GINA – GNSS FOR INNOVATIVE ROAD APPLICATIONS: FINDINGS & RESULTS FROM FOTs

GINA – GNSS FOR INNOVATIVE ROAD APPLICATIONS: FINDINGS & RESULTS FROM FOTS

GNSS for INnovative road Applications

GINA Workshop #209/06/2011Lyon (France)

INTRODUCTION

GINA – GNSS FOR INNOVATIVE ROAD APPLICATIONS: THE ADOPTION OF EGNOS/GALILEO FOR ROAD USER CHARGING AND VALUE ADDED SERVICES FOR THE ROAD SECTOR. TRIALS AND RESULTS

X Congreso ITS España, MadridCompany’s

logo9/06/2011 Page 3GINA – GNSS FOR INNOVATIVE ROAD APPLICATIONS: FINDINGS & RESULTS FROM FOTs

INTRODUCTION (I) GINA: EC funded project through FP7 call 1, coordinated by GSA authorities

GINA: R&D project in the GALILEO applications area building up on the results from previous projects such as ADVANTIS, GIROADS, etc…

GINA key points: Collaborative Project 2 years length 2.2 M€ (~1.3 M€ funded) 12 partners from 7 EU countries

GINA project main goals: Context and market Analysis RUC application demonstrator at nationwide scale Disemmination efforts contributing to

GNSS introduction in the electronic payment for infrastructure use

It is intended as another step to bring forward the real use of GNSS systems and EGNOS/GALILEO in the ITS road domain applications.

Methods, definitions and results achieved could lead closer to mass market introduction of these applications in the road domain.

GINA Workshop #2, Lyon

FOTs GINA



logoPage 5

FOTS GINA DESCRIPTION Real Implementation of demonstrator for EFC+VAS application based in GNSS technologies

Nationwide scope (The Netherlands) Real users driving in real life situations Performance measured against User real requirements (Dutch ABvM scheme) Several different tests and analyses carried out

Technical, operational and market goals analysis in the different features provided by the system

GNSS based EFC/RUC applications performance demonstration Value Added services (VAS) provision running in the same platform that main EFC module GNSS performance for RUC+VAS applications validation Added value provided by EGNOS (GALILEO) and complementary technologies such as INS (CANBUS),

Integrity provision with respect to GNSS solution GNSS systems evaluation methodology analysis

Descripción de los test a realizar y principales características de los mismos

FOTs Vehicles Length Drivers VAS Reference System CANBUS Analysis Scenarios

End 2 End trials 100 6 months Real Volunteers (ARVAL) Yes No No High Level

features

Different non controlled scenarios

Exhaustive trials 2 4-5 weeks GINA project controlled drives No Yes Yes

Exhaustive GNSS features performance

Project defined

GINA – GNSS FOR INNOVATIVE ROAD APPLICATIONS: FINDINGS & RESULTS FROM FOTs GINA Workshop #2, Lyon09/06/2011


logoPage 6

FOTS DEFINITION KEY POINTS

E2E tests are focused in high level peformance for an EFC+VAS application based in GNSS technologies Volunteers drive normally with their OBUs installed and check system performance and charging through a web

portal Volunteers feedback used for mass market application viability analysis Raw GNSS and EGNOS enhanced GNSS configuration tested

1. GNSS based OBU 2. Nationwide area 3.Geobjects definition

GNSS challenging routes1. GNSS based OBU 2. GNSS Reference System 4. Geobjects Definition

Exhaustive tests focused in GNSS features performance and user requirements from real tolling scheme. GNSS reference system used for measuring OBU results against well known truth Routes covered defined to present GNSS challenging situations agaisnt known GNSS flaws Geobjects defined present different areas, cordons, segments, etc.. Up to 4 configurations tested :GNSS (G), GNSS+EGNOS (E), GNSS+CANBUS (C), GNSS+CANBUS+EGNOS (A)

GINA – GNSS FOR INNOVATIVE ROAD APPLICATIONS: FINDINGS & RESULTS FROM FOTs GINA Workshop #29/06/2011

De palabra, puedes dar detalles sobre los vehículos utilizados en cada caso, las características y duración de las rutas etc. (en el caso de los exhaustivos, además, puedes mencionar la parte de Navteq por encima).Si lo prefieres, puedes añadir otra transparencia con esta información, aunque debería ser muy ligera y sinténtica en este casoSe podría añadir por ejemplo una transparencia con las estadísticas de los trials también, lo que evaluamos etc. (tienes info en la presentación del Workshop#1 de GINA)

FOTs RESULTS




EXHAUSTIVE TRIALS RESULTS (I)

Relative position accuracy error(global) Relative Computed Distance Error (global)


Data results show that distance accuracy errors are very low for 50th percentil with values below 0.33% for all the configurations.

