SAFETY, MOBILITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF FORWARD COLLISION WARNING ALGORITHMS ON A ROADWAY NETWORK Mostafa H Tawfeek, M.Sc., E.I.T. Karim El-Basyouny, Ph.D., P.Eng. Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering University of Alberta 28 th CARSP Conference, Victoria, BC
CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Background Objectives METHODOLOGY Study area FCW Algorithms comparison framework FCW algorithms Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 28TH CARSP CONFERENCE, VICTORIA, BC 2
INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND o Rear-end collisions are one of the most frequent types of collisions occurring on North American roads 1,2 o Forward Collision Warning (FCW) algorithms were introduced as an active countermeasure to avoid these collisions Rear-end Collisions (25%) In Canada Other Collisions 28TH CARSP CONFERENCE, VICTORIA, BC 3
INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND o Several studies were conducted to compare the efficiency of various FCW algorithms on a microscopic/individual level 4,5 o Since the implementation of FCW technologies is expected to occur in a gradual manner over multiple years, the impact of these technologies is worth investigation on a network level 28TH CARSP CONFERENCE, VICTORIA, BC 4
INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES o Assess and compare different FCW algorithms from a safety, mobility, and environmental perspectives under varying market penetration rates (i.e., 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%) 28TH CARSP CONFERENCE, VICTORIA, BC 5
FORWARD COLLISION WARNING ALGORITHMS COMPARISON STUDY AREA 28TH CARSP CONFERENCE, VICTORIA, BC 6
FORWARD COLLISION WARNING ALGORITHMS COMPARISON FRAMEWORK Whitemud Drive Microsimulation Model Update FCW Algorithm Adjust MP Start Multi-runs Input Vehicles Trajectories in SSAM Travel Time Node Evaluation Rear End Conflicts Summarize and Compare the Results Fuel Consumption 28TH CARSP CONFERENCE, VICTORIA, BC 7
FORWARD COLLISION WARNING ALGORITHMS COMPARISON WHITEMUD DRIVER MICROSIMULATION MODEL o A previously calibrated VISSIM model representing Whitemud Drive evening peak hours was used 7,8 o External driver models were coded to make the cars that have an FCW decelerate when needed o The cars will decelerate based on the braking distance which differs from an algorithm to another 28TH CARSP CONFERENCE, VICTORIA, BC 8
FORWARD COLLISION WARNING ALGORITHMS COMPARISON FCW ALGORITHMS o Six of the most commonly cited FCW algorithms 8-13 were modeled in VISSIM and the results of the MOEs were compared on a network basis d warn Following vehicle following distance Leading vehicle 28TH CARSP CONFERENCE, VICTORIA, BC 9
FORWARD COLLISION WARNING ALGORITHMS COMPARISON MODELING ASSUMPTIONS o The FCW car is equipped with sensing technology which is in a perfect condition and the braking distance with sufficient accuracy o The model assumes the maneuver is followed perfectly regardless of any variations (i.e., mechanical components, warning system interface or drivers braking application) 28TH CARSP CONFERENCE, VICTORIA, BC 10
FORWARD COLLISION WARNING ALGORITHMS COMPARISON MODELING ASSUMPTIONS o Each algorithm was modeled based on its own assumptions with respect to driver and system delays. o The weather condition is clear and stable and has no effect on the drivers and/or vehicles performance. 28TH CARSP CONFERENCE, VICTORIA, BC 11
FORWARD COLLISION WARNING ALGORITHMS COMPARISON MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS o Safety measure: rear-end conflicts o Mobility measure: travel time o Environmental measure: fuel consumption 28TH CARSP CONFERENCE, VICTORIA, BC 12
No. of Rear-End Conflicts RESULTS REAR-END CONFLICTS 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 25% 50% 75% 100% Alg.1 Alg.2 Alg.3 Alg.4 Alg.5 Alg.6 Base Condition 28TH CARSP CONFERENCE, VICTORIA, BC 13
Braking Distance (m) RESULTS REAR-END CONFLICTS 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Alg.3 (80 km/hr) Alg.5 (80 km/hr) Alg.6 (80 km/hr) Alg.3 (60 km/hr) Alg.5 (60 km/hr) Alg.6 (60 km/hr) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Relative Speed (km/hr) 28TH CARSP CONFERENCE, VICTORIA, BC 14
