active parking management – system design review active parking management wynn aung conley...
TRANSCRIPT
Active Parking Management – System Design Review
Active Parking Management
Wynn Aung Conley Brodziak Bryan Blakeslee Andrew Eggers Tyler Ludwig
Active Parking Management – System Design Review
Team Members
• Tyler Ludwig – ME, Project Manager• Conley Brodziak – ME, Asst. Project Manager• Bryan Blakeslee – EE, CE• Andrew Eggers – CE• Wynn Aung – EE
Roles & Responsibilities
Tyler – Indication Structural Design, Weatherproofing, Budget
Conley – Main Housing Design, Electro-Mechanical Interfacing, Mounting
Bryan – Power System and User Interfaces
Andrew – Microprocessor, Sensors, Programming
Wynn – Indication System and User Interfaces
Active Parking Management – System Design Review
Introduction
• Motivation– Reduce commuter search time– Reduction of carbon footprint– Future goal of campus-wide parking system– Delivery data to parking administration
• Goals– Reduce time spent looking for parking– Easy identification of open lots– Accurate system
Active Parking Management – System Design Review
Customer Needs
Need # Importance Description Customer
1 3 Operation in inclement weather Randy Vercateuren
2 9 Resistant to vandalism Randy Vercateuren
3 9 Operation during high volume traffic Randy Vercateuren
4 9 Doesn't impede current parking Randy Vercateuren
5 9 Inform commuter of lot status Randy Vercateuren
6 1 Retrevial of real time data Randy Vercateuren
7 9 Maximum 2% counting error Randy Vercateuren
8 3 Field programmable Randy Vercateuren
9 1 Aesthetically pleasing Randy Vercateuren
10 3 Operates for one month on internal power source Randy Vercateuren
11 3 Indicator must be visible above landscape Randy Vercateuren
12 3 Affordable Mark Smith
13 9 Sustainable operation Enid Cardinal
14 9 Conforms to RIT Facilities color scheme Randy Vercateuren
Revisions– Removed :
• Portability
– Added• Vandalism (#2), Importance 9• Visibility (#11), Importance 3• Color (#14), Importance 9
Active Parking Management – System Design Review
Specifications
Spec. # Customer Need Specification (metric) Unit of Measure Marginal Value Ideal Value
S1 3,10 Time of operation Hours 0900-1700 24/7
S2 7,5 Accuracy Percent 2 1
S3 10 Minimum battery lifetime Months 1 month Infinite
S4 9 Aesthetically pleasing Binary Y Y
S5 8 Field programmable Binary Y Y
S6 6 Duration of record storage Days 30 365
S7 12 Cost Dollars 500 300
S8 4 Sensor operation distance Feet 20 50
S9 1 Operational temperature range °F -10 to 110 -20 to 140
S10 1 Waterproof unit Binary Y Y
S11 1 Operational in snow Feet 3 10
S12 1 Withstand continuous wind gusts MPH 60 100
S13 5,11 Visible indication of lot status in all directions Yards 150 150
S14 1 Operational in humidity Percent 90 100
S15 13 Must sustain itself Binary Y Y
S16 2 Withstand/Operates after transient impact G 2.5 5
S17 2 Cannot be easily stolen Binary Y Y
S18 3 Minimum height Feet 15 20
S19 14 Color (black) Binary Y Y
Active Parking Management – System Design Review
Risk MitigationRisk Item Effect Cause Liklihood Severity Importance Action to Minimize Risk Owner
1 Budget Unable to purchase necessary technology MSD Budget limitation 2 3 6 Use low cost materials/technology.
Coordinate between team budget needs Tyler Ludwig
2 Software Development Time Unable to operate system MSD timeframe 2 3 6 Use low cost materials/technology.
Coordinate between team budget needs Andrew Eggers
3 Magnetometer Operation Project moves to fallback acounstic sensor
Magnetometer accuracy unachievable 2 2 4 Create test environment to verify
suitability of sensor for projectAndrew Eggers
4 Lead times beyond construction starts date
Delayed construction of system
Out of stock parts, not ordering on time 2 2 4
Monitor stock of potentially needed parts, order parts with long lead times early in development cycle
All
5 Structeral Integrity Physical damage to system/surroundings
Construction limitations 1 3 3 Proper structural analysis. Knowledge of
FMS/PATS construction limitations. Conley Brodziak
6 Power Supply/GenerationHuman power intervention (battery depletion)
Selected system may not supply enough current to keep battery charged
2 1 2Perform worst case current draw analysis, select parts to exceed worst case
Bryan Blakeslee
7 WeatherproofingWater damage on internal components. Exterior degredation
Operational environment 1 2 2
Maintain watertight seal around vital electrical components. Select weather resiliant materials.
