Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

Table of Contents

Table of Contents.............................................................................................. i

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.1 Background of the Study ......................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.2 Objectives of the Study ........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.3 Significance of the Study ......................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.4 Scope and Delimitations.......................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ........................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.1 Review of Related Literature ................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.2 Concept of the Study............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.3 Definition of Terms ..............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

3 OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK .......................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.1 Materials .............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.1.1 Software ......................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.1.2 Hardware ....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.1.3 Data ............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.2 Methods ..............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.2.1 Experimental Design ....................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.2.2 Evaluation ...................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.1 Results by phase of study ............................................................................. 27


5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONSError! Bookmark not

defined.

5.1 Summary .............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

5.2 Conclusions .........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

5.3 Recommendations ...............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

REFERENCES .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

APPENDICES .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.


4.1 Results by phase of study

Accuracy Tests

This test will determine if the used hardware and software are functioning properly. The data

will be gathered by testing every input and output of the components are accurate.

Table 4.9 Accuracy Test Result


ACCURACY TEST Mean Rating

1. The project software works properly. 3.89 Strongly Agree

2. The RFID tag and reader work properly. 4 Strongly Agree


3. The IR sensors responds properly. 3 Agree

4. The Keypad functions when reloading. 4 Strongly Agree

5. The LCD is working properly. Displays the right text. 4 Strongly Agree

6. Servo motor is working properly when car is entering. 4 Strongly Agree

7. Buzzer responds properly. 4 Strongly Agree

Overall Mean 3.8414 Strongly Agree

∑X
x̄ = where: ∑ X = sum of each rating
n
n= total number of respondents

Scale rating:

1.00 - 1.75: Strongly disagree


1.76 - 2.5 : Disagree
2.51 - 3.25: Agree
3.26 - 4.00: Strongly Agree
Table 4.9 shows the mean for each question of the survey and its equivalent rating.
The engineering and non-engineering students strongly agree on the accuracy of the components
used except in the IR sensors. In accuracy test the IR sensors got the lowest rating of 3. The IR
sensors has problems in detecting black objects.

User – Friendliness Tests

This test will determine if the project can be easily understand and operated.

Table 4.10 User-Friendliness Test Result


USER – FRIENDLINESS TEST Mean Rating

1. The technology used in the project is 3.8 Strongly Agree


user friendly.
2. The design of the project is effective. 4 Strongly Agree

3. The whole design of the project 3.8 Strongly Agree

Overall Mean 3.8667 Strongly Agree

∑X
x̄ = where: ∑ X = sum of each rating
n
n= total number of respondents

Scale rating:

1.00 - 1.75: Strongly disagree


1.76 - 2.5 : Disagree
2.51 - 3.25: Agree
3.26 - 4.00: Strongly Agree

Table 4.10 shows the results of testing the user-friendliness of the project. The engineering
and non-engineering students strongly agree on the user-friendliness of the project. The respondents
like the design of the project, but some users have difficulties operating the keypad to reload credits
because the users are not familiar with it.

Functionality Tests

This test will determine if the processes used in the project are efficient.

Table 4.11 Functionality Test Result


FUNCTIONALITY TEST Mean Rating

1. The projects output are correct. 4 Strongly Agree

2. The whole project responds correctly. 3.5 Agree

Overall Mean 3.75 Strongly Agree

∑X
x̄ = where: ∑ X = sum of each rating
n
n= total number of respondents

Scale rating:

1.00 - 1.75: Strongly disagree


1.76 - 2.5 : Disagree
2.51 - 3.25: Agree
3.26 - 4.00: Strongly Agree

Table 4.11 shows the mean for each question of the survey and its equivalent scale rating.
It shows the results of the functionality test of the project. The Respondents strongly agree that the
projects output are correct, but the respondents have some problems with the IR sensor used in the
project, so second question got the lowest rating which is 3.5 and it has a scale rating of agree.
Table 4.12 Overall test result

Test Mean

1. Accuracy test 3.8414

2. User-Friendliness test 3.8667

3. Functionality test 3.75

Overall Mean 3.8194

Scale rating:

1.00 - 1.75: Strongly disagree

1.76 - 2.5 : Disagree

2.51 - 3.25: Agree

3.26 - 4.00: Strongly Agree

The respondents of the test result has strongly agree that the project is accurately working,

user-friendly and functional. The project is responding and displaying the right text based on the

response of the users. On the user-friendliness test the respondents strongly agree that the project

is manageable and also the project is functional because the outputs of the project are correct.
sensor and keypad sends, then motorist will be able to know the information’s inside the

parking area and the credits remaining of the users’ card.

d.) Based on the information that will the Infrared sensors placed at each parking slot and

the RFID card, the RFID based parking system will show which parking slots are vacant and which

are occupied and the remaining balance that the RFID card has. For this purpose, it uses LCD to

display the remaining balance when the user pays the parking fee and the balance when the RFID

card is reloaded by a certain amount. It also has a capability to display if there are available slot

remaining in the parking area.

e.) The group developed a program that will allows the user to use the keypad to reload the

RFID card whenever it has no credit left or insufficient balance. The motorist can reload their card by

entering the amount that the user desired, and that information will be sent to the Arduino and the

users card will be recharge immediately.

f.) Based on the testing and evaluation that has done, the project serves its purpose correctly

and every component/module responds accurately according to what the group are expecting. All

the modules used also have an accurate response except on IR sensors. IR sensors are terrible in

detecting black object, because black objects absorb the light and do not reflect it back. Based on

the evaluation that was done, the user finds the project manageable to understand. The users have

strong agreement on the components used except on the IR sensors. The overall accuracy,

functionality and user-friendliness of the project is 3.8194 which means the respondents strongly

agree.