Highway Traffic Monitoring System
Highway Traffic Monitoring System
Senior Design May05-06
Design Report
Client
Iowa State University
Faculty Advisors
Professor John Lamont
Professor Ralph Patterson III
Duane E. Smith, P.E., Associate Director for Outreach, CTRE
Team Members
Ben Armfield, CprE
Joel Cardo, CprE
Wendell Cotton, EE
Brent Duppong, EE
REPORT DISCLAIMER NOTICE
DISCLAIMER: This document was developed as a part of the requirements of an electrical and computer engineering course at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. This document does not constitute a professional engineering design or a professional land surveying document. Although the information is intended to be accurate, the associated students, faculty, and Iowa State University make no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, quality, or adequacy of the information. The user of this document shall ensure that any such use does not violate any laws with regard to professional licensing and certification requirements. This use includes any work resulting from this student-prepared document that is required to be under the responsible charge of a licensed engineer or surveyor. This document is copyrighted by the students who produced this document and the associated faculty advisors. No part may be reproduced without the written permission of the senior design course coordinator.
November 12, 2004
Table of Contents
List of Figures iii
List of Tables v
List of Definitions vi
Section 1 – Introductory Materials 1
1.1 Executive Summary 1
1.2 Acknowledgement 2
1.3 Problem Statement 3
1.3.1 General Problem Statement 3
1.3.2 General Solution Approach 4
1.4 Operating Environment 5
1.5 Intended Users and Uses 7
1.5.1 Intended Users 7
1.5.2 Intended Uses 7
1.6 Assumptions and Limitations 7
1.6.1 Initial Assumptions List 8
1.6.2 Initial Limitations List 8
1.7 Expected End Product and Other Deliverables 8
Section 2 – Approach and Current Product Design Results 10
2.1 Approach Used and Progress Results 10
2.1.1 Design Objectives 10
2.1.2 Functional Requirement 11
2.1.3 Design Constraints 12
2.1.4 Technical Approaches, Considerations and Results 13
2.1.5 Complete System Comparison 68
2.1.6 Testing Approach Considerations 77
2.1.7 Recommendations Regarding Project Continuation 77
2.2 Design Progress and Continuation Plan 77
2.2.1 Design Progress 77
2.2.2 Design Continuation Plan 78
Section 3 – Resources and Schedules 80
3.1 Resources 80
3.1.1 Personnel Effort Requirement 80
3.1.2 Other Resource Requirements 83
3.1.3 Estimated Financial Requirements 84
3.2 Schedules 85
3.3 Project Schedule 86
3.4 Deliverables Schedule 88
Section 4 – Closure Material 89
4.1 Project Team Information 89
4.1.1 Client 89
4.1.2 Faculty Advisors 90
4.1.3 Student Team Information 91
4.1.4 Project Website 91
4.2 Closing Summary 92
4.3 References 93
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Diagram of basic process flow 1
Figure 2 - Map of the primary exit to be examined 4
Figure 3 - Sign that could be used to alert oncoming drivers 5
Figure 4 - West bound traffic approaching the Elwood Drive Exit 146 6
Figure 5 - Exit 146, the primary location for system equipment 6
Figure 6 - Example of a radar gun with serial output 16
Figure 7 - Weather resistant camera mounting option 18
Figure 8 - Example of a concrete strain gauge 21
Figure 9 - Example of an in-ground wire loops 23
Figure 10 - Example of a temporary on-road loop 24
Figure 11 - Example of a road tube with mounting hardware 28
Figure 12 - Demonstration of laying road tube inside a flexible road ramp 28
Figure 13 - Example of rugged vehicle-axle detecting tape switch 31
Figure 14 - Example of a rugged light beam sensor 33
Figure 15 - Light beam sensor with a quick-release adjustable mount 36
Figure 16 - Red Hat Linux 41
Figure 17 - Solaris a Unix operating system 42
Figure 18 - Microsoft Windows XP Professional 44
Figure 19 - Microsoft Windows Server 2003 45
Figure 20 - Screenshot of Mac OS X 47
Figure 21 - Mac OS X Server 48
Figure 22 - Dell desktop 50
Figure 23 - iMac G5 51
Figure 24 - Sun Blade 150 workstation 52
Figure 25 - Intermec's CV60 54
Figure 26 - Gateway laptop 56
Figure 27 - Example of a trailer-mounted sign with flashing lights 62
Figure 28 - Trailer-mounted electronic message board 64
Figure 29 - Pole mounted radio broadcast transmitter 66
Figure 30 - Possible radio notification sign 66
Figure 31 - Nu-Metrics magnetic sensor unit 72
Figure 32 - IRD trailer mounted warning sign with flashing lights 74
Figure 33 - Another IRD warning sign with flashing lights 75
Figure 34 - Original project Gantt chart 87
Figure 35 - Revised project Gantt chart 88
Figure 36 - Deliverables Gantt chart 89
List of Tables
Table 1 - Evaluation of sensor technologies based on identified criteria 35
Table 2 - Operating system identification 38
Table 3 - Non-mobile hardware platform identification 39
Table 4 - Mobile hardware platform identification 39
Table 5 - Evaluation of software control technologies 57
Table 6 - Evaluation of hardware control technologies 57
Table 7 - Evaluation of warning systems based on identified criteria 67
Table 8 - Technical progress 69
Table 9 - Original personnel effort requirements estimate (hours) 83
Table 10 - Revised personnel effort requirements estimate (hours) 84
Table 11 - Original other resource requirements 84
Table 12 - Revised other resource requirements 85
Table 13 - Original estimated financial requirements 85
Table 14 - Revised estimated financial requirements 86
List of Definitions
802.11b - A family of specifications developed by the IEEE for wireless LAN technology.
Center for Transportation Research and Education (CTRE) - Performs transportation research for public and private agencies and companies; manages its own education program for transportation students; and conducts local, regional, and national transportation services and continuing education programs.
Code division multiple access (CDMA) (or “spread spectrum”) - A form of multiplexing where the transmitter encodes the signal using a pseudo-random sequence which the receiver also knows and can use to decode the received signal. Each different random sequence corresponds to a different communication channel. This technology is used for wireless digital data transfer.
Dell - Computer manufacturer that uses Intel processors and comes prepackaged with Microsoft Windows.
Department of transportation (DOT) - The United States federal department that institutes and coordinates national transportation programs; created in 1966.
Groundhog - Magnetic sensor system manufactured by Nu-Metrics that can detect vehicle length, vehicle speed and road conditions. The system can transmit data wirelessly via “spread spectrum” technology.
GUI - Graphical user interface, the interface people use when operating a computer to make using the computer easier.
Highway traffic monitoring system (HTMS) - This name and acronym refer to the system which the team will be designing.
Inductive loop - A coil of wire embedded in pavement that detects the change in inductance when a vehicle drives over it.
Intel - A company that designs and produces microprocessors.
Intermec CV60 - A very rugged computer that is capable of being mounted in a vehicle.
LED - A light emitting diode is an electrical component that emits light.
Light beam - Sensor that detects an object’s presence by detecting the interruption of a light beam.
Linux - An open source operating system.
Mac – A computer system that runs Mac OS X or Mac OS X Server.
Mac OS X - Macintosh operating system based off of Unix.
Mac OS X Server - Server based operating system based off of Mac OS X.
Motion detector - Sensor that detects the heat of an object near it. It does this by the change in infrared light created from the change in heat.
Radar gun - Sensor that uses radar waves to determine the speed of a vehicle.
RF transmitter/receiver - Radio frequency spectrum transmitter or receiver.
Road tube - A rubber tube filled with air that detects a vehicle by the change in air pressure when a vehicle drives over it.
RS232 - Communication standard for signal voltages, signal timing, signal function, a protocol for information exchange, and mechanical connectors.
Server 2003 - Server operating system based off of Windows and produced by Microsoft.
Spread spectrum - Refer back to CDMA.
Strain gauge - A sensor that detects weight by measuring the change in resistance of a metal as it flexes due to the weight of a heavy object.
Sun - Computer company that produces computers that run Linux or Unix.
Tape switch - A sensor that has two conductive plates separated by a small distance. When an object presses the plates, they touch together and close the circuit.
Unix - Operating system similar to Linux except it is not open source.
USB - Stands for Universal Serial Bus and is a connectivity cable that is a standard in the computer industry.
Windows XP - Operating system that is used on many home computers and is produced by Microsoft.
Wire loop - Refer back to inductive loop.
Section 1 – Introductory Materials
The introductory materials section contains the executive summary, acknowledgements, problem statement, operating environment, intended users and uses, assumptions and limitations, and expected end product and other deliverables.
1. Executive Summary
The main purpose of this document is to convey to the reader the project goal and the intended outcome of the project. It also details what has been accomplished thus far and what yet remains to be accomplished. This is to help insure that the project continues to run smoothly. The following paragraphs briefly describe what the project is about and what information is contained in the document.
Traffic accidents often occur when a major athletic event or concert is held at Iowa State University. This is a result of drivers not being able to observe traffic that is backing up in hard-to-see locations. The Elwood exit off of west-bound US Highway 30 is one such example. The objective of this project is to develop a portable system that can detect slow moving or stopped traffic and then alert approaching drivers. The design will incorporate speed and proximity sensors, a control system, and a display system, see Figure 1 for an example. The traffic monitoring system is being created to help prevent such accidents and increase traffic flow during these events. The fully operating system will be able to save thousands of people travel time, reduce costly vehicle accidents and possibly save someone's life.
[pic]
Figure 1 - Diagram of basic process flow
This document covers a great deal of material. It covers the research accomplished thus far. It also details the selection of the sensor technology, control systems technology, and warning systems technology including such important details as to why a specific technology was selected and how much the technology costs. There is also a description of what else needs to be researched in order to complete the project.
The time that has been spent on individual aspects of this design this far is included. Also contained in this document are the estimated work hours remaining for specific tasks that were established at the beginning of the project. Finally, there is a progress report that details what tasks have been completed and to what degree other tasks have been completed.
2. Acknowledgement
The design team would like to thank our faculty advisors; John Lamont, Ralph Patterson and Duane Smith. They have greatly assisted the team by donating their time and technical advice. Their support is deeply appreciated.
3. Problem Statement
The two following sections are a more detailed description of the Executive Summary from Section 2.1. The problem will be presented in more detail and the solution approach will be given.
1. General Problem Statement
When there are special public events that a large number of people attend, particular traffic problems occur. For Iowa State University, these events include major sporting events and large concerts. They often occur at Jack Trice Stadium and at the Iowa State Center which includes Hilton Coliseum and Stephens Auditorium. All of these facilities are located off of Elwood Drive.
The problem the team is trying to solve starts before an event begins. There is a large inflow of traffic to the facilities which causes traffic to slow down and back-up on Elwood Drive. Because this is the major access road for people coming off of U.S. Highway 30 (see Figure 2-1), there is a major safety concern. Vehicles that are traveling at highway speeds are encountering slow moving or stopped vehicles on Highway 30 or the Elwood Dr Exit off of it. Visibility in the area is low due to the exit being located on the backside top of a hill. Because of this, there is an increased risk that drivers may collide with stopped cars as they approach the exit at high speed.
[pic]
Figure 2 - Map of the primary exit to be examined
This is a specific area where the problem occurs, but this type of situation can be found at many other intersections and in many other towns. The problem that the team has been presented with is the development of an automated system that can inform people of these unusual traffic conditions before it is too late. The Ames location will be used as an example, but the team’s solution will be adaptable to work at other similar intersections.
