sensors

Article
Deformation Monitoring of Metro Tunnel with a New
Ultrasonic-Based System
Dong-Sheng Xu 1, *, Yu-Meng Zhao 1 , Hua-Bei Liu 1 and Hong-Hu Zhu 2, * ID

1 School of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology,
1037 Luoyu Rd., Wuhan 430074, China; ymzhao1114@gmail.com (Y.-M.Z.); hbliu@hust.edu.cn (H.-B.L.)
2 School of Earth Sciences and Engineering, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023, China
* Correspondance: dsxu@hust.edu.cn (D.-S.X.); zhh@nju.edu.cn (H.-H.Z.); Tel.: +86-27-8755-7960 (D.-S.X.)

Received: 15 June 2017; Accepted: 22 July 2017; Published: 1 August 2017

Abstract: With the rapid construction of metro tunnels in many metropolises, a fast and convenient
solution to capture tunnel deformation is desired by civil engineers. This contribution reports
an automatic and wireless tunnel deformation monitoring system using ultrasonic transducers.
A processing algorithm of the redundant ultrasonic information (RUI) approach is proposed to
improve measurement accuracy. The feasibility of this tunnel deformation monitoring method is
carefully examined with various probe angles, distances, and surrounding temperature variations.
The results indicate that high accuracy can be achieved with different coefficients for various
probe angles and sensor distances, as well as temperatures. In addition, a physical tunnel model
was fabricated to verify the new processing algorithm of the RUI approach for a wireless tunnel
deformation sensing system. The test results reveal that average measurement errors decreased from
7% to 3.75% using the RUI approach. Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposed approach
is well suited to the automatic detection of critical conditions such as large deformation events in
metro tunnels.

Keywords: tunnel deformation measurement; ultrasonic; wireless; redundant ultrasonic information

1. Introduction
With the accelerated urbanization and population growth, numerous tunnels have been
constructed to fit the needs of the increasing demands of transportation, power transmission, water
supply, and drainage. In China alone, 23 cities have metros up to 2735 km, with a further 2853 km
under construction [1]. During operation, lateral and transversal deformations of tunnel structures
may occur when there are adjacent geotechnical construction activities, such as deep excavation,
pile installation, tunneling, and dewatering [2]. The excessive tunnel deformation will diminish the
effective usage of metro systems or even cause unexpected disasters. Such deformation leads to
additional joint stresses and redistribution of internal forces in structural members, accompanied by
long-term uneven settlement of the ground surface. All of these phenomena are harmful to the normal
operation of metro tunnels and adjacent infrastructures [3–7].
The great numbers of tunnels under construction or in service demand the automatic monitoring
of tunnel deformations. Many methods have been developed, among which the most traditional
one is to utilize the surveyor’s level and total stations [8,9]. The laser and optical fibers have also
been used recently [2,10,11]. However, all of these technologies have certain drawbacks. For instance,
the leveling surveyor method require workers to operate, and hence it will be hard to reach some
regions such as the tunnel roofs (let alone the difficulty of monitoring the deformation automatically
and continuously). Colored, shiny, or transparent surfaces, or adverse ambient conditions such as dust,
dirt, or fog are particularly challenging for optical sensors [12]. Besides, optical fibers installed in the
tunnels are fragile and the overall cost is higher than that of conventional technologies.

Sensors 2017, 17, 1758; doi:10.3390/s17081758 www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2017, 17, 1758 2 of 12

This study investigates the performance of deformation monitoring of tunnel cross sections using
ultrasonic transducers, which is an innovative method for tunnels. Ultrasonic can realize wireless
Sensors 2017, 7, 1758 2 of 13
measurement of distance and the ultrasonic transducers are cheap for engineering applications [13].
These transducers
This study have the potential
investigates to perform
the performance of continuous
deformation and automatic
monitoring measurement
of tunnel of tunnel
cross sections
deformations. They will not interfere with transportation when applied to an in-service
using ultrasonic transducers, which is an innovative method for tunnels. Ultrasonic can realize traffic tunnel.
However,
wirelessduemeasurement
to the adverse of environments
distance and the encountered
ultrasonicduring tunnelare
transducers monitoring,
cheap for the measurement
engineering
applications
accuracy [13]. Thesesensing
of an ultrasonic transducers have
system the potential
is affected to orientation
by the perform continuous and automatic
of the transmitter-receiver
measurement
ultrasonic due toof tunnel
tunnel deformations.
deformations, Theyand will not
mayinterfere
also bewith transportation
influenced by when applied tochanges.
temperature an
in-service traffic tunnel. However, due to the adverse environments encountered
These factors are carefully examined in this study. In addition, a processing algorithm, i.e., during tunnel
monitoring, the measurement accuracy of an ultrasonic sensing system is affected by the orientation
the redundant ultrasonic information (RUI) approach, is proposed for the ultrasonic sensing system.
of the transmitter-receiver ultrasonic due to tunnel deformations, and may also be influenced by
The ultrasonic sensor arrangement for a tunnel cross section is also described in this study. Finally,
temperature changes. These factors are carefully examined in this study. In addition, a processing
the proposed
algorithm,RUI approach,
i.e., the redundant together with
ultrasonic the whole(RUI)
information monitoring
approach,system, is validated
is proposed in a physical
for the ultrasonic
tunnel model test.
sensing system. The ultrasonic sensor arrangement for a tunnel cross section is also described in this
study. Finally, the proposed RUI approach, together with the whole monitoring system, is validated
2. Methodology
in a physical tunnel model test.

