestrial longitude rate

If Eq. A-7 is substituted into Eq. A-6, the system differential equation
becomes
[(w? - P) cos L cos i t

P + co:i?=

Cr r(coz - X2) cos L sin i t

rw: sin L

Note t h a t the bracketed term on the right-hand side of Eq. A-8 is just the
specific force fi. The initial conditions associated with the equations above
consist of the computed initial position and velocity of the system :
P(0) = ( r cos L, 0, r sin L)

i(o) = 10, r f cos L, 01

(A-9)
(A-10)

Because it is desired t o find a n exact solution for the position vector, i t

is necessary to consider each of the gyro uncertainties separately since if
t h e uncertainties were to be considered simultaneously, the mat,rix Cip would
depend on the order in which the gyro uncertainties occurred. For the case
of constant gyro uncertainty (drift), the angular velocity of the platform
with respect to t h e inertial frame is given by

where, for the assumed initial alignment the x, y, x platform axes coincide
with the inertial axes. Note that the angular velocity of Eq. A-11 results
from constant negative gyro uncertainties along the x, y, and x platform axes.

A.3.1

Constant Drift Along x Axis

For this case, w& = (cost, 0, 01, and

0
cos co,t
0

-sin

sin o,t

wx2i cosOw,t

222

D E V E L O P M E N T O F A SYSTEM E R R O R M O D E L

T h u s Eq. A-8 becomes

a, + w;+,
..
P, + w:P,

- i 2 ) cos L cos At

= r(w:

r
2

= - (w,

- i2)
cos L[sin ( I + w,)t

+ sin (I- w,)t] + ro: sin L sin o,t

..
r
Pz + myl', = - (w: - 1 2 )
L[COS
(A + rnZ)t 2
+ rw; sin L cos wxt
COS

(A-l2b)

COS

(A

- C0,)t-J
(A-12c)

Solving Eqs. A-12 with t h e initial conditions given by Eqs. A-9 and A-10
yields solutions :
(A-13a)

FZ = r cos L cas i t

i, = r{;

cos L - -

2ws[w: - ( 1

- C L ) , ~ , sin L sin cost

~1): - 0 ,

- (~ 0 2 , - i ~2 ) ( i - w , ) c o s ~
2ws[o: - (I-

+ w,)~]
x

L(w: - 12)
sin ( 1 + w,)t
+- 2rrcos
4-(I +

r ~ ,sin
2 L
r cos L(w: - 1 2 )
sin w,t
sin ( I - w,)t +
+ 2ro:
-(I(0:

0:)

(w: - X2) cos L - (w: - 12)

cos L - o: sin L cos cost
2[0:(1
w,)~]
0: 2[w: - ( A - w,)~]

4-

r(m: - i2)
cos L
cos ( I - w,)t
210: - ( I rco: sin L
2 COS

cc):

- 0,

r(w: - 1 2 )cos L
2 r d - (1

w,t

where Pi = (+,, Pg, +Z>

A.3.2

Constant Drift Along y Axis Only

F o r this case, w?'. = (0,w,t, 01, and

w,t

c: =

sin w,t

-sin w,t

cos w,t

( A + w,)t
+ ~ , ) cos
~ l

SOLUTION OF SYSTEM DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS

223

Thus Eq. A-8 becomes

..

+- wsr,-. = -2 (w, - A2) cos L[COS(2 + w y ) t + cos (1- ~ , ) t ]

2

i.,

..
2v

- rw: sin L sin w,t

(A-14a)

+ w z c = r ( o f - A2) cos L cos At

(A-14b)

.i.,. + o:?,= - (of - i 2cos

) L[sin (1+ o,)t
2
9-

- sin

( A - w,)t]

+ rwf sin L cos w,t

(A-14c)

Solving Eqs. A-14 with the initial conditions of Eqs. A-9 and A-10 yields
W,2

P, = r cos L

21o: -

rcoywssin L
2
0,

2
COY

- A2

(It w,)']

sin cost

W,z

2[w,2 -

r cos L(wz - A2)

2103 -

(2

- A2

( A - Coy)2]

cos cost

+ w,)t

cos (1

r cos L ( w : - A2)
roz sin L
cos (A - w,)t sin co,t
+ 2[w:
- (1- w , ) ~ ]
- w;
2

(A-15a)

0,

?v = r cos L sin At
9,

(A-15b)

+
l
2wSb: - (1- ~ , ) ~ 2WS[w:
- (A +
r cos L(w: - A')
sin ( A + w,)t
+ 2[w,2
- (1+

=r

cos L

(w: -

i2)(i
- cow)

- r cos L(L:- a2) sin

2[w: - (I- CU,)~I

ro,2 sin L
+

0:

A.3.3

2
Cc),

(w: - X2)(1 w,)

( A - wv)t

cos coat - r sin L

2 COS

w: - w,

w,t

Constant Drift Along z Axis Only

For this case, oip,= (0, 0, wZt),and

cos w,t
co,t

sin w,t

0-

cos w,t

1-

I sin wst

224

D E V E L O P M E N T O F A SYSTEM E R R O R M O D E L

Thus Eq. A-8 becomes

..

