10 1142@S0217984919500738

Modern Physics Letters B
1950073 (12 pages)

c World Scientific Publishing Company
DOI: 10.1142/S0217984919500738
by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND on 02/14/19. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
Modeling the kinetic energy dissipation of road system considering

actual weather conditions
Lei Huang, De-Yong Guan∗ and Xin-Hong Qiang

College of Transportation, Shandong University of Science and Technology,
Mod. Phys. Lett. B Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
No. 579, Qianwangang Road, Qingdao 266590, China

∗ deyongguan@126.com
Received 1 November 2018

Revised 14 December 2018
Accepted 26 December 2018
Published 30 January 2019
Traffic flow dynamics and energy consumption differs under dissimilar weather condi-
tions, while seldom investigations have been conducted with a cellular automata model.
In this paper, the friction coefficient between ground and tire is considered as the quanti-
tative label of weather, a dynamic safe gap based on friction coefficient to avoid rear-end
crash is introduced. We developed a safer one-dimensional model to examine the kinetic
energy consumption under different weathers. Numerical results show that previous mod-
els overestimated the kinetic energy consumption in medium density flow (density < 0.5).
In medium flow, speed limit will not reduce energy consumption on rainy and snowy
days in most cases, but is necessary for prevention of accidents. Inversely, the effect of
speed control on energy consumption is obvious under extreme weather. Our work can
promote a better understanding of traffic dynamics, reduce energy dissipation and be
applied to real traffic management.
Keywords: Cellular automaton; traffic flow dynamics; energy dissipation; safety gap.
1. Introduction
A better understanding of complex traffic problems can provide workable schemes
to alleviate the situation we are facing, such as car crashes frequently occurring,
energy deficiency and air pollution. Models based on statistics, kinematics, car-
following models and cellular automata (CA for short) models in Refs. 1–6 have
already gained considerable achievements. CA models can reproduce many complex
real traffic phenomena, including traffic jams, stop-to-go, queuing in a signalized
intersection, and so on.
∗ Corresponding author.
1950073-1
L. Huang, D.-Y. Guan & X.-H. Qiang
In this study, we proposed a safer one-dimensional CA model and focused on the

kinetic energy consumption in a road system. NaSch model1 is a pioneer of many
CA models. Li et al.2 improved the NaSch model by introducing the virtual speed of
leading vehicle. Xue et al.3 developed a noise first (NF for short) model to improve
the capacity and made it. In Ref. 4, the anticipant speed of leading vehicle and a
fixed safety gap were taken into consideration, microscopic features of traffic flow are
more precisely described. Later, CA models were widely used for modeling actual
traffic problems. Recently, Qian et al.5 established a mixed traffic flow CA model
within a signalized intersection, driving characteristics and other parameters were
taken into consideration, the evolution and propagation characteristics of gathering
dissipating of the traffic wave was reproduced. Malecki performed a simulation
about on-street parking problem with CA model based on field research data.6 Jin
et al.7 used the empirical data to calibrate and validate the parameters of CA model.
CA model is also capable of modeling synchronized flow of three-phase theory,8 such
as KKW model9 and modified KKW model.10 Their models work very well, while
there is no consideration of actual road conditions.
Energy dissipation of traffic flow was investigated in a car-following model for
the first time in Ref. 11, further researches on this problem were based on dif-
ferent car-following models.12–14 Zhang et al.15 proposed a similar definition of
kinetic energy loss as in Refs. 13 and 14, they identified the energy loss in both
deterministic (no random perturbation in traffic flow) and non-deterministic con-
dition in NaSch model. Tian et al.16 studied the kinetic energy dissipation in
mixed traffic flow (vehicles with different length and different maximum speed).
Wen et al.17 investigated the energy loss in other CA models. In recent years,
researches mainly focus on the energy loss in complex road sections and bot-
tlenecks.18–20 Their contributions are of great inspiration to understanding the
energy consumption in road systems. Nevertheless, few studies on energy loss
consider safe driving and weather conditions. Our work will enrich the research
on the energy dissipation of road system, and facilitate further understanding of
traffic flow.
The outline of our study can be summarized as three points: (1) considers the
friction coefficient of different pavement as a label of different weathers; (2) intro-
duces the safety gap between leading vehicle and the follower, proposing a safer
one-dimensional CA model; (3) simulations are carried out and kinetic energy loss
under different conditions are discussed in detail.
This paper is organized as follows. The following part is devoted to the
derivation of dynamic safety gap and the description of our safer CA model,
the definition of kinetic energy loss is given. Then, series of simulation scenar-
ios and experimental studies are discussed. Finally, the paper concludes with a
summary.
1950073-2
Modeling the kinetic energy dissipation of road system
Fig. 1. Illustration of a car-following situation.
2. Proposed Models
2.1. Dynamic safety gap in case of rear-end collision

