IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, VOL. 21, NO.
10, OCTOBER 2020
A Dynamic Adaptive Algorithm for Merging Into
Platoons in Connected Automated Environments
Sogand Karbalaieali , Osama A. Osman , and Sherif Ishak
Abstract— The automated merging control is one of the con-
nected and automated vehicle applications that is expected to
improve the operation and safety of freeway merging areas. This
study introduces a dynamic adaptive algorithm for automated
merging control based on a cost function of travel time for
both on-ramp and mainline vehicles. The developed algorithm
is designed to guide on-ramp vehicles to merge efficiently,
without frequent slowdown or wait for merging gaps at the
end of the ramp and with minimal disruption to the mainline
traffic. The algorithm was evaluated under different mainline
traffic demands, ranging from light to heavy conditions, using a
simulation model for a one-mile freeway segment with two lanes
and a single-lane on-ramp. Platooning is implemented in the
simulation based on Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control. The
performance of the algorithm is compared to a base case where
mainline vehicles cooperatively decelerate to help on-ramp vehi-
cles merge. The results show that the proposed algorithm reduced
ramp delays in the range of 38% to 91% for different traffic
conditions, without disrupting mainline operation. Additionally,
travel time reliability index improved in the range of 18% to 48%
under different traffic conditions. According to the simulation
results, the proposed automated merging algorithm is henceforth
considered reliable, with its promising performance.
Index Terms— Connected automated vehicle, automated
merging control, platoons, VISSIM simulation.
I. I NTRODUCTION
T HE freeway system in the United States is facing many
challenges due to the continuously increasing traffic
demand, especially where capacity expansion is not possible.
The Connected and Automated Vehicle (CAV) technology
offers promising solutions to such challenges through auto-
mated control and real-time information dissemination capa-
bility [1], [2]. The added capabilities will increase the freeway
lane capacity as a result of the reduced headway between
automated vehicles.
In CAV environments, platooning represents a viable
solution for capacity problems. The concept of platooning
was introduced by Varaiya [3] as an alternative mode of
operation that will maximize roadway capacity. With the aid
Manuscript received April 2, 2018; revised December 9, 2018 and June 17,
2019; accepted August 28, 2019. Date of publication September 20, 2019;
date of current version October 2, 2020. The Associate Editor for this article
was F. Qu. (Corresponding author: Osama A. Osman.)
S. Karbalaieali is with the Department of Civil and Environmental Engi-
neering, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA (e-mail:
s.karbalaieali@fehrandpeers.com).
O. A. Osman is with the Civil and Chemical Engineering Department,
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga, TN 37403 USA
(e-mail: osama-osman@utc.edu).
S. Ishak is with the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529 USA (e-mail: sishak@odu.edu).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TITS.2019.2938728
1524-9050 © 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA. Downloaded on October 22,2020 at 06:58:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
4111
of applications such as adaptive cruise control, automated
lane sensors, or CAV’s Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control
(CACC), vehicles would be able to travel in the form of
road-trains with short gaps and high speeds [4], [5]. While
this form of operation can provide more flow stability and
increased capacity, it could lead to challenges for maneuvers
that rely on gap availability such as merging or lane changing.
When safe gaps are not available, on-ramp vehicles are forced
to slow down and wait until a proper gaps become available.
Merging becomes even more problematic as the relative speed
between the mainline and on-ramp vehicles increases due to
slowing down. Therefore, when a slow on-ramp vehicle finds
a proper gap and starts to speed up to merge, the platoons
upstream of the ramp could be heavily interrupted. As a
result, shockwaves could form especially when the mainline
vehicles slow down to accommodate the high-speed difference
with the merging vehicle.
This paper develops an algorithm for freeway merging
assistance in CAV environments with platooned traffic based
on minimization of an objective function of travel time through
a merging junction. The proposed algorithm optimizes the pla-
tooning formation and lane changing maneuvers in a dynamic
process to help on-ramp vehicles merge smoothly without
disturbing the mainline traffic.
II. L ITERATURE R EVIEW
Owing to Vehicle to Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle to
Infrastructure (V2I) communications, several applications
including CACC for traffic flow stability, platooning for lane
capacity increase, and Cooperative Merging Assistance (CMA)
for merging negotiation are now possible [6]. Cooperative
merging is defined as a longitudinal and lateral control of
vehicles in a target lane to provide the required gap for a
merging vehicle [7], [8]. CMA aims to improve operation and
safety in merging areas [9].
Past research shows several attempts to develop merg-
ing control algorithms for CMA application. For instance,
Kachroo and Li [10] proposed one of the earliest merging
control systems for automated vehicles. The authors developed
three control assistance algorithms with linear, optimal and
parabolic speed advisory functions to guide merging vehicles
to track the speed of an available gap on the mainline. The
three algorithms were evaluated using simulation, and the
results provided evidence that the parabolic algorithm outper-
formed the other two. Kato et al. [11] studied the feasibility
of cooperative driving using V2V and V2I communications.
4112 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, VOL. 21, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2020
On a test track, the research was conducted using a platoon
of five vehicles with speed range of 24.8 to 37.3 mph.
The intra-platoon gap distances were 66 and 111 feet in a
single-lane and two-lane test tracks, respectively. The study
showed that vehicles in the platoon succeeded in lane chang-
ing, merging, and leaving the platoon. In another study by
Lu et al. [12], an adaptive merging algorithm was proposed
relying on an advisory speed system for the following vehicle
in a two-vehicle platoon to allow for one on-ramp vehicle to
merge smoothly. The experiment was conducted for platoons
in a test track with the range of speeds from 13 through
17 mph. The speed of the merging vehicle was limited to the
same as that of the vehicles in the platoon. The experiment
showed that the proposed algorithm was successful in assisting
the on-ramp vehicle to merge smoothly and safely.
Rathgeber et al. [13] developed a trajectory estimation
approach for Automated Vehicle’s (AV) lane changing and
emergency braking based on non-linear models. They con-
cluded that trajectory planning for the driver assistance system
was necessary to guarantee safety and comfort. Torres and
Malikopoulos [14] presented an analytical closed-form merg-
ing solution for CAVs’ fuel consumption with the assumptions
of one vehicle merging at a time, and the constant speed
in the merging area. Simulations in MATLAB/Simulink were
performed for sets of two and 15 vehicles on the mainline and
the on-ramp with constant speed in the range of 24 to 64 mph.
The solution is tested against a baseline scenario where the
mainline traffic has the right of way in a CAV environment.
When the number of vehicles increases, then the vehicles are
forced to decelerate or fully stop. Ntousakis et al. [4] presented
another method for merging assistance based on longitudinal
trajectory planning for a pair of vehicles at a merging junction.
This study [4] aimed to minimize acceleration and jerk rate
using a discrete time quadratic programming formulation. The
model predictive control assumed that each merging vehicle
knows the final speed and time of arrival to a predetermined
merging point downstream with the constant speed equal to
its final speed. The simulation of six vehicles with predefined
merging sequences and constant speed was performed to eval-
uate the proposed model. While the aforementioned studies
provide useful insight into several algorithms supporting the
merging assistance application of the CAV technology, they
do not account for the variations of traffic conditions in the
evaluation of the algorithms. On the contrary, other studies
account for traffic conditions in designing and testing several
merging assistance algorithms using simulation in connected
vehicle (CV) environments. For instance, a lane changing
advisory algorithm was developed by Park et al. [15] based
on V2V and V2I communications. The proposed algorithm
was tested for different safe gap values (small, medium, and
large) using VISSIM simulation and took into consideration
mixed traffic of connected cars and trucks in a two-lane non-
platooned freeway. The algorithm was tested in a simulation
of 15 minutes with demand values of 2,774 and 613 vehicles
per hour (vph) for the mainline and on-ramp traffic, respec-
tively. The study showed that while the choice of small gap
resulted in marginal improvement in the mainline operational
condition, medium gap improved the average mainline speed
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA. Downloaded on October 22,2020 at 06:58:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
TABLE I
S UMMARY OF P REVIOUS R ESEARCH W ORKS
by 6.4%. When implementing the large safe gap, the average
speed decreased up to 2.2%. While this study suggested that
merging assistance algorithms could be successful in providing
assistance for smooth and safe merging without deteriorating
mainline operation, the sustainability of proposed algorithm
still needs to be tested under heavier traffic conditions.
Marinescu et al. [16] proposed a slot-based merging algo-
rithm using V2I in CAV environments which works based
on lane change advisory messages sent at a frequency of
one second from a roadside unit (RSU) to mainline vehi-
cles in order to map gaps with merging vehicles. In a
VISSIM simulation model, the algorithm was tested in a
3-lane non-platooned freeway with medium to heavy mainline
traffic conditions of 3,600 vph and 4,700 vph, respectively.
The different on-ramp traffic flows of 200 to 2,000 vph
were implemented. The proposed algorithm’s performance
was compared to the VISSIM’s human driver model. The
results showed that the slot-based algorithm outperformed
VISSIM’s model by improving the average travel time of
merging vehicles. This study shows promising potential for
CMA; however, the proposed algorithm was not tested for
platoon traffic. Considering the VISSIM’s human driving
model without any modifications to account for AV tech-
nology appears insufficient. Also, the mainline traffic condi-
tion was not evaluated for the automated merging assistance
application.
The summary shown in III indicates that the literature
addressed different aspects of merging controllers to inves-
tigate the potential improvements in the presence of CAV
technology. Yet, more aspects of CAV merging remain to
be explored. This study aims to overcome a few shortcom-
ings in previous studies by developing a dynamic adaptive
automated merging control algorithm in CAV environments
with two main objectives: (1) assist on-ramp vehicles in
merging smoothly and safely to the mainline platoons under
low to heavy traffic conditions, and (2) maintain the mainline
conditions with fewer disruptions or extended shockwave
formations. In doing so, the proposed algorithm is developed
based on a cost function of travel time to minimize the
travel time at a merging junction. The developed algorithm is
evaluated in a traffic simulation environment with a platooned
two-lane freeway under different traffic conditions.
KARBALAIEALI et al.: DYNAMIC ADAPTIVE ALGORITHM FOR MERGING INTO PLATOONS 4113