2.1. Principles of Sensor Coordinates Determination

2. Methodology
Here we developed a kind of ultrasonic transducer and the corresponding computing method
2.1. Principles of Sensor Coordinates Determination
to monitor the deformation of the tunnel cross section. As shown in Figure 1, two ultrasonic
transmittersHere andwefour
developed a kind
ultrasonic of ultrasonic
receivers transducer
are fixed and the corresponding
at the circular cross section of computing
a tunnel. method
Transducers
to monitor the deformation of the tunnel cross section. As
1 and 2 are the transmitters, and Transducers 3, 4, 5, and 6 are the receiving ultrasonic shown in Figure 1, two ultrasonic
transducers.
transmitters and four ultrasonic receivers are fixed at the circular cross section of a tunnel.
Both Transducers 1 and 2 are two-oriented ultrasonic transmitters that emit ultrasonics from each to
Transducers 1 and 2 are the transmitters, and Transducers 3, 4, 5, and 6 are the receiving ultrasonic
all the receivers. All the transducers are evenly distributed on the tunnel cross section with 60◦ central
transducers. Both Transducers 1 and 2 are two-oriented ultrasonic transmitters that emit ultrasonics
anglesfrombetween
each to each
all theother. TheAll
receivers. orientation of theare
the transducers receivers direct at the
evenly distributed transmitters,
on the tunnel crossrespectively,
section
whilewiththe60°transmitters have two probes withThe an orientation
angle of 60of.the◦ The demonstrated
central angles between each other. receivers direct at configuration
the transmitters,shows
the minimum
respectively, transducers
while the needed to determine
transmitters have two the position
probes with of aneachangletransducer.
of 60°. The It was assumed that
demonstrated
the global coordinates
configuration shows ofthe
transducers
minimum 1 and 2 willneeded
transducers not change. The distance
to determine beforeofdeformation
the position between
each transducer.
It was assumed that the global coordinates of transducers 1 and 2 will not change.
transmitter i and receiver j is labeled as lij , and after deformation is expressed as l’ij . The detailed The distance before
deformation
information between transmitter
is illustrated in Figurei2. andAllreceiver j is labeled
the lij and as be
l’ij shall lij , and after deformation
measured by ultrasonicis expressed
transducers.
as l’ij. The
Compared detailed
to the information
configuration withis illustrated in Figure
the truss theory 2. All the lijmechanics,
in structural and l’ij shallif be measured by
Transducers 1 and 2
ultrasonic transducers. Compared to the configuration with the truss theory in structural mechanics,
are fixed on the ground, the coordinate of each node can be determined. When the distances before
if Transducers 1 and 2 are fixed on the ground, the coordinate of each node can be determined. When
and after tunnel deformation have been measured, the change of coordinate for each transducer can
the distances before and after tunnel deformation have been measured, the change of coordinate for
be determined,
each transducer andcan so be
change of the and
determined, coordinate
so change ofofthethetunnel
coordinate at theof points thatatthe
the tunnel the transducers
points that are
located. It should be noticed that in this configuration, the rigid
the transducers are located. It should be noticed that in this configuration, the rigid body displacement of the
bodytunnel
section (x, y,of
crossdisplacement and was not considered, which means that this system
the tunnel cross section (x, y, and θ) was not considered, which means that this
θ) only measures the relative
displacements
system onlyofmeasures
Transducers 1 to 6.displacements of Transducers 1 to 6.
the relative

Figure
Figure 1. Configurationofofthe
1. Configuration theultrasonic
ultrasonic transducer
transducersystem
systemforfor
deformation monitoring.
deformation monitoring.
Sensors 2017, 17, 1758 3 of 12
Sensors 2017, 7, 1758 3 of 13

(a) (b)
Figure 2. Algorithm of tunnel deformation monitoring: (a) deformation of the tunnel cross section
Figure 2. Algorithm of tunnel deformation monitoring: (a) deformation of the tunnel cross section
without the RUI algorithm; (b) deformation of the tunnel cross section by using the RUI algorithm.
without the RUI algorithm; (b) deformation of the tunnel cross section by using the RUI algorithm.
2.2. The RUI Method
2.2. The RUI Method to improve the measurement accuracy of tunnel deformation is discussed here. The
A method
Awidely
method usedtoleast square method
improve will yield relatively
the measurement accuracy largeroferrors;
tunnelthus, a new method
deformation is by using
discussed here.
redundant ultrasonic information (RUI) was proposed, which can overcome the limitation of the
The widely used least square method will yield relatively larger errors; thus, a new method by
traditional method, as discussed above. The concept of the RUI method was put forward by Jiang et
using redundant ultrasonic
al. [14]. The distance information
measured (RUI)
by ultrasonic was
wave proposed,can
propagation which can overcome
be written as: the limitation of
the traditional method, as discussed above. The concept of the RUI method was put forward by
Ln = ν ⋅ t p
Jiang et al. [14]. The distance measured by ultrasonic wave propagation can be written as:(1)
where Ln represents the measurement of the distance from the nth sensor, and ν represents the
ultrasonic velocity in the measurement. ν canLbe n = ν · t p as a constant if the required accuracy is
witnessed (1)
not very high. tp is the TOF (time of flight) of the nth receiver. The measured tp has some errors due
where toLntherepresents theofmeasurement
lagging errors of the
ultrasonic wave and distance
electric circuits,from thetpnth
and thus sensor,
can be writtenand
as: ν represents the
ultrasonic velocity in the measurement. ν can t p =be
tctwitnessed
′ as a constant if the required accuracy is not
cn − te − td (2)
very high. tp is the TOF (time of flight) of the nth receiver. The measured tp has some errors due to the
laggingwhere tc isofthe
errors unit time of
ultrasonic the measurement
wave and electriccount, t’cn isand
circuits, the counts
thus tpofcan
the nth receiver, as:
be written te is the wave
lagging error which is caused by the insensitivity of the detection of the first coming receiving waves,
and td is the electric circuit lagging error. The electric circuit lagging error is negligible compared with
t p = tc t0cn − te − td (2)
the wave lagging error [14]. Thus, the error of the measured distances is:

