This work investigates the influence of ambient light noise on the performance of an 850 nm single-point light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system. It specifically focuses on different targets with varying reflectivity and range. A commercial LiDAR module with six distinct specimens was used to collect and analyze data over a measurement range of up to 4 m. The analysis of experimental data reveals that luminous intensity and range critically affect LiDAR accuracy. Reflectivity consistently affects LiDAR measurements, regardless of their magnitude, but it varies with the type of material. The relative error in measurement, the reflectivity of material, and the light noise of definite luminous intensity exhibit near-normal distributions with asymmetrical tails. Differences between the distributions of relative error, reflectivity, and luminous intensity highlight the complex interactions influencing LiDAR performance. These findings aid in the design and optimization of LiDAR systems, ensuring accurate environmental sensing under different ambient light conditions. Further, this data may be used to develop transferable models. Also, the findings of this study improve the performance of autonomous mobile robots for obstacle detection and collision avoidance in warehouses and in 3D printing and machining, where metallic surface reflectivity impacts LiDAR functioning.
AmannMCBoschTMLescureM.Laser ranging: a critical review of unusual techniques for distance measurement. Opt Eng2001; 40(1): 10–19.
2.
MartinsPNevesADrummondM, et al. Impact of interference on time-of-flight lidar. In: Proceedings of RECPAD, 2019, pp.89–90.
3.
AlhashimiAPierobonGVaragnoloD, et al. Modeling and calibrating triangulation lidars for indoor applications. In: Informatics in control, automation and robotics: 13th international conference, ICINCO 2016 (eds MadaniKPeaucelleDGusikhinO), Lisbon, Portugal, 29–31 July 2016, pp.342–366. Cham: Springer International Publishing. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-55011-4_17.
4.
OkyayUTellingJGlennieCL, et al. Airborne lidar change detection: an overview of earth sciences applications. Earth-Sci Rev2019; 198: 102929.
5.
GuoQSuYHuT, et al. Lidar boosts 3d ecological observations and modelings: a review and perspective. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Mag2021; 9(1): 232–257.
6.
Di StefanoFChiappiniSGorrejaA, et al. Mobile 3d scan lidar: a literature review. Geom Nat Hazards Risk2021; 12(1): 2387–2429.
7.
HuangL. Review on lidar-based slam techniques. In: 2021 international conference on signal processing and machine learning (CONF-SPML), 2021, pp.163–168. DOI: 10.1109/CONF-SPML54095.2021.00040.
8.
DebeunneCVivetD.A review of visual-lidar fusion based simultaneous localization and mapping. Sensors2020; 20(7): Article No. 2068. DOI: 10.3390/s20072068.
9.
LiYDuthonPColombM, et al. What happens for a tof lidar in fog?IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst2021; 22(11): 6670–6681.
10.
MehendaleNNeogeS.Review on lidar technology. SSRN Electron J2020. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3604309.
11.
IncoronatoALocatelliMZappaF.Statistical modelling of spads for time-of-flight lidar. Sensors2021; 21(13): Article No. 4481. DOI: 10.3390/s21134481.
12.
ThorbergssonG. Early use of the computer for adjusting triangulation in iceland. In: ImpagliazzoJJärviTPajuP (eds) History of nordic computing 2. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2009, pp.217–224.
13.
CiezkowskiM. Triangulation positioning system based on a static ir beacon-receiver system. In: 2017 22nd international conference on methods and models in automation and robotics (MMAR), 2017, pp.84–88. DOI:10.1109/MMAR.2017.8046803.
BeerMSchreyOMHostickaBJ, et al. Expected value and variance of the indirect time-of-flight measurement with dead time afflicted single-photon avalanche diodes. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst I Regul Pap2018; 65(3): 970–981.
18.
YangRTangYFuZ, et al. A method of range walk error correction in sipm lidar with photon threshold detection. Photonics2022; 9(1): 24.
19.
ParkJChoJLeeS, et al. An automotive lidar performance test method in dynamic driving conditions. Sensors2023; 23(8): Article No. 3892. DOI: 10.3390/s23083892.
