Review

Gyroscope Technology and Applications: A Review

in the Industrial Perspective
Vittorio M. N. Passaro 1,*, Antonello Cuccovillo 2, Lorenzo Vaiani 2, Martino De Carlo 1 and
Carlo Edoardo Campanella 1,2
1 Photonics Research Group, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica e dell’Informazione, Politecnico di Bari,
via E. Orabona n. 4, 70125 Bari, Italy; [email protected] (M.D.C.);
[email protected] (C.E.C.)
2 QOpSyS SRL, Via Matteotti 23, Gioia del Colle, 70023 Bari, Italy; [email protected] (A.C.);

[email protected] (L.V.)
* Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected]; Tel.: +39-080-5963850

Received: 21 August 2017; Accepted: 29 September 2017; Published: 7 October 2017

Abstract: This paper is an overview of current gyroscopes and their roles based on their
applications. The considered gyroscopes include mechanical gyroscopes and optical gyroscopes at
macro- and micro-scale. Particularly, gyroscope technologies commercially available, such as
Mechanical Gyroscopes, silicon MEMS Gyroscopes, Ring Laser Gyroscopes (RLGs) and Fiber-Optic
Gyroscopes (FOGs), are discussed. The main features of these gyroscopes and their technologies
are linked to their performance.

Keywords: mechanical gyroscopes; optical gyroscopes; MEMS gyroscopes

1. Introduction
The term “gyroscope”, conventionally referred to the mechanical class of gyroscopes, derives
from the Ancient Greek language, being the Physics of the “precession motion”, a phenomenon also
observed in ancient Greek society [1].
Gyroscopes are devices mounted on a frame and able to sense an angular velocity if the frame is
rotating. Many classes of gyroscopes exist, depending on the operating physical principle and the
involved technology. Gyroscopes can be used alone or included in more complex systems, such as
Gyrocompass [2], Inertial Measurement Unit [3], Inertial Navigation System [4] and Attitude
Heading Reference System [5]. In this paper, a review of the more commercially diffused classes of
gyroscopes is presented. In particular, mechanical gyroscopes (Section 2); optical gyroscopes
(Section 3), including Fiber Optic Gyroscopes (FOGs) [6,7,8] and Ring Laser Gyroscopes (RLG)
[9,10]; and Micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) gyroscopes [11,12] (Section 4) have been
considered by focusing attention on the operating principles and different improvements in
commercial architectures in terms of performance. For all classes of gyroscopes, being angular
velocity sensors, the major issues are related to the errors in measuring the angular velocity. For this
reason, one of the more important merit figures is the stability of the scale-factor. Scale factor
represents the sensitivity of the optical gyroscope, while the accuracy of the gyroscopes, which is
inversely proportional to the sensitivity and takes into account the measurement errors due to the
noise, can be expressed through the resolution, R, or, in the RLGs, by the Angle Random Walk
(ARW), linking R with the bandwidth, B, of the measurement system through ARW = R/[60sqrt(B)]
[13]. A minimum scale-factor stability leads to small sensor errors and requires better instruments
and improved accuracy, bringing higher cost of the system. Thus, gyroscope performance and costs
are directly related to the application requirements. For more details about performance and
applications, see Figure 1.

Sensors 2017, 17, 2284; doi:10.3390/s17102284 www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2017, 17, 2284 2 of 22

Figure 1. Scale factor stability (i.e., the accuracy of the gyroscope in monitoring the sensed angular
velocity), expressed in parts per million (ppm), as a function of the bias stability (intrinsically
dependent on the gyroscope technology) for Mechanical Gyroscopes, Ring Laser Gyroscopes (RLG),
Interferometric Fiber-Optic gyroscopes (IFOG), Quartz, Dynamically Tuned Gyroscopes (DTG), Rate
and Integrating Gyroscopes and MEMS.

Since the 19th century, mechanical gyroscopes (see the left-bottom spectrum in Figure 1),
classified as displacement gyroscopes and rate gyroscopes, are the historical ones consisting in a
toroid-shaped rotor that rotates around its axis while, since the 20th century, optical gyroscopes (see
the spectrum in the middle of Figure 1) operate by sensing the difference in propagation time
between counter-propagating laser beams traveling in opposite directions in closed or open optical
path. The main diffused types of optical gyroscopes are IFOG and RLG, which both exploit the
physics of the Sagnac effect. For applications requiring very high performance, the ring laser
gyroscope is currently more diffused and has the bigger market share.
Micro-Electro-Mechanical System (MEMS) gyroscopes are motion sensors that detect and
measure the angular motion of an object. They measure the rate of rotation of an object around a
particular axis: 1-axis, 2-axis, and 3-axis. Although initially used for expensive military applications,
now they are also adopted for low cost commercial applications (low performance at the top-right
end of the spectrum in Figure 1) of consumer electronics for Automotive, Defense, Industrial and
Medical applications. The increased demand for mobile devices is also responsible for the growth of
the MEMS gyroscopes market. The cost of MEMS gyroscopes is expected to reduce drastically in the
next years, leading to an increment in the use of these devices.
The MEMS and optical gyroscopes, in particular Interferometric Fiber-Optic gyroscopes
(IFOG), are replacing many of the current systems using Ring Laser Gyros (RLGs) and mechanical
gyroscopes. However, among the optical gyroscopes, applications requiring extremely high scale
factor stability continue to be achieved only with RLG. In Figure 1, the scale factor stability (i.e., the
accuracy of the gyroscope in monitoring the sensed angular velocity), expressed in parts per million
(ppm), as function of the bias stability (a parameter that is intrinsically dependent from the
gyroscope technology), is reported. Depending on the scale stability, an extensive range of
applications is considered with reference to the gyroscope technology (i.e., Mechanical, RLG, IFOG,
Quartz, Dynamically Tuned Gyroscopes (DTG), Rate and Integrating Gyroscopes, and MEMS), and
the performance in terms of Scale Factor Stability vs. Bias Stability.
Better performance, such as the highest costs and the smallest production volume, are related to
the gyroscope technologies placed at the left-bottom corner while the lowest performance, such as
the lowest costs and the highest production volume, are placed at the right-top corner of Figure 1,
including the consumer electronics applications. Among the gyroscopes technology in this review,
we cover the more diffused and commercial gyroscope technologies (i.e., Mechanical, RLG, IFOG
and MEMS) with the relative applications reported in the following figure.
Sensors 2017, 17, 2284 3 of 22

2. Mechanical Gyroscopes
A mechanical gyroscope essentially consists of a spinning mass that rotates around its axis. In
particular, when the mass is rotating on its axis, it tends to remain parallel to itself and to oppose any
attempt to change its orientation. This mechanism was invented in 1852 by physicist Léon Foucault
during his studies of the Earth’s rotation. If a gyroscope is installed on gimbals that allow the mass to
navigate freely in the three directions of space, its spinning axis will remain oriented in the same
direction, even if it changes direction.
A mechanical gyroscope shows a number of physical phenomena, including precession and
nutation. In the following sections, the main operating principles of the mechanical gyroscopes are
reported, with reference to the Inertial Navigation Systems.

2.1. Principle of Mechanical Gyroscopes: Gyroscopic Effects

The basic effect upon which a gyroscope relies is that an isolated spinning mass tends to keep
its angular position with respect to an inertial reference frame, and, when a constant external torque
(respectively, a constant angular speed) is applied to the mass, its rotation axis undergoes a
precession motion at a constant angular speed (respectively, with a constant output torque), in a
direction that is normal to the direction of the applied torque (respectively, to the constant angular
speed) [14]. External forces acting on the center of mass of the rotating part do not affect the angular
position of the rotation axis.
Referring to Figure 2, the simplified equations governing the physical phenomenon are:
Cy = −IΩωz (1)
Cz = IΩωy (2)
where Cy and Cz are the torques acting along y and z axis, respectively; I is the polar mass moment of
inertia of the spinning mass; Ω is the angular velocity of the spinning mass along the rotation axis;
and ωy and ωz are the precession speeds along y and z axis, respectively. As shown by Equations (1)
and (2), the output torque due to an imposed precession motion is proportional to the inertia and
the rotational speed of the spinning mass.

Figure 2. Elements of a mechanical gyroscope and main parameters.