2. General Solution Approach
In order to address these problems, a portable system will be designed to inform highway drivers of unusually slow or stopped traffic ahead. The system will consist of a group of proximity and/or speed sensors that shall be placed at specific problem areas. The sensors will be connected to a control system that uses their input to determine what warning information should be displayed for approaching drivers. The drivers may be alerted by radio or electronic signs that are posted along the highway. Many technologies will be considered in order to find a system of sensors, controller and warning devices that are most cost effective at alerting drivers of the increased danger.
[pic]
Figure 3 - Sign that could be used to alert oncoming drivers
4. Operating Environment
The final system will need to be portable, so it will be required to handle the shock and motion that are associated with moving equipment. Since it will be operating outdoors, the system will need to withstand the outdoor temperature extremes and survive adverse weather conditions. Therefore, moisture, impact, and wind resistance will also need to be considered. Since the system will be near or on the shoulder of a road, it will need to be safely positioned and identified so that additional traffic problems will not be caused.
[pic]
Figure 4 - West bound traffic approaching the Elwood Drive Exit 146
[pic]
Figure 5 - Exit 146, the primary location for system equipment
5. Intended Users and Uses
The following two sections include information about the intended uses and users for the Highway Traffic Monitoring System.
1. Intended Users
This system will be designed to be operated by trained event staff, Department of Transportation staff or Highway Patrol Officers. To accomplish this, the system shall be developed to be relatively easy to setup, use and take down. Depending on the type of communications used and system complexity, a specific staff member may need to be trained on how to operate and troubleshoot the system.
The traffic monitoring system is going to be used by motorists, so the warning messages and traffic information must be specified accordingly.
2. Intended Uses
This is a highway traffic monitoring system. Therefore, it shall be used on high speed roads. It will not be designed to function on low traffic, slow speed streets, because there is not enough traffic to warrant a system in these areas. The system will be used to monitor traffic on a single roadway that has as many as three feeding roadways. The system will be primarily designed to work for Iowa State University’s Elwood Exit problem area, but the design will be flexible so that it can be adapted for use at other locations.
6. Assumptions and Limitations
The two following sections are lists of the assumptions and limitations that are to be included in the planning.
1. Initial Assumptions List
• A single roadway will be monitored
• No more than three feeding roadways will be allowed
• The maximum warning distance will be 2 miles
• Initially designed for Highway 30 onto Elwood Dr. (exit 146)
• No rerouting of traffic will be considered with design
• DOT or ISU employees will install equipment
2. Initial Limitations List
• Current DOT electronics signs may be used for testing (if applicable)
• System will be able to be removed and stored when it is not needed
• System will be able to be setup to work in different locations
• System will be able to withstand outdoor temperature and weather extremes
• System will be able to distinguish between moving and stopped traffic
• System will be able to operate in a high traffic area
• System will be able to operate for a minimum of 6 hours
• System will be able to be setup in no more than one man hour
7. Expected End Product and Other Deliverables
The end product of this project will depend on available funding and design time requirements. Possible end products include:
Design - A full design report
This end-product will be completed. It should not require outside funding and is the most possible to accomplish in the amount of time the team can allot for this design project. A full design report will be provided including controller logic, communications setup, system component location maps, parts and cost lists and assembly and operations information. Schematic designs, computer system requirements, processor specifications and hardware specifications will be included in the design. A demonstration may be part of the overall design presentation.
Simulation - A working bench-top system
The simulation could go beyond the full design report and could include a controller that communicates with one or more sensors and one or more warning devices. It is less costly than a full prototype, but still requires significantly more funding than currently is available. Outside funding will need to be found (potentially from the DOT).
Prototype - A fully working testable system
This would be the most difficult and costly to produce. Outside funding would need to be found (potentially from the DOT). DOT equipment would also need to be loaned to the team. In addition to the complete system design, the team would assemble and test the equipment to make a functional traffic monitoring system. Considerable time will also need to be spent in obtaining funding, purchasing parts and working with individuals from the Highway Patrol, DOT and ISU.
End-Product Selection
The most feasible end-product to develop will be a design. This is due to the cost effectiveness of the design. To purchase any parts for this project, the 150 dollar budget allotted to this project could be exhausted on a single sensor. Much more funding would need to be obtained in order to implement a simulation or a prototype.
Section 2 – Approach and Current Product Design Results
Section 2 contains detailed information on the approach and design for this project. The approach that has been and will be used for the solution of the proposed design problem will be described. Current progress will be noted and what needs to be done in the future will be explained. With this approach information and status, the current design work and the direction for the continuation of the design process will also be stated.
1. Approach Used and Progress Results
Included in this section are the design objectives, functional requirements, design constraints, technical approaches, technical considerations, technical evaluation results, testing approach considerations and recommendations regarding project continuation or modification.
1. Design Objectives
Several criteria were identified as necessary objectives the system needs to meet. These criteria are detailed below.
Low cost: The system should be affordable for ISU and the DOT. Keeping the price as low as possible is going to be a major consideration for the project. The more functional the system the higher the overall cost will be. Considerations for cost can include installation fees, eminence costs, assembly costs, and the costs for the components used. The cost of the overall system is going to be a major driving factor behind the technological considerations.
Near real time monitoring: The system must be able to monitor traffic in a real time manner. The data analysis does not need to be done in real time, but needs to be done as close to real time as possible. The faster the system can analyze data, the faster it can warn motorists of impending problems. Real time monitoring will directly affect power consumption and communication requirements.
Reliable operation: The system must be able to operate reliably for up to six hours at a time. The system must be able to handle any errors presented to it and reliably output dependable results. Reliable operation will depend mainly on power consumption and effecitviness of the detection scheme that will be employed.
2. Functional Requirement
The requirements the system must meet to be considered a success are detailed below.
Capture and analyze: The primary goal of the system is to detect the presence of a vehicle and the speed of the vehicle. The analysis of the speed of the vehicle can be done either by the sensor itself, or by a software system located elsewhere. The system must be able to detect whether a car is present or not. All other measurements will fail if this primary objective is not met.
Communication control system: The system must be able to transmit the data collected to a control system that would then either analyze the data, transmit the data to a software system for analysis, or directly activate a system to notify motorists.
Notify motorists: The system must be able to warn motorist of impending traffic problems. This can be achieved in a number of different implementations. The notification can be either a visual warning from a road side traffic sign, or an auditory warning via a radio frequency, or a combination of the two. The main consideration needs to be the amount of warning time needed for a driver to understand that there is a problem ahead and then react to the problem.
3. Design Constraints
The following are constraints the system needs to be able to meet so as to ensure that the system is going to operate effectively.
Durable: The system must be able to operate under any weather circumstance found in Iowa. This includes extreme high and low temperatures ranging in value from -47°F to 118°F. This also includes high winds up to 50 mph. Falling snow should not disrupt operation, but significant accumulation will not be accounted for. This is because at this point traffic patterns will already be irregularly slow. The system will also need to stand up to heavy rain. This includes water-proof components and sensory systems that work in the rain. Hail is another potential weather problem. The system should be rugged enough to handle light hail without significant damage or sensing malfunction. In addition to these extreme weather phenomena, the system must withstand high volumes of traffic without breaking. The system’s ability to withstand the rigors of high volume traffic is a serious constraint which will be analyzed.
Cost Effective Design: Again the system must be affordable. With a limited budget available a cost effective design could become a major constraint of the system limiting the potential functionality of the system.
Portability: The system should be able to be easily moved, setup, and taken down before and after each event. Portable options are difficult to find; however, many semi-portable options have been identified. For a system to be completely portable many other objectives would need to be met including low power consumption, wireless communication, and easy on-site setup and removal. Many semi-portable options do not meet the stringent requirements of a portable device but do meet a combination of the above criteria. If the cost of a portable system is too great a non-portable or semi-portable option may become necessary.
Expandability: The system will need to be easily and cheaply expanded to cover all of the community. This is a part of the cost effective design. The system price will directly effect how easily the system can be expanded. The functionality of the system is also a major portion to be considered.
Functionality: The system must be able to distinguish no, stopped and moving traffic. The system must also warn motorists of potential hazard areas. In order to accomplish this, the system will need to be able to communicate with all of its components.
4. Technical Approaches, Considerations and Results
This section contains a very detailed description of the methods used to identify, evaluate and select the technology used for the design of this system. Due to the amount of technology research that needs to be accomplished, the technologies have been divided into four main categories; sensors, controls, communications and warning systems. Under each of these four groups, the possible technologies will be identified and evaluated. At the end of this section, the current status and direction for future work for each of these areas will be provided.
1. Sensor Technology
Sensor technology research received the largest amount of attention during these starting phases of the project. This was expected, since the starting point of the system process is sensing the vehicles. Spending more time on the proper selection of sensing technology was also important because of the significant impact that it will have on later control and communications technology requirements. Unfortunately, due to the large number of possible sensing technologies and the time constraints that this project is under, many potential solutions could not be considered. Most of these were eliminated before complete evaluation due to obvious limitations or the fact that they were very high-tech, complicated and expensive solutions.
1. Sensor Criteria Identification
This section will detail the criteria used to narrow the sensor selection down to the final optimal solution. The following criteria are going to be used to determine the selection of the sensors.
Capability: This factor takes into account the sensor’s ability to meet the design objectives, functional requirements and design constraints of the project. The accuracy, reliability, safety and expandability of the system are key components.
Ease of implementation: Ease of implementation is the next most important criteria. Due to the limited time constraints of this project, the group will attempt to employ as many “off the shelf” parts as possible. The amount of difficulty involved with designing the system using the given sensor technology will be examined.
Initial cost: Initial costs include the price of components for the unit, assembly, and installation costs.
Operating / maintenance cost: This factor deals with setup of systems that have to be installed and removed before and after each event. Also this factor deals with the maintenance costs of each unit. This includes storage and basic maintenance to the unit.
Durability: Durability is another important factor in choosing a sensor. The system needs to be able to withstand all of the natural elements and in addition survive thousands of vehicles driving over or past it.
Ease of use: Ease of use is an important factor when considering the operation of the sensors. It is undesirable to have to train people how to use a difficult sensor system. It is also best to have the system be easy to setup due to time constraints before and after an event. Therefore, even if systems are equal based on a sum of the initial and operating costs; this factor accounts for the advantage of having an easy to use system.
These criteria are weighted as follows:
Capability 35 Points
Ease of implementation 20 Points
Initial cost 15 Points
Operating / maintenance cost 15 Points
Durability 10 Points
Ease of use 05 Points
_______________________________________
Total 100 Points
The weighting was decided based on the overall design objectives, functional requirements and design constraints. Considerable time was taken to develop a fair and accurate grading system.
2. Sensor Technology Identification and Research
Several technologies were researched in order to find the most cost effective and reliable sensing devices. For the identification part of this section, the operation of these systems, and some of each system’s advantages and disadvantages will be provided. The research will be covered by listing how each technology performed based on the criteria that were previously identified. A final, overall ranking of each technology will also be supplied.
Radar Gun / Motion Detector
Operation: The radar gun/motion detector combination was the first idea the group evaluated. Basically, this sensor system would consist of a radar gun with an output device and a motion detector. The motion detector would be connected to the radar gun, which would then be connected to a transmitter that would send the radar gun’s output to a server. The motion detector would detect a vehicles presence and fire the radar gun at a predetermined location to detect the vehicle’s speed. The radar gun would then output the speed to the transmitter and send the information to the server to be processed.
