Transportation Research Record 1710

Paper No. 00 -1635

37

Car-Following and Collision Constraint

Models for Uninterrupted Traffic
Reexamination Using High-Precision
Global Positioning System Data
Sarosh Khan, Pawan Maini, and Kittichai Thanasupsin

In the last few decades several car-following models have been proposed
and tested using mainly vehicle location data. The use of high-precision
Global Positioning System (GPS) data to test several car-following and
collision constraint models is reported, with a critical evaluation of these
models and proposal of a modified collision constraint formulation. GPS
receivers typically report time-stamped location or position fixes and
velocity. For a pair of leading and following vehicles, location and velocity data were used to examine estimates of acceleration, velocity, and
headway by Pipess; modified Pitts, or FRESIM; CARSIM; and INTELSIM car-following models. The important aspects of collecting accurate
GPS data are also highlighted.

During the last few decades, traffic flow models have been developed
to characterize the interaction between a following vehicle and a
leading vehicle when the spacing between the two is less than a few
hundred meters. For distances greater than this, vehicles are not considered to be following; that is, no vehicle interaction occurs. The
earliest studies on this subject, reported in the Highway Capacity
Manual (1), identified the relationship between velocity and spacing
to estimate the capacity of single-lane facilities. However since the
work by Pipes (2), one line of study has focused on determining the
acceleration or deceleration of following vehicles for a leading and
following vehicle pair. The response of a following vehicle is considered to be proportional to a stimulus, which has been characterized by researchers over the years. May (3) provides a good overview
of the history of the development of car-following models. Pipes proposed a model based on the California motor vehicle code that states
that for every 10 mph (16.1 km/h) in speed of the leading vehicle, the
following vehicle maintains a car-length gap. Other significant
efforts followed (4, 5). A series of experiments at the General Motors
Laboratory led to work on five generations of car-following models,
known as the GM models, reported over two decades (68).
Research efforts to develop and validate several car-following
models have used a few major data sets, including those from the GM
Test Track, New York Tunnel, Los Angeles, and Ohio.
The initial car-following experiments were conducted by researchers at General Motors on a 1-mi (1.6-km) test-track (9). An
instrumented follower vehicle had a reel and power unit mounted on
a small platform fastened to the front bumper, and few hundred

Colorado TransLab, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Colorado,

Campus Box 173364, Denver, CO 80217-3364.

meters of wire was attached to the rear bumper of the leading vehicle.
A constant wire tension was maintained on the fine wire connecting
the follower vehicle and the leading vehicle. A direct-current generator tachometer provided a measure of the rate at which the wire was
wound or unwound, and therefore the velocity difference of the two
vehicles was estimated. A wheel attached to the follower vehicle
measured velocity, and an accelerometer mounted in the vehicle provided longitudinal acceleration. Twenty- to 30-min tests were conducted with speeds ranging from 10 to 80 mph (16.1 to 128.8 km/h),
including several braking actions by the lead vehicle.
The Ohio data (10) were collected using aerial photogrammetric
techniques on a four-lane, 3.5-mi (5.64-km) section of the I-70 freeway in Columbus, Ohio, with three on-ramps and three off-ramps
and a maximum 2 percent grade. Most photographs were taken from
an altitude of about 3,000 ft (914.4 m) at 1-s intervals. The reduced
data were reported to be accurate within 0.5 ft (15.24 cm) for
location and 1 mph (1.6 km/h) for velocity. The photographs provided headway, longitudinal positions, and velocity for 115 individual vehicles for about 4 min (between 7:45 and 7:50 a.m. on July
25, 1967). Four platoons of 5 to 15 vehicles were tracked under stopand-go conditions.
Several studies in the literature report results of applying carfollowing formulations to one of the data sets described above. For
example, Pipess model was applied to the GM data, the modified
Pitts model or FRESIM to the California data, and CARSIM and
INTELSIM to the Ohio data. In a more recent paper, Aycin and
Benekohal (11) report on the performance of the FRESIM, or modified Pitts model, CARSIM, and INTELSIM as applied to the Ohio
data. They also provide a good overview of all three models and
express all three formulations in the same consistent notation, thus
making it easier for the formulations to be compared. Their study (11)
focuses on comparing average velocity, headway, and density for
11 vehicles in a platoon.
In the current paper, a report is given on the first use of highprecision Global Positioning System (GPS) data to test these carfollowing models: modified Pitts, CARSIM, Pipess, and INTELSIM.
The estimates of velocity, headway, and acceleration by these models are compared with field data. This study examines the performance of each model, specifically for a leading and following vehicle
pair. GPS technology provides vehicle velocity every second, which
was used in the study, whereas most of the other studies provide location data every second. The important aspects of collecting and analyzing GPS data and applying car-following models to GPS data are
also highlighted.