Take a situation where the following vehicle (FV for short) follows the leading
vehicle (LV for short) on a lane; if the temporal interval between them too short,
there will be a rear-end collision when there is a sudden brake by LV and even
though FV responds immediately. For safety, a minimum gap between two vehicles
is required in a car-following situation. Safety gap is a distance that must be kept
between two nearest vehicles on the same lane, it depends on the braking capacity
of both vehicles and reaction time of FV driver. An illustration of the situation is
shown in Fig. 1, according to this description, an equation is obtained, i.e.
vn2 v2
vn τn + + ln+1 + d0 = gapn + ln+1 + n+1 , (1)
2an 2an+1
where vn is the velocity of FV, an is the deceleration, gapn denotes its safety gap,
and τn is the reaction time of FV driver; vn+1 is the velocity of LV, an+1 is the
deceleration, and ln+1 denotes the length of LV; d0 is the distance between the two
vehicles when they completely stop. Equation (1) can be rewritten as
vn2 v2
gapn = vn τn + − n+1 + d0 , (2)
2an 2an+1
even the reaction time of different drivers varies, most CA models ignore the reaction
time for simplicity. In this paper, reaction time of drivers was also ignored, i.e.
τn = 0. We assume that all vehicles have the same deceleration limitation bmax . A
crash would not happen unless d0 is a negative value, so d0 ≥ 0 must always meet
in the model. With all the above hypothesis, a simplified form of Eq. (2) is acquired
as
vn2 − vn+1
2
gapn = . (3)
2bmax
In the process of braking, all tires are forced to slow down or stop by the road
braking force FX as shown in Fig. 2(a).21 Here, we ignore the lateral motion of
1950073-3
(a) (b)
Fig. 2. (a) Mechanic analysis of tires when braking and (b) the change of road braking force.
vehicles and air resistance, thus, equations of mechanic are


mg − FZ = 0 ,

dv (4)
FX − m
 = 0,
dt
where m is the mass of the vehicle, g is the gravity. FZ denotes the reacting force on
vertical direction, FX is only on the longitudinal direction, v is the moving speed.
As presented in Fig. 2(b),21 the value of FX is the same as braking force Fb before
it reaches the limit; when the value of force on brake pedal exceeds Fp0 , Fb does
not continue to increase. The road braking force mainly comes from the adhesion
of tires and the ground, and there is upper bound of adhesion as follows:
Fµ = µFZ , (5)
where µ denotes the friction coefficient between the floor and tires. Supposing the
brakes of all vehicles are in good condition and the force on brake pedal will exceed
0
Fp , the force acting of vehicles on the road goes to Eq. (6)
Fµ = mbmax . (6)
Thus, bmax = µg, bmax in Eq. (3) can be replaced by µg. Note that the coefficient
µ varies in different roads and weather conditions. In the end, the ultimate form of
safety gap considering the friction coefficient µ comes out as Eq. (7).
2 2
v − vn+1

gapn = n , (7)
2µg
where symbol d·e means an integer rounded up, it is for the convenience of calcu-
lation in a CA model. On the other end, it is also a stochastic compensation for
driver’s reaction time ignored. In fact, Eq. (7) can calculate the gap if and only if
vn ≥ vn+1 . As a supplementary, we define gapn = 0 if vn < vn+1 .
1950073-4
2.2. Update in single lane