where tc is the unit time of the measurement count, e = t e ⋅ν

t’cn is the counts of the nth receiver, te(3) is the wave
lagging error which is caused by the insensitivity of the detection of the first coming receiving waves,
where e is the distance lagging error. The frequency of the ultrasonic system is 40 kHz, and thus the
and td wavelength
is the electric circuit lagging
is approximately 8.5error.
mm by The electric
taking circuitvelocity
ultrasonic lagging v =error is negligible
340 m/s. compared
In this study, the with
the wave lagging
whole error [14].
wave lagging errorThus,
e shouldthe error of
between the42.5
0 and measured
mm (5λ) distances
[14]. When is:
the wave lagging error of
the ultrasonic receivers is consistent, the wave lagging error e can be determined and eliminated.
e = te · are
In Figure 3, it is supposed that three transmitters ν located at coordinates (x1, y1), (x2, y2), and (3)
(x3, y3). L1, L2, L3 are the measured distance with ultrasonic wave propagations. The coordinates of
where point R(x,distance
e is the y) can be determined basedThe
lagging error. on every two results
frequency of the
of the three ultrasonic
ultrasonic systemsensors.
is 40 Thus,
kHz, three
and thus the
wavelength is approximately 8.5 mm by taking ultrasonic velocity v = 340 m/s. In thisthe
different coordinates of R(x, y) will be computed, as shown in Figure 3a. According to above
study, the whole
discussions, the dispersion of computing R(x, y) is mainly caused by the ultrasonic transmitting
wave lagging error e should between 0 and 42.5 mm (5λ) [14]. When the wave lagging error of the
distance error e. Although the major measurement error is caused by wave lagging, the errors
ultrasonic
inducedreceivers is consistent, the
by the synchronization wave lagging
of generation error e can
and acquisition be also
may determined and eliminated.
result in dispersion. In this
Instudy,
Figure 3, micro-chip
a fast it is supposed
(STC12) that
withthree transmitters
a time-clock 22.1 MHz areand
located at coordinatesof(x
a cycle-per-instruction 1 , yμs
0.045 1 ), (x2 , y2 ),
3 , y3used,
and (xwas ). L1which
, L2 , Lcould
3 are largely decrease measurement
the measured distance with errors inducedwave
ultrasonic by synchronization.
propagations. In addition,
The coordinates
thisR(x,
of point studyy) adopted an automatic gain
can be determined basedcontrol (AGC) two
on every amplifier to minimize
results measurement
of the three errors.
ultrasonic sensors. Thus,
three different coordinates of R(x, y) will be computed, as shown in Figure 3a. According to the
above discussions, the dispersion of computing R(x, y) is mainly caused by the ultrasonic transmitting
distance error e. Although the major measurement error is caused by wave lagging, the errors induced
by the synchronization of generation and acquisition may also result in dispersion. In this study,
a fast micro-chip (STC12) with a time-clock 22.1 MHz and a cycle-per-instruction of 0.045 µs was used,
 transmitter 1, 2, and 7. Thus, other three sets of equations could be acquired:

 (x3 − x1 )2 + ( y3 − y1 )2 = (L13 + e2 )2

(x3 − x2 ) + ( y3 − y 2 ) = (L23 + e2 )
2 2 2
(6)
(x − x )2 + ( y − y )2 = (L + e )2
 3 7 3 7 73 2

Sensors 2017, 17, 1758 4 of 12

Given that (x1, y1) and (x2, y2) were known and were kept unchanged during the test as well as
(x6, y6) = (x7, y7) and (x3, y3) = (x8, y8), the Equations (6) and (7) can be used to solve the coordinates (x6,
y6), (x3, y3) and the wave lagging errors e1 and e2. When the coordinates of sensor 3 (8) and 6 (7) have
which could largely decrease measurement errors induced by synchronization. In addition, this study
been determined, the location of sensor 5 and 6 could be easily obtained utilizing the similar
adoptedequations
an automatic gain(6).
of Equation control (AGC) amplifier to minimize measurement errors.

Receiver
Receiver
R''=(x'',y'') e
R'=(x',y')
R'''=(x''',y''')
l3 l3

l1 l2 l2
y l1 l3+e
y l2+e
l1+e
Transmitter 3 (x3,y3)
Transmitter 1 (x1,y1) Transmitter 3 (x3,y3)
Transmitter 2 (x2,y2) Transmitter 1 (x1,y1)
Transmitter 2 (x2,y2)
o x o x
(a) (b)
Figure 3. Illustrations of the RUI method: (a) dispersion of single redundancy information; (b) fusion
Figure 3. Illustrations of the RUI method: (a) dispersion of single redundancy information; (b) fusion
of single redundancy information.
of single redundancy information.

For different measuring distances, the wave lagging errors will be consistent. Thus, the coordinate
of R(x, y) could be computed from Equation (4):

( x − x1 )2 + ( y − y1 )2 = ( L1 + e )2



( x − x2 )2 + ( y − y2 )2 = ( L2 + e )2


(4)
 ( x − x3 )2 + ( y − y3 )2 = ( L3 + e )2


x 2 + y2 = L2


To apply the RUI method to the tunnel deformation monitoring system, two extra ultrasonic
transmitters were used and mounted at point 7 and 8, as shown in Figure 4; thus, four more distances
(l74 , l85 , l78 and l87 ) can be measured. Since the receiver was the same, the coordinates of sensor 6, 3, 4,
and 5 in Figure 2 can be expressed as follows:

2 2 2
 ( x6 − x1 ) + (y6 − y1 ) = ( L16 + e1 )

( x6 − x2 )2 + (y6 − y2 )2 = ( L26 + e1 )2 (5)
 x −x 2+ y −y 2 = L +e 2

( 6 8) ( 6 8) ( 86 1)
Sensors 2017, 7, 1758 5 of 13

Figure 4. Configuration of the ultrasonic transducer system for tunnel deformation monitoring
Figure 4. Configuration of the ultrasonic transducer system for tunnel deformation monitoring utilizing
utilizing special fusion methods for redundancy ultrasonic information (RUI).
special fusion methods for redundancy ultrasonic information (RUI).
3. Test Results and Analysis

3.1. Ultrasonic Distance Measurement System

Figure 5 shows the main components of the ultrasonic-based monitoring system. The working
principle is briefly described as follows: the command to emit ultrasonic was first generated at the
PC terminator and sent to the wireless adaptor via a USB port. The communication between the
Sensors 2017, 17, 1758 5 of 12

Correspondingly, the receiver at (x3 , y3 ) would also receive three beams of ultrasonic from
transmitter 1, 2, and 7. Thus, other three sets of equations could be acquired:

2 2 2
 ( x3 − x1 ) + (y3 − y1 ) = ( L13 + e2 )

( x3 − x2 )2 + (y3 − y2 )2 = ( L23 + e2 )2 (6)
 x −x 2+ y −y 2 = L +e 2

( 3 7) ( 3 7) ( 73 2)

Given that (x1 , y1 ) and (x2 , y2 ) were known and were kept unchanged during the test as well as
(x6 , y6 ) = (x7 , y7 ) and (x3 , y3 ) = (x8 , y8 ), the Equations (6) and (7) can be used to solve the coordinates
(x6 , y6 ), (x3 , y3 ) and the wave lagging errors e1 and e2 . When the coordinates of sensor 3 (8) and 6 (7)
have been determined, the location of sensor 5 and 6 could be easily obtained utilizing the similar
equations of Equation (6).

