Cargando…

Buried RF Sensors for Smart Road Infrastructure: Empirical Communication Range Testing, Propagation by Line of Sight, Diffraction and Reflection Model and Technology Comparison for 868 MHz–2.4 GHz

Updating the road infrastructure requires the potential mass adoption of the road studs currently used in car detection, speed monitoring, and path marking. Road studs commonly include RF transceivers connecting the buried sensors to an offsite base station for centralized data management. Since tra...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Marsic, Vlad, Faramehr, Soroush, Fleming, Joe, Ball, Peter, Ou, Shumao, Igic, Petar
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9919453/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36772709
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s23031669
_version_ 1784886828759777280
author Marsic, Vlad
Faramehr, Soroush
Fleming, Joe
Ball, Peter
Ou, Shumao
Igic, Petar
author_facet Marsic, Vlad
Faramehr, Soroush
Fleming, Joe
Ball, Peter
Ou, Shumao
Igic, Petar
author_sort Marsic, Vlad
collection PubMed
description Updating the road infrastructure requires the potential mass adoption of the road studs currently used in car detection, speed monitoring, and path marking. Road studs commonly include RF transceivers connecting the buried sensors to an offsite base station for centralized data management. Since traffic monitoring experiments through buried sensors are resource expensive and difficult, the literature detailing it is insufficient and inaccessible due to various strategic reasons. Moreover, as the main RF frequencies adopted for stud communication are either 868/915 MHz or 2.4 GHz, the radio coverage differs, and it is not readily predictable due to the low-power communication in the near proximity of the ground. This work delivers a reference study on low-power RF communication ranging for the two above frequencies up to 60 m. The experimental setup employs successive measurements and repositioning of a base station at three different heights of 0.5, 1 and 1.5 m, and is accompanied by an extensive theoretical analysis of propagation, including line of sight, diffraction, and wall reflection. Enhancing the tutorial value of this work, a correlation analysis using Pearson’s coefficient and root mean square error is performed between the field test and simulation results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9919453
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99194532023-02-12 Buried RF Sensors for Smart Road Infrastructure: Empirical Communication Range Testing, Propagation by Line of Sight, Diffraction and Reflection Model and Technology Comparison for 868 MHz–2.4 GHz Marsic, Vlad Faramehr, Soroush Fleming, Joe Ball, Peter Ou, Shumao Igic, Petar Sensors (Basel) Article Updating the road infrastructure requires the potential mass adoption of the road studs currently used in car detection, speed monitoring, and path marking. Road studs commonly include RF transceivers connecting the buried sensors to an offsite base station for centralized data management. Since traffic monitoring experiments through buried sensors are resource expensive and difficult, the literature detailing it is insufficient and inaccessible due to various strategic reasons. Moreover, as the main RF frequencies adopted for stud communication are either 868/915 MHz or 2.4 GHz, the radio coverage differs, and it is not readily predictable due to the low-power communication in the near proximity of the ground. This work delivers a reference study on low-power RF communication ranging for the two above frequencies up to 60 m. The experimental setup employs successive measurements and repositioning of a base station at three different heights of 0.5, 1 and 1.5 m, and is accompanied by an extensive theoretical analysis of propagation, including line of sight, diffraction, and wall reflection. Enhancing the tutorial value of this work, a correlation analysis using Pearson’s coefficient and root mean square error is performed between the field test and simulation results. MDPI 2023-02-02 /pmc/articles/PMC9919453/ /pubmed/36772709 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s23031669 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Marsic, Vlad
Faramehr, Soroush
Fleming, Joe
Ball, Peter
Ou, Shumao
Igic, Petar
Buried RF Sensors for Smart Road Infrastructure: Empirical Communication Range Testing, Propagation by Line of Sight, Diffraction and Reflection Model and Technology Comparison for 868 MHz–2.4 GHz
title Buried RF Sensors for Smart Road Infrastructure: Empirical Communication Range Testing, Propagation by Line of Sight, Diffraction and Reflection Model and Technology Comparison for 868 MHz–2.4 GHz
title_full Buried RF Sensors for Smart Road Infrastructure: Empirical Communication Range Testing, Propagation by Line of Sight, Diffraction and Reflection Model and Technology Comparison for 868 MHz–2.4 GHz
title_fullStr Buried RF Sensors for Smart Road Infrastructure: Empirical Communication Range Testing, Propagation by Line of Sight, Diffraction and Reflection Model and Technology Comparison for 868 MHz–2.4 GHz
title_full_unstemmed Buried RF Sensors for Smart Road Infrastructure: Empirical Communication Range Testing, Propagation by Line of Sight, Diffraction and Reflection Model and Technology Comparison for 868 MHz–2.4 GHz
title_short Buried RF Sensors for Smart Road Infrastructure: Empirical Communication Range Testing, Propagation by Line of Sight, Diffraction and Reflection Model and Technology Comparison for 868 MHz–2.4 GHz
title_sort buried rf sensors for smart road infrastructure: empirical communication range testing, propagation by line of sight, diffraction and reflection model and technology comparison for 868 mhz–2.4 ghz
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9919453/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36772709
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s23031669
work_keys_str_mv AT marsicvlad buriedrfsensorsforsmartroadinfrastructureempiricalcommunicationrangetestingpropagationbylineofsightdiffractionandreflectionmodelandtechnologycomparisonfor868mhz24ghz
AT faramehrsoroush buriedrfsensorsforsmartroadinfrastructureempiricalcommunicationrangetestingpropagationbylineofsightdiffractionandreflectionmodelandtechnologycomparisonfor868mhz24ghz
AT flemingjoe buriedrfsensorsforsmartroadinfrastructureempiricalcommunicationrangetestingpropagationbylineofsightdiffractionandreflectionmodelandtechnologycomparisonfor868mhz24ghz
AT ballpeter buriedrfsensorsforsmartroadinfrastructureempiricalcommunicationrangetestingpropagationbylineofsightdiffractionandreflectionmodelandtechnologycomparisonfor868mhz24ghz
AT oushumao buriedrfsensorsforsmartroadinfrastructureempiricalcommunicationrangetestingpropagationbylineofsightdiffractionandreflectionmodelandtechnologycomparisonfor868mhz24ghz
AT igicpetar buriedrfsensorsforsmartroadinfrastructureempiricalcommunicationrangetestingpropagationbylineofsightdiffractionandreflectionmodelandtechnologycomparisonfor868mhz24ghz