+ w:Pz = r cos L(o: - A2) cos ( A - mz)t

;.', + CO:?~
= r cos L(w: - i2)
sin ( A - w,)f
..
?, + w:?, = rw: sin L

( A - 16a)

Pz

(A-l6b)
(A-16c)

Solving Eqs. A-16 with initial conditions given by Eqs. A-9 and A-10 yields
P,

=r

(m: - X 2 )
0: - (1- w,12

cos L

=rcosL{L0.

cos w,t

+r

(i
- wz)(wz- A2) sin cost
ws[w:- ( A - w , ) ~ ]

cos L(w: - A2)

2

w: - ( A - w z )

+r

cos L(o,Z- A 2 ) sin (1- wz)t

cot - ( A - ( u , ) ~

P, = r sin L

A.4

cos ( A - w,)t

(A-17c)

A P P R O X I M A T I O N S TO T H E S O L U T I O N S

The algebraic complexity of the system differential equation solutions can

be reduced considerably if certain approximations are made. I n particular,
for navigation grade gyros, the circular frequencies w , and 2 are much
greater than the drift rate for the kth gyro, w,, k = x, y, z. Notice that for
subsonic aircraft operating a t high latitudes or for supersonic aircraft, i t is
possible for the celestial longitude rate t o be on the order of the drift rate.
The generally applicable terrestrial navigation case, where

are treated herein. The following approximations can be made in Eqs. A-13,
A-15, and A-17.

225

APPROXIMATIONS TO THE SOLUTIONS

The error incurred in making the approximations above are on the order of
( A / W , ) ~ ,which for the generally applicable terrestrial navigation case is
approximately equal to the square of the earth's ellipticity or l/105. I n
addition, the small-angle assumption can be applied to any trigonometric
term having w, as its argument.
Thus the solutions become as follows. For the oxcase:

P,

=r

Py

cos L cos At

r cos L sin At

(A-13d)

+ rw,t

sin L - r w
-x sin L sin wst
Ws

P,

=r

sin L - ro,t cos L sin At

+ 2r loxcos L(cos i t - cos o , t )

(A-13f)

os

For the w , case:

P, = r cos L cos At - rwyt sin L

+ r % sin L sin w,t

Ws

?, = r cos L sin At

Pz = r sin L

lo,sin At
+ r o y t cos L cos At - r cos L - sin o s t +- 2r co1s L -

os
For the o, case :
?, = r cos L cos At

+ rw,t cos L sin At +

2r cos L A% (cos cost - cos i t ) ( A-17d)

u s

Py = r c o s L s i n h - - r ~ z t c o s ~ c o s ~ t + r c o s*,
~ - s i n w s t 2- r c o sAco,
~ ~ s i n l t
*s

W s

(A-17e)

P, = r sin L
Notice that the leading terms in the nine equations above are the exact
solutions which would be obtained by an errorless navigation system.
Following the exact solutions are error terms which grow linearly with time
plus error terms which exhibit Schuler and celestial longitude rate modulation.
If the exact solutions are subtracted from Eqs. A-13d, e, f, A-15d, e, f and
A-17d, e, f, the navigation errors can be written in the following compact

DEVELOPMENT O F A SYSTEM ERROR M O D E L

t cos At - -sin cost

ms

cos L t sin i t

+2

A (cos cost - cos i t ) )

+2 -

where the navigation error has been defined as the difference between the
computed solutions and the actual system position:
d = - rk
k = x,y, 2
The errors can be understood by inspection of Eq. A-8, the system vector
differential equation, which as was previously recognized, has the forcing

Time, (hr)
Figure A.2

Errors for stationary system.

DEVELOPMENT O F AN ERROR M O D E L

227

function C:fi = C;(f,, f,,f,). The most significant terms (those which are
linearly increasing) arise due to quadrature coupling of fi into the drifting
platform frame. Thus the major x axis drift errors arise due to coupling of
f, and f, into the x and y accelerometers, respectively, and similarly for the
y and z axis drift errors.
Equation A-18 is plotted for the stationary case ( A = mi.) in Figure A.2.
Note that a drift of 1 meru was assumed for all plots. Errors resulting from
other drift rates can be read directly from the curves since amplitudes of
both the fundamental (low frequency) and Schuler modes are a direct
function of drift magnitude. One interesting feature is that the Schuler
mode is not superimposed on all the error curves. Analysis of the differential
equations reveals that the Schuler modes appear due to the initial velocity
conditions. That is, if initial velocities were used which took drift rate into
account, the Schuler mode amplitudes would become negligible. The appropriate initial velocity would be Ci r- 2 , (0) instead of i (0). Thus the z channel
(dr,) for the x axis drift case and the x channel (dr,) for the z axis drift case
do not contain the Schuler mode since the initial velocity conditions were
correct for these cases.
'

A.5

D E V E L O P M E N T O F A N ERROR M O D E L

An error model is now developed which yields results which are identical
to those obtained via an exact solution of the system differential equations.
Starting with the system differential equation (Eq. A-S), the position error
is defined as before by the quantities:

Since it is convenient to work with vector quantities (more precisely, column

matrices), the error vector is defined as:

Before Eq. A-19 can be substituted into Eq. A-8 to obtain the error differential equation, the error vector must be differentiated. Thus the question
arises as to the coordinate frame associated with the computed position
vector Pi. The point of view taken herein is that the symbol Pi represents an
array of three scalar quantities which exist as computer outputs and which
represent the computed coordinates of the position vector which we treat
as being coordinatized in the inertial frame. No attempt is made to associate
a "computed" reference frame with this array. With this point of view in
mind, i t follows that 6Pi = gi - f and Eq. A-8 becomes

228

DEVELOPMENT O F A SYSTEM ERROR M O D E L

The small-angle assumption can be imposed on the platform misalignment

due to gyro drift ; thus

where
is the skew-symmetric form of the angular velocity of the platform
frame relative to the inertial frame :

Substituting Eq. A-21 in to Eq. A-20 and recognizing that Hi

the error differential equation is given by

+ wzrb = fi,

Solution of the error differential equation shows that the error vector is
given by Eq. A-18, the solution obtained directly from the system e&ations.
Thus it has been shown that the perturbation techniques leading t o the
system error equation (Eq. A-22) are valid. 1n particular, the concept of not
associating a computer coordinate frame with the computer position vector
has been validated.