2.2. Mechanical Displacement Gyroscopes

The primary application of gyroscopic effects consists in the measurement of the angular
position of a moving vehicle. The spinning mass is mounted upon a gimbaled frame, allowing
rotation along two perpendicular axes.
The gimbaled frame of the gyroscope is attached to the vehicle and it is free to rotate, while the
rotation axis of the spinning mass keeps its angular position during the motion of the vehicle. The
variation of the absolute angle of the vehicle can be simply associated to the relative variation of the
angle between the rotation axis of the mass and a fixed direction on the frame of the gyroscope.
Sensors 2017, 17, 2284 4 of 22

Another useful application of this physical effect is that exploited in gyrocompasses: when
external torques are not applied to the frame, the gyrocompass keeps the angular position of a pointer
to North direction, independently of the path followed by the vehicle. The advantage of such a
mechanical system is that it is immune to magnetic fields that can cause deviations on the pointer
angle.

2.3. Mechanical Rate Gyroscopes

Rate gyros measure the angular speed of a vehicle during rotary motion. According to
Equation (1), it is possible to notice that when an angular speed (e.g., ωz) is imposed to a gimbal and
hence to the spinning mass, a proportional torque (e.g., Cy) appears along a direction that is
perpendicular to the direction of imposed angular speed, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Mechanical rate gyroscope.

If a spring system of known stiffness is opposing and balancing the output torque, it is possible
to compute the imposed angular speed through the measurement of the output angle (e.g., ϑy)
assumed by the inner gimbal frame over time.

2.4. Description of Common Mechanical Gyroscopes

A mechanical gyroscope consists of:
(1) A spinning wheel mounted on two gimbals: This allows it to undergo precession motions
along two perpendicular directions.
(2) A rigid frame with rotating bearings: The mechanical components in relative motion are
subjected to friction, which in turn leads to measurement drifts over time. The main goal in
gyroscope design is to build a frictionless and perfectly balanced device. To minimize friction,
high-precision bearings and special lubricants are used or, in many critical applications,
magnetic suspensions or fluid-suspended configurations [15];
(3) Sensing systems (pick-offs): These are capable of reading angular displacements between the
two adjacent gimbals and to transduce them into electric signals by means of potentiometers,
resolvers or encoders, thus constituting the input for a computing unit.

3. Optical Gyroscopes
Optical gyroscopes operate by sensing the difference in propagation time between
counter-propagating beams travelling in opposite directions in closed or open optical paths. A
rotation-induced change in the path lengths generates a phase difference between the
counter-propagating light beams. This rotation-induced phase difference physically consists in the
Sagnac effect, being the basic operating principle of all optical gyroscopes.
Sensors 2017, 17, 2284 5 of 22

Based on the measurement technique of the Sagnac effect, it is possible to classify the optical
gyroscopes. The two main different typologies of optical gyroscopes consist in active and passive
architectures (see Figure 4). In the active configurations, the closed-loop optical path (i.e., the ring
cavity) contains the optical source, forming a ring laser. The active configurations can be built in
Bulk Optics or in Integrated Optics technology, although only the Bulk Optics solutions have
achieved commercial maturity.
Among the Ring laser gyros, there are different categories depending on the method employed
to overcome the lock-in effect (i.e., a condition for which the active gyroscope response results
insensitive to low rotation rates) which occurs at low rotational rates (tens of degrees/hour). Lock-in
can be reduced by introducing a mechanical dither, a magneto-optic biasing, or by using of multiple
optic frequencies configuration. Differently, in passive architectures, the optical source is external to
the closed optical loop (i.e., a fiber coil) as in the Interferometric Fiber Optic Gyroscope. Ring Laser
Gyroscopes and Interferometric Fiber Optic Gyroscopes, whose features differ in terms of size,
weight, power requirements, performance, and cost, are the more diffused optical gyroscope
technology [13].

Figure 4. Classes of optical gyroscopes.

3.1. Sagnac Effect

The underlying operating principle of almost all optical gyroscopes is the Sagnac effect. It was
discovered in 1913 by George Marc Sagnac as a result of the study of the dynamics of Earth rotation
by Michelson-Morley [16], and observation of electromagnetic wave in non-inertial reference
systems [17]. Sagnac principle, as derivation of the general relativity theory, states that two
counter-propagating optical beams propagating in a ring structure change their relative phase if the
ring is rotating; thus, it is possible to relate the phase change to the angular speed of the ring.
As example, by considering an open circular light path of few centimeters and a rotational
speed of one revolution per second, according to Sagnac effect, the optical beams path difference is
of 0.00000025 mm, which is too small for angular velocity detection.
In 1966, the scientist E.O. Schulz-Du Bois, who was working at the embodiment of a ring laser
based angular velocity sensor, proposed a ring laser gyroscope shaped as a hollow cylindrical
mirror, in which light described a circular path. To make visible the rotation phenomenon in the
ring cavity, two optical beams at the same wavelength, but counter-rotating, were introduced. The
two optical beams reciprocally interfered and produced a permanent wave, stationary with respect
to an external inertial reference system. The stationary wave is composed by nodes and anti-nodes,
whether the mirror is rotating or standing. A detector is mounted on the ring framework, solidly
rotating with it, so that, during rotation, by counting nodes and anti-nodes of the standing wave
through the detector, it is possible to evaluate the angular velocity of the ring.
Indeed, the number of nodes is two times the length of the ring divided by the light
wavelength. Knowing the number of counted nodes in the time unit through the detector, it is
Sensors 2017, 17, 2284 6 of 22

possible to calculate the angular velocity of the ring. The scale factor can be expressed as a constant
directly proportional to the ring perimeter and inversely proportional to the ring area. For more
details about the mathematical model of the Sagnac effect, see Section 3.1.1.
In reality, mirrors used for ring laser gyroscopes are never perfect. The mirror imperfections
cause light back-scattering and energy loss that give rise to a sort of interaction between the
propagating electromagnetic (e.m.) waves and the moving medium. As result, the permanent wave
is no more perfectly stationary with respect to inertial reference but drifts following the rotation of
the ring. Generally speaking, there is no relative motion between mirrors and standing wave so that
a false zero speed signal is detected. This effect is called lock-in (see Section 3.2.1).

3.1.1. Sagnac Effect in Vacuum and in a Medium

As mentioned before, all the rotational optical sensors are based on Sagnac effect that generates
a difference of optical path ΔL proportional to angular velocity Ω [6].
We consider a disk with radius R that rotates over a rotational axis perpendicular to the plane
of the disk, with an angular speed Ω; the difference of optical path ΔL, due to light propagation in
opposite directions along the perimeter, is given by:

4A
ΔL = Ω = 2ΔS (3)
c0
where A is the surface enclosed by the perimeter L and c0 is the speed of light in vacuum. The
rotating disk is depicted in Figure 5: for a given point on perimeter, labeled 1, identical photons
propagate in clockwise and counter-clockwise directions. If the initial angular velocity is null,
photons that travel at speed of light in vacuum c0 will arrive at starting point 1 after a trip length of
2πR in time t = 2πR/c.

Figure 5. In a disk rotating with a clockwise (CW) angular velocity: (a) different rotation induced
optical paths of the clockwise and counter-clockwise (CCW) optical beams, LCW and LCCW,
respectively; and (b) identical difference, ΔS, between the rotation induced optical paths of the
clockwise and counter-clockwise optical beam, and the standing optical path.

If the initial angular velocity is not null, photons that propagate in counter-clockwise direction,
called CCW, will arrive at the starting point, now called 2, due to the motion caused by the rotation,
after a trip length of LCCW, shorter than 2πR, given by:

LCCW = 2π R − RΩtCCW = cCCW ⋅ tCCW (4)

where RΩ is the tangential angular speed of the ring and tCCW is the time to cover the distance LCCW
that is equal to the product of speed of light in counter-clockwise direction cCCW and time tCCW. In
vacuum, it results cCCW=c0.
In the same way, the clockwise photons, called CW, will arrive at the starting point, now called
2, due to the motion caused by the rotation, after a trip length of LCW, longer than 2πR:
Sensors 2017, 17, 2284 7 of 22

LCW = 2π R − RΩtCW = cCW ⋅ tCW (5)

The different sign of RΩ is related to the angular velocity sense: indeed, by supposing a
clockwise rotation, clockwise photons cover a longer distance than counter-clockwise ones.
If light propagates in a medium characterized by a refractive index n [6], by considering the
relativistic composition of propagation speed and tangential speed of medium, cCCW can be
rewritten as:

c0
+ RΩ
c  1 
cCCW = n = 0 + RΩ 1 − 2  + ... (6)
RΩ n  n 
1+
nc0 2
While cCW is:

c0
− RΩ
c  1 
cCW = n = 0 − RΩ  1 − 2  + ... (7)
RΩ n  n 
1−
nc0 2
where the right side of the previous expressions are the Taylor series expanded at the first term.
Now, Δτ is equal to:

 2RΩ − (cCW − cCCW ) 

Δt = tCW − tCCW = 2π R   (8)
 cCW ⋅ cCCW 
Substituting Equations (6) and (7) into Equation (8) we obtain:

  1 
 2 RΩ − 2 RΩ 1 − n 2   2π R 2 RΩ 4 AΩ
Δt = tCW − tCCW = 2π R    = = 2 (9)
 c0  c0 2 c0
 n2 

Δτ results to be the same of that in vacuum case, and to this time difference correspond a
phase shift of

2πΔt 2πΔt 8π A
ΔΦ = = = Ω
λ0 λ λ0 c0 (10)
c0 c
where λ and c are wavelength and speed of light in medium. We can also rewrite ΔL as:

ΔΦ 4A
ΔL = λ0 = Ω (11)
2π c0

3.2. Ring Laser Gyroscopes (RLGs)

The ring laser gyroscopes (RLGs) are based on a ring laser (i.e., a annular cavity) where, due to
the Sagnac effect, two independent counter-propagating resonant modes, intrinsically generated
within the cavity through a gain medium, show of a frequency shift if the cavity undergoes a rotation
[18]. The ring laser can be realized in bulk solid-state optics or in integrated optics, although the
integrated optics solutions (e.g., semiconductor ring laser gyroscopes [19]) are not commercially
mature.
Sensors 2017, 17, 2284 8 of 22

Figure 6. RLG made by a triangular optical resonator.