Configurations making use of odometer (CANBUS) shows the best performance with values below 0.05% for 50th percentil and under 0.23% for 95th percentil.

Configurations making use of odometer (CANBUS) show the best result for all the different scenarios tested, without performance degradation in dense urban environments, with no big contribution to position accuracy as expected

Por favor Chema, pon las gráficas que se han utilizado en el paper. Por otro lado, utiliza las cifras que se detallan en el paper a la hora de dar resultados (es decir, siendo más precisos, hablamos de percentiles (p.e. 95, 0.23%) destacando las cifras para el caso del CANBUS etc. Por ejemplo, en el paper la gráfica de la izquierda no se usa, sino la de error de posición


logoPage 9

EXHAUSTIVE TRIALS RESULTS (II)

Defined Alternatie Geobjects present far worse results with regard to Official defined ones

Increased number of non-detected Geobjects events

Over 50% of the distance traveled not computed in these Geobjects

Geobjects definition methodology is a key point for a GNSS based RUC system performance

Narrow Geo-objects segments (<0.5km) considered as alternative against other more in line with road topology in the charging areas were evaluated

“Official” Geobjects were detected with a 100% success rate

0% geo-objects (official and alternatives) wrongly identified

Total missed distance in “official” geobjects below 1.64%

Wrong Distance traveled in these geobjects under 0.1% of the real value del geoobject

Official Geobjects Alternative Geobjects

Variable DefinitionNo-detection

Wrong Geobject Identification

Where GEOOBJECT_X = 0 TRUTH_GEOOBJECT_X = 1 or

Where GEOOBJECT_X = 1 TRUTH_GEOOBJECT_X = 0

Key requirement for a RUC

system



logoPage 10

EXHAUSTIVE TRIALS RESULTS (III)

2 different methods for distance calculation analysed Distance between 2 consecutive positions for all the geobject and mean value calculation at the end Distance between first position detected in the geobject and

first position after leaving it.

2nd method employed shows better results for undercharing

Overcharging events 0% for the two methods analyzed

Results compliant with user requirements from a real RUC scheme

Configuration

Method C: GPS+CANBUSA: GPS+CANBUS+

EGNOS

G: GPS

E: GPS+

EGNOS

Main -0.74% -0.74%-

0.66%

-0.65%

Alternative -0.57% -0.57%

-0.44%

N/A

Charging Relative Error for the different geobjects and OBU configurations

ABvM requirements compliant!!



logoPage 11

EXHAUSTIVE TRIALS RESULTS (IV)

Absolue Position Accuracy Error HPL size values

Global data analysis was customized for a set of data in GNSS non challenging scenarios to measure EGNOS system performance (using current Civil Aviation defined MOPS)

GNSS+EGNOS configuration performance in this scenario were the best from all the configurations tested with regard to position accuracy. For 95th percentil position accuracy error was <3 meters an <6 meters for the rest.

Horizonal Protection levels (HPL) values for the GNSS+EGNOS configuration provided Integrity with values under 15 meters for the 99th percentil (Integrity risk related set to 1x10e-4)

Charging Errors in the motorway sections were between -0.07% and -0.15% for all the journeys and between 0.21% and 0.38% for the 95th percentil

Relative Charging error



logo

EXHAUSTIVE TRIALS RESULTS (V):

9/06/2011 Page 12GINA – GNSS FOR INNOVATIVE ROAD APPLICATIONS: FINDINGS & RESULTS FROM FOTs GINA Workshop #2, Lyon

1 month trial with Navteq controlled vehicle, following normal work routes during mapping campaing

GNSS only and GNSS+EGNOS configurations tested

Vehicle equipped with reference system

Additional information related to OBU solution performance in more interurban environment with regard to GMV vehicle

Geobjects used defined as main road segments and municipalities charging areas due teste routes nature

Navteq Vehicle routes Navteq Vehicle Geobjects


logo9/06/2011 Page 13

GINA – GNSS FOR INNOVATIVE ROAD APPLICATIONS: FINDINGS & RESULTS FROM FOTs

EXHAUSTIVE TRIALS RESULTS (VI):

Relative Distance Error EGNOS HPL values

RAIM HPL valuesRelative Charging Deviation


logo09/06/2011 Page 14


Summary of End-to-End trials

End-to-End trials were delayed due to difficulties with producing 100 OBUs for participants

97 OBUs were produced (of those 91 installed) All OBUs were installed in participating vehicles for 6 months

– Phased approach

Geo-objects 4 Municipalities identified as

charging zones – large geo-objects

Utrecht Den Haag Rotterdam Nijmegen

17 Corridor segments



logoPage 15

END2END RESULTS (I):