38

Paper No. 00 -1635

Transportation Research Record 1710

CAR-FOLLOWING MODELS
Modified Pitts or FRESIM Model
Pitts car-following model has been modified and implemented in
the traffic simulation model CORSIM (12), extensively used for
research and design. In FRESIM, CORSIMs freeway simulation
module, the space headway maintained by a leader and a follower
is directly proportional to the relative velocity of the two and the
velocity of the follower, as follows:
x L , tn +1 x F , tn +1 = LL + m + k vF , tn +1 + bk (vL , tn +1 vF , tn +1 )

(1)

where
xL,tn, vL,tn = location and velocity, respectively, of leading
vehicle at time tn;
xF,tn+1, vF,tn+1 = location and velocity, respectively, of following
vehicle at time tn+1;
tn+1 = tn + t = time at beginning of (n + 1)th scanning interval,
where t is the scanning interval;
b = 0.1 if vF > vL (12, 13),
= 0.1 if vF vL 10 [Pitts model (13)],
= 0 otherwise;
m = 10 ft (3.048 m) (default in FRESIM);
k = driver sensitivity factor (default in FRESIM varies
from 0.6 to 1.5 for different drivers); and
LL = leading vehicle length.
In FRESIM, a 0.3-s reaction time is assumed, and therefore acceleration estimated by Equation 1 is applied for only 0.7 s in each time
step (1 s simulation time step minus 0.3 s reaction time). The following vehicle maintains a constant velocity during the 0.3 s of reaction
time; that is, zero acceleration is assumed.
Pipess Model
Pipess car-following model is based on the driving rule suggested
in the California motor vehicle code: A good rule for following
another vehicle at a safe distance is to allow at least the length of one
car between the following vehicle and the vehicle ahead for every
10 mph (16.1 km/h) of speed. The rule implies the following:
x L , tn +1 x F , tn +1 = cvF , tn + LL , tn

(2)

where c is reaction time [assuming 18-ft (5.48-m) vehicle length, for

10 mph = 14.7 ft/s, c = 0.8 s]. According to this model, a following
vehicle continuously tries to maintain a safe gap based on its own
speed only.
CARSIM
CARSIM was developed to improve the modeling of the stop-and-go
conditions observed in congestion. In CARSIM (14), five specific
acceleration rates are considered; the first three represent typical
acceleration rates observed in the field. The remaining two acceleration rates are based on specific collision constraints considered and
are detailed in a later section.
Acceleration at any scanning interval determined by the collision
constraints is compared with the acceleration to reach a desired speed
(A2) or the acceleration limit of the vehicle, and the minimum is

applied. Papers describing CARSIM (14, 15) suggest that the deceleration determined by the maximum of the two collision constraints
is compared with the comfortable deceleration and the deceleration
to desired speed. An examination of the source code (15) suggests
that deceleration based on the first of the two collision constraints
(A4) is never applied.
INTELSIM
For the car-following models presented above, the acceleration of
a following vehicle is determined every scanning interval on the
basis of the leaders action every time step. Recently, a significantly
different approach considers a following vehicles longer-term goal
of achieving a steady-state condition, that is, achieving the same
velocity as the leader while maintaining a minimum preferred time
headway (11, 16). In addition, a following vehicles acceleration is
considered to vary linearly.
The position of the leading vehicle at time tn + T is as follows:
x L , tn + T = x L , tn + vL , tn T + 0.5aL , tn T 2

(3)

where T is the time to reach steady state, and the velocity of the
follower at time tn + T is
vF , tn + T = vF , tn + aF , tn T + 0.5sF , tn T 2

( 4)

where
aF,tn = acceleration of following vehicle at time tn,
sF = slope of linear acceleration of the follower, and the third
term is included since linear acceleration is considered.
The two steady-state (at time tn + T ) conditions are that (a) the
velocities of the leader and follower are equal and (b) the minimum gap headway (dp) is achieved on the basis of the field-measured
preferred time headway. The following two conditions result:
vL , tn + aL , tn T = vF , tn + aF , tn T + 0.5sF , tn T 2

