The expectation from automated vehicles has been increasing in recent years. Potential advantages for automated vehicles include driving safety, traffic efficiency, and positive environmental outcomes. To evaluate the extent to which automated vehicles are advantageous against conventional vehicles, this paper presents a simple car-following model, named the linked vehicle model, which reflects the capabilities of automated vehicles and the interaction between adjacent automated vehicles. The idea behind linked vehicle model is inspired by the collective motion of self-propelled particles in nature and the study of vehicle platooning from the Safe Road Trains for the Environment project. Moreover, the model is integrated into a traffic simulator in order to evaluate the performance of automated vehicles in an ideal circumstance. Comparisons with other representative car-following models are also provided, and they show that linked vehicle model achieves both optimal microscopic and macroscopic performance. Simulated results also show that linked vehicle model attains the best fuel economy and the lowest pollutant emissions.
KimDLeeJKimB, et al. Integrated risk management based automated vehicle following system on inner-city streets. In: 17th international IEEE conference on intelligent transportation systems (ITSC), Qingdao, China, 8–11 October 2014, pp.418–423. New York: IEEE.
4.
LiSEDengKLiK, et al. Terminal sliding mode control of automated car-following system without reliance on longitudinal acceleration information. Mechatronics2015; 30: 327–337.
5.
ZhuQHuangZSunZ, et al. Reinforcement learning based throttle and brake control for autonomous vehicle following. In: 2017 Chinese automation congress (CAC), Jinan, China, 20–22 October 2017, pp.6657–6662. New York: IEEE.
6.
HasslerS. Self-driving cars and trucks are on the move. IEEE Spectrum2017; 54: 6.
7.
SinghS. Critical reasons for crashes investigated in the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2015.
8.
HuangYHuangWWuW. Analysis of urban traffic jam control strategies using simulation technology. In: IEEE 13th international conference on networking, sensing, and control (ICNSC), Mexico City, Mexico, 28–30 April 2016, pp.1–6. New York: IEEE.
9.
SugiyamaYFukuiMKikuchiM, et al. Traffic jams without bottlenecks—experimental evidence for the physical mechanism of the formation of a jam. New J Phys2008; 10: 033001.
10.
SimsRSchaefferRCreutzigF, et al. Chapter 8: Transport. In: EdenhoferOPichs-MadrugaRSokonaY, et al. (eds) Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp.599–670.
11.
TaiebatMBrownALSaffordHR, et al. A review on energy, environmental, and sustainability implications of connected and automated vehicles. Environ Sci Technol2018; 52: 11449–11465.
HallerbachSXiaYEberleU, et al. Simulation-based identification of critical scenarios for cooperative and automated vehicles. SAE Int J CAV2018; 1: 93–106.
14.
HuJKongLShuW, et al. Scheduling of connected autonomous vehicles on highway lanes. In: IEEE global communications conference (GLOBECOM), Anaheim, CA, 3–7 December 2012, pp.5556–5561. New York: IEEE.
15.
IvanchevJKnollAZeheD, et al. Potentials and implications of dedicated highway lanes for autonomous vehicles. CoRR2017, https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.07658
16.
JaworskiP. Cloud computing based adaptive traffic control and management. PhD Thesis, Coventry University, Coventry, 2013.
17.
ZhouMQuXJinS. On the impact of cooperative autonomous vehicles in improving freeway merging: a modified intelligent driver model-based approach. IEEE T Intell Transp2017; 18: 1422–1428.
18.
KestingATreiberMHelbingD. Enhanced intelligent driver model to access the impact of driving strategies on traffic capacity. Philos T R Soc A2010; 368: 4585–4605.
19.
HelbingDTilchB. Generalized force model of traffic dynamics. Phys Rev E1998; 58: 133–138.
20.
HelbingDFarkasIVicsekT. Simulating dynamical features of escape panic. Nature2000; 407: 487–490.
VicsekT. Universal patterns of collective motion from minimal models of flocking. In: 2008 second IEEE international conference on self-adaptive and self-organizing systems, Venezia, 20–24 October 2008, pp.3–11. New York: IEEE.
23.
ReynoldsCW. Flocks, herds and schools: a distributed behavioral model. In: StoneMC (ed.) ACM SIGGRAPH ’87. Anaheim, CA: ACM, 1987, pp.25–34.
24.
ChanE. Chapter 10: SARTRE automated platooning vehicles. In: BlanquartCClausenUJacobB (eds) Towards innovative freight and logistics. London: ISTE Ltd; Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2016, pp.137–150.
25.
AlamAMårtenssonJJohanssonKH. Experimental evaluation of decentralized cooperative cruise control for heavy-duty vehicle platooning. Control Eng Pract2015; 38: 11–25.
26.
van de HoefSJohanssonKHDimarogonasDV. Fuel efficient en route formation of truck platoons. IEEE T Intell Transp2018; 19: 102–112.
27.
KrajzewiczDErdmannJBehrischM, et al. Recent development and applications of SUMO—simulation of urban mobility. Int J Adv Syst Meas2012; 5: 128–138.
