Scribd
Upload
29 views

Its 5

This document discusses different concepts for vehicle spacing and capacity in automated highway systems (AHS). It analyzes six concepts: 1) autonomous vehicles, 2) free agent vehicles with infrastructure support, 3) free agent vehicles with infrastructure management, 4) vehicle platoons without coordinated braking, 5) vehicle platoons with coordinated braking and no delay, 6) infrastructure managed slotting. For each concept, it calculates the minimum inter-vehicle spacing needed for collision-free vehicle following under different road conditions and models emergency braking scenarios. The concepts with vehicle-to-vehicle communication and coordinated braking can achieve smaller spacings and higher capacities than autonomous vehicles.

Uploaded by

NM2104TE06 PRATHURI SUMANTH
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
29 views

Its 5

This document discusses different concepts for vehicle spacing and capacity in automated highway systems (AHS). It analyzes six concepts: 1) autonomous vehicles, 2) free agent vehicles with infrastructure support, 3) free agent vehicles with infrastructure management, 4) vehicle platoons without coordinated braking, 5) vehicle platoons with coordinated braking and no delay, 6) infrastructure managed slotting. For each concept, it calculates the minimum inter-vehicle spacing needed for collision-free vehicle following under different road conditions and models emergency braking scenarios. The concepts with vehicle-to-vehicle communication and coordinated braking can achieve smaller spacings and higher capacities than autonomous vehicles.

Uploaded by

NM2104TE06 PRATHURI SUMANTH
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 23

Intelligent Transport Systems

Lecture: 5.1 AHS Spacing & Capacity

K. Srikanth
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
[email protected]
Introduction:
Introduction:
➢ In Automated Highway Systems (AHS), vehicles will be able to follow each other
automatically by using their own sensing and control systems, effectively reducing the
role of the human driver in the operation of the vehicle
➢ The inter-vehicle separation during vehicle following is one of the most critical
parameters of the AHS system, as it affects both safety and highway capacity
➢ To achieve the goal of improved highway capacity, the inter-vehicle separation should
be as small as possible
➢ On the other hand, to achieve the goal of improved safety and elimination of rear end
collisions, the inter-vehicle separation should be large enough that even under a worst
case stopping scenario, no vehicle collisions will take place
➢ Since safety cannot be compromised for the sake of capacity, it becomes a serious
constraint in most AHS design decisions. The trade-off between capacity and safety
gives rise to a variety of different AHS concepts and architectures
Introduction:
Spacing and Capacity Analysis for Different AHS Concepts:
➢ Here we consider a family of six AHS operational concepts.
➢ For each concept we calculate the minimum inter-vehicle spacing that could be used for
collision-free vehicle following, under different road conditions
1. Autonomous Vehicles
2. Free Agent Vehicles - Infrastructure Supported
3. Free Agent Vehicles - Infrastructure Managed
4. Vehicles Platoons without coordinated braking
5. a) Vehicle Platoons with coordinated braking and no delay
b) Vehicle Platoons with coordinated braking and staggered timing
6. Infrastructure Managed Slotting
1. Autonomous Vehicles:
➢ A possible AHS concept is one where the vehicles operate independently i.e.,
autonomously, using their own sensors.
➢ Each vehicle senses its environment, including lane position, adjacent vehicles and
obstacles.
➢ The infrastructure may provide basic traveller information services, i.e., road conditions
and routing information
➢ Since there is no vehicle to vehicle communication, each vehicle has to use relative speed
and spacing measurements to determine the intentions of the vehicle ahead.
➢ Therefore, in calculating a safe intervehicle spacing we consider the following worst case
stopping scenario
➢ The acceleration (actually deceleration) profile of the leading and following vehicles
involved in a braking manoeuvre is assumed to follow the trajectories shown in figure
1. Autonomous Vehicles:
➢ The assumptions regarding the initial conditions are the following: The leader has been
traveling at a speed of 60 miles per hour while the follower has an instantaneous velocity
5% higher, i.e. 63 miles per hour and an instantaneous acceleration afac = 0.15g
➢ The leading vehicle performs emergency braking at time t = 0, at a maximum rate of
change (jerk) equal to JLmax until it reaches a maximum deceleration of ah.
➢ The follower, which might have been accelerating initially, at afac starts decelerating after
a detection and brake actuation delay equal to tfa in an effort to maintain the desired
spacing.
➢ Since initially the follower is not aware that the leader is performing emergency braking,
it limits its jerk and deceleration to Jf, and afauto respectively, in an effort to meet the
vehicle control objective and at the same time maintain passenger comfort.
➢ The follower detects and initiates emergency braking at t = tfC,. At this time passenger
comfort is no longer a crucial issue and braking is done with maximum jerk Jti and
maximum deceleration ah
1. Autonomous Vehicles:
1. Autonomous Vehicles:
➢ Based on the above spacings the maximum possible throughput referred to as the
capacity C measured as the number of vehicles per hour per lane is given by the formula