(5)

d p, tn + T = vF , tn + T t p = vL , tn + T t p = (vL , tn + aL , tn T )t p

(6)

where aL,tn is the acceleration of leading vehicle at time tn and tp is

the preferred time headway (a constant value, independent of velocity).
Equations 3, 4, and 5 yield the slope of the acceleration:
sF , t n =

vL , tn vF , tn ( aL , tn aF , tn )T
0.5T 2

( 7)

Equations 3 through 6 form a quadratic equation in terms of T. The

roots provide the time to reach steady state. For both positive roots,
the lower positive value is applied, and for at least one positive root,
the positive value is applied. However, for both negative roots, eight
subcases are presented. In addition, when the discriminant is negative, a constant acceleration model is considered, which results in a
definite solution.
COLLISION CONSTRAINT MODELS
A car-following model provides an estimate of a following vehicles
location with respect to the leading vehicle and its velocity and accel-

Khan et al.

Paper No. 00 -1635

eration for every time interval. However, this procedure does not
ensure that the two vehicles will not come closer than a critical distance for any action taken by the leading vehicle. The following vehicle may apply emergency control or an emergency deceleration in
response to a lead-vehicle action. This response may not leave sufficient or safe distance between the vehicles. The constraint applied to
avoid this situation is known as the collision constraint.
As shown in Figure 1, the most typical collision constraint examines a specific action of the leading vehicle by looking ahead. It
considers that a leading vehicle may abruptly apply a high deceleration (usually considered the maximum deceleration of the leading
vehicle) at the end of the current time step or scanning interval. As
a result, a following vehicle may apply its emergency deceleration.
The collision constraint checks if either a critical distance between
the vehicles is maintained or at least the deceleration required to
maintain a critical distance is applied.

FRESIM or Modified Pitts

Collision Constraint Model
FRESIM includes Pitts original emergency constraint or collision
constraint, which assumes that the leading vehicle may decelerate
to a stop at its maximum deceleration rate at the end of a time interval. After a reaction time, the follower may decelerate at a rate
within the maximum deceleration limit (12, 13). The constraints
include a special case in which the following vehicle may come to
stop within the time period. The collision constraint is expressed
as the three following subconstraints:
2 vF , t n
e + 2ec

a2 + a
+
( t c) ( t c)
2
2
2e
x L , tn +1 x F , tn vF , tn t LL cvF , tn (vF , tn vL , tn +1 )
0
( t c)2
2e

when

vL2 , tn +1 + e 2 c 2 ec vF , tn
( t c)

)>0

(8)

39

2( x L , tn +1 x F , tn vF , tn t LL )
( t c )2

when

vF , t n
< a <
( t c )

2( x L , tn +1

vF2 , tn
x F , tn LL )

vL2 , tn +1 + e 2 c 2 ec vF , tn )
( t c )
when

vF , t n
c)

( t

( 9)

(10)

where e is the maximum or emergency deceleration rate (assumed

to be the same for the leading and the following vehicles).
As shown in the foregoing equations, this collision constraint
assumes a constant velocity for the following vehicle during the reaction time, the maximum deceleration of both the leading and the following vehicle is the same, and the critical safe gap does not include
a buffer distance. In determining the specific case in which the following vehicle may come to a stop within the time step, the velocity
is considered to drop from vF,tn+1 to zero instead of from vF,tn+1+c to zero;
that is, the reaction time is ignored.
CARSIM Collision Constraint Model
Two specific collision constraints are considered in CARSIM. The first
ensures that at least the minimum separation distance is maintained
during reaction time:
x L , tn + 1 x F , tn + 1 L + K

(11)

where xF,tn+1 = xF,tn + vF,tn c + 0.5aF,tn c2 and K is the buffer distance

between vehicles.
The acceleration determined on the basis of Equation 11 is referred
to as the car-following acceleration, or A4 in the original formulation
of the model presented (14, 15). It should be noted that the acceleration is applied at the beginning of the time step, assuming no
reaction time.
Another collision constraint checks that at least the minimum
separation distance is maintained even if a leading vehicle initiates
an abrupt stop at the end of the scanning interval, similar to FRESIM.
However, to account for a specific case when the distance to stop
for the leading vehicle is greater than the distance to stop for the
following vehicle, the following condition was considered:
x L , tn +1 x F , tn +1 LL K
v2
v2

