Active Parking Management – System Design Review Active Parking Management Wynn Aung Conley...

Active Parking Management – System Design Review

Active Parking Management

Wynn Aung Conley Brodziak Bryan Blakeslee Andrew Eggers Tyler Ludwig


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


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


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


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


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


Function Decomposition


System Diagram


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’


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’


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)


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


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

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/operations/its/06108/


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


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


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


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


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


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


Indication System

Functions• Receive status• Activate indicator

Consists of• LED light indicator (Commuters)• 7-segment display (Parking Admin)


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


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


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


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


Proposed Budget

Component/System Budgeted Cost

Housing/Building Material $200

Microcontroller/Sensors $60

Solar Panel $150

Battery $60

Indicator $30

Active Parking Management – System Design Review Active Parking Management Wynn Aung Conley...

Documents

Transcript of Active Parking Management – System Design Review Active Parking Management Wynn Aung Conley...