V : Speed in meters/sec, L :length of passenger cars, LB :length of buses


Lr is the length of trucks with trailers, in meters.
hpp is the minimum time headway between passenger cars,
hpt is the minimum time headway between a passenger car and a truck that follows it,
htp is the minimum time headway between a truck and a passenger car that follows it,
hPB is the minimum time headway between a passenger car and a bus that follows it and
hgp is the minimum time headway between a bus and a passenger car that follows it, in
seconds.
WB is the percentage of buses and Wt is the percentage of trucks in the mix
2. Free Agent Vehicles – Infrastructure Supported:
➢ A vehicle is considered a ‘Free Agent’ if it has the capability to operate autonomously
but it is also able to receive communications from other vehicles and from the
infrastructure
➢ The fundamental difference between this concept and that of Autonomous vehicle is that
there is vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to infrastructure communication. Each vehicle
communicates to the vehicle behind its braking capabilities and its braking intentions.
This allows the vehicle behind to choose its headway.
➢ The assumptions regarding the initial conditions are the same as in the previous case: We
assume the leader has been traveling at a speed of 60 miles per hour while the follower
has an instantaneous velocity of 63 miles per hour and an instantaneous acceleration of
O.l5g, as if the follower had been trying to catch up with the leader.
2. Free Agent Vehicles – Infrastructure Supported:
3. Free Agent Vehicles – Infrastructure Managed :
➢ In the case of Free Agent Vehicles with infrastructure management we have assumed
that the infrastructure has the primary responsibility of detecting the presence of
emergencies and synchronizing the onset of emergency braking of all vehicles involved.
➢ This results in the most favourable timing for braking delays
➢ The infrastructure may simply issue the command “Begin emergency braking now” and
all vehicles receiving this will have to apply maximum braking without further delay.
➢ This, not only simplifies the task of determining when the leading vehicle is performing
emergency braking but also minimizes the relative delay in propagating the onset of
emergency braking from each vehicle to the vehicle behind, effectively down to zero
3. Free Agent Vehicles – Infrastructure Managed :
4. Vehicles Platoons without coordinated braking
➢ This concept represents the possibility that the safest and possibly most cost-effective
way of achieving maximum capacity is by making platoons of vehicles the basic
controlling unit.
➢ This will boost road capacity by expanding on the concept of infrastructure managed.
Platoons are clusters of vehicles with short spacing between individual vehicles in each
group and longer spacing between platoons.
➢ The characterizing differentiation is that the platoon is to be treated by the infrastructure
as an “entity” thereby minimising some of the need for communicating with and
coordinating individual vehicles.
➢ The infrastructure does not attempt to control any individual vehicle under normal
circumstances, keeping the cost and necessary bandwidth low. The infrastructure is
expected to be an intelligent agent which monitors and coordinates the operation of the
platoons
➢ In the platooning without coordinated braking case, we have assumed that each vehicle
notifies the vehicle behind about its braking capabilities and the magnitude and timing
of the braking force used.
4. Vehicles Platoons without coordinated braking
➢ Each vehicle is expected to be equipped with the sensors and intelligence to maintain
its lane position, sense its immediate surroundings, and perform the functions of
merging into and splitting off a platoon. It is not expected to accomplish lane changes,
or merging and splitting without the infrastructure’s or the platoon entity’s help.
