DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF ALCOHOL DETECTING SYSTEM.

BY

A PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

ABIA STATE POLYTECHNIC, ABA

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE NATIONAL DIPLOMA (ND) IN ELECTRICAL /ELECTRONIC

ENGINEERING

January, 2016

CERTIFICATION

I certify that this work DESIN AND CONSTRUCTION OF MOVING LED DISPLAY BOARD was carried out by

ACHIONYE STEPHEN CHIBUZOR with matriculation numbers 2013NDM/00034/EE in partial fufilment of the requirements for the award of National diploma in Electrical Electronic Engineering Abia State Polytechnic Aba

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this project “DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF MOVING LED DISPLAY BOARD” was designed and constructed by me to the Department of Electrical Electronic Engineering Abia State Polytechnic, Aba in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of National Diploma (ND)

I further declare that this work has not been submitted to this or any other institution for the award of degree, diploma or equivalent course.

DEDICATION

This project is dedication to God almighty for the wisdom and knowledge given

to me and my beloved parents, brothers and sisters from whom all the blessings

flow.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

My profound gratitude goes to my parents Mr. and Mrs. F.I OGBONNA for their invaluable contribution to my educational pursuit and every others sector of life.

My warm regards goes to my elder brother, Mr UCHE OGBONNA for his support and various suggestions during the writing of this project, and to my siblings, for their love and understanding.

I also want to appreciate the efforts of my friends and well wishers who in one way or the other contributed to my happiness and sustenance during my stay in school.

To my supervisor, Engr Obinna Otagburuagu for their instructions, my lecturers; Engr Kelechi Inyama, Engr Stanley, Engr Alozie, Engr Ehibe Prince for their numerous teachings and impartation in my life, while an undergraduate.

Thanks to you all.

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this project is to develop vehicle accident prevention by method of alcohol detector in an effort to reduce traffic accident cases based on driving under the influence alcohol. This project is developed by integrating the alcohol sensor with the microcontroller 16F877A. The alcohol sensor used in this project is MQ-2 which to detect the alcohol content in human breath. An ignition system which will produce spark plugs is build up as a prototype to act like the ignition starter over the vehicle’s engine. The ignition system will operate based on the level of blood alcohol content (BAC) from human breaths detected by alcohol sensor. The main purpose behind this project is “Drunk driving detection”. Now days, many accidents arehappening because of the alcohol consumption of the driver or the person who is driving the vehicle. Thus drunken driving is a major reason of accidents in almost all countries all over the world. Alcohol Detector in Car project is designed for the safety of the people seating inside the car. This project should be fitted / installed inside the vehicle.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BRIEF REVEIW

Prior to the mid-1960s, the role of vehicle design in preventing crashes and mitigating crash injuries was not generally considered. The focusat that time was on trying to prevent crashes by changing driver behavior (O’Neill, 2003). However, in 1966, in the aftermath of U.S.Senate hearings on vehicle safety, legislation was enacted that authorized the U.S. Federal Government to set safety standards for newvehicles. The result, in 1967, was the first U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard specifying requirements for seat belt assemblies.A host of other regulations quickly ensued to address vehicle performance in several categories: pre-crash (e.g., tires, brakes, transmissions), crash-phase (e.g., head restraints, front and side impact protection, roof crush, windshields), and post-crash (e.g., fuel systemintegrity, flammability of interior materials). Shortly thereafter other governments followed suit in implementing similar regulations, forexample, in Europe, Australia, and Canada. Most U.S. motor vehicle regulations have been evaluated by the National Highway TrafficSafety Administration (NHTSA) at least once since 1975 (Kahane, 2008). Based on these evaluations, NHTSA estimates that FederalMotor Vehicle Safety Standards have saved 284,069 lives between the time of their inception and 2002 (Kahane, 2004). Government regulations are important in ensuring that vehicles meet a minimum standard of safety. However, there are many other waysin which vehicle safety can be advanced outside of the regulatory framework. It was once believed that “safety does not sell”. However, that perception has changed as more and more consumer-oriented vehicle assessment crash test programs have proliferated around theworld. The aim of consumer crash test programs is to encourage manufacturers to go beyond these minimum

requirements incorporated in the regulations. NHTSA was the first to launch a consumer oriented crash-test program. Starting in 1978,under the authority of Title II of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1973, NHTSA began assessing the frontal crash protection capabilities of new cars by measuring injury potential in crash tests at speeds higherthan those required by law. This program, known as the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) was expanded in 1983 to include frontalcrash protection for light trucks, and again in 1997 with the launch of NCAP tests assessing side impact protection More recently, in 2001, NHTSA also began adding information about rollover resistance totheir NCAP program, and information about the availability of advanced technology is being added with the 2011 model year.In the last 15 years, consumer crash test programs have been launched in many other countries. In the United States, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) began providing passenger vehicle crash test ratings in 1995, and now offers information on frontal offset, side, and rear impact protection European NCAP was launched in 1997, and includes vehicle crash test ratings for frontal, and side impacts,including a pole test to measure head protection, and tests to assess pedestrian protection The Australian NCAP, in place in Australia and New Zealand, began testing similar to Euro NCAP in 1999 anduses the same rating system Japan began its NCAP in