3. Test Results and Analysis

3.1. Ultrasonic Distance Measurement System

Figure 5 shows the main components of the ultrasonic-based monitoring system. The working
principle is briefly described as follows: the command to emit ultrasonic was first generated at
the PC terminator and sent to the wireless adaptor via a USB port. The communication between
the adaptor and the transmitting controller was wireless. The transmitting controller was an
enhanced micro-computer that ordered the transmitter to send ultrasound at 40 kHz via data wires.
The ultrasonic receiver would then receive the signals and sent data via wires to the receiving
controller. The communication between the receiving controller and the adaptor was wireless. Finally,
the feedback
Sensors was recorded in a personal computer and manifested as measured distance.
2017, 7, 1758 6 of 13

Figure
Figure 5.
5. Photograph
Photograph of
of the
the ultrasonic
ultrasonic transducer
transducer system for tunnel
system for tunnel deformation
deformation monitoring.
monitoring.

A prototype of a tunnel was constructed to illustrate the application of the ultrasonic distance
measurement system. The tunnel model with 1.7 m diameter was made in wood so that the large
tunnel deformation could be achieved and controlled easily. All the transducers were mounted on
the tunnel model, as described in Figure 1, and points 1 and 2 were firmly fixed so that there was no
displacement of these two points. The tunnel was then deformed. The distances between sensors were
measured before and after deformation and the changes of distance were calibrated by LVDTs.
A calibration test was setup in order to examine the distance resolution measured by the ultrasonic
transducers. The calibration setup consists of a pair of the ultrasonic transmitter and receiver,
a Micro-Epsilon laser displacement sensor, a Campbell Scientific Micrologger, a laptop, and an
electricity supply. The ILD 1302-100 laser displacement made by Micro-Epsilon has a measuring range
between 50 mm and 150 mm, 20 µm resolution, and a source wavelength of 1550 nm. Its high resolution
Figure 6. Experimental setup for evaluating the measurement accuracy of the ultrasonic transducers.
made it an ideal calibration device for the ultrasonic transducers. The laser sensor was connected to
CR3000 Micrologger
3.2. Distance to record
Measurement the data
Accuracy and then transmitted
Is Susceptible to the
to Distance and laptop.
Probe A wireless communication
Angles
Several sets of tests were conducted to examine whether the ultrasonic system is qualified
enough for measuring the micrometer-scale changes of the distance between the transmitter and
receiver pairs, which may occur when the tunnel is deformed. To sum up, three key parameters that
may result in a change of distance measured by the ultrasonic system are defined here, including the
Sensors 2017, 7, 1758 6 of 13

Sensors 2017, 17, 1758 6 of 12

device was connected to the laptop, sending instructions from the laptop to the ultrasonic transducers.
All the ultrasonic and laser sensors, the laptop, and the Micrologger were connected to power supplies
(see Figure 6). The general idea of the experiment is to fix the sensors at a certain distance, angle, and
misplacement; then, the distance was changed slightly (around 2 mm), several times. At each point, the
distance was tested by ultrasonic three times, and the tiny change was calibrated by the high-accuracy
Micro-Epsilon laser displacement sensor at a fixed location. The displacements measured by the
Figure 5. Photograph of the ultrasonic transducer system for tunnel deformation monitoring.
ultrasonic were compared with those that were measured by the laser sensor.

Figure 6. Experimental
Figure 6. Experimental setup
setup for
for evaluating
evaluating the
the measurement
measurementaccuracy
accuracyof
ofthe
theultrasonic
ultrasonictransducers.
transducers.

3.2. Distance
3.2. Distance Measurement
Measurement Accuracy
Accuracy IsIsSusceptible
Susceptibleto
toDistance
Distanceand
andProbe
ProbeAngles
Angles
Severalsets
Several setsofof tests
tests werewere conducted
conducted to examine
to examine whetherwhether the ultrasonic
the ultrasonic system system is qualified
is qualified enough
enough for measuring the micrometer-scale changes of the distance
for measuring the micrometer-scale changes of the distance between the transmitter and receiver pairs, between the transmitter and
receiver
which pairs,
may occur which
when maytheoccur
tunnel when the tunnel To
is deformed. is deformed.
sum up, three To sum keyup, three key that
parameters parameters
may result that
may
in result in
a change ofadistance
change of distance by
measured measured by the ultrasonic
the ultrasonic system aresystem defined are defined
here, here, including
including the distance the
distance l between a transmitter-receiver pair (refer to Figure 7h),
l between a transmitter-receiver pair (refer to Figure 7h), the angle α between the direction of the the angle α between the direction
of theofprobe
probe of the transmitter
the transmitter and the hypothetical
and the hypothetical line that the
line that connects connects the ultrasonic
ultrasonic pair (refer pair (refer7i),
to Figure to
Figure 7i), and the angle β that the probe of the receiver deviates
and the angle β that the probe of the receiver deviates from the hypothetical connecting line of the from the hypothetical connecting
line of thepair
ultrasonic ultrasonic
(refer to pair (refer
Figure 7j).toAccordingly,
Figure 7j). Accordingly,
an ultrasonicantransmitter-receiver
ultrasonic transmitter-receiver
pair was placed pairwith
was
placedl,with
varied α, β varied
and then l, α, β and
the then lthe
distance distance
between thel sensors
betweenwas thechanged
sensors wasaround changed
2 mmaround
each time,2 mm each
several
time, several
times, to verify times,
whether to verify whether the
the ultrasonic pairultrasonic
was capable pairenough
was capable enough
to perceive to perceive micrometer-
micrometer-scale changes
scale
of changes
distance of distance
under different under different
relative locationrelative location relationships.
relationships. The distances The distances
were were by
calibrated calibrated
a laser
by a laser displacement
displacement sensor (LDS)sensor with high (LDS) with high
accuracy. accuracy.
In addition, In addition,
another set of test another set of test
was performed was
under
performed under constant l, β (β = 0) but varied α to test the influence
constant l, β (β = 0) but varied α to test the influence of angle α on the accuracy of the ultrasonic system. of angle α on the accuracy of
the ultrasonic
In the firstsystem.
set of tests, an ultrasonic transmitter-receiver pair was placed on a line with angle α
and β both equalset
In the first to of0. tests, an ultrasonic
The probes transmitter-receiver
of the transmitter and the receiverpair was placed
were on a line
changed fromwith500 angle
mm toα
and β both equal to 0. The probes of the transmitter and the receiver
4000 mm. Results are shown in Figure 7a which indicates that the values measured by the ultrasonic were changed from 500 mm to
4000 mm. Results
transducers have aare highshown in Figure
linearity with7a thewhich indicates(R
real distance that= the
2 values
0.999). This measured
proves thatby thetheultrasonic
absolute
transducers have a high linearity with the real distance (R 2 = 0.999). This proves that the absolute
distance measured by the ultrasonic transducer pair between around 0.5 m to 4.0 m is reliable and
distance
thus may measured by the ultrasonic
suit for deformation monitoring transducer
of smallpair between
to middle around
scale tunnel0.5cross
m tosections.
4.0 m is reliable and
thusThemaymicrometer-scale
suit for deformation monitoring
changes of distance of small
between to middle
a pair of scale tunnel transducers
ultrasonic cross sections. that first fixed
The micrometer-scale changes of distance between a
at some given distances were also tested to determine the distance measurement accuracy pair of ultrasonic transducers thaton first fixed
a small
at some
scale. givenfive
In total, distances
groupswere alsowere
of tests tested to determine
performed and the thedistances
distance measurement
of the transmitter accuracy
and the onreceiver
a small
scale. In total, five groups of tests were performed and the distances
probes around 1800 mm and 3000 mm were selected to conduct a more detailed calibration test. Results of the transmitter and the
receiver probes around 1800 mm and 3000 mm were selected to conduct
from Figure 7b,c indicated that the transducers could respond to changes in distance of less than 2 mm a more detailed calibration
test. aResults
with fromof
fair degree Figure 7b,c The
accuracy. indicated
analysis thatreveals
the transducers
that when could respond
a distance to changes
is within the rangein distance
of at leastof
1 to 4 m, a change of distance of at most 2 mm can be perceived. Figure 7c shows an increase of
deviation with the increase of distance; however, the deviation was no more than 0.8 mm at 3000 mm
scale, and can be easily corrected by adding proper coefficients.
Sensors 2017, 17, 1758 7 of 12
Sensors 2017, 7, 1758 8 of 13