In one of the most diffused architectures, the RLG body is made from a triangular glass block
(see Figure 6). Three air channels are drilled in the glass body and three mirrors are placed at each
corner to create a triangular optical resonator. A low pressure He-Ne gas mix fills the three tubes. A
high voltage electrical discharge is applied through the two anodes and the cathode for electrically
pumping the optical cavity. Due to the action of the electrical pump, two independent
counter-propagating laser beams (i.e., clockwise CW and counter-clockwise CCW), resonating at the
same frequency, are generated inside the optical cavity. By making a partially reflecting mirror, it is
possible to detect the angular velocity of the rotating system by reading the frequency change of the
resonant behavior of the device or the interference pattern generated by the interaction of the CW
and CCW laser beams, leading to a standing wave. The two read-out techniques are covered by the
physics of the Sagnac effect. At very low rotation rates, the mirrors, being imperfect, produce
backscattered light, which couples energy from a CW to a CCW. The backscattered light acts as a
mechanism of frequency synchronization—lock-in of the two resonant beams at low rates of
rotation.

3.2.1. Lock-In Effect

The lock-in effect occurs only for conditions of weak mutual coupling between the two
counter-propagating laser beams. Usually, this coupling is caused by different backscattering
sources, depending on the adopted technology and architecture and it results in a response
insensitiveness to low rotation rates. This operating region is called “dead band”. This
backscattering-induced coupling between counter-propagating beams is also responsible of the
creation of standing waves inside the resonant ring structure. These standing waves could generate
an optically induced alternation of high and low index/absorption regions (i.e., an optically induced
grating), which creates localized refractive index variations/losses, increasing the coupling and the
lock-in. Possible solutions for circumventing this problem are represented by the dual mode ring
laser gyroscopes [20,21], in which two modes oscillate simultaneously and interact to reduce the
dead band, or by the insertion of a mechanical mechanism of oscillation around the sensor axis.
This mechanism of oscillation, called dithering [22], is usually based on a complex mechanical
system unable to completely eliminate the effect of the backscattering induced coupling. Moreover,
sometimes the dithering vibrations cannot be applied to those ring laser gyroscopes mounted on
platforms that are very sensitive to the vibrations. The other problem associated to ring laser
gyroscopes, i.e., the mode competition, is due to the different gain-assisted photon-enhancement
between the two counter-propagating resonant modes, whose eigenfrequencies are overlapped. By
making different the two resonance frequencies of the two counter-propagating modes, it is possible
to avoid the mode competition [23]. Integrated optics of ring laser gyroscopes solutions are yet not
mature for commercial applications.
Sensors 2017, 17, 2284 9 of 22

3.2.2. Critical Parameters for RLGs

The critical parameters for ring laser gyroscopes are:
1. Size: Larger ring lasers gyroscope can measure lower rotation rates. The sensitivity of large ring
laser gyroscopes increases quadratically with the size of the optical cavity.
2. Mirrors: The mirrors are fundamental elements for focusing and directing the laser beams to
form the optical cavity.
3. Stability: The gyroscope body must be built within a substance that changes minimally in
response to temperature fluctuations.
4. Gas: He-Ne generates beams with the most desirable features for large ring lasers. For gyros, in
principle, any material that can be used to generate monochromatic light beams is applicable.
The RLGs covers the high-performance market. Size and weight of RLGs are other limiting
factors, mainly due to the body and the mechanical dither assembly. Miniaturization of the RLG
leads to a decrement in their reliability, reason for which integrated optics miniaturized solutions
did not achieve a commercial diffusion. The power requirements of RLGs are high because power
sources of several hundred volts at low currents are required.

3.2.3. Recent Advances in RLGs

In the last ten years, important recent advances in RLGs have been achieved. To improve the
performance of this kind of gyroscopes, different solutions have been proposed.
In 2007, Cai et al. [24] developed soft magnetic alloys that exhibited high strength to external
stresses and to large temperature changes, allowing a wide temperature operating range for a
four-mode ring laser gyro. They obtained a 0.01°/h zero excursion, with a 15-cm dimensioned
differential laser gyro.
In 2008, Mignot et al. [25] reported for the first time the experimental achievement of a
single-frequency ring-laser gyroscope, using a diode-pumped half-vertical-cavity
semiconductor-emitting laser structure as a gain medium. The experimental setup had an overall
perimeter of 50 cm. They obtained a scale factor of 716 Hz/(°/s).
In 2009, Schwartz et al. [26] could suppress nonlinear couplings induced by crystal diffusion
and spatial inhomogeneities of the gain over a broad range of angular velocities in a solid-state ring
laser gyro. The result was obtained by vibrating the gain crystal at 168 kHz and 0.4 µm along the
cavity axis. The solid-state RLG used was made of a 22 cm long ring cavity, containing a 3 mm long
diode-pumped Nd:YAG crystal. They showed that the level of angular random-walk noise in
presence of mechanical dithering depends only on the quality of the cavity mirrors. The scale factor
of the considered ring laser gyro was about 754 Hz/(°/s).
Large ring lasers can exceed the performance of navigational gyroscopes by several orders of
magnitude. In [27], it is reported that an ultralarge ring He–Ne ring laser gyroscope (UG-2, 39.7 × 21
m2) has been built under ground. Earth rotation is sufficient to unlock it, with a Sagnac frequency of
2.18 kHz. The residual Sagnac frequency error, caused by backscatter coupling, is measured as <2
parts in 108. The best stability achieved for an averaging time of about 2000 s. The scale factor is 7.67
× 105 Hz/(°/s).
Direct dither control without external feedback was used in [28] in 2012 to avoid the lock-in
effect for a ring laser gyro. A new design, that makes the system more compact and inexpensive, was
proposed. Experiments showed that the accuracy using this method (ARW = 6.31 × 10−4°/√h and bias
instability = 3.86 × 10−4°/√h) is nearly the same as that using the prior method with PZT as dither
feedback.
While the most prevalent design of a RLG is the active gyroscope, in [29] a “passive” gyroscope
is shown, in which the sensing cavity is tracked using external laser beams. This design is free from
the deleterious lock-in effect observed in active systems and could be constructed using
commercially available components. The core of the gyroscope was a squared free-space optical
cavity of 75 cm side length. A sensitivity of about 5.7 × 10−7 (°/s)/√(Hz) above 500 mHz was achieved.
Sensors 2017, 17, 2284 10 of 22

Recently, a modified expression for the Sagnac frequency of a large square ring laser gyro
undergoing Earth rotation has been derived in [30]. The modifications include corrections for
dispersion of the gain medium and the mirrors, for the Goos-Hanchen effect in the mirrors and for
refractive index of the gas filling the cavity. The corrections were measured and calculated for the 16
m2 Grossring laser at the Geodetic Observatory Wettzell.

3.3. Interferometric Fiber Optic Gyroscopes (IFOGs)

The Interferometric Fiber Optic Gyroscopes (IFOGs) are based on an open optical path (i.e., a N
turns fiber optics coil) where two independent counter-propagating modes, externally introduced
through a laser sources, suffers of phase shift induced by the Sagnac effect, that is transduced in an
interference pattern variation.
A simple IFOG configuration is shown in Figure 7 where the light, which comes from a laser or
appropriate light sources, is split by a beam splitter (BS) and then coupled at the coil ends of a
single mode fiber. The light outgoing from coil is combined again in the beam splitter and, then,
measured by a photo-detector. In absence of rotation, the two beams interfere constructively or
destructively depending by the used beam splitter. If there is a rotation at an angular speed Ω, due
to the Sagnac effect, the counter propagating beams will have a path difference ΔL, given by:

ΔΦ 4A
ΔL = λ0 = Ω (12)
2π c0
generating an interference fringe shift expressed as:

LD
Δz = Ω (13)
λ0c0
or alternatively a phase shift of:

2π LD
ΔΦ = Ω (14)
λ0 c0
For a fixed length L of the sensor, as example obtained by fixing the coil diameter D, the
sensitivity can be improved by increasing the total coil length L by adding a higher number of turns
N, by taking into account that there is an upper limit to L due to the fiber attenuation.

Figure 7. IFOG configuration.

The graph reported in Figure 8 shows the intensity of outgoing detector current as function of
non-reciprocal phase shift ΔΦ. In this case, being Ω = 0, the intensity peak due to constructive
interference is placed in ΔΦ = 0. In the case of rotation, ΔΦ slightly moves from zero position and the
intensity of the detector current, iD, changes. The biggest change in the intensity of the detector current
for an infinitesimal shift of ΔΦ appears at ΔΦ = ±π/2 where the slope achieves its maximum value.
Sensors 2017, 17, 2284 11 of 22

Figure 8. Intensity I of the output photo-current of the photo-detector.

Thus, applying a non-reciprocal bias of ΔΦ = ±π/2, we could fix a quiescent point in the
maximum sensitivity region. Furthermore, in this way, an applied rotation causes a ΔΦ that
generates a linear proportional variation of intensity, by allowing it to work in the linear region. An
issue is related to the casual variations in light source intensity that cause perturbations in output
current intensity. These perturbations are indistinguishable from variations of phase shift.
However, it is possible to reduce or compensate fluctuations of source intensity reducing
measurement uncertainty of Ω, produced by this phenomenon. Indeed, if the noise generated by
the source is not taken into account, it is possible to consider the effect of shot noise that represents
a random process.
In ideal conditions, indeed, measurement uncertainty of ΔΦ is limited by shot noise and is
defined as follow:

shot noise
∂ ( ΔΦ ) = (15)
iD slope
Uncertainty results minimum when the slope of iD is maximum. This condition leads to:
1 1

∂ ( ΔΦ ) =
( 2eiD B ) 2 ≅ ( nPH nDτ ) 2
iD nPH nDτ (16)

π π
where e is the charge of electron, nPH is the number of photons per second impinging the
photo-detector, τ is the mean time equal to 1/2B with B the measurement band and nD is the
quantum efficiency of photo-detector.
The measurement uncertainty of Ω becomes:

λ0 c0
∂Ω = ∂ ( ΔΦ ) (17)
2π LD
that, using Equation (14), becomes:

λ0
λ0 c0 c 2
∂Ω = ∂ ( ΔΦ ) = 0 (18)
2π LD LD 1
( nPH nDτ ) 2

3.4. Recent Advances in IFOGs and RMOGs

Different solutions have been proposed to improve Fiber Optic Gyroscopes performance in the
last few years. In particular, a Resonant Fiber Optic Gyroscope (RFOG) uses dozens of meters of
Sensors 2017, 17, 2284 12 of 22

resonant fiber loops, thus reaching the same performance associated to kilometers of fiber coils into
an I-FOG. The usage of Resonant Micro Optic Gyroscopes (RMOGs) allows obtaining good
performance with smaller sizes, compared to FOGs. For all kinds of gyroscopes, bias drift is one of
the most limiting factors.
The first experimental configuration of an IFOG was proposed in [31] by Vali and Shorthill in
1976. Very important improvements have been done since the earliest solutions to date. Next, some
of the recent advances in Fiber Optic Gyroscopes (FOGs) and Resonant Micro Optic Gyroscopes
(RMOGs) will be illustrated.
In 2006, the first air-core photonic-bandgap fiber gyroscope was reported [32]. Because the
optical mode in the sensing coil largely travels through air (having low Kerr, Faraday and thermal
constants than silica), a lower power and magnetic field dependences were obtained. With a 235 m
fiber coil, a minimum detectable rotation rate of 2.7°/h and a long-term stability of 2°/h were
achieved.
In 2007, a new open-loop configuration of an IFOG was presented. A single mode
telecommunication optical fiber and an EDFA pumped with DFB laser were used as sensing coil and
broadband source, respectively [33]. The Sagnac phase shift was extracted by a phase tracking circuit
with an RC band pass filter, an amplifier and a modulator chip. It measured a bias stability of 1.57°/h
and a sensitivity of 72 µV/(°/h). Moreover, a peak-to-peak noise of 8°/h was derived.
In 2009, a novel design of IFOG was presented by Yu et al. [34]. The proposed structure can
reduce the effect of the polarization crosstalk and improves production efficiency. Through the
application of all-digital closed-loop control and random modulation signal processing technology,
the dead zone problem, typical of IFOG, caused by electronic cross-coupling, has been eliminated
and the SNR of the gyro output has been improved. A zero-bias instability of 0.01°/h has been
achieved and the random walk coefficient has reached 0.001°/√h.
In [35], it is shown that electro-optic polymers have been used in fabricating low loss phase
modulators with low half-wave drive voltage for an Inertial Measurement Unit based on an IFOG. A
novel technique was introduced for assessing the error caused by backscatter and an offset
waveguide design was developed to suppress the interference of backscattered light. An average
ARW of about 0.006°/√h and a bias uncertainty of about 0.02°/h were obtained.
In 2010, Yahalom et al. [36] presented a new IFOG. The design was based on an innovative
approach that enabled the production of a small and low-cost gyro with excellent noise and
bandwidth characteristics. The goal was to develop an inexpensive sensor in less than 50 cm3. The
gyro was configured as a “split gyro”, where the light source, electronics and receiver are integrated
in an external package and the sensor head was integrated in a robust and rigid package. The head
sensor was 6.9 cm × 6.9 cm × 5 cm. They obtained a bias long-term stability of 0.2°/h, and an ARW of
0.0022°/√h.
In 2013, it was demonstrated that, by driving an IFOG with a laser of relatively broad linewidth
(about 10 MHz), the noise would be reduced to 0.058°/√h, while the bias drift would be reduced to
1.1°/h [37]. Researchers used a 150 m fiber coil, with a 3.5 cm coil diameter. Using a laser instead of a
broadband light source, it offers increased scale factor arising from the frequency stability of the laser.
However, driving a FOG with a laser leads to large noise and drift, because of the coherent
backscattering, the Kerr effect and polarization non-reciprocity. It was demonstrated that, carefully
selecting the laser linewidth and using a symmetric phase modulation scheme, one can reduce these
sources of error to a very low level.
In 2014, Wang et al. demonstrated a novel dual-polarization IFOG [38], which only needs one
coupler and no polarizer. With a 2 km coil and an open-loop configuration, a bias instability of
0.02°/h and an ARW of 1.5 × 10−3°/√h were obtained.
The usage of RFOGs (Resonant Fiber Optic Gyroscopes) instead of IFOGs, allows to reduce
fiber length, thus leading to lower dimensions. In the era of miniaturization, the possibility of
integrating optical waveguides leads to even smaller solutions. Thus, RMOG is a promising
candidate for applications requiring small, light and robust gyros.
Sensors 2017, 17, 2284 13 of 22

In RMOGs, clockwise and counter-clockwise waves are phase-modulated at different

frequencies to reduce backscattering induced noise. The effectiveness of this technique, however, is
determined by the carrier suppression level. In the experiment reported in [39], carrier suppression
is applied onto both the CW and the CCW waves at the same time to achieve higher total
suppression. Ma et al. obtained a bias stability of 0.46°/s over 50 s with a silica waveguide ring
resonator, having a ring length of 7.9 cm.
In 2013, a 2.5 cm diameter ring was equipped with a low-noise, low-delay digital signal
processor based on FPGA [40], reaching a 0.67°/s bias stability over 3600 s. The proposed solution
can detect a minimum rotation rate of 0.25°/s.
In the same year, Lei et al. [41] proposed a current modulation technique in an external cavity
laser diode to construct a gyroscope system for the first time. The experimental results from the
established RMOG setup demonstrate a bias stability of 2.7°/s (over 600 s) with a silica optical
waveguide ring resonator having a ring length of 12.8 cm.

4. Micro-Electro-Mechanical System (MEMS) Gyroscopes

MEMS gyroscopes generally use a vibrating mechanical element as a sensing element for
detecting the angular velocity. They do not have rotating parts that require bearings and this allows
an easy miniaturization and the use of the manufacturing techniques typical of MEMS devices.
All MEMS gyroscopes with vibrating element are based on the transfer of energy between two
vibration modes caused by the acceleration of Coriolis.
The Coriolis acceleration, proportional to the angular velocity, is an apparent acceleration that
is observed in a rotating frame of reference. To better understand the concept, we can consider a
particle of mass m moving in space with a velocity v (See Figure 9a)).

Figure 9. (a) Coriolis acceleration (ac) acting on a moving particle; and (b) mass-spring model of a
MEMS gyroscope.

Once fixed to the reference system in Figure 9a, if it is rotating with an angular velocity Ω = Ωxi
(with i the unitary vector along the x axis) around the x axis, an observer, solidly anchored to the z
axis, sees the particle moving along the z axis with a Coriolis acceleration equal to ac = 2v × Ω,
although a real force is not applied along the z axis. This is the key physical principle of the vibrating
mass MEMS gyroscope, described like a mass-spring system (see Figure 9b).
The vibrating mass MEMS gyroscope has two orthogonal mechanical excitation modes along
which the mass can move. If ky and kz are the elastic stiffness parameters proper of the frame, while cx
and cy are the respective damping coefficients, the master equations result to be [42]:
my = −k y y − c y y + FDrive (19)

mz = −k z z − cz z + FCz (20)

Sensors 2017, 17, 2284 14 of 22

Fz = 2mΩ × v (21)

The primary mode is excited along y (drive axis) by applying a force FDrive (see Equation (19)),
while the secondary mode along x (sense axis) is excited by the Coriolis force Fz (see Equation (20)).
By knowing the mode drive axis mode, the displacement along the z axis is proportional only to
the angular velocity Ω = Ωxi. Moreover, being Qy/z and ωy/z the quality factor and the resonance
frequency of the driving mode (x) and the sensing mode, respectively, the displacement of the mass
m along z assumes the following expression [43]:

Fcz Qy 1
Δz = 2Ω x
m ωy 2
 ω yω z 
(ω )
2 (22)
2 2
y +ω z + 
 Qz 
As expressed in Equation (22), the MEMS gyroscope sensitivity can be improved by matching
the resonant frequencies ωy and ωz, and by reduction of friction (e.g., by creating an under vacuum
operating environment) in order to improve the quality factor Qy/z.
Based on these physical principles, a brief panoramic of the research development of silicon
MEMS gyroscope that were designed, prototyped and realized from the late 1980s to the 1990s. The
following listed sensors are based on revealing Coriolis force and represent, someway, the milestone
in the roadmap of MEMS gyro technology improvement.
The pioneering work to miniaturize inertial systems, made by Draper Laboratory (expert in
inertial guidance systems for military and space applications), led to the creation of MEMS gyros
and accelerometers as we know today. In the late 1980s, they developed a hand-assembled device to
prove the feasibility of a silicon gyro. In the following work, they also successfully constructed a
monolithic double gimbal gyro with a rate detection capability of 4°/s at a 1 Hz bandwidth; this
performance was limited by noise [11].
Until 1996, in Draper Laboratory, other structures were designed to improve performance with
an even simpler fabrication process. A planar design of a gyro based on the tuning fork principle
was then presented. It was equipped with the comb drive mechanism developed at UC Berkeley,
which showed a rate capability of about 0.1°/s in a 60 Hz bandwidth. Afterwards, they explored the
fabrication advantages of the vibrating wheel on a gimbal-based gyro design capable of a better rate
sensing [12,44].
Several researches, aimed to integrate part of control and signal processing on chip, to develop
dual-axis gyroscope and to improve fabrication and performance with multi degree of freedom
design, were made at UC Berkeley during next years.
In 1996, Clark, Howe, and Horowitz presented a z-axis vibratory rate gyroscope. This device
integrated with a trans-resistance amplifier while the sense mode offers a differential measurement
using interdigitated comb fingers. This device has a resolution of 1°/s/√Hz improvable to 0.1°/s/√Hz
in a second generation.
After that, Juneau, Pisano and Smith reported a surface-micromachined dual-axis gyroscope
based on a rotor disk that can equally sense rotation about two orthogonal axes. This device,
integrated with some electronics, showed a random walk of 10°/√h and a cross-axis sensitivity
comprised between 3% and 16% [45–49].
In 1999, Mochida, Tamura and Ohwada (Murata, Yokohama R&D Center) reported two designs
of micromachined gyroscopes: a simple structure used as a reference, and another one with
independent beams for drive and detection modes, thus uncoupling drive and sense mode for
improving resolution. They characterized the two devices through laser meter equipment to observe
displacements and the overall behavior, so they found that the gyroscope with independent beams
had a resolution of 0.07°/s at a bandwidth of 10 Hz, even if limited by increased noise at resonance,
caused by oscillation instability. This performance resulted to be better than that related to the
reference device, due to weak coupling between the two modes [48].
Sensors 2017, 17, 2284 15 of 22

Further development followed since the late 1990s, thanks to the fact that silicon technology
became more mature, so it was possible to integrate control and processing electronic components
into MEMS.
Studies aiming at improving MEMS gyroscopes increased, being already known the main
aspects of theory and operation; the availability of more sophisticate test equipment to characterize
prototypes, more powerful design tools and industrial interest in other application fields (at
consumer level) contributed to the progress of this technology.
Georgia Institute of Technology also put great efforts in the research of MEMS gyroscopes. In
this institution, the Matched-Mode Tuning Fork Gyroscope (M2-TFG) [50–53] was developed in 2006
by Zaman et al. It used an electrostatic comb drive to move the proof-masses in x-axis and a
capacitive detecting in y-axis to sense rotation in z-axis. Drive and sense mode were electrostatically
balanced to achieve perfect mode matching; this design improved sensitivity, bias stability and noise
floor.
Sharma, through further research on the M2-TFG, designed the closed-loop circuit based on a
transimpedance amplifier with a dynamic range of 104 dB, capable to keep the matched-mode.
Experimental data showed a capacitive resolution of 0.02 aF/√Hz at 15 kHz. Zaman in 2008 reported
an improvement of the M2-TFG using two high-quality factor resonant modes. The open-loop rate
sensitivity of the new design was 83 mV/°/s in vacuum while the bias instability was 0.15°/h.
From 2009 to 2011, Trusov et al. at University of California developed at first the design of a
z-axis MEMS gyroscope based on a tuning fork, then a new dual-mass vibratory MEMS z-axis rate
gyroscope that improved the mechanical vibratory modes. These structures forced an anti-phase
drive-mode and a linearly-coupled dynamically-balanced anti-phase sense-mode, that prioritizes
sense-mode quality factor. The prototypes were characterized in a vacuum chamber, demonstrating
a quality factor drive-mode of 67,000 and of 125,000 for the sense-mode [54,55].
Meanwhile, the joined forces of Old Dominion University and University of Utah led to the
improvement of the M2-TFG architecture. In fact, Wang et al. presented a multiple beam tuning fork
gyroscope that reached a measured Q-factor of 255,000 for drive-mode and 103,000 for sense-mode
at 15.7 kHz. Further measurements pointed out a rate resolution of 0.37°/h/√Hz, a rate sensitivity of
80 VPP/°/s while ARW and bias instability were 6.67°/√h and 95°/h, respectively [56].
Other researches were performed towards enabling a wider bandwidth to expand flexibility
and ease of use. Thus, in 2012, Tsai et al. developed a doubly decoupled MEMS gyroscope to
minimize coupling between the drive-mode and sense-mode, which used frequencies in a 240 Hz
bandwidth [57].
Finally, the report by Pyatishev et al. (2017) about a MEMS gyro characterized by a
comb-shaped drive with enlarged capacity gradient considered the aspect ratio or the wavy aspect
ratio of the comb drive as a fundamental key to improve performance [58].

5. Key Gyro Performance Factors

In this section, five critical parameters for consumer grade gyros will be overviewed:
(1) Angle Random Walk (ARW)
(2) Bias Offset Error
(3) Bias Instability
(4) Temperature Sensitivity
(5) Shock and Vibration Sensitivity

5.1. Angle Random Walk

In the output of a gyro, there is always a broadband white noise element. Angle Random Walk
describes the error resulting from this noise element and can be evaluated using the Allan Variance
technique. Active elements of the gyro are the major contributors to random noise (laser diode and
photo diode for optical gyroscopes and the vibrating beam and detection electronics for MEMS).
Sensors 2017, 17, 2284 16 of 22

Noise is one of the most important differences between optical and MEMS gyro performance,
resulting in different precision and accuracy in measurements.

5.2. Bias Offset Error

When input rotation is null, the output of the gyro could be nonzero. The equivalent input
rotation detected is the Bias Offset Error. It is typically given at 25 °C for an ideal environment. Fixed
errors, such as Bias Offset Error, can be easily corrected.

