4.6 Article

Impact of CACC vehicles' cooperative driving strategy on mixed four-lane highway traffic flow

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2019.122721

关键词

Cooperative adaptive cruise control; Cooperative driving strategy; Vehicle string; Four-lane traffic model; Cellular automaton

资金

  1. K. C. Wong Magna Fund in Ningbo University, China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Modeling the impact of the cooperative driving strategy adopted by Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (CACC) vehicles on the mixed traffic flow would be a challenge. It requires to figure out the behaviors of CACC vehicles during the formation and disengagement of CACC strings when the manually driven vehicles are mixed in the traffic flow. It also needs to depict the behaviors of manually driven vehicles under the influence of CACC operation strategy that are intended to enhance the CACC string. To deal with these problems, we propose a four-lane cellular automata traffic modeling framework to simulate the interaction between CACC vehicles and manually driven vehicles. The longitudinal position updating rules for CACC and ACC are based on the car-following rules presented by PATH laboratory of University of California, Berkeley. And three types of cooperative driving strategies are presented, which are reflected in the lane-changing rules, i.e., the baseline lane-changing rules, the promoting string strategy and the managed lane strategy. The corresponding impact of cooperative driving strategies on mixed four-lane traffic flow is investigated. The numerical results show that the presented cooperative driving strategies are effective to enable CACC to be assembled into strings. And the increase of CACC penetration could effectively alleviate traffic congestion and improve traffic capacity and stability. The results indicate that the mixed traffic flow shows different properties in terms of capacity and traffic congestion when different cooperative driving strategies are adopted. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.6
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