Figure 7. Accuracy of distance measurement with ultrasonic in large and small ranges under various
Figure 7. Accuracy of distance measurement with ultrasonic in large and small ranges under various
distances, angles, and temperatures: (a) results of the large-range distance variations measured with
distances, angles, and temperatures: (a) results of the large-range distance variations measured with
a pair of ultrasonic transducers that were used against each other; (b) changes of distance measured
a pair of ultrasonic transducers that were used against each other; (b) changes of distance measured
with ultrasonic in category a (refer to Figure 1h) compared with those which were measured with
with ultrasonic in category a (refer to Figure 1h) compared with those which were measured with the
the laser at around 1800 mm and (c) 3000 mm; (d) changes of distance measured with ultrasonic in
laser at around 1800 mm and (c) 3000 mm; (d) changes of distance measured with ultrasonic in
category b of 4200 mm and (e) category c of 2400 mm; (f) the relationship between the normalized
category b of 4200 mm and (e) category c of 2400 mm; (f) the relationship between the normalized
measured distance and the angle α (refer to Figure 1k); (g) the relationship between the normalized
measured distance and the angle α (refer to Figure 1k); (g) the relationship between the normalized
measured distance and the temperature (the ultrasonic sensors were dead against each other at
measured distance and the temperature (the ultrasonic sensors were dead against each other at a
a constant distance); (h–j) the relative position relationship of the sensor pair in category a, category b,
constant distance); (h–j) the relative position relationship of the sensor pair in category a, category b,
and category c, respectively; (k) the schematic graph of tests setup in Figure 7f.
and category c, respectively; (k) the schematic graph of tests setup in Figure 7f.
Sensors 2017, 17, 1758 8 of 12

The performance of transducers may also be affected by the probe orientations or misplacements.
As shown in Figure 7j, by considering a specific application in tunnel monitoring, there are two kinds of
transmitter-receiver pair relative positions: (1) the probe of the receiver just oriented to the transmitter
where the probe of transmitter has a 15◦ angle with the receiver (the sensor pair 1–3, 1–4, 2–5, and 2–6
in Figure 8 fall into this category); (2) the probe of the receiver has a 30◦ deviation to the transmitter
and the probe of the transmitter has a 15◦ angle with the receiver (the sensor pair 1–5, 1–6, 2–3, and 2–4
in Figure 8 fall into this category). Thus, different configurations were set up to test whether the probe
angles will lead
Sensors to7,an
2017, 1758inaccurate measurement. 9 of 13

(-372.2,1420.0)
(-369.9,1410.4) (414.9,1404.0)

5
(412.1,1393.9)