III. M ETHODOLOGY
The algorithm is developed to optimize merging maneu-
vers without disturbing the mainline operational and safety
conditions. The developed algorithm relies on a cost function
of the travel time to identify the optimal set of required
actions for a smooth merging process. The automated merg-
ing algorithm in this study is developed considering several
assumptions: fully automated vehicles, one vehicle merging at
a time, and communication range of 1000 feet. One of the
main concerns for applications similar to cooperative merge
is communication latency. As reported in [17], such latency
can extend from milliseconds to seconds which could be
problematic especially for safety applications. One way to
overcome that is integration with cellular networks, especially
with the introduction of 5G technology, latency problem can
be completely overcome. Considering that, our study assumes
zero latency in information communication.
In the flowchart shown in Figure 1, mainline vehicles are
set to not change lanes once they establish communication
via V2I with a central control unit located right upstream
the on-ramp. Then, an approaching on-ramp vehicle searches
for other vehicles in the rightmost lane via V2V commu-
nication. If no communication can be established until the
vehicle reaches the auxiliary lane, the vehicle will proceed to
merge. If communication is established, the on-ramp vehicle’s
onboard unit will start to collect information about all vehicles
within its communication range. This information includes the
size of the approaching platoon(s), the speed and position of
all vehicles, and the available gaps in mainline traffic.
The estimator in Figure 1 calculates the travel times required
for the on-ramp vehicle and the platoon vehicles to reach a
predetermined merging point (M) downstream the auxiliary
lane. This point is selected at a distance of one-third of the
auxiliary lane length, measured from the end of the ramp. If by
the time the on-ramp vehicle reaches point M the required
safe gap is available, the on-ramp vehicle will receive a call
to proceed with merging and the platoon vehicles continue at
the same speed. Otherwise, several options will be evaluated
to identify the alternatives that minimize the travel time in
the merging area. As shown in Figure 1, these alternatives
may include slowing down, speeding up, or changing lanes,
for a part of the platoon or an entire platoon in the mainline
rightmost lane, and slowing down or speeding up for an on-
ramp vehicle. The estimator first checks for the possibility of
each alternative and flags the possible ones for estimation of
travel time. For an alternative to be viable, enough gaps should
be available ahead of and behind the vehicles making an
action, and hence, a collision-free environment is maintained. Fig. 1. Demonstration of dynamic adaptive merging algorithm.
The estimator comparatively evaluates the flagged decisions
using the travel time cost function. Then, the decision with An alternative for the rightmost platoon vehicles is defined
the least travel time cost is consequently identified. Based as Px , an alternative for the on-ramp vehicle is defined as
on a dynamic real-time feedback approach, these decisions O y , and each selected decision is a combination of Px and
are re-evaluated every time step (δt) using the real-time data O y . To implement the algorithm as a real-time controller,
about vehicles’ status in the previous time step (t − δt). the decisions for each vehicle are limited to driving with
In other words, the algorithm adapts the merging maneu- the desired acceleration, speeding up with the maximum
ver to the current condition at each time step to select an acceleration, and slowing down with the desired deceleration.
alternative until the merging vehicle is ready to join the In the following sections, all alternatives and the associated
mainline. costs are discussed in detail.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA. Downloaded on October 22,2020 at 06:58:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
4114 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, VOL. 21, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2020
A. Cost Estimation for On-Ramp Vehicles
The algorithm is activated when communication is initiated
between an on-ramp vehicle and the mainline vehicles at
a time (t). The estimator then extracts information on the
location and speed of the on-ramp vehicle as well as the loca-
tion, speed, platoon size, and available gaps for the mainline
vehicles. Based on this information, all available alternatives
(O j ) for the on-ramp vehicle ( j ) at the next time step (t + δt)
are identified. For each alternative, the associated cost (travel
time) is also estimated.
CAVs transmit status data, such as speed, acceleration,
position, to nearby vehicles through V2V communication [18].
Each vehicle is assumed to have 360 degree awareness. Given
the current position (x tj , y tj ) of the on-ramp vehicle, the net-
work stretch from that location to the merging point (x M , y M )
is divided into smaller segments (ds). Then, the distance d tj
to be traveled by an on-ramp vehicle to the merging point is
estimated using equation 1 [19].
 B  (x M ,y M )  2  2
dj =
t
ds =   d x tj + d y tj (1)
A x tj ,y tj
The algorithm assumes that each on-ramp vehicle desires
to reach a speed equal to the estimated speed v i (t + T je ) of
the mainline vehicle (i ) at a predetermined merging point (M)
at time t + T je , where T je is the estimated arrival time of the
on-ramp vehicle at point (M). The speed v i (t + T je ) is the