APPENDIX

B
State Transition M a t r i x for

Inertial

Navigation Systems
I n this appendix, state transition matrix methods are developed which
are applicable to the general class of two-dimensional local-level navigators
discussed in Chapter 7, Section 7.4. I n order to minimize the algebraic
complexity the development is confined t o the case in which the Foucault
modulation of the Schuler frequencies are neglected. As discussed in Section
7.4.3.1 care must be exercised such that this simplified model is not applied
to situations where the Foucault modulation is a first-order effect.
The error equation for the class of system under consideration can be
written as follows :
4 x 1 = Q1

For this constant latitude case, the characteristic matrix is given by

23

-A

A sin L

sin L
0

P
cos L

0
-i
cos L

-9

9
0
The error state vector is given by
X1

= ( & N ,EE,

A sin L
P

- p cos L
0
p sin L

cos L

rp2

r cos Lp2

ED,

dL, d l )

and the forcing vector takes the following general form :

Equation B-1 is valid for a two-accelerometer navigation system which is
assumed to be moving a t a constant celestial longitude rate, with the
stationary case being included as a special case.
B.l

FORMULATION IN STATE SPACE NOTATION

Since this equation applies to the most widely used class of inertial
navigation systems, it is advantageous to use state space methods to obtain

229

230

STATE TRANSITION MATRIX FOR INERTIAL NAVIGATION SYSTEMS

a solution which is valid for an arbitrary forcing vector. This is accomplished

by writing Eq. B-1 as follows:
where

- A sin L

A cos L

- A cos L

0
0

0
g-

- g sec L

sin L

A =

--Asin~ 0
0

-1

cos L

-sin L

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

1
0

-AcosL

and

B.2

STATE T R A N S I T I O N M A T R I X

The solution to Eq. B-2 is given in terms of the state transition matrix,
a(t)= eAt as
t

= @ ( t - to)x(to) + J ; ( t

- o).(o)u(o) do

The state transition matrix satisfies the matrix differential equation :

the initial condition :

*(O) = I
where I is the identity matrix, and the composition law:
* ( t ) = *(t - to)*(to)
from which it follows that
a-l(t)
=*(-t)
The transition matrix is found from the relationship :
a(t)= 9-*(Is - A)-I
where s = Laplace operator
9 - I = inverse Laplace transformation
( )-I = matrix inversion operator
Applying Eq. B-7, the state transition matrix is found to be given by

(B-6)

232

STATE TRANSITION MATRIX FOR INERTIAL NAVIGATION SYSTEMS

8.3 S T A T E T R A N S I T I O N M A T R I X F O R S H O R T
SAMPLING TIMES

The state space approach is used when optimal filtering techniques are
applied to the inertial navigation system. I n this situation, the state transition matrix is used to model the system's behavior over the sampling time,
T. Thus small-angle assumptions can be made in the expression above:
e

< 10%

for

< 6 min

< 10%

for

< 16 min

e<10%

for

T<12min

< 10%

for

< 23 min

cos At N 1

< 10%

for

< 100 min, 1 = mi,

sin At NXT

< 10%

for

< 190 min, A

cos w,t N 1
-1--

wZT2
2

sin w,t N w,T

w;T3
6

- wsT - --N

= w,,

where e is the maximum error associated with the approximation. Thus for
update times of less than 6 min ( T < 6 min), the following state transition
matrix should give adequate results :

-At

At sin L

8.4

sin L
1

0
At cos L

-hsinL
0

tcosL

-t

cos L

m:t

--w2t sec L

-at

- ~ C O S L

-tsinL

EXAMPLES

The following examples are included t o illustrate the use of the state
transition matrix in the error analysis of the two-accelerometer systems.

EXAMPLES

B.4.1

233

Initial Condition Errors

The solution for the initial condition errors is made by inspection of Eqs.
B-6 and B-8. Thus

where * ( t ) is given by Eq. B-8 and x 2 ( t ) is given by Eq. B-3. This method is
used in Section 7.4.3.4t o determine the initial condition errors for the twoaccelerometer local-level system.

B.4.2

Accelerometer Bias Uncertainty

If accelerometer bias uncertainty is taken to be the sole source of error,

i t is seen from Eq. 7-46 that

where ( u )fN and ( u )fE are the north and east accelerometer biases, respectively. Thus in state space notation

1
r

sec 1
r

Thus from Eq. B-6 the error response to accelerometer bias starting a t
to = 0 is given by

234

STATE TRANSITION MATRIX FOR INERTIAL NAVIGATION SYSTEMS

Integration yields the result :

Thus it is seen that this method yields results very quickly and efficiently
compared with solving Eq. B-1 via Cramer's rule. The result above is seen
to agree with the analytical results of Section 7.4.3.2.

APPENDIX

C
Statistical Error Analysis M e t h o d s

Statistical analyses of inertial navigation systems are characterized by the

fact that the error statistics are nonstationary; that is, the values of the
error statistics change with time. For the case of aided systems, on the other
hand, steady-state conditions are usually achieved and the error statistics
are stationary with time. There are two fundamental reasons why the error
statistics of inertial systems are nonstationary :
Inertial systems have undamped oscillatory characteristics which
prevent the attainment of steady-state conditions.
The linearized system equations are time varying except for east-west
flights a t constant velocity.
The methods to be used herein have been developed by Laning and
Batting6 and involve solutions of the system differential equations with
autocorrelation functions acting as forcing functions.