4
(793.0,710.3) Before deformation
(783.2,705.2) After deformation

(-772.7,739.3)
(-764.2,731.1)
(793.0,710.3)
(783.2,705.2)
m

6 3
9.6
33m

(-425.0,0.0) x (425.0,0.0)
o
1 2
Figure 8.Figure 8. Deformation monitoring results of a 1.7 m-diameter tunnel model. Eight lengths between
Deformation monitoring results of a 1.7 m-diameter tunnel model. Eight lengths between
the ultrasonic transmitters and receivers were measured before and after deformation, and then the
the ultrasonic transmitters and receivers were measured before and after deformation, and then the
coordinates were calculated. Note that the points at the bottom of the tunnel were kept fixed
coordinates were calculated.
throughout the test. Note that the points at the bottom of the tunnel were kept fixed throughout
the test.
The above calibration test results indicate that this configuration of ultrasonic transducers can
be applied in a small- to middle-size tunnel. The large deformations of a tunnel cross section
Figure 7h–j shows the schematic graphs of all the three relative positions. It should be noted that
(micrometer scale), such as large-scale convergence, can be calibrated by the ultrasonic system with
during the tests,
a fair theofangle
degree α and β was kept constant, while only the l was changed. According to
accuracy.
Figure 7d,e, when the transmitter and receiver were not just opposite each other but had an angle or
3.3. Tunnel
were misplaced, theDeformation
ultrasonic Measurement
measured distances were still linear proportional to the real distances,
and the deviations
The ultrasonic system according
could be offset, was furthertoverified
the testindata. The results
a physical tunnel show thatfor
model even the transducer
deformation
pair has an angle or misplacement between each other, and it could always perceive the change of
monitoring. The physical tunnel model was 1.7 m in diameter, which was fabricated in the laboratory.
distance There
as less were as 2twomm.ultrasonic
Another transmitters and four
set of tests on the ultrasonic
influencereceivers mounted
of varied on the
angle α ontunnel
the model,
accuracy of
as indicated in Figure 1. Points 1 and 2 at the bottom of the tunnel were fixed, while other parts of
distance measurement (refer to Figure 7k) was also tested, and the results are shown in Figure 7f.
the tunnel were deformed such that the points at the sensors were displaced and then calibrated by
The distance of the transmitter-receiver pair was first set to d = 505 mm, then the receiver was placed
LVDTs to 10 mm at each point. Figure 8 shows the results of the tunnel cross section before and after
on a linedeformation.
with variedEight angle α between
lengths between the probes
ultrasonic of the ultrasonic
transmitters and receiverssensorwerepair. All the
measured beforenormalized
and
measuring distances
after deformation, depicted
and theoncoordinates
the graph at areeach
close to 1.0, which
ultrasonic indicates
sensor were that when
calculated. Pointsaand tunnel
the cross
coordinates
section confronts before and after
deformation thatdeformation
causes thewere changerepresented in the figure. As indicated
of transmitter-receiver in the figure,
probe-to-probe angle α,
the displacements
the distance measured with of sensors at points
ultrasonic will3, still
4, 5, and 6 were 11.810 mm, 9.872 mm, 10.481 mm, and 9.633
be reliable.
mm, respectively. By comparing with the LVDTs results, measurement errors at points 3, 4, 5, and 6
The temperature may also be a variable that influences the accuracy of ultrasonic distance
were 18.1%, 1.28%, 4.81%, and 3.67%, respectively. While there is a large measurement error for the
measurement.
sensor The speed
at point of ultrasonic
3, the others weregoes up when
no more than the
5% temperature
of the tunnel increases,
cross section and this will result
deformation
in the measured distance being less than the actual value. Thus, the temperature
measurement. However, by considering larger tunnel dimensions in field situations, it is necessary effect should be
eliminatedto when
improve there is a large temperature
the measurement variation.
accuracy, which will beAn ultrasonic
discussed in thetransmitter–receiver pair against
following sections. It should
each otherbeatnoticed
a constantthat only the change
distance wasoftested
coordinates at each point, not
in a temperature the whole
varied from tunnel ◦ C.section,
cross
20 to 37 Figurewere
7g shows
monitored. Thus, a spinal curve was used to depict the whole tunnel cross section deformation, which
that when the temperature decreased, the measured distance decreased while the actual distances were
may not firmly coincide with the real deformation.
constant, which was in accord with the nature property of ultrasonic. The data indicate an R2 = 0.998
To apply the RUI method on the tunnel deformation monitoring system, two extra ultrasonic
linearity,transmitters
and thus the weretemperature
used and mounted effectatcould
point 7 beandeliminated
8, as shown inbyFigure
adding thefour
2; thus, thermal transducer as
more distances
well as setting
(l74, l85, lthe corresponding
78, and compensation
l87) can be measured. With the RUI formula.
method,Ita should
total of 12be noted that
distances werewhen
measuredapplying
and the
ultrasoniccomputed,
system for as the
shown in Figure
physical model9. The
testwave
in thelagging
lab, theerrors was determined
temperature was keptby considering
constant, and the it was
equations simultaneously,
hence unnecessary and thethe
to take into account results are e1 of
influence = −10.0, e2 = −21.8,
temperature in eour
3 = −13.1, e4 = 16.7 before
experiments.
deformation and e1 = −12.1, e2 = −21.0, e3 = −13.1, e4 = 14.9 after deformation. Without the redundant
information, the changes of deformation at each point measured with ultrasonic were 11.8 mm, 9.9
mm, 10.5 mm, and 9.6 mm when the actual displacements were 10 mm. The average measurement
error was 7%. By introducing RUI method, the changes of deformation at each point measured with
Sensors 2017, 17, 1758 9 of 12

The above calibration test results indicate that this configuration of ultrasonic transducers can be
applied in a small- to middle-size tunnel. The large deformations of a tunnel cross section (micrometer
scale), such as large-scale convergence, can be calibrated by the ultrasonic system with a fair degree
of accuracy.

3.3. Tunnel Deformation Measurement

The ultrasonic system was further verified in a physical tunnel model for deformation monitoring.
The physical tunnel model was 1.7 m in diameter, which was fabricated in the laboratory. There were
two ultrasonic transmitters and four ultrasonic receivers mounted on the tunnel model, as indicated
in Figure 1. Points 1 and 2 at the bottom of the tunnel were fixed, while other parts of the tunnel
were deformed such that the points at the sensors were displaced and then calibrated by LVDTs
to 10 mm at each point. Figure 8 shows the results of the tunnel cross section before and after
deformation. Eight lengths between ultrasonic transmitters and receivers were measured before
and after deformation, and the coordinates at each ultrasonic sensor were calculated. Points and the
coordinates before and after deformation were represented in the figure. As indicated in the figure,
the displacements of sensors at points 3, 4, 5, and 6 were 11.810 mm, 9.872 mm, 10.481 mm, and
9.633 mm, respectively. By comparing with the LVDTs results, measurement errors at points 3, 4, 5,
and 6 were 18.1%, 1.28%, 4.81%, and 3.67%, respectively. While there is a large measurement error
for the sensor at point 3, the others were no more than 5% of the tunnel cross section deformation
measurement. However, by considering larger tunnel dimensions in field situations, it is necessary
to improve the measurement accuracy, which will be discussed in the following sections. It should
be noticed that only the change of coordinates at each point, not the whole tunnel cross section, were
monitored. Thus, a spinal curve was used to depict the whole tunnel cross section deformation, which
may not firmly coincide with the real deformation.
To apply the RUI method on the tunnel deformation monitoring system, two extra ultrasonic
transmitters were used and mounted at point 7 and 8, as shown in Figure 2; thus, four more distances
(l74 , l85 , l78 , and l87 ) can be measured. With the RUI method, a total of 12 distances were measured and
computed, as shown in Figure 9. The wave lagging errors was determined by considering the equations
simultaneously, and the results are e1 = −10.0, e2 = −21.8, e3 = −13.1, e4 = 16.7 before deformation and
e1 = −12.1, e2 = −21.0, e3 = −13.1, e4 = 14.9 after deformation. Without the redundant information,
the changes of deformation at each point measured with ultrasonic were 11.8 mm, 9.9 mm, 10.5 mm,
and 9.6 mm when the actual displacements were 10 mm. The average measurement error was 7%.
By introducing
Sensors 2017, RUI
7, 1758method, the changes of deformation at each point measured with ultrasonic
10 of 13

were corrected to 10.2 mm, 10.5 mm, 10.5 mm, and 10.3 mm. The average measurement error was
ultrasonic were corrected to 10.2 mm, 10.5 mm, 10.5 mm, and 10.3 mm. The average measurement
3.75%. This analysis proves that by introducing RUI into the ultrasonic systems, a more accurate tunnel
error was 3.75%. This analysis proves that by introducing RUI into the ultrasonic systems, a more
deformation monitoring
accurate was achieved
tunnel deformation and was
monitoring measurement
achieved anderrors were decreased.
measurement errors were decreased.

