Wavetronix SMARTSENSOR 105 Manuel d'utilisateur télécharger pdf (Page 10)



Page 9



Figure 5. Sign-Mounted Sensors

RESULTS

Several different comparisons were conducted for this study, which include volume, speed, and

vehicle classification. In addition to the comparison among the three sensors, comparisons

were also done using data from the ATR, and from the alternative sign mounting of both

SmartSensors. The following section describes the results of the study.

Traffic Volume

The volume data from each comparison was organized into lane volume, directional volume,

and total volume (combined NB and SB). Overall, the SmartSensor HD was the most accurate

for vehicle volumes, and had comparable results to the ATR. However, there was one instance

that the sensor appeared to be malfunctioning, which can be seen in the over-counted volumes

for October 14, 2008. After this was noticed, the sensor was restarted and it functioned

normally. For the remainder of this study, the results of the SmartSensor HD will not include

this day, but are shown in the summary tables. It should be noted that with the exception of a

few instances, all of the volume discrepancies were a result of the sensors over-counting the

vehicles.

The SmartSensor HD lane volume differed from the manual counts with a range of -3% to 5%

(Table 2). The sign-mounted SmartSensor HD accuracy was slightly worse, having differences

ranging from -9% to 15% when compared to the manual count. The RTMS showed differences

ranging from -10% to 26%. The SmartSensor 105 was the least accurate, with differences

ranging from -8% to 31%. The sign-mounted SmartSensor 105 had differences of -12% to 26%,

which was a similar range to the tripod-mounted sensor.

1 2 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 26 27

Pas de commentaire

Wavetronix SMARTSENSOR 105 Manuel d'utilisateur Page 10