1995, Korea initiated crash testing in 1999 and China also now has begun its own NCAP program The desire to earn good ratings in such programshas driven major improvements in vehicle safety, and they have become de facto standards for much of the automobile industry. NCAP-typeprograms have resulted in clear improvements in vehicle designs to withstand crash forces, and in significant reductions in dummy injury measures. For example, in 1979, when U.S. NCAP was just beginning, the Head Injury Criterion (HIC), a measure to indicate the likelihood of a serious head injury, was exceeded in 22 of 30 vehicles tested. In contrast, only one of 29 vehicles tested in 1995 exceeded the HIC (Ferguson, 1999).Comparing the performance of 1995-98 model vehicles with 1999-2001 vehicles, IIHS reported large improvements in vehicle ratings on theirfrontal-offset crash-test program largely as the result of improvements in vehicle structures (Lund, et al., 2003, see also O’Neill, 2005).Furthermore, these improvements have come about at a faster pace than would have been possible through regulation. There have been afew evaluations that indicate such programs are effective in improving occupant protection in real world crashes. These studies indicate thatvehicles that perform better in frontal crash tests result in lower injury risks for their occupants (Farmer, 2005; Kahane, 1994; Newstead et al.,2003). Lie and Tingvall (2002) evaluated European crash

test ratings, which are derived from a combination of frontal offset and side impact tests, and demonstrated a correlation withreal-world crash injury risk.In recent years, there have been some clear examples of the automobile industry and government working together to expedite the safety process. The safety marketplace has proven to be a catalyst for innovative technologies and vehicle manufacturers increasingly are deploying safety systems well in advance of, or even in the absence of,government mandates. Since 1999 frontal airbags have been required inall new passenger vehicles, however, side airbags were introduced without government regulations requiring them. Because early experience indicated that frontal airbags could result in injury or death to occupants who were close to them when they deployed, there weresome concerns about the potential of side airbags to injure out-of position occupants. In May, 1999 the NHTSA Administrator requested that the automobile industry work together to quickly develop test procedures for assessing side airbag safety. The Side Airbag Technical Working Group, sponsored by IIHS, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (the Alliance), the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, and the Automotive Occupants Restraints Council, was formed and within 15 months voluntary standards had been developed All vehicle manufacturers committed to follow this protocol when designing new side airbag systems

and 90 percent of vehicles with side airbags conform to these voluntary guidelines Another example of cooperative research to improve vehicle safety is provided by the Blue Ribbon Panel for the Evaluation of AdvancedAirbags. The Panel was formed in 2001, amid concerns about possible negative effects of changes in frontal crash-test regulations toreduce the aggressively of deploying airbags The Panel’s independent group of experts oversaw the collection of Alliance-funded frontal crash data, the purpose of which was to hasten and facilitate the understanding of redesigned frontal airbag performance. It was agreed that data collection should utilize the existing National Automotive Sampling System/Crashworthiness Data System program and NHTSA observers took part in all the meetings and provided guidance to the Panel on data collection issues.1.2 PURPOSE1. To prevent accidents due to drunk and driving.2. Easy and efficient to test the alcohol content in thebody.3. Quick and accurate results.4. Helpful for police and provides an automatic safetysystems for cars and other vehicles as well.

1.3 SCOPE OF PROJECT

1. “Alcohol Detector project” can be used in the variousvehicles for detecting whether the driver has consumedalcohol or not.

2. This project can also be used in various companies ororganisation to detect alcohol consumption of employees .

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 HISTORY OF ALCHOLIC DETECTION SYSTEM

BackgroundAlcohol-impaired driving is a major factor in the tens of thousands of deaths that occur every year on U.S. roads. In 2007, there were almost13,000 fatalities in crashes involving drivers with blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) of 0.08 g/dL or higher – the legal limit in all 50 U.S. States (NHTSA, 2008). This number represented 32 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year. Although significant progress was made during the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s in reducing this problem, since then progress has been limited. Strong laws and enforcement have been effective in reducing deaths and injuries from drinking and driving (Elder et al., 2002; Shults et al., 2001). Such efforts will need to continue; however more must be done if substantial progress is to be made in the long term. The potential for in-vehicle technology that could prevent alcohol-impaired driving has beenrecognized. Current aftermarket breath testing devices, in use for several decades, can be installed in vehicles and measure a driver’s BAC. These devices predominantly are used by drivers convicted of DWI, and require drivers to provide breath samples before starting

