A cooperative adaptive cruise control (CACC) system targeted to obtain a high level of user acceptance must replicate the driving experience in each CACC vehicle without compromising the occupant’s comfort. “User acceptance” can be defined as the safety and comfort of the occupant in the CACC vehicle in terms of acceptable vehicle dynamics (i.e., the maximum acceleration or deceleration) and string stability (i.e., the fluctuations in the vehicle’s position, speed, and acceleration). The primary objective of this study was to develop an evaluation framework for the application of a driver car-following behavior model in CACC system design to ensure user acceptance in terms of vehicle dynamics and string stability. The authors adopted two widely used driver car-following behavior models, (a) the optimum velocity model (OVM) and (b) the intelligent driver model (IDM), to prove the efficacy of the evaluation framework developed in this research for CACC system design. A platoon of six vehicles was simulated for three traffic flow states (uniform speed, speed with constant acceleration, and speed with constant deceleration) with different acceleration and deceleration rates. The maximum acceleration or deceleration and the sum of the squares of the errors of the follower vehicle speed were measured to evaluate user acceptance in terms of vehicle dynamics and string stability. Analysis of the simulation results revealed that the OVM performed better at modeling a CACC system than did the IDM in terms of acceptable vehicle dynamics and string stability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BasakK., HetuS. N., LiZ., LimaC., AzevedoH., LoganathanT., ToledoT., XuR., XuY., PehL., and Ben-AkivaM.. Modeling Reaction Time Within a Traffic Simulation Model. In Proceedings of the 16th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, IEEE, New York, 2013, pp. 302–309.
ZhaoL., and SunJ.. Simulation Framework for Vehicle Platooning and Car-Following Behaviors Under Connected-Vehicle Environment. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 96, 2013, pp. 914–924.
5.
DeyK. C., RayamajhiA., ChowdhuryM., BhavsarP., MartinJ., RayamajhiA., ChowdhuryM., BhavsarP., and MartinJ.. Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) Communication in a Heterogeneous Wireless Network Performance Evaluation. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 68, 2016, pp. 168–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.03.008.
6.
MaY., ChowdhuryM., SadekA., and JeihaniM.. Integrated Traffic and Communication Performance Evaluation of an Intelligent Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII) System for Online Travel-Time Prediction. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2012, pp. 1369–1382. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2012.2198644.
7.
MaY., ChowdhuryM., SadekA., and JeihaniM.. Real-Time Highway Traffic Condition Assessment Framework Using Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII) with Artificial Intelligence (AI). IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2009, pp. 615–627.
8.
DeyK. C., YanL., WangX., WangY., ShenH., ChowdhuryM., YuL., QiuC., and SoundararajV.. A Review of Communication, Driver Characteristics, and Controls Aspects of Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (CACC). IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2016, pp. 491–509. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2015.2483063.
9.
Taieb-MaimonM., and ShinarD.. Minimum and Comfortable Driving Headways: Reality Versus Perception. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2001, pp. 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872001775992543.
10.
Van AremB., van DrielC. J., and VisserR.. The Impact of Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control on Traffic Flow Characteristics. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Vol. 7, No. 4, 2006, pp. 429–436.
11.
WangX., and WangY.. Human-Aware Autonomous Control for Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (CACC) Systems. In Proceedings of ASME 2015 Dynamic Systems and Control Conference, Volume 2, p. V002T31A001, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Washington, D.C., 2015.
12.
GunawanF.E.Two-Vehicle Dynamics of the Car-Following Models on Realistic Driving Condition. Journal of Transportation Systems Engineering and Information Technology, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2012, pp. 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1570-6672(11)60194-3.
13.
PueboobpaphanR., and van AremB.. Driver and Vehicle Characteristics and Platoon and Traffic Flow Stability: Understanding the Relationship for Design and Assessment of Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2189, 2010, pp. 89–97. https://doi.org/10.3141/2189-10.
14.