Travel Time (seconds) RESULTS TRAVEL TIMES 475 450 425 400 25% 50% 75% 100% Alg.1 Alg.2 Alg.3 Alg.4 Alg.5 Alg.6 Base Condition 28TH CARSP CONFERENCE, VICTORIA, BC 15
Fuel Consumption (Liter) RESULTS FUEL CONSUMPTION 2400 2350 2300 2250 2200 25% 50% 75% 100% Alg.1 Alg.2 Alg.3 Alg.4 Alg.5 Alg.6 Base Condition 28TH CARSP CONFERENCE, VICTORIA, BC 16
CONCLUSIONS o Systematic improvements (i.e., on the network level) caused by the FCW systems will generally overlap with the situational improvements (i.e., on a driver level) o More tangible improvements were noticed with higher penetration rates 28TH CARSP CONFERENCE, VICTORIA, BC 17
CONCLUSIONS o Generally, safety benefits on the network level for most of the FCW algorithms did not have a substantial effect on mobility and environment o The FCW systems, which did not provide a network-level safety benefit, were more likely to have negative impacts on mobility and environment 28TH CARSP CONFERENCE, VICTORIA, BC 18
CONCLUSIONS o The more conservative algorithms (e.g., Alg.3) in terms of braking distance (i.e., longer distance) had inconsistent results on a network level for all measures o Alg.2, which is a perceptual FCW algorithm, gave the best results in terms of safety benefits 28TH CARSP CONFERENCE, VICTORIA, BC 19
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH o The modeled FCW algorithms assumed perfect drivers compliance and sensing capabilities o Varying levels of service and weather conditions were not taken in consideration while modeling the FCW algorithms o The assessment of integrating the FCW systems with other Connected Vehicle applications should be investigated 28TH CARSP CONFERENCE, VICTORIA, BC 20
REFERENCES 1. National Safety Council, National Safety Council Injury Facts, 2015. 2. Transport Canada, National Collision Database Online, 2017. 3. P. Seiler, B. Song, and J. Hedrick, Development of a collision avoidance system, Automot. Eng., vol. Vol. 106, pp. 24 28, 1998. 4. L. Yang, J. H. Yang, E. Feron, and V. Kulkarni, Development of a Performance-Based Approach for a Rear-End Collision Warning and Avoidance System for Automobiles, pp. 316 321, 2003. 5. K. Lee and H. Peng, Evaluation of automotive forward collision warning and collision avoidance algorithms, Veh. Syst. Dyn., vol. 43, no. 10, pp. 735 751, 2005. 6. M. Hadiuzzaman, Variable Speed Limit Control to Mitigate Freeway Congestion, University of Alberta, Canada, 2014. 7. X. Wang, M. Hadiuzzaman, and T. Z. Qiu, Analyzing Sensitivity of Freeway Capacity at a Complex Weaving Segment, in 2012 CSCE Conference, 2012, pp. 1 11. 8. R. Kiefer, D. LeBlanc, M. Palmer, J. Salinger, R. Deering, and M. Shulman, Development and Validation of Functional Definitions and Evaluation Procedures For Collision Warning/Avoidance Systems, no. August, p. 75, 1999. 9. Y. Fujita, K. Akuzawa, and M. Sato, Radar brake system, JSAE Rev., vol. 16(2), pp. 95 101, 1995. 10. A. Doi, T. Butsuen, T. Niibe, T. Takagi, Y. Yamamoto, and H. Seni, Development of a rear-end collision avoidance system with automatic brake control, JSAE Rev., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 335 340, 1994. 11. S. J. Brunson, E. M. Kyle, N. C. Phamdo, and G. R. Preziotti, Alert Algorithm Development Program NHTSA Rear-End Collision Alert Algorithm, no. September, 2002. 12. P. Seiler, B. Song, and J. Hedrick, Development of a collision avoidance system, Automot. Eng., vol. Vol. 106, pp. 24 28, 1998. 13. A. L. Burgett, A. Carter, R. J. Miller, and W. G. Najm, A collison warnig alorithm for rear-end collision, Natl. Highw. Traffic Saf. Adm. Washington, DC, pp. 566 587, 1998. Images: https://automobiles.honda.com/images/2016/pilot/features-safety/forward-collision-warning.jpg https://transformingedmonton.ca/get-there-faster-slow-down/ 28TH CARSP CONFERENCE, VICTORIA, BC 21
QUESTIONS? CONTACT INFO Mostafa H Tawfeek, M.Sc., E.I.T Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Alberta Mostafa.h.tawfeek@ualberta.ca