their vehicles. If a positive Breath Alcohol Concentration (BrAC) is registered, the vehicle cannot be started. Studies indicate that while these devices are on the vehicles of convicted DWI offenders, they canreduce recidivism by about two-thirds (Willis etal., 2004). A total of 47 States permit or mandate alcohol ignition interlocks for certain offenders, however, they are generally underutilized. Many lives could be saved if they were more widely applied among the population of DWI offenders. It has been estimated that, if all drivers with at leastone alcohol-impaired driving conviction within 3years prior to the crash were restricted to zero BACs, about 1,100 deaths could have beenprevented in 2005 (Lund et al., 2007). Efforts are underway in the United States to increase the use of breath-alcohol ignition interlocks among convicted DWI offenders, both through passage of stronger state laws that will require them for first-time offenders, and through efforts to work within the criminal justice system to maximize their adoptionEven if such efforts are successful, they would only partially solve the problem of alcohol impaired drivers.

That is because a large proportion of the alcohol-impaired fatal crashes that occur every year involve drivers with no prior DWI convictions. In 2006 only 7 percent of drivers in fatal crashes with BACs 0.08 g/Dl or higher had previous alcohol-impaired driving convictions on their records for the prior 3 years (IIHS, 2008). Wider deployment of current alcohol ignition interlock technology as a preventative measure among the general public is not advisable because of the obtrusive nature of the technology– requiring the driver to provide a breath sample each and every time before starting the vehicle. In the United States about 40 percent of thepopulation indicate they do not drink and only about 3 percent of the population say they have driven after drinking during the last 12 months(Chou et al., 2006; Williams et al., 2000). Therefore, to be acceptable for use among all drivers, many of whom do not drink and drive, in-vehicle alcohol detection technologies must be seamless with the driving task; they must be nonintrusive, reliable, durable, and require little or no maintenance. The technical challenges are substantial, however the possible benefits to society are

compelling, with the potential to prevent almost 9,000 motor vehicle deaths every year if alldrivers with BACs at or above the legal limit (0.08 g/dL) were unable to drive (Lund et al. 2007).There has been growing interest among legislators to broaden the scope of in-vehicle technology to prevent alcohol-impaired driving, and several state governments in the United

States have considered legislation to require it. In the 2004 legislative session three U.S. States (New Mexico, New York, and Oklahoma)considered legislation to mandate breath alcohol ignition interlocks on all new vehicles. In New Mexico a Governor’s Task Force was established to study alcohol ignition interlock devices and provide recommendations concerning their broader use. There also has been considerable international interest. In 2005, the provincial government of Ontario, Canada also explored a requirement to mandate alcohol ignition interlocks on all vehicles. In 2006, the Swedish governmentannounced its intention to equip all commercial vehicles with alcohol ignition interlocks by 2010 and all passenger vehicles by 2012.Since then, the focus in Sweden has shifted to the

voluntary application of breath alcohol ignition interlocks as a primary prevention measure (i.e. in vehicles of drivers who have not been convicted of a DWI) among fleet vehicles, including local government vehicles. It has beendecided that they will await the development of non-invasive technologies before pursuing universal deployment. The governments of Norway and Finland also have expressed support for this strategy. Because of concern about a number of deaths of innocent victims of alcohol impaired drivers, the Japanese government also has expressed interest in developing a comprehensive technological solution to thealcohol-impaired driving problem. A number of automobile manufacturers have indicated that they are developing driver alcoholdetection systems for vehicles. Beginning in 2008, Volvo now offers the AlcoGuard™ as optional equipment on their vehicles sold inSweden. This device is integrated into the vehicle’s man/machine interface but still requires drivers to provide a breath sample each timebefore starting the vehicle. In August 2007, Nissan

announced a concept car with multiple potential systems to measure drivers’ BAC,including alcohol in drivers’ breath and sweat. Saab also has indicated it is developing a breath alcohol device for use in its vehicles. As interest was growing in the United States and internationally for technological solutions to the alcohol-impaired driving problem, anInternational Technology Symposium was sponsored by MADD in June 2006.

Cooperative AgreementIn February 2008, the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety (ACTS) and NHTSA entered into a Cooperative Agreement to explore thefeasibility, potential benefits of, and the public policy challenges associated with a more widespread use of in-vehicle technology toprevent alcohol-impaired driving – known as the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS) program. Funding for ACTS currently is provided by motor vehicle manufacturers (BMW, Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes Benz, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Porsche, Toyota, Volkswagen).The approach being taken is a non-regulatory approach that will

encourage voluntary adoption. This 5-year, cost-sharing agreement requires that ACTS and NHTSA work together to engage in cooperative research that advances the state of alcohol detection technology. This effort seeks to develop technologies that are less-intrusive than the current in-vehicle breath alcohol measurement devices and that will quickly and accurately measure a driver’s BAC in a noninvasive manner. These technologies will be a component of a system that can prevent the vehicle from being driven when the device registers that the driver’s BAC exceeds the legallimit (0.08 g/dL in all U.S. states). Such devices ultimately must be compatible for mass production at a moderate price, meet acceptablereliability levels, and be unobtrusive to the sober driver.