max (vF , tn +1 c), vF , tn +1 c + F , tn +1 L , tn +1

2 dF
2dL

(12)

where vF,tn+1 = vF,tn + aF,tnt and dL, dF is the maximum deceleration rate
of the leading and following vehicles. The acceleration thus determined is referred to as the collision constraint, or A5 in the original
formulation presented (14, 15). As mentioned earlier, the collision
constraint applied in CARSIM estimates the following vehicles
acceleration taking reaction time into consideration. However, when
the following vehicles location and velocity are updated, the reaction
time is not considered (15).
INTELSIM Collision Constraint Model
FIGURE 1 Collision constraint showing leading and following
vehicles over time.

INTELSIM does not include a typical collision constraint that checks

to ensure that a safe spacing between vehicles is maintained even

40

Paper No. 00 -1635

Transportation Research Record 1710

when a leader applies an emergency deceleration. Instead, only

when a leading vehicle is in deceleration, if the following vehicles
time to reach steady state (T ) is greater than the time it would take
a leader to come to a complete stop, a collision constraint is applied
as follows:
d f = db + dl dbuff

(13)

The following constraint results:

x F , tn + 1 +

vF2 , tn +1
2dL

x F , tn + (vF , tn c + 0.5aF , tn c )

+ (vF , tn + aF , tn c)t + 0.5aF , tn + c t

0
2

(vF , t + aF , t c + aF , t t )
n
n
n+c
+ LL + K
+
2 dF

(15)

where
df = distance traveled by follower to stop to avoid collision
db = gap between vehicles after reaction time c,
= xL,tn+c xF,tn+c LL,
dl = distance for leader to stop = v2L,tn , and
dbuff = buffer gap between vehicles when stopped [value not specified, but typically considered 5 or 10 ft (1.524 or 3.048 m)
in other models]; in INTELSIM, actual buffer space data
from field were used (16).
Modifications to CARSIM
Collision Constraint Model
A more recent study (11) proposed a modification to the CARSIM
collision constraint model. This modification considers the distance
traveled by the following vehicle during reaction time c, where the
vehicles velocity at time t + t remains constant throughout the
reaction time:

x L , tn + 1 +

vL2 , tn +1
2dL

2
x F , tn + (vF , tn t + 0.5aF , tn t )

+ (vF , tn +1 + aF , tn +1 t )c

0
2

[vF , tn + aF , tn t ]
+ LL + K
+
2 dF

GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM

GPS allows instantaneous determination of the position and velocity of a moving vehicle. To provide continuous global positioning
capability, 21 evenly spaced satellites placed in a circular, 12-h orbit
inclined at 55 degrees to the equatorial plane provide the desired
coverage. This constellation provides a minimum of four satellites
in good geometric positions 24 h a day anywhere on earth. Depending on the selected elevation angle, more than the minimum number
of satellites are often available for use.

Point Positioning
GPS satellites provide the capability of determining location in terms
of longitude, latitude, and elevation by the simple resection process
using the distances measured to the satellites. In essence, the GPS
operates on the principle of trilateration, where the position of an
unknown point is determined by measuring the length of the sides of
a triangle between the unknown point and two or more known points,
the satellites.

(14)

where aF,tn+1 is the acceleration of the following vehicle at time tn+1.

However, this model ignores the change in the following vehicles
velocity during reaction time (from tn to tn+1+c), since it considers the
velocity to be constant through the reaction time (from tn to tn+c).
Proposed Enhancement to Collision Constraint
The proposed collision constraint addresses the drawbacks identified
in previous collision constraint models by including the change in
velocity that occurs during the reaction time. The proposed collision
constraint is based on the following:
At time tn+1, the leader applies the maximum deceleration rate;
As shown in Figure 1, to determine the collision constraint for
the scanning interval at tn, a following vehicles acceleration is first
estimated on the basis of a car-following model; this acceleration
is checked against the emergency braking condition of a leading
vehicle at tn+1;
The following vehicles acceleration remains constant from
tn to tn+c;
The followers new acceleration rate of af,tn+c is applied and
remains valid from tn+c to tn+1+c; and
The following vehicle at tn+1 determines a new acceleration to
deal with this scenario and applies this rate after the reaction time
c; that is, it applies a collision-constraint-based acceleration rate
at tn+1+c = (af,tn+1+c).

