4.1 Article

Cellular automata simulation for mixed manual and automated control traffic

期刊

MATHEMATICAL AND COMPUTER MODELLING
卷 51, 期 7-8, 页码 1000-1007

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mcm.2009.08.042

关键词

Cellular automata; Traffic flow; Advanced vehicle control and safety systems; Multi-class user traffic

资金

  1. National Science Council (NSC), Taiwan [NSC 97-2221-E-216-015]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Complex traffic systems seem to be simulated successfully by cellular automaton (CA) models today. Various models are developed in efforts to understand single-lane traffic, multilane traffic, lane-changing behavior and network traffic flow. In this study, four cellular automata (CA) rules for advanced vehicle control and safety systems (AVCSS) are proposed and simulated. The major difference among the rules is the different settings of the gap, which is defined to be the distance between two successive vehicles. The gap of each rule is given depending upon the speed of vehicles. According to the results, CA rules with AVCSS (the H(0), H(1), H(2) and H(3) models) lead to a more stable traffic flow than rules without AVCSS. Also, the average flow and speed for CA rules with AVCSS are larger than the average flow and speed for rules without AVCSS. However, the average speeds of the H(1) and H(2) models fluctuate greatly, which is considered unsafe and unreliable, in a congested regime. The results from the H(0) and H(3) rules are more stable than the results from the H(1) and H(2) models. The H(3) rule keeps a larger gap between two successive vehicles; therefore, the H(3) rule is considered the best design of the four AVCSS CA rules. If a combinative rule is considered, the envelope of the speeddensity curves of the four models might provide an optimal design, presenting a larger speed and flow than the H(3) model. Therefore, an efficient design of AVCSS might be obtained by CA simulation. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据