Market Analysis

In order to understand which sensor typology could be the best for the human localization, a market analysis has been conducted, in order to compare the principal available sensors. More specifically the sensors that have been compared are:

1. Microphone sensors 2. Ultrasonic sensors

3. Capacitive proximity sensors 4. Radar sensors

In the first part of the analysis, only the sensor modules to be connected to micro-controller boards have been analyzed.

In Table 2.1, several microphone sensors are compared, considering their working frequency range, sensing sensitivity, energy consumption, and the dimensions of the devices. Regarding the directionality, only omnidirectional microphones have been chosen since, for the localization task, the human can be positioned in any part of the room taken in consideration. Most of the sensors considered are MEMS devices, which have the advantage of having small dimensions. Differently from the sensors considered in the other tables, in Microphone sensors there is no information about the distance at which the sensor is capable to detect. Such types of sensors must hence work in a room with little or no noise, in order to have the best measurements possible.

Shown in Table 2.2, the comparison between different ultrasonic sensor elements.

The reported features of such devices are the electromagnetic wave frequency, the sensitivity, the maximum range at which the sensor is able to detect the targets, the area of sight of the sensor, expressed in °, the power consumption, and finally dimensions and sensor typology. All the compared sensors are Sensor modules meaning that the devices are sensor kits that usually utilize inter integrated circuit (I2C) communication protocol in order to send data to the microcontroller unit (MCU). Considering the task, the most suited ultrasonic sensor should be the A02YYUW, which present the highest area of sight, and a reasonable maximum detection distance of about 4.5 m.

In Table 2.3, the comparison between capacitive proximity sensors. The reported characteristics are the detection range, in mm, the Set distance, which is the minimum distance at which the sensor is able to detect, the Standard detection object, the supply needed, the dimensions and finally the typology and some notes if present. Even if in most of the sensors the detection object indicated is Iron, such sensors are also able to detect the presence of a non-metal object or body.

Shown in Table 2.4 the list of all the compared radar sensors. The characteristics reported are their working frequency, the typical detection range for human targets, the set distance, e.g., the minimum distance at which the sensors are able to detect a target, the power consumption and finally the dimensions and the typology. Most of the sensor present in this table are monolithic microwave IC (MMIC) where IC stands for IC, which is the chip that operates directly with the frequency, hence representing the heart of a radar sensor. Most of the sensors shown in the table, with the exception of RR30.DAO0-IGPI.9VF and the IWR6843ISK, have similar characteristics, this is because they work with almost the same frequency band, which starts at 24 GHz.

After comparing all the sensor types and their applications, the sensors chosen to be tested for the thesis are the radar sensors, due to their better accuracy, more developed examples and experiments, ability to detect the target(s) without the need of tags, special wearables or special interactions needed, and finally ease of installation in different environments (they just need to be placed in a wall or in the ceiling using simple screws). In order to directly test the abilities of these sensor types, complete development boards have been chosen for the thesis purpose, which do not need external micro-controller, or need cheap micro-controllers like Raspberry, and perform all the signal processing parts directly on the board.

The comparison between the development kits present in the market can be seen in the Table 2.5, where the sensors have been compared considering their working frequency, the capability to detect motion, direction, position, distance, and velocity, the capability to detect single or multiple targets, the typical minimum and maximum range for human targets, and finally the MMIC utilized by the kits.

After comparing all the development kits, two of them have been selected, which are the Infineon Position2Go and the Texas Instruments IWR6843ISK, for their advanced human tracking algorithms and their high accuracy.

The two sensors have been selected in order to test the capabilities of the radars which operate at different frequency bands, having the Position2Go most suitable for, but not limited to, outdoor environments, and the IWR6843ISK most suitable for, but not limited to, indoor environments.

Table 2.1: Microphone sensors comparison

NameFrequencyrangeSensitivityDirectionalityEnergyDimensionsType (Hz)consumption(mm) Grovesoundsensor[31]16,000–20,000−60dBV/Pato56dBV/Paomni4V–5V 4mA–5mA2.4x20x9.8Module WPSE309[32]50–20,00046dBto66dBomni3.3V–5V44x15x10Module AdafruitMEMSMicrophone[33]50–15,000−29dBFSto−23dBFSomni1.62V–3.6V 600µA3.50x2.65x0.98MEMS IM69D130[34]20–20,000−37dBFSto−35dBFSomni1.62V–3.6V 25µA–980µA4x3x1.2MEMS MP23ABS1[35]35–15,000−39dBVto−37dBVomni1.52V–3.6V 120µA–150µA3.5x2.65x0.98MEMS LM393[36]100–10,00052dBto48dBomni3.3V–5V 4mA–5mA34x16Module SPV1840LR5H-B[37]100–10,000−35dBV/Pato−41dBV/Paomni1.5V–3.6V 45µA–60µA2.75x1.85x0.98MEMS SPM1423HM4H-B[38]100–10,000−19dBFSto−25dBFSomni1.6V–3.6V 600µA4.72x3.76x1.25MEMS SPH0611LR5H-1[39]100–10,000−37dBV/Pato−39dBV/Paomni1.5V–3.6V 185µA3.50x2.65x1.10MEMS SPM0437HD4H-B[40]100–10,000−23dBFSto−29dBFSomni1.6V–3.6V 500µA4.72x3.76x1.35MEMS SPU1410LR5H-QB[41]100–10,000−35dBV/Pato−41dBV/Paomni1.5V–3.6V 160µA3.76x3.00x1.20MEMS

