Evaluation of Non-Intrusive Technologies for Traffic Detection

Minnesota Guidestar www.dot.state.mn.us/guidestar

Evaluation of

Non-Intrusive Technologiesfor Traffic Detection

Farideh AmiriMinnesota Department of Transportation

Traffic Records Forum

Presentation Outline• Background• Test Site• Test Methodology• Vendors and Technologies• Test Results

- Qualitative Issues- Preliminary Field Results

• Future Test Activities

• Easily deployed without disruption of traffic flow

• Safer for staff to deploy

• Sidefire, Overhead, under Pavement or Under Bridge Mounting

Definition ofNon-Intrusive Technologies

• FHWA & Mn/DOT sponsored test of NIT:– Hughes Test: 1992 - 1994– NIT Phase I: 1995 – 1997– Report is available at:

www.dot.state.mn.us/guidestar

• Success of initial test led FHWA to fund Phase II– Permanent Test Facility

• Bicycle and Pedestrian Test

Background

• Evaluate full capabilities and limitations of devices

• Test in varying weather and traffic conditions

• Test in varying mounting conditions (overhead/sidefire, heights, offsets)

• Historical and Real-time/ITS applications

Test Goals

Standard Test Methodology

• Develop standard test procedures– Makes results useful to national audience– Makes tests repeatable by other agencies– Reduce amount of duplicate testing– Coordinate with other standards (ASTM)

• Develop standard statistical procedures– Make results easy to interpret

• Develop standard report guidelines

Test Site - Freeway

• I-394 at Penn Avenue

– Free flow to heavy congestion

– Inductive loops in place

– Three mainline lanes

– Two reversible HOV lanes

– Catwalk and adjustable mounting poles

– Crank-up pole for “side fire” devices

NIT Shelter - Outside

NIT Shelter - Inside

Sidefire Tower

Overhead Mounting Structure

Test Site - Intersection

• I-394 at Penn Avenue

– Multiple lane and single lane approaches

– Congested in peak periods

– Inductive loops in place

– Utilize existing poles

Intersection Site

Freeway: I-394 EB

Loop D4-1

Eastbound Exit

Pole 1ASIM DT 272SmarTek Pole 2

AutoscopeTraficon

NIT Shelter

Eastbound On-RampL

Test Methodology

• Volume, speed, occupancy, presence, classification

• Compare to baseline

• Different test conditions– Mounting location (height and offset)– Traffic levels– Time of the day– Different weather

Participating Vendors and Technology Group

• Schwartz Electro-Optics (active infrared)

• 3M (magnetic)

• ECM (microwave)

• SmarTek (passive acoustic)

• Image Sensing Systems (video)

• Traficon (video)

Participating Vendors and Technology Group (cont)

• Novax (ultrasonic)

• ASIM– Passive Infrared– Passive Infrared/ Ultrasonic– Passive Infrared/Ultrasonic/Microwave

ASIM, Schwartz

Video Detectors

Vendor Considerations– International vs. National vs. Local Presence– Level of Support Provided

• Wholesaler Only• Integration Support

– Support track record• History with large deployments?• Responsive to customer needs?• How long in market?• References available?

Vendor Support

• Schwartz• 3M• ECM• SmarTek• Autoscope• Traficon• Novax• ASIM

Ease of Installation/Calibration

• Schwartz• 3M• ECM• SmarTek• Autoscope• Traficon• Novax N/A• ASIM

Baseline Results

• Manual count of videotape for groundtruth– 4-hours of tape (am peak, midday, pm peak,

evening)– Count tape multiple times

• Freeway results indicate absolute error of less than 2 percent

• Intersection results mixed

Freeway Baseline

Loop Volume vs. Manual Counts

0 200 400 600 800

Loop Volume (15 min)

15 min Counts

Overview Results - Freeway

SensorMountin

gNo. of Lane

Freeway

Volume Speed

ASIM – Passive IR OH/SF 1 2% 11%

ASIM – Passive IR/ Ult OH/SF 1 9% -

ASIM – IR/Radar/ Ult OH 1 3% 4%

Schwartz - Active IR OH 1 1% 6%

Autoscope – Video OH/SF 3 1 - 2% 1 - 3%

Traficon – Video OH/SF 3 2 - 4% 4 - 8%

SmarTek – P. Acoustic SF 3 5 - 11% 6 - 8%

3M - Mahnetic Under 3 2 – 3% 2 - 6%

Overview Results - Intersection

SensorMountin

gNo. of Lane

Intersection

Volume Presence

ASIM – Passive IR/ Ult SF 1 - 0%

Autoscope – Video OH 1 19% 0%

Traficon – Video OH 1 12% 0 – 20%

SmarTek – P. Acoustic SF 1 - 0%

Mounting Impact on Sensor Performance

• Two sensors tested at all mounting heights

• 3 Bases, 5 Heights, 3 Lanes

• Results Presentation

Base vs. height and lane

Lane vs. height and base

Height vs. base and lane

Field Test Results

• Video performs better when:– Higher– Closer to freeway

• Passive Acoustic performs better when:– 45-degree angle between traffic and sensor

Preliminary Results (Con.)Each Lane: Performance vs. height and base

Volume Absolute Percentage Difference Change with OffsetsSmarTek vs. Loop

Lane 1

15 25 35

Offset (Ft)

