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.

CCS/AWR1843: Rx Antenna physical separation

Part Number: AWR1843

Tool/software: Code Composer Studio

Hi all,

I am using the AWR1843 chip in our own designed board and I base my application in the "mrr_18xx" TI demo project.

Our board have 4 Rx and 3 Tx antennas like in the AWR1843BOOST development board.

I am using 4 Rx and 1 Tx antennas setup for my application.

In spite we kept the original Lamba/2 separation between Rx Antennas, I wanted to know if the code assumes this separation or the separation is entered as a parameter?

Thank you,

Claudio

  

  • Hi

    Let me double check the code and get back to you in a few days.

    Thank you

    Cesar

  • Hi,

    The code assumes this value since the code was developed to run on the AWR1843BOOST EVM.

    Please modify the hard-coded config to enable only the 1 Tx you wish to use.

    The code should run with 4Rx 1Tx with no issue in MRR mode.

    Thank you

    Cesar

  • Hi Cesar,
    My question is: if I want to develop a proprietary board with different antenna separations (Tx_n, Rx_n, where the assumed distances are in the algorithms so I could modify them.

    Thanks

    Claudio

  • HI,

    Please give me a few days to review this with the systems team

    thank you

    Cesar

  • Hi Cesar,

    Any news about my question?

    Thanks,

    Claudio

  • Sorry for the delay

    Here is some information. The MRR demo is based on an early version of the mmwave SDK demo. Information below is taken from the SDK demo information

    It is just at end of the chain, when we calculate the angle. Instead of hard coded ratio between d and lambda,(d being distance between the antennas) d/Lambda = 1/2. The actual value should be used.

     

    So we need to replace:

     

    Wz=pi*sin(phi) with  Wz=2*pi*d/lambda*sin(phi) and

    Wx=pi*sin(theta)*cos(phi), with Wx=2*pi*d/lambda*sin(theta)*cos(phi)

     

    This is referred in AOA , see in yellow below. So the equations should be appropriately corrected for x,y,z calculation.

     

     

     

  • Hi Cesar,

    In my "mrr_18xx_dss project", browsing "dss_data_path.c" file:

    "void MmwDemo_interFrameProcessing(....)" calls "uint32_t aziEleProcessing(....)" and it call one of the functions below, that I suppose I should modify for my own Rx antenna separation.

    While the variables Wx and Wz are over there, the equations for their calculation differs from the one you sent me.

    void MmwDemo_XYcalc (.....)

    {

    ..............................................

       Wx = 2 * sMaxIdxFlt *obj->invNumAngleBins;
       x = range * Wx;

    .............................................

    }

    void MmwDemo_XYZcalc (.....)

    {

    ..............................................

       Wx = 2 * sMaxIdxFlt *obj->invNumAngleBins;
       x = range * Wx;

      Wz = (float) atan2sp(tempIm, tempRe) * (1.0f/PI_) ;

    .............................................

    }

    Thanks,

    Claudio

  • Hi Claudio,

    The MRR demo was originally based on SRR demo, which was based on an early version of the SDK.

    Here is what I have found in the SDK 1.05 documentation

    C:\ti\mmwave_sdk_01_00_00_05\packages\ti\demo\xwr16xx\mmw\docs\doxygen\html

    Does this help?

    If not I would have to check with original developer if available

    thank you

    Cesar

    It looks like the other graphs were added in the documentation for the following SDK release

    C:/ti/mmwave_sdk_01_01_00_02/packages/ti/demo/xwr16xx/mmw/docs/doxygen/html/index.html

  • Hi Cesar, 

    Theory is fine, but if you can check with original developer (if available), where in the code this parameter is applied,  pointing to a specific function or a set of them, it will help me more.

    Thanks,

    Claudio

  • Thank you

    Let me check with developer and get back to you

    Cesar

  • Hi,

    Please see updated code

    Thank you

    Cesar

  • Hi Cesar,

    That´s what I needed.

    Thank you

    Claudio