5.3. Bias Instability

Bias Instability is the instability of the bias offset at any constant temperature and ideal
environment. It can be measured using the Allan Variance technique. Bias instability introduces
errors that may not be easy to calibrate. Its influence is greater on longer measurement periods, so
Bias Instability is one of the most critical factors in the gyro selection process for applications that
requires excellent accuracy over long time.

5.4. Temperature Sensitivity

Gyro performance changes over temperature. A characterization of parameters such as noise,
bias offset and scale factor over temperature is necessary to verify that gyro performance meets
system targets.

5.5. Shock and Vibration Sensitivity

Noise and Bias offset of gyros also degrade under vibration and shock input. Vibration
performance is critical in many military and industrial applications, because of the presence of
numerous factors such as engines or gunfire.

5.6. Gyro Technology Comparison

The evolution of modern gyros technology, performance and application could be understood
through an overview of its history starting from mid-19th century. Originally, it was a full
mechanical system that found its major use in navy and aviation applications, especially during
WWI as a pilot system for ship steering and for self-guided missiles. The first improvement step
consisted in developing several DTG versions equipped with electronics. These kinds of systems are
still used, even if their commercialization stopped some years after. In the 1970s, RLGs and FOGs
emerged and became commercially mature in the next decade. Being very accurate but complex at
the same time, large and expensive to manufacture, their main application consisted in replacing
mechanical gyros components and systems in a wide variety of guidance, navigation and
aeronautics applications, including man-portable and tripod target locator systems. In the last
twenty years, a different technology, based on solid state integrated devices, appeared.
MEMS have achieved important improvements since first solutions to date. They have met the
market request, in particular in consumer and industrial fields, allowing high robustness and
sufficiently high performance for the corresponding grade. Nowadays the Car Braking System uses
gyros in Electronic Stability Control. In consumer market, a large number of devices are provided
with an embedded MEMS gyroscope. Segway-like Human Transporter, drones, smartphones and
IOT devices are examples of markets and applications.
In industrial applications, the majority of systems where feedback control is needed, are
equipped with a MEMS gyro, e.g., industrial automation units such as handling robots and factory
transport systems.
FOG-grade MEMS gyros are currently in an advanced stage of development, paving the way to
the replacement of optical gyros in the next future.
Actually, we can classify gyro technology considering the bias stability as fundamental
performance parameter as shown in Table 1.
Sensors 2017, 17, 2284 17 of 22

Table 1. Gyro technology comparison in terms of Bias Stability.

Performance Grade Bias Stability Applications Gyro Technology

Consumer 30–1000°/h Motion interface MEMS
Industrial & Low-end Tactical 1–30°/h Ammunitions & rockets guidance MEMS
Tactical 0.1–30°/h Platform stabilization FOG/RLG
High-end Tactical 0.1–1°/h Missile navigation RLG/FOG
Navigation 0.01–0.1°/h Aeronautics navigation RLG/FOG
Strategic 0.0001–0.01°/h Submarine navigation RLG/FOG

Fiber Optic Gyroscopes could be considered the low-cost version of Ring Laser Gyroscopes, being
a mature technology with similar performance and sizes. Thus, development in fiber technology can
lead to the design of high-performance FOGs. We may expect that RLG technology will be overtaken
by FOG improvements and will be replaced by the last released FOGs. At the same time, a similar
process will involve FOGs and MEMS gyro technologies, because they show a few significant
advantages, such as reduction of size, power and cost, and it seems to be almost mature to move on the
next performance grade. To date, the bias stability (around 5 to 30°/h) of MEMS cannot satisfy the
tactical grade requirements, even if they have chance to overcome tactical RLGs and FOGs.
These trends are evident even in commercially available MEMS gyros and FOGs, such as those
reported in [59–62]. In [59,60], two comparison tables on commercial MEMS gyros by two different
manufacturers are shown. They focus on the most important performance parameters of their
available products. The crucial point that influences the price of the product is the bias instability,
which is one of the most important elements identifying the performance grade each gyro receives.
All of the shown parameters (especially the dynamic range) are useful to choose the best gyro for the
specific application.
In [61,62], comparative tables on commercial FOGs are shown. It is evident that the bias
instability and the ARW of FOGs are much lower than those of MEMS. This is the reason why FOGs
are more suitable for tactical grade applications, reaching more than the 50% of the market.

6. Companies Involved in the Development of Gyroscope Technologies

In this section, with reference to the previous gyroscope technologies, we report in Table 2 the
companies, divided for geographic area, that actually are the main players in the gyroscope market.
As can be seen in Table 2, the more diffused technologies of gyroscopes are actually the MEMS ones,
followed by the RLGs. As discussed before, this market trend is related to the low cost of MEMS
gyroscopes, allowing them to be employed for low-cost consumer electronics applications. North
America is the geographic area where the gyroscope technologies are more developed and it is
followed by Europe and Asia.
Table 2. Main players for gyroscope market.

Company Gyroscope Technologies

Asia
Aviation Gyro Photoelectricity Technology [63] FOGS and RLGS
AVIC Xi’an Flight Automatic Control Research [64] Institute MEMS gyroscopes, FOG and RLGs
MT Microsystems Co. Ltd. [65] MEMS gyroscopes
Navtech inc. [66] MEMS, FOG and laser gyroscopes
Panasonic Corporation [67] Angular velocity sensors
Seiko Epson Corporation [68] MEMS Gyroscopes and IMUs
Europe
Northrop Grumman LITEF GmbH [69] Gyroscopes, IMUs
Silicon Sensing Systems Ltd. [70] Gyroscopes, IMUs
AIMS Sweden AB [71] FOG gyroscopes
Civitanavi Systems s.r.l. [72] Gyroscopes
InnaLabs Ltd [73] Gyroscopes
Omni Instruments [74] Gyroscopes, IMUs
Robert Bosch GmbH [75] Gyroscopes,
Sensors 2017, 17, 2284 18 of 22

Sensonor AS [76] Gyroscopes, IMUs

STMicroelectronics N.V. [77] Gyroscopes
Tronics’s Microsystems SA [78] Gyroscopes
North America
Analog Devices, Inc. [79] MEMS gyroscopes s,
Emcore Corporation [80] FOGs
Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. [81] Gyroscopes
Gladiator Technologies, LKD Aerospace, Inc. [82] MEMS gyroscopes, IMUs
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. [83] MEMS Inertial sensors
Honeywell International Inc. [84] RLGs,
InvenSense, Inc. [85] MEMS gyroscopes, IMUs
Kearfott Corporation [86] RLGs
Kionix Inc. [87] Gyroscopes
KVH Industries, Inc. [88] FOGs
LORD Corporation [89] MEMS gyroscopes
Measurement Specialties, Inc. [90] Gyroscopes,
Qualtre Inc. [91] MEMS gyroscopes
Rockwell Collins Inc. [92] Gyroscopes, IMU
Systron Donner Inertial [93] MEMS gyroscopes
TE Connectivity Ltd. [94] MEMS gyroscopes
Teledyne Technologies, Inc. [95] RLGs
UTC Aerospace Systems [96] Gyroscopes
Watson Industries Inc. [97] MEMS Gyroscopes
Russia
Fizoptika [98] FOGs
Inertial Technologies JSC [99] RLGs,
MIEA JSC [100] RLGs,
OAO Polyus [101] RLGs
Optolink Scientific Ltd. [102] FOGs
Russian MEMS Association [103] MEMS gyroscopes
Other
Al Cielo Inertial Solutions Ltd. [104] Gyroscopes, IMUs
Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd. [105] Gyroscopes

7. Conclusions
In this review, we reported the currently more diffused gyroscope technologies. The considered
gyroscopes include mechanical gyroscopes and optical gyroscopes at macro- and micro-scale. In
particular, commercially available gyroscope technologies, such as Mechanical Gyroscopes, silicon
MEMS Gyroscopes, Ring Laser Gyroscopes (RLGs) and Fiber-Optic Gyroscopes (FOGs) are
discussed, focusing attention on the main features, performances, technologies, applications and
market players.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. NASA. Available online: https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/2005/03/14/brief-history-of-gyroscopes
(accessed on 24 June 2017).
2. Elliott-Laboratories. The Anschutz Gyro-Compass and Gyroscope Engineering; Wexford College Press: Kiel,
Germany, Reprint 2003; pp. 7–24, ISBN 978-1-929148-12-7.
3. Honeywell. Available online:
https://aerospace.honeywell.com/en/products/navigation-and-sensors/inertial-measurement-units
(accessed on 24 June 2017).
4. King, A.D. Inertial Navigation—Forty Years of Evolution. GEC Rev. 1998, 13, 140–149.
5. Inertial Labs. Available online: https://inertiallabs.com/ahrs.html (accessed on 24 June 2017).
Sensors 2017, 17, 2284 19 of 22