For the sake of completeness, a brief recall of the NaSch model is necessary. A single
straight lane road divided into equal size and numbered by 1, 2, . . . , L, the size of
each cell equals to the mean length of a car. Cells have a binary state, empty or
taken by a car. All vehicles update in a single lane following the four steps of NaSch
model are as follows:
(i) Acceleration:
vn (t + 1/3) = min[vn (t) + 1, vmax ] . (8)
(ii) Deterministic brake to avoid collision:
vn (t + 2/3) = min[vn (t + 1/3), dn ] . (9)
(iii) Random braking with the probability pr :

vn (t + 1) = max[vn (t + 2/3) − 1, 0] . (10)
(iv) Update of position:
xn (t + 1) = xn (t) + vn (t + 1) , (11)
where vmax is the maximum velocity of all vehicles, dn is the empty cells in front
of vehicle labeled n at moment t. xn (t) and is the position of vehicle n at moment
t, xn (t + 1) for the next moment.
Many traffic phenomena can be reproduced by NaSch model, however, many
complicated traffic flow features are beyond its power. In this work, we attempt to
study the kinetic energy loss in a road system considering the safety gap in different
conditions. As demonstrated in Eq. (7), once vn ≥ vn+1 and they were attached
certain values, safety gap is only determined by friction coefficient µ that varies
under different circumstances, such as a water-logged road or an icy pavement.
To improve the NaSch model, safety gap gapn (t) is introduced to change the
second step of NaSch model, the new update rule is
vn (t + 1) = min[vn (t + 2/3), deff
n ], (12)
where
exp
deff
n = dn (t) + max[vn+1 − gapn (t), 0] , (13)
exp
where deff
n is the effective distance of vehicle labeled n, vn+1
is the expected velocity
of LV. Note that, the gapn (t) here is different from the gap (a given constant) of
CD model in Ref. 4. The third step of NaSch model is placed first in NF model,
the sequence of other steps remained as NaSch model. This paper proposed a safer
NF (SNF for short) model by combining our improvement of safety gap with the
NF model, the update rules are as follows:
(i) Random braking with the probability pr :
vn (t + 1/3) = max[vn (t) − 1, 0] . (14)
1950073-5
(ii) Acceleration:
vn (t + 2/3) = min[vn (t + 1/3) + 1, vmax ] . (15)
(iii) Deceleration:
vn (t + 1) = min[vn (t + 2/3), dneff ] . (16)

(iv) Update of position:
xn (t + 1) = xn (t) + vn (t + 1) . (17)
2.3. The definition of kinetic energy loss

The kinetic energy of a car moving with v is mv 2 /2, where m is mass of the car.
During the braking, the energy will be lost. According to Refs. 13 and 14, the
dissipated energy of vehicle labeled n from instant t to t + 1 is

[vn2 (t) − vn2 (t + 1)]/2, if vn (t) > vn (t + 1) ,
en (t) = (18)
0, otherwise.
There is an assumption that the mass of all vehicles equals 1. The mean kinetic
energy dissipation of the system in time interval T is
t0 +T XN
1 1 X
∆E = en (t) , (19)
T N t=t +1 n=1
0
where N is the number of vehicles in the system and t0 is the burning time. More-
over, ∆Ed denotes the energy loss caused by deterministic braking, ∆Er for the
energy dissipation resulting from randomization turbulence. Thus, another form of
mean energy dissipation is
∆E = ∆Ed + ∆Er . (20)
3. Simulations and Results

Numerical simulations are conducted under periodic boundary conditions. The time
step is taken as 1 s, the duration of the simulation is set as 20,000 s, and the burning
time is set as 10,000 s. We take the cell size as 6 m, the same as vehicle length,
the road length is 6000 m, i.e. L = 1000 cells. So, the velocity unit is 6 m/s. The
maximum velocity in our model equals 6, the real maximum speed is 129.6 km/h.
The friction coefficient of different pavements were regarded as a label of weather
in our models, we chose a typical coefficient of road condition corresponding to the
four weather conditions, µ = 0.7 for a fine day, µ = 0.5 for a rainy day, µ = 0.2
for a snowy day and µ = 0.1 indicates an icy pavement according to Ref. 22. The