DETECTION PROBLEMS

There are many examples that illustrate serious detection problems involving alcohol consumption. In a 1957 study in which medical assessments of impaired driving ability were compared with results of actual driving tests, it was concluded that “a medical examination alone is not a reliable means of detecting alcoholic impairment of driving ability” (Crime Detection Laboratory, 1957). In several investigations around the world in which people at various BACs were diagnosed as drunk or not, only 62 percent of people with BACs of 0.10–0.15 percent were thought to be drunk (American Medical Association, 1968).

Tolerance to alcohol allows many heavy drinkers to escape detection, even at very high BACs (Chesher and Greeley, 1992). Rosen and Lee (1976) found that although social drinkers exhibited behavioral signs of intoxication at BACs of 0.10 percent, alcoholics showed virtually none, even though both groups were equally impaired on cognitive performance measures involving recall of lists of numbers and words. Perper et al. (1986) reported that many alcoholics admitted to a detoxification unit had normal speech, gait, and unimpaired ability to undress, even with BACs of 0.35 percent and greater. At sobriety checkpoints conducted in North Carolina, 60 percent of drivers with A-1to A-2 *TRB Circular E-C020: Issues and Methods in the Detection of Alcohol and Other Drugs* BACs of 0.10 percent or greater were not detained by police for further testing (Wells et al., 1997). In a study of the detection of alcohol under ideal laboratory conditions, 40 percent of drinking subjects with BACs greater than 0.08 percent were not identified by alcohol odor after they had eaten some food (Moskowitz et al., 1997). There is scant literature on the detection of drugs other than alcohol among drivers or in other situations. On the road, drivers sometimes come under suspicion of having ingested drugs when they act impaired but test negatively for alcohol. In this context, police officers trained in drug recognition techniques are reasonably accurate in determining if drugs are, in fact, involved (Preusser et al., 1992). However, it is not known how many drugged drivers there are who do not come under suspicion in this manner. Most of the examples involving alcohol detection pertain to identifying people with high BACs. However, depending on the target population, it is also necessary to identify people with lower BACs—0.08 percent, 0.04 percent, or any alcohol—and this is correspondingly more difficult.

IMPORTANCE OF DETECTION IN VARIOUS SITUATIONS Although the workshop focuses on police detection of alcohol and other drugs among drivers, there are many other instances in which we wish to detect alcohol and other drugs: commercial transportation in all forms; non-motor-vehicle pursuits such as recreational boating; industry; medical settings in cases in which it may be necessary to distinguish alcohol intoxication from head injury for treatment purposes; school settings; treatment settings to make sure clients are following treatment regimens; and retail establishments where there are alcohol servers. Detection of alcohol and other drugs in these other realms differs from what is involved in dealing with private motor vehicle drivers. For example, in some cases mandatory testing is involved on a random basis or prior to performing the activity. As the result of the 1991 Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act, every driver of a large bus or truck, or anyone who is transporting people commercially, is subject to random alcohol and drug tests. Also, individuals attending drug and alcohol treatment programs, often as the result of a DWI conviction, are subject to testing at the discretion of the counselor. For alcohol servers in retail establishments, the issue is usually not whether patrons have been drinking, but whether servers should continue to serve them drinks. The situation most analogous to the detection of alcohol and drugs on the highway is the detection of impaired boat operators. In most states, the laws governing drinking and operating boats are the same ones governing driving motor vehicles on the road, and detection of boat operators with illegal BACs by necessity follows similar paths to that for operators of motor vehicles. For example, marine police might stop boats that are being operated in a risky manner, such as powerboats being operated at high speeds at night. They also might examine more closely operators who have been involved in a mishap. However, until recently there has been little effort

to systematically deter this population from drinking. Research now is under way to try to understand the magnitude of the problem and to develop field sobriety tests more suited to on-board administration.

DETECTION ON THE HIGHWAY

The detection process on the highway involves two stages: accurately detecting alcohol or other drugs and establishing the basis for criminal prosecution. That is, even though a police officer may successfully detect illegal use of alcohol or other drugs, there are detection-related issues that may hinder the application of sanctions. The workshop addresses both of these issues and emphasizes that detection and follow-up processes must be done in the context of maintaining the legal and constitutional rights of individuals. Notably, the U.S. Constitution prohibits some detection techniques used advantageously in other countries.

