IV.

RESEARCH MANUSCRIPT

4.1 Introduction

The advent of automation and robotics has revolutionized various industries, enabling

increased efficiency, productivity, and cost-effectiveness. In recent years, there has been a

growing emphasis on the development of advanced robotic systems with capabilities such as

artificial intelligence (AI) and GPS-based guidance. These systems are designed to provide

autonomous and adaptable solutions for a wide range of applications. One such area that has

gained significant attention is the development of an automated robotic chassis with AI and

GPS-based guidance systems.

The primary goal of an automated robotic chassis is to provide a versatile platform

that can navigate and perform various tasks in dynamic and unpredictable environments.

Traditional robotics systems often have limited mobility and are unable to adapt quickly to

changes in their surroundings. This limitation hampers their ability to efficiently navigate

complex environments such as warehouses, manufacturing facilities, and outdoor settings. As

a result, there is a need to develop a robotic chassis that combines AI capabilities with GPS-

based guidance to overcome these limitations and provide a more efficient and intelligent

solution.

In industrial settings, the adoption of automated robotic chassis with AI and GPS-

based guidance systems can bring numerous benefits. Firstly, these systems can significantly

enhance the efficiency of material handling processes by automating tasks such as

transportation, sorting, and distribution. The integration of AI enables the robotic chassis to

make intelligent decisions regarding route optimization, obstacle avoidance, and task

prioritization. This, in turn, minimizes downtime and enables a smooth and streamlined

workflow.

Page 1
 Furthermore, the use of GPS-based guidance systems allows the robotic chassis to

accurately navigate complex layouts and environments. The reliance on GPS data provides

real-time information about the positioning, movement, and trajectory of the chassis, enabling

it to adapt to changes in the environment and optimize its path accordingly. This not only

increases efficiency but also reduces the risk of collisions and accidents, thereby enhancing

overall safety in industrial settings. Additionally, automating material handling processes with

an AI and GPS-based robotic chassis also results in cost savings. The implementation of these

systems reduces the labor-intensive aspects of material handling, leading to lower labor costs

and increased productivity. Moreover, the ability of the robotic chassis to intelligently

optimize routes and minimize energy consumption further contributes to cost savings, making

it a financially attractive solution for industries.

Despite these potential benefits, the development and implementation of automated

robotic chassis with AI and GPS-based guidance systems pose several challenges. These

include the need for robust and reliable AI algorithms, accurate GPS positioning and

navigation, and seamless integration with existing infrastructure and systems. Addressing

these challenges is crucial to ensuring the successful adoption and widespread utilization of

these systems.

The Incorporation of AI and GPS-based guidance systems in an automated robotic

chassis holds significant promise for revolutionizing material handling processes in various

industries. The combination of AI capabilities and GPS data empowers the chassis with

adaptability, intelligence, and efficiency, enabling it to navigate complex environments,

optimize routes, and automate tasks. The potential benefits of increased efficiency, improved

safety, and cost savings make the development of such systems a compelling proposition for

industries aiming to enhance their material handling capabilities.

Page 2
4.2 Methodology

Research Design

This study used an experimental research design in developing an automated robotic

chassis with AI and GPS based guidance system. In this design, a prototype of the guidance

system is developed and tested in a controlled environment, one group equipped with the

proposed warning system and a control group without it. The chassis navigated along a

predetermined route while its speed, distance from other objects, and any speed adjustments

were monitored. Researchers also recorded any obstacles or near misses. The behavior of the

robotic chassis with the warning system was observed and measured throughout the

experiment. Collected data was analyzed using statistical software to evaluate the

effectiveness of the guidance system in reducing collision risk.

Research Locale

This study was conducted in the science laboratory of Don Mariano Marcos National

High School at Purok 6, Ipil, Echague, Isabela for four consecutive days. The laboratory is a

very suitable setting to conduct the study due to its space and it is well-equipped and the

researchers are able to focus.