6. Ezekiel, S.; Arditty, H.J. Fiber-Optic Rotation Sensors. Tutorial Review. In Fiber-Optic Rotation Sensors and
Related Technologies, Proceedings of the First International Conference MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA, 9–11 November
1981; Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, 1981.
7. Dakin, J.; Culshaw, B. Fiber Sensors, Applications, Analysis and Future Trends; Artech House: London, UK,
1997; Volume 4, ISBN 9780890069400.
8. Lefevre, H. The Fiber Optic Gyroscope, 3rd ed.; Artech House: London, UK, 1993; ISBN 9781608076963.
9. Aronowitz, F. The laser gyro. In Laser Applications; Ross, M., Ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA,
1971; Volume 1, ISBN 0124319017.
10. Macek, W.M.; Davis, D.T. Rotation rate sensing with travelling wave ring lasers. Appl. Phys. Lett. 1963, 2,
67–68, doi:10.1063/1.1753778.
11. Greiff, P.; Boxenhom, B.; Niles, L. Silicon Monolithic Micromechanical Gyroscope. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Solid-State Sensors and Actuators, San Francisco, CA, USA, 24–27 June 1991;
pp. 966–968.
12. Yazdi, N.; Ayazi, F.; Najafi, K. Micromachined inertial sensors. Proc. IEEE 1998, 86, 1640–1659,
doi:10.1109/5.704269.
13. Barbour, N.; Schmidt, G. Inertial sensor technology trends. IEEE Sens. J. 2001, 1, 332–339,
doi:10.1109/7361.983473.
14. Halliday, D.; Resnick, R.; Walker, J. Fundamentals of Physics, 9th ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010; pp.
294–295, ISBN 978-0-470-46908-8.
15. Britting, K. Inertial Navigation Systems Analysis; John Wiley & Sons: Washington, USA, 1971; pp. 65–69,
ISBN 0-471-10485-X.
16. Robertson, H.P. Postulate versus observation in the special theory of relativity. Rev. Mod. Phys 1949, 21,
378-382, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.21.378.
17. Page, L.; Adams N. Electrodynamics, 1st ed.; D. Van Nostrand Company: New York, USA, 1940.
18. Juang, J.; Radharamanan, R. Evaluation of Ring Laser and Fiber Optic Gyroscope Technology. In
Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education, Middle Atlantic Section ASEE
Mid-Atlantic Fall 2009 Conference, King of Prussia, PA, USA, 23–24 October 2009.
19. Google Patents. Available online: https://www.google.it/patents/US4405236 (accessed on 24 June 2017).
20. Google Patents. Available online: www.google.com/patents/US5386288 (accessed on 24 June 2017).
21. Google Patents. Available online: www.google.com/patents/CA1292545C (accessed on 24 June 2017).
22. Google Patents. Available online: www.google.com/patents/US4606637 (accessed on 24 June 2017).
23. Kiyan, R.; Kim, S.K.; Kim, B.Y. Bidirectional single-mode Er-doped fiber-ring laser. IEEE Photonics Technol.
Lett. 1996, 8, 1624–1626, doi:10.1109/68.544698.
24. Cai, H.; Zhang, H.; Zheng, Y. Soft Magnetic Devices Applied for Low Zero Excursion (0.01 °/h) Four-Mode
Ring Laser Gyro. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2007, 43, 2686–2688, doi:10.1109/TMAG.2007.893315
25. Mignot, A.; Feugnet, G.; Schwartz, S.; Sagnes, I.; Garnache, A.; Fabre, C.; Pocholle, J.P. Single-frequency
external-cavity semiconductor ring-laser gyroscope. Opt. Lett. 2009, 34, 97–99, doi:10.1364/OL.34.000097.
26. Schwartz, S.; Gutty, F.; Feugnet, G.; Loil, É.; Pocholle, J. Solid-state ring laser gyro behaving like its
helium-neon counterpart at low rotation rates. Opt. Lett. 2009, 34, 3884–3886, doi:10.1364/OL.34.003884.
27. Hurst, R.B.; Stedman, G.E.; Schreiber, K.U.; Thirkettle, R.J.; Graham, R.D. Experiments with an 834 m^2 ring
laser interferometer. J. Appl. Phys. 2009, 105, 113–115, doi:10.1063/1.3133245.
28. Fan, Z.; Luo, H.; Lu, G.; Hu, S. Direct dither control without external feedback for ring laser gyro. Opt. Laser
Technol. 2012, 44, 767–770, doi:10.1016/j.optlastec.2011.11.032.
29. Korth, W.Z.; Heptonstall, A.; Hall, E.D.; Arai, K.; Gustafson, E.K.; Adhikari, R.X. Passive, free-space
heterodyne laser gyroscope. Class. Quantum Gravity 2016, 33, 035004, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/33/3/035004.
30. Hurst, R.B.; Mayerbacher, M.; Gebauer, A.; Schreiber, K.U.; Wells J.P.R. High-accuracy absolute rotation
rate measurements with a large ring laser gyro: Establishing the scale factor. Appl. Opt. 2017, 56, 1124–1130,
doi:10.1364/AO.56.001124.
31. Vali, V.; Shorthill, R.W. Fiber ring interferometer. Appl. Opt. 1976, 15, 1099–1100, doi:10.1364/AO.15.001099.
32. Kim, H.K.; Digonnet, M.J.F.; Kino, G.S. Air-core photonic-bandgap fiber-optic gyroscope. J. Lightwave
Technol. 2006, 24, 3169–3174, doi:10.1109/JLT.2006.880689.
33. Çelikel, O. Construction and characterization of interferometric fiber optic gyroscope (IFOG) with erbium
doped fiber amplifier (EDFA). Opt. Quantum Electron. 2007, 39, 147–156, doi:10.1007/s11082-007-9070-z.
Sensors 2017, 17, 2284 20 of 22

