4.3 Article

Joint optimization for autonomous intersection management and trajectory smoothing design with connected automated vehicles

期刊

TRANSPORTMETRICA B-TRANSPORT DYNAMICS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 1234-1255

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/21680566.2023.2193314

关键词

Connected automated vehicles (CAVs); autonomous intersection management; trajectory smoothing design; mixed integer linear programming; collision avoidance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, a mixed integer linear programming (MILP) model is proposed to optimize autonomous intersection management and trajectory smoothing design (TSD) simultaneously. The model takes into account driving safety, constraints, and the vehicle trajectory within the intersection. A rolling horizon framework is used to solve the model. The joint optimization model is compared with a two-stage strategy in terms of traffic efficiency, fuel economy, monetary cost, and driving comfort.
Trajectory smoothing design (TSD) may significantly reduce fuel consumption and improve driving comfort at intersections. In this paper, a mixed integer linear programming (MILP) model with discrete time is formulated to jointly optimize autonomous intersection management and TSD, aiming to improve traffic efficiency, fuel economy and driving comfort simultaneously. Driving safety of car-following and collision avoidance at conflict points, diverge points and converge points, as well as constraints of acceleration and jerk are considered. To reasonably describe vehicle movement within intersection areas, the vehicle trajectory within the intersection is treated as a channel considering the vehicle width. A rolling horizon framework is used to solve the model. We have compared the traffic efficiency, fuel economy, monetary cost and driving comfort of the joint optimization model with that of the state-of-the-art two-stage strategy. Finally, sensitivity analysis with respect to left-turn ratio, weighted coefficient of TSD and control zone length is conducted.

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

4.3
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