Procedure

First, we connected the LCD display to the Arduino Uno Board (The GSM module is
attached to this board) and breadboard. Analog pin numbers A4 and A5 are used to connect the
LCD to the Arduino Uno Board. The GND and VCC of the LCD display is connected to the
breadboard which is then also connected to the 5V pin and GND pin of the arduino uno board.
One terminal of the light dependent resistor or LDR was connected to 5V pin in the Arduino Uno
R3 Board using a connecting wire. The other terminal of the LDR was connected to the resistor
via connecting wires. The tip of the resistor was connected to the ground pin of the board. The
other terminal of 1the resistor connected to the LDR was pinned in the analog pin 0 in the
Arduino Uno R3 Board. For the second LDR, we did the same procedures. The push is attached
to a seperate breadboard and one of its terminal is connected to the resistor also via connecting
wires. The breadboard used for the push button is connected to the GND pin of the Arduino Uno
Board and is also connected to the other breadboard for connecting the 5V and was covered a by
a thin platform (a 1ft x 1ft plywood).
The program followed a sequence. If the LDR is first to sense and the push button comes
next to be activated, it will be counted as an entry. If the push button is first activated and the
LDR follows to sense, it will be counted as an exit. The delay for sending the information to the
LCD is at 1 second. Also, GSM module is programmed to send a text message containing the
information to a designated number.
Testing the Device
The human counter tried to test the number of individuals that can be accurately counted
by the human counter himself. The device was tested in a room (ideally in an actual port area).
The device was put on the side of the doorframe, together with the laser pointers, to test if the
individuals passing through the counter were recognized by LDR. Their first step will be on the
surface of the push button to activate it. After the recognition of sensor, the push button and
individuals, the data were sent to the database and were transmitted to a wireless device that was
used as a monitoring system.

Data Gathering Procedure

The Arduino-based tracking and monitoring system measured the accuracy of counting
individuals passing through it. The functionality and durability of the device will also be tested
in the setups. All individuals began at point A and ended at point B to ensure that all subjects
passed through the device. Three setups with procedural variations tasted the accuracy of the
device in counting individuals. A count if 50 individuals for all of the setup passed through, both
in and out, the device. In” refers to the count of individuals who have entered and each enter will
count one; “Out” refers to those who have exited and each exit will decrease the value of
“Difference”, the total number of individuals who are currently inside. In the first setup,
individuals passed through the device one by one. For the second setup, individuals passed
through the device by pair where two persons passed in short intervals. For the last setup,
individuals passed through the device by carrying a bag, hand-carry, or baggage. Once the setups
were complete, the researchers determined if there was a significant difference between the total
number of individuals counted by the Robot compared to what the human counter had counted.
The functionality and durability of the device is based whether the device worked throughout the
trials.

Results

Table 1. The comparison between the total numbers of individuals counted by the robot and the
human counter gathered in Set-up A.

SET-UP (ONE-BY-ONE) TRIAL

1 2 3
DEVICE IN 50 50 50
OUT 50 50 50
DIFFERENCE 0 0 0
HUMAN IN 50 50 50
COUNTER OUT 50 50 50
DIFFERENCE 0 0 0

The table shows the number of the individuals counted manually and the individuals counted by
the device for set-up A where fifty individuals passed through the device one by one. The results
showed that device count tailed with the number counted by the Human counter with 0 as a
difference for 50 ins and 50 outs after 3 trials.
The functionality of the program was still at 100% proven by that there was no delay in the
counting of the device. The device was also durable enough to handle multiple trials proven by
that it worked throughout.

.
Table 2. The comparison between the total numbers of individuals counted by the robot and the
human counter gathered in Set-up B.

SET-UP (TWO IN UICK SUCCESION) TRIAL

1 2 3
DEVICE IN 50 50 50
OUT 50 50 50
DIFFERENCE 0 0 0
HUMAN IN 50 50 50
COUNTER OUT 50 50 50
DIFFERENCE 0 0 0
The table shows the number of the individuals counted manually and the individuals counted by
the device for set-up A where fifty individuals passed through the device two in uick succession.
The results showed that device count tailed with the number counted by the Human counter with
0 as a difference for 50 ins and 50 outs after 3 trials.
The functionality of the program was still at 100% proven by that there was no delay in the
counting of the device. The device was also durable enough to handle multiple trials proven by
that it worked throughout.

Table 3. The comparison between the total numbers of individuals counted by the robot and the
human counter gathered in Set-up C.
SET-UP (CARRYING BAG) TRIAL
1 2 3
DEVICE IN 50 50 50
OUT 50 50 50
DIFFERENCE 0 0 0
HUMAN IN 50 50 50
COUNTER OUT 50 50 50
DIFFERENCE 0 0 0

The table shows the number of the individuals counted manually and the individuals counted by
the device for set-up A where fifty individuals passed through the device carrying a bag. The
results showed that device count tailed with the number counted by the Human counter with 0 as
a difference for 50 ins and 50 outs after 3 trials.
The functionality of the program was still at 100% proven by that there was no delay in the
counting of the device. The device was also durable enough to handle multiple trials proven by
that it worked throughout.

Results and Discussion

PERCENTAGE
Accuracy 100%
Functionality 100%
Durability 100%