Non controlled environment with individual drivers with different driving areas & behaviours There was no guarantee that participant would enter the defined geo-objects. There would be variability in how each participant travels through a defined geo-object. Reference length of geo-objects could only be obtained from digital maps introducing slight errors Geo-objects could only be of a certain type to allow assessment of distance travelled within (a road segment with

only one entry one exit point). Environmental impacts on the quality of GPS / EGNOS signal were unknown GNSS only and GNSS+EGNOS configurations tested, no Odometer (CANBUS) installations performed+ Up to 6 months of data recorded from the users


Month Valid Journeys

Driving Time (hours)

Distance Driven (km)

Avg Speed (km/h)

Avg TTFF (secs)

Avg Avail Avg EGNOS Avail

June 13 3.2692 117.7598236.02

33.2308 88.36% 51.23%

July 2954 952.0336 68719.0707672.18

48.7183 83.76% 80.43%

August 5227 1663.9939 113324.004868.10

49.8123 83.41% 69.45%

September 6529 2214.5169 134344.320660.67

42.2801 85.46% 47.16%

October 6257 2223.6397 170227.433376.55

53.9668 84.45% 79.19%

November 6724 2907.4292 137636.834247.34

48.8003 83.39% 39.23%

December 6394 3742.2406 131654.917435.18

49.6733 83.34% 78.16%

Totals 34098 13707.12 756024.341 48.81 84.01% 76.54%

End2End total figures


logo

END2END RESULTS (III):

9/06/2011 Page 16


Geo-object

Charge per KM

(€)

description weekend StartTime EndTime tariffName

Corridor 0.03 All Day Yes 00:00:00 23:59:59 WeekendZone 0.03 All Day Yes 00:00:00 23:59:59 Weekend

Corridor 0.065 Day No 09:00:01 15:59:59 WeekdayZone 0.065 Day No 09:00:01 15:59:59 Weekday

Corridor 0.065 Morning No 00:00:00 06:59:59 WeekdayZone 0.065 Morning No 00:00:00 06:59:59 Weekday

Corridor 0.065 Night No 19:00:01 23:59:59 WeekdayZone 0.065 Night No 19:00:01 23:59:59 WeekdayZone 0.085 Morning Rush No 07:00:00 09:00:00 AZone 0.085 Evening Rush No 16:00:00 19:00:00 A

Corridor 0.105 Morning Rush No 07:00:00 09:00:00 BCorridor 0.105 Evening Rush No 16:00:00 19:00:00 B

Tariffs applied

Geobject usage per Hour Charging accuracy per Geobject

Full set of different tariffs defined per corridor, charging area, day of the week and hour of the day Geobject usage during the day and zones show volunteers driving patterns and behaviour Charging accuracy always under the actual distance (no overcharging) , except for one of the areas Digital maps use for estimating distance introduced slight errors in charging accuracy and deviation



END2END RESULTS (II):


Time To First Fix Results Charging Distance Deviation Results

Continuity gaps distribution HPL GPS/EGNOS distribution



logo09/06/2011 Page 18


Main Results – “Soft analysis”

Summary of End-to-End trials

Main Conclusions from responses to questionnaire

Lack of communication regarding benefits of GINA (due to being a pilot) led to an apparent lack of interest in paying for services

Limitations of a trial High penetration is needed to

have an impact Participant responses seem to

reflect the contextual situation in the Netherlands

VAS services need to be sufficiently different from similar services currently available for free form the internet

Main Conclusions from responses to questionnaire

Tendency to be willing to pay to use less congested roads

Perceived benefit?

User appears to be satisfied with currently available navigation technology

Willing to use EGNOS/Galileo if no reduction in quality of service

Regular contact with users regarding benefits of a scheme.

CONCLUSIONS



logoPage 20

GINA FOTS CONCLUSIONS:

GINA – GNSS FOR INNOVATIVE ROAD APPLICATIONS: FINDINGS & RESULTS FROM FOTs ITS Europe, Lyon (France)9/06/2011

Exhaustive trial results confirmed that GNSS is a reliable tool for different RUC schemes.

GINA proposed technology allow distance charging with good performances and a simple, affordable solution.

European GNSS (e.g. EGNOS) and other GNSS centered techniques improve performances and reliability

Navteq & Motorway Section analysis clearly states EGNOS benefits with regard to accuracy

HPL in interurban scenarios

End2End trials results showed difficult to analyze due lack of volunteers control and data from privacy issues

End2End trials results achieved show similar charging or HPL values with good accuracy, continuity or TTFF figures

GINA solution is suitable for:Discrete and distance based RUC Road and Urban

With no need of cartography in the majority of cases Simple / cheap OBU

Guaranteed performanceThin, Smart and Fat architectures possibleTested on ABvM system (NL) specifications


Thank You!!

Jose Maria Martin Bobis – [email protected]

Documents

GINA – GNSS FOR INNOVATIVE ROAD APPLICATIONS: FINDINGS & RESULTS FROM FOTs