20.
ChenRShuHShenB, et al. Breaking the temporal and frequency congestion of LiDAR by parallel chaos. Nat Photonics2023; 17(4): 306–314.
21.
ZhangQHuMZhouY, et al. Effects of UAV-lidar and photogrammetric point density on tea plucking area identification. Remote Sens2022; 14(6): 1505.
22.
QinYYaoWVuTT, et al. Characterizing radiometric attributes of point cloud using a normalized reflective factor derived from small footprint lidar waveform. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Obs Remote Sens2015; 8(2): 740–749.
23.
MiaoYWangXZhuH, et al. Model establishment and error correction of FMCW lidar. Opt Precis Eng2023; 31(9): 1295–1303.
24.
TobinRHalimiAMcCarthyA, et al. Robust real-time 3d imaging of moving scenes through atmospheric obscurant using single-photon lidar. Sci Rep2021; 11(1): 11236.
25.
BatchelorJLRowellEPrichardS, et al. Quantifying forest litter fuel moisture content with terrestrial laser scanning. Remote Sens2023; 15(6): 1482.
26.
AguilarFJMillsJPDelgadoJ, et al. Modelling vertical error in lidar-derived digital elevation models. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens2010; 65(1): 103–110.
27.
WhyteRStreeterLCreeMJ, et al. Application of lidar techniques to time-of-flight range imaging. Appl Opt2015; 54(33): 9654–9664.
28.
KutilaMPyykönenPHolzhüterH, et al. Automotive lidar performance verification in fog and rain. In: 2018 21st international conference on intelligent transportation systems (ITSC), 2018, pp.1695–1701. DOI: 10.1109/ITSC.2018.8569624.
29.
WojtanowskiJZygmuntMKaszczukM, et al. Comparison of 905 nm and 1550 nm semiconductor laser rangefinders’ performance deterioration due to adverse environmental conditions. Optoelectron Rev2014; 22(3): 183–190.
30.
LopacNJurdanaIBrnelićA, et al. Application of laser systems for detection and ranging in the modern road transportation and maritime sector. Sensors2022; 22(16): 5946.
31.
HabibAFKerstingAPShakerA, et al. Geometric calibration and radiometric correction of lidar data and their impact on the quality of derived products. Sensors2011; 11(9): 9069–9097.
32.
NewmanJFCliftonAChurchfieldMJ, et al. Improving lidar turbulence estimates for wind energy. J Phys Conf Ser2016; 753(7): 072010.
33.
YangTLiYRuichekY, et al. Performance modeling a near-infrared tof lidar under fog: a data-driven approach. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst2022; 23(8): 11227–11236.
34.
MonaLLiuZMüllerD, et al. Lidar measurements for desert dust characterization: an overview. Adv Meteorol2012; 2012(1): 1–36.
35.
SunWHuYMacDonnellDG, et al. Technique to separate lidar signal and sunlight. Opt Express2016; 24(12): 12949–12954.
36.
NguyenTTChengCHLiuDG, et al. Improvement of accuracy and precision of the lidar system working in high background light conditions. Electronics2022; 11(1): 45.
37.
Vargas RiveroJRGerbichTTeilufV, et al. Weather classification using an automotive lidar sensor based on detections on asphalt and atmosphere. Sensors2020; 20(15): Article No. 4306. DOI: 10.3390/s20154306.
38.
AzilKAltuncuAFerriaK, et al. A faster and accurate optical water turbidity measurement system using a ccd line sensor. Optik2021; 231: 166412.
39.
BroadbentA.Philosophy for graduate students: core topics from metaphysics and epistemology. New York: Routledge, 2016.
40.
AzizFNZakarijahM.Tf-mini lidar sensor performance analysis for distance measurement. J Nasional Tek Elektro Teknol Informasi2022; 11(3): 192–198.
41.
CIE International Standard. Lighting of indoor work places. Vienna: CIE Publication, 2002.
