| Literature DB >> 27834924 |
Kapileswar Nellore1, Gerhard P Hancke2,3.
Abstract
Vehicular traffic is endlessly increasing everywhere in the world and can cause terrible traffic congestion at intersections. Most of the traffic lights today feature a fixed green light sequence, therefore the green light sequence is determined without taking the presence of the emergency vehicles into account. Therefore, emergency vehicles such as ambulances, police cars, fire engines, etc. stuck in a traffic jam and delayed in reaching their destination can lead to loss of property and valuable lives. This paper presents an approach to schedule emergency vehicles in traffic. The approach combines the measurement of the distance between the emergency vehicle and an intersection using visual sensing methods, vehicle counting and time sensitive alert transmission within the sensor network. The distance between the emergency vehicle and the intersection is calculated for comparison using Euclidean distance, Manhattan distance and Canberra distance techniques. The experimental results have shown that the Euclidean distance outperforms other distance measurement techniques. Along with visual sensing techniques to collect emergency vehicle information, it is very important to have a Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol to deliver the emergency vehicle information to the Traffic Management Center (TMC) with less delay. Then only the emergency vehicle is quickly served and can reach the destination in time. In this paper, we have also investigated the MAC layer in WSNs to prioritize the emergency vehicle data and to reduce the transmission delay for emergency messages. We have modified the medium access procedure used in standard IEEE 802.11p with PE-MAC protocol, which is a new back off selection and contention window adjustment scheme to achieve low broadcast delay for emergency messages. A VANET model for the UTMS is developed and simulated in NS-2. The performance of the standard IEEE 802.11p and the proposed PE-MAC is analysed in detail. The NS-2 simulation results have shown that the PE-MAC outperforms the IEEE 802.11p in terms of average end-to-end delay, throughput and energy consumption. The performance evaluation results have proven that the proposed PE-MAC prioritizes the emergency vehicle data and delivers the emergency messages to the TMC with less delay compared to the IEEE 802.11p. The transmission delay of the proposed PE-MAC is also compared with the standard IEEE 802.15.4, and Enhanced Back-off Selection scheme for IEEE 802.15.4 protocol [EBSS, an existing protocol to ensure fast transmission of the detected events on the road towards the TMC] and the comparative results have proven the effectiveness of the PE-MAC over them. Furthermore, this research work will provide an insight into the design of an intelligent urban traffic management system for the effective management of emergency vehicles and will help to save lives and property.Entities:
Keywords: VANETs; audio visual sensing; distance measurement techniques; emergency vehicle; priority; traffic lights; traffic monitoring
Year: 2016 PMID: 27834924 PMCID: PMC5134551 DOI: 10.3390/s16111892
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Emergency vehicle waiting at an intersection.
Figure 2Architecture of an urban traffic management system.
Figure 3Schematic of a traffic management centre.
Approaches for emergency vehicle detection based on siren sounds.
| Ref. | Proposed Approach | Outcome | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Design and implementation of acoustic sensor-based automatic traffic control system. | Detects the emergency vehicle by their siren sounds. | The traffic light sequence is interrupted with the approaching emergency vehicle and thereby its waiting time at the intersection is reduced. |
| [ | Low computational microcontroller-based siren sound detection system. | Designed a siren sound detection system with low processing power. | The proposed method outperforms the existing siren detection methods in terms of processing power and cost. |
| [ | Detection of siren sounds using Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) | Detects the siren sound in 0 dB (S/N ratio). Detects the siren sound using the Doppler effect. | This work only detects the ambulance siren sound and neither alerts the traffic nor changes the traffic signals. |
| [ | Detection of siren sounds based on a pitch detection algorithm. | Capable of detecting the emergency vehicle in the presence of pitched and non-pitched noise. | The proposed algorithm outperforms the complex pattern recognition algorithms. The siren signal miss rate of the algorithm is very low. |
| [ | Emergency vehicle’s siren and flashing light detection based on acoustic and optical sensors. | Cost effective solution. Distinct emergency vehicles are detected. | The proposed system alert‘s the drivers of normal vehicles and pedestrians about the approaching emergency vehicle. |
| [ | Cross microphone array-based emergency vehicle detection. | Determines the incoming direction of siren sound. | The proposed system for source detection outperforms the existing sound intensity techniques. It delivers precise warning data to the driver. |
| [ | Digital image sensor-based emergency vehicle detection and display system for a vehicle. | Analyses and detects the emergency vehicle in an image using image processing techniques. | The proposed work alerts the driver when an emergency vehicle is detected. It is not cost effective as it needs the cameras to be mounted on the vehicle. |
Figure 4Distance-based emergency vehicle dispatching algorithm.