C.l

R E S P O N S E O F A L I N E A R S Y S T E M TO R A N D O M I N R U T S

I n order to determine the statistical behavior of inertial navigation systems

in response to random error forcing functions, recall that the output of a
linear system in response to an input x(t) applied a t t = T is given by

where w(t, T) = system weighting function (impulse response a t time t

resulting from a unit impulse applied a t time 7).
If the system in question is a t rest prior to t = 0, the lower limit can be
replaced by zero. Furthermore, if the system is time invariant, the weighting
function is dependent only on the time difference (t - 7). Thus the equation
above can be written
y(1) =sdw(l - T)Z(T) d r

(C-2)

236

STATISTICAL ERROR ANALYSIS METHODS

The autocorrelation of the output is found by multiplying the output a t

t -=t , by the output a t t = t 2 and performing an ensemble average:

where the superbar indicates an ensemble average or expectation. The

ensemble average is independent of the weighting functions, allowing us to
perform the ensemble average under the integral sign :

If the input statistics are time-stationary,

The mean squared value a t any time, t, is found by replacing the upper limits
by t . Thus

The RMS error is, of course, found by taking the square root of the expression
above. To summarize, Eq. C-7 yields the mean squared error as a function
of time for a linear, time-invariant system when the input statistics are
time-stationary. Analog computation techniques are available to solve the
equation ab0ve,~6but it is instructive t o examine the solution for several
simple cases.

C.2

R E S P O N S E TO T H E E N S E M B L E O F
CONSTANT FUNCTION'S

Suppose that the input forcing functions can be characterized as being

members of an ensemble of constant functions with mean squared value x:.
This statistical process is stationary since it does not vary with time, but
nonergodic since there is no representative member of the process. The
autocorrelation function is also constant a t the mean-squared value since
once a particular constant is chosen, it remains fixed for all time. Thus

+xx(r2

- 7 1 ) = xo

(C-8)

When Eq. C-8 is substituted into Eq. C-7 it is seen that the input autocorrelation function can be taken out from under the integral signs and the

RESPONSE TO WHITE NOISE

two integrations can be treated separately:

But since

then the RBIs error is given by

It is recognized from Eq. C-2 that the integral expression in Eq. C-10 is
just the output of the system to a unit valued constant input, the unit step
response. Thus t o find the system's response to this class of input functions,
one merely computes the system's unit step response and scales the result
by the appropriate root-mean-squared value of the input forcing function.
This interpretation can be directly applied to the results of Section 7.4. For
example if one assumes the individual gyro drifts to be uncorrelated with an
RMS value of 1 meru, then Figure 7.12 can be interpreted to be the RMS
attitude and navigation errors resulting from gyro drifts of this statistical
class. It is noted in passing that in analogous fashion to the above development, the system's response to an input function which is a member of the
ensemble of constantly increasing functions is found from the system's unit
ramp response.

C.3

R E S P O N S E TO W H I T E N O I S E

White noise is statistically characterized as having a constant power

spectral density and an autocorrelation function given by
h

71) =

Nd(~2
- 71)

where d ( t ) = Dirac delta function

constant power spectral density for the noise

To evaluate the effect of this class of input, Eq. C-11 is substituted into Eq.
C-7. Because of the presence of the delta function in the integrand, the mean
squared error is given by

238

STATISTICAL ERROR ANALYSIS METHODS

C.3.1

Example

As an example, let us examine the latitude error in response to an east

gyro drift which is modelled as a random wa1k.l' Since approximate analytic
solutions are available, the response will be evaluated for the local level
terrestrial navigator of Chapter 7.
Modelling the gyro drift as a random walk, we have that

where (u)wE = east gyro drift uncertainty

n(t) = unbiased white noise
Since the mean-squared value for the gyro drift is given by
(u)co2= Nt

(C-14)

the numerical value for N is easily specified from empirical data. Note from
Eq. C-13 that random walk is given by the time integral of white noise.
Since the analytical expression for the mean squared error as given by Eq.
C-12 requires that the input to the system be white noise, the system weighting function must be appropriately modified such that the input given by
Eq. C-13 can be accommodated. This modification involves the insertion of
a so-called shaping filter, in this case a mathematical integration. Equation
C-12 is therefore modified to read

where w, = weighting function associated with the cascade combination

of the system weighting function and the shaping filter.
For the case under consideration, w, is just the system's unit step response.
The system weighting function for the latitude error in response to the
integral of east gyro drift is given by Eq. 7-65 as
~ ( t=
)

sin At

= constant celestial longitude rate

where

=t

+ mi,

= terrestrial longitude

mi, = earth rate

RESPONSE TO WHITE NOISE

5,

Figure C.l

R M S latitude error function.

Applying the derived expression for the mean-squared error to this case,
we have

which integrates to
-

N 6L2 = 27
2 3 ( I t - f sin z i t )

(C-IS)

18 -

16 14 E
I=

r12-

2
L
w

g3 10 .+-,
m
w

u,

8 -

z 64-

Easterly flight

10

Navigation time, hr
Figure C.2

R M S latitude errors for random gyro drift.