➢ When the platoon leader detects an emergency, it immediately notifies the vehicle that
follows.
➢ There will be a delay while the message propagates from each vehicle to the vehicle
behind, as well as an actuation delay. But the actuation delay is not affecting the
scenario as long as it is approximately the same for each vehicle.
➢ We have assumed that the total delay is 0.1 seconds for every vehicle and it is
represented by the parameter tfa. Therefore we have accounted for only a 0.1 seconds
total delay in propagating the message from each vehicle to the vehicle behind and this
becomes the value of the parameter tf,, which represents the delay of the onset of
emergency braking
4. Vehicles Platoons without coordinated braking
5. Vehicles Platoons with coordinated braking- No Delay
➢ The platooning concept with coordinated braking is based on the concept of maximizing
capacity by carefully coordinating the timing and degree of braking among the vehicles
participating in a platoon entity. This allows the minimization of the spacing between
vehicles without compromising safety
➢ In platooning with coordinated braking we assume that the vehicle in the platoon leader
position assumes the primary responsibility of detecting emergencies and notifying each
and every vehicle in the platoon.
➢ This notification takes place through a network style vehicle to vehicle communications
system that minimizes the communication delays.
➢ The platoon leader notifies all the vehicle in the platoon about the magnitude of the
braking force that is to be applied and also the exact time this is to be applied.
➢ This architecture, not only eliminates the need for each vehicle to detect the magnitude
of braking and if the braking should be limited or emergency braking, but also can
adjust the onset of emergency braking for an effective 0 seconds relative delay, or even
to an artificial negative relative delay
5. Vehicles Platoons with coordinated braking- No Delay
5. Vehicles Platoons with coordinated braking staggered timing
➢ This case is identical to the previous one except for the purposeful timing of the onset of
emergency braking.
➢ Here they have made the choice of using a 0.1 seconds total delay for the onset of
braking for each vehicle in the platoon going from the tail to the head, in the sense that
the tail of the platoon is requested to brake first, then the vehicle ahead after a delay of
0.1 seconds, until the command to begin braking becomes effective for the platoon
leader. Therefore we used a negative value, -0.1 seconds, as the value of the parameter tfC
which represents the relative delay for two consecutive vehicles within the platoon
5. Vehicles Platoons with coordinated braking staggered timing
6. Infrastructure Managed Slotting
➢ Under the Infrastructure Managed Slotting concept, an infrastructure based control
system creates and maintains vehicle “slots” in space and time.
➢ Slots can be thought of as moving roadway segments, each of which holds at most one
vehicle at any time
➢ For simplicity in management i.e., to achieve slots of uniform length, vehicles that need
more space may be assigned multiple slots. Heavy loaded light trucks may be assigned
two slots, unloaded semis may be assigned three slots, loaded heavy trucks may be
assigned four slots etc.
➢ The distinguishing feature of this concept is that the sensing requirements are
theoretically simplified. At least, the vehicle does not need to sense the relative position
and speed of other vehicles
➢ The infrastructure managed slotting concept involves a different set of assumptions and
parameters. Here They used the spacing data for passenger cars by assuming a doubling
of all communication delays with an additional 3 meters to account for position
inaccuracy, due to the inability to utilize space effectively by using the exact slot size for
each vehicle
Capacity analysis for different AHS Concepts
Capacity analysis for different AHS Concepts

You might also like