Velocity Determination
Velocity may be calculated by extrapolating the first difference between positions in consecutive intervals. However, instantaneous
velocity of a moving vehicle is determined by using the Doppler
principle of radio signals. Because of the motion of the GPS satellites with respect to the moving vehicle, the frequency of a signal
broadcast by the satellite is shifted when received at the vehicle.
This measurable shift is proportional to the relative radial velocity.
The radial velocity of the satellite is known; therefore the radial
velocity of the moving vehicle can be deduced from the Doppler
observable. This method of velocity determination is very accurate;
the accuracy is 0.1 mph (528 ft/h) even for receivers with location
accuracy of 328 ft (100 m) and selective availability turned on. In
addition, GPS velocity reporting is instantaneous and independent
of position fixes.

Type of GPS Receivers Used

Two 12-channel, L1 GPS receivers, coarse acquisition (C/A) code
with carrier phase filtering and instantaneous full wavelength carrierphase measurements, were used to collect data for this study. The
accuracy of this mapping-grade receiver ranges from submeter to 5 m
(16.4 ft) CEP (circular error probable) (CEP represents 50 percent
probability that the positions will fall within a horizontal circle with
radius equal to the specified value) with differential correction, five
satellites, position dilution of precision (PDOP) less than 6, and corrections from a reference station. An integrated GPS-beacon antenna

Khan et al.

featuring two antenna components, one to filter out unwanted signals

and another to amplify the L1 signal, was used.

Accuracy of GPS Data

Several measures are reported in the GPS literature to present the
expected level of precision for a given receiver. However, these error
figures only represent the best-case scenarios. There are several
sources of error that cause the accuracy of all forms of GPS positioning to deteriorate. They include satellite clock timing error, satellite position error (ephemeris error), ionospheric and tropospheric
refraction, receiver noise, multipath and selective availability, collectively referred to as the user equivalent range error (UERE). The
cumulative UERE totals are multiplied by a factor of 1 to 6, a factor
that represents the dilution of precision, or DOP. DOP is a measure
of the geometry of the visible satellite constellation. The ideal orientation of the satellites would require them all to be equally spaced
around the receiver, one directly above the receiver. This orientation would result in a low DOP. Selective availability is the highest
source of error, an intentional error, imposed to limit the accuracy
to 95 percent probability of 328 ft (100 m) or less. A previous study
presents results of preliminary tests collecting GPS data (17) using
three satellites. However, to remove clock error bias at least four
satellites are recommended.
The GPS receivers accuracy is 328 ft (100 m) 2dRMS (2dRMS
is the standard deviation of the distance root mean square, which
means that approximately 95 percent of the positions are within the
specified value), without differential correction, and the accuracy
is as follows after differential correction [postprocessing using a
base station at a maximum of 50 mi (80.5 km) from the rover vehicles]: 50 cm (RMS) + 1 part per million times distance (in kilometers) between rover and base station = 50 + 106 80 km = 130 cm
= 4.26 ft (RMS), where the distance between the rover vehicles and
the base station was a maximum of 80 km.
The following factors were ensured to improve accuracy: number of satellites greater than or equal to 5, PDOP < 6, GPS signalto-noise ratio > 6, satellite elevation mask 15 degrees, and base
station distance less than 310 mi (499 km) from rover vehicles.

DATA COLLECTED
Car-following experiments were conducted on three days (February 27, 1999; March 12, 1999; and March 24, 1999) for several
hours on a 3-mi (4.83-km) section of the northbound I-25 freeway
in Denver, Colorado, between Evans and Logan Streets. GPS receivers were installed in the leading and following vehicles. Data collected during this period were later analyzed to ensure that only
car-following data were used. GPS data collected were differentially
corrected by postprocessing.
Data collection trips were planned to take advantage of optimal
satellite conditions based on forecast satellite availability and PDOP,
an indication of the current satellite geometry. GPS data were collected
only when at least five satellites were available and the minimum
PDOP value was 6, using a PDOP mask of 6.
A limited data set (six cases) from this large data collection effort
was used for the study. The duration of successive reporting varied
from 10 to 90 s, speed from 0.1 to 61.2 mph (0.16 to 98.53 km/h),
acceleration of 6.8 ft/s2 (2.07 m/s2) to +3.9 ft/s2 (1.19 m/s2)
[one outlier, 11.4 ft/s2 (3.47 m/s2)], and headway of 19.6 to 173.0 ft
(5.97 to 52.7 m).