Page 3
Conceptual Framework

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

1. Design and planning 1. Component selection 1. Warning signals

2. Arduino UNO 2. Assemble of the

2. Real-time
3. Coding sensor
notification
4. Ultrasonic sensor 3. Connection of
3. Checking and testing
5. Image sensor hardware
through several testing
6. GPS module 4. Distance
tools
5. Data gathering tools enhancement

such as observation 5. Testing distance 4. Finishing and safety

6. Data measurement measures

6. Object recognition 5. Data collection

7. Enhancing object
6. Automated robotic
recognition
chassis with AI and

GPS based guidance

system

Feedback

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

Page 4
 The researchers used the Input-Process-Output (I-P-O) format to present the study's

conceptual framework. Figure 1 shows the different parts of the framework, including the

study's main idea and concept.

The first component, the input, contains details about the design and planning needed

to create the guidance system. Also, the Arduino UNO, ultrasonic sensor, image sensor, and

GPS module that are being coded, as well as the data gathering tools and data that have been

collected,.

The second component is the process. It simply indicates the actions that inputs will

take next. The first step is to select your components. Second, assemble the sensor. The third

step is the connection of the hardware. The distance is then measured and tested. Finally,

consider object recognition and its enhancement.

Output is the last component. It's the outcome of the process. The outcomes of the

study include warning signals, real-time notification, testing and verification using various

testing instruments, finishing and safety procedures, data collection, and the construction of

the warning system. These findings provide answers to the research questions, as well as the

aim and purpose of this study and why it was conducted.

Page 5
PROTOTYPING

Materials

1. Arduino UNO – it is connected to the sensors after coding through wires.

Figure 2. Arduino UNO

2. Ultrasonic Sensor HC SR-04 – it is an electronic device that detects an object

and measures the distance of the object.

Figure 3. Ultrasonic Sensor HC SR-04

Page 6
3. GPS Module – it is a device that receives signals from satellites to determine

precise location.

Figure 4. GPS Module

4. Switch – it is an electrical component used to interrupt or divert the flow of

electricity in a circuit.

Figure 5. Switch

5. Jumper Wires – it is an electrical wire to interconnect the components of a

breadboard.

Figure 6. Jumper Wires

Page 7
6. Breadboard – it is a construction base for prototyping to easily connect and

make circuits without soldering.

Figure 7. Breadboard

7. 12V Battery – it is an electric battery that supplies current for the guidance

system.

Figure 8. 12V Battery

Page 8
8. Universal PCB Board – it is a circuit board for testing and validating the

system concepts.

Figure 9. Universal PCB Board

9. Mild Steel – it is a type of carbon steel with low carbon content, making it

relatively soft and easy to form.

Figure 10. Mild Steel

Page 9
 10. DC Motor – it is an electric motor that runs on direct current (DC)

electricity, converting electrical energy into mechanical motion.

Figure 11. DC Motor

11. Driving Wheel – it is a wheel that is powered by a motor and is used to

propel a vehicle or machine forward.

Figure 12. Driving Wheel

Connection of Hardware

1. Sensor to Controlling Pin

 VCC pin to 5v pin

 GND pin to GND pin

 Trig pin to pin-7

 Echo pin to pin-4

Page 10
1. Sensor to Controlling Pin

 VCC Pin: Connect to the 5V pin.

 GND Pin: Connect to the ground (GND) pin.

 Trig Pin: Connect to pin 7.

 Echo Pin: Connect to pin 4.

2. Image Sensor to Controller

 VCC Pin: Connect to the 3.3V pin.

 GND Pin: Connect to the ground (GND) pin.

 SCCB Clock (SIOC): Connect to pin A5 (SCL).

 SCCB Data (SIOD): Connect to pin A4 (SDA).

 Reset: Connect to pin 9.

 XCLK: Connect to pin 8.

 PCLK: Connect to pin 7.

 Data Pins (D0-D7): Connect to digital pins 2-9 (D2-D9).

3. GPS Module to Controller

 VCC Pin: Connect to the 3.3V pin.

 GND Pin: Connect to the ground (GND) pin.

 RX Pin: Connect to pin 3.

 TX Pin: Connect to pin 2.