(-367.1,1398.8)
(-366.4,1388.3) (411.6,1391.9)
(-372.2,1420.0) (409.1,1381.7)
(-369.9,1410.4) (414.9,1404.0)

5
(412.1,1393.9)
(793.0,710.3) Before deformation (non-redundant)
4 (783.2,705.2) After deformation (non-redundant)
(803.8,721.6) Before deformation (redundant)
(793.7,719.0) After deformation (redundant)

(-772.7,739.3) (803.8,721.6)
(-764.2,731.1) (793.7,719.0)
(-762.6,728.0) (793.0,710.3)
(-755.2,721.0) (783.2,705.2)

6 3 9.6
33m
m

mm
10.350
y

(-425.0,0.0) x (425.0,0.0)
o
1 2
Figure 9. Results of the tunnel cross section deformation monitoring utilizing the RUI algorithm.
Figure 9. Results of the tunnel cross section deformation monitoring utilizing the RUI algorithm.
4. Discussion

4.1. Influence of Distances, Probe Angles, and Temperatures on Measurement Accuracy

The measurement accuracy of the ultrasonic sensors with various distances was carefully
examined, together with the influence of temperature and the change of the angles of transmitter–
Sensors 2017, 17, 1758 10 of 12

4. Discussion

4.1. Influence of Distances, Probe Angles, and Temperatures on Measurement Accuracy

The measurement accuracy of the ultrasonic sensors with various distances was carefully examined,
together with the influence of temperature and the change of the angles of transmitter–receiver.

(1) The test of the accuracy with varied measurement distances. One ultrasonic transmitter and one
ultrasonic receiver were placed 800 mm opposite each other on a line, strictly. The transmitter
was then controlled by the computer to emit three beams of ultrasonics with random intervals,
and the durations between the beams emitted from the transmitter and the response from the
receiver were recorded and converted into distances. Then, increasing the distance between the
sensors by 100 mm per step, we recorded the distance measured by the ultrasonics transducers
and LDS with maximum distance of 4000 mm. Results show that the ultrasonic transducers prove
to have good linearity (R2 = 0.999) and accuracy of distance measurement.
(2) The resolutions of deformation measurement with varying distances, angles, and misplacements
were further verified in the laboratory tests. For the deformation monitoring of a metro tunnel,
the resolution of the ultrasonic system to the tiny changes of distance is more concerned than the
absolute distance measured by the ultrasonic transducer. The results show that the ultrasonic
transducers have the ability to capture distance variations of less than 2 mm.
(3) The changed probe angles during measurement was also investigated by considering two kinds
of transmitter–receiver pair relative positions (as indicated in Figures 2 and 4). One is the probe of
the receiver, just oriented to the transmitter, but the probe of the transmitter has a 15◦ angle with
the receiver. The other is when the probe of the receiver has a 30◦ deviation to the transmitter and
the probe of the transmitter has a 15◦ angle with the receiver. To test whether these configurations
will lead to an inaccurate measurement, a configuration that the transmitter was dead against the
receiver was also tested. Calibration tests of the probe angles on ultrasonic distance measurements
reveal that the ultrasonic measured distances were still linear proportional to the real ones, and
the deviations can be offset by introducing proper coefficients. When the transducer pair has
an angle or misplacement among itself, it could always perceive the change of distance as less
than 2 mm.
(4) The influence of temperature on ultrasonic distance measurements was examined and the results
indicate the distance measured by the ultrasonic transducers will be affected by the temperature.
The measured values have a close linear relationship with temperature variations (R2 = 0.998).
Thus, the temperature effect could be eliminated by adding the thermal transducer, as well as by
setting the corresponding compensation formula.

4.2. Discussion of the Proposed RUI Wireless System

The main characteristic of the proposed wireless sensing system is its ability to provide
a more accurate real-time tunnel deformation monitoring. The proposed approach overcomes the
limitations of fixed measurement approaches and human measurements, providing an efficient
tool to detect the tunnel deform, thus helping the safety control of in-service tunnels. This study
highlights the role of the ultrasonic sensor arrangement in accurate measurement for a wireless
tunnel deformation sensing system. We elucidated the effect of ultrasonic wave propagation angles,
distances, and temperature changes on measurement accuracy, and derived an RUI approach for
tunnel deformation measurements.
Previous studies have reported that the ultrasonic wave propagation distances and angles will
diminish the measurement accuracy [15,16]. The present study indicates that the measurement accuracy
can be achieved with different coefficients for various probe angles and sensor distances, as well as
temperatures. The distance measured by the ultrasonic has a linear relationship with the measured
results of laser displacement sensors, as shown in Figure 7. According to Figure 7a, with different
Sensors 2017, 17, 1758 11 of 12

distances, the measurement distances can be corrected by multiplying a linear coefficient of c1 = 1.007
to acquire the real distances. The temperature effects can also be eliminated from the measurements
with the temperature compensation coefficient Ct = 1/(−0.0011t + 1.0218), where t is the temperature
in Celsius. Another interesting finding is that the angle α does not appear to affect the measurement
accuracy of the distances, as shown in Figure 7f. In other words, the measured distances are less
affected by the probe angles α. Although there are limited test data, our findings indicate that the
ultrasonic pairs can be used for wireless tunnel deformation measurement with high accuracy.
The lagging errors of ultrasonic wave propagation have been found to have highly affected the
deformation measurement accuracy of the tunnel deformation, which was also reported by previous
studies [17]. The present study puts forward the RUI approach in the tunnel deformation measurement
using just two extra ultrasonic sensors. The average measurement error was decreased from 7% to
3.75%. Thus, the RUI approach can improve the measurement accuracy of the tunnel deformation by
comparison with the approach without the RUI method.
However, due to the limited sensor points, only four point positions of a tunnel cross section can
be measured; then, the whole tunnel cross section deformation was obtained with the interpolation,
causing an inaccurate result between the measured points. While we normally do not need high
accuracy of the distributed deformation of the tunnel cross section in the engineering practice,
this could be resolved by using more ultrasonic received sensors, depending on the requirements
of measurement accuracy. Despite the limited sensor points in a tunnel cross section, the ultrasonic
sensor system with the RUI approach was successful in measuring the shapes of a tunnel cross section
under arbitrary deformations.