Tyler Ludwig
8 Insiffiicient Indication of Lot Status
Commuter confusion, lack of visibility
Power limitations, environmental obstruction
1 2 2 Public awareness of new system and instructional signage. Wynn Aung
9 VandalismCosmetic damage to system, impaired system operation
Human condition 1 1 1Theft deterrent stickers. Keep housing locked. System anchored to ground. Solar panels out of reach
Conley Brodziak
Active Parking Management – System Design Review
Mechanical Design: Overhead Concept
• Structure Cost: $400
• Structural Integrity: Minimal bending moment. Wide stance to resist wind
• System Accuracy: No blind car instances
• Footprint: Spans width of entrance
• 24’x10’
Active Parking Management – System Design Review
Mechanical Design: Side Concept
• Structure Cost: $200
• Structural Integrity: Large bending moment at base
• System Accuracy: Snow obstructions and blind car instances
• Footprint: 2’x2’
Active Parking Management – System Design Review
Mechanical Design: Road Concept
• Structure Cost: Negligible
• Structural Integrity: Road Wear
• System Accuracy: Excellent
• Footprint: 3/16”x24’
Image credit: vehicle-counters.com/pdf/tc-ph50v2-r.pdf
Side View (Profile)
Active Parking Management – System Design Review
Mechanical Design Comparison
Overhead Concept
Side Concept Pressure Concept
Cost $400 $200 UnknownStructural Integrity
Stable Top heavy Road Wear
Accuracy Good Poor, Complicated
Excellent
Footprint 24’x10’ 2’x2’ 3/16’’x24’Aesthetics Bulky,
noticeableDiscrete Discrete
Active Parking Management – System Design Review
Sensor Selection
• The Federal Highway Administration– FHWA Traffic Detector Handbook: 3rd Edition
• Compares many detection methods• Covers installation procedures
• Factors in our sensor selection:– #1: Price must be within budget– #2: Must be low power– #3: Must not modify road surface– #4: Must operate in all conditions– #5: Must determine direction of vehicles
Active Parking Management – System Design Review
Magnetometer Testing
• This test data was obtained over 15 seconds, with the magnetometer ~ 7' above a passing car
• Further testing needed to prove robustness over time
Active Parking Management – System Design Review
Flux Concentration
• Flux concentration can be used to direct more magnetic flux through the magnetometer, increasing sensitivity
• High flux materials, Mu-Metals, used for this
Picture credit: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Time and Frequency Division
Active Parking Management – System Design Review
Remaining Sensor Issues
• Issue: Natural variation of the Earth's magnetic flux over time
• Potential Solution: Determine baseline by averaging data
• Issue: Magnetometer response can not ascertain direction• Potential Solution: Offset magnetometers
• Issue: A very slowly moving or stopped car might be detected as natural magnetic variation
• Potential Solution: Use difference between magnetometers
Active Parking Management – System Design Review
Alternative Sensor Plan
• Solar Powered Doppler Radar– Pro: High accuracy, low power.– Con: Cannot detect stopped vehicles.
• In-road magnetometer– Pro: This would greatly increase sensor
accuracy.– Con: Requires modification of asphalt.
• Saw cut channel for wire, covered in sealant.
• A hole drilled in each lane
Active Parking Management – System Design Review
Sensor Reality Check
• Even with a perfect sensor system, vehicles could always drive across the grass
• There will always be some level of possible error if a point-of-entry system is used
• These errors are most effectively countered by having the system accept corrective input from admin-level users
Active Parking Management – System Design Review
System Configuration
Functions• Accept new parameters• Accept lot size• Accept reset command• Set lot status
Components• Numeric keypads for input• User Display• Microcontroller with SD card – Data Collection
Active Parking Management – System Design Review
Indication System
Functions• Receive status• Activate indicator
Consists of• LED light indicator (Commuters)• 7-segment display (Parking Admin)
Active Parking Management – System Design Review
Power System: Rationale
• Solar– Safe, low maintenance, no moving parts, sun
is fairly constant, significant up front cost
• Wind– Periodic maintenance, moving parts may
present safety hazard, wind is inconsistent, significant up from cost
• Replaceable Battery– Significant recurring cost, requires frequent
invasive maintenance
Active Parking Management – System Design Review
Power System: Solar Panel
• Purpose: Provide power source to charge battery
• Must operate inside charge controller input range
• Must supply current greater than that required by microcontroller, interface, and indication system
• Mounted 10' above ground
System Current Needed
Microcontroller 200mA
Interface 200mA
Indication 500mA
Total 900mA
Power Analysis
Active Parking Management – System Design Review
Power System: Charge Controller
• Purpose: Safely regulates battery charging, prevents back-discharging through solar panel
• Must output 12V for battery compatibility
• Must safely regulate up to 3A of current
• Maintains battery peak charge
Active Parking Management – System Design Review
Power System: 12V Battery
• Purpose: Bulk energy storage, emergency power
• Must supply power overnight
• Must survive multiple full discharges (deep-cycle capability)
• Drives microcontroller, indication, and 5V linear regulator
• Regulator provides power for digital logic devices