EVOLUTION OF DETECTION ISSUES

The workshop addresses detection in regard to current law and practice, but it is of interest that there have been changes in laws against alcohol-impaired driving over the years that have changed the way in which the process of detection and building a case proceed. During the first half of this century, evaluating the degree of impairment of a driver who had been drinking focused principally on the description of behavior. The first state laws prohibited driving while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol. In practical terms, this meant that only obviously impaired drivers were likely to be arrested. In fact, as research subsequently determined, many alcohol-impaired drivers do not appear drunk, and at that time it was difficult to obtain a conviction because no objective standard existed to prove intoxication. Following World War II, the nation began the process of integrating chemical

testing with DUI enforcement. At first, this was in the form of a blood or urine test based on the work of Widmark early in the century. Initially, this was done through what are known as presumptive laws, which establish a presumption of impairment at or above a specified BAC (defendants could try to rebut the presumption). The most significant advance in chemical alcohol test technology was the development of a practical breath test by Borkenstein, opening the way to its widespread use throughout the United States in the 1960s. Reliable chemical testing permitted the adoption of *per se *laws, first adopted by Norway in 1936, that define the offense as driving with a BAC above a proscribed limit. In the United States, *per se *laws were not introduced until the 1970s but now are in place in 49 states and the District of Columbia. Defendants charged with *per se *offenses can no longer try to prove they were not impaired, although they can challenge the validity of the BAC test. Even with *per se* laws, however, behavior plays a vital role in the arrest and conviction of impaired drivers in the United States in two ways. In the field, behavior provides justification for the DUI investigation and arrest, which in turn provides the officer with the authority to require the breath test. *WORKSHOP FOCUS* The workshop traces the detection process from the moment the person enters a vehicle through to the sanctioning process. It should be noted, however, that the detection process can start earlier than this. For example, alcohol servers or passengers may detect impairing amounts of alcohol and deter potential drivers from driving. The workshop Issues and Methods in the Detection of Alcohol and Other Drugs does not attempt to cover all aspects and procedures involved in the arrest process but emphasizes those involving detection and the proof that what has been detected is illegal. Detection is a relevant topic because it is a key to deterring impaired driving, but it is not easy to accomplish. If people do not think there is much of a chance they will

be encountered by the police, or if encountered still are not likely to be detected, or if detected are not likely to be successfully sanctioned, they will be little discouraged from driving while impaired. The goals of the workshop are to examine the detection process, see how it might be improved, and see what the research needs are. *PAPERS PRESENTED* The first paper, by James Hedlund, was written after the workshop took place and basically summarizes key points, issues, and ideas from the workshop. Papers presented at the workshop address, in sequence, the various stages in encountering and sanctioning persons suspected of alcohol-impaired driving. The paper by Michele Fields sets the stage, laying out the legal/constitutional constraints in the process, the rules of the game that govern how detection of illegal impairment proceeds in the United States while protecting the rights of individuals. In the second paper, Jack Stuster discusses ways to increase opportunities for police to examine impaired drivers. The percentage of impaired drivers on the road who are detected is very low; one important reason for this is that few impaired motorists are ever encountered by the police in the first place. Stuster discusses various ways to increase the intersection of police and impaired drivers and to recognize vehicles that contain impaired drivers. Then come three papers that trace the buildup of evidence that may lead to arrest once a vehicle is stopped. David Preusser discusses detection techniques and issues that come into play in the at-the-window encounter with the driver. Marcelline Burns discusses identification of impairment once the driver has been asked to exit the vehicle. Steve Simon discusses issues and procedures involving detection once an arrest has been made, focusing on evidential testing issues. The workshop addresses both alcohol and other drugs, but much of the research discussed in the papers is based on alcohol alone. Michael Walsh specifically addresses issues and techniques in the identification of drug impairment at the

roadside and in the police station, including behavioral cues, drug recognition training, screening and chemical tests, and issues in determining impairment. In the final paper, Joel Watne discusses prosecution and adjudication issues related to detection, basically addressing the questions as to how detection evidence gets challenged, how people get off, and what changes might improve the detection process.

DRUGS OTHER THAN ALCOHOL:

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS* Impairment by drugs other than alcohol presents a special set of challenges. Alcohol impairment can be measured directly by the amount of alcohol in the blood or breath, and the relations between BAC, impairment on driving-related tasks, and crash risk are very well known. None of this is true with other drugs. There are no established relations Hedlund B-9 between drug presence, impairment, and crash risk. Indeed, drug presence for some drugs can be detected in the body days or weeks after any impairment has ended. Consequently, state laws typically refer to impairment only due to drugs but cannot set specific illegal per levels analogous to the 0.08 or 0.10 percent levels in state alcohol laws. Some states have established per laws for illicit drugs so that any presence of these drugs in a driver is illegal. Finally, the extent of driving and crash involvement by people impaired by other drugs is not accurately known at all, though it is generally believed to be substantially smaller than alcohol-impaired driving and crashes. As a result, police typically look first for alcohol in a driver whom they believe is impaired. If they find it, they rarely will search for other drugs. If they do not, the complexities of finding and establishing impairment by other drugs reduce the officers incentive to investigate further. In discussion workshop participants

noted that research and clinical evidence point to drugs other than alcohol as a significant problem, perhaps an increasing one. The issues presented deserve greater attention than the workshop was able to devote, given the issues presented by alcohol and the time available at the workshop. In the brief time available for discussion, participants suggested the following specific research development and implementation needs: • *Per se *laws for illicit drugs; • Additional penalties for impairment by both alcohol and other drugs; • Observation protocols for patrol officers to recognize drug impairment at the roadside; and • Chemical tests to identify drug use at the roadside.

CHAPTER THREECONSTRUCTION

3.0 DESIGNThe construction of this system consists of two parts which is hardware development and software development. Hardware development involved the designing the circuit of the project and printed circuit board (PCB) works. While the software developments are focused on simulating the circuit before test to the real component and also designing coding to be embedded in the hardware.

3.2CHARACTER CONFIGURATION*Good sensitivity to Combustible gas in wide range* High sensitivity to LPG, Propane and Hydrogen* Long life and low cost* Simple drive circuit

FEATURES• The PS series are high-performance buzzers that employUni-morph piezoelectric elements and are designed foreasy incorporation into various circuits.• They feature extremely low power consumption incomparison to electromagnetic units.• Because these buzzers are designed for externalexcitation, the same part can serve as both a musical toneoscillator and a buzzer.• They can be used with automated inserters. Moistureresistant models

are also available.• The lead wire type(PS1550L40N) with both-sidedadhesive tape installed easily is prepared.3.3 BLOCK DIAGRAM OF THE SYSTEM

2 THE POWER SUPPLY UNIT

The power supply unit is a system that supplies electrical or other types of energy to an output or group of loads.

The power supply unit is a system that supplies voltage to all parts of a circuitry. There are basically two main types of power supplies – linear power supply and switched mode power supply.

In this project, the linear power supply was used principally the linear power supply consists of four sections. Complete implementation. They include:

1. Transformation2. Rectification3. Filtration4. Regulation

TRANSFORMER RECTIFIER FILTER REGULATOR

A typical block diagram of the linear power supply unit is as shown below.

Block diagram of the power supply unit

THE TRANSFORMER

In this project, a 240/12V, 500MA based transformer is used based on the fact that the means supply is rated at 240V and the actual voltage required by the circuit components (micro – controller, line decoder LEDs etc.) is a regulated 5V

However, a 7805 regulator is used which required a minimum of 8V. The back drop voltage from the regulator is 1.4v given a total of 9.4V. The 12V transformers are available. A current of 500mA is sufficient to drive all the circuit components.

THE RECTIFIER

A rectifier is an electrical device that converts alternating current (AC) to direct current (DC), a process known as rectification.

Rectification can either be half wave or full wave.

Half – Wave Rectification

In half – wave rectification, either the positive or negative half of the AC wave is passed, while the half of the other is blocked.

Full – Wave Rectification

A full wave rectifier converts the whole of the input form if the inputs wave form to constant polarity at its output.

In this project, full wave bridge rectifier is used because it provides a better efficiency compared to half wave and bridge rectifier, because the transformer used not center tapped.

FILTER

Filters are electronic circuit which perform signal processing functions, specifically to remove unwanted frequency component from the signal to enhance wanted ones or both. They consist of a capacitor connected across the rectified output for the purpose of smoothening out the unwanted ripple in the

output. The capacitors basically store charges temporarily and the stored charges are measured in farad, micro – farad and pico – farad.

The Regulator

A voltage regulator is an electrical regulator designed to automatically maintain a constant voltage level. It may use an electromechanical mechanism, or passive or active electronic component. Depending on the design, it may be used to regulate one or more AC or DC voltages.

The voltage regulator used in this project is 78HC05 integrated circuit. It has three terminals and is capable of supplying 5+ 10% at 100Ma

1 3

U 1

2

Circuit symbol of a voltage regulator with pin out indicator Terminal 1 serves as the input. 2 serves as ground and 3 as the input terminal.The 7805 used takes 12V from the transformer and gives output of 5V± 0.2%.

Power Indicator

Diode D5 is a light emitting diode used as power on indicator. This glows once power is on. Resistor R1 is a circuit-limiting resistor, which helps to limit the amount of current flowing through the diode D5.

The value of the limiting resistor is gotten by the expression.