5. Conclusions
In this study, we proposed a new progressing algorithm of the redundant ultrasonic information
approach for an automatic and wireless tunnel deformation monitoring system with ultrasonic
transducers. Details of the RUI approach were illustrated and applied to a physical model test.
The experimental tests of the physical tunnel measured by the ultrasonic sensors with the RUI method
were compared with the non-RUI approach. Results show that the average measurement error was
decreased from 7% to 3.75% by including the RUI progressing algorithm.
The tunnel deformation will induce the variations of probe angles and distances of the ultrasonic
sensors. Thus, a series of laboratory calibration tests were conducted on different probe angles,
distances, and temperatures. Results show that measured results have a close linear relationship
with the distance between the ultrasonic transmitter and the receiver sensors. The probe angles
have less effect on the measured distances, while the various temperatures will affect the measured
results. Therefore, the temperature effects should be eliminated from the measured results with the
calibrated coefficient.
The proposed ultrasonic RUI monitoring system could provide a unique tool to study the metro
tunnel deformations during constructions or operations. Compared with other approaches in metro
tunnel deformation monitoring by human or total stations, the advantages of the proposed systems
are: (1) wireless data transmission with real-time measurements; (2) obtaining a geometric shape of
the tunnel deformation; (3) the easy implementation of the system in a tunnel cross section; and (4) the
very low cost of the whole system. Therefore, the proposed system could be an effective tool for tunnel
monitoring purposes.

Acknowledgments: The financial supports of a research grant of National Natural Science Foundation of China
(Grant No. 51508215 and 41672277) and the Fundamental Research Funds for Central Universities of China
(Grant No. 2017KFYXJJ138) are gratefully acknowledged. The authors thank Ji-Ping Lu, Yi Zhong, Bing-Li Zhang,
and Yong Liu for their help in the laboratory experiments.
Author Contributions: Dong-sheng Xu and Yu-Meng Zhao designed the experiments, analyzed the data,
and wrote the paper. Hua-Bei Liu is closely involved in developing the proposed algorithm and helped in
writing the paper. Hong-Hu Zhu is helped in writing the paper.
Sensors 2017, 17, 1758 12 of 12

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Riedel, H. Chinese metro boom shows no sign of abating. Int. Railway J. 2014, 54, 46–52.
2. Tsuji, T.; Ishibashi, J.; Ishitsuka, K.; Kamata, R. Horizontal sliding of kilometre-scale hot spring area during
the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 42947. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Xu, Y.; Sun, D.A.; Sun, J.; Fu, D.; Dong, P. Soil disturbance of Shanghai silty clay during EPB tunnelling.
J. Tunnel. Undergr. Space. Tech. 2003, 18, 537–545. [CrossRef]
4. Chen, J.J.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, J.F.; Zhu, Y.F.; Wang, J.H. Field tests, modification, and application of deep soil
mixing methodin soft clay. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013, 139, 24–34. [CrossRef]
5. Zhang, Z.G.; Huang, M.S. Geotechnical influence on existing subway tunnels induced by multiline tunneling
in shanghai soft soil. Comput. Geotech. 2014, 56, 121–132. [CrossRef]
6. Arastounia, M. Automated As-Built Model Generation of Subway Tunnels from Mobile LiDAR Data. Sensors
2016, 16, 1486. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Alhaddad, M; Wilcock, M.; Gue, C.Y.; Bevan, H.; Stent, S.; Elshafie, M.; Soga, K.; Devriendt, M.; Wright, P.;
Waterfall, P. Multi-Suite monitoring of an existing cast iron tunnel subjected to tunnelling-induced ground
movements. Proc. Geo-Shanghai 2014. [CrossRef]
8. Ding, Y.C.; Dai, B.; Wang, J.H. Field observation of a deep excavation adjacent to subway tunnels. J. Beijing
Univ. Technol. 2008, 34, 492–497.
9. Luo, Y.; Chen, J.; Xi, W.; Zhao, P.; Qiao, X.; Deng, X.; Liu, Q. Analysis of tunnel displacement accuracy with
total station. Measurement 2016, 83, 29–37. [CrossRef]
10. Mohamad, H.; Soga, K.; Bennett, P.J.; Mair, R.J.; Lim, C.S. Monitoring twin tunnel interaction using distributed
optical fiber strain measurements. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012, 138, 957–967. [CrossRef]
11. Wang, X.; Shi, B.; Wei, G.Q.; Chen, S.-E.; Zhu, H.-H.; Wang, T. Monitoring the behavior of segment joints in
a shield tunnel using distributed fiber optic sensors. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2017, in press. [CrossRef]
12. Muller, F.P. Survey on ranging sensors and cooperative techniques for relative positioning of vehicles. Sensors
2017, 17, 271. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. David, J.; Cheeke, N. Fundamentals and Applications of Ultrasonic Waves; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2002.
14. Jiang, L.; Yan, J.; Zang, X.; Zhao, J. Localization research based on special fusion method for redundancy
ultrasonic information. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and
Automation, Harbin, China, 5–8 August 2007.
15. Kech, W.; Heller, G.S.; Nixon, J. Intensity distribution in ultrasonic beams. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1949, 21, 469.
[CrossRef]
16. Licznerski, T.J.; Jaroński, J.; Kosz, D. Ultrasonic system for accurate distance measurement in the air. Ultrason
2011, 51, 960–965. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Mahajan, A.; Figueroa, F. An automatic self-installation and calibration method for a 3D position sensing
system using ultrasonics. Robot. Auton. Syst. 1999, 28, 281–294. [CrossRef]

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).