target speed, which is assumed to be the speed limit (v ) in this
study. Considering this assumption, several possible alternative
combinations are evaluated for the next time step (t + δt).
In the first alternative (O1 ), during the time T je the on-ramp
vehicle is assumed to accelerate until it reaches the target
speed and then merges. To evaluate the possibility of this alter-
native, T je is estimated. This travel time is broken down into
two components. The first component is T1ej , over which the
vehicle accelerates until it reaches the target speed. The second
component is T2ej , over which the vehicle travels with the
target speed until merging is completed. The first component
T1ej is calculated using equation 2:
v j
T1ej =
a ∗j
where a ∗j is the desired acceleration for vehicle j to gradually
speeding up. The value of a ∗j is determined based on the
vehicle characteristics and its current speed [20], [21] v j is
the difference between the target speed, and the current speed
v j (t) and calculated using equation 3:

v j = v − v j (t)

Intuitively, if v j (t) is equal to v , then T1ej is zero.
The distance d1e j to be traveled by the on-ramp vehicle
during time T je is then calculated by equation 4:
1
d1e j = a j (T1ej )2 + v j (t)T1ej
2 way with its leader [4], [5]. After reaching the desired speed
If d1e j > d tj , then the desired acceleration is not high enough
for the on-ramp vehicle to reach the target speed over the
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA. Downloaded on October 22,2020 at 06:58:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
available distance d j (t), and therefore, the acceleration is
increased by one increment a such that a j () = a ∗j +a and
the distance is d1e j recalculated.
The second component T2ej is calculated using equation 5:
d2e j
T2ej = (5)
v
where the distance d2e j ,traveled in time T2ej , is calculated using
equation 6:
d2e j = d tj − d1e j (6)
The on-ramp travel time T je is then calculated using
equation 7:
T je = T1ej + T2ej (7)
The first alternative may not lead to the best overall travel
time in the merging area. Thus, another alternative (O2 ) of
speeding up with the maximum acceleration (a max ) is consid-
j
ered to reach to the merging point faster. However, to avoid
the sudden acceleration changes in the time estimation, a max
j
is assumed to be 30% of the potential vehicle’s maximum
acceleration. In this alternative, equations (2) and (4) are
modified according to equation 8:
a j = a max
j (8)
These on-ramp decisions are then evaluated against those by
the mainline platoon vehicles as discussed in the next section.
B. Cost Estimation for Platoon Vehicles
For each decision (O y ), the on-ramp vehicle may merge in
one of three conditions: (a) ahead of a platoon in the rightmost
lane, (b) behind the platoon, or (c) the middle of the platoon.
In any of the three conditions, several actions may be required
by the platoon vehicles. Any of these actions must provide
the minimum safe gap for the on-ramp vehicle to merge with
collision-free condition. The vehicle in a platoon may need to
slow down in (a), speed up in (b), or split up in (c) as shown
in the estimator in Figure 1. Breaking up the platoon also
requires vehicles to either slow down or change lanes. The
(2)
choice of any alternative depends on the estimated location of
the vehicles in the platoon relative to the on-ramp vehicle at the
point M. This condition is determined by comparing estimated
travel times of the platoon vehicles and the on-ramp vehicle up
to the point (M). In other words, the estimated on-ramp travel
time (T je ) is compared to the estimated travel times (Tie ) for
each platoon vehicle (i ) that falls within the communication
(3) range of the on-ramp vehicle at time t before arriving to the
merging point.
The estimated travel time for a platoon vehicle is divided
into two components. The first component T1ie is calculated
by considering the current platoon vehicle speed v i (t) and
the current acceleration ai (t), as shown in equation (9). Since
(4) each platoon vehicle is accelerating to attain a specific head-
and headway, the rest of the distance to point M, d2i e , will
be traveled with a constant speed. For this reason, the second
KARBALAIEALI et al.: DYNAMIC ADAPTIVE ALGORITHM FOR MERGING INTO PLATOONS 4115

component T2ie is calculated by considering a constant speed

until the platoon vehicle reaches the point (M).
⎧
⎨ 0, ai (t) = 0
T1ie = v i ∀i ∈ K (9)
⎩ , ai (t) = ‚0
ai (t)
where K is the zone where platoon vehicles (i ) are within
the communication range of the on-ramp vehicle ( j ) at time Fig. 2. Schematic representation of z1 , z1 , z3 , and z4 on the mainline.
t, and v i is the current speed difference between vehicle (i )
and its leader (i −1). The speed difference for the lead platoon upstream and downstream of the merging point, respectively;
vehicle is estimated differently. In the case of i = 1, v i is  
g f and gl are the minimum acceptable gaps ahead and behind
the difference between the lead vehicle’s speed and the speed a vehicle, respectively. In this study, these zones are defined as
limit on the freeway. The speed limit is considered since this upcoming platoon vehicles’ location on the mainline relative
vehicle is assumed to speed up if and only if it is traveling to the on-ramp vehicle while it is about to merge.
below the speed limit. The speed difference is hence calculated Based on the platoon’s location at time t + T je in the zones,
using equation 10: different scenarios are evaluated. In each scenario, different
v i = v f (t) − v i (t) ∀i ∈ K (10) sets of alternatives (Pi ) could be available to the platoon
vehicles at the next time step (t +δt), and the best combination
where v f is the estimated speed that vehicle (i ) is trying to of alternatives are determined based on the minimum cost
reach and is calculated by function of travel time. The notation |z| represents the zone’s
occupancy.
v i−1 (t), i > 1
vf =  (11) Scenario (1): if |z 2 | = ∅& |z3 | = ∅, no decision is required
v, i =1 for the platoons. For the on-ramp vehicle, the alternative (out
Accordingly, the estimated distance d1i e to be traveled by of O1 and O2 ) that leads to this scenario is considered for
each vehicle (i ) in the time (T1i ) is calculated using equa-
e the next time step. If both alternatives are feasible, then O1 is
tion 12: selected.
Scenario (2): if |z 2 | = ∅& |z3 | = ∅, the following alterna-
1
e
d1i = ai (t)(T1ie )2 + v i (t)T1ie ∀i ∈ K (12) tives are evaluated: All vehicles in zones z 2 and z 1 are set to
2 continue traveling in platoons, except for the very first vehicle
The second component of the travel time (T2ie ) is calculated (i = 1) in zone z 2 (upstream). This vehicle will be set to
using equation 13: change lanes to the left in the next time step t + δt provided
e that the condition in equation 17 is satisfied. This alternative
d2i
T2ie = ∀i ∈ K (13) is referred to as (P1 ).
vf
 
