Physics-augmented models to simulate commercial adaptive cruise control (ACC) systems

被引:26
作者
He, Yinglong [1 ]
Montanino, Marcello [2 ]
Mattas, Konstantinos [3 ]
Punzo, Vincenzo [2 ]
Ciuffo, Biagio [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0HA, England
[2] Univ Naples Federico II, Via Claudio 21, I-80125 Naples, Italy
[3] European Commiss, Joint Res Ctr, Ispra, VA, Italy
关键词
Adaptive cruise control (ACC); Car-following; Vehicle dynamics; Linear controller; Constant Time Headway (CTH); Intelligent Driver Model (IDM); Gipps? model; TRAFFIC FLOW MODELS; SENSITIVITY-ANALYSIS; STRING STABILITY; VALIDATION; INSTABILITY; CALIBRATION; SPEED; TIME;
D O I
10.1016/j.trc.2022.103692
中图分类号
U [交通运输];
学科分类号
08 ; 0823 ;
摘要
This paper investigates the accuracy and robustness of car-following (CF) and adaptive cruise control (ACC) models in reproducing measured trajectories of commercial ACCs. To this aim, a general modelling framework is proposed, in which ACC and CF models have been incrementally augmented with physics-based extensions: namely, perception delay, linear or nonlinear vehicle dynamics, and acceleration constraints. This framework has been applied to the Intelligent Driver Model (IDM), Gipps' model, and to three basic ACC algorithms. These are linear controllers which are coupled with a constant time-headway spacing policy, and with two other policies derived from the traffic flow theory: the IDM desired distance function, and Gipps' equilibrium distance speed function. The ninety models resulting from the combination of the five base models with the aforementioned extensions, have been assessed and compared through a vast calibration and validation experiment against measured trajectory data of vehicles driven by ACC systems. Overall, the study has shown that physics-based extensions provide limited improvements to the accuracy of existing models. In addition, if an investigation against measured data is not carried out, it is not possible to argue which extension is the most suited for a specific model. The linear controller with Gipps' spacing policy has resulted the most accurate model, while the IDM the most robust to different input trajectories. Eventually, all models have failed to capture the behaviour of some car brands - just as models fail with some human drivers. Therefore, the choice of the "best" model is independent of the car brand to simulate.
引用
收藏
页数:22
相关论文
共 57 条
  • [1] Alonso Raposo M., 2019, FUTURE ROAD TRANSPOR
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2001, REVISED MONOGRAPH TR
  • [3] DYNAMICAL MODEL OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND NUMERICAL-SIMULATION
    BANDO, M
    HASEBE, K
    NAKAYAMA, A
    SHIBATA, A
    SUGIYAMA, Y
    [J]. PHYSICAL REVIEW E, 1995, 51 (02): : 1035 - 1042
  • [4] Calibration and validation of microscopic traffic flow models
    Brockfeld, E
    Kühne, RD
    Wagner, P
    [J]. CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION OF SIMULATION MODELS 2004, 2004, (1876): : 62 - 70
  • [5] Ciuffo B, 2012, TRANSPORT RES REC, P89, DOI 10.3141/2315-10
  • [6] Fadhloun Karim, 2020, International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology, V9, P14, DOI 10.1016/j.ijtst.2019.05.004
  • [7] Energy Consumption Modeling in Presence of Uncertainty
    Fiori, C.
    Marzano, V.
    Punzo, V.
    Montanino, M.
    [J]. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, 2021, 22 (10) : 6330 - 6341
  • [9] Gunter George, 2019, 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC), P3049, DOI 10.1109/ITSC.2019.8917347
  • [10] Are Commercially Implemented Adaptive Cruise Control Systems String Stable?
    Gunter, George
    Gloudemans, Derek
    Stern, Raphael E.
    McQuade, Sean
    Bhadani, Rahul
    Bunting, Matt
    Delle Monache, Maria Laura
    Lysecky, Roman
    Seibold, Benjamin
    Sprinkle, Jonathan
    Piccoli, Benedetto
    Work, Daniel B.
    [J]. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, 2021, 22 (11) : 6992 - 7003