# A Waveform and Velocity Ambiguity Resolution Method for Corner Radar
## 4 Simulation Experimental Verification
As the distance increases, the number of points for the two radars gradually decreases from multiple to one. Considering the low signal-to-noise ratio at longer distances, the results fall within a reasonable range. Figure 14 displays the velocity and distance results of the target vehicle. From Figure 14b, it can be observed that the target reached a maximum velocity of 27.5 m/s at around 67 m, which exceeds the unambiguous velocity range of the validation radar. However, upon examining the results in Figure 14a, it was found that the target did not experience velocity blur. Instead, it reached a maximum velocity of 27.4 m/s at around  
Figure 12: Results of range–power. (**a**) Validation radar. (**b**) Comparative radar. Figure 13: Results of range-matched points. (**a**) Validation radar. (**b**) Comparative radar. 67 m, which closely matches the test results of the comparative radar. The error is within an acceptable range. The velocity disambiguation algorithm proposed in this article has been successfully validated on corner radar and demonstrates a certain degree of accuracy. Testing different radar configurations involved installing two identical radars: one configured with composite waveforms and the other with single LRR mode waveforms. These radars were positioned on the left and right rear of the main vehicle, respectively. The target vehicle approached the main vehicle at a uniform low velocity from the rear. Test data were recorded, and stable detection points were captured, as illustrated in Figures 15-19. Figure 15 displays the motion trajectory of the target vehicle in different coordinate systems. The red and green lines represent the motion trajectory in the radar coordinate system, while the gray line represents the motion trajectory in the main vehicle coordinate system. Within the range of 60 m to 100 m, the target points of multi-mode waveforms are notably denser compared to those of single-mode waveforms. This suggests that the resolution of multi-mode waveforms at medium distances is superior to that of single-mode waveforms. The limited difference within the 60 m range may be attributed to the high energy of the target vehicle and the dense target points, resulting in less obvious distinctions. Similarly, the long-range performance of LRR mode waveforms used beyond 120 m exhibits similarity. Figure 16 demonstrates that both schemes were tested using the same CFAR threshold, resulting in similar energy levels of the target points at different distances. This conformity meets the detection expectations. Figure 17 illustrates the results of distance and match points. Within the 80-140 m range, the higher resolution of multi-mode waveforms results in fewer missing points compared to single-mode waveforms. Figure 14: Results of range–velocity. (**a**) Validation radar. (**b**) Comparative radar. Figure 18 and 19 illustrate the correlation among distance, velocity, and angle. Upon comparing the results depicted in Figure 18, a notable disparity in the measurements of target velocity between the two radar systems is observed. This variance could likely be attributed to road curvature and potential discrepancies in radial velocity mapping arising from variations in installation locations. Conversely, the angle measurement outcomes presented in Figure 19 demonstrate fundamental consistency. Figure 8:0 Range–power of different waveforms. (**a**) Multi mode. (**b**) Single mode. Figure 8:1 Range-matched points of different waveforms. (**a**) Multi mode. (**b**) Single mode. Figure 8:2 Trajectories of different waveforms. (**a**) Multi mode. (**b**) Single mode.