e
And the distance d2i is calculated using equation 14: glli=1 ≥ gl and glf i=1 ≥ g f (17)
e
d2i = dit − d1i
e
∀i ∈ K (14) where glli=1 and glf i=1 are the estimated lag and lead gaps,
respectively, in the adjacent lane to assure the collision-
where dit is the current distance that vehicle (i ) has from the free lane change. Therefore, between every two consecutive
merging point (M). vehicles traveling on the same lane or between a prospective
The estimated travel time Tie for each mainline vehicle to leader and a follower on the adjacent lane, the gap should be
point (M) is calculated using equation 15:  
greater than an acceptable gap (gl or g f ).
Tie = T1ie + T2ie ∀i ∈ K (15) If the condition in equation 17 is not satisfied, vehicles
in zones z 2 and z 1 (upstream) may slow down as shown in
Considering T je , the estimated time on-ramp vehicle arrive equation 18. This alternative is referred to as (P2 ).
to the merging point at each time step t, as a reference value,  
the platoon can be divided into four zones as shown in equation v i (t + Tidec ) = v i (t) + ci∗ Tidec ∀i ∈ (z 1 ∪ z 2 ) (18)
16:
⎧  where ci∗ is the desired deceleration for vehicle i in zones
⎪
⎪ z 1 , Tie − T je ≥gl z 2 and z 1 which is determined based on the vehicle char-
⎪
⎨ z , 0 ≤T e − T e < g 
2 l acteristics and its current speed [20], [21]. Moreover, for
vehi cle (i ) ∈ i j
 (16)
⎪
⎪ z , 0 ≤T e
− T e
< g the vehicle not to decelerate aggressively, only 30% of the
⎪
⎩
3 j i

f
vehicle’s maximum deceleration is utilized. Tidec is the time
z 4 , T je − Tie ≥ g f
upstream vehicle (i ) decelerates to create a lag gap which is
In Figure 2, z 1 and z 4 represent the zones along the calculated as the minimum positive root of equation 19.
 
rightmost lane where an acceptable gap (gl org f ) is available 1 ∗  dec 2
to the on-ramp vehicle upstream and downstream of the c T + v i (t) Tidec
merging point, respectively; z 2 and z 3 denote the zones where 2 i i   
an acceptable gap is not available to the on-ramp vehicle +ci∗ Timod + v i (t) Timod − Tidec − dit = 0 (19)

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA. Downloaded on October 22,2020 at 06:58:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
4116 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, VOL. 21, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2020

and where, the second term on the right-hand side of the equation
is the estimated available gap at time t. For alternative P4 , the
Timod = Tie + tl (20) available gap (H ) ahead of the first vehicle (i = 1) in z 4 has
where Timod is the modified travel time that upstream vehicle to be large enough to accommodate the safety of the mainline.
(i ) needs to reach the merging point; and tl is a travel time This is defined by
increase to generate the acceptable safe lead-gap for the on- H ≥ gs + t f (29)
ramp vehicle. The latter is calculated using equation 21:
 If alternative P3 does not provide enough merging gap, a
tl = gl −(T je − Ti=1
e
) (21) combination of alternatives P3 and P4 will be implemented to
where, the second term on the right-hand side of the equation satisfy the condition in equation 30:

is the estimated gap at time t. For alternative P2 , the available glf j < g f (30)
lag gap (Q) behind the last vehicle (i = n) in space (z 1 ) has
to be large enough. This is defined by In other words, vehicle i = n changes lanes, while vehicles
i = 1 : n −1 speed up according to equation (25). This combi-
Q ≥ gs + tl (22) nation could become possible if the condition in equation (29)
is satisfied.
where gs is the minimum safe gap for platooning to maintain
Scenario (4): if |z 2 | = ∅& |z 3 | = ∅, there could be a
collision-free traffic on the mainline.
potential conflict downstream and upstream the merging point
If alternative P1 does not provide a large enough gap,
at the time (t + t M ) when the on-ramp vehicles are about
as described in equation 23, a combination of alternatives P1
to join the mainline. In this case, four alternatives that are
and P2 will be implemented.
considered by combinations of Scenario (2) and Scenario (3).

l
gl j < gl (23) These alternatives (Px=5:8 ) are:
⎧ ⎧
In other words, vehicle i = 1 would change lanes, while ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎨ P3
⎪
⎪
vehicles i = 2 : N in a platoon would slow down according ⎪
⎪ P1 + or
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎩
to equation 18. Again, this combination is possible if the ⎪
⎪ P4
⎨
condition in equation 22 is satisfied. Px=5:8 = or (31)
Scenario (3): if |z 2 | = ∅& |z 3 | = ∅, the following ⎪
⎪ ⎧
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎨ P3
alternatives are evaluated. All vehicles in zones z 3 and z 4 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
(downstream) may continue traveling in platoons, except for ⎪
⎪ P2 or
⎩ ⎪ ⎩
the very last vehicle (i = n) in zone z 4 . This vehicle would P4
change lanes to the left if the condition in equation 24 is where P5 is both immediate downstream (z 2 ) and upstream
satisfied. This alternative is referred to as (P3 ). (z 3 ) vehicles on the mainline change lanes to the left. P6
 
glli=n ≥ gl and glf i=n ≥ g f (24) is the upstream vehicle changes lanes while the downstream
vehicle speeds up as shown in Figure 3(c). P7 is the upstream
If the condition in equation 24 is not satisfied, vehicles in vehicle slows down and the downstream vehicle changes lanes
zones z 3 and z 4 would speed up as shown in equation (25). in Figure 3(d). Finally, P8 is the upstream vehicle slows
This alternative is referred to as (P4 ). down while the downstream vehicle speeds up as shown
 
v i (t + Tiacc ) = v i (t)+ai∗ Tiacc ∀i ∈ (z 3 ∪ z 4 ) (25)
where Tiacc is the time downstream vehicles accelerate until
the required merging gap is available. This acceleration time
is calculated as the minimum positive root of equation (26).
in Figure 3(e).
In all scenarios, the possible alternatives are evaluated based
on the resulting estimated travel times in the merging area.
In other words, the cost associated with a combination of
alternatives assigned concurrently for an on-ramp vehicle and
the platoon vehicles is estimated. The cost Ci j for each set of
1 ∗  acc 2
a T + v i (t) Tiacc + concurrent alternatives (Oy and Px ) is calculated as the travel
2 i i    time for the merging on-ramp vehicle ( j ) added to the travel
ai∗ Timod + v i (t) Timod − Tiacc − di (t)= 0 (26) time for all the affected platoon vehicles (i ) by alternative Pi .
This is represented in equation 32:
and

N
Timod = Tie − t f (27) Ci j |O yi &Pxi = T je + Tie (32)
i=1

where Timodis the modified travel time downstream vehicles where T je is the estimated on-ramp vehicle travel time associ-
need to reach the merging point, and t f is the amount ated with alternative O y and Tie is the estimated travel time for
of time reduction required to generate the safe lead-gap for platoon vehicle (i ) associated with alternative Px . In FIGURE
the on-ramp vehicle to merge. The latter is calculated using 4 a tree of alternative decisions is illustrated.
equation 28: The combination of alternatives that leads to the minimum

travel time (Ci j ) is selected as the optimal decision at each
t f = g f −(T je − Ti=n
e
) (28) time step. This optimal decision is sent from the controller

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA. Downloaded on October 22,2020 at 06:58:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
KARBALAIEALI et al.: DYNAMIC ADAPTIVE ALGORITHM FOR MERGING INTO PLATOONS 4117

Fig. 5. Simulation network layout.