BoseA., and IoannouP.. Analysis of Traffic Flow with Mixed, Manual and Intelligent Cruise Control Vehicles: Theory and Experiments. California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways, University of California, Berkeley, 2001.
15.
LeiC., van EenennaamE. M., Klein WolterinkW., PloegJ., KaragiannisG., and HeijenkG.. Evaluation of CACC String Stability Using SUMO, Simulink, and OMNeT. EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking, Vol. 2012, No. 1, 2012, p. 116. https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1499-2012-116.
16.
BrackstoneM., and McDonaldM.. Car-Following: A Historical Review. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1999, pp. 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8478(00)00005-X.
17.
PanwaiS., and DiaH. F.. Comparative Evaluation of Car Following Models. Presented at Workshop on Traffic Simulation, Bridging Theory and Practice, Brisbane, Australia, 2004.
18.
PTV VISSIM 5.40-03 User Manual. Planung Transport Verkehr, Karlsruhe, Germany, 2012.
19.
FritzscheH.A Model for Traffic Simulation. Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol. 35, No. 5, 1994, pp. 317–321.
20.
BurnhamG. O., SeoJ., and BekeyG. A.. Identification of Human Driver Models in Car-Following. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 19, No. 6, 1974, pp. 911–915. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1974.1100740.
21.
SchakelW. J., WouterJ., van AremB., and NettenB. D.. Effects of Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control on Traffic Flow Stability. In Proceedings of the 13th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, IEEE, New York, 2010, pp. 759–764.
22.
WiedemannR.Simulation Des Verkehrsflusses. Institute of Traffic Engineering, University of Karlsruhe, Germany, 1974.
23.
MilanésV., and ShladoverS. E.. Modeling Cooperative and Autonomous Adaptive Cruise Control Dynamic Responses Using Experimental Data. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 48, 2014, pp. 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2014.09.001.
24.
KraussS.Towards a Unified View of Microscopic Traffic Flow Theories. In Proceedings of the IFAC Transportation System Conference, International Federation of Automatic Control, Laxenburg, Austria, 1997, pp. 941–945.
25.
SheikholeslamS., and DesoerC. A.. Longitudinal Control of a Platoon of Vehicles with No Communication of Lead Vehicle Information: A System Level Study. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Vol. 42, No. 4, 1993, pp. 546–554. https://doi.org/10.1109/25.260756.
26.
NewellG.F.Nonlinear Effects in the Dynamics of Car-Following. Operations Research, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1961, pp. 209–229. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.9.2.209.
27.
BandoM., HasebeK., NakayamaA., ShibataA., and SugiyamaY.. Dynamical Model of Traffic Congestion and Numerical Simulation. Physical Review E, Vol. 51, No. 2, 1995, pp. 1035–1042. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.51.1035.
28.
BandoM., HasebeK., NakanishiK., and NakayamaA.. Analysis of Optimal Velocity Model with Explicit Delay. Physical Review E, Vol. 58, No. 5, 1998, pp. 5429–5435. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.58.5429.
29.
MehmoodA., and EasaS. M.. Modeling Reaction Time in Car-Following Behaviour Based on Human Factors. International Journal of Engineering and Applied Science, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2009, pp. 93–101.
30.
TadakiS., KikuchiM., SugiyamaY., and YukawaS.. Coupled Map Traffic Flow Simulator Based on Optimal Velocity Functions. Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, Vol. 67, No. 7, 1998, pp. 2270–2276. https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.67.2270.
31.
DavisL. C.Comment on “Analysis of Optimal Velocity Model with Explicit Delay.”Physical Review E, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2002, p. 038101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.66.038101.
32.
TreiberM., HenneckeA., and HelbingD.. Congested Traffic States in Empirical Observations and Microscopic Simulations. Physical Review E, Vol. 62, No. 2, 2000, pp. 1805–1824. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.62.1805.
33.
TreiberM., HenneckeA., and HelbingD.. Microscopic Simulation of Congested Traffic. Traffic and Granular Flow ’99. Springer, Berlin, 2000, pp. 365–376.
