• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 7 replies
  • Subscribers 31 subscribers
  • Views 284 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Similar topics

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

IWR6843ISK-ODS: Overhead detection coverage in terms of X, Y and Z (height) rather than range and FOV

Jiang Zhu
Prodigy 10 points
Part Number: IWR6843ISK-ODS
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: AWR6843

1) IWR6843ISK-ODS has a wide FOV (120x120) than xWR6843ISK (120x30). Does TI have a plan to make AWR6843ISK-ODS?

2) After purchasing evaluation board, can we use TI-provided software to shrink FOV from maximum to a narrower value?

3) Assume we use IWR6843ISK-ODS for over head detection, we want to know its coverage of (x, y) if we have height of z. In www.ti.com/.../swru529c.pdf, page 18, 3-D Scatter Plot is mentioned. We are wondering if TI or anyone has ever used this x-y-z graph to determine radar sensor coverage, specifically for the ODS over head detection use case.

Thanks a lot,

Jiang Zhu

  • 0
    TI__Expert 8772 points

    Hi Jiang,

    We do already have the AWR6843, the ODS is simply the antenna pattern. So you can evaluate your use-case based on our ODS Evaluation module, but you will have to design your own PCB with custom antenna pattern for production.

    The FOV is a product of the antenna pattern. You can use software to ignore points outside a specific FOV, however.

    We have done testing to determine sensor coverage in a variety of use-cases such as child-presence detection in cars as well as people counting in larger rooms, among other test cases. May I ask what the use-case you are looking at is?

    Regards,

    Tim

  • 0 in reply to Tim Henderson
    Prodigy 10 points

    Hi, Tim,

    Thank you very much for your kind help.

    1) I understand your point. FOV is a product of antenna pattern. Therefore the evaluation result of IWR6843ISK-ODS should apply to AWR6843 when we design our own PCB with A or I WR6843 sensor. For xWR6843 evaluation board, can I assume that TI does not have a plan to build another AWR6843ISK-ODS evaluation board?

    2) I understand your point. So FOV is the maximum capability of the evaluation board. Instead of configuring the board to focus on a narrow range, we just adjust the software to ignore out-of-range points. While I understand that we will design our own software, can I assume that we can experiment this adjustment with TI sample software?

    3) Currently we are at the initial phase of radar sensor evaluation. Our use cases are still open, including the two looking-downwards-from-top cases you mentioned. Taking the use case of detecting peoples in a large room, if we mount the radar sensor at the ceiling which is about 2-meter high, we are interested in knowing its coverage (x, y) for us to determine how many sensors we need for some applications. Do you have some approximate values?

    Thank you very much,

    Jiang Zhu

  • 0 in reply to Jiang Zhu
    TI__Expert 8772 points

    Hi Jiang,

    Please allow me until tomorrow to provide a response.

    Regards,

    Tim

  • 0 in reply to Tim Henderson
    TI__Expert 8772 points

    Hi Jiang, responses below:

    1) We don't plan on building another evaluation board.

    2) Yes this experiment can be changed with our demo software. The CLI Command aoaFovCfg in our SDK3.6 will let you adjust max FOV looked at in azimuth and elevation separately.

    3) Let me ask internally, and we will get back to you.

    Regards,

    Tim

  • +1 in reply to Tim Henderson
    TI__Expert 8772 points

    Hi Jiang,

    For people detection with that antenna pattern, it will likely max out ~60* FOV in azimuth and elevation for basic people detection. Would depend on the scene as well (other movements, large obstacles, etc.).

    I would recommend testing out with our EVM in your use-case/scene to determine exact performance.

    Regards,

    Tim

  • +1 in reply to Tim Henderson
    TI__Expert 8772 points

    Jiang,

    I will also add that if the sensor was able to be placed at a higher height (if possible), detections would be better.

    Regards,

    Tim

  • 0 in reply to Tim Henderson
    Prodigy 10 points

    Hi, Tim,

    Thank you very much for all your help. I've got the answers of my questions.

    Best regards,

    Jiang