g nss for in novative road a pplications

GINA – GNSS FOR INNOVATIVE ROAD APPLICATIONS: THE ADOPTION OF EGNOS/GALILEO FOR ROAD USER CHARGING AND VALUE ADDED SERVICES FOR THE ROAD SECTOR. TRIALS AND RESULTS

GNSS for INnovative road Applications

ITS Europe 2011, Lyon06-09/06/2011

INTRODUCTION


X Congreso ITS España, MadridCompany’s

logo06-09/06/2011


INTRODUCTION (I) GINA: EC funded project through FP7 call 1, coordinated by GSA authorities

GINA: R&D project in the GALILEO applications area building up on the results from previous projects such as ADVANTIS, GIROADS, etc…

GINA key points: Collaborative Project 2 years length 2.2 M€ (~1.3 M€ funded) 12 partners from 7 EU countries

Objetivos proyecto GINA: Context and market Analysis RUC application demonstrator at nationwide scale Disemmination efforts contributing to

GNSS introduction in the electronic payment for infrastructure use

It is intended as another step to bring forward the real use of GNSS systems and EGNOS/GALILEO in the ITS road domain applications.

Methods, definitions and results achieved could lead closer to mass market introduction of these applications in the road domain.

ITS Europe, Lyon (France)


logo06-09/06/2011


INTRODUCTION (II) Las bases de una aplicación de EFC/RUC basada en un sistema GNSS serian las siguientes:

GP0

GP1 GP2

GP3

GP4

GP5

1 EFC application geographic extent 2 Charging zones & tariffs definition

Toll

Colle

ctor

Serv

ice P

rovi

der

3 Charging areas detection and distance estimation

1 OBU EFC + VAS

ProtectionLevel

Error

2 Calculo PVT + PLs

ITS Europe, Lyon (France)

FOTs GINA



logo

FOTS GINA Real Implementation of demonstrator for EFC+VAS application based in GNSS technologies

Nationwide scope (The Netherlands) Real users driving in real life situations Performance measured against User real requirements (Dutch ABvM scheme) Several different tests and analyses carried out

Technical, operational and market goals analysis in the different features provided by the system

GNSS based EFC/RUC applications performance demonstration Value Added services (VAS) provision running in the same platform that main EFC module GNSS performance for RUC+VAS applications validation Added value provided by EGNOS (GALILEO) and complementary technologies such as INS (CANBUS),

Integrity provision with respect to GNSS solution GNSS systems evaluation methodology analysis

Descripción de los test a realizar y principales características de los mismos

FOTs Vehicles Length Drivers VAS Reference System CANBUS Analysis Scenarios

End 2 End trials 100 6 months Real Volunteers (ARVAL) Yes No No High Level

features

Different non controlled scenarios

Exhaustive trials 2 4-5 weeks GINA project controlled drives No Yes Yes

Exhaustive GNSS features performance

Project defined

GINA – GNSS FOR INNOVATIVE ROAD APPLICATIONS: THE ADOPTION OF EGNOS/GALILEO FOR ROAD USER CHARGING AND VALUE ADDED SERVICES FOR THE ROAD SECTOR. TRIALS AND RESULTS ITS Europe, Lyon (France)

06-09/06/2011


logo

FOTS GOALSExhaustive End 2 End trials

Geo-Objects Detection

GNSS performance

Distance performance

Charging performance

Position Accuracy

Integrity Risk

PLs availability/size

Distance Accuracy

Correct/Incorrect Detection

Distance accuracy effect

Charging accuracy

Charging performance

Charging Integrity

Application performance against ABvM user requirements

Final users feedback with regar to application performance and invoices

OBU peformance evaluation for different Geobjects & scenarios

VAS implementation over an EFC application

Definition methods


06-09/06/2011


logo

FOTS DEFINITION KEY POINTS

E2E tests are focused in high level peformance for an EFC+VAS application based in GNSS technologies Volunteers drive normally with their OBUs installed and check system performance and charging through a web

portal Volunteers feedback used for mass market application viability analysis Raw GNSS and EGNOS enhanced GNSS configuration tested

1. GNSS based OBU 2. Nationwide area 3.Geobjects definition

GNSS challenging routes1. GNSS based OBU 2. GNSS Reference System 4. Geobjects Definition

Exhaustive tests focused in GNSS features performance and user requirements from real tolling scheme. GNSS reference system used for measuring OBU results against well known truth Routes covered defined to present GNSS challenging situations agaisnt known GNSS flaws Geobjects defined present different areas, cordons, segments, etc.. Up to 4 configurations tested :GNSS (G), GNSS+EGNOS (E), GNSS+CANBUS (C), GNSS+CANBUS+EGNOS (A)


06-09/06/2011

De palabra, puedes dar detalles sobre los vehículos utilizados en cada caso, las características y duración de las rutas etc. (en el caso de los exhaustivos, además, puedes mencionar la parte de Navteq por encima).Si lo prefieres, puedes añadir otra transparencia con esta información, aunque debería ser muy ligera y sinténtica en este casoSe podría añadir por ejemplo una transparencia con las estadísticas de los trials también, lo que evaluamos etc. (tienes info en la presentación del Workshop#1 de GINA)

FOTs RESULTS



logo

RESULTS: DISTANCE/POSITION

Absolute Position Error Relative Travelled Distance Error

Data results show that distance accuracy errors are very low for 50th percentil with values below 0.33% for all the configurations.

Configurations making use of CANBUS odometer shows the best performance with values below 0.05% for 50th percentil and under 0.23% for 95th percentil.

Configurations making use of CANBUS odometer show the best result for all the different scenarios tested, without performance degradation in dense urban environments, with no big contribution to position accuracy as expected


06-09/06/2011

Por favor Chema, pon las gráficas que se han utilizado en el paper. Por otro lado, utiliza las cifras que se detallan en el paper a la hora de dar resultados (es decir, siendo más precisos, hablamos de percentiles (p.e. 95, 0.23%) destacando las cifras para el caso del CANBUS etc. Por ejemplo, en el paper la gráfica de la izquierda no se usa, sino la de error de posición


logo

RESULTS: GEOBJECTS

Defined Alternatie Geobjects present far worse results with regard to Official defined ones

Increased number of non-detected Geobjects events

Over 50% of the distance traveled not computed in these Geobjects

Geobjects definition methodology is a key point for a GNSS based RUC system performance

Narrow Geo-objects segments (<0.5km) considered as alternative against other more in line with road topology in the charging areas were evaluated

“Official” Geobjects were detected with a 100% success rate

0% geo-objects (official and alternatives) wrongly identified

Total missed distance in “official” geobjects below 1.64%

Wrong Distance traveled in these geobjects under 0.1% of the real value del geoobject

Official Geobjects Alternative Geobjects

Variable DefinitionNo-detection

Wrong Geobject Identification

Where GEOOBJECT_X = 0 TRUTH_GEOOBJECT_X = 1 or

Where GEOOBJECT_X = 1 TRUTH_GEOOBJECT_X = 0

Key requirement for a RUC

system


06-09/06/2011


logo

RESULTS: CHARGING PERFORMANCE

2 different methods for distance calculation analysed Distance between 2 consecutive positions for all the geobject and mean value calculation at the end Distance between first position detected in the geobject and

first position after leaving it.

2nd method employed shows better results for undercharing

Overcharging events 0% for the two methods analyzed

Results compliant with user requirements from a real RUC scheme

Configuration

Method C: GPS+CANBUSA: GPS+CANBUS+

EGNOS

G: GPS

E: GPS+

EGNOS

Main -0.74% -0.74%-

0.66%

-0.65%

Alternative -0.57% -0.57%

-0.44%

N/A

Charging Relative Error for the different geobjects and OBU configurations

ABvM requirements compliant!!


06-09/06/2011


logo

RESULTS: MOTORWAY SECTION

Absolue Position Accuracy Error Absoluto HPL size values

Global data analysis was customized for a set of data in GNSS non challenging scenarios to measure EGNOS system performance (using current Civil Aviation defined MOPS)

GNSS+EGNOS configuration performance in this scenario were the best from all the configurations tested with regard to position accuracy. For 95th percentil position accuracy error was <3 meters an <6 meters for the rest.

Horizonal Protection levels (HPL) values for the GNSS+EGNOS configuration provided Integrity with values under 15 meters for the 99th percentil (Integrity risk related set to 3x10e-4)

Charging Errors in the motorway sections were between -0.07% and -0.15% for all the journeys and between 0.21% and 0.38% for the 95th percentil

Relative Charging error


06-09/06/2011


logo

RESULTS: End To End Results

E2E trials data analysis currently not finished, but some preliminary results available

System Performance in normal scenarios show satisfactory results for both GNSS only, and in particular, for GNSS+EGNOS configuration

TTFF, availability or continuity figures, together with HPL values are within accepted margins for an operational system

Final Users feedback and opinion with regard to the system to be added to the final report results sistema


06-09/06/2011

CONCLUSIONS



logo

CONCLUSIONS There is a current interest from the different public authorities within the EU and from the market in the road

domain with regard to RUC applications introduction in Europe at nationwide level Global Navigation Satellite systems presents great benefits compared to existing technologies for Electronic Toll

collect schemes due to flexibility and low cost for big road networks. But some currently existing GNSS flaws are still hampering the mass introduction. Integrity features provision seems to be most promising way to overcome these weaknesses.

GINA system makes use at its core of the suggested solution architecture, the use of GNSS based on Integrity features provision to be use as user safe against undesirable overcharges

GINA project shows exhaustive analysis of system perfomance through wide scale demonstrations together with results analyses compared between the different tested configurations making use of an advanced GNSS/INS system for increased performance.

GINA makes use of the best definition methodologies available for RUC systems to increase GNSS features performance in terms of system configurations avialable and geobjects definition, that are key points for maximum system performance.

Results from the exhaustive test campaing from Vehicle I clearly shows the trust and viability of using GNSS based system for RUC applications, with the configurations tested stressing the idea of GNSS+INS combined technologies as base of the system. INS (CANBUS) used configurations achieved the best resuts in terms of distance calculation that is the base for the charge to be applied to the users.

The final conclusions from the GINA project are in line with the idea of a RUC application based in a GNSS technology coupled with INS solution, using Integrity provision and odometer for: Different RUC possible schemes both discrete and dynamic Different road environment scenarios such as urban or interurban. No mapmatching techniques or map charts required Thin Low cos OBUs are fitted for the proposed system Minimum performance requirements are met by the system All the different OBU choices are available, thin, thick or smart. Real requirements from defined nationwide schemes such as ABvM from the Netherlands are met by the

system Assesing of the potential benefits and weak points for European GNSS systems in order to make them ready

for European road domain market applications


06-09/06/2011

Thank You!!

Jose Maria Martin Bobis – [email protected]

g nss for in novative road a pplications

Documents

innovative road applications

road sector

road user charging

road domain applications

results gnss

gnss introduction

barcelonaintroductiongina

gnss technologiesnationwide