Page 123 - Introduction to Autonomous Mobile Robots
P. 123

Chapter 4
                           108
                           nominal values based on successful, perpendicular reflections of the sound wave off of an
                           acoustically reflective material. This does not capture the effective error modality seen on
                           a mobile robot moving through its environment. As the ultrasonic transducer’s angle to the
                           object being ranged varies away from perpendicular, the chances become good that the
                           sound waves will coherently reflect away from the sensor, just as light at a shallow angle
                           reflects off of a smooth surface. Therefore, the true error behavior of ultrasonic sensors is
                           compound, with a well-understood error distribution near the true value in the case of a suc-
                           cessful retroreflection, and a more poorly understood set of range values that are grossly
                           larger than the true value in the case of coherent reflection. Of course, the acoustic proper-
                           ties of the material being ranged have direct impact on the sensor’s performance. Again,
                           the impact is discrete, with one material possibly failing to produce a reflection that is suf-
                           ficiently strong to be sensed by the unit. For example, foam, fur, and cloth can, in various
                           circumstances, acoustically absorb the sound waves.
                             A final limitation of ultrasonic ranging relates to bandwidth. Particularly in moderately
                           open spaces, a single ultrasonic sensor has a relatively slow cycle time. For example, mea-
                           suring the distance to an object that is 3 m away will take such a sensor 20 ms, limiting its
                           operating speed to 50 Hz. But if the robot has a ring of twenty ultrasonic sensors, each
                           firing sequentially and measuring to minimize interference between the sensors, then the
                           ring’s cycle time becomes 0.4 seconds and the overall update frequency of any one sensor
                           is just 2.5 Hz. For a robot conducting moderate speed motion while avoiding obstacles
                           using ultrasonics, this update rate can have a measurable impact on the maximum speed
                           possible while still sensing and avoiding obstacles safely.

                           Laser rangefinder (time-of-flight, electromagnetic). The laser rangefinder is a time-of-
                           flight sensor that achieves significant improvements over the ultrasonic range sensor owing
                           to the use of laser light instead of sound. This type of sensor consists of a transmitter which
                           illuminates a target with a collimated beam (e.g., laser), and a receiver capable of detecting
                           the component of light which is essentially coaxial with the transmitted beam. Often
                           referred to as optical radar or lidar (light detection and ranging), these devices produce a
                           range estimate based on the time needed for the light to reach the target and return. A
                           mechanical mechanism with a mirror sweeps the light beam to cover the required scene in
                           a plane or even in three dimensions, using a rotating, nodding mirror.
                             One way to measure the time of flight for the light beam is to use a pulsed laser and then
                           measure the elapsed time directly, just as in the ultrasonic solution described earlier. Elec-
                           tronics capable of resolving picoseconds are required in such devices and they are therefore
                           very expensive. A second method is to measure the beat frequency between a frequency-
                           modulated continuous wave (FMCW) and its received reflection. Another, even easier
                           method is to measure the phase shift of the reflected light. We describe this third approach
                           in detail.
   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128