Field evaluation of smart sensor vehicle detectors at intersections - volume 1 : normal weather conditions.

Details

• Creators:
  Medina, Juan C. ; Benekohal, Rahim F. ; Ramezani, Hani
• Corporate Creators:
  Illinois Center for Transportation ; University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering
• Corporate Contributors:
  United States. Federal Highway Administration
• Subject/TRT Terms:
  • Signalized intersections
  • Microwave detectors
  • Sensors
  • Remote sensing
  • Vehicle detectors
  • Wireless communication systems
  • Weather
  • Data collection
• Publication/ Report Number:
  FHWA-ICT-12-016 ; ICT-12-016 ; UILU ENG-2012-2016
• Resource Type:
  Tech Report
• Geographical Coverage:
  Illinois
• Corporate Publisher:
  Illinois. Dept. of Transportation. Bureau of Materials and Physical Research
• Abstract:
  Microwave-based vehicle detection products from two manufacturers were selected for field testing and ; evaluation: Wavetronix and Intersector. The two systems were installed by the manufacturer/distributor at a ; signalized intersection. Initial evaluation was performed and the results were shared with the companies. They ; were given an opportunity to change or fine-tune the systems’ setup, if they wanted, resulting in a modified ; setup. Results are presented in this report in terms four types of errors (false, missed, stuck-on, and dropped ; calls). At the stop bar, at least 94% of detections for Wavetronix and 96% for Intersector were correct. At stop ; bar zones, the overall occurrence of false calls for Wavetronix ranged from 0.56% to 1.62%. Missed calls were ; low for Zones 1 and 2 (0.13% and 0.43%) but significantly higher in Zone 3 (6.05%). Also, stuck-on calls were ; only observed in Zone 3 (0.58%), and a few dropped calls were found almost exclusively in Zone 3 (0.16%). For ; Intersector, false calls ranged from 1.4% to 3.56% and missed calls ranged between 0.05% and 0.27%. Stuckon calls ranged from 0.92% for 2.83% and dropped calls were very low (0% and 0.19%). ; At the advance zones, at least 91% of detections for Wavetronix and 99% for Intersector were correct. For the ; advance zone, a direct comparison of the two systems was not performed because Wavetronix covered all ; three lanes combined, but Intersector had one zone covering only the center lane. Wavetronix did not have any ; stuck-on or dropped calls, missed calls were 1.07%, and false calls were 8.29% for the summer and fall ; datasets combined. Intersector had no dropped calls, 0.04% stuck-on calls (only one call), 0.8% missed calls, ; and 0.7% false calls. Additional testing is under way to evaluate the performance of the two systems under ; inclement weather conditions.
  More +
• Format:
  PDF
• Funding:
  R27-95
• Download URL:
  https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/26725/dot_26725_DS1.pdf
• File Type:
  [PDF - 1.33 MB]
• Collection(s):
  US Transportation Collection
• Main Document Checksum:
  urn:sha256:a17d56a9c764507f9f066e6098d625ed64ee28b0446cb009ccb8c3e4d3f8536b