34. Yu, Q.; Li, X.; Zhou, G. A kind of hybrid optical structure IFOG. In Proceedings of the 2009 International
Conference on Mechatronics and Automation, Changchun, China, 9–12 August 2009; pp. 5030–5034.
35. Sanghadasa, M.; Ashley, P.R.; Lindsay, G.A.; Bramson, M.D.; Tawney, J. Backscatter Compensation in
IFOG Based Inertial Measurement Units With Polymer Phase Modulators. J. Lightwave Technol. 2009, 27,
806–813, doi:10.1109/JLT.2008.928915.
36. Yu, Q.; Li, X.; Zhou, G. Low-Cost, Compact Fiber-Optic Gyroscope for Super-Stable Line-of-Sight
Stabilization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ION Position, Location and Navigation Symposium, Indian Wells,
CA, USA, 4–6 May 2010; pp. 180–186.
37. Lloyd, S.W.; Fan, S.; Digonnet, M.J.F. Experimental Observation of Low Noise and Low Drift in a
Laser-Driven Fiber Optic Gyroscope. J. Lightwave Technol. 2013, 31, 2079–2085,
doi:10.1109/JLT.2013.2261285.
38. Wang, Z.; Yang, Y.; Lu, P.; Luo, R.; Li, Y.; Zhao, D.; Peng, C.; Li, Z. Dual-polarization interferometric
fiber-optic gyroscope with an ultra-simple configuration. Opt. Lett. 2014, 39, 2463–2466,
doi:10.1364/OL.39.002463.
39. Ma, H.; He, Z.; Hotate, K. Reduction of Backscattering Induced Noise by Carrier Suppression in
Waveguide-Type Optical Ring Resonator Gyro. J. Lightwave Technol. 2011, 29, 85–90,
doi:10.1109/JLT.2010.2092751.
40. Ma, H.; Wang, W.; Ren, Y.; Jin, Z. Low-Noise Low-Delay Digital Signal Processor for Resonant Micro
Optic Gyro. IEEE Photonics Technol. Lett. 2013, 25, 198–201, doi:10.1109/LPT.2012.2233727.
41. Lei, M.; Feng, L.S.; Zhi, Y.Z.; Liu, H.L.; Wang, J.J.; Ren, X.Y.; Su, N. Current modulation technique used in
resonator micro-optic gyro. Appl. Opt. 2013, 52, 307–313, doi:10.1364/AO.52.000307.
42. Xie, H.; Fedder, G.K. Integrated Microelectromechanical Gyroscopes. J. Aerosp. Eng. 2003, 16, 65–75,
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0893-1321(2003)16:2(65).
43. Maenaka, K.; Fujita, T.; Konishi, Y.; Maeda, M. Analysis of a highly sensitive silicon gyroscope with
cantilever beam as vibrating mass. Sens. Actuators A 1996, 54, 568–573, doi:10.1016/S0924-4247(97)80016-7.
44. Greiff, P.; Antkowiak, B.; Petrovich, A. Vibrating wheel micromechanical gyro. In Proceedings of the
Position Location and Navigation Symposium, Atlanta, GA, USA, 22–25 April 1996; pp. 31–37.
45. Clark, W.A.; Howe, R.T.; Horowitz, R. Surface micromachined z-axis vibratory rate gyroscope. In
Proceedings of the Technical Digest Solid-State Sensor and Actuator Workshop, Hilton Head Island, SC,
USA, 3–6 June 1996; pp. 283–287.
46. Juneau, T.; Pisano, A.; Smith, J.H. Dual axis operation of a micromachined rate gyroscope. In Proceedings
of the 1997 International Conference on Solid State Sensors and Actuators, Chicago, IL, USA, 19 June 1997;
pp. 883–886
47. Zhanshe, G.; Fucheng, C.; Boyu, L.; Le, C.; Chao, L.; Ke, S. Research development of silicon MEMS
gyroscopes: a review. Microsyst. Technol. 2015, 21, 2053–2066, doi:10.1007/s00542-015-2645-x.
48. Mochida, Y.; Tamura, M.; Ohwada, K. A micromachined vibrating rate gyroscope with independent
beams for the drive and detection modes. In Proceedings of the 1999 Twelfth IEEE International
Conference on Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS ’99), Orlando, FL, USA, 21 January 1999; pp.
618–623.
49. Seshia, A.A.; Howe, R.T.; Montague, S. An integrated microelectromechanical resonant output gyroscope.
In Proceedings of the 2002 Fifteenth IEEE International Conference on Micro Electro Mechanical Systems,
Las Vegas, NV, USA, 24 January 2002; pp. 722–726.
50. Zaman, M.F.; Sharma, A.; Ayazi, F. High Performance Matched-Mode Tuning Fork Gyroscope. In
Proceedings of the 19th IEEE International Conference on Micro Electro Mechanical Systems, Istanbul,
Turkey, 22–26 January 2006; pp. 66–69.
51. Sharma, A.; Zaman, M.F.; Ayazi, F. A 104-dB Dynamic Range Transimpedance-Based CMOS ASIC for
Tuning Fork Microgyroscopes. IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits 2007, 42, 1790–1802,
doi:10.1109/JSSC.2007.900282.
52. Zaman, M.F.; Sharma, A.; Ayazi, F. A mode-matched silicon-yaw tuning-fork gyroscope with
subdegree-per-hour Allan deviation bias instability. J. Microelectromechanical Syst. 2008, 17, 1526–1536,
doi:10.1109/JMEMS.2008.2004794.
53. Xia, D.; Yu, C.; Kong, L. The Development of Micromachined Gyroscope Structure and Circuitry
Technology. Sensors 2014, 14, 1394–1473, doi:10.3390/s140101394.
Sensors 2017, 17, 2284 21 of 22

54. Trusovs, A.A.; Schofield, A.R.; Shkel, A.M. Gyroscope architecture with structurally forced anti-phase
drive-mode and linearly coupled anti-phase sense-mode. In Proceedings of the TRANSDUCERS 2009
International Solid-State Sensors, Actuators and Microsystems Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 21–25 June
2009; pp. 660–663.
55. Trusovs, A.A.; Schofield, A.R.; Shkel, A.M. Micromachined rate gyroscope architecture with ultra-high
quality factor and improved mode ordering. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 2011, 165, 26–34.
56. Wang, R.; Cheng, P.; Hao, Z. A multiple-beam tuning-fork gyroscope with high quality factors. Sens.
Actuators A Phys. 2011, 166, 22–33.
57. Tsai, C.; Chen, K.; Shen, C.; Tsai, J. A MEMS doubly decoupled gyroscope with wide driving frequency
range. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2012, 59, 4921–4929.
58. Pyatishev, E.N.; Enns, Y.B. ; Kazakin, A.N.; Kleimanov, R.V.; Korshunov, A.V.; Nikitin, N.Y. MEMS GYRO
comb-shaped drive with enlarged capacity gradient. In Proceedings of the 2017 24th Saint Petersburg
International Conference on Integrated Navigation Systems (ICINS), St. Petersburg, Russia, 29–31 May
2017; pp. 1–3.
59. Silicon Sensing Selection Guide. Available online:
http://www.siliconsensing.com/media/1394/silicon-sensing-single-axis-gyroscope-selection-guide.pdf
(accessed on 28 June 2017).
60. Analog Devices, Inc. Products Table. Available online:
http://www.analog.com/en/products/mems/gyroscopes.html (accessed on 28 June 2017).
61. Emcore Fog Products Table. Available online:
http://emcore.com/product-category/fiber-optic-gyro-fog-sensors-navigation-systems/fiber-optic-gyrosco
pes-fog-components/#products_main_ct (accessed on 28 June 2017).
62. Kvh Fog Products Table. Available online:
http://www.kvh.com/Commercial-and-OEM/Gyros-and-Inertial-Systems-and-Compasses/Gyros-and-IM
Us-and-INS.aspx (accessed on 28 June 2017).
63. Aviation Gyro Photoelectricity Technology. Available online: www.avic-gyro.com (accessed on 24 June
2017).
64. AVIC Xi’an Flight Automatic Control Research Institute. Available online: www.facri.com (accessed on 24
June 2017).
65. MT Microsystems Co. Ltd. Available online: www.mtmems.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
66. Navtech Inc. Available online: www.navgnss.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
67. Panasonic Coorporation. Available online: industrial.panasonic.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
68. Seiko Epson Corporation. Available online: www.epsondevice.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
69. Northrop Grumman LITEF GmbH. Available online: www.northropgrumman.litef.com (accessed on 24
June 2017).
70. Silicon Sensing Systems Ltd. Available online: www.siliconsensing.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
71. AIMS Sweden AB. Available online: www.aims.se (accessed on 24 June 2017).
72. Civitanavi Systems s.r.l. Available online: www.civitanavi.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
73. InnaLabs Ltd. Available online: www.innalabs.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
74. Omni Instruments. Available online: www.omniinstruments.co.uk (accessed on 24 June 2017).
75. Robert Bosch GmbH. Available online: www.bosch-sensortec.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
76. Sensonor AS. Available online: www.sensonor.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
77. STMicroelectronics N.V. Available online: www.st.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
78. Tronics’s Microsystems SA. Available online: www.tronicsgroup.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
79. Analog Devices, Inc. Available online: www.analog.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
80. Emcore Corporation. Available online: www.emcore.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
81. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. Available online: www.freescale.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
82. Gladiator Technologies, LKD Aerospace, Inc. Available online: www.gladiatortechnologies.com (accessed
on 24 June 2017).
83. Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. Available online: www.hp.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
84. Honeywell International Inc. Available online: honeywell.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
85. InvenSense, Inc. Available online: www.invensense.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
86. Kearfott Corporation. Available online: www.kearfott.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
87. Kionix Inc. Available online: www.kionix.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
Sensors 2017, 17, 2284 22 of 22

88. KVH Industries, Inc. Available online: www.kvh.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
89. LORD Corporation. Available online: www.microstrain.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
90. Measurment Specialties Inc. Available online: precisionsensors.meas-spec.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
91. Qualtre Inc. Available online: www.qualtre.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
92. Rockwell Collins Inc. Available online: www.rockwellcollins.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
93. Systron Donner Inertial. Available online: www.systron.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
94. TE Connectivity Ltd. Available online: www.te.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
95. Teledyne Technologies, Inc. Available online: teledyne-cdl.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
96. UTC Aerospace Systems. Available online: utcaerospacesystems.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
97. Watson Industries Inc. Available online: www.watson-gyro.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
98. Fizoptika. Available online: www.fizoptika.ru (accessed on 24 June 2017).
99. Inertial Technologies JSC. Available online: www.inertech.ru (accessed on 24 June 2017).
100. MIEA JSC. Available online: aomiea.ru (accessed on 24 June 2017).
101. OAO Polyus. Available online: www.polyus.info (accessed on 24 June 2017).
102. Optolink Scientific Ltd. Available online: www.optolink.ru/en (accessed on 24 June 2017).
103. Russian MEMS Association. Available online: www.mems-russia.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
104. Al Cielo Inertial Solutions Ltd. 3C. Available online: www.alcielo.com (accessed on 24 June 2017).
105. Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd. 4C. Available online: www.iai.co.il (accessed on 24 June 2017).

© 2017 by the authors; Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).