Paper No. 00 -1635

41

The recommendations regarding the collection and use of GPS

data to test car-following models can be summarized as follows:
Pretrip planning should be conducted to ensure that a minimum
of four to five satellites is in view and the PDOP level is less than 6.
The availability of a base station at less than 300 mi (483 km)
should be checked to allow good differential postprocessing of GPS
data, even when real-time differential correction is available (this will
not be necessary once selective availability is removed).
Map-grade GPS receivers should be used.
A few known points should be marked and calibrated as control
points along the roadway to check on data accuracy.
Velocity data should be used for car following, and location data
should be used only for the first time interval for leader and follower.
The in-feature capability should be used to record geometric
features and attach a description of the traffic flow conditions, for
example, to record mainline or shoulder incidents, sun glare effect, or
any other cause of nonrecurring congestion.

EXAMINATION OF CAR-FOLLOWING
AND COLLISION CONSTRAINT MODELS
In this section the results of applying the models to the GPS data collected are presented. The first part of the analysis compares the performance of all the models on all six test cases. Graphs of model
estimates and field data were plotted for evaluation. For example,
Figure 2 shows the velocity plot of the CARSIM estimates and field
data for the following vehicle every second for all test cases. The
slope and R2 of a linear regression line through the origin and the
average absolute difference between the model estimated values and
the field values were used as performance measures.
For velocity estimates every second, these performance measures
are presented in Table 1 for all models. The high R2-values, with
slopes close to 1, and low average absolute difference for all models
indicate that velocity is tracked very well by all the models. It is
important to mention that FRESIM was tested on the basis of the best
values of the car-following sensitivity (k) values for each case as well
as on two fixed values of 0.6 and 1.7. The best k-values for Cases 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 were 1.7, 0.6, 0.6, 0.6, 1.2, and 1.1, respectively.
Table 2 presents the performance of the models for acceleration
estimates. From all the performance measures, FRESIM provided a
relatively better match between the field data and model-estimated
acceleration values. However, the car-following sensitivity factor has

FIGURE 2

Velocity plot for CARSIM.

42

Paper No. 00 -1635

TABLE 1

Transportation Research Record 1710

Comparison Between Models and Field Values of Velocity Estimated Every Second

a significant effect on the performance of the model. Estimated acceleration values for CARSIM and INTELSIM show very low correlation with field data. The slope of 0.60 for CARSIM also suggests
that the model underestimates acceleration.
Table 3 shows that FRESIM and Pipess model provide better estimates of headway. Once again, FRESIMs performance is dependent
on the selected car-following sensitivity factor (k). For a high sensitivity value of 1.7, the headway is overestimated, as indicated by the
slope of 1.36, and for a low sensitivity value of 0.6, the headway is
underestimated, as indicated by the slope of 0.68. The residuals were
high for both k = 1.7 and k = 0.6, yielding a negative R2. CARSIM
estimates also provided high residuals for a linear regression through
the origin.
In the following subsections, the characteristics of each model
are highlighted and therefore the best results of the models are not
necessarily presented.

FRESIM or Modified Pitts Model

Figure 3 shows that for the same pair of leading and following vehicles, different values of the sensitivity factor (k = 1.7 for Case 1 and
k = 0.6 for Case 4) provide a better fit between the model-estimated
headway and velocity and the GPS headway and velocity. Tests
performed on multiple data sets confirmed this finding and are also
in agreement with the findings of another study (11). Currently,
in FRESIM a range of k-values can be specified on the basis of driver
type. However, once a driver is assigned a sensitivity factor during vehicle generation, it remains constant throughout the simulation. Given that a better fit was obtained using different k-values
for the same driver for a wider range of traffic conditions, this supports the notion that drivers behave differently under congested and
uncongested conditions.

TABLE 2 Comparison Between Models and Field Values

of Acceleration Estimated Every Second

Pitts collision constraint has not been considered in performing

these model runs. However, for the two cases detailed in the previous
paragraph, the minimum headway specified in Equation 1 was more
than 1 ft (30.48 cm) greater than the actual headway for only 3 out of
the total 70 s. Thus, ignoring the collision constraint is expected to
have an insignificant impact.

Pipess Model
According to Equation 2 and assuming a vehicle length of 18 ft
(5.48 m), the gap maintained between vehicles is 0.8L for every
10 mph (16 km/h) of the following vehicles speed. However, the field
data suggest that vehicles maintain a gap between 0.33L and 1.9L.
A collision constraint is not specified in the Pipes formulation.
However, a check was made to ensure that the following vehicle
would not collide with the leading vehicle by the end of the simulation time step, and if such a collision was predicted, the calculated
acceleration rate of the following vehicle was revised to prevent
this collision. This constraint is similar to the A4 constraint of the
CARSIM model outlined earlier.
According to Equation 2, the gap maintained is a function of the
following vehicles velocity. For a leading vehicle traveling at a uniform velocity, a following vehicle accelerates at the rate of 80 percent of the velocity difference between the two vehicles till it
achieves an 0.8L gap and continues to maintain this gap. However,
since the leading vehicles velocity increases sharply, as shown at
10 s for Case 2 in Figure 4, the following vehicle falls behind 20 percent for every time interval, and this difference builds over time
and causes an increasing headway difference. Similar behavior is
observed for Case 3 (Figure 4); when the velocity of the leading vehicle sharply decreases at about 35 s, the difference in the predicted and
field headways starts to increase.
As is evident in both cases, the model predicts that the following
vehicles acceleration rate closely matches that of the leading vehicle.

CARSIM Model
As detailed earlier, the CARSIM model considers five different
acceleration rates in determining the response of the following vehicle. However, a review of the application of the model to Case 4 and
Case 6 data shows that for 70 of the 75 s the value is determined from
the collision constraint described (A5).
A comparison of the model estimates and field data for headway,
velocity, and acceleration is presented in Figure 5. As shown, the
model performs reasonably well in estimating the headway and the
velocity of the following vehicle.

Khan et al.

Paper No. 00 -1635

TABLE 3

Comparison Between Models and Field Values of Headway Estimated Every Second

There is a significant difference between the acceleration rates estimated by the model and those from the field data. Although the average of the acceleration rate predicted over a longer time period (5 s)
by the model is close to that of the field data, the individual estimated
values are either significantly greater or less than the field values.

INTELSIM Model
INTELSIM is based on the principle that a following vehicle tries to
reach the same velocity as the leading vehicle, a steady state, by
applying linear acceleration while maintaining a minimum preferred
headway. For two specific conditions (a steady-state time solution in
which the discriminant is either negative or results in double negative roots), a constant acceleration model is considered. As shown for
Case 4 in Figure 6, for a gradually increasing leading vehicle speed,
INTELSIM produces reasonable velocity and headway estimates.
For Cases 13, 5, and 6, the solution to the quadratic equation to
determine time to reach steady state could not be estimated on the
basis of the documentation available (16).

FIGURE 3

43

FRESIM: Cases 1 and 4.

As the difference in velocity between the leading and following

vehicle decreases and therefore the time to steady state (T) is low, the
headway oscillates. This result occurs because the acceleration slope
estimated by Equation 7 produces large values for small values of T.
Although no limitations are specified for the acceleration values,
those assumed for the FRESIM model are applied here: 16 ft/s2
(4.87 m/s2) and +7 ft/s2 (2.13 m/s2). As shown in Figure 6, at around
the eighth second, velocity difference between the leading and the
following vehicles is very small, and at this point the acceleration is
very high because of a high estimated acceleration slope. The same
result can be observed at the 28th second, at which the lead and follower GPS velocities are also low and, as a result, the headway difference between field and GPS data and estimated data begins to
increase and continues to increase until the 38th second.

Comparison of Models
All the models examinedFRESIM, CARSIM, Pipess, and INTELSIMestimate the following vehicles velocity well. Acceleration

FIGURE 4

Pipess model: Cases 2 and 3.

FIGURE 5

CARSIM: Cases 4 and 6.

Khan et al.