[pic]
Figure 6 - Example of a radar gun with serial output
Pros: The radar gun/motion detector system can detect the speed of the moving vehicle with one sensor location. In addition, this is a non-intrusive form of vehicle monitoring which would eliminate most of the wear problems associated with road mounted systems.
Cons: This system is by far the most difficult to make. There are many potential problems that may arise from the implementation of this system. Among these is the minimum speed sensing range of radar guns. Radar guns can not detect cars going below a certain threshold depending on the gun. Research has found that this can be anywhere from 5 to 20 mph. This could be a serious problem if the motion detector is detecting motion, such as a car inching along, and the radar gun is not able to determine a speed. In addition, radar jammers would create havoc on the system. Other problem areas are interference from other sources such as police vehicles, ambulances, and other vehicles operating on the same frequency as the radar gun. Other issues that would have to be overcome include making the motion detector control the radar gun, decoding the output of the radar gun, and transmitting that information to the server. The price of the system is also fairly high with each radar gun costing over $900 dollars and each motion detector costing approximately $100. The output from the gun would also have to be converted using additional components in order to transfer it to a computer.
Capability (10/35): The minimum speed requirement of the radar gun will severely hamper its ability to perform the most basic required function, detecting a slow moving vehicle.
Ease of implementation (0/20): The radar gun is the most difficult to implement as a technology. It will require an extensive control design along with a complex controller to properly decode the information generated by the radar gun.
Initial cost (7/15): The price of the system is fairly high with each radar gun / motion detector set costing over $1000. Controllers and data converters will also need to be purchased. In order to be portable, the system could be trailer mounted to be easily setup in the field. However, this would greatly increase the cost of the units.
Operating / maintenance cost (10/15): With the unit trailer mounted, the operating cost would be relatively low. The equipment would still need to be maintained and everything would need to positioned and adjusted properly for each setup.
Durability (6/10): The durability of this system should be pretty high as it will not be in direct contact with any traffic and will only have to survive transportation to and from the site. Weather elements may prove to be a bit more troublesome to the system as rain as snow could easily affect the motion detector’s accuracy.
Ease of use (3/5): The radar gun system may be fairly easy to use assuming that it is trailer mounted. It would simply need to be setup and positioned correctly.
Total score: 36/100
Video Cameras
Operation: Video cameras would be mounted on light poles that are already present at the Elwood Exit. There are two different ways in which the cameras may be used. First, they would be connected wirelessly to a remote viewing station where an operator would monitor traffic and control the warning system to appropriately alert the drivers. The second option is to have the video feed be monitored by a computer system. The system would be calibrated to detect vehicles and calculate their speed. Once the average speed of vehicles on the ramp is found, the appropriate warning system would be triggered automatically.
[pic]
Figure 7 - Weather resistant camera mounting option
Pros: The human system has the most versatility because the operator is able to monitor the dynamic system more effectively. The computer controlled camera system can detect the speed of the moving vehicle with one sensor location. The system would also be able to detect if a car is present or not. The video cameras are a non-intrusive form of vehicle monitoring which would eliminate most of the wear problems associated with road mounted systems.
Cons: The human operated system does not necessarily fall into the scope of the design requirements because it is not automated. In addition this system will become extremely expensive over the long run due to the costs of having an operator run it. Another potential problem would be the wireless transmission of the amount of data that a camera creates. The computer-based image processing is also an unfamiliar technology which would be difficult to implement.
Only the automated video monitoring system is going to be evaluated. Having a person watching cameras does not meet the design objectives and is not an effective system. To reduce cost and be more effective, the person could simply monitor traffic at the location and activate the sign manually.
Capability (20/35): Motion capture technology may have problems discerning the speed of vehicles in poor light and weather conditions. The technology should be able to detect both the presence of a vehicle and its speed, which is an advantage over some of the technologies.
Ease of implementation (2/20): The video camera system should be fairly easy to setup because it employs many off the shelf parts. Unfortunately, the motion capture technology requires large amounts of programming knowledge no one in the group possesses. This is a new technology that would be difficult to implement.
Initial cost (0/15): The cameras can be purchased for approximately $250 and the base station required for the cameras cost close to $100. Installation may be expensive with extensive wiring work. Continuous high-flow wireless transfer would be very expensive. Computerized image analysis system is also most likely very expensive. For portability it would be assumed that the cameras would also need to be mounted on trailers.
Operating / maintenance cost (8/15): If the system is trailer mounted it will not cost a lot to operate, but there will still be maintenance cost similar to the radar system.
Durability (4/10): The cameras are quite durable but may have some problems focusing during high wind. The image processing software would most likely have trouble in heavy rain, snow or fog.
Ease of use (2/5): The ease of use of this system is going to be fairly low because the cameras will also need to be cleaned and adjusted often. Positioning them properly and calibrating the detection system may also be difficult.
Total score: 36/100
Strain Gauges
Operation: The basic operation of this system would require a simple microcontroller and a strain gauge. The idea behind this system would be to mount a strain gauge underneath the pavement to measure the flex in the pavement that a car creates when it drives over that section. The speed of a vehicle would then be calculated based on the time that a car is on the sensor. After a set amount of speeds have been collected, the controller would then send a signal to the proper sign that displays a warning message. The sign would remain active until the server receives a signal from the strain gauge system that says a car has been on the strain gauge for a very short amount of time (indicating that a car is moving quite fast) the server would then clear the proper sign. This basic idea will be the same idea behind the wire loop, road tube, tape switch and light sensor systems.
[pic]
Figure 8 - Example of a concrete strain gauge
Pros: This system has the benefit of being a very cheap system employing a very novel way to detect the speed of traffic. Event setup would be simple because the units would only need to be connected to the system. The sensor pictured above costs less than $100.
Cons: This system would require a great deal of concrete work to install. Weather would also create a problem with this system. Freezing of the concrete could generate a false signal. This would be a major problem seeing how the system is to be implemented in Iowa. The system may not be sensitive enough to detect high-speed vehicles.
Capability (20/35): The strain gauge is an unproven technology for this purpose, but the concept behind the technology is strong. In most situations this system should perform properly but extreme heating and cooling of concrete could potentially corrupt the reliability of the system.
Ease of implementation (4/20): This is a difficult technology to implement requiring extensive decoding of information. The detection circuitry required of this system may prove problematic and will add another element to the system. The accuracy of the components would be difficult to know without significant and expensive testing.
Initial cost (3/15): This system will be extremely cheap to implement with each strain gauge costing under $100. However, this system will require extensive assembly and installation road work which will drive its initial price extremely high relative to how simple the technology is. Initial testing of the strain gauges would also be expensive because they would need to be embedded in concrete and driven over by normal traffic.
Operating / maintenance cost (12/15): This system will require little maintenance in ideal weather conditions. However, replacement of damaged units could become expensive and is expected, due to the fact that they are an on-road solution.
Durability (7/10): The durability of this system is a little unknown. Since it is an unproven technology no one knows if the delicate sensor will be able to withstand the large amount of traffic driving over the top of it. Because it is mounted in the road, this system can be plowed over in the winter and should be generally unaffected by precipitation.
Ease of use (5/5): This system would most likely be a non-portable to semi-portable solution. The operator should only have to connect the sensors to the system for each event. Because the sensors do not need to be positioned for each event, this technology receives the highest score.
Total score: 51/100
Wire Loops
Operation: The operation of this system uses the same logic as the strain gauge. However, instead of using a strain gauge to detect the presence of a vehicle a wire loop similar to the wire loop used at a stoplight would be used. A magnetic field is created by the loop. The sensor measures the disturbance in this field when a vehicle passes over it. A pair of loops would be installed at a set distance apart from each other. The time it takes a vehicle to pass both sensors would in turn be used to calculate speed. Two different types of wire loop systems are going to be evaluated. First, there are in-road loops which are cut into the pavement. The second option is to use temporary loops which are adhered to the road surface. Both loops are cheap because they are simple coils of wire. However, the in-road loops initially cost more to install because of the concrete work and are obviously not mobile. On the other hand, the temporary loops are portable and will be cheaper at first, but they may become more expensive in the long run because they will be damaged much faster than in-ground loops.
[pic]
Figure 9 - Example of an in-ground wire loops
[pic]
Figure 10 - Example of a temporary on-road loop
Pros: An advantage of this system is that it is based off commonly used technology. This would benefit the DOT because they already have experience installing these systems. In addition this would be a relatively cheap system that uses pre-existing technology. This system should be able to work in most weather conditions and the in-road systems should not pose any snow plowing problems similar to pre-existing systems.
Cons: The major downfall of the in-road loop system would be all of the expensive concrete work required to install the system. The system would no longer be portable. The portable loops could become very expensive in the long term. These mobile loops may become damaged quickly and would need to be replaced often. An overall problem with wire loops is the system’s inability to detect vehicles that have high ground clearance and small vehicles like motorcycles. They also require special inductance measuring signal processors. The road surface would be physically altered by either cutting the loops in or attaching the loops. Systems that were evaluated also required an inductance sensing classifier unit which cost approximately $1000.
In-Ground Wire Loop
Capability (25/35): The wire loop is a proven technology in the field, having been employed to detect vehicles at stoplights for years. Unfortunately there are a few questions behind the system. One is the speed at which the system can operate. We are unsure as to the ability of the wire loop to detect high-speed vehicles. Also there are some reliability issues with the wire loop being unable to detect certain vehicles such as motorcycles. Even though motorcycles may not be very common during an event, they could prove problematic by injecting erroneous signals into the system.
Ease of implementation (12/20): The system suffers the same shortcomings as the strain gauge for ease of implementation. The only benefit to the system is that there may be more off the shelf parts available to assist in decoding the signal generated by the wire loop. Even so, the loops still require special inductance measuring systems to process the signal data and this adds to the complexity of the system.
Initial cost (9/15): The price of the system components would be fairly low with the majority of the costs coming from the signal analyzers. However, the concrete work would most likely add approximately $2000 to the initial cost.
Operating / maintenance cost (15/15): This system will require maintenance similar to that of current technologies that are already at stoplights which is very minimal because they are buried in the road. This system gets the best score here.
Durability (10/10): This system should be durable enough to survive heavy amounts of traffic driving over it. This is known due to the ability of current wire loops to survive large amounts of traffic already. This system also gets the best score here.
Ease of use (5/5): This is a non-portable solution. The operator should only have to connect the sensors to the system for each event. Because the sensors do not need to be positioned for each event, this technology receives the highest score.
Total score: 76/100
Portable Wire Loop
Capability (30/35): The portable wire loop is exactly the same as the in-ground loop with the exception that the portable wire loop is contained in a mat and does therefore not require any concrete work to install. This also meets the full portability requirements of the system. High speed vehicles may still present a sensing problem.
Ease of implementation (12/20): This is the same as for the in-ground wire loop sensors. The system suffers the same shortcomings as the strain gauge for ease of implementation. The only benefit to the system is that there may be some more off the shelf parts available to assist in decoding the signal generated by the wire loop. Even so, the loops do still require special inductance measuring systems to process the signal data and this adds to the complexity of the system.
Initial cost (13/15): This system is initially much more cost effective than the in-road system. The portable sensors cost close to $200 dollars and do not require major concrete work to install. However, the special inductance analyzer system or systems will raise this cost, so it doesn’t get the best score here.
Operating / maintenance cost (9/15): This system has a bit more costs associated with the upkeep of the sensors. Since they will be simply mounted on the road and driven over, they are not as durable as an in ground wire loop. Repair or replacement costs will be significantly higher. In addition, the system must be set up in the field before each event and taken down after each event. This will drive the long term costs of the system up.
Durability (3/10): The durability of the on-road sensors is significantly less than that of the in ground system. However, if they are properly positioned so that traffic is not driving on them they could last a reasonable amount of time.
Ease of use (3/5): This system is a little less user friendly due to the manual positioning involved in the setup of the sensors. Yet, it is not too technically difficult and should not require extensive training.
Total score: 70/100
Road Tubes
Operation: Road tubes are often used to count cars and are a proven technology for that application. They simply consist of rubber tubes which are filled with air. When a car drives over the tube its internal air pressure increases. An electronic analyzer converts this pressure increase into signal that can be used to detect tires passing over the tube. The speed calculating logic that many of the other systems use would also be employed here. A simple pair of road tube sensors would be laid across the road at a set distance apart from each other. The time it takes a vehicle’s tires to trigger both sensors would be used to calculate speed. It would be recommended that they are placed inside road ramps which are designed to position and protect the tubes. The ramps also allow the system to measure traffic in multiple lanes if needed.
[pic]
Figure 11 - Example of a road tube with mounting hardware
[pic]
Figure 12 - Demonstration of laying road tube inside a flexible road ramp
Pros: This system using existing technology that is relatively cheap to install with minimal concrete work. The actual road tubes are also cheap to replace at $45 per 100 feet. These sensors are very reliable for detecting the tires of a vehicle. In particular, they would detect an axle at a time because either both of the front tires or both rear tires would hopefully hit the tube at the same time. The system is also semi-portable.
Cons: Road tubes present many logic problems. For the system to calculate speed, an individual axle would need to be timed to see how long it takes to reach the next sensor. If one of these axles was incorrectly detected, it would throw the system off completely. For example, if the rear axle of a car was detected at the first sensor and not detected at the second, the second sensor would be waiting until the next car’s front axle would come along and trip it. This would completely throw off the timing for the rest of the analysis unless the logic was reset often. There are other logic problems as well, such as dealing with vehicle with three axles and vehicles with trailers. These sensors also often yield faulty signaling if a vehicle is stopped on top of them. Yet another set back is the amount of time they would take to setup and take down because the tubes are usually mounted to the road using concrete nails or adhesive. They would also present problems for snow plowing and potentially for traction if they are mounted on a curved section of the road. Systems that were evaluated required a pressure sensing classifier unit which cost approximately $1000.
Capability (0/35): The road tubes have a difficult time detecting certain vehicles and higher speed traffic. If the system were to miss an axle, results will be altered terribly because the system will no longer be able to effectively determine traffic patterns. The logic involved with axle detection is more complicated and less reliable due to these problems. The system has difficulty detecting high-speed traffic. Fast moving vehicle can also present a safety hazard the tube breaks loose from its mounting.
Ease of implementation (5/20): The system will be difficult for the group to implement. An extra piece of converting equipment will need to be added to the design to convert the pneumatic information of the axle counter to an electrical signal so a system could then decode this signal. In addition to this extra step, creating a reliable control logic system would be much more difficult for axle detecting than for vehicle detecting.
Initial cost (12/15): The individual component cost of the road tubes is fairly low at $45 per 100 feet. The pressure analyzer and classifier units would cost $1000 for a set of four tubes. To detect speed at one location on a one lane road at one position would require two tubes. Special ramps that protect and position the tubes would also be recommended. These cost approximately $550 for a two-lane wide ramp.
Operating / maintenance cost (5/15): Setup time for this system, repair time, and storage will increase the long term costs of this system greatly. The system is usually nailed to the concrete, so after continual setup the road may also need to be repaired. This problem may be avoided using glue or tape, but these may not hold the sensors as reliably.
Durability (0/10): The road tubes are not a very durable system and would have a hard time standing up to the large numbers of vehicles driving over them for an event. They are designed to be cheaply replaced, so this does help them a little here.
Ease of use (0/5): The ease of use of this system is going to be very low. The road tube sensors are not that easy to set up. They would need to be nailed into place for each event which would take a considerable amount of time. Spacing would need to be specific and they would need to be reliably held down to make sure that a safety hazard is not created.
Total score: 22/100
Tape Switches
Operation: Mechanically, they are just switches that are activated by tires running over them. As far as system logic is concerned, tape switch are very similar to road tubes. The speed calculating logic that many of the other systems use would also be employed here. A simple pair of tape switches would be nailed or adhered to the road at a set distance apart from each other. The time it takes a vehicle’s tires to trigger both sensors would be used to calculate speed
[pic]
Figure 13 - Example of rugged vehicle-axle detecting tape switch
Pros: The sensors are cheap to install because they only need to be attached to the road. Similar to the road tubes, these sensors would be excellent for detecting the tires of a vehicle. In particular, they would detect an axle at a time because either both of the front tires or both rear tires would hopefully hit the tube at the same time. The system is also semi-portable.
Cons: These sensors cost $315 per switch, so they would be very costly to replace as they are worn out. Similar to road tubes, these switches present many logic problems. For the system to calculate speed, an individual axle would need to be timed to see how long it takes to reach the next sensor. If one of these axles was incorrectly detected, it would throw the system off completely. There are other logic problems as well, such as dealing with vehicle with three axles and vehicles with trailers. They would also present problems for snow plowing and potentially for traction if they are mounted on a curved section of the road.
Capability (5/35): The tape switches we have the same difficulty detecting certain vehicles as the road tubes. If the system misses an axle, results will be altered terribly because the system will no longer be able to effectively determine traffic patterns. The logic involved with axle detection is more complicated and less reliable due to these problems. However, these switches are more capable of detecting high speed traffic than road tubes.
Ease of implementation (10/20): The tape switches will be less difficult than the road tubes for the group to implement. The extra piece of converting equipment will not be needed. Creating a reliable control logic system would still be much more difficult for this axle detecting system than for a vehicle detecting solution.
Initial cost (14/15): The individual component cost of the tape switches is fairly low at $315 per switch. This makes the initial cost relatively low. Because they are a simple switch, no special analyzing or converting is needed.
Operating / maintenance cost (6/15): Setup time for this system should be relatively quick. The tape switch is usually nailed to the concrete, so after continual setup the road may also need to be repaired. This problem may be avoided using glue or tape, but these may not hold the sensors as reliably.
Durability (6/10): Tape switches are designed to be driven over, so they would be under a lot of abuse. Replacing the sensors could become expensive in the long run. However, they are specifically design to be driven over, so they should be able to take a lot of abuse. They are designed to be replaced easily, but their replacement is significantly more expensive than that of the road tubes.
Ease of use (4/5): The ease of use of this system is going to be fairly low. The tape switches are easy to glue to or nail to the road, but they would be more difficult to remove. They are easier to use than road tubes, but not by a lot.
Total score: 45/100
Light Beam
Operation: The operation of this system uses the same speed calculating logic that many of the other systems use. A simple pair of light beam sensors would be employed. They would be mounted a set distance apart from each other on posts on the sides of the road. The time it takes a vehicle to block both light beams would be used to calculate speed.
[pic]
Figure 14 - Example of a rugged light beam sensor
Pros: If this system is properly aimed at approximately a third of the way up a car, it would be very effective at detecting all vehicles. This system would be relatively cheap with light beam sensors costing less than $200. Because it doesn’t count axles, there is not a problem with trailers and tandem axle vehicles. In addition, this option would not require expensive concrete work or need to be subject to as much damage by traffic as many of the other systems. The sensors could be mounted using a quick-release system so that setup and removal for events would be fast. No special signal processing is required because they have a simple on/off output.
Cons: The system may have problems dealing with snow, rain or heavy fog. This system is more fine-tuned than some options, so it may require time to re-calibrate. If it is not mounted far enough off the road, it could be easily damaged by vehicles.
Capability (30/35): This system has difficulty detecting multilane traffic. The light beam detectors may also have trouble in heavy precipitation. Besides, these facts, the system is portable, safe, reliable and very sensitive. It would be able to detect the largest amount of vehicles, including motorcycles and vehicles with a high ground clearance.
Ease of implementation (20/20): The light beam has more sensors act as simple switches and therefore should be easy to implement. No special signal analysis or converting should be required. The technology is proven in many other applications and its implementation here should be no more complicated. Due to its ability to detect vehicles and not just axles, it is also easier to design a control logic system for. For these reasons it receives the highest score.
Initial cost (15/15): Rugged light sensors can be purchased for approximately $200 a piece. These sensors are cheap with regard to other systems and no additional expensive input to convert the equipment should be needed, unlike the road tube and ground loop systems. Only posts mounted on the sides of the road are required for installation, so no expensive road work is needed. For these reasons it receives the highest score.
Operating / maintenance cost (10/15): The setup of this system is rather easy. The system could be clamped directly to posts installed at the site eliminating the costly expense of concrete work needing to be done. The system would need to be cleaned and properly aimed so a little time will need to be spent on this. The expense of setup should primarily consist of labor cost.
Durability (8/10): The durability of the system is dependant wholly upon the light sensor that will be selected to implement the system. Rugged light sensors are available that are durable enough to stand up to severe weather conditions. Because the system is not mounted on the road it will not be subject to damage from the number of vehicles that will run over many of the other technologies. Road side equipment could still be hit by vehicles, but this is would damage any of the other technologies as well. For these reasons it receives the second highest score.
Ease of use (3/5): The light beam system should be fairly easy to use. All the installation worker would have to do is clamp the sensor to a pre-installed post and align the sensor so that it aimed properly. This could be done with a simple test signal. The mounting equipment on the post could also be designed so that the sensor would be properly aimed once it is clamped in place. The sensor lenses will also need to be cleaned before setup in order to provide for the most accurate reading.
Total score: 86/100
3. Sensor Technology Selection
From the analysis performed in the previous section, a final technology will be selected. The following table shows the results of each sensor’s evaluation.
Table 1 - Evaluation of sensor technologies based on identified criteria
[pic]
The light beam scored the highest overall and will therefore be the technology that will be used for the sensor system. The next step is to select which exact light beam sensor to use. IFM Effector manufactures rugged, accurate and sensitive light beam units. They are reasonably priced at under $200 and can be mounted using pre-designed systems that allow for easy alignment and quick-release. The exact unit and mounting solution to be used is yet to be determined, but will be included with the final design
[pic]
Figure 15 - Light beam sensor with a quick-release adjustable mount
2. Control Technology
There were many technologies considered for collecting the data from the sensors and then displaying the appropriate message on the signs based on that data.
1. Control Criteria Identification
There were several criteria that were used for selecting a control technology that would best fit the project. These criteria were to make sure that the control technology would be able handle the tasks demanded of it.
Capability: This takes into account how well the system can handle the tasks demanded of it. This will also take into account mobility because this is one of the design requirements. This category gets the most weight because if the technology isn’t capable of handling the tasks then it shouldn’t be used.
Ease of implementation: This takes into account how much perceived effort would be needed to get the control technology running all the tasks that are required of it. This also includes integrating the control system with the sensors and signs. This category carries the second highest amount of weight because if the technology is really hard to implement then it should not be used.
Ease of use: This takes into account how easy it is to use the particular control system. Can the people operating the control system do so without much trouble, how great is the learning curve of using this new system? Is the interface something they are familiar with or is it at least something that can easily be learned? Since this is the part of the system that people will be interfacing with the most it is deemed very important.
Initial cost: This entails all costs of setting up the system. This has three major components the hardware, the software, and the labor to put the system together.
Operating and maintenance cost: This takes into account the cost of having people use and operate the control system and any setup operations that maybe necessary each time the system is used. These are the repetitive costs that come about every time the control system is used.
Durability: This takes into account how well the system can withstand all the abuses it will incur from the operators and also take into account whether or not it will be able to withstand the environment it will be running in.
The criteria are weighted as follows:
Capability 35 points
Ease of implementation 25 points
Ease of use 20 points
Initial costs 10 points
Operating / maintenance cost 05 points
Durability 05 points
Total 100 points
The weighting was decided based on the overall design objectives, functional requirements and design constraints. Considerable time was taken to develop a fair and accurate grading system.
2. Control Technology Identification and Research
There were many technologies that were identified. They are listed in the tables below. They include software and both stationary and mobile hardware.
Table 2 - Operating system identification
|Technologies Researched |Group Familiarity |Cost |Hardware Platform |
|Linux |Strong |$162 –Red Hat Enterprise Linux |Linux can be found on |
| | |WS V.3 Basic for x86 |just about any computer |
| | | |platform. |
|Unix |Very Weak although it is similar to Linux | | |
|XP Professional |Very Strong |$142 |X86 |
| | | | |
|Server 2003 |Weak although it is similar to XP Pro |$499 – 5 Client |X86 |
| | | | |
|Mac OS X |Strong |$129 upgrade |Mac |
| | | | |
|Mac OS X Sever |Weak although it is similar to OS X |$499 |Mac |
| | | | |
Table 3 - Non-mobile hardware platform identification
|Technologies Researched |Operating Systems |Benefits |Limitations |
|Dell |XP Professional, Server 2003 |$498-2,500 | |
| | | | |
|Mac |Mac OS X, OS X Server |$1,299-3000 | |
| | | | |
|Sun |Unix(Solaris), Linux, XP |$1,395-1,995 | |
| | | | |
Table 4 - Mobile hardware platform identification
|Technologies Research |Group Familiarity |Cost |Platform |
|Laptop |Very |$1039 |X86 or Mac |
| | |$999 | |
|Intermec CV60 |Very |$5000 - $10000 |X86: XP Pro, XP Embedded, |
| | | |Windows CE .NET |
This section contains all the information gathered about the particular operating systems and the hardware platforms that run the particular platforms. It also details some mobile solutions.
Software solutions
The headings below are the operating systems that were discovered as being likely possibilities for accomplishing the tasks desired.
Linux
Linux would be an excellent choice for communicating with our remote sensors because it includes a great deal networking capabilities. Linux can be found on nearly any hardware platform imaginable. Making it fit to nearly any hardware we decide to use. The support available for Linux is vast on the internet but at times it can be cumbersome finding appropriate drivers to run some pieces of hardware. The scoring for Linux is as follows.
[pic]
Figure 16 - Red Hat Linux
Capability (33/35): Linux is very capable of handling the task of being the operating system that is used in the control system. It is well equipped to handle communications but drivers can be hard to come by for some types of hardware.
Ease of implementation (15/25): It is deemed moderately hard to implement because it can be hard to locate drivers for various pieces of hardware this would make it very hard to implement. Then, installing the drivers isn’t a trivial operation either. A great deal of knowledge about the operating system will need to be acquired.
Ease of use (16/20): Linux is fairly easy to use and get used to, but it can be hard to use at times because it isn’t an extremely mainstream operating system.
Initial costs (10/10): Linux is a very inexpensive operating system. Furthermore it can run on a Dell system that can be purchased for as little as $498.
Operating and maintenance costs (5/5): There are relatively no operating or maintenance costs. All that has to happen is the computer must be turned on and Linux must be loaded and running.
Durability (5/5): Linux is a very durable and robust operating system once it is running it rarely needs to be rebooted.
Total score: 84/100
Unix
Unix would be an excellent choice for communicating with the remote sensors because it entails a great deal networking capabilities. Plus it has many similarities with Linux which will make it pretty easy to learn although the user interface can be challenging at times. Driver availability is of much concern with this operating system even more so than it is with Linux. This platform is limited to specific hardware namely Sun.
[pic]
Figure 17 - Solaris a Unix operating system
Capability (30/35): Unix is a very capable operating system. It has the built in communication capabilities. The only question is whether or not all the drivers that are needed to run the specific hardware will be available.
Ease of implementation (5/25): Unix is very different from other operating systems. The graphical user interface can be hard to use. This makes it very hard to implement because people don’t have much experience using it.
Ease of use (6/20): Unix can be very hard to use and get used to. This is due to the fact that the graphical user interface is not that good. Icons are not placed in familiar places and the interface is hard to get used to.
Initial costs (5/10): Unix comes prepackaged with Sun systems. The computers starting price is $1,395. This places it somewhere in the middle of the pack as far as price is concerned.
Operating and maintenance costs (5/5): The terminal just needs to be turned on leaving no real need for any maintenance. Like Linux it is inexpensive to maintain.
Durability (5/5): Unix is a very stable operating system and will not need to be rebooted. It can handle the rigors required of it by the project.
Total score: 56/100
Microsoft XP Professional
All of the group members are very familiar with Windows XP. This would make it really easy to use and setup. This is the operating system that is most desired because there is such a familiarity with using it. It can handle the communication demands of the project. The graphical user interface is easy to use do to the high level of familiarity. It is runs on computers using Intel processors or a compatible processor.
[pic]
Figure 18 - Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Capability (35/35): This is a very capable operating system. It will be able to handle all the tasks that are required of it. All the needed drivers will be pretty easy to locate and obtain.
Ease of implementation (25/25): It will be easy to implement this operating system because many of the needed drivers will be provided. If the required drivers are not provided they will be easily located on the internet and also will easily be installed.
Ease of use (20/20): XP Professional is very easy to use. Many people are very comfortable and familiar with this environment.
Initial costs (8/10): While this operating system costs more than some versions of the Linux operating system it is still very inexpensive. This can be run on a Dell for $498 plus $99 to get XP Professional. This makes it one of the least expensive options.
Operating and maintenance costs (5/5): The operating and maintenance costs are low because all that is required is that the computer must be turned on and the operating system loaded and running.
Durability (4/5): XP Professional is a very durable operating system although it is known to crash at times.
Total score: 97/100
Microsoft 2003 Server
The team does not have as much experience with this operating system and it goes a little over the top with features. It is meant to be used as a file server and or an electronic mail server which is not anywhere near being part of the requirements of the project.
[pic]
Figure 19 - Microsoft Windows Server 2003
Capability (35/35): Much like XP Professional 2003 Server will be very capable of handling the task.
Ease of implementation (20/25): There are many features that come with 2003 Server that might make it harder to implement. Also these extra features are not necessary.
Ease of use (18/20): 2003 Server should be relatively easy to use.
Initial costs (1/10): At $499 2003 Server is one of the more expensive operating system options. This can be run on a dell that has a starting price of $498.
Operating and maintenance costs (5/5): There isn’t much maintenance that will have to occur with running this system. All that is required is that the operating system must be loaded the computer must be turned on.
Durability (5/5): 2003 Server is a very stable operating system and rarely requires rebooting.
Total score: 84/100
Mac OS X
Mac OS X is based off of Unix which in turn means it has great at handling communications. It also means that it is very similar to Linux. The interface is very easy to use. There is still matter of whether or not it has the drivers available to handle the hardware that is being used to communicate with the sensors.
[pic]
Figure 20 - Screenshot of Mac OS X
Capability (30/35): Mac OS X is a very capable operating system it will be able to handle all the communications requirements. There is only question of whether or not the drivers needed are available.
Ease of implementation (13/25): Since all the required drivers are going to be hard to come by it is going to hard to implement.
Ease of use (20/20): OS X is very easy to use. The graphical user interface is very intuitive and it is also very appealing to the eyes.
Initial costs (5/10): OS X comes packaged with Macintosh computers with a starting cost of $1,299. This places it in the middle of the pack as far as price is concerned. It is right in line with the Sun Microsystems computer running Unix.
Operating and maintenance costs (5/5): All that is required is that the computer must be turned on, and the operating system must be loaded and running.
Durability (5/5): OS X requires few if any reboots. It is also a very reliable system.
Total score: 78/100
Mac OS X Server
This probably wouldn’t be a good choice for the operating system because it is more expensive and probably is overkill much in the same way that Microsoft’s 2003 Server is. It is still a very capable but the price tag is a problem and the added features are not need.
[pic]
Figure 21 - Mac OS X Server
Capability (20/35): OS X Server comes under the same scrutiny as OS X. It will be hard to come by all the needed drivers. It can handle the communications just fine. It will also have many unnecessary features which could get in the way at times.
Ease of implementation (15/25): Without access to the appropriate drivers it will be hard to implement the operating system.
Ease of use (17/20): OS X Server is fairly easy to use.
Initial costs (3/10): OS X Server has a price tag of $499 on top of the $1299 it cost to by the Macintosh computer. This makes it one of the more expensive options.
Operating and maintenance costs (5/5): There are no major operating or maintenance costs. All that is required is that the computer be turned on and the operating system is loaded and running.
Durability (5/5): OS X Server is very reliable. It can also run very well in the environment it will be operating in.
Total Score: 65/100
Hardware solutions
In order to run the software specific computers are required. Each operating system has a platform it needs to run on. Research on all the unique types of platforms required by the operating systems that were researched are listed below.
Dell Dimension 2400
Dell computers come with Intel processors making it ideal for running Windows XP. It is also possible to run Linux on Dell computers. Dell is a very inexpensive solution with a starting price tag of $498.
[pic]
Figure 22 - Dell desktop
Capability (35/35): The Dell desktop is very capable of handling the tasks required of it. It comes with USB ports so it will be able to connect the various hardware components that we need to connect to it.
Ease of implementation (25/25): Implementation will be an easy task, it is just a matter of finding the proper connectors to connect the desired hardware to the computer which should be very easy since many devices now incorporate USB.
Ease of use (20/20): It is very easy to setup and use. Instructions come with it that will step the user through the setup process.
Initial costs (10/10): This is the least expensive hardware solution that was found coming in at $498.
Operating and maintenance costs (5/5): The only operating cost would be that of electricity which isn’t that expensive for running a computer. If any maintenance issues come up then the technical support for Dell can be called and they will help with any issues that may occur.
Durability (5/5): This is a very durable product. Rarely are parts defective.
Total score: 100/100
Apple iMac G5
Apple computers are the only computers that run Mac OS X. If Mac OS X is deemed the best operating system then an Apple will have to be purchased.
[pic]
Figure 23 - iMac G5
Capability (35/35): An Apple computer is very capable of handling the tasks required of it. It comes with USB ports so it will be able to easily connect to various USB hardware components that may need to be used.
Ease of implementation (25/25): Implementation will be an easy task it is just a matter of finding the proper connectors to connect the desired hardware to the computer which should be very easy since many devices now incorporate USB.
Ease of use (20/20): It is very easy to setup and use. Instructions come with it that will step the user through the setup process.
Initial costs (5/10): Apple computers have a base price tag of $1,299 making it one of the more expensive options.
Operating and maintenance costs (5/5): The only operating cost would be that of electricity which isn’t that expensive for running a computer. If any maintenance issues come up then the technical support for Apple can be called up and they will help with any issues that may occur.
Durability (5/5): This is a very durable product. Parts are rarely defective.
Total score: 95/100
Sun Blade 150 Workstation
Sun is a very good platform and can run Solaris which is a version of Unix. These computers are used predominantly as workstations. This means they offer more than is required.
[pic]
Figure 24 - Sun Blade 150 workstation
Capability (35/35): Sun desktop is very capable of handling the tasks required of it. It comes with USB ports so it will be able to easily connect to various USB hardware components that may need to be used.
Ease of implementation (25/25): Implementation will be an easy task it is just a matter of finding the proper connectors to connect the desired hardware to the computer which should be very easy since many devices now incorporate USB.
Ease of use (20/20): It is very easy to setup and use. Instructions come with it that will step the user through the setup process.
Initial costs (4/10): This is the least expensive hardware solution that was found coming in at $498.
Operating and maintenance costs (5/5): The only operating cost would be that of electricity which isn’t that expensive for running a computer. If any maintenance issues come up then the technical support for Sun can be called up and they will help with any issues that may occur.
Durability (5/5): This is a very durable product. Rarely are parts defective.
Total score: 94/100
Mobile Hardware solutions
What is intriguing about portable technologies is that it would enable the control center to be relocated depending upon the needs of the event. There are instances where it maybe advantageous to have the computer control center in a location that is really close to where the traffic is headed i.e. the parking lots. This will allow for more real-time input into the system. The people handling the system would be able to make modifications to the messages based upon observations made about the traffic.
Intermec CV60
The CV60 will be a very nice option in that it can be mounted in a vehicle making it extremely portable. Furthermore it is extremely rugged it is able to handle temperatures of (-4o to 122o F) with the solid state version and (-22o to 122o F) for the extreme operation edition. This computer has a touch screen making it even easier to use and less cumbersome to learn. It has built in Bluetooth and 802.11b/g. Since it is rugged it would be able to with stand the abuse put upon it by the users.
[pic]
Figure 25 - Intermec's CV60
Capability (30/35): The CV60 comes loaded with XP Professional so it is very capable of meeting the requirements. The required drives might be a little harder to locate because this is more of specialty item.
Ease of implementation (20/25): It will be very easy to implement this system. It can be placed just about anywhere. Mounting it in a car might take some time but it should not present a large problem.
Ease of use (20/20): It will be extremely easy to use. XP Professional is very well known and this is enhanced by the fact that the CV60 has a touch screen. There will be no mouse.
Initial costs (0/10): This is a very expensive system to buy. It costs around $5,000-10,000 making it the most expensive option out of all of them.
Operating and maintenance costs (5/5): This will require little maintenance it will only need to be turned on and the operating system must be loaded and running.
Durability (5/5): This is an extremely durable system it can withstand all the environments that could possibly be thrown at it.
Total score: 80/100
Laptop
The laptop will be much cheaper than the CV60 but it won’t be rugged nor will it have a touch screen. The laptop can come with built in Bluetooth and 802.11b/g communications. These options will increase the price but won’t bring it anywhere near the price of the CV60.
[pic]
Figure 26 - Gateway laptop
Capability (25/35): This is a very capable solution but won’t be as well equipped to handle all the elements that the CV60 can. But it would be a mobile solution which the desktops are not.
Ease of implementation (15/25): It will be easy to implement especially if it is running XP Professional.
Ease of use (16/20): It will be a little bit harder to use simply because mouse equivalent on a laptop can be a little be harder to get used to and the keyboard is more compact.
Initial costs (8/10): It will more expensive than its desktop counterparts coming in at $1039. At this price it is one of the least expensive options.
Operating and maintenance costs (5/5): There are a few more operating costs because the battery will have to be maintained.
Durability (3/5): It will be less durable because the components of a laptop fall apart more easily.
Total Score: 72/100
3. Control Technology Selection
After weighing all the criteria it became apparent which control technology was best suited for our needs. Windows XP Professional is deemed to be the best fit operating system because it received the highest point rating. Since XP Professional runs on computers that have Intel processors it was deemed that a Dell would be the best hardware solution.
Table 5 - Evaluation of software control technologies
[pic]
Table 6 - Evaluation of hardware control technologies
[pic]
3. Communication Technology
The communications technology in the traffic monitoring system consists of a technology that can communicate the information from the road sensor technology to the control technology and an additional technology to communicate from the control technology to the alerting signs or possible centralized command center. The communications technology depends largely upon the sensors technology selection and the control technology selection.
1. Communication Criteria Identification
This section details the basic criteria used in identifying and evaluating the communications technologies. Because there are two states within the traffic monitoring system that require communications technologies the set of criteria identification established will be evaluated twice.
Communications system evaluation criteria:
Ability to communicate
Compatibility with sensors
Ease of implementation
Ability to communicate: This evaluates whether or not the communication device can communicate wirelessly or if it needs wires. It also analyzes the speed at which data is sent from the sensors.
Compatibility with sensors: This evaluates how difficult it is to connect the sensors to the communication device. It also looks at how difficult it is to connect to the controller and communicate the data to the controller. This evaluates what is needed to connect the device to the controller and operate successfully.
Ease of implementation: This looks at how difficult it is to configure the hardware and software to work between the sensors and the communications device. If a communications device is complicated to configure and a difficult to connect to the sensors and controller than it will be scored less for ease of implementation.
2. Communication Technology Identification and Research
Identification:
The identification of possible communication technologies is divided into two separate technology identification systems. The first system is one that must transfer data from the sensors to the control system. The second system must transfer the data from the control system to either a warning system or a centralized command center. As the selection of the sensor technology and the control technology is being completed the appropriate selection of the communication technology for each stage of the traffic system has become a priority. The initial identification of the communications technology includes an RF transmit/receive system, RS-232 and cellular modems. Depending on the selection of the other technologies and the possibility of a centralized control system the resulting communications technology may need to change.
Research:
Only initial research has been done on communication technologies and they will be evaluated after the sensors and controller technologies have been solidified. The technologies researched for communications from the sensors to the controller are RF transmitter/receivers, serial cables and cellular modems.
Technologies researched for communication from the controller to the centralized traffic control, or to traffic signs are cellular modems, RF transmitter/receivers, and 802.11 wireless communications.
3. Communication Technology Selection
Technology selection will depend on the results of the sensors and controller selections. The sensors and controllers selection is nearly complete but the analysis of 3rd party solutions has added a new layer to the system and the 3rd party solutions must be evaluated as well.
4. Warning System Technology
The warning system is the part of the overall design that pertains to alerting the motorists the potential dangers ahead. In the following section, the potential warning systems will be identified and evaluated.
1. Warning System Criteria Identification
This section will detail the criteria used to narrow the warning system selection down to the final optimal solution. The following criteria are going to be used to determine the selection of the warning system.
Capability: This factor takes into account the system’s ability to meet the design objectives, functional requirements and design constraints of the project. The reliability, safety, impact and expandability of the system are key components here.
Ease of implementation: Ease of implementation is the next most important criteria. Due to the limited time constraints of this project, the group will attempt to employ as many “off-the-shelf” parts as possible. The amount of difficulty involved with designing the system using the given technology will be examined.
Initial cost: Initial costs include the price of components for the unit, assembly, and installation costs.
Operating / maintenance cost: This factor deals with setup of systems that have to be installed and removed before and after each event. Also this factor deals with the maintenance costs of each unit. This includes storage and basic maintenance to the unit.
Durability: Durability is another important factor in choosing a warning technology. The system needs to be able to withstand all of the natural elements and in addition survive thousands of vehicles driving past it.
Ease of use: Ease of use is an important factor when considering the operation of the warning devices. It is simply undesirable to have to train people how to use a difficult system. It is also best to have the system be easy to setup due to time constraints before and after an event. Therefore, even if systems are equal based on a sum of the initial and operating costs; this factor accounts for the advantage of having an easy to use solution.
These criteria are weighted as follows:
Capability 35 Points
Ease of implementation 20 Points
Initial cost 15 Points
Operating / maintenance cost 15 Points
Durability 10 Points
Ease of use 05 Points
_______________________________________
Total 100 Points
The weighting was decided based on the overall design objectives, functional requirements and design constraints. Considerable time was taken to develop a fair and accurate grading system.
2. Warning System Technology Identification and Research
Portable Sign With Flashing Lights
A portable sign with flashing lights is the simplest warning technology to be evaluated. The sign would read something close to “slow traffic ahead when flashing.” The flashing lights would be mounted to the sign and they would be switched on by the control system when a slow traffic condition is detected. The sign could also be permanent if so desired and the cost would not be increased by much. The cheapest portable sign would be of the type that is setup and held in place with sand bags. An easier to move solution would be to mount the sign on a trailer. This would be more expensive and would increase setup time.
[pic]
Figure 27 - Example of a trailer-mounted sign with flashing lights
For the evaluation, the cheap and simple portable, non-trailer-mounted solution will be evaluated. This was chosen because the increase in cost for trailer system would hurt this option more than it would help portability.
Capability (30/35): This system would meet the portability requirements. The flashing lights would also provide for a high impact notification.
Ease of implementation (20/20): This system is the easiest to implement. The reason for this is its simplicity. A simple on/off signal needs to be sent to the sign. This is the easiest operation. Controlling flashing lights is also the simplest technology.
Initial cost (15/15): This system is the cheapest alternative to purchase. All that is needed is a sign, a supporting metal frame, flashing lights, a communication system and a control system.
Operating / maintenance cost (8/15): This system has a high operating cost because it would be the most difficult to setup. Workers would need to assemble the sign and position it. Sand bags or another holding device would be needed to anchor the sign in place.
Durability (7/10): The system itself should very durable. This is because it should not have any complex or sensitive parts. The lights may need occasional replacing, but this can be significantly reduced by using LED’s (light emitting diodes) in place of normal incandescent. The system will most likely sustain most of its damage in the moving and setup/removal processes.
Ease of use (3/5): This system the not very easy to setup due the need for partial assembly and anchoring.
Total score: 83/100
Portable Message Board
Portable, electronic message boards are also common ways of alerting motorists to potential dangers. These boards can display a variety of messages and can be programmed to display a specific message. They are operated via cellular communications. These message boards are more functional than the simpler sign with flashing lights, but they are also significantly more costly at over $15,000.
[pic]
Figure 28 - Trailer-mounted electronic message board
For this option, it will be assumed that the sign would rented or provided the DOT. This is done because it would be a poor use of funds to buy one of these expensive signs and only use it for this system. To justify this expenditure, the traffic monitoring system would most likely need to see more use and be applied in multiple locations.
Capability (35/35): Message boards are the most capable warning system. In addition to being very portable, they have a high impact and are customizable. They also have built in wireless communications.
Ease of implementation (15/20): The message board would be easy to implement because it is an existing system. No specific design would need to be done, but the communications and programming would need to be researched. This could prove to be difficult if the communication system is complex.
Initial cost (15/15): For this technology, it is assumed that the system will be rented, so the up front cost should be minimal.
Operating / maintenance cost (0/15): This system has the worst operating cost. This is because the system would need to be rented for events. In addition, it would still need to be hauled and setup for each event.
Durability (9/10): The message boards should be relatively durable. They have sensitive electronics, but they are field proven and should not present any problems here.
Ease of use (3/5): This system is easy to transport because it is trailer mounted. Unfortunately, unless the same sign can always be used, programming may need to be done in order to get the proper messages to display.