For the vehicle to be able to speed up smoothly, it is necessary

for the vehicle not to decelerate aggressively so a moderate
deceleration rate should be considered similar to the boundary
condition described for P2 .

IV. N UMERICAL A NALYSIS

To evaluate the performance of the algorithm, traffic
microsimulation is considered in this research. The developed
automated merging algorithm shown in Figure 1 has several
parts. In the previous section, the estimator, cost function and
decisions were explained. The last part of the algorithm is
the controller which is responsible for sending instructions
to vehicles in the CAV network. In the microsimulation,
the instructions include the speed value v (t + δt) in next time
step (t + δt) determined by equation 33:

Fig. 3. Merging maneuver with different alternatives. a ∗ T1i,
e
j + v(t), T1i, j < δt
e
v (t + δt) = e (33)
a ∗ δt + v(t), T1i, j ≥ δt

where a is acceleration or deceleration depending on the

selected alternative. The time step δt is 2 seconds. With
a smaller time step, the acceleration/deceleration rate can
become high which is not desired. Moreover, in the simulation,
lane change requests for mainline vehicles can be made for
selected alternatives.
On the mainline, platooning is considered the main mode of
operation for traffic. While platooning increases the highway
capacity, it also affects the distribution of merging gaps, mak-
ing it more challenging especially with higher traffic volumes.
In this paper, the platoon car following on the mainline is
Fig. 4. Decision tree in dynamic adaptive automated merging algorithm.
based on Bart van Arem’s model [22] that accounts for the
CACC as expressed by equations 33 and 34.
to all affected vehicles in the communication range of the