FIGURE 6

Paper No. 00 -1635

45

INTELSIM: Case 4.

and headway estimates only are shown in Figure 7, since most differences in performance occur for these estimates. As shown, FRESIM
does well in estimating both headway and acceleration compared with
the other models. Pipess model does as well as FRESIM in estimating the followers acceleration; however, the headway difference
between the field and model data increases when the leading vehicles

speed rapidly increases or decreases over time. CARSIM appears to

overestimate headway, and INTELSIM may underestimate headway
in the cases discussed earlier. Both CARSIM and INTELSIM estimates exhibit more variation in acceleration than those in the field
data; however, the average over time is close to that of the field data.
FRESIMs performance should be qualified by stating that its best
performance was observed when an appropriate driver sensitivity (k)
value was first selected for each case for the comparisons. With
FRESIMs current limitation of a fixed k-value for a given driver, the
results are significantly different. This finding suggests that modification of FRESIMs k-value alone could improve the performance of
the model significantly.
Several important considerations or elements of a collision constraint model were discussed. Although many of the existing models
specify one or more of these goals, none of the models include all the
elements.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

FIGURE 7

Comparison of models: Case 4.

The models examined clearly track the following vehicles velocity

closely. The main differences are in the acceleration estimates and, as
a result, in the headway estimates. Typically, when car-following
models are compared or examined, velocity and headway results are
shown. However, the examination here suggests that the acceleration
estimates should also be presented explicitly since this allows a closer
examination of the models. Emissions estimates are developed on the
basis of both velocity and acceleration estimates; therefore a models
performance in estimating acceleration may be an important part of
the evaluation.
It is also clear that the use of high-precision GPS data will now
allow researchers to examine car-following models under a variety
of conditions not possible in earlier attempts. Data collected for
this type of research were often limited to test tracks and wellinstrumented vehicles or to locations with a good overhead view
of traffic. This effort shows that with proper planning for data

46

Paper No. 00 -1635

collection and use of high-accuracy GPS receivers, it is now feasible to collect data for car-following model analysis. In addition,
GPS velocity (accuracy 0.18 ft /s, or 5.48 cm /s) provides a more
accurate, first-difference estimate of acceleration instead of second-difference estimates from location data.

REFERENCES
1. Highway Capacity Manual. HRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1950.
2. Pipes, L. A. An Operational Analysis of Traffic Dynamics. Journal of
Applied Physics, Vol. 24, No. 3, 1953, pp. 274 281.
3. May, A. D. Traffic Flow Fundamentals. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., 1990.
4. Kometani, E., and T. Sasaki. On the Stability of Traffic Flow. Journal
of Operations Research, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1958, pp. 1126.
5. Forbes, T. W. Human Factor Considerations in Traffic Flow Theory. In
Highway Research Record 15, HRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1963, pp. 60 66.
6. Herman, R., et al. Traffic Dynamics: Analysis of Stability in CarFollowing. Operations Research, Vol. E17, 1958, pp. 86106.
7. Herman, R., and R. W. Rothery. Microscopic and Macroscopic Aspects
of Single Lane Traffic Flow. Operations Research, 1962, p. 74.
8. Herman, R., and R. W. Rothery. Car-Following and Steady-State Flow.
In Proc., 2nd International Symposium on the Theory of Traffic Flow
(J. Almond, ed.), OECD, Paris, 1965.

Transportation Research Record 1710

9. Chandler, R. E., R. Herman, and E.W. Montroll. Traffic Dynamics: Studies in Car Following. Operations Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, March 1958,
pp. 165184.
10. Treiterer, J. Investigation of Traffic Dynamics by Aerial Photogrammetry
Techniques. Ph.D. dissertation. Ohio State University, Columbus, 1975.
11. Aycin, M. F., and R. F. Benekohal. Comparison of Car-Following Models for Simulation. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 1678, TRB, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 116127.
12. Halati, A., H. Lieu, and S. Walker. CORSIM: Corridor Traffic Simulation Model. Presented at the 76th Annual Meeting of the Transportation
Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1997.
13. CORSIM User Guide. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation,
McLean, Va., 1996.
14. Benekohal, R. F. Development and Validation of a Car Following Model
for Simulation of Traffic Flow and Traffic Wave Studies at Bottlenecks.
Ph.D. dissertation. Ohio State University, Columbia, 1986.
15. Benekohal, R. F., and J. Treiterer. CARSIM: Car-Following Model for
Simulation of Traffic in Normal and Stop-and-Go Conditions. In Transportation Research Record 1194, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1988, pp. 99111.
16. Aycin, M. F., and R. F. Benekohal. Linear Acceleration Car-Following
Model Development and Validation. In Transportation Research Record
1644, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998,
pp. 1019.
17. Hatipkarasulu, Y., B. Wolshon, and C. Quiroga. A GPS Approach for
the Analysis of Car Following Behavior. Presented at the 79th Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2000.
Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Traffic Flow Theory and
Characteristics.