Car Following Models: Explaining Older Models

  • Thread starter Thread starter aldous
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Car Models
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding older car following models in traffic simulation, particularly the equations presented by Jiménez et al. and Treiber et al. The user, Alexander, initially struggles with the interpretation of variables such as m and l in the equations, questioning their significance and whether they represent vehicle mass or other parameters. After some exploration, Alexander finds that m and l are parameters that influence driving behavior, while λ serves as a proportionality factor. The conversation highlights the complexity of interpreting variables in traffic models and the importance of clear definitions in research literature. Ultimately, the inquiry leads to a resolution regarding the meanings of the variables in question.
aldous
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I'm a computer science student in desperate need for help. In the process of writing my master's thesis I've successfully developed a traffic simulation using a model I've found in the traffic research literature, the IDM, to be precise. This model seems straight-forward and is easy to grasp even for a dim mind like mine.

However, I fail to understand older car following models, such as presented by http://www-sop.inria.fr/mascotte/Philippe.Mussi/papers/esm2000.ps" and
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0002/0002177v2.pdf" ... Hopefully just because I simply don't know what some variables mean, which are apparently not introduced.

Jiménez et al. (2000) state that all car following models can be summarized by:

\ddot{x}_f ( t+T_r ) = \lambda * [ \dot{x}_{l}(t) - \dot{x}_{f}(t)] \quad (1)

\lambda = \frac{a_{l,m}* \dot{x}_{f}^m(t+T)}{[x_{l}(t)-x_{f}(t)]^l} \quad (2)

So my questions: what does \dot{x}_f^m express? Sure, \dot{x}_f is the velocity of vehicle f, but what is m? The vehicle's mass? Why would one want to potentiate the velocity by the mass? I'm lost! Further, I interpreted l -- being used as an index in equation 1 -- as the leading car, f denoting the following car. However, in equation 2, l is used as a power? How is this to be interpreted?

Similarly, Treiber et al. (2000) state that older car following models can be reduced to that formula:
\dot{v}_\alpha ( t+T_r ) = \frac{-\lambda v_\alpha^m \Delta v_\alpha}{s_\alpha^l} \quad (3)

My question: the \lambda in eq. 3 seems to be different to the \lambda in eq. 2. Is it this a variable often used in physics one should just know? (It is not defined in the paper)


Thank you very much in advance for any pointers!
Alexander
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
Well, my questions are answered in http://www.easts.info/on-line/journal_06/1354.pdf"

m,l are -- when used as powers -- simply parameters influencing the driving behavior, \lambda is just any proportionality factor.


Thanks anyway,
Alexander
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread 'How can I find the cleanout for my building drain?'
I am a long distance truck driver, but I recently completed a plumbing program with Stratford Career Institute. In the chapter of my textbook Repairing DWV Systems, the author says that if there is a clog in the building drain, one can clear out the clog by using a snake augur or maybe some other type of tool into the cleanout for the building drain. The author said that the cleanout for the building drain is usually near the stack. I live in a duplex townhouse. Just out of curiosity, I...
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
Back
Top