on-ramp vehicle. Based on the disseminated instructions, all
vehicles will respond at the next time step (t + δt). Because
that decision is based on estimated travel times that could have
been over- or under-estimated in some cases, the available
alternatives are re-evaluated each time step to guarantee that
the optimal decision is made by the time the on-ramp vehicle
is merging. The controller terminates re-evaluation, when a
merging vehicle departures the auxiliary lane since there is no
merging request.
If none of the alternatives are feasible at time step t, the on-
ramp vehicle is ordered to make a third alternative (P3 ). In this
alternative, the on-ramp vehicle slows down for one-time step
(t + δt). Then, in the following time step (t + 2δt), the sit-
uation is re-evaluated to determine whether this deceleration
is to be continued or if the vehicle can begin to speed up.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA. Downloaded on October 22,2020 at 06:58:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
aca = al + kv vl − v f + kd (dc − v c tg ) (34)
acacc = max[amin , mi n(aca , amax )] (35)
where aca is the control acceleration for a new vehicle to join
a platoon, al is the lead vehicle acceleration,kv is a speed gain
factor, vl is the lead vehicle speed, v f is the lag vehicle speed,
kd is a distance gain factor, dc is the current distance between
the lead and the new vehicle, v c is the current speed of the
new vehicle, tg is the time gap ahead of the new vehicle, amin
is the minimum acceleration, amax is maximum acceleration,
and acacc is the new vehicle acceleration in the next time step.
According to a previous study on CACC [5], the recommended
kv and kd are 0.85 and 0.1, respectively.
Figure 5 shows the geometric characteristics of the one-mile
freeway merging area used in the VISSIM simulation model.
4118 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, VOL. 21, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2020
Fig. 6. Simulation in VISSIM using COM programming in MATLAB.
TABLE II
S IMULATION PARAMETERS AND B OUNDARY C ONDITIONS
The algorithm, vehicle type, and simulation parameters are
coded in VISSIM using Component Object Model (COM)
programming in MATLAB as shown in FIGURE 6. More
specifically, the driving behavior is controlled through an
external behavior dynamic-link library (DLL). This DLL is
compiled to form platooning based on a modified C++
code from the Open Source Application Development Por-
tal (OSADP). Vehicles inside a platoon can accelerate and
decelerate to keep a desired headway and speed according to
TABLE 2. Vehicles also perform a lane change command via
DLL.
TABLE 2 shows the boundary conditions and parameters
used in the simulated model. According to Baskar et al. [23],
the vehicle’s speed in platoons is reported from 40 to 74 mph.
Thus, the desired speed value of 60 mph and speeding up with
a maximum speed of 65 mph is assumed. According to the lit-
erature [5], [24], [25], the intra-platoon and inter-platoon time
gaps are set to 0.6 and 1.3 seconds, respectively. To comply
with the main assumption of one on-ramp vehicle arriving at
a time, the on-ramp demand of 360 vph is considered, which
is equivalent to one vehicle arriving every 14 seconds. Hence,
the controller helps one merging at a time.
The V2V communication is also coded in COM with a
transmission range of 1,000 feet at a frequency of 0.1 seconds.
The process of identification of the alternative decisions with
the minimum travel time in the algorithm was set to be updated
every 2 seconds until an on-ramp vehicle joins the mainline.
The performance of the proposed dynamic adaptive merging
algorithm was compared to the Cooperative Deceleration (CD)
behavior. In this simulation if an on-ramp vehicle does not find
a safe gap available, then it slows down to delay the arrival
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA. Downloaded on October 22,2020 at 06:58:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 7. Mainline demand vs throughput without merging control.
to the mainline. Then, the CD is initiated when the on-ramp
vehicle reaches half the auxiliary lane length, the mainline
platoons cooperatively decelerate to accommodate the merging
vehicle. It should be noted that the VISSIM driving behavior
model, which only considers the right of way for the mainline
vehicles, is not used for comparison because it would lead to
prolonged delays for the vehicles on the auxiliary lane. This
situation also could not be realistic in a CAV environment.
Several traffic demands of light (2,000), moderate
(3,000 and 3,500), and heavy (4,000) vehicles per hour per
lane (vphpl) are considered in this study. These demand values
are assumed based on the lane capacity in the existence of
platoons according to the study by Carbaugh et al. [26]. This
capacity is calculated using equation 35:
v∗N
C = 3600 (36)
L ∗ N + i ∗ (N − 1) + I
where C is the lane capacity, v is the platoon speed, N is the
platoon size, L is the vehicle length,i is the intra-platoon space
gap, and I is the inter-platoon space gap. Given the assumed
parameters in this study as shown in V, the lane capacity can
go up to 4,000 vphpl.
Several performance measures are used for the evaluation
including travel time, travel time reliability, and delay for both
the on-ramp and mainline traffic. The travel time reliability is
calculated by
σT
IT = ∗ 100 (37)
μT
where IT is the travel time reliability, σT is the standard
deviation of travel time, and μT is average travel time [27],
[28].A low travel time reliability interprets as more reliable
while individual travel time is closer to an average value, and
vice versa for a high travel time reliability.
V. R ESULTS
The mainline traffic conditions are explored first to under-
stand the corridor operation with each traffic demand. Then,
KARBALAIEALI et al.: DYNAMIC ADAPTIVE ALGORITHM FOR MERGING INTO PLATOONS
Fig. 8. Ramp travel time with dynamic adaptive merging (DA) and CD.
Fig. 9. Ramp delay with dynamic adaptive merging (DA) and CD.
the throughput values in vphpl are collected on the mainline
upstream of the ramp. The higher value of throughput is
desired with platooning. As shown in Figure 7, the throughput
and the demand are almost the same until the demand reaches
capacity (4,000 vphpl) where the throughput starts to drop
slightly.
In addition, Figure 7 shows that demand values more than
3,500 vphpl cannot be totally accommodated where gaps’
length is considerably reduced and their availability signif-
icantly affected. This gap reduction indicates that merging
maneuvers would become more difficult to perform at higher
traffic demands. In other words, on-ramp vehicles may expe-
rience a prolonged delay until they find the proper merging
gap. To avoid this delay, a proactive cooperation between the
mainline and the on-ramp vehicles is required to accommodate
merging.
The main performance measures in this study are the
average travel time and average delay for both the on-ramp
and the mainline during the simulation period. Figure 8 and
Figure 9 illustrate the on-ramp operational performance. In the
figures, a log transformation is assigned to y-axis due to the
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA. Downloaded on October 22,2020 at 06:58:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
4119
Fig. 10. Mainline travel time with dynamic adaptive merging and CD.
large variations. The figures indicate that both the merging
models have comparable travel time and delay values at lower
traffic demands (≤3,000 vphpl). This comparable performance
is expected since gaps are widely available along the corridor
with platooning. Similarly, at a demand value of 3,500 vphpl,
on-ramp vehicles were still merging smoothly with low delay
and reasonable travel time with both models. This demand
value is identified as a marginal point at which gap availabil-
ities on the mainline start to decrease. For this reason, both
approaches are sufficiently able to provide the required safe
merging gaps for the on-ramp vehicles.
As traffic demand reaches capacity, the CD can no longer
help on-ramp vehicles merge without prolonged delays, as evi-
denced by the high travel time and delay of 58.94 and
42.6 seconds, respectively. On the other hand, the dynamic
adaptive merging significantly outperforms CD in facilitating
on-ramp vehicle merging by successfully maintaining the
operational performance similar to that of the lower demand.
At this demand, gap availability on the mainline becomes
an extensive problem that on-ramp vehicles are forced to
wait a long time before merging. Therefore, vehicles are
required to proactively cooperate to provide the required
merging gaps. This allows the on-ramp vehicles to merge
smoothly without prolonged waits, which is the case in the
dynamic adaptive automated merging. This performance is
demonstrated by the low average on-ramp travel time and
delay of 21.99 and 3.63 seconds, respectively. While CD
fails to help on-ramp vehicles merge, the dynamic adaptive
merging algorithm exhibits a steady promising performance in
providing safe gaps to on-ramp vehicles by the time they arrive
at the merging point. Moreover, DA maintained the onramp
speed in the range of 21 to 26 m/s, while the CD dropped the
onramp speed by 63% to 7.76 m/s.
In addition to improving the average travel time and delay
for the on-ramp vehicles, implementing the dynamic adap-
tive merging algorithm significantly improves the travel time
reliability. As shown in VI, the reliability index for proposed
algorithm is significantly less than CD’s across all demand
