| Literature DB >> 30011924 |
Sarra Smaiah1,2, Rabah Sadoun3,4, Abdelhafid Elouardi5, Bruno Larnaudie6, Samir Bouaziz7, Abderahmane Boubezoul8,9, Bastien Vincke10, Stéphane Espié11,12.
Abstract
Motorcycle drivers are considered among the most vulnerable road users, as attested by the number of crashes increasing every year. The significant part of the fatalities relates to "single vehicle" loss of control in bends. During this investigation, a system based on an instrumented multi-sensor platform and an algorithmic study was developed to accurately reconstruct motorcycle trajectories achieved when negotiating bends. This system is used by the French Gendarmerie in order to objectively evaluate and to examine the way riders take their bends in order to better train riders to adopt a safe trajectory and to improve road safety. Data required for the reconstruction are acquired using a motorcycle that has been fully instrumented (in VIROLO++ Project) with several redundant sensors (reference sensors and low-cost sensors) which measure the rider actions (roll, steering) and the motorcycle behavior (position, velocity, acceleration, odometry, heading, and attitude). The proposed solution allowed the reconstruction of motorcycle trajectories in bends with a high accuracy (equal to that of fixed point positioning). The developed algorithm will be used by the French Gendarmerie in order to objectively evaluate and examine the way riders negotiate bends. It will also be used for initial training and retraining in order to better train riders to learn and estimate a safe trajectory and to increase the safety, efficiency and comfort of motorcycle riders.Entities:
Keywords: data fusion; embedded systems; low-cost sensors; powered two wheels (PTW); safe trajectory; trajectory reconstruction
Year: 2018 PMID: 30011924 PMCID: PMC6069380 DOI: 10.3390/s18072282
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The ANR team instrumented motorcycle.
Figure 2System architecture.
Figure 3The “Ferté Gaucher” circuit mapped on IGN.
Figure 4Sensor positioning.
Figure 5The reference trajectory brought back to the rear contact point.
Figure 6Lateral displacement of the rear contact point in a curve.
Figure 7Difference between the real traveled distance and the one given by the odometers using a fixed wheel radius (a) and our proposed wheel radius model (b).
Figure 8Location of the distance error (fixed radius) of each zone of Figure 7a on the trajectory (a) and the corresponding roll angle (b).
Figure 9Illustration of spectrograms of “Ax” (a) and “Az” (b) IMU signals (signal on the top, power spectral density in the middle, and the signal spectrogram at the bottom).
Comparison of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the three filters.
| SNR (dB) | Wavelet Filter | Median Filter | Butterworth Filter |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ax | 4.77 | 3.83 | 2.26 |
| Ay | 8.65 | 7.13 | 3.91 |
| Az | 27.41 | 19.51 | 11.29 |
| Rx | 1.45 | 0.42 | 0.13 |
| Ry | 3.80 | 2.90 | 1.74 |
| Rz | 0.24 | 0.05 | 0.01 |
| Mx | 1.18 | 1.20 | 1.02 |
| My | 0.27 | 0.18 | 0.19 |
| Mz | 2.19 | 2.04 | 1.83 |
| Handelbar | 0.38 | 0.04 | −0.17 |
| Laser | 0.38 | 0.35 | 0.17 |
Figure 10Trajectory reconstruction from kinematic models.
Figure 11Loose coupling integration scheme (INS/GPS).
Figure 12Schematic diagram of the INS/Odo integration.
Resulting precision of trajectory reconstruction methods.
| Method | Error RMS | |
|---|---|---|
| Kinematic Models | Bicycle Model | 90.86 m |
| Cossalter Model | 26.70 m | |
| INS | 83 m | |
| GPS | 1.42 m | |
| GPS/INS | 0.51 m | |
| INS/Odo | 49.39 m | |
Figure 13Schematic diagram of the new INS/odometer integration model.
Figure 14The results of our proposal compared to the traditional method INS/odo.
Experimental results of the enhanced INS/Odo and INS/GPS methods for four bends.
| Bend 1 | Bend 2 | Bend 3 | Bend 4 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enhanced INS/Odom | INS/GPS | Enhanced INS/Odom | INS/GPS | Enhanced INS/Odom | INS/GPS | Enhanced INS/Odom | INS/GPS | |
| Bias error | 0.3077 | 0.6493 | 0.3632 | 0.8315 | 0.2300 | 0.7893 | 0.2361 | 0.6960 |
| Error variance | 0.1869 | 0.3456 | 0.3138 | 0.4462 | 0.2520 | 0.4194 | 0.2605 | 0.3908 |
| Max error | 0.5603 | 1.1426 | 0.8941 | 1.2192 | 0. 6927 | 1.1210 | 0.6927 | 1.3085 |
| Improvement ratio | 53% | 56% | 71% | 66% | ||||
Figure 15Bias error comparison.
Figure 16Comparison between the reference trajectory (black curve), GPS/ INS solution (red curve), and the proposed method (blue curve) in the four bends (Bend 1 to 4) showed in Figure 3.