Total score: 77/100
Radio Broadcast
This solution is quite different from the other two. Radio broadcasts are commonly used on highways to inform drivers. Signs are posted that state the purpose and frequency of the broadcast. Short range systems can be purchased without the need for extensive design. They could be made portable to reduce wear from the weather, but they are usually mounted to poles. The messages could be recorded and played by the overall control system. Different messages would be sent depending on the state of traffic flow. The central server would select which message should be played. In addition, a live transmission is available in case of an extremely dynamic traffic situation or special circumstance. This system works best when used in conjunction with other message systems.
[pic]
Figure 29 - Pole mounted radio broadcast transmitter
[pic]
Figure 30 - Possible radio notification sign
Capability (27/35): This form of communication can provide the most information to motorists. This would be useful in rerouting traffic and warning motorists well in advance of traffic situations. Unfortunately, by forcing the driver to tune their radio to hear about the traffic problem, some capability is lost.
Ease of implementation (20/20): This is a fairly easy system to implement. Pre-recorded messages can be selected by cellular technology. The “all in one” unit eliminates assembly, programming, and communication issues.
Initial cost (5/15): This will be a fairly costly system to implement. Since this unit works best when used in conjunction with other message systems, it is considered only a secondary option that is not necessarily needed.
Operating / maintenance cost (15/15): Since the system is solar powered and does not need to be maintained after it is mounted and setup its operating and maintenance costs are near zero.
Durability (10/10): The system meets all necessary temperature requirements and is resistant to all forms of weather.
Ease of use (5/5): This system is easy to use. After the system is mounted, all that needs to be done is for the server to select the message that will be transmitted.
Total score: 85/100
3. Warning System Technology Selection
From the analysis performed in the previous section, a final technology will be selected. The following table shows the results of each warning system’s evaluation.
Table 7 - Evaluation of warning systems based on identified criteria
[pic]
The radio broadcast system scored the best overall. Unfortunately, this system only should be used in conjunction with one of the other two options. The sign/lights system performed better than the message board and would therefore be considered the best system to use in conjunction with the radio. Even though the radio scored higher than the other two systems it will not be used independently of the other two systems. For the most dynamic system, a message board and radio can be used to effectively alert traffic, for a price.
5. Technical Progress Status and Future Plan
Below are the overall progression reports on the sensor, controller, and communication technologies that will be implemented for the project.
Sensors: The sensor section of the system is nearing completion. All necessary criteria identification, technology identification, and technology research have been performed for the project. Technology selection is nearing completion. The overall sensor system has been chosen (light beam). All that remains for technology selection is to choose a particular light beam sensor. Currently IFM Effector has the most practical choices for the light sensor technology. Overall the total progress on sensor technology is about 93% done.
Controllers: Overall the criteria identification for the controllers has been completed. The technology identification, technology research, and technology selection for the server controller has been completed. What remains for these three sections is to select microcontrollers for the sensors. End-product design still has a significant amount of work to be completed. Overall the total controller technology is approximately 68% complete.
Communications: The communication selection is currently still under consideration. Overall the criteria identification and technology identification for the communication technology have been completed. A large amount of research still needs to be completed to determine which technology is going to work. Likewise, once a technology is selected, end-product design can commence to complete this section of the project. On the whole, communication technology is coming along nicely but still has much work to be completed. This section of the project is around 60% complete.
Warning systems: The warning system criteria and technology have been identified. Overall the research concerning the operations of the chosen technology has yet to be completed. This phase of the project can not be completed until a communication system has been selected. The technology selection follows a similar problem of not being able to be completed until a communication system is selected. Overall this system is 70% finished.
Table 8 - Technical progress
|Technology |Criteria Identification |Technology |Tech Research |Tech Selection |End-Product Design |
| | |Identification | | | |
| |Percentage Completed | | | |
|Sensors |100% |100% |100% |90% |75% |
|Controllers |100% |65% |65% |65% |45% |
|Communications |90% |90% |45% |45% |15% |
|Warning system |100% |100% |50% |50% |50% |
5. Complete System Comparison
While researching technology options, other highway traffic monitoring systems were found that provided the same functionality as the system that is currently being designed. In this section, these systems will be identified and evaluated.
1. Complete System Criteria Identification
This section will detail the criteria used to evaluate the complete traffic monitoring systems. The following criteria are going to be used.
Capability: This factor takes into account the system’s ability to meet the design objectives, functional requirements and design constraints of the project. The accuracy, reliability, safety and expandability of the system are also key components here.
Initial cost: Initial costs include the price of components, assembly, and installation costs.
Operating / maintenance cost: This factor deals with setup of systems that have to be installed and removed before and after each event. This includes storage and basic maintenance to the unit.
Durability: Durability is another important factor in choosing a system. It needs to be able to withstand all of the natural elements and in addition survive thousands of vehicles driving over or past it.
Ease of use: Ease of use is an important factor when considering the operation of the overall system. It is simply undesirable to have to train people how to use a difficult traffic system. It is also best to have the system be easy to setup due to time constraints before and after an event. Therefore, even if systems are equal based on a sum of the initial and operating costs; this factor accounts for the advantage of having a system that is easy to use.
These criteria are weighted as follows:
Capability 35 Points
Initial cost 35 Points
Operating / maintenance cost 15 Points
Durability 10 Points
Ease of use 05 Points
_______________________________________
Total 100 Points
The weighting was decided based on the overall design objectives, functional requirements and design constraints. Considerable time was taken to develop a fair and accurate grading system. If any of the systems are in the same price range, this weighting system will be used to select the better of the two for this application. If the systems vary greatly in cost and are all good options for their price range, this weighting will not be used to eliminate any of the systems. Instead, each system will be suggested for its respective price range.
2. Complete System Identification and Research
During the identification process, two systems were found. These systems use different technologies and therefore have different advantages and disadvantages. In the following, both of these systems will be described.
Nu-Metrics:
Nu-Metrics is a company that has developed an in-road traffic monitoring system. Their system uses Groundhog® road analyzers which detect vehicles with the use of magnetic fields. This is similar to wire loops, but these sensors are only six inch diameter and are placed into the concrete or asphalt by drilling out a core. Once they are positioned, they can also be easily repaired or replaced. This is done by simply removing their water proof covers. The picture below shows the sensor unit.
[pic]
Figure 31 - Nu-Metrics magnetic sensor unit
These sensors transmit data wirelessly to a receiving station that can be up to 600 feet away (200 feet is recommended). The receiving unit is called the radio frequency module (RFM). Here, the data is collected from the sensors and can be transmitted further using 2.45 gigahertz spread spectrum communication. The RFM base can transmit up to 20 miles (line of sight) to another base. At the base, the information from the sensors can be processed using a computer. Software can be purchased to monitor the traffic flow. Vehicle count, speed and length can all be monitored.
Unfortunately, this system’s primary use is monitoring and recording data. A system that monitors data and then controls a warning system is what is needed. The design engineers at Nu-metrics are currently working on developing a system that meets this project’s requirements. This is a fairly simple system, but it is still in the design phases. Work will continue with designers at Nu-Metrics in order to develop a system that meets the specifications.
The basic design so far includes one sensor that would be positioned on the exit ramp near the merging end. This sensor would communicate with a RFM station which would in turn communicate with a permanent warning sign that has controllable flashing lights. The sign would have a message like “slow traffic ahead when flashing”. Software would be developed that would use the speed data from the sensor to control the flashing lights on the sign. When the speed reaches a set low limit around 10 MPH the flashing lights would be turned on.
Even, in these early design phases it appears that this system would not be portable. The sensors are mounted in the road. The RFM unit is usually pole mounted on the side of the road with an antenna and solar panel for power. The sign could be mobile, but by this point it would just be cheaper to install a permanent sign so that setup cost can be practically eliminated.
Progress will continue with a basic design for this system until a rough estimate can be provided by Nu-Metrics. At this point, the systems effectiveness and cost will be compared with the other alternative system and the system being designed exclusively by this design team. Progress will be halted unless this system is chosen as the best option. Then, if funding can be found, the system design will continue in more detail. The engineers at Nu-Metrics will completely design the system and send drawings, schematics, parts lists and exact prices. Because of the amount of effort that will be put into this design and quoting process, this phase will not be done unless funding has been located and all needed approval is completed.
International Road Dynamics:
International Road Dynamics (IRD) is a company that has developed a non-intrusive traffic monitoring system. Their system is completely mobile and meets all of the requirements and ideals of the highway traffic monitoring system this team is in the process of designing. The system uses a microwave radar device to detect speed. In the two pictures below, the radar device is the white box that is mounted to the side of the trailer sign. The sensor is mounted on a trailer with the control logic system and communication system. This system is all powered by batteries that are charged by a solar panel. An antenna is used to transmit commands to a mobile sign that is located up to a mile away (line of sight). This sign would similar to those shown below, only it message would read something like “slow traffic ahead when flashing”.
[pic]
Figure 32 - IRD trailer mounted warning sign with flashing lights
[pic]
Figure 33 - Another IRD warning sign with flashing lights
For this application, only one of the mobile sign trailers and one sensor / control trailer should be needed. The sensor trailer would be setup near the middle of the exit ramp. Speed would be precisely monitored from here. Once the average speed drops below a set point, the flashing lights on the sign would be activated.
Because this highway traffic monitoring system would only need minimal modification to fit our application, a rough estimate has already been received. This estimate is for a three trailer system that would consist of one sensor trailer, one sensor/sign trailer, and one sign trailer. The first sensor trailer would be located near the merging section of the exit ramp. It relay information back to the next trailer which would contain a sign and sensor. This second trailer would be located at the exit off of the highway. The sign here would be controlled by the first sensor and display a warning when exit ramp traffic slows down. The sensor on this second trailer would be used to send a message to the third trailer which would consist of only a sign. This sign would warn when traffic actually started to slow on the highway.
Initial deployment: $10,000 - $20,000 (for a three trailer system)
This includes the cost of designing the system to meet area specific needs. Also included in this cost is delivery and system operation training.
Price per trailer unit: $10,000 - $15,000
This price will vary depending on what equipment is installed on each trailer. The sign trailer is the cheapest. After that, the sensor trailer is second. Finally, the sensor / sign trailer is the most expensive, as expected.
Total rough estimate: $38,000
If the less complicated dual-trailer system is used the price will be significantly reduced. This system would have a sensor trailer and a sign trailer. The sensor system would be mounted on the exit ramp near the highway. It would use the collected speed information to control the warning sign trailer that would be mounted about a half mile down the highway. With the rough figures, a deployment cost of approximately $15,000 could logically be used for this less complicated system and the unit cost would be around $10,000 for the sign trailer and $13,000 for the sensor trailer which would give a very rough estimate of $38,000.
These systems can be modified for individual applications even further than the basic control logic and location. Electronic message boards can be used instead of flashing lights. The system can transmit data wirelessly to a computer to update a website that displays current traffic information. A paging ability can also be added that allows the system page or e-mail someone during a set condition. For example, if ramp traffic came to a complete stop, the highway patrol could be notified. In addition to this monitoring system, a video surveillance trailer could be positioned with the other trailers to feed video to the website. This would allow for even more monitoring capability.
3. Complete System Evaluation and Recommendation
All three systems will most likely vary greatly from one another in capability, durability, portability, ease of use and overall cost. Due to this fact, the complete systems will be evaluated differently than the technologies. For the technologies a single final system needed to be selected, so the rest were eliminated. For this overall system selection, each system will be evaluated and all three options may potentially be given. They will be classified by their abilities and respective cost. This way, depending on the available funding and specific situation requirements, any one of the systems may be selected to best meet the given constraints.
