Advertisement

Increased Sensitivity of Ultrasonic Radars for Robotic Use

  • Karel HájekEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11472)

Abstract

At present, robotic ultrasonic radars are used only for small distances and with low resolution and great sensitivity to parasitic echo. This article shows some ways to increase the sensitivity and resolution of targets in the viewing environment. This is achieved by three basic ways. On the one hand, special noise analysis enables optimum design of input circuits for input noise reduction by 20–30 dB over standard solutions. This will allow for a considerably higher basic radar range. Another benefit is the DSP for the received signal, which allows a continuous evaluation of the amplitude and phase of this signal by Fourier analysis, coupled with additional digital filtration. This makes it possible to evaluate the reflection distance with more than 1 lambda precision. The third benefit is the use of at least pairs of sensors both horizontally and vertically. Vertical phase evaluation of the received signals will allow, in addition to higher vertical resolution, suppression of parasitic echo from the ground. Horizontal amplitude-phase evaluation along with the phase control of the pair of exciters will substantially increase the resolution of the targets in the observed environment at a broader viewing angle. It is possible to arrive at a system that produces a fairly accurate ultrasonic image of the surroundings of the radar.

Keywords

Ultrasonic radar Radar sensitivity DSP Estimation of phase Synchronous sampling 

References

  1. 1.
    Paulet, M.V, Salceanu, A., Neacsu, O.M.: Ultrasonic radar international conference and exposition on electrical and power engineering (EPE 2016), Iasi, Romania, pp. 20–22 October 2016Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adarsh, S., Mohamed Kaleemuddin, S., Bose, D., Ramachandran, K.I.: Performance comparison of infrared and ultrasonic sensors for obstacles of different materials in vehicle/robot navigation applications. Mater. Sci. Eng. 149, 012141 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/149/1/012141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Daru, R.R., Biswas, H., Barman, S., Al-Quabid, A.: Determining 2D shape of object using ultrasonic sensor. In: 2016 3rd International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Information Communication Technology (ICEEICT), INSPEC Accession Number 16726539.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ceeict.2016.7873143
  4. 4.
    Wu, X., Abrahantes, M., Edgington, D.: MUSSE: a designed multi-ultrasonic-sensor system for echolocation on multiple robots. In: 2016 Asia-Pacific Conference on Intelligent Robot Systems.  https://doi.org/10.1109/acirs.2016.7556192
  5. 5.
    Jansen, N.F.: Short range object detection and avoidance, Department of Mechanical Engineering Control Systems Technology, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, November 2010. mate.tue.nl/mate/pdfs/12516.pdf
  6. 6.
    Hajek, K.: Improving the sensitivity of analog signal pre-processing systems (in Czech). https://docplayer.cz/22590386-Zvysovani-citlivosti-systemu-s-analogovym-predzpracovanim-signalu.html
  7. 7.
    Egaña, A., Seco, F., Ceres, R.: Processing of ultrasonic echo envelopes for object location with nearby receivers. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Measur. 57(12), 2751–2755 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guerreroa, J.S., González, A.C., Vega, J.H., Tovarb, L.N.: Instrumentation of an array of ultrasonic sensors and data processing for unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) for teaching the application of the Kalman filter. In: 2015 International Conference on Virtual and Augmented Reality in Education.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.260
  9. 9.
    Kleeman, L.: Advanced sonar sensing. In: Jarvis, R.A., Zelinsky, A. (eds.) Robotics Research. Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics, vol. 6. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36460-9_32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heale A., Kleeman L.: A real time DSP sonar echo processor. In: Proceedings of 2000 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2000) (Cat. No. 00CH37113).  https://doi.org/10.1109/iros.2000.893192
  11. 11.
    Moreno, L., Armingol, J.M., Garrido, S., et al.: A genetic algorithm for mobile robot localization using ultrasonic sensors. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 34, 135 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015664517164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ekimov, A., Sabatier, J.M.: Human motion analyses using footstep ultrasound and doppler ultrasound. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 123(6), 149–154 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Andria, G., Attivissimo, F., Giaquinto, N.: Digital signal processing techniques for accurate ultrasonic sensor measurement. Measurement 30, 105–114 (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2241(00)00059-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Burguera, A., González, Y., Oliver, G.: Sonar sensor models and their application to mobile robot localization. Sensors 9, 10217–10243 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.3390/s91210217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hirata, S., Kurosawa, M.K., Katagiri, T.: Accuracy and resolution of ultrasonic distance measurement with high-time-resolution cross-correlation function obtained by single-bit signal processing. Acoust. Sci. Technol. 30(6) (2009). The Acoustical Society of JapanGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of DefenceBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations