1 / 36

MN IDS Intersection Construction Update

MN IDS Intersection Construction Update. MN IDS Test Intersection. Design Completed 15 Jan 2004 Design review with Mn/DOT traffic, geometric, district, and ESS engineers Good advice Recommendations for sensor mounts (3# U channel) Nothing in the median lasts

grover
Télécharger la présentation

MN IDS Intersection Construction Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MN IDS Intersection Construction Update

  2. MN IDS Test Intersection • Design Completed 15 Jan 2004 • Design review with Mn/DOT traffic, geometric, district, and ESS engineers • Good advice • Recommendations for sensor mounts (3# U channel) • Nothing in the median lasts • Revised cross-roads surveillance • Laser sensors to Visible Light/IR Cameras • Explored opportunity to cooperate on construction • Month of negotiations, didn’t work out. • ROC 52 • ESS

  3. MN IDS Test Intersection • Mid-February, back to drawing board • Began RFP Process with U Purchasing • Facilities Management Buyer Handled RFP process • Regents Approval > $100,000 • Much interaction with Mn/DOT on RFP document • Request for Bids was let 23 March 2004 • One bid, Shane Electric in Zumbrota, MN • Trenching • Under-road pushes • Power cabinet construction (thanks, Ray!) • Installation of Camera Masts

  4. MN IDS Test Intersection • Mn/DOT Assistance (Feb 06 Meeting) • Sensor posts • Reflectors • Special Needs • Mowing • Plowing • U Assistance • Live video streams from Intersection • Useful for maintenance

  5. MN Test Intersection Final Design

  6. Instrumentation • Mainline • Vehicle speed, position, lane of travel (Radar) • 2000 foot coverage before Xroads (Radar) • 800 foot coverage beyond (Radar) • 53’x36’ coverage at camera (IR/Visible) • Hardwired and Wireless Communication • Cost and performance trade-off analyses • Crossroads • Vehicle type (Radar and laser based) • Vehicle approach speed (adapt VA technology at a later date?) • Trajectory leaving minor road • Right turn (camera + radar) • Straight through (camera) • Left turn (camera + radar)

  7. MN Test Intersection-Mainline Sensors Camera Suite (for evaluation) Radar to track vehicles past crossroads (primarily for minor road trajectory recording) Radar Camera FOV 53’x36’

  8. Mainline Highlights • Camera / mast provides independent means to verify • Radar performance • Camera performance • Gap tracker performance • Emerging technologies • May or may not be part of final system • Benefit:cost analysis • Poor weather capability of vision based systems

  9. Mainline Radar Sensor

  10. Laser / Radar Sensor Mount • Approved by Mn/DOT Right-of-Way Engineer • 350 Crash worthy • Will include break-away conduit and connector • Will include reflector at top of 3# U channel

  11. Radar Performance Results: Geometrics

  12. Radar Performance Results: Coverage

  13. Radar Performance Results: Lane Classification Errors

  14. Radar Performance Results: Speed Errors

  15. C4 FOV C3 FOV Intersection Crossroads-Vehicle Trajectory Cameras at intersection corners capture the trajectory of vehicles entering intersection from minor roads. Mn/DOT advised that median-based sensors won’t live. (Crashed out).

  16. Intersection Surveillance – 160x120 Pixels (tests Thursday, 15 April 2004) • Advantages • Lower Cost ($10k per camera) • Can order camera with desired lens (saves cost of purchasing additional lenses_ • Flexible (more camera, cover more area) • Disadvantages • Multiple cameras require multiple masts ($6k per mast) • Lower resolution makes image processing more difficult

  17. Example of 160x120 IR camera

  18. Intersection Surveillance – 320x240 Pixels (tests Thursday, 15 April 2004) • Advantages • Higher Resolution – simplifies image processing • One 320x240 camera can cover more area than 2 160x120 cameras • Potentially lower costs (fewer masts, less cabling, etc.) • Disadvantages • Higher Cost baseline - $15K • Comes with fixed 25 degree FOV lens • Additional lens $5k

  19. Example of 320x240 IR camera

  20. Single Camera Configuration Pixel Sizes at far field: A20 - 11.32 x 17.6" A40 - 5.66 x 8.8"

  21. Double Camera Configuration Pixel Sizes at far field: A20 8.16x11.61" A40 4.08x5.8" Previous configuration A40 - 5.66 x 8.8"

  22. Camera Based Validation – Tracking Example (ca. March 2003) Tracking on this side No tracking on this side

  23. Camera Mount Detail

  24. Classification Capable T-300 Radar Horizontal Laser Scanner Classification Capable T-300 Radar Vertical Laser Scanner Intersection Crossroads – Vehicle Classification

  25. R/WIS Data from Intersection Mn/DOT updates at 10 Minute intervals. Data collected every 10 minutes

  26. Information Available from Intersection • Distribution of gaps accepted by drivers • for right turns • for left turns • for crossing intersection (see next page) Cross-correlated with • Vehicle type / size • Driver age (macroscopic level, limited basis initially) • Driver gender (limited basis initially) • Weather effects (R/WIS 0.9 Mile away), with in-road sensors (collecting data already)

  27. Information Available from Intersection (cont’d) • Maneuvers executed by drivers from minor road • Left turn in one stage or two? • Variation in left and right gaps accepted for each maneuver type • Cross-correlation with vehicle type • Crossing intersection in one stage or two? • Variation in left and right gaps accepted for each maneuver type • Cross-correlation with vehicle type

  28. Information Available from Intersection (cont’d) • Response of mainline traffic • Speed adjustment if stationary vehicle on minor road • Do mainline drivers adjust speed if a vehicle is spotted on minor road? • Will mainline drivers move to left lane (when possible) to provide a lane for the minor road traffic? • Reaction of drivers on major road if too small gap is accepted • Braking? • Lane change? • Other?

  29. Design Detail: Main Controller Cabinet

  30. Design Detail: Intersection Cabling

  31. Design Detail: Intersection Cabling

  32. Intersection Build Details • Hardware • Cameras, radar, lasers, camera masts, radar stations, etc., ordered or out on bid. • iDAQ (intersection Data AcQuisition) computers built • Software • Camera based vehicle tracking software under continued development (20 FPS vs. existing 5 FPS for improved tracking and robustness) • Wireless system integrity software scaled from Demo 2003 version • IR Camera demo/eval at U of MN 15 AP 2004

  33. Intersection Build Details – costs (Don’t Panic!) • Radar Stations • Vehicle Classification Stations • Vision Systems • Central Cabinet • Ethernet and Video Cable • $191,837

  34. Minnesota Intersections 4 Camera masts (eval) $24K 4 Laser sensors for vehicle classification validation $26K 2 or 4 IR Cameras $40k 4000 ft. of trenching (no cost estimate yet) Wireless and Hardwired ethernet $18K DSL, $4K wire Wired for big power Partner Intersections 1 Camera Mast at Xroads $6k Eaton radar likely validated $0K 1 IR Camera $10 or 20K 3000 feet of trenching (no cost estimate yet) (hopefully) Wireless ethernet Significantly lower power requirements Partner State Research Intersections States’ Savings: $84 K, making investment $207,000 Power and Data costs approximately $150/mo

  35. Schedule Adherence TODAY Intersection Brought On-line Human Factors Simulator DII Testing Begins Final Report Preparation Begins

  36. Questions? Comments? Problems? Field Trip!

More Related