AWR1843AOPEVM: Mode of the MRR

Hello Jin Lee,

Thank you for your response.

I would like to clarify my understanding of the MRR (Medium-Range Radar) and USRR (Ultra-Short-Range Radar) modes. From what I understand:

• MRR Mode: The radar detects objects up to 120 meters with a narrow field of view (FoV), making it suitable for long-range detection with better resolution.
• USRR Mode: The radar detects objects up to 50 meters, but with a wider FoV, making it more suitable for short-range applications like parking assist and blind-spot detection.
• MRR_USRR Mode: A combination of both, where detection extends up to 120 meters with a narrow FoV while also covering 50 meters with a wider FoV for better situational awareness.

Does this understanding correctly describe how these modes function, or is there any additional aspect I should consider?

Looking forward to your insights.

Hello samhitha ,

Thank you so much for the quick response.

I conducted an experiment using the AWR1843 EVM with MRR_USRR mode enabled. I positioned myself 5 to 6 meters in front of the radar and monitored the data through CAN messages. However, I noticed that the detected distance appears only in one packet out of every 5 to 7 regular packets, rather than being consistently reported.

I have the following questions:

1. Does the MRR_USRR mode detect static objects, or is it optimized mainly for moving objects?
2. What factors could cause the inconsistent distance reporting, and how can I improve the detection consistency for  objects?
3. Are there specific configurations or parameters I should adjust to enhance the radar's response to nearby  objects?

Any insights or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

Mitesh

Hello samhitha,

Thank for your suggestion.

As per the suggested link, I have commented out the function call. However, I am unsure about the instruction "add a statement that passes detObj2DRaw to detObj2D."

I tried assigning it directly using:

obj->detObj2D = detObj2DRaw;

But I am getting an error: "identifier 'detObj2DRaw' is undefined."

Can you clarify the actual meaning of this instruction and where exactly I should implement it?

Do I need to declare or initialize detObj2DRaw somewhere before using it? 

Thanks!

Mitesh singh

Hello Samhitha,

As per your suggestion, I commented out the function call and copied the contents of obj->detObj2DRaw into obj->detObj2D directly, just below the original function call location. For your reference, please check the image I’ve attached to verify if this implementation is correct. 

I have a doubt — the detObj2D structure contains more members than detObj2DRaw, such as the x, y, and z fields. How will the x, y, and z values in detObj2D get updated if they are not present in detObj2DRaw?

Hello samhitha,

Hope you are doing well.

After modifying the code as discussed above, I ran the MRR Visualizer to check whether the device can detect static objects. However, it doesn't display any objects now.

Previously, before the code changes, it was able to show the position of moving objects, but after the modification, it no longer shows either static or moving objects.

Thanks
Mitesh

Hi Mitesh,

mitesh rajpurohit said:

After modifying the code as discussed above, I ran the MRR Visualizer to check whether the device can detect static objects. However, it doesn't display any objects now.

That isn't the expected behaviour. Can you check the value of numDetObj2D? Can you halt the core to see if there is any assert?

The code snippet that you have added instead of rangeBasedPruning just copies the contents of object data. This is the same thing that you do even in rangeBasedPruning. The only difference is that you will filter the detections in rangeBasedPruning.

Regards,

Samhitha

Hello Samhitha,

I'm currently using the AWR1843AOPEVM device, which does not have a debugger interface—so I'm unable to check the value of numDetObj2D or halt the core to inspect for any asserts. Is any other methods to find out the reason of the unexpected behavior ? if any let me know .

The changes to enable static object detection were made based on the suggested link. If there's anything incorrect or missing in those changes, please let me know.

I would also like to confirm—does the prebuilt application located at
C:\ti\radar_toolbox_2_20_00_05\source\ti\examples\ADAS\medium_range_radar\prebuilt_binaries
support detection of static objects within a 10-meter range?

Thanks 

Hi,

Let me check your query and get back to you tomorrow.

Regards,

Samhitha

Hi Mitesh,

mitesh rajpurohit said:

I'm currently using the AWR1843AOPEVM device, which does not have a debugger interface—so I'm unable to check the value of numDetObj2D or halt the core to inspect for any asserts. Is any other methods to find out the reason of the unexpected behavior ? if any let me know .

Can you check if you are receiving any object data over UART? You can use terminal emulator like TeraTerm to check if you are receiving any data over UART. If you are not receiving any data over the DATA port, this means there is some assert. If the data is streaming over UART, then you should check the logic that you have implemented. But I don't see any error in the changes that you have made.

mitesh rajpurohit said:

I would also like to confirm—does the prebuilt application located at
C:\ti\radar_toolbox_2_20_00_05\source\ti\examples\ADAS\medium_range_radar\prebuilt_binaries
support detection of static objects within a 10-meter range?

I don't think detection of static objects in short range is enabled.

Regards,

Samhitha

Hi Samhitha,

Thank you for your response.

I have followed the same procedure as per thread, but I’m currently not receiving any data over the UART.

Regarding the thread you suggested —  (+) AWR1843BOOST: Can lab demo MRR detect the short range static objects? - Sensors forum - Sensors - TI E2E support forums. but I'm working with the AWR1843AOP device.

I did not get the answer on these following questions that already mentioned in this thread for the AWR1843AOP.

1. Does the MRR_USRR mode detect static objects, or is it optimized mainly for moving objects?
2. What factors could cause the inconsistent distance reporting, and how can I improve the detection consistency for  objects?
3. Are there specific configurations or parameters I should adjust to enhance the radar's response to nearby objects?

Could you please guide me on how to enable or configure the MRR demo on the AWR1843AOP to detect static objects, particularly in short range?

Looking forward to your support.

Thanks
Mitesh

Hi Mitesh,

mitesh rajpurohit said:

but I’m currently not receiving any data over the UART.

I just read the previous replies in this E2E. Seems like you are transmitting data over CAN and not UART. If object data is being transmitted over CAN, please check if you are receiving any messages over CAN.

mitesh rajpurohit said:

Does the MRR_USRR mode detect static objects, or is it optimized mainly for moving objects?

I think this question is already answered. By default, the demo will detect moving objects (in short range). At farther distance, you should be able to detect both static and moving objects.

mitesh rajpurohit said:

What factors could cause the inconsistent distance reporting, and how can I improve the detection consistency for  objects?

When you say inconsistent distance reporting, are you comparing the messages received in MRR subframe and USRR subframe? When you compare the detections, it should be between same subframe i.e compare either the results of MRR subframe or USRR subframe.

mitesh rajpurohit said:

Are there specific configurations or parameters I should adjust to enhance the radar's response to nearby objects?

You can finetune CFAR thresholds and peakVal thresholds. These parameters are configured in MmwDemo_populateUSRR.

Regards,

Samhitha

Dear Samhitha,

Thank you for your kind response.

As previously mentioned, I am working on enabling static object detection within the existing MRR demo application for the AWR1843AOP device. In response to my query, you had kindly shared a link to the following discussion:

• AWR1843BOOST: Can lab demo MRR detect short-range static objects? – TI E2E Sensors Forum

I have implemented the code modifications as outlined in the referenced discussion. However, after making these changes, I am not receiving any data output over UART or CAN, and the thats why MRR GUI does not display any detected points. but in the suggested link TI member mentioned that MRR can detect the static objects after changing the codes.

My primary objective is to enable static object detection within the current MRR application for the AWR1843AOP. If there is any recommended approach or provision to achieve this, I would be grateful for your guidance. Otherwise, I would appreciate it if you could confirm whether this functionality is not supported by the device or demo even after changing the code.

Please let me know if you require any additional information or clarification from my side to assist further.

Thank you once again for your support.

Hello samhitha,

Which radar device did you flash the bin file onto — the AWR1843BOOST or the AWR1843AOPEVM?"

Which mode you enabled " MRR , MRR_USRR  or USRR ?

Thanks
Mitesh

Hi Mitesh,

mitesh rajpurohit said:

Which mode you enabled " MRR , MRR_USRR  or USRR ?

Both MRR and USRR subframes are enabled.

mitesh rajpurohit said:

Which radar device did you flash the bin file onto — the AWR1843BOOST or the AWR1843AOPEVM?"

I have tested the application using AWR1843BOOST. I do not have AWR1843AOP EVM with me. I don't even think it's pinmux issue as you are able to run MRR demo on AWR1843AOP.

Regards,

Samhitha

Hello Samhitha,

I followed the same steps you mentioned, but I’m not receiving any data on either UART or CAN from the AWR1843AOP module.

Before making the modifications, the radar was working correctly and providing data in MRR mode.

In the one of T thread, it mentioned that "AWR1843AOP does not support static object"

Could you please confirm if this modification is expected to work with the AWR1843AOP module?

Thank you for your support.