However, LiDAR has a limited field of view and can only sense a small, two-dimensional slice of the environment around a robot. This means that LiDAR cannot detect objects outside the 2D plane.
Moreover, 2D safety LiDAR are typically mounted on AMRs at a height of around 20 cm (7.9 in). This means that 2D safety LiDAR won’t detect objects that are 10 cm above the floor. Similarly, 2D safety LiDAR won’t detect objects hanging from the roof or items sticking out from walls or shelves if they are outside the sensor’s limited field of view.
Lighting conditions can also create additional challenges for LiDAR, as do transparent and shiny surfaces, which LiDAR cannot detect.
The new ADAR-based sensor provides enhanced obstacle detection versus 2D safety LiDAR.
How does the cost of ADAR compare to alternatives like 2D safety LiDAR?
The new 3D ultrasonic sensor is considerably cheaper, and it can be mass produced. A 2D safety certified LiDAR typically costs about $4,000, whereas the new 3D ultrasound sensor will cost around $1,000 when it’s released later this year. With AMRs typically carrying two 2D safety LiDAR, removing these expensive sensors produces an immediate $8,000 saving. Deploying four ADAR-based sensors instead, at an approximate cost of $4,000, provides the AMR with a full 360-degree protection from obstacles at 50% lower cost compared to 2D LiDAR-based alternatives.
Don’t 2D safety LiDAR sensors support other functions besides obstacle detection?
Yes. 2D safety LiDAR are also used to support autonomous navigation capabilities, for example. To retain those capabilities, robot designers could use the new sensor with much cheaper, non-safety rated LiDAR, which costs around $500, while the new sensor performs the improved 3D safe obstacle detection function.
Depending on the configuration, the new ADAR-based sensor technology reduces the cost of the typical safety sensor package between 50% and 80% while also boosting safety.
What about the fact that 2D safety LiDAR is considered an optimal sensor for AMRs because it produces millions of data points when performing obstacle detection functions, whereas ADAR produces a tiny fraction of that number?
The idea that creating more data points necessarily leads to improved safety is a misconception backed up by participants in our ongoing early access program. Participants in this program include:
- Wheel.me: a supplier of AMRs to the automotive industry.
- Solwr: a manufacturer of AMRs for picking in retail environments and a giant pallet sorter robot.
ADAR-based sensors in combination with advanced signal processing algorithms provide actionable data points to detect obstacles surrounding a robot without requiring millions of data points to function. This means less on-board processing requirements for the robot.
Since LiDAR is so well-established in the mobile robot arena, what do you tell automation professionals who will likely by cautious of this new technology?
Before trying the technology, some people have concerns about using ultrasound in air, because it hasn’t been done before. After using the new sensor, those concerns dissolve quickly.
For example, some people expressed concern that ultrasound would be too sensitive, picking up every object in its vicinity. However, advanced signal processing algorithms filter out unnecessary information, ensuring that the new sensor detects obstacles effectively.
Other people had tried older ultrasound technologies and been unimpressed with the results. However, the combination of miniaturized transducers and process algorithms make the new sensor a different proposition on both the hardware and software side.
I’m not suggesting that this new 3D ultrasound sensor will replace all the other sensors used on robots today. There is far too much variety in automation applications to make such a claim. The future is one in which this new sensor will be combined with others to ensure that humans and robots can safely coexist.
