A Novel Broadband Ultrasonic Location System

  • Mike Hazas
  • Andy Ward
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2498)


Indoor ultrasonic location systems provide fine-grained position data to ubiquitous computing applications. However, the ultrasonic location systems previously developed utilize narrowband transducers, and thus perform poorly in the presence of noise and are constrained by the fact that signal collisions must be avoided. In this paper, we present a novel ultrasonic location system which utilizes broadband transducers. We describe the transmitter and receiver hardware, and characterize the ultrasonic channel bandwidth. The system has been deployed as a polled, centralized location system in an office. Test results demonstrate that the system can function in high levels of environmental noise, and that it has the capability for higher update rates than previous ultrasonic location systems.


Augmented Reality Location System Ubiquitous Computing Ultrasonic Transducer Mobile Unit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Gregory D. Abowd and Elizabeth D. Mynatt. Charting past, present, and future research in ubiquitous computing. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(1):29–58, March 2000.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Roy Want, Andy Hopper, Veronica Falcao, and Jon Gibbons. The Active Badge location system. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 10(1):91–102, January 1992.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Bill N. Schilit, Norman Adams, Rich Gold, Michael Tso, and Roy Want. The ParcTab mobile computing system. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Workstation Operating Systems, pages 34–39, Napa, California, USA, October 1993.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    D. Kirsch and T. Starner. The Locust Swarm: An environmentally-powered, networkless location and messaging system. In Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Wearable Computers, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, October 1997.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Christopher Wren, Ali Azarbayejani, Trevor Darrell, and Alex Pentland. Pfinder: Realtime tracking of the human body. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 19(7):780–785, July 1997.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Diego López de Ipiña. Video-based sensing for wide deployment of sentient spaces. In Proceedings of the Second PACT 2001 Workshop on Ubiquitous Computing and Communications, Barcelona, Spain, September 2001. ACM, IEEE.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Eric Foxlin, Michael Harrington, and George Pfeifer. Constellation: A wide-range wireless motion-tracking system for augmented reality and virtual set applications. In Proceedings of the 25 Annual Conference on Computer Graphics, pages 371–378, Orlando, Florida, USA, July 1998.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Andy Ward, Alan Jones, and Andy Hopper. A new location technique for the active office. IEEE Personal Communications, 4(5):42–47, October 1997.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Nissanka B. Priyantha, Anit Chakraborty, and Hari Balakrishnan. The Cricket location-support system. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (ACM MobiCom), Boston, Massachusetts, USA, August 2000.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Paramvir Bahl and Venkata N. Padmanabhan. RADAR: An in-building RF-based user location and tracking system. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM), volume 2, pages 775–784, Tel-Aviv, Israel, March2000.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Paul Castro, Patrick Chiu, Ted Kremenek, and Richard Muntz. A probabilistic room location service for wireless networked environments. In Proceedings of Ubicomp 2001: Ubiquitous Computing, pages 18–34, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, September 2001. ACM, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Andy Harter, Andy Hopper, Pete Steggles, Andy Ward, and Paul Webster. The anatomy of a context-aware application. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom), Seattle, Washington, USA, August 1999.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Mike Addlesee, Rupert Curwen, Steve Hodges, Joe Newman, Pete Steggles, Andy Ward, and Andy Hopper. Implementing a sentient computing system. IEEE Computer, 34(8):50–56, August 2001.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Andy Ward. Sensor-driven Computing. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, August 1998.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Nissanka B. Priyantha, Allen K. L. Miu, Hari Balakrishnan, and Seth Teller. The Cricket Compass for context-aware mobile applications. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (ACM MobiCom), Rome, Italy, July 2001.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Cliff Randell and Henk Muller. Low cost indoor positioning system. In Proceedings of Ubicomp 2001: Ubiquitous Computing, pages 42–48, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, September 2001. ACM, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    H. E. Bass, L. C. Sutherland, A. J. Zuckerwar, D. T. Blackstock, and D. M. Hester. Atmospheric absorption of sound: Further developments. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 97(1):680–683, January 1995.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Heiji Kawai. The piezoelectricity of poly(vinylidene fluoride). Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, 8:975–6, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    H. R. Gallantree. Ultrasonic applications of PVDF transducers. The Marconi Review, 45(224):49–64, 1982.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    M. Platte. PVDF ultrasonic transducers. Ferroelectrics, 75(3):327–337, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    A. Ambrosy and K. Holdik. Piezoelectric PVDF films as ultrasonic transducers. Journal of Physics E: Scientific Instruments, 17(10):856–859, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    S. Pangraz and W. Arnold. Bandwidth of inhomogeneously polarized PVDF-films and their use in the design of efficient ultrasonic transducers. Ferroelectrics, 93:251–257, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Antonino S. Fiorillo. Design and characterization of a PVDF ultrasonic range sensor. IEEE Trans. on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, 39(6): 688–692, November 1992.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Antonino S. Fiorillo. PVDF ultrasonic sensors for location of small objects. Sensors and Actuators A—Physical, 42(1–3):406–409, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Hong Wang and Minoru Toda. Curved PVDF airborne transducer. IEEE Trans. on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, 46(6): 1375–1386, November 1999.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Andrew J. Viterbi. Very low rate convolutional codes for maximum theoretical performance of spread-spectrum multiple-access channels. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 8(4):641–649, May 1990.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    R. Gold. Optimal binary sequences for spread spectrum multiplexing. IEEE Trans. On Information Theory, IT-13(4):619–621, 1967.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    Lewis Girod and Deborah Estrin. Robust range estimation using acoustic and multimodal sensing. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2001), October 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mike Hazas
    • 1
  • Andy Ward
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory for Communications EngineeringUniversity of CambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations