Comparison of two methods of surface profile extraction from multiple ultrasonic range measurements

Two novel methods for surface profile extraction based on multiple ultrasonic range measurements are described and compared. One of the methods employs morphological processing techniques, whereas the other employs a spatial voting scheme followed by simple thresholding. Morphological processing exploits neighbouring relationships between the pixels of the generated arc map. On the other hand, spatial voting relies on the number of votes accumulated in each pixel and ignores neighbouring relationships. Both approaches are extremely flexible and robust, in addition to being simple and straightforward. They can deal with arbitrary numbers and configurations of sensors as well as synthetic arrays. The methods have the intrinsic ability to suppress spurious readings, crosstalk and higher-order reflections, and process multiple reflections informatively. The performances of the two methods are compared on various examples involving both simulated and experimental data. The morphological processing method outperforms the spatial voting method in most cases with errors reduced by up to 80%. The effect of varying the measurement noise and surface roughness is also considered. Morphological processing is observed to be superior to spatial voting under these conditions as well.

[1]  S. Sitharama Iyengar,et al.  Histogram-based morphological edge detector , 1994, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[2]  Anastasios N. Venetsanopoulos,et al.  Pattern recognition based on morphological shape analysis and neural networks , 1996 .

[3]  Arthur Robert Weeks,et al.  Computer imaging recipes in C , 1993 .

[4]  M K Brown,et al.  The Extraction of Curved Surface Features with Generic Range Sensors , 1986 .

[5]  J. Saniie,et al.  Ultrasonic flaw detection based on mathematical morphology , 1994, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[6]  J. A. Marchant,et al.  Segmentation of plants and weeds for a precision crop protection robot using infrared images , 1996 .

[7]  Billur Barshan,et al.  Surface Profile Determination from Multiple Sonar Data Using Morphological Processing , 1999, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[8]  Billur Barshan,et al.  Differentiating Sonar Reflections from Corners and Planes by Employing an Intelligent Sensor , 1990, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[9]  Kendall Preston Three-dimensional mathematical morphology , 1991, Image Vis. Comput..

[10]  Edward R. Dougherty,et al.  An introduction to morphological image processing , 1992 .

[11]  Ioannis Pitas,et al.  Range image analysis by using morphological signal decomposition , 1991, Pattern Recognit..

[12]  M. Skolnik,et al.  Introduction to Radar Systems , 2021, Advances in Adaptive Radar Detection and Range Estimation.

[13]  David L. Wilson,et al.  Morphological modeling of atomic force microscopy imaging including nanostructure probes and fibrinogen molecules , 1996 .

[14]  Peter Hauptmann,et al.  Sensors: Principles and Applications , 1993 .

[15]  H. A. Dell,et al.  Introduction to Radar Systems. Merrill I. Skolnik. McGraw-Hill Book Co., London and New York. 1962. 648 pp. Illustrated. £5 12s. 6d. , 1963, The Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society.

[16]  Jacques Verly,et al.  Some principles and applications of adaptive mathematical morphology for range imagery , 1993 .

[17]  Maher A. Sid-Ahmed,et al.  Target recognition in a cluttered scene using mathematical morphologu , 1996, Pattern Recognit..

[18]  Ioannis Pitas,et al.  Digital Image Processing Algorithms , 1993 .