Table 2.2: Ultrasonic sensors comparison

NameAcousticemissionSensitivityRangeEffectiveConsumptionDimensionsTypology frequencyangle (Hz)(m)(°)(mm) HC-SR04[42]40,000−65dBmin0.02–4155V 15mA40x20x15Sensormodule HY-SRF05[43]40,000Notspecified0.02–4.5154.5V–5.5V 10mA–40mA45x21Sensormodule URM09[44]40,000±2,000Notspecified0.02–5603.3V–5.5V 20mA47x22Sensormodule A02YYUW[45]40,000±1,000Notspecified0.03–4.51003.3V–5V 8mA63.6x29.6x12.5Sensormodule MB1013[46]42,000Notspecified0.3–5442.5V–5.5V 2.5mA–3.1mA22x19x15Sensormodule MB1360[47]42,000Notspecified0.25–10623.3V–5.5V 3.4mA22.1x19x25.11Sensormodule

Table 2.3: Capacitive proximity sensors comparison

NameDetectionSetStandardSupplyDimensionsTypologyNotes rangedistancedetectionobject (mm)(mm) LJC12A3-5-Z/AY[48]5±10%0–4Iron:50mmx50mmx1mmDC:6Vto36V AC:90Vto250V50/60HzM12IndustrialNon-shielded LJC18A3-B-Z/BX[49]10±10%0–8Iron:50mmx50mmx1mmDC:6Vto36V AC:90Vto250V50/60HzM18x1x60IndustrialNon-shielded CAT2-12GMseries[50]2±10%0–1.7Iron:50mmx50mmx1mmDCtype:200mAmax ACtype:400mAM12x1x50IndustrialShielded CAM8-20GMseries[51]8±10%0–7Iron:50mmx50mmx1mmDC:6Vto36V AC:36Vto250V50/60Hzø20x78IndustrialNon-shielded CPM40-80Bseries[52]40±10%0–36Iron:50mmx50mmx1mmDC:6Vto36V AC:36Vto250V50/60Hz80mmx80mmx40mmIndustrialNon-shielded EC3025TBAPL-6[53]16mmflushmounted 25mmnon-flushmounted0mm–2mmflush1mounted 0mm–4mmnon-flush2mountedNotspecifiedAC:20V–250VM12IndustrialNone CA18EAxxBPxIO-IO-Link[54]8mmflushmounted 12mmnon-flushmounted0mmflushmounted 0mmnon-flushmountedNotspecifiedDC:10V–40VM18x1IndustrialNone KIA3150NFPKG2T/US[55]15±10%NotspecifiedNotspecifiedDC:10V–36VM30x1.5IndustrialNone

1Flush: The sensor do not require free space around the sensing face

2Non-flush: The sensor does require some free space around the sensing face

Table 2.4: Radar sensors comparison

NameFrequencyDetectionSetConsumptionDimensionsTypology rangedistance (GHz)(m)(m)(mm) BGT24MTR11[56]24–26200.5−0.3Vto3.6V 150mA5.5x4.3x0.9MMICchip BGT24MTR12[57]24–24.25200.5−0.3Vto3.6V 210mA5.5x4.3x0.9MMICchip BGT24LTR11N16[58]24–24.25200.1−0.3Vto3.6V 45mA2.4x2.4x0.73MMICchip BGT24MR2[59]24–24.25200.23.3V 90mA5.5x4.3x0.9MMICchip RR30.DAO0-IGPI.9VF[60]122–12360.212Vto30V 200mAø28x97Sensormodule FM24-NP100[61]24200.54Vto8V 100mA34x44x5Sensormodule MW2401TR11[62]24–24.25200.55Vto12V 50mAto56mA20x20x2.54Sensormodule IWR6843ISK[63]60–64100.23.3V10.4×10.4x0.65MMICchip

Table 2.5: Radar development kit comparison

Name Frequency Motion Direction Position Distance

detection detection detection detection

(GHz) DEMO

Distance2GOL [64] 24–24.25 Yes Yes No Yes

DEMO

Sense2GOL pulse [65] 24–24.25 Yes Yes No No

DEMO

Position2GO [66] 24–24.25 Yes Yes Position

tracking Yes

Grove

doppler radar [67] 24–24.25 Yes Yes No No

DEMO

BGT60LTR11AIP Kit [68][69] 60–61.5 Yes Yes No No

Acconeer

XC112-XR112 Kit¹[70][71][72] 60–64 PCR² Yes Yes Position

tracking Yes

OPS243-C-FC-RP [73] 24–24.25 Yes Yes No Yes

MM5D91E00 [74] 61–61.5 Detects

presence No No No

IWR6843ISK [63] 60–64 Yes Yes Yes Yes

IWR1843BOOST [75][76] 76–81 Yes Yes Yes Yes

Name Velocity Target Min Max MMIC

detection range range chip

(m) (m)

DEMO

Distance2GOL [64] Yes Single 0.5 15–20 BGT24LTR11

DEMO

Sense2GOL pulse [65] Yes Single 0.5 18 m BGT24LTR11

DEMO

Position2GO [66] Yes Multiple 0.6 20 BGT24MTR12

Grove

doppler radar [67] Yes Single 0.5 10 BGT24LTR11

DEMO

BGT60LTR11AIP Kit [68][69] No Single human 0.5 7 BGT60LTR11AIP

Acconeer

XC112-XR112 Kit¹[70][71][72] Yes Single human 0.2 2 AC111

OPS243-C-FC-RP [73] Yes Multiple 1 15 Not specified

MM5D91E00 [74] No Single 0 10 Not specified

IWR6843ISK [63][77] Yes Multiple 0.2 10 IWR6843

IWR1843BOOST [75][76] Yes Multiple 0.5 37 IWR1843