Team Designed System
So far, it appears that highway traffic monitoring system that will be designed by this team will be the cheapest solution. The total cost can be estimated until the technology selection is complete, but it should be significantly lower than that of the other to systems. For its minimal cost, it should be reliable, portable and effective. Unfortunately, it will also require the most amount of time to setup, and will probably be the most difficult to use.
Nu-Metrics System
The Nu-Metrics system is currently difficult to evaluate because its abilities and rough cost are not known. However, it will most likely be non-portable. This goes against a design objective, but it would make it the easiest to operate for an event because it should not need much in terms of setup time.
International Road Dynamics
The IRD system appears to be the “Cadillac” system. It is by far the most capable. It is also completely portable. This may become a great advantage because this system could now be used by other entities than just Iowa State University. This would allow the high cost to be split among multiple users. With its non-intrusive sensing, completely wireless operation and simple portability, this system is very impressive. If the funding could be obtained to purchase this system, it would most certainly provide the best overall performance.
6. Testing Approach Considerations
Because the end product of this team’s project will most likely be a design, no physical testing will be done. Logic flow will be the only aspect of the design that can be tested without purchasing any of the components, hence that will be the aspect this group will focus on for future testing.
7. Recommendations Regarding Project Continuation
This project could be continued if so desired. Future groups could build a working prototype off of this teams design. Unfortunately, large amounts of funding would need to be acquired and close cooperation with the DOT would be needed to do any setup or testing. Students from the department of Civil Engineering could be added to this group to assist with the expansion of the design to handle more complex traffic situations.
2. Design Progress and Continuation Plan
This section details the design progress the group has made and the continuation plan for the design that will be done next semester.
1. Design Progress
The first major decision the group has come to is that the group will no longer be able to do a prototype or desktop model and will hence be doing a design of the final system. The main reason for this is the extremely high cost of sensors. Even the cheap sensors cost well over the 150 dollar budget allotted to the group. Unless outside funding could be obtained, the main focus of the group will now be on creating a design that can be implemented once funding is obtained.
The design plan was chosen as the best option based on system of elimination. The first step was to specify the scope of the project. Initially the scope was set for the entire city of Ames. After a meeting with the advisors for this project, the scope was narrowed to a road with three feeders. In this case just the westbound Elwood Drive exit off of Highway 30 would be the point of interest. Next, a sensor technology was chosen by the group. After a large quantity of research was performed, a prototype option was ruled out as not feasible due to the extremely high cost of sensors. The group continued to research possible sensor technologies and came across several companies that provide similar solutions for the project. The group then decided that it would create a design to compete with the other possible design solutions. The focus of the project then became to evaluate the designs presented by the companies and the design developed by the group.
So far for the design the group has selected a sensor technology and a control technology. The chosen sensor will be the light sensor due to its accuracy, portability, cost effectiveness, and durability. Likewise a Dell computer running Windows XP Professional has been chosen as the control system because of its cost effectiveness, ease of implementation, and ease of use.
2. Design Continuation Plan
This section contains information on what needs to be completed but has not yet been finished. It also briefly mentions what has been completed.
There are many other aspects of the design that need to take place. Designs and bids on how much it will cost for those particular designs by various companies must be received and evaluated. The team will be in contact with these companies to aid in the design process.
A design by the team must be completed and an estimate on how much that design will cost must be completed. There are many steps that need to be taken in order to accomplish this task. The best fit sensor technology has been selected and it is the light sensors. Also part of the control technology has been selected and that is the Dell computer loaded with Windows XP Professional. There still needs to be work on the control technology because there is the possibility that a microcontroller will be needed to handle the communication between the sensor and the communication technology. In order to select the proper microcontroller there will need to be considerable amount of research done.
For the control technology there will also need to be a logical flow design for identifying and interpreting the information received from the sensors. This will identify if the light sensor has seen a car and what speed it is going. From that an appropriate message will need to be displayed.
The communication technology also needs to be selected. There has been a great deal of research done to this point. More needs to be done to identify possible communication technologies. After identifying the various communication technologies some more research will need to be done to identify the capabilities of these technologies. Once the capabilities are known a communication technology will then be selected.
Section 3 – Resources and Schedules
Within this section are the estimated resources and schedules.
1. Resources
In this section the resources necessary to complete the project are defined.
1. Personnel Effort Requirement
The personnel effort is estimated in the amount of time each team member puts forth on a specific task within the project. Many of the tasks will exist for the life of the project but some of the tasks will be given specific deadlines and must be completed by that deadline. The progress of the project and the amount of time each team member has spent to date will be documented in the weekly email put forth by the communications coordinator. This information along, with the revised estimate, is listed in detail below the task definitions.
Problem Definition
This task consists of analyzing the proposed problem to create a concise and complete definition of the problem statement. As the requirements, design, and technology specifications change so may the precise problem definition; therefore the problem definition will need to be readdressed.
End-Product Consideration
This task will define which end-product/design will be the best fit for solving the problem as defined in the project definition.
Technology Consideration
To select the technologies that are best fit for implementing the end-product/design.
End-Product Design
To have a design on paper that identifies requirements includes a thorough design process and documentation of the design.
End-Product Implementation
This task’s objective is to implement the end-product/design using the identified technology.
End-Product Testing
The goal of this task is to test the end-product to make sure it performs as expected, and to ensure that other people will be able to replicate the test results. Because the anticipated end-product is a design the testing stage will be limited to the expectations of the end-design.
End Product Documentation
The purpose of this task is to create a manual that contains all of the testing that occurred for the system and to create a manual explaining the operation of the system.
End Product Demonstration
This task consists of all preparation and demonstrations done for the project advisors and clients. Included with the demonstration is the industrial review panel demonstration which is a deliverable of the project and must be accomplished on time.
End Project Reporting
This task includes all reporting done during the life of the project. Weekly emails, design reports and final reports are to be included.
Table 9 - Original personnel effort requirements estimate (hours)
|Task Name |Joel |Brent Duppong |Ben Armfield |Wendell Cotton |Total |
| |Cardo | | | | |
|Project Definition |25 |30 |30 |20 |105 |
|End-Product Consideration |23 |25 |20 |15 |83 |
|End-Product Identification |34 |39 |38 |33 |144 |
|Technology Consideration |50 |52 |58 |60 |220 |
|End-Product Design |53 |55 |57 |55 |220 |
|End-Product/Design |41 |47 |45 |42 |175 |
|Implementation | | | | | |
|End-Product Testing |21 |22 |28 |22 |93 |
|End-Product Documentation |40 |37 |33 |30 |140 |
|End-Product Demonstration |26 |27 |22 |25 |100 |
|Total Hours |313 |334 |331 |302 |1280 |
Table 10 - Revised personnel effort requirements estimate (hours)
[pic]
2. Other Resource Requirements
The project poster required printing resources, material to mount the poster, lamination to extend the life and quality of the poster, and an adhesive to secure the poster to the mounting material. Table 11 shows the original estimate for the resource costs and Table 12 shows the actual resource costs associated with the poster.
Table 11 - Original other resource requirements
[pic]
Table 12 - Revised other resource requirements
[pic]
3. Estimated Financial Requirements
It is important to note that the financial requirements for testing and implementation are minimal because the end-product is expected to be a design and should not require additional financial resources.
Table 13 - Original estimated financial requirements
|Item | |W/O Labor | |With Labor |
|Parts and Materials | | | | |
|a. Poster | |$60.00 | |$60.00 |
|Labor at $10.50 per hour | | | | |
|a. Joel Cardo | | | |$3,286.50 |
|b. Brent Duppong | | | |$3,507.00 |
|c. Wendell Cotton | | | |$3,171.00 |
|d. Ben Armfield | | | |$3,475.50 |
| |Subtotal | | |$13,440.00 |
| |Total | $60.00 | |$13,500.00 |
Table 14 - Revised estimated financial requirements
[pic]
2. Schedules
This section contains the original project schedule, the revised project schedule and the schedule of deliverables. The schedules are represented by Gantt charts.
The project schedule begins with defining the problem and determining the desired end product through research and comparison. Throughout this process, available technologies are being considered and the appropriate technology shall be selected for use in the design of the end product. This process will be followed by the end-product design and implementation process. Some form of testing will follow the implementation, depending on the type of end-product design and the funding available. End product documentation will be developed and the end product will be demonstrated to the advising faculty, and again for the project client. The project will conclude with a final report stating the conclusions and outcome of the project. Throughout this process weekly emails will be provided as a way to inform and track the progress of the project.
3. Project Schedule
The project schedule provides a timeline in which the project tasks and deliverables can be set to ensure the project is completed on time. As shown in the chart, the weeks of November 22 and March 14 are university breaks and no project work will be done.
[pic]
Figure 34 - Original project Gantt chart
[pic]
Figure 35 - Revised project Gantt chart
It is important to note that the revised estimated project schedule shown in Figure 35 has two sets of data. The original estimate is shown in blue and the revised estimated task schedule is shown in red. As in the original estimate the weeks of November 22 and March 14 are university breaks and no project work will be done.
4. Deliverables Schedule
The second portion of the project schedules section is a Gantt chart showing the project deliverables. These deliverables are measured for completeness and graded by the advising faculty. The deliverables include the project plan, project poster, design report, final report, demonstration and weekly email reporting.
[pic]
Figure 36 - Deliverables Gantt chart
Section 4 – Closure Material
Contained within this section are the project team information and the conclusion.
1. Project Team Information
This section contains information about the client, faculty advisors, team members, and the project website.
1. Client
Iowa State University
2. Faculty Advisors
Professor John Lamont
324 Town Engineering, Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa 50011
515.294.3600 office
515.294.6760 fax
jwlamont@iastate.edu
Professor Ralph Patterson III
326 Town Engineering, Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa 50011
515.294.2428 office
515.294.6760 fax
repiii@iastate.edu
Duane E. Smith, P.E.
Associate Director for Outreach, ISU Research Park
2901 S. Loop Drive, Suite 3100
Ames, Iowa 50010-8632
515.294.8103 office
515.294.0467 fax
desmith@iastate.edu
3. Student Team Information
Ben Armfield
4701 Steinbeck St #4
Ames, IA 50014
515.451.1207 cell
benjarm@iastate.edu
Joel Cardo
311 Ash Ave
Ames, IA 50014
515.450.3895 cell
jcardo@iastate.edu
Wendell Cotton
325 Ash Ave
Ames, IA 50014
515.708.2189 cell
wcotton@iastate.edu
Brent Duppong
PO Box 1252
Ames, IA 50014-1252
319.310.3053 cell
bduppong@iastate.edu
4. Project Website
2. Closing Summary
This document has covered the basics design process that the team shall continue to follow in the development of this project and work toward the appropriate design for minimizing traffic risks associated with the Iowa State University campus and facilities. Because traffic accidents often occur when a major athletic event or concert is held at Iowa State University, it is important that a portable system be developed to detect slow moving or stalled traffic and notify motorists of the congested traffic conditions ahead. The end product would help to alleviate congestion, prevent accidents and increase the overall traffic flow to and from these events.
3. References
Iowa Transportation Center and Iowa State University, “Cyclone Stadium Traffic Study.” Iowa State University; September 1993.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- kansas highway map
- official wyoming state highway map
- state of florida highway map
- monitoring and evaluation system manual
- official florida highway map
- current off highway diesel prices
- highway map of upstate new york
- florida highway safety and motor vehicle
- missouri state highway patrol driver exam
- highway overpass heights
- highway symbols on maps
- traffic incident management system training