Enhanced wavelet-based methods for reducing complexity and calculation time in sonar measurements

  • Viet-Hong Tran
  • Suk-Gyu Lee


We introduce two enhanced wavelet-based methods to improve accuracy and optimize calculation efficiency for sonar time delay estimation. Existing time delay estimations provide poor results because of many environmental effects such as noise, multipath, and crosstalk. While advanced digital signal processing (DSP) techniques have been proposed to overcome these problems, they entail increased complexity and calculation time. We use prediction in the methods we propose; the position where the reflected wave starts to occur is predicted by a recognition technique. The results are much better and the calculation time is shorter than other methods that use DSP techniques. In the first method, the optimization procedure is applied in the time domain, while in the second method, the optimization is calculated in the wavelet domain. Numerical comparisons and simulations using synthetic signals are provided to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed enhanced methods. We also demonstrate that our new algorithms are more stable than the existing ones and that the calculation time is reduced dramatically while maintaining increased accuracy, especially in a high-noise environment.


Cross-correlation Prediction Recognition Time Delay Ultrasonic Sensor Wavelet Transform 



delay time


predicted delay time


distance from the sensor to the obstacle




cross-correlation between y 1(t) and y 2(t)


velocity of sound in the environment


transmitted signal


received signal


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Parrilla, M., Anaya, J. J. and Fritsch, C., “Digital signal processing techniques for high accuracy ultrasonic range measurements,” IEEE Trans. on Instrumentation and Measurement, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 759–763, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shoval, S. and Borenstein, J., “Using coded signals to benefit from ultrasonic sensor crosstalk in mobile robot obstacle avoidance,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 3, pp. 2879–2884, 2001.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borenstein, J. and Koren, Y., “Error eliminating rapid ultrasonic firing for mobile robot obstacle avoidance,” IEEE Transaction on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 132–138, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stanley, B. and McKerrow, P., “Measuring range and bearing with a binaural ultrasonic sensor,” Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Vol. 2, pp. 565–571, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peremans, H., Audenaert, K. and Van Campenhout, J. M., “A high-resolution sensor based on tri-aural perception,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 36–48, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jeon, H. J. and Kim, B. K., “A study on world map building for mobile robots with tri-aural ultrasonic sensor system,” Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 3, pp. 2907–2912, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moita, F. and Nunes, U., “Multi-echo technique for feature detection and identification using simple sonar configurations,” Proc. of the IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, Vol. 1, pp. 389–394, 2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wu, S. Q., So, H. C. and Ching, P. C., “Improvement of TDOA measurements using wavelet denoising with a novel thresholding technique,” Proc. IEEE International Conference on Acoustic, Speech, and Signal Processing, Vol. 1, pp. 539–542, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barsanti, R. J. and Tummala, M., “Wavelet-based time delay estimates for transient signals,” Conference Record of the Thirty-Seventh Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, Vol. 1, pp. 1173–1177, 2003.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hero, A. and Schwartz, S., “A new generalized cross correlator,” IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 38–45, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roth, P. R., “Effective measurements using digital signal analysis,” IEEE Spectrum, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 62–70, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carter, G. C., “The smoothed coherent transform SCOT,” Technical Report TM TC-159-72, Naval Undersea Warfare Center, 1972.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Knapp, C. H. and Carter, G. C., “The generalized correlation method for estimation of time delay,” IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 320–327, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Donoho, D. L. and Johnstone, I. M., “Ideal spatial adaptation by wavelet shrinkage,” Biometrika, Vol. 81, No. 3, pp. 425–455, 1994.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ching, P. C., So, H. C. and Wu, S. Q., “On wavelet denoising and its applications to time delay estimation,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, Vol. 47, No. 10, pp. 2879–2882, 1999.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ma, K. and Tang, X., “Translation-invariant face feature estimation using discrete wavelet transform,” Proc. of the Second International Conference on Wavelet Analysis and Its Applications, Vol. 2251, pp. 200–210, 2001.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society for Precision Engineering and Springer-Verlag GmbH 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical EngineeringYeungnam UniversityGyongbukKorea

Personalised recommendations