28.
TreiberMHenneckeAHelbingD. Congested traffic states in empirical observations and microscopic simulations. Phys Rev E2000; 62: 1805–1824.
29.
SongDTharmarasaRZhouG, et al. Multi-vehicle tracking using microscopic traffic models. IEEE T Intell Transp2019; 20: 149–161.
30.
SongDTharmarasaRFloreaMC, et al. Multi-vehicle tracking with microscopic traffic flow model-based particle filtering. Automatica2019; 105: 28–35.
31.
BangSAhnS. Control of connected and autonomous vehicles with cut-in movement using spring mass damper system. Transp Res Record2018; 2672: 133–143.
32.
BangSAhnS. Mixed traffic of connected and autonomous vehicles and human-driven vehicles: traffic evolution and control using spring-mass-damper system. Transp Res Record2019; 2673: 504–515.
33.
LiYZhaoH. A car-following model for connected vehicles under the bidirectional-leader following topology. In: 2017 IEEE 20th international conference on intelligent transportation systems (ITSC), Yokohama, Japan, 16–19 October 2017, pp.1–5. New York: IEEE.
34.
ChehardoliHGhasemiA. Adaptive centralized/decentralized control and identification of 1-D heterogeneous vehicular platoons based on constant time headway policy. IEEE T Intell Transp2018; 19: 3376–3386.
35.
ChehardoliHHomaeinezhadMR. Switching decentralized control of a platoon of vehicles with time-varying heterogeneous delay: a safe and dense spacing policy. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2018; 232: 1036–1046.
36.
ChehardoliH. Robust optimal control and identification of adaptive cruise control systems in the presence of time delay and parameter uncertainties. J Vib Control. Epub ahead of print 9January2020. DOI: 10.1177/1077546319901086.
37.
KhodayariAGhaffariAKazemiR, et al. A modified car following model based on a neural network model of the human driver effects. IEEE T Syst Man Cy A2012; 42: 1440–1449.
38.
LefèvreSCarvalhoABorrelliF. A learning-based framework for velocity control in autonomous driving. IEEE T Autom Sci Eng2016; 13: 32–42.
39.
WangWZhaoDXiJ, et al. Development and evaluation of two learning-based personalized driver models for carfollowing behaviors. In: 2017 American control conference (ACC), Seattle, WA, 24–26 May 2017, pp.1133–1138. New York: IEEE.
40.
WangWXiJZhaoD. Learning and inferring a driver’s braking action in car-following scenarios. IEEE T Veh Technol2018; 67: 3887–3899.
41.
KraußS. Microscopic modeling of traffic flow: investigation of collision free vehicle dynamics. Technical report, German Aerospace Center, Berlin, 1998.
42.
FellendorfMVortischP. Validation of the microscopic traffic flow model VISSIM in different real-world situations. In: 80th annual meeting of the transportation research board, Washington, DC, 7–11 January 2001. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
43.
WilsonRE. An analysis of Gipps’s car-following model of highway traffic. IMA J Appl Math2001; 66: 509–537.
44.
NewellGF. A simplified car-following theory: a lower order model. Transport Res B: Meth2002; 36: 195–205.
45.
HelbingDMolnárPFarkasIJ, et al. Self-organizing pedestrian movement. Environ Plann B2001; 28: 361–383.
46.
VicsekT. A question of scale. Nature2001; 411: 421.
47.
Delgado-MataCMartinezJIBeeS, et al. On the use of virtual animals with artificial fear in virtual environments. New Generat Comput2007; 25: 145–169.
48.
HollandOWoodsJDe NardiR, et al. Beyond swarm intelligence: the ultraswarm. In: IEEE swarm intelligence symposium, Pasadena, CA, 8–10 June 2005, pp.217–224. New York: IEEE.
49.
KimuraMMoehlisJ. Novel vehicular trajectories for collective motion from coupled oscillator steering control. SIAM J Appl Dyn Syst2008; 7: 1191–1212.
50.
BenedettelliDCeccarelliNGarulliA, et al. Experimental validation of collective circular motion for nonholonomic multi-vehicle systems. Robot Auton Syst2010; 58: 1028–1036.
51.
Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles. Technical report J3016, 2018. Warrendale, PA: SAE International.
52.
HausbergerSRexeisMZallingerM, et al. Emission factors from the model PHEM for the HBEFA version 3. Technical report, Graz University of Technology, Graz, 2009.
KrajzewiczDBehrischMWagnerP, et al. Second generation of pollutant emission models for SUMO. In: BehrischiMWeberM (eds) Modeling mobility with open data. Berlin; Cham: Springer, 2015, pp.203–221.
55.
ZongCYangSZhengH. A control strategy of electronic braking system based on brake comfort. In: Proceedings 2011 international conference on transportation, mechanical, and electrical engineering (TMEE), Changchun, China, 16–18 December 2011, pp.1265–1268. New York: IEEE.