240

STATISTICAL ERROR ANALYSIS METHODS

The square root of the expression above, which corresponds t o the RMS
value of the latitude error, is plotted in Pigure C.1. It is seen that, in general,
the RMS latitude error increases with the square root of time. Notice also
that the effect of gyro drift is seen to be a strong function of the celestial
longitude rate.
For a numerical example take the case where the gyro drift rate is 1 arc-min
after 1 hour. Thus the drift rate power spectral density is given by Eq. C-14
as 1 arc-min2/hr3.I n Figure C.2 the RMS latitude error is plotted as a function
of time for four values of east-west velocity:
Stationary case, 1 = 0
590 knots easterly flight a t latitude 35"
590 knots westerly flight a t latitude 35"
Westerly flight a t earth rate

It is seen that for the easterly flight, the RMS latitude error after 8 hours is
about 4 n.m. while for the westerly flight the error is about 13 n.m. Since
the random process under consideration has been assumed to be unbiased,
the RMS values can be interpreted as l o values.
More general methods are available to determine the system's response
t o statistical forcing functions,59but these involve a computer solution of
the complete set of differential equations. The methods illustrated herein
are mainly useful for simplified cases where the system weighting function
can be analytically determined, although analog computer derived solutions
are available via simulation methods.46

References

A. C. Electronics, "Carousel IV I.N.S., System Technical Description," 1969.

Alexander, T., "Gravitational Potential and the Gravity Vector," M.I.T. Instrumentation Laboratory, M1137, 1959.
Battin, R. H., Astronautical Guidance, McGraw-Hill, 1964.
Blumhagen, V. A., "Stellar Inertial Navigation Applied to Cruise Vehicles,"
IEEE Transactions on, Aerospace and Navigational Electronics, September 1963.
Braae, R., Matrix Algebra for Electrical Engineers, Addison-Wesley, 1963.
Britting, K. R. and M. A. Smith, "Effect of Gyro Drift in an Inertial Navigation
System in Which the Stable Member is Assumed to be Inertially Nonrotating,"
M.I.T. Instrumentation Laboratory, E-1661, 1964.
Britting, K. R., "Analysis of Space Stabilized Inertial Navigation Systems," M.I.T.
Experimental Astronomy Laboratory, RE-35; 1968.
Britt.ing, K. R., "Error Analysis of Strapdown and Local Level Inertial Systems
Which Compute in Geographic Coordinates," M.I.T. Measurement Systems
Laboratory, RE-52, 1969.
Britting, K. R. and T. Palsson, "Self Alignment Techniques for Strapdown Inertial
Navigation Systems with Aircraft Application," Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 7, No. 4,
1970.
Britting, K. R ., "Unified Error Analysis of Terrestrial Inertial Navigation Systems,"
M.I.T. Measurement Systems Laboratory, TE -42, 1970.
Brown, L. A., "The Longitude," in The World of Mathematics, J. R. Newman,
Ed., Simon and Schuster, 1956.
Broxmeyer, C . , Inertial Navigation Systems, McGraw-Hill, 1964.
Cannon, Jr., R. H., "Alignment of Inertial Guidance Systems by GyrocompassingLinear Theory," Journal of Aerospace Sciences, November 1961.
Clarke, V. C., "Constants and Related Data Used in Trajectory Calculations a t the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory," J.P.L. 32-273, 1962.
Christianson, T. W., "Advanced Development of E . S. G. Strapdown Navigation
systems," Transactions of the I E E E , Vol. AES 2, No. 2, 1966.
Cochin, I., "Analysis and Synthesis of Inertial Navigation Systems in Universal
Terms," Ph.D. Dissertation, Cooper Union School of Engineering and Science,
April 1969.
Cooper, J. R., "A Statistical Analysis of Gyro Drift Test Data," M.I.T. Experimental Astronomy Laboratory, TE-13, September 1965.
Draper, C . S . , W. Wrigley, and J. Hovorka, Inertial Guidance, Pergamon Press,
1960.
Dushman, A., "On Gyro Drift Models and Their Evaluation." I R E Transactions
o n Aerospace a n d Navigational Electronics, December 1965.

24 1

REFERENCES

Fagin, S. L., "A Unified Approach to the Error Analysis of Augmented Dynamica.11~
Exact Inertial Navigation Systems," IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and
Navigational Electronics, December 1964.
Farrell, J. L., "Performance of Strapdown Inertial Attitude Reference Systems,"
Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 3, No. 9, 1966.
Farrell, J. L., "Analytic Platforms in Cruising Aircraft," Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 4, No. 1, 1967.
Fernandez, 3%.and G. Macomber, Inertial Guidance Engineering, Prentice-Hall,
1962,
Frey, E. J. a n d R. B. Harlan, "Airborne Gravimetry Program," M.I.T. Measurement Systems Laboratory, RE-54, 1969.
Garren, Jr., J. F., J. R.Kelly, and R . W. Sommer, "VTOL Flight Investigation to
Develop a Decelerating Instrument Approach Capability," 1969 SAE National
Meeting.
Gelb, A. and A. Sutherland, "Design Approach for Reducing Gyro-Induced Errors
in Strapdown Inertial Systems," AIAA Paper No. 68-830, 1968.
Geller, E. S., "Inertial System Platform Rotation," Transaclions IEEE, Vol.
AES-4, NO. 4, 1968.
Gianoukos, W. and P. Palmer, "Gyro Test Laboratory Unbalance Equations,"
M.I.T., I L Report GT-130, 1957.
Gilmore, J. P., "A Non-Orthogonal Gyro Configuration," M.I.T. Instrumentation
Laboratory, T-472, 1967.
Guier, W. H. and R. R . Newton, "The Earth's Gravity Field," Johns Hopkins
Applied Physics Laboratory, TG-634, 1964.
Hammon, R. L., "An Application of Random Process Theory to Gyro Drift
Analysis," IR E Transactions on Aeronautical Navigational Electronics, Vol. ANE - 7,
September 1960.
Heiskanen, W. A. and F. A. Vening-Meinesz, The Earth and I t s Gravity Field,
McGraw-Hill, 1958.
Hessian, R., "Analysis of a Transformation Computer Used with a Gimballess
I.M.U.," M.I.T. Instrumentation Laboratory RE-531, 1966.
Hildebrand, F. B., Methods of Applied Mathematics, Prentice-Hall, 1965.
Hutchinson, R. C., "Tumbling Method of Locating Accelerometer Input Axes on
a Platform," M.I.T. Instrument,ation Laboratory, E-962 1960.
Jankowski, P. C., "Hybrid Altimeter Using a Strapdown Inertial Navigation
System," M.I.T. Measurement Systems Laboratory, TE-36, 1970.
Jurenka, F. D. and C. T. Leondes, "Optimum Alignment of a n Inertial Autonavigator," IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronics Systems, Vol. AES-3,
No. 6, 1967.
Kasper, J. F., "Error Propagation in the Coordinate Transformation Matrix for a
Space Stabilized Navigation System," M.I.T. Instrumentation Laboratory,
T-448, 1966.
Kasper, J. F., "Gravity Model Refinement Based on Satellite Tracking Data,"
M .I.T. Instrumentation Laboratory, E 1921, 1966.
Kaula, W. M., "A Review of Geodetic Parameters," NASA Technical Note
D-1847, 1963.
Kayton, M. a n d W. Fried, Avionics Navigation Systems, Wiley, 1969.
Kayton, M., "Coordinate Frames I n Inertial Navigation," M.I.T., Ph.D. Dissertation, 1960.

REFERENCES

243

Killingsworth, W. R., "Computation Frames for Strapdown Inertial Systems,"

M.I.T. Measurement Systems Laboratory, TE-28, 1968.
Killpatrick, J . , "The Laser Gyro," I E E E Spectrum, October 1967.
Koenke, E . J. and D. R. Downing, "Evaluating Strapdown Algorithms: A
Unified Approach," Fourth Inertial Guidance Test Symposium, Holloman Air
Force Base, New Mexico, November 1968.
Laning, J. H. and R. H. Battin, Random Processes I n Automatic Co.ntro1, McGrawHill, 1956.
Lange, B. and B. Parkinson, "The Error Equations of Inertial Navigation with
Special Application to Orbital Determination and Guidance," AIAA/ION Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, 1965.
Leondes, C. T., Ed., Guidance and Control of Aerospace Vehicles, McGraw-Hill,
1963.
Lipton, A. H., "Alignment of Inertial Systems on a Moving Base," M.I.T. I n strumentation Laboratory, T-400, 1966.
Madigan, R. and J. Canniff, "Flight Test Report of Experiments in Inertial
Navigation System Updating," AIAA Paper No. 69-842.
Marcus, F. J., "Computation of Strapdown System Attitude Algorithms,"
Measurement Systems Laboratory, MIT, TE-43, 1971.
Markey, W. and J. Hovorka, The Mechanics of Inertial Position and Heading
Information, Methuen, 1961.
McDonald, W. T., "Effects of Instrument Errors in a n IMU Gyro-compass,"
M.I.T. 16.398, Summer Session Notes, 1963.
McKern, R. A., "A Study of Transformation Algorithms for Use in a Digital
Computer," M.I.T. Instrumentation Laboratory, T-493, 1968.
07Donnell,C. F., Inertial Navigation Analysis and Design, McGraw-Hill, 1964.
Ogata, K. O., State Space Analysis of Control Systems, Prentice-Hall, 1967.
Pennypacker, J. C., "Whole Number Strapdown Computations," M.I.T. Instrumentation Laboratory, R-531, 1966.
Pitman, G . R., Inertial Guidance, Wiley, 1962.
Rea, F. and N. Fischer, "Generalized Navigation Error Analysis," AIAA Guidance,
Control, and Flight Mechanics Conference, AIAA Paper 70-1004, August 1970.
Ryan, T. J . , "Alignment and Calibration of a Strapdown Inertial Measurement
Unit," M.I.T. Measurement Systems Laboratory, RE-67, 1970.
Schmidt, G. T., "The Application of Statistical Estimation Techniques t o Inertial
Component Calibration," AGARD Symposium on Inertial Navigation: Components, May 1968.
Sciama, D. W., The Unity of the Universe, Anchor, 1961.
Searcy, J. B., "Determination of Geopotential Anomalies from Airborne Measurements," M.I.T. Experimenta.1 Astronomy Laboratory, TE-15, 1966.
Thompson, J. and F. Unger, "Inertial Sensor Performance in a Strapped-Down
Environment," AIAA Guidance and Control Conference, 1966.
Trueblood, R . B., "Inertial Navigation Study for Civil Air Transport ," M.I.T.
Instrumentation Laboratory, R-484, 1965.
TRW Report submitted t o NASA E.R.C., "Advanced S.S.T. Guidance and
Navigation System Requirements Study," March 1967.
United Aircraft Corporation, "A Study of Critical Computational Problems
Associated with Strapdown Inertial Systems," NASA CR-968, 1968.
Weiner, T. F., "Theoretical Analysis of Gimballess Inertial Reference Equipment

244

69.
70.
71.

REFERENCES
Using Delta Modulated Instruments," M.I.T. Instrumentation Laboratory,
T-300, 1962.
Williamson, R. P , "A Gyrocompass Error Averaging Technique," M.I.T. Instrumentation Laboratory, T-315, 1962.
Wilmoth, E.D., "An Investigation
of Methods for Determining Gravity Anomalies
from an Aircraft," M.1.T Instrumentation Laboratory, T-185, 1959.
Wrigley, W., W. M. Hollister, and W. G. Denhard, Gyroscopic Theory, Design,
and Instrumentation, M.I.T. Press, 1969.

Index

Acceleration, computation, 82, 170

Accelerometer, alignment, 91
bias, 90
measurement uncertainty, 90
output of, 31
random uncertainty, 90
scale factor, 90
A.C. Electronics, 111 , 188
Alexander, T., 5 5 , 5 6
Alignment, system, 82, 91
analytic, 198
coarse, 198
errors, 200, 204
gyrocompass, 203
instrument, 39
optical, 91, 200
platform, 203
self, 198
strapdown, 209
Altimeter uncertainty, effect of, 195
Altitude, calculation, 86, 113, 17 1
definition, 45
Angular velocity, notation, 14
Attitude errors, 9 , 9 8 , 117, 163-166
Bacon, Francis, 1
Battin, R. H., 49, 235, 236,240
Blumhagen, V. A., 6
Braae, R., 12
Britting, K. R., 6, 31,80,82, 100, 102, 104,
106,128,154,190,199,203,209,217
Brown, L. A., 156

Broxmeyer, C., 6,11,182,186

Canniff, J., 8 1
Cannon, R. H., Jr., 198
Canonical matrix, see Matrix, characteristic
Centripetal acceleration, 18
Characteristic equation, 128, 134, 181- 183,
206,208
Christianson, T. W., 65,82,189,193
Clarke, V. C., 52
Cochin, I., 6
Column matrix notation, 12
time derivative, 17
Computed quantities, notation, 15
Cooper, J. R., 185,238
Coordinate frame, notational designations, 24
accelerometer, 38, 80
body, 34
earth, 34
geocentric, 34
geographic, 33
gyro, 38
gyro housing, 65
gyro float, 67
inertial, absolute, 30
operational, 31 , 7 9
mechanized, 8, 154
nonorthogonal, 39-4 3
platform, 38
relationships, 35 -4 3
tangent, 35
Coordinates, spherical, 49

246

INDEX

Coordinate transformation, 1 3
Coriolis acceleration, 18
Coriolis law, 18, 62
Cramers rule, 206,234
Cross product, 19

space stabilized, 104,185

strapdown, 188-194
two accelerometer local level, 126
Error model development, 227
Error sources, 8
Error state vector, 9,100, 123,180

Deflection of vertical, error effects, meridian,

57
prime, 57
Denhard, W. G., 31,65,74
Descartes, R., 30
Determinant, characteristic, see Characteristic
equation
Deviation of normal, 36,45,46
altitude effect, 47
Direction cosine matrix, differential equation,
17
inverse, 13
time derivative, 16
Dot product, 18
Downing, D. R., 194
Draper, C. S., 3, 34, 65
Draper Laboratory, MIT, 1l , 6 5
Dushman, A., 185
Dyadic product, 19

Fagin, S. L., 6
Farrell, J. L., 22, 192
Federal Aviation Agency, 75
Fernandez, M., 5 , 6
Fischer, N., 6,240
Force, specific, 31,61,79
Forcing function, free azimuth, 187
generalized, 180
local-level, 12 3, 186
rotating azimuth, 188
space stabilized, 104, 185
strapdown, 189
two-accelerometer local-level, 126
Foucault, L., 128,132,134, 135,136,182
Free azimuth system, 187
Frey, E. J., 58
Fried, W., 74,79
Functions required for navigation, 1

Earth, density, 49
ellipticity, 47
equatorial radius, 46
gravitational field, 49
gravitational potential, 49
gravity field, 5 6
inertial angular velocity, 34
mass, 5 1
polar radius, 46
radius magnitude, 47
Earth-rate mode, 128
Einstein, A., 30
Ensemble of constant functions, 236
Equivalence, principle of, 30
Error analysis, accuracy of, 102
generalized, 156
local level, 114
space stabilized, 8 6
unified approach, 7,15 3
Error angles, 21
Error equations, free azimuth, 187
generalized, 156, 180
local level, 123, 186
rotating azimuth, 187-188

Galilei, Galileo, 30
Garren, J. F., 81
Gelb, A., 69, 190
Geller, E. S., 188
Geoid, 57
Geometric inertial systems, 3
Gianoukos, W., 74
Gilmore, J. P., 38,76
Gravitation, acceleration, 32
computation, 83, 169
field, 49,53,55
potential, 49
of reference ellipsoid, 5 1, 60
universal constant, 50
weighting factor, 10,83, 113, 182,197
Gravity, anomaly, 57,59
computation, 113
of earth, 5 6
magnitude, 60
Guier, W. H., 52
Gyrocompass, 203
acceleration coupled, 203
errors, 204
signal flow diagram, 206

INDEX

velocity coupled, 204

Gyroscope, compliance, 74
drift uncertainty, 8 8
dynamic model, 69
electrostatic, 65, 8 2
fixed torque, 74
float, 65
laser, 65
magnetic torque, 74
mass unbalance, 7 4
moments of inertia, 69
orientation, 183
output pulse, 7 3
random drift, 185
rate, 72
reliability, 75
single-degree-of-freedom, 2, 65, 82
temperature sensitivity, 74
torque generator, 68
torquer scale factor, 7 3, 116, 162
torquing asymmetry, 190
two-degree-of-freedom, 2, 65
uncertainty torque, 68,74, 89, 162, 185
Hammon, R. L., 185
Harlan, R. B., 58
Harrison, J., 156
Heiskanen, W. A., 5 7
Hessian, R., 194
Hexad configuration, 76
Hildebrand, F. B., 1 2 , 1 5
Hollister, W. M., .11, 31, 65, 74
Hovorka, J., 3, 34,65,128,204
Hutchinson, R. C., 38
Inertial navigation system, concept of, 1
free azimuth, 187
generalized, 153-156
local level, 109
rotating azimuth, 187
space stabilized, 7 9
strapdown, 188- 194
two accelerometer systems, 123
Inertial platform, 7 1
Initial conditions, correlated, 82
Instrumentation Laboratory, MIT, 6 5 , 7 5
Jankowski, P. C., 195
Jurenka, F. C., 198,209

