Fast processing techniques for accurate ultrasonic range measurements

Four methods of range measurement for airborne ultrasonic systems - namely simple thresholding, curve-fitting, sliding-window, and correlation detection - are compared on the basis of bias error, standard deviation, total error, robustness to noise, and the difficulty/complexity of implementation. Whereas correlation detection is theoretically optimal, the other three methods can offer acceptable performance at much lower cost. Performances of all methods have been investigated as a function of target range, azimuth, and signal-to-noise ratio. Curve fitting, sliding window, and thresholding follow correlation detection in the order of decreasing complexity. Apart from correlation detection, minimum bias and total error is most consistently obtained with the curve-fitting method. On the other hand, the sliding-window method is always better than the thresholding and curve-fitting methods in terms of minimizing the standard deviation. The experimental results are in close agreement with the corresponding simulation results. Overall, the three simple and fast processing methods provide a variety of attractive compromises between measurement accuracy and system complexity. Although this paper concentrates on ultrasonic range measurement in air, the techniques described may also find application in underwater acoustics.

[1]  Athanasios Papoulis,et al.  Probability, Random Variables and Stochastic Processes , 1965 .

[2]  J. Zemanek Beam Behavior within the Nearfield of a Vibrating Piston , 1971 .

[3]  A. Taroni,et al.  A Temperature Compensated Ultrasonic Sensor Operating in Air for Distance and Proximity Measurements , 1982, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics.

[4]  H. Saunders,et al.  Probability, Random Variables and Stochastic Processes (2nd Edition) , 1989 .

[5]  C. Fritsch,et al.  Digital signal processing techniques for high accuracy ultrasonic range measurements , 1991 .

[6]  Billur Barshan,et al.  A bat-like sonar system for obstacle localization , 1992, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[7]  Billur Barshan,et al.  ROBAT: a sonar-based mobile robot for bat-like prey capture , 1992, Proceedings 1992 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[8]  Herbert Peremans,et al.  A high-resolution sensor based on tri-aural perception , 1993, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..

[9]  L. Freitag,et al.  Passive acoustic localization of the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin using whistles and echolocation clicks. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Lindsay Kleeman,et al.  Mobile Robot Sonar for Target Localization and Classification , 1995, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[11]  J. S. Bird,et al.  A simple rising-edge detector for time-of-arrival estimation , 1996 .

[12]  M. Wazenski,et al.  Active, wideband detection and localization in an uncertain multipath environment , 1997 .

[13]  B. Barshan,et al.  Performance comparison of four time-of-flight estimation methods for sonar signals , 1998 .