Resistor R1 = (Vdc – Vd)

Imax

Where:

Vdc = the calculated dc voltage which is given by

Vdc = Vac √2

= 12* √2

Vdc = 16.97

Vd = Diode voltage drop = 1.7V

I2 = Maximum circuit rating of the LED (D5) = 20Ma

Value of the limiting resistor becomes

R1 = 16.07 - 1.7

20 * 10

R1 = 763.5Ω

Therefore for safety reasons, a value of 1000Ω or 1KΩ which is a little higher than 763.5Ω is used to take care of inconsistencies.

CIRCUIT DIAGRAM

COMPONENT

RESISTORS

A resistor is a two terminal electronic component that produces a voltage across its terminals that is proportional to the electric current passing through it in accordance to ohms law.

TRANSISTORS

This is a semi – conductor device commonly used to accomplish or switch electronic signals. A voltage or current applied to one pair of the transistor’s terminals changes the current following through another pair of terminals changes the current following through another pair of terminal. The transistor provides an amplification of signal.

LIGHT EMITTING DIODES (LEDs)

LEDs from the numbers on digital clock transmission from remote

controls, light up watches, etc. They are tiny bulbs, but unlike ordinary

incandescent bulb, they don’t filament that will burn off and they don’t

get hot. They are illuminated solely by the movement of electron in a

semi – conductor material and they last just as long as a standard

transistor.

MICRO-CONTROLLER

This is a single programmable chip that is designed to control circuits that are interfaced with it. They usually consist of ports and other activation pins having specific functions. There are of various families including the 8086, 8088, 8951 series.

MQ -135 SENSORSensitive material of MQ-135 sensor is SnO2, which with lower conductivity in clean air. When the target combustible gas exist, The sensor’s conductivity is more higher along with the gas concentration rising. Please use simple electro circuit, Convert change of conductivity to correspond output signal of gas concentration. MQ-135 sensor has high sensitivity to LPG, Propane and Hydrogen, also could be used to Methane and other combustible steam, it is with low cost and suitable for different application.

CAPACITOR

(originally known as a condenser) is a passive two-terminal electrical component used to store electrical energy temporarily in an electric field. The forms of practical capacitors vary widely, but all contain at least two electrical conductors (plates) separated by a dielectric (i.e. an insulator that can store energy by becoming polarized). The conductors can be thin films, foils or sintered beads of metal or conductive electrolyte, etc. The nonconducting dielectric acts to increase the capacitor's charge capacity. A dielectric can be glass, ceramic, plastic film, air, vacuum, paper, mica, oxide layer etc. Capacitors are widely used as parts of electrical circuits in many common electrical devices. Unlike a resistor, an ideal capacitor does not dissipate energy. Instead, a capacitor stores energy in the form of an electrostatic field between its plates.

CRYSTAL OSCILATOR

is an electronic oscillator circuit that uses the mechanical resonance of a vibrating crystal of piezoelectric material to create an electrical signal with a very precise frequency.[1][2][3] This frequency is commonly used to keep track of time (as in quartz wristwatches), to provide a stable clock signal for digital integrated circuits, and to stabilize frequencies for radio transmitters and receivers. The most common type of piezoelectric resonator used is the quartz crystal, so oscillator circuits incorporating them became known as crystal oscillators,[1] but other piezoelectric materials including polycrystalline ceramics are used in similar circuits.

CHAPTER FOUR

OPERATION

This project is about a breathalyzer circuit using 8051 microcontroller which outputs the blood alcohol content (BAC) from the breath. The BAC is displayed in percentage on a 3 digit seven segment display. The microcontroller used if AT89S51 which belongs to the 8051 family and the alcohol sensor is MQ135 gas sensor from Futurelec.

MQ135 sensor.

MQ135 is a stable and sensitive gas sensor which can detect ammonia, carbon dioxide, alcohol, smoke, nitrogen dioxide etc. The sensor consists of a tin dioxide sensitive layer inside aluminium oxide micro tubes, measuring electrode and a heating element inside a tubular aluminium casing. The front end of the sensor is covered using a stainless steel net and the rear side holds the connection terminals.

The ethyl alcohol present in the breath is oxidized into acetic acid while passing over the heating element. This ethyl alcohol falls on the tin dioxide sensing layer and as a result its resistance decreases. This resistance variation is converted into a suitable voltage variation using an external load resistor. The typical connection arrangement of an MQ135 alcohol sensor is shown below.

MQ135 alcohol sensor

MQ135 has different resistance values at different temperature and different concentration of gases. The manufacturer recommends to calibrate the sensor at 100ppm of ammonia or 50ppm of alcohol. The recommended value of the load resistor is between 10K to 47K.

Circuit diagram.

Breathalyzer using 8051

The voltage output of the alcohol sensor is converted into a digital format using the ADC0804 (IC1). The V ref/2 pin of the ADC is held at 1.28V using the voltage divider network made of R14 and R15. V ref/2 =1.28V means the step size of the ADC will be 10mV and the output of the ADC will increment by one bit for every 10mV increment in the analog input. Refer the datasheet of ADC0804 for a better grasp. Digital out of the ADC (D0 to D7) is interfaced to Port1 of the microcontroller. Control signals CS, RD, WR, INTR are obtained from the microcontrollers P3.7, P3.6, P3.5, P3.4 pins respectively. R9 and C1 are associated with the clock circuitry of the ADC0804.

Capacitor C3 connected between V in+ and V in- of the ADC0804 filters of noise (if any) in the sensor output. If C3 is not used the digital output of the ADC will not be stable. This filter capacitor will surely induce some lag in the ADC response but it is not very relevant in this entry level application. The microcontroller performs required manipulations on the ADC digital output in order to convert it into BAC % and displays it on the three digit seven segment display. Port0 of the microcontroller is interfaced to the multiplexed three digit seven segment display. The drive signals for the three digits are obtained from the microcontroller’s P3.0, P3.1, P3.2 pins respectively.

Program.

The MQ135 gas sensor requires around 5 minutes of preheat before the first use.

The MQ135 takes few minutes to retrace back to its normal condition after a positive test (alcohol present in the breath).

If there is no alcohol in the breath the sensor output will swing back to its normal condition very fast.

Read these articles Interfacing seven segment display to 8051 microcontroller , Interfacing ADC to 8051 microcontroller before attempting this project.

This breathalyzer circuit is just an entry level one and is not suitable for high end applications such as law enforcement or laboratory application.

The logic for converting the digital output of ADC into BAC percentage was obtained using approximation techniques.

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCLUSION

The agenda described provides a large number of specific activities to improve the detection of impaired drivers and, more broadly, to improve the entire system of impaired driving laws, enforcement, adjudication, and sanction. But these individual actions occur within the overall context of the community’s policies and practices on impaired driving. As noted at the outset, the system’s goal is to deter impaired driving. Unless the community supports this goal and provides both leadership and resources to carry it out, individual activities will have little effect. Furthermore, the community must decide how these resources should best be directed: For example, what is the relative priority of adult repeat offenders and youth covered by zero tolerance laws? Research can provide tools for either,

but the community must decide where and to what extent these tools will be used.

REFERENCES

Chou, S.P., Grant, B.F., Dawson, D.A., Stinson,F.S., Saha, T., Pickering, R.P. 2006. Twelvemonth prevalence and changes in driving afterdrinking. United States, 1991-1992 and 2001-2002. Alcohol Research and Health, 29, 143-151.Elder, R.W., Shults, R.A., Sleet, D.A., Nichols,J.L., Zaza, S., Thompson, R.S. 2002.Effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints forreducing alcohol-involved crashes. Traffic InjuryPrevention, 3, 266-74.Farmer C. M. 2005. Relationships of FrontalOffset Crash Test Results to Real-World DriverFatality Rates. Traffic Injury Prevention, 6, 31-37.Ferguson, S.A. 1999. Consumer demand. NorthVancouver, British Columbia, Canada: InsuranceCorporation of British Columbia (ICBC).Recovery 10:11-13.Ferguson, S.A., Schneider, L.W. 2008. Historyand performance of frontal airbags with changesin frontal crash test requirements in the UnitedStates. Traffic Injury Prevention, 9, 421-31.Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 2008.Q&As. Alcohol:General. Arlington, VA.http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/alcohol_general.html

Kahane, C. 1994. Correlation of NCAPPerformance with Fatality Risk in Actual HeadOn Collisions. DOT HS 808 061. WashingtonDC: National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration, U.S. Department ofTransportation.Kahane, C. 2004. Lives Saved by the FederalMotor Vehicle Safety Standards and OtherVehicle Safety Technologies, 1960-2002. DOTHS 809 833. Washington DC: National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration, U.S. Departmentof Transportation.Kahane, C. 2008. Evaluation Program Plan,2008-2012, DOT HS 810 983. Washington DC:National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,U.S. Department of Transportation.Lie A., Tingvall C. 2002 How do Euro NCAPresults correlate with real-life injury risks? Apaired comparison study of car-to-car crashes,Traffic Injury Prevention, 3, 288–293.Lund, A.K. and Nolan, J.M. 2003. Changes invehicle designs from frontal offset and sideimpact crash testing. SAE Technical Paper Series2003-01-0902. Warrendale, PA: Society ofAutomotive Engineers.Lund, A.K., McCartt, A.T., Farmer, C.M. 2007.Contribution of Alcohol-Impaired Driving toMotor Vehicle Crash Deaths in 2005.Proceedings of the T-2007 Meeting of the

International Council on Alcohol, Drugs, andTraffic Safety. Seattle, Washington.