4. Switch to Controller

 Switch Pin 1 (Outer Pin): Connect to digital pin 10 on the Arduino.

 Switch Pin 2 (Middle Pin): Not connected.

 Switch Pin 3 (Outer Pin): Connect to the ground (GND) pin on the Arduino.

Page 11
 Connection of Hardware Coding and Testing the Prototype

TESTING

1. Testing of reliability and accuracy

The researchers used the Test-Retest Method of Reliability. The researchers used a

distance and surface variations-based test for measuring the reliability and accuracy of

the system at different distances, from a meter up to 5 meters. The system's reliability

depended on whether the system transmitted a visual warning in a given space, with a

distance of not more than 5 meters, to test the variation of surfaces.

5 meters 4 meters 3 meters 2 meters 1 meter

YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO

Obj. 1 (motorcycle)

1st try

Obj. 1 (motorcycle)

2nd try

Obj. 2 (plywood)

1st try

Obj. 2 (plywood) 2nd

try

Table 1.1 System’s Reliability and Accuracy (visual warning)

Page 12
 Yes – means that the warning system transmitted visual warning accordingly

No – means that there is no visible warning emitted

This test is a distance-based test for measuring the reliability and accuracy of the

system at different distances, from a meter up to 5 meters. The system's reliability depended

on whether or not the system transmitted an audible warning at a given space, with a distance

of not more than 5 meters. This testing tests the accuracy and reliability of the variation of

surfaces.

5 meters 4 meters 3 meters 2 meters 1 meter

YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO

Obj. 1 (motorcycle)

1st try

Obj. 1 (motorcycle)

2nd try

Obj. 2 (plywood)

1st try

Obj. 2 (plywood) 2nd

try

Table 1.2 System’s Reliability and Accuracy (audible warning)

Yes – means that the warning system transmitted an audible alarm accordingly

No – means that there is no audible warning emitted

Page 13
DATA ANALYSIS
The objective of this study was to assess the dependability and precision of the

proposed system in measuring the distance between two cars and detecting surface

irregularities. To enhance the credibility of this study's results and techniques, the

researchers employed a statistical approach involving descriptive and inferential statistics.

The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, utilizing the following statistical

tools: Signify. The mean calculates the central value that represents the four averages of the

total dataset.

The researchers employed the inferential statistical technique of Variance Analysis to

draw conclusions only based on the data provided. The researchers used One-way ANOVA

with post-hoc Tukey HSD Test to further evaluate the significant disparities among variables.

PRODUCT COSTING
MATERIALS QUANTITY PRICE

1. Arduino UNO 1pc PHP 839.00

2. Ultrasonic Sensor HR SC- 1pc PHP 36.00

04

3. Piezo Buzzer 1pc PHP 45.00

4. LED Light One bundle (10 pcs) PHP 29.00

5. Jumper Wires One bundle (20 pcs) PHP 45.00

6. 1K Ohm Resistors One bundle (10 pcs) PHP 50.00

7. Solderless Bread Board 1pc PHP 55.00

8. 9V Battery 1pc PHP 19.00

Page 14
 9. Universal PCB (7*9cm) 1pc PHP 25.00

10. AWG 22 Gauge One bundle (10 pcs) PHP 14.00

Wires(30cm)

11. AWG 24 Gauge One bundle (10pcs) PHP 12.00

Wires(10cm)

12. 9V Battery Holder 1pc PHP 219.00

Total PHP 1,388.00

Table 2. Product costing

PRINCIPLES OF OPERATION
The system will be mounted on a bicycle, and upon approaching an oncoming vehicle

within the warning zone, which is within 3 meters, the buzzer will generate an audible alert

and the red LED will light. The system will not operate if the vehicle is within the safe zone

or 4 meters and above. And the green LED light will remain.

The distance traversed within the warning zone, critical zone, and safe area will be

determined by the specifications of the HC SR-04 ultrasonic sensor.

