9
$\begingroup$

I have created a fairly simple TDOA system that uses ultrasonic signals emitted from two speakers to geolocate (relative to the speakers) mobile phones. The two signals are separated by frequency.

The system has the following constraints:

  • The signals must be inaudible. To that end we stick to frequencies above 17 kHz. A few people can still hear that, but most can't.
  • Sample rate is 44.1 kHz.
  • Music will typically be playing, so there is lots of interference at the lower frequencies.
  • We don't have control over how well the speakers and microphones work at the upper frequencies, so we've kept our upper limit at around 20 kHz.

The particular signal that I am using is BPSK modulated 13-bit Barker codes because of their good autocorrelation properties. The autocorrelation looks like the following- Signal autocorrelation

When I cross-correlate the expected signal against the received signal in real life, though, what I get typically looks like this- Typical cross-correlation

The blue is the cross correlation with the speaker 1 signal, and the red is the cross-correlation with the speaker 2 signal. It appears that the echoes are significant and, unfortunately, often stronger than the direct path signal due to the directional gain of the microphone.

I tried simply detecting the earliest appearance of the signal as that is likely to be the direct path. This approach is very sensitive to the threshold that I use for deciding when the signal is present and so is not robust at all.

I would like a robust approach for determining the "true" arrival time of the signal- i.e. the arrival time of the direct path signal. Perhaps some form of channel estimation and deconvolution? If so, how would that work?

Data/Code: I want to make it clear that I am not expecting anyone to analyze the data or inspect my code. I have made them available in case you want to do so. I am mostly interested in ideas.

I made the raw received signal and modulated expected signals available for download. They are all sampled at 44.1 kHz. Correlating the received signal with the expected signals will produce something similar but not identical to the picture above because I move the received signals to baseband and decimate before correlating with the expected signals.

Received signal

Expected signal #1

Expected signal #2

Matlab scripts The Matlab scripts has both the signal generation script (genLocationSig.m) and my receive/processing script (calcTimingOffset.m).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Is it possible for you to share your rx1, rx2, and template data? $\endgroup$ – Tarin Ziyaee May 7 '14 at 14:21
  • $\begingroup$ @user4619 I will try to do that this evening. $\endgroup$ – Jim Clay May 7 '14 at 16:31
  • $\begingroup$ Real quick: I received your data and produced a contrast-enhanced STFT-PSD. I am guessing those 5 blips at the bottom are your two signals, separated by frequency. It appears like your signals are being transmitted ok, but I do not believe echos or multipath are your problem. As you can see there is a lot of intermittent (broadband) noise between the pulses, at least in the beginning. If you complex band shift, downsample, correlate with your barker sequence, and look at the envelope, what are you seeing? $\endgroup$ – Tarin Ziyaee May 8 '14 at 16:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ok, a couple things: I) have you considered using a linear-chirp instead of coded waveforms such as this? You have a lot more flexibility with them, and there are drastically less moving parts involved. II) What, if any, are your bandwidth constraints? For example your templates appear to be about 1 KHz wide, any reason for this? Can you go higher? With a linear-chirp this is easy. III) While I doubt there is anything wrong with your demodulation, putting it up would help. That, and it would save me the trouble of writing it! $\endgroup$ – Tarin Ziyaee May 8 '14 at 19:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Regarding the bit comments, there is misunderstanding: Let us call each 1 of the 13 states of the barker code a 'chip'. So if I transmit a bit, I am transmitting 13 chips. If I transmit 2 bits, I am transmitting 26 chips, etc etc. So my question was, how many bits are you transmitting? I am assuming you are just transmitting 1 bit, and so I am saying you may also consider transmitting a lot more, to beef up your coding gain. Does that make sense? $\endgroup$ – Tarin Ziyaee May 8 '14 at 21:18
3
+500
$\begingroup$

These are not the codes you are looking for...

As I mentioned in the comments, there are quite a number of ways to do robust TDOA. (Cross-correlation with Linear Chirps, Exponential Chirps, and CDMA-type methods). You have already built a TDOA system utilizing codes, (and that is indeed a good choice over linear-chirps if you need robustness to doppler), however you are limiting yourself artificially in two ways:

  • Barker codes only go up to length $13$. We can however make PN-sequence codes of arbitrary length to get a lot more coding gain.
  • The use of only $1$ bit in your transmission. We can encode an entire preamble of many bits to transmit, gaining further resilience to multipath.

