Transcript
Page 1: ALERT2 Protocol Performance

National Flood WorkshopHouston, TexasOctober 2010

Don Van Wie, Telos ServicesR. Chris Roark, Blue Water Design, LLC

Page 2: ALERT2 Protocol Performance

ALERT2 Concentration Protocol is in production in Overland Park/KCMO for repeater-to-base path

ALERT2 is operating in parallel with ALERT on repeater-to-base leg in Urban Drainage and Flood Control District

Page 3: ALERT2 Protocol Performance

UDFCD: ALERT v ALERT2 side-by-side comparisons 8 months, 2 million ALERT messages analyzed

Overland Park: Logging at repeater sites permits exact determination of ALERT2 losses Early June storms with partial logging Full month analysis for September 2010

Page 4: ALERT2 Protocol Performance

Demonstrate reliability of hardware in normal operating environment

Quantify the relative performance of ALERT/ALERT2

Verify or and adjust the operating parameters based on operations at a production scale

Page 5: ALERT2 Protocol Performance

No hardware failures ALERT2 data loss “over the air” is typically

less than 5 reports per 10,000 over any path that is suitable for ALERT

Relative ALERT2 performance improves as traffic rates increase

RF-only Preamble has been extended 55 msec

Slot variance study shows 0.5 second slots are possible

Page 6: ALERT2 Protocol Performance

10 BWD Modulator/Encoders 6.5 years of unit time accumulated

4 BWD Demodulator/Decoders 4.75 years of combined operation

About half of equipment is in unconditioned environment

NO Failures!

Page 7: ALERT2 Protocol Performance

Data Composition and Summary Statistics

Repeater Start Date ALERT Records ALERT2 Records Difference (A2-A) % Difference

Blue Mountain 8/1/2010 328,319 334,064 5,745 1.75%

Smoky Hill 2/23/2010 771,716 781,508 9,792 1.27%

West Creek 2/23/2010 478,256 489,544 11,288 2.36%

Lee Hill 4/9/2010 178,764 183,148 4,384 2.45%

Gold Hill 5/10/2010 250,250 261,083 10,833 4.33%

Total             

2,007,305             

2,049,347                    42,042  2.09%

Page 8: ALERT2 Protocol Performance

ALERT ALERT2

Repeater Sample Missed by Alert % Missed by %

Alert Errors Lost Alert2 Lost

Blue Mtn 25,000 445 1 1.78% 1 0.004%

Smoky Hill 25,000 149 0 0.60% 4 0.016%

Gold Hill 25,000 966 5 3.88% 5 0.020%

75,000 1,560 6 2.08% 10 0.013%

Page 9: ALERT2 Protocol Performance

Summary of September 1-28, 2010

Tx From: Johnson Co Blue ValleyCentury

Twrs Totals/Avg Rpts Sent 72678 101091 120940 294709

OP City Hall Lost Rpts 2326 2785 2774 7885 % Loss 3.20% 2.75% 2.29% 2.68%

Fire Training Cntr Lost Rpts 31 75 21 127 % Loss 0.04% 0.07% 0.02% 0.04%

Page 10: ALERT2 Protocol Performance
Page 11: ALERT2 Protocol Performance
Page 12: ALERT2 Protocol Performance
Page 13: ALERT2 Protocol Performance
Page 14: ALERT2 Protocol Performance
Page 15: ALERT2 Protocol Performance
Page 16: ALERT2 Protocol Performance
Page 17: ALERT2 Protocol Performance
Page 18: ALERT2 Protocol Performance

To eliminate false setting by anomalous readings: Limit correction based on plausible drift rate Lengthen time in lock before taking readings

Page 19: ALERT2 Protocol Performance

Lengthened preamble affects capacity Affects first block only Impact diluted as traffic increases

Size of required deadband controls available slot time; 100 msec will be adequate 500 msec slots can be used for most gage sites Capacity of 1 channel is 120 gages, 331 KBytes/

hour 2 sec slot (repeater) can carry 630 Kbytes/hour or

157,500 ALERT Messages

Page 20: ALERT2 Protocol Performance

Ready for new ALERT Concentrator applications

Low power repeater for 2011

Vendors are working on gage applications

Implementation of Protocol Application layer

Page 21: ALERT2 Protocol Performance

Thank you


Recommended