Figure 5IEEE 802.11p (a) Superframe structure; (b) CSMA/CA process.
Data types with priority assignment and access requirements.
| Data Type, Index | Priority Assigned | Back-off Values | Medium Access Requirement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ambulance data, 1 | First priority (Highest) | BOFF1 | Fast |
| Firefighter data, 2 | Second priority | BOFF2 > BOFF1 | Fast |
| Police car data, 3 | Third priority | BOFF3 > BOFF2 | Fast |
| Normal vehicle data, 4 | Fourth priority (least) | BOFF4 > BOFF3 | Fast or slow |
Figure 6The back-off distribution used in PE-MAC.
Simulation parameters.
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Network Area | 1500 m × 1500 m |
| Propagation model | Propagation/Two Ray ground |
| Network interface type | Physical/wirelessphy |
| Interface queue | Queue/Droptail/Priqueue |
| Channel type | Channel/Wireless channel |
| Antenna | Antenna/OmniAntenna |
| Visualization tool | NAM, Tracing |
| Routing protocol | DSR |
| MCA layer | IEEE 802.11p |
| Transmission rate | 9.6 Kbps |
| Traffic type | CBN |
| Radio delay | 10 m |
| Link layer type | LL |
| Packet size | 512 bytes |
| IFQ length | 50 |
| Initial energy | 100 J |
| No.of nodes | 5 to 100 |
| Speed | 5, 10, 15 and 25 m/s |
Figure 7NAM of VANET simulation.
Figure 8Impact of number of nodes on average end-to-end delay: proposed PE-MAC vs IEEE 802.11p.
Figure 9Impact of inter packet transmission interval on average end-to-end delay: proposed PE-MAC vs IEEE 802.11p.
Figure 10Impact of number of nodes on residual energy: proposed PE-MAC vs IEEE 802.11p.
Figure 11Impact of the number of nodes on throughput: proposed PE-MAC vs IEEE 802.11p.
Figure 12Impact of number of nodes on average end-to-end delay: all data type messages.
Figure 13Impact of inter packet transmission interval on average end-to-end delay: for proposed PE-MAC, EBSS, standard IEEE 802.15.4 and IEEE 802.11p.
Figure 14Emergency vehicle detection process: (a) RGB frame; (b) Grayscale frame; (c) Difference image; (d) Binary image; (e) Dilated image; (f) Hole filling image; (g) Eroded image; (h) Tagged Vehicle.
Figure 15Distance measurement techniques: (a) Euclidean distance; (b) Manhattan distance; (c) Canberra distance.
Experiment Results.
| Distance Measurement Techniques | Distance Measurement at Discrete Points (All Distances Are in Meters) | Accuracy | Outcome | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | P2 | P3 | |||
| True Value: 142 | True Value :121 | True Value: 62 | |||
| 140.03 | 120.25 | 60.66 | 98.60% | The simulation values are always very nearer to true values. | |
| 138 | 54.03 | 56.45 | 77.61% | Only at some points, the simulation values are nearer to true values. | |
| 45.66 | 28 | 19.25 | 28.78% | The simulation values are always distant from the true values. | |
Figure 16Comparison between the distance measurement techniques.
Figure 17Measured data.