| Literature DB >> 35062417 |
Rogelio Bustamante-Bello1, Alec García-Barba1, Luis A Arce-Saenz1, Luis A Curiel-Ramirez1,2, Javier Izquierdo-Reyes1,3, Ricardo A Ramirez-Mendoza1.
Abstract
Analyzing data related to the conditions of city streets and avenues could help to make better decisions about public spending on mobility. Generally, streets and avenues are fixed as soon as they have a citizen report or when a major incident occurs. However, it is uncommon for cities to have real-time reactive systems that detect the different problems they have to fix on the pavement. This work proposes a solution to detect anomalies in streets through state analysis using sensors within the vehicles that travel daily and connecting them to a fog-computing architecture on a V2I network. The system detects and classifies the main road problems or abnormal conditions in streets and avenues using Machine Learning Algorithms (MLA), comparing roughness against a flat reference. An instrumented vehicle obtained the reference through accelerometry sensors and then sent the data through a mid-range communication system. With these data, the system compared an Artificial Neural Network (supervised MLA) and a K-Nearest Neighbor (Supervised MLA) to select the best option to handle the acquired data. This system makes it desirable to visualize the streets' quality and map the areas with the most significant anomalies.Entities:
Keywords: V2I; fog computing; intelligent transport systems; smart cities; smart mobility
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35062417 PMCID: PMC8781838 DOI: 10.3390/s22020456
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Fog Computing conceptualized architecture.
Comparison between VCC, VEC, and VFC architectures.
| Features | VCC | VEC | VFC |
|---|---|---|---|
| Location | Remote location | User’s proximity | User’s proximity and remote location |
| Latency | High | Low | Low |
| Mobility support | Limited | Higher | Highest |
| Decision Making | Remote | Local | Remote & local |
| Communication | Constraints in Bandwidth | Real-Time | Real-time and asynchronous |
| Storage Capacity | Highly scalable | Limited | Highly scalable, both locally and remotely |
| Context Awareness | No | Yes | Yes |
| Device Heterogeneity | Limited | Highly supported | Highly supported |
| Computing Capability | High | Medium | High |
| Cost of Development | High | Low | Medium |
Main research approaches for the detection of road anomalies.
| Authors | Data Acquisition Technique | Anomalies and Conditions | Data Analysis Technique | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bhat et al., 2017 [ | Gyroscope and accelerometer data, speed, and GPS location of the vehicle, using two iOS applications. | Classify “pothole” and “non-pothole”, as well as the good or bad road conditions. | Data are grouped into intervals to reduce noise. | Road condition: |
| Zheng et al., 2019 [ | Legacy datasets, simulated data through Carsim® | Detect potholes, speed bumps, and metal bumps. | QF-COTE. Threshold detection and sliding window algorithm. | Method fitted to be used under an edge computing schema. |
| Pawar et al., 2020 [ | Accelerometer and gyroscope data from smartphone mounted on the windshield | Pothole occurrences | Use of a Neural network based on ReLU activation function. | 94% of accuracy and 81% of recall were reported. |
| Wu et al., 2020 [ | Accelerometer and GPS data obtained through a purpose-built mobile application. | Classify the general condition of the road: “normal road” and “pothole” | Training of various machine learning classification models. Wavelet, time and frecuency domain data used as input. | Precision and recall rate excede 95% |
| Wang et al., 2015 [ | Mobile sensing, through accelerometer data normalization | Pothole detection | Implementation of an algorithm based on dynamic threshold detection, using three-axis accelerometer data. | 100% accuracy, limited by the sample size used in the research. |
| Mednis et al., 2011 [ | Preliminary data gathered from a modified LynxNet collar device. | Large and small potholes, clusters of potholes, gaps, drain pits. | Set of algorithms based on accelerometer data and threshold definition: Z-THRESH, Z-DIFF, STDEV(Z), G-ZERO | Algorithms deployed on limited hardware/software devices. |
| El-Wakeel et al., 2018 [ | Multiple IMUs, GPS receivers, smart devices, low-cost MEMS, mounted on a testbed. | Potholes, maintenance holes, transverse cracks, longitudinal cracks, railroad tracks, speedbumps, deceleration strips, paved roads, and road dents. | The obtained signals were de-noised using wavelets, and data sets are “time windowed”, The algorithm applied feature extraction techniques. | Multi-level SVM classifier, average TPR performance of 90% |
Figure 2Full Network topology with Raspberry Pi as RSU and TP-Links as APs.
Figure 3Fog Computing—V2I network proposed solution for Anomaly Detection.
Figure 4APs marks on the first route of the experiment.
Experiment routes specifications.
| Route | Laps | Sent Packets | Total Distance [m] | Route Coverage [%] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| First route | 5 | 2182 | 1120 | 92.6% |
| Second route | 3 | 1414 | 997 | 50% |
Figure 5Satellite view of the reference street.
Classification of acquired data.
| Type | Unique Physical Anomaly | Total Physical Samples | Total Individual Sensor Samples |
|---|---|---|---|
| pothole | 3 | 9 | 3000 |
| speed bump | 2 | 6 | 4800 |
| curve | 1 | 3 | 2700 |
| plain | 2 | 6 | 4200 |
| Sum | 8 | 24 | 12,000 |
Figure 6ANN network architecture.
Figure 7Street with pothole at 20 kmph on average.
Figure 8Data processing flow diagram.
Figure 9Power spectrum of a pothole.
Figure 10KNN Confusion Matrix over Test Data.
Figure 11ANN Confusion Matrix over Test Data.
Figure 12KNN 3D scatter plot (left) vs ANN 3D scatter plot (right).
Figure 13Geo spatial representation of the different anomalies by the KNN algorithm. (a) KNN (b) ANN. Barchart of the various anomalies classified by the ANN algorithm by percentage (c) KNN (d) ANN.