20' Height

25' Height

30' Height

35' Height

40' Height

- Lane occupancy

- Speed

- Presence

- Vehicle classification (length and height)

ITS Applications

Real-time Data

• Vehicle-by-vehicle data recorded by data acquisition system:– Occupied time– Speed

Occupied Time

Loop A Loop B

Travel Time

Loop Detection Schematic

Loop 1 Occupied Time Check

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Loop 1A Occupied Time

Phase I Results Review (Weather)

• Most devices performed well in varying weather conditions• Video devices affected by wind and lighting conditions• Active infrared device affected by rain and snow. Wet

pavement caused over counting. Snow caused poor vehicle tracking

• Passive acoustic device affected by low temperature

(Undercounting along freeway, over counting at intersection• Passive magnetic device affected by low temperature

General Results• Most devices suited to temporary applications• Performance varies little from technology to

technology• Heavy traffic had some impact at freeway• Intersection counting not as accurate• Factors to consider

– Ease of installation,calibration and maintenance– Mounting flexibility– Power supply needs– Amount of vendor support

Heavy Traffic Impact ExampleVolume Comparison - Lane 3

12:15 14:45 17:15 19:45 22:15 0:45 3:15 5:45 8:15 10:45

Time of Day

) Loop3

Autocscope

SmarTek

ASIM Ir254

Next Test:Bike/Ped Detection

• Developed Test Plan– Literature Review– Detection Applications

• Curbside/Crosswalk Ped Detection (Intersection)• Intersection Bicycle Approach• Historical Data (Trail)

– Parameters: presence, volume, speed, direction

Pedestrian Detection

• Pooled fund study “Portable Non-Intrusive Technologies”

• Schedule– Administration, Now– Research, January 2003– Design and fabrication, April 2003– Field evaluation, Summer 2003– Report, December 2003– Present Results at NATMEC conference, May 2004

• Goals are:– Research existing portable systems– Build on current design to design and

fabricate a new PNIT– Prepare detailed PNIT system design and

cost documentation– Evaluate PNIT system in the field under a

verity of test conditions– Disseminate results

Rapid Deployment

Unique Applications

For more information

projects.dot.state.mn.us/nit

www.dot.state.mn.us/guidestar

farideh.amiri@dot.state.mn.us

Thank you

Evaluation of Non-Intrusive Technologies for Traffic Detection

Documents

Transcript of Evaluation of Non-Intrusive Technologies for Traffic Detection

Traffic Surveillance and Detection of Violators

Evaluation of Non-Intrusive Technologies for Traffic Detection...Evaluation of Non-Intrusive Technologies for Traffic Detection Erik Minge, Primary Author SRF Consulting Group, Inc.

Traffic Sign Detection Paper

LIDAR-INCORPORATED TRAFFIC SIGN DETECTION FROM … · LIDAR-INCORPORATED TRAFFIC SIGN DETECTION FROM VIDEO LOG ... automated trafﬁc sign detection and recognition techniques ...

Traffic Detection Systems (Transportation Engineering)

Evaluation of Portable Non-Intrusive Traffic Detection System...2004/03/09 · Evaluation of Portable Non-Intrusive Traffic Detection System Final Report Prepared by: Jerry Kotzenmacher

Color transformation for improved traffic sign detection · Color transformation for improved traffic sign detection ... Color transformation for improved traffic sign detection.

Mining data for traffic detection system

ANOMALY DETECTION USING NETWORK TRAFFIC CHARACTERIZATIONlibrary.iyte.edu.tr/tezler/master/bilgisayaryazilimi/T000819.pdf · ANOMALY DETECTION USING NETWORK TRAFFIC CHARACTERIZATION

Driver Drowsiness Detection based on Non-intrusive Metrics Considering ...docs.trb.org/prp/15-2196.pdf · 1 Driver Drowsiness Detection based on Non-intrusive Metrics Considering

Alternative Vehicle Detection Technologies for Traffic ...However, the need for more accurate and reliable non-intrusive detection for signal systems is a statewide concern. The current

Invalid Traffic Detection and Filtration Guidelines …mediaratingcouncil.org/101515_IVT Addendum FINAL (Version 1.0).pdfinvalid traffic, and the detection ... ad traffic may be deemed

Traffic Detection Function

TRAFFIC SCENE ANOMALY DETECTION

Traffic Detection

Invalid Traffic Detection and Filtration Standards Addendum · Invalid Traffic Detection and Filtration Standards Addendum June 2020 – Update (Final)

LoTAD: long-term traffic anomaly detection based on ...thealphalab.org/papers/LoTAD long-term traffic... · 2.2 Traffic anomaly detection Anomaly detection is to find the patterns

EVALUATION OF MICROWAVE TRAFFIC DETECTOR · 2020-01-22 · The microwave detector provides a non-intrusive method of detection and the need to cut grooves is eliminated. The microwave

Anomaly Detection Algorithms for Malware Traffic Analysis ...pdm12/cse597g-f15/slides/cse597g-traffic-analysis.pdfnetwork traffic for protocol-and structure-independent botnet detection.

TRAFFIC LIGHTS DETECTION IN ADVERSE CONDITIONS USING COLOR, SYMMETRY ... LIGHTS DETECTION... · TRAFFIC LIGHTS DETECTION IN ADVERSE CONDITIONS USING COLOR, SYMMETRY AND SPATIOTEMPORAL