Use a PN-Sequence:

Thus, very simply, change the codes you use to modulate your carrier by: Use PN-Sequences instead. PN generated codes can be of (nearly) arbitrary length, and can be generated via LFSRs. (They also go by the name 'whiteners' in some texts). Here are three PN-sequences of length $31$, $61$, and $127$ respectively.

PN_31 = [ 1  1 -1 -1  1  1 -1  1 -1 -1  1 -1 -1 -1 -1  1 -1  1 -1  1  1  1 -1  1  1 -1 -1 -1  1  1  1];

PN_61 = [ 1  1  1 -1  1  1 -1  1 -1 -1  1 -1 -1  1  1  1 -1 -1 -1  1 -1  1  1  1  1 -1 -1  1 ...
     -1  1 -1 -1 -1  1  1 -1 -1 -1 -1  1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1  1  1  1  1  1  1 -1  1 -1  1 -1 ...
      1  1 -1 -1  1  1 -1];

PN_127 = [-1     1     1     1    -1     1    -1    -1     1    -1     1     1    -1    -1    -1     1     1    -1     1     1     1     1    -1     1     1    -1     1    -1 ...
       1     1    -1     1     1    -1    -1     1    -1    -1     1    -1    -1    -1     1     1     1    -1    -1    -1    -1     1    -1     1     1     1     1     1 ...
      -1    -1     1    -1     1    -1     1     1     1    -1    -1     1     1    -1     1    -1    -1    -1     1    -1    -1     1     1     1     1    -1    -1    -1 ...
       1    -1     1    -1    -1    -1    -1     1     1    -1    -1    -1    -1    -1     1    -1    -1    -1    -1    -1    -1     1     1     1     1     1     1     1 ...
      -1     1    -1     1    -1     1    -1    -1     1     1    -1    -1     1     1     1];

The circular and linear auto-correlations of the sequences are shown below. They will clearly yield white spectra, but more than that, we are no longer limited to $13$ chip lengths. In fact, the last code, PN_127, yields a coding gain of $10 \ log [\frac{127}{13} ] \approx 10$ dB gain over the barker sequence, all the while guaranteeing white spectra.

enter image description here

Transmit a preamble:

In your particular application, you mentioned that you were only transmitting one bit. You should try to avoid this if you can help it, and transmit as many bits as your application can allow, to get further coding gain out.

This is what is commonly done on communication protocols to align with the beginning of a packet. A (known) preamble is transmitted, composed of many bits. Each bit, is composed of many chips. (In our example, $31$, $61$, or $127$ chips with either of the above PN codes). Lastly, the bit sequence itself can be composed of yet another PN sequence, or if you like, you may transmit $13$ bits composing a barker pattern, with each bit being composed of either one of the the above PN sequences.


Try one or both of those solutions, and put up your results. I expect there to be tangible improvements that we can then iterate on. (Pulse shaping, different/longer PN sequences, etc).

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, I plan on trying longer sequences. I did not know that the circular autocorrelations of pn sequences were so nice- interesting. Unfortunately for my application it is the linear autocorrelation that matters. Regarding the preamble- the entire sequence is, in a way, a "preamble", in the sense that what makes a preamble useful is that it is a known data pattern. My entire signal is known a priori. $\endgroup$ – Jim Clay May 13 '14 at 20:28
  • $\begingroup$ I've decided to go a little overkill on the signal length by using an order 10 lfsr (1023 chips) to either prove or rule out that the problem is solvable by lengthening the signal. I'll post what happens. $\endgroup$ – Jim Clay May 13 '14 at 20:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JimClay Glad to hear that. Im curious to see what the received xcorrs/signals look like now. That's great though. $\endgroup$ – Tarin Ziyaee May 16 '14 at 14:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @endolith Yes, doppler is a problem. I handle that by correlating multiple times, shifting the frequency of the received signal each time by a different amount. This is easy to do if you are correlating in the frequency domain. $\endgroup$ – Jim Clay May 17 '14 at 4:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @endolith As Jim Clay described his method, he is basically computing what is known as the Ambiguity Function. That is, cross-corr results, with the second dimension corresponding to base frequency. This will then reveal the peak, and hence, since we know the original frequency, its doppler degree. $\endgroup$ – Tarin Ziyaee May 17 '14 at 16:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.