247

Kasper, J. F., 52, 200

Kaula, W. M., 52
Kayton, M., 42,74,79
Kelley, J. R., 81
Killpatrick, J., 65, 189
Koenke, E. J., 194
Lange, B., 6
Laning, J. G., 235,236,240
Latitude, computation, 85,95, 11 3
geocentric, 36,44
geographic, 35,45
Legendre, generating function, 5 0
polynomial, 5 1
Leondes, C. T., 6,198,209
Lipton, A. H., 82,198
Local level I.N.S., 109
altitude computation, 113 , 1 7 1
description, 109
error analysis, 114
gravity field computation, 113
latitude computation, 113
longitude computation, 113
mechanization diagram, 115
mechanization equations, 111
platform commands, 111
specific force computation, 112
velocity computation, 112
Longitude, celestial, 34
computation, 86,95,113,171
initial terrestrial, 34
terrestrial, 34, 36
McDonald, W. T., 209
Mach, E., 30
McKern, R. A., 193
Macomber, G. R., 6
Madigan, R., 81
Magnetic field, 74
Marcus, F. J., 193
Markey, W. R., 128,204
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (MIT),
65,75
Matrix, characteristic, 105, 123, 127, 180
column, 12
derivative, 16, 17
direction cosine, 1 3
perturbations, 20
time derivatives, 17

248

INDEX

skew symmetric, 15
square root, 22
transformation, 13
transition, 232
transpose, 13
Measured quantities, definition, 15
Momentum, angular, 68
Navigation error, 94,172
Navigation errors, due to, accelerometer bias,
141-144,233-234
altimeter, 195-197
gyro drift, 106,107, 131-140
initial condition, 145, 147-152,233
system alignment, 145,147-152,233
Navigation weighting factor, 1 0 , 8 5 , 9 5 , 114,
121
Newton, I., 30,44, 79,218
rotational law, 66
Newton, R. R., 52
Noncommutivity errors, 192
Nonstationary statistics, 235
Notation, conventions, 12
state space, 229
O'Donnell, C. F,, 6 , l l , 82
Ogata, K. O., 12
Orthogonality constraint, explicit, 22
implicit, 2 1
Palmer, P., 74
Palsson, T., 199,209
Parkinson, B., 6
Pennypacker, J. C., 194
Perturbation analysis, 20
Pitch axis, 34
Pitman, G. R., 6 , 6 5 , 8 0 , 198
Platform, inertial, 7 1, 82
angular velocity, 89, 111, 158
error angles, 99
Position vector, estimator, 9, 1 0 , 83, 166169
geocentric, 44, 170
Quantization error, 194
Radius of curvature, meridional, 6 3
prime, 6 3
Random walk, 238
Rea, F., 6,240

Redundancy, system, 75
Reference ellipsoid, 45
eccentricity, 46
ellipticity, 47
Reference frame, computed, 11
Reliability, gyro, 75
Roll axis, 34
Rotating azimuth system, 187
Round-off error, computer, 194
Routh's criteria, 207
Russell, B ., 11
Ryan, T. J., 198,209
Schmidt, G. T., 198
Schuler, M., 102, 182
Sciama, D. W., 30
Searcy, J. B., 5 7 , 5 8 , 9 8
Self-corrective strapdown alignment, 210
Semi-analytic inertial systems, 3
Shaping filter, 238
Skew-symmetric matrices, 15
Small angle rotations, 16
Smith, M. A., 217
Sommer, R. W., 81
Space, absolute, 30
Space integrator, 79
Space rate mode, 134
Space stabilized INS, 79
acceleration computation, 82
altitide computation, 86
description, 79
error analysis, 86
gravitational field computation, 8 3
latitude computation, 85
longitude computation, 86
mechanization diagram, 87
mechanization equations, 8 1
platform commands, 82
velocity computation, 85
Specific force, analytic expressions, 61,79,109
computation, 82, 112, 156
Standard deviation, 240
State space notation, 229
Stokes, G. G., 57
Strapdown I.N.S., 4,188
additional error sources, 190
alignment, 198,209-216
error analysis, 18 9 , 2 11
Sutherland, A., 69, 190
Symbology, 24

INDEX

Tangential acceleration, 18
Tetrad configuration, 76
Thompson, J., 69
Transformation, non-orthogonal, 23
coordinate, 1 3
instrument-platform, 4 3
perturbations, 20
similarity, 14
Transition matrix, 229
for short sampling times, 232
Triad configuration, 76
Triple products, 19, 20
Trueblood, R. B., 75
Truncation error, 193
TRW systems, Inc., 75
Two-accelerometer local-level system, 123
error equations, 124
error equation solutions, 128
mechanization diagram, 125
mechanization equations, 124
signal ffow diagram, 130
Two-degree-of-freedom gyros, 2, 65
Unger, F., 69

Unified error analysis, 7, 15 3

assumptions, 8, 153-154
functional diagram, 155
United Aircraft.Corp., 8,154, 190, 194
Vector, cross product, 19
differentiation, 17
dot product, 18
notation, 12
triple products, 19, 20
Velocity, angular, 14
computation, 85, 112, 170,174
terrestrial, 80, 85
Vening-Meinesz, F. A., 57
Weighting function, 238
Weiner, T. F., 193, 194
White noise, 237
Williamson, R. P., 209
Wilmoth, E. D., 58
Wrigley, W., 3, 11, 31, 34,65, 74

249