values.
4120 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, VOL. 21, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2020
TABLE III
R AMP T RAVEL T IME R ELIABILITY I NDEX ITT
The mainline actions in the merging controllers have a
direct impact on the mainline traffic operation. Therefore,
the mainline traffic should be investigated for both merging
models. According to Figure 10, at lower traffic demands of
2,000 and 3,000 vphpl, the average mainline travel time is
around 30 seconds for both dynamic adaptive merging and
CD. This confirms that at the lower demands large gaps are
widely available along the mainline such that platoon vehicles
are able to slow down, speed up, or change lanes with the
dynamic adaptive merging algorithm, or only slow down with
CD without disturbing the mainline traffic.
As demand approaches capacity (3500 vphpl), gap avail-
ability starts to become scarce. Although the CD is able
to help on-ramp vehicles merge without experiencing severe
delays (4.78 seconds in Figure 7), the lack of gaps results
in fast spreading shockwave formations on the mainline.
In addition, when more vehicles travel in platoons with
short headways, a slow-down action to accommodate merging
vehicles could propagate backward. The outcome could be
a significant delay to upstream vehicles and eventually to the
entire corridor due to the extreme slow-downs on the mainline
traffic. The high average mainline travel time of 231.9 seconds
in Figure 10 supports this outcome.
On the other hand, implementation of the dynamic adap-
tive merging algorithm maintains a low travel time value
of 30.36 seconds on the mainline. The DA well-maintained
the mainline speed in range of 25.14 to 26.7 m/, where the CD
reduced the speed for higher demands heavily to 3.25 m/s. This
promising performance is the result of dynamically evaluating
the alternatives and proposing actions in an adaptive way. This
approach leads to the re-distribution of gaps along the corridor
which, in turn, provides the required gaps for on-ramp vehicles
to efficiently merge without disrupting the mainline condition.
As the mainline demand goes beyond 3,500 vphpl, the CD
performance drops. The cooperative slowing down actions
result in more severe shockwave formations, which are sup-
ported by the mainline travel time of more than 230 seconds as
the demand increases from 3,500 to 4,000 vphpl (Figure 10).
In contrast, the dynamic adaptive algorithm continues to
maintain a stable performance by proactively rearranging the
available gaps on the mainline, and hence leads to a low
mainline travel time of around 31 seconds for traffic demands
higher than 3,500 vphpl.
In the simulation, no concurrent congestion is considered on
downstream of the ramp because platoons mainly improve the
capacity with no lane expansion in highways. Hence, the main-
line vehicles pass the merging area smoothly with the free
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA. Downloaded on October 22,2020 at 06:58:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 11. Trajectories of merging vehicles and the mainline vehicles with
dynamic adaptive merging algorithm.
flow speed. In addition, the on-ramp vehicles do not wait
a long time on the auxiliary lane with the help of dynamic
adaptive merging algorithm. Moreover, Figure 11, an excerpt
of trajectories in the merging junction, illustrates that the
merging maneuvers happen smoothly in between the platoons
(grey lines). While the suggested slowdown and speedup
actions could imply that sudden acceleration change may exist,
a thorough review of vehicle trajectories proves otherwise.
The reason is that an approaching on-ramp vehicle has a
reasonably high speed; thus, changing the acceleration to
a higher desired value can help the on-ramp vehicle reach
the target merging speed smoothly. Moreover, the range of
acceleration and deceleration values are bounded to moderate
values rather than the maximum values in order to limit the
sudden changes over a small time step.
Overall, the findings of this study indicate that CAV tech-
nology has the potential to revolutionize transportation system
management and operation, yet there remain uncertainties
about how they will be employed on the roads. The results
indicate that this algorithm successfully controls the merging
area for the modeled network. However, further study needs
to be considered for designing a real-world application. The
merging of more than one vehicle at a time, more realistic
lateral control of vehicles, the latency in the communication,
the fuel consumption and the passenger comfort will be
addressed in future research.
VI. C ONCLUSION
This paper introduces an algorithm for automated merging
control via connected automated vehicle (CAV) technology.
The dynamic adaptive algorithm is developed to help on-ramp
vehicles merge smoothly into mainline platoons under dif-
ferent traffic conditions. The proposed algorithm accounts
for dynamic evaluation of the alternatives and execution of
the merging maneuver in an adaptive way such that safe
gaps become available for merging smoothly with less than
4 seconds average delay. The developed algorithm also opti-
mizes the actions made by the mainline and on-ramp vehicles
with no severe disruption to the mainline traffic conditions.
The algorithm is evaluated using a simulation model for
a one-mile two-lane freeway merging area with a one-lane
KARBALAIEALI et al.: DYNAMIC ADAPTIVE ALGORITHM FOR MERGING INTO PLATOONS
on-ramp followed by an auxiliary lane. The performance of
dynamic adaptive merging is compared with the cooperative
deceleration (CD) actions. Different mainline traffic conditions
are ranging from low (2,000 vphpl) to heavy (4,000 vphpl)
demand.
The simulation results show that both merging approaches
have comparable performance at lower traffic demands
(<3,500 vphpl). However, the performance of the dynamic
adaptive merging algorithm is significantly superior to that
of CD at heavier traffic conditions. At lower traffic demands,
more acceptable gaps for merging synchronize with the arrival
of on-ramp vehicles to the auxiliary lane. When safe gaps
are not available on arrival of on-ramp vehicles, slowdown
actions by the mainline vehicles in CD can adequately help
on-ramp vehicles merge after experiencing minor delays (less
than 5 seconds). More importantly, merging at lower demands
does not impose significant delays to the mainline traffic, with
either approach which is evident from their average mainline
travel time being consistently around 30 seconds.
At heavier traffic demands with significantly less safe gap
availability, slow down actions by the mainline vehicles in
CD lead to severe shockwave formations that extend farther
upstream on the mainline. Additionally, by the time merging
gaps become available, the on-ramp vehicles have already
suffered extreme delays. To avoid this situation, the vehicles
should adapt to the traffic conditions through dynamic adaptive
merging. As a result, a stable operational performance for
both mainline and on-ramp vehicles was well-maintained at
all demands. Overall, the results of this study prove that the
developed algorithm is a promising tool for the merging assis-
tance application of CAV technology. It is important however
to mention that the model considered only one vehicle merging
at a time with a set of pre-identified merging alternatives. Thus,
future work will consider (a) adding platoon merging, and (b)
solving merging as a continuous problem rather than discrete
with pre-identified merging alternatives.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Sameer AbuAsal
for his IT advice, Bita Hashemi for her assistance with the pro-
gramming, and Mathew Theriot for his technical editing. This
research did not receive any specific grant from funding agen-
cies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit organizations.
R EFERENCES
[1] Y. Feng, K. L. Head, S. Khoshmagham, and M. Zamanipour,
“A real-time adaptive signal control in a connected vehicle environment,”
Transp. Res. C, Emerg. Technol., vol. 55, pp. 460–473, Jun. 2015.
[2] C. Roncoli, M. Papageorgiou, and I. Papamichail, “Traffic flow optimi-
sation in presence of vehicle automation and communication systems—
Part II: Optimal control for multi-lane motorways,” Transp. Res. C,
Emerg. Technol., vol. 57, pp. 260–275, Aug. 2015.
[3] P. Varaiya, “Smart cars on smart roads: Problems of control,” IEEE
Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 195–207, Feb. 1993.
[4] I. A. Ntousakis, I. K. Nikolos, and M. Papageorgiou, “Optimal vehicle
trajectory planning in the context of cooperative merging on highways,”
Transp. Res. C, Emerg. Technol., vol. 71, pp. 464–488, Oct. 2016.
[5] L. Zhao and J. Sun, “Simulation framework for vehicle platooning
and car-following behaviors under connected-vehicle environment,”
Procedia-Social Behav. Sci., vol. 96, pp. 914–924, Nov. 2013.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA. Downloaded on October 22,2020 at 06:58:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
4121
[6] S. E. Shladover, “Connected and automated vehicle systems: Introduc-
tion and overview,” J. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 190–200,
2018.
[7] R. Popescu-Zeletin, I. Radusch, and M. A. Rigani, Vehicular-2-X Com-
munication: State-of-the-Art and Research in Mobile Vehicular Ad hoc
Networks. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2010.
[8] C. Tampère, J. H. Hogema, R. T. Van Katwijk, and B. Van Arem,
“Exploration of the impact of intelligent speed adaptation and co-