4.3 Results

PRESENTATION OF DATA

5m 4m 3m 2m 1m

Obj. 1 2 2 2 2 2

(motorcycle)

Page 15
 1st try

Obj. 1 2 2 2 2 2

(motorcycle)

2nd try

Table 3.1 Visual Warning Object 1 (Motorcycle) (Green LED)

The results presented in Table 3.1 showed that both trials from a distance of 1m to 5m

showed that the system transmitted a green visual warning.

5m 4m 3m 2m 1m

Obj. 1 1 1 2 2 2

(motorcycle)

1st try

Obj. 1 1 1 2 2 2

(motorcycle)

2nd try

Table 3.2 Visual Warning Object 1 (Motorcycle) (Red LED)

The results presented in Table 3.2 showed that both trials from a distance of 1m to 3m

showed that the system transmitted a red visual warning. It means that the objects were

within the risky area.

Legend: 2 - YES, the system transmitted a visual warning

1 - NO, the system did not transmit a visual warning

Page 16
 5m 4m 3m 2m 1m

Obj. 2 2 2 2 2 2

(plywood) 1st

try

Obj. 2 2 2 2 2 2

(plywood)

2nd try

Table 3.3 Visual Warning Object 2 (Plywood) (Green)

The results presented in Table 3.3 showed that both trials from a distance of 1m to 5m

showed that the system transmitted a green visual warning.

5m 4m 3m 2m 1m

Obj. 2 2 2 2 2 2

(plywood) 1st

try

Obj. 2 2 2 2 2 2

(plywood)

2nd try

Table 3.4 Visual Warning Object 2 (Plywood) (Red)

The results presented in Table 3.2 showed that both trials from a distance of 1m to 3m

showed that the system transmitted a red visual warning. It means that the objects were

within the risky area.

Page 17
Legend: 2 - YES, the system transmitted a visual warning

1 - NO, the system did not transmit a visual warning

5m 4m 3m 2m 1m

Obj. 1 1 1 2 2 2

(motorcycle)

1st try

Obj. 1 1 1 2 2 2

(motorcycle)

2nd try

Table 4.1 Audible warning Object 1 (Motorcycle)

Legend: 2 - YES, the system notified an audible warning

1 - NO, the system did not notify an audible warning

The results presented in Table 4.1 showed that both trials for the distance of 4m and

5m showed that the system did not transmit an audible warning, meaning, the object is not in

the risky area for possible collision. From a distance of 1m to 3m for both problems, all

described as “2” since the system transmitted an audible warning. With these results, it can be

noted that the system reliability excels at the distance of 3m-1m and is able to provide

warning.

Page 18
 5m 4m 3m 2m 1m

Obj. 1 1 1 2 2 2

(motorcycle)

1st try

Obj. 1 1 1 2 2 2

(motorcycle)

2nd try

Table 4.2 Audible warning Object 2 (Plywood)

Legend: 2 - YES, the system notified an audible warning

1 - NO, the system did not notify an audible warning

Table 4.2 shows that for object 2 (plywood), results are all described as “yes” from the

distance 1m to 3m. It means that the system transmitted an audible warning accordingly.

Source The sum of Degrees of Mean Square F Statistics P-Value

Square SS Freedom vv MS

treatment 0.5500 3 0.1833 1.4667 0.2611

error 2.0000 16 0.1250

total 2.5500 19

Table 5. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Results – Post-Hoc Analysis

4.4 Discussion

Page 19
 The p-value corresponding to the F-statistics of one-way ANOVA is higher than 0.05,

saying that the treatments are not significantly different for the significance level.

Treatment Pair Tukey HSD Q Tukey HSD P-Value Tukey HSD

Statistic Inference

A vs. B 1.2649 0.7884881 insignificant

A vs. C 2.5298 0.3142378 insignificant

A vs. D 2.5298 0.3142378 insignificant

B vs C 1.2649 0.7884881 insignificant

B vs D 1.2649 0.7884881 insignificant

C vs. D 0.0000 0.8999947 insignificant

Table 6. Post-Hoc Tukey HSD Test

Table 6 shows no significant difference between object one 1 st trial and object one 2nd

trial, object one 1st trial and thing two 1st trial, object one 1st trial and object two 2nd trial. Same

as the object one 2nd trial and the object two 1 st trial, object one 1st trial, and object two 2nd

trial. As well as object two 1st trial and object two 2nd trial. Based on the results, it can be

inferred that the system works regardless of the object's shape or surface variations for a 1m-

5m distance.

Treatment Pair Scheffé TT-Statistic Scheffé P-Value Scheffé Inference

A vs. B 0.8944 0.8484328 insignificant

A vs. C 1.7889 0.3909130 insignificant

A vs. D 1.7889 0.3909130 insignificant

B vs C 0.8944 0.8484328 insignificant

Page 20
 B vs D 0.8944 0.8484328 insignificant

C vs. D 0.0000 1.0000000 insignificant

Table 7. Post-Hoc Test Scheffé Multiple Comparison Results

Table 7 shows no significant difference between object one 1 st trial and object one 2nd

trial, object one 1st trial and object two 1st trial, 0.8484328 1 1st trial, and object two 2nd trial.

Same as the object one 2 nd trial and object two 1st trial, object one 1st trial, and object two 2nd

trial. As well as object two 1st trial and object two 2nd trial. Based on the results, it can be

inferred that the system works regardless of the object shape or surface variations for a 1m-

5m distance.

Treatments Bonferroni Bonferroni Bonferroni Holm Holm

Pair and Holm P-Value Inference P-Value Inference

TT-Statistics

A vs. B 0.8944 2.3061057 insignificant 1.5374038 insignificant

A vs. C 1.7889 0.5555139 insignificant 0.5555139 insignificant

A vs. D 1.7889 0.5555139 insignificant 0.4629283 insignificant

B vs C 0.8944 2.3061057 insignificant 1.1530528 insignificant

B vs D 0.8944 2.3061057 insignificant 0.7687019 insignificant

C vs D 0.0000 6.0000000 insignificant 1.0000000 insignificant

Table 8. Post-Hoc Test Bonferroni and Holm Results

Table 8 shows no significant difference between object one 1 st trial and object one 2nd

trial, object one 1st trial and thing two 1st trial, object one 1st trial and object two 2nd trial.

Page 21
Same as the object one 2nd trial and object two 1st trial, object one 1st trial and object two 2nd

trial. As well as object two 1 st trial and two 2nd trial. Based on the results, it can be inferred

that the system works regardless of the object's shape or surface variations for a 1m-5m

distance.

Respondents Provision of Easy to Easy to Use Mean Verbal

Real-time Understand Interpretation

Notification

R1 4 3 4 3.7 Excellent

R2 4 4 4 4 Excellent

R3 4 3 4 3.7 Excellent

R4 4 3 4 3.7 Excellent

R5 4 4 4 4 Excellent

Total Mean 3.82 Excellent

MEAN 4 4 4 3.8 Excellent

Table 9. Participant’s Assessment Report

Legend: 1.0-1.75 = NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

1.76-2.50 = SATISFACTORY
2.51-3.25 = GOODred
3.26-4.20 = EXCELLEMT

Table 9 shows that both the system’s capability to give provision of real-time

notification and how easy it is to use is graded “4” by the participants, which has an

interpretation of excellent. It can be inferred that the system is excellently capable of the said

categories/capabilities. For participants 1, 3, and 4, the mean of their grading for the three

given types is “3.7,” which can be interpreted as Excellent; the same goes for participants 2
Page 22
and 5 for the implementation excellent with a mean of “4”. Overall, based on the data, the

system's user-friendliness is impressive.

4.5 Conclusions

SUMMARY

The study aimed to assess the dependability and precision of the newly designed

ultrasonic-based rear-end warning system for bicycles. The research was carried out at Don

Mariano Marcos National High School located in Ipil, Echague, Isabela.

The study aimed to innovate by implementing a rear-end warning system on bicycles

to enhance rider safety. The primary focus was to assess the reliability and accuracy of the

system on various object surfaces.

The study's findings are briefly presented and organized in the following manner:

1. The audible and visual warning message was activated at 3 meters, 2 meters, and

1 meter for both items (motorcycle and plywood).

2. The system is able to detect objects and provide warning for both risky and safe

area.

3. The results comparing object detection in the two trials for each object indicated

statistical insignificance, suggesting that the system can detect objects independent of

their surface characteristics.

CONCLUSION

The technology has demonstrated exceptional performance in delivering visible and

aural messages for different item surfaces, such as a motorcycle and plywood. The device

shows constant and dependable item-detecting skills on various characters, remaining

Page 23
effective within a range of up to 5 meters. This demonstrates the system's ability to identify

items regardless of their surface composition, emphasizing its adaptability and dependability.

In addition, the system provides notifications in real-time that are user-friendly, emphasizing

its simplicity and comprehensibility. Ultimately, the system's capacity to identify objects

across diverse surfaces and distances, together with its outstanding real-time alerting

capabilities, establishes it as a resilient and exceedingly effective solution for improving

safety and usability in practical scenarios.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Integrate a thorough highway simulation test to evaluate the system's efficiency in a

roadway environment. This test aims to simulate the diverse attributes of vehicles frequently

encountered on highways, including factors such as the speed differences between the trailing

car and the bicycle.

2. Enhance the testing procedure by incorporating a wide range of objects to verify the

system's capacity to recognize different types of object surfaces accurately. By combining a

more comprehensive array of elements, the assessment will yield a more thorough

comprehension of the system's effectiveness in detecting various objects.

WORKPLAN (2023)
INCLUSIVE TOPIC ACTIVITY
DATE
March 6 Research Title Brainstorming of problems in the
community
Generating title ideas
Crafting research titles
March 7-10 Research Process Writing the background of the study
Formulating the research questions or
problem statement
Writing the goals and hypothesis of the
study
March 13-14 Review of Literatures Reviewing literatures related to the study
March 15-17 Review of Studies Reviewing published studies related to the

Page 24
 study
March 20-21 Study Procedures Finding and studying procedures of the
study
March 22 Request Letter for Requesting a Science teacher to be a
Research Adviser Research Adviser
March 23-24 Review of Literatures Reviewing more related literatures and
and Studies studies
March 27-31 Finalization of Finalizing and writing all gathered related
Literatures and Studies literatures and studies
March 30 Research Title Defense Presentation of research titles
Approval of research study
April 3-5 Incorporation of Putting all the suggestions of panelists in the
Suggestions of study
Panelists
April 11-14 Related Literatures and Reviewing more related literatures and
Studies studies for the approved study
April 17-19 Methodology: Writing the research design
Research Design
April 24-28 Methodology: Data Identifying and writing the data analysis
Analysis
May 2-5 Methodology: Writing the research instruments and
Research Instruments research locale
and Research Locale
May 8-12 Methodology: Writing the conceptual framework of the
Conceptual Framework study
May 15-19 Methodology: Writing the procedures: preparation of
Procedures treatments and data gathering procedures
May 22 Consultation with the Consulting with the Research Adviser for
Research Adviser the study
May 23-26 Incorporation of Incorporating all the suggestions of the
Suggestions of the Research Adviser in the study
Research Adviser
May 29-31 Finalization of Finalizing the research paper for the
Research Paper research defense
June 2 Research Defense Presentation of research study
June 5-9 Preparation of Preparing all the materials for the
Materials and Setups experimentation

Project Costing
Materials Quantity Price
Arduino 1pc PHP
UNO 839.00
Ultrasonic 1pc PHP
Sensor HR 36.00
SC-04
Piezo 1pc PHP

Page 25
 Buzzer 45.00
LED Light One PHP
bundle 29.00
(10 pcs)
Jumper One PHP
Wires bundle 45.00
(20 pcs)
10K Ohm One PHP
Resistors bundle 50.00
(10 pcs)
Solderless 1pc PHP
Bread Board 55.00
9V Battery 1pc PHP
19.00
Universal 1pc PHP
PCB 25.00
(7*9cm)
AWS 22 One PHP
Gauge
Wires(30cm bundle 14.00
)
(10 pcs)

AWS 24 One PHP

Gauge bundle 12.00
Wires(10cm (10pcs)
)
9V Battery 1pc PHP
Holder 219.00
TOTAL: Php 1,388.00

June 13-16 Experimentation: Preparing and arranging the materials

Listing of Components Documenting the procedures
needed
June 19-22 Experimentation Performing the procedures
Documenting the procedures, observations
Recording all the needed data
June 26-28 Analyzation of Data Analyzing the data and results of the
and Results experimentation
July 3-7 Performing Statistical Performing statistical treatments for the
Treatments results
August 29-31 Expected Outputs and Writing of expected outputs and impacts
Potential Impacts
September 1 Final Research Presentation of results of the conducted
Defense study
September 4-7 Incorporation of Incorporating all the corrections
Corrections and Completing the research study

Page 26
 Completion of the
Research Study

4.6 References

Appiah, O. et al. (2020), Ultrasonic sensor-based traffic information acquisition system; a

cheaper alternative for ITS application in developing countries:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468227620302258

Baclig, C. (2021), PH pandemic produced more bikers, rise in bicycle road crashers:

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1521423/ph-pandemic-produced-more-bikers-rise-in-

bicycle-road-crashes

Page 27
Brigade Electronics Inc. (2018), Ultrasonic Sensor Systems Increasing Safety on Roadways.

https://www.oemoffhighway.com/electronics/sensors/proximity-detection safety

systems-release/21015496/brigade-electronics-inc-ultrasonic-sensor systems

increasing-safety-on-roadways

Brown, L. Ph.D. (2005), Adjusted Minimum Time-to-Collision (TTC): A Robust Approach to

Evaluating Crash Scenarios:

https://www.nadssc.uiowa.edu/dscna/2005/papers/Adjusted_Minimum_TimeToCollisi

on.pdf

Burnett, R. (2020), Understanding How Ultrasonic Sensors Work:

https://www.maxbotix.com/articles/how-ultrasonic-sensors-work.htm

Cervantes, F. (2023), SWS: 1 out of 3 Filipino families uses bicycles:

https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1208953

Gozum, I. (2022), More bike owners than car owners in PH – SWS:

https://www.rappler.com/nation/bike-car-owners-sws-survey-april-2022/

IIHS (2022), Fatality Facts 2020 Bicyclists: https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-

statistics/detail/bicyclists

Kumar, V. (2017), Arduino-based Collision Detection Warning System:

https://create.arduino.cc/projecthub/Vijendra/arduino-based-collision-detection-

warningsystemd1beec?

fbclid=IwAR3_2SF0787tCpNTPPTu1ouVleK_gxohp7Gd2iFCfk0N3j

6hY60Fbtw9HY

Mgbemena, C. et al. (2020), Design and Development of a Proximity Warning System for

Improved Safety on the Manufacturing Shop Floor:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S101836392030341X

Page 28
MMDA (2022), Bicycle-related Road Crash Statistics 2021:

https://mmda.gov.ph/images/Home/FOI/Bicycle-related-Road-Crash-Statistics-in-

MetroManila/Bicycle-related_Road_Crash_Statistics_2021.pdf

Sarangay, M. (2021), Mike Defensor: Surge in bicycle road accidents due to lack of safe

mobility infra projects in PH: https://mb.com.ph/2021/11/28/mike-defensor-surge-in-

bicycle-road-accidents-due-to-lack-of-safe-mobility-infra-projects-in-ph/

DOCUMENTATION

1. Gathering of Materials

Page 29
2. Prototyping

Coding

Connecting the LED lights, 1K Ohm Resistors, Piezo Buzzer, and Ultrasonic Sensor

HC SR-04 to the breadboard

Page 30
Connecting the wires from the breadboard to the Arduino UNO

Page 31
Connecting the LED lights, 1K Ohm Resistors, Piezo Buzzer, and Ultrasonic Sensor

HC SR-04 to each other

Page 32
Installing the developed system to the bicycle

Page 33