Analysis of Proactive Uncoordinated Techniques to Mitigate Interference in FMCW Automotive Radars

Abstract

Modern vehicles increasingly rely on advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS), with radars playing a key role due to their cost-effectiveness and reliable performance. However, the growing number of radars operating in the same spectrum raises concerns about mutual interference, which could lead to system malfunctions and potential safety risks. This study focuses on a scenario in which all vehicles are equipped with frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) radars, and it assesses the impact of interference on radar functionality - expressed in terms of probability of failure - by considering both direct and reflected signals. The radars may employ one of the following proactive mitigation methods to reduce the impact of interference, all of which require no inter-vehicle coordination but differ in complexity: (i) random carrier-frequency hopping on a frame-by-frame basis, (ii) random carrier-frequency hopping on a chirp-by-chirp basis, and (iii) a directional, compass-based method specifically addressing interference from opposite directions, which can be combined with either of the two previous methods. In this work, we assume realistic simulated road traffic scenarios and develop a novel model that captures correlated interference and accounts for the main radar setting parameters. Results reveal that dense scenarios pose a high risk of radar malfunctions. Among the analyzed methods, chirp-by-chirp frequency hopping emerges as the most effective approach to mitigate interference and ensure system reliability, but only when combined with a sufficiently large bandwidth. The compass-based method, on the other hand, shows limited effectiveness and appears not worth the additional system complexity.

Figures (13)

• Figure 1: Modeling of the vehicle, with either one front radar or four corner radars, and with eight points of reflection for the calculation of reflected interference.
• Figure 2: Representation of the frame (a) and chirp (b).
• Figure 3: Compass configurations. Front radar with two sectors (a), corner radar with two sectors (b), and corner radar with four sectors (c).
• Figure 4: Example of a radar affected by direct and reflected potential interferers in a scenario with 150 vehicles per km, where each vehicle is equipped with a front radar.
• Figure 5: Average number of potential interferers varying the maximum equivalent distance, including or excluding the reflected interference. Front (a) or corner (b) radars.