operative following and merging on highways using MIXIC,” KU
Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, Tech. Rep., 1999.
[9] C. Diakaki, M. Papageorgiou, I. Papamichail, and I. Nikolos, “Overview
and analysis of vehicle automation and communication systems from
a motorway traffic management perspective,” Transp. Res. A, Policy
Pract., vol. 75, pp. 147–165, May 2015.
[10] P. Kachroo and Z. Li, “Vehicle merging control design for an automated
highway system,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Intell. Transp. Syst. (ITSC),
Nov. 1997, pp. 224–229.
[11] S. Kato, S. Tsugawa, K. Tokuda, T. Matsui, and H. Fujii, “Vehicle
control algorithms for cooperative driving with automated vehicles and
intervehicle communications,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 3,
no. 3, pp. 155–161, Sep. 2002.
[12] X.-Y. Lu, H.-S. Tan, S. E. Shladover, and J. K. Hedrick, “Automated
vehicle merging maneuver implementation for AHS,” Vehicle Syst. Dyn.,
vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 85–107, 2004.
[13] C. Rathgeber, F. Winkler, X. Kang, and S. Müller, “Optimal trajec-
tories for highly automated driving,” World Acad. Sci., Eng. Technol.
Int. J. Mech., Aerosp., Ind., Mechatronic Manuf. Eng., vol. 9, no. 6,
pp. 969–975, 2015.
[14] J. Rios-Torres and A. A. Malikopoulos, “Automated and cooperative
vehicle merging at highway on-ramps,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst.,
vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 780–789, Apr. 2017.
[15] H. Park, C. S. Bhamidipati, and B. L. Smith, “Development and evalu-
ation of enhanced intellidrive-enabled lane changing advisory algorithm
to address freeway merge conflict,” Transp. Res. Rec., J. Transp. Res.
Board, vol. 2243, no. 1, pp. 146–157, 2011.
[16] D. Marinescu, J. Čurn, M. Bouroche, and V. Cahill, “On-ramp traffic
merging using cooperative intelligent vehicles: A slot-based approach,”
in Proc. 15th IEEE Conf. Intell. Transp. Syst. (ITSC), Sep. 2012,
pp. 900–906.
[17] D. Jia, K. Lu, J. Wang, X. Zhang, and X. Shen, “A survey on platoon-
based vehicular cyber-physical systems,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts.,
vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 263–284, 1st Quart., 2016.
[18] N. J. Goodall, B. L. Smith, and B. Park, “Microscopic estimation of
freeway vehicle positions from the behavior of connected vehicles,”
J. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 45–54, 2016.
[19] D. Tian et al., “A dynamic travel time estimation model based on
connected vehicles,” Math. Problems Eng., vol. 2015, Apr. 2015,
Art. no. 903962.
[20] A. Mehar, S. Chandra, and S. Velmurugan, “Speed and acceleration
characteristics of different types of vehicles on multi-lane highways,”
Eur. Transp., vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 1–2, 2013.
[21] P. S. Bokare and A. K. Maurya, “Acceleration-deceleration behaviour of
various vehicle types,” Transp. Res. Procedia, vol. 25, pp. 4733–4749,
Jun. 2017.
[22] B. van Arem, A. P. de Vos, and M. Vanderschuren, “The microscopic
traffic simulation model MIXIC 1.3,” TNO Inro, Dept. Traffic Transp.,
Delft, The Netherlands, TNO-Rep. INRO-VVG 1997-02b, 1997.
[23] L. D. Baskar, B. De Schutter, and H. Hellendoorn, “Traffic management
for automated highway systems using model-based predictive control,”
IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 838–847, Jun. 2012.
[24] S. E. Shladover, D. Su, and X.-Y. Lu, “Impacts of cooperative adaptive
cruise control on freeway traffic flow,” Transp. Res. Rec., J. Transp. Res.
Board, vol. 2324, no. 1, pp. 63–70, 2012.
[25] M. Amoozadeh, H. Deng, C.-N. Chuah, H. M. Zhang, and D. Ghosal,
“Platoon management with cooperative adaptive cruise control enabled
by VANET,” Veh. Commun., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 110–123, 2015.
[26] J. Carbaugh, D. N. Godbole, and R. Sengupta, “Safety and capacity
analysis of automated and manual highway systems,” Transp. Res. C,
Emerg. Technol., vol. 6, nos. 1–2, pp. 69–99, 1998.
[27] M. Martchouk and F. Mannering, “Analysis of travel time reliabil-
ity on Indiana interstates,” NEXTRANS Center, Purdue Univ., West
Lafayette, IN, USA, Tech. Rep. NEXTRANS Project No 014PY01,
2009.
[28] D. Fha, “Travel time reliability: Making it there on time, all
the time,” U.S. Dept. Transp., Federal Highway Admin., Wash-
ington, DC, USA, Tech. Rep., 2010. [Online]. Available: https://
ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/tt_reliability/TTR_Report.htm
4122 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, VOL. 21, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2020
Sogand Karbalaieali received the B.S. and M.S.
degrees in civil engineering in Iran in 2008 and
2011, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in trans-
portation engineering.
She joined Louisiana State University Graduate
School in 2014. She is currently an Engineer with
Fehr & Peers DC, Washington, DC, USA. Her
research interests include the application of con-
nected automated vehicle technology in transporta-
tion, traffic flow modeling, traffic microsimulation,
traffic safety data explanatory analysis, and intelli-
gent transportation systems. She is a member of the Institute of Transportation
Engineers. She was a recipient of the National Operation Center of Excellence
Award in 2017, the Gulf Region ITS Award in 2017, and Lifesavers National
Conference on Highway Safety Priorities Scholarship in 2018.
Osama A. Osman received the Ph.D. degree.
He is an Assistant Professor in intelligent trans-
portation systems and data analytics with the Depart-
ment of Civil and Chemical Engineering, UTC. Prior
to joining UTC, he was a Research Associate with
the Center for Sustainable Mobility, Virginia Tech
Transportation Institute. From 2016 to 2018, he was
also a Research Associate of civil and environmental
engineering with Louisiana State University. He has
extensive research experience in several transporta-
tion research areas including traffic modeling and
simulation, traffic safety and human factors research, traffic operations,
intelligent transportation systems, connected/automated vehicles, and the
applications of artificial intelligence in transportation. He has served as the
PI or Co-PI of several research projects supported by the USDOT-UTC
Program and Louisiana DOTD in the areas of active traffic management,
modeling and experimental testing of connected/automated vehicle technol-
ogy, and advanced data analytics using machine learning and deep learning
techniques. He has over 45 publications in peer-reviewed journals, national
and international conference proceedings, technical reports, and a book
chapter. He is also the Committee Research Coordinator of TRB-ABJ70. He is
a member of the Committee for Shared and Digital Mobility of the Society
of Automotive Engineers (SAE). He serves as the Chair for the Commu-
nications Subcommittee, TRB Standing Committee on Artificial Intelligence
and Advanced Computing Applications (TRB-ABJ70). He is also an active
reviewer of several journals including the Journal of Intelligent Transportation
Systems, the IEEE T RANSACTIONS OF I NTELLIGENT T RANSPORTATION
S YSTEMS , the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON I NTELLIGENT V EHICLES , the Jour-
nal of Accident Analysis and Prevention, the Journal of Safety Science,
the Journal of the Transportation Research Record, the Canadian Journal
of Civil Engineering, the Journal of Transportation Research-Part C, and the
Journal of Transportation Engineering: Part A.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA. Downloaded on October 22,2020 at 06:58:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Sherif Ishak received the Ph.D. degree.
He is a Professor and the Department Chair of the
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Old Dominion
University. Prior to joining ODU, he was a Professor
of civil engineering with Louisiana State University
(LSU), and a Professor and the Department Chair
of The University of Alabama, Huntsville. He has
over 25 years of experience in the field of trans-
portation engineering with emphasis on intelligent
transportation systems, traffic operation and control,
traffic flow modeling and simulation, traffic safety,
human factors and driving behavior, artificial intelligence and advanced
computing applications in transportation, and the new emerging area of
connected and automated vehicles. Since 2015, he has been serving as
the Chair of the Transportation Research Board Standing Committee on
Artificial Intelligence and Advanced Computing Applications (ABJ70), which
promotes and advances interdisciplinary research at the intersection of the
fields of transportation engineering and computer science and information
technology. He is also a member of the five-year National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) panel for maintaining and executing
a research agenda for connected and automated vehicles (CAV) roadmap.
He was the Civil Engineering Program Director of the master’s degree
students at LSU and the Associate Dean of Academic Programs and the
Director of the Interdisciplinary Graduate Engineering Science Program. His
extensive service record includes serving on the Faculty Senate, the Discover
Advisory Board for the master’s degree research, the Communication Across
the Curriculum Advisory Council, the College Academic Matters Committee,
the College Policy Committee, and other university, college, and departmental
committees. He is also an Associate Editor of the Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering.