Robust Indoor Positioning with Smartphone by Utilizing Encoded Chirp Acoustic Signal

Recently, indoor positioning has been one of the hot topics in the field of navigation and positioning. Among different solutions on indoor positioning, positioning with acoustic signals has its promise due to its relatively high accuracy in the line of sight scenarios, low cost, and ease of being implemented in smartphones. In this work, a novel acoustic positioning method, called RATBILS, is proposed, in which encoded chirp acoustic signals are modulated and transmitted by different acoustic base stations. The smartphones receive the signals and perform the following three steps: (1) preprocessing; (2) time of arrival (TOA) estimation; and (3) time difference of arrival (TDOA) calculation and location estimation. In the preprocessing stage, we use band pass filters to filter out low-frequency noise from the environment. At the same time, we perform a signal decoding function in order to lock onto the positioning source. In the TOA estimation stage, we conduct both coarse and fine detection to enhance the accuracy and robustness of TOA estimation. The primary goal of coarse detection is to establish a noise range for fine detection. The main objective of fine detection is to emphasize the intensity of the first arrival diameter and resistance with multipath and non-line-of-sight (NLOS) caused by human body obstruction. In the TDOA calculation and location estimation stage, we estimate the TDOA based on the TOA estimation and then use the TDOA results for position estimation. In order to evaluate the performance of the proposed RATBILS system, two indoor field tests are carried out. The test results show that the RATBILS system achieves a positioning error of 0.23 m at 92% in region 1 of scene 1 and is superior to the traditional threshold method. The RATBILS system achieves a positioning error of 0.56 m at 92% in region 2 of scene 1 and is superior to the traditional threshold method. In scene 2, the maximum average positioning error was 1.26 m, which is better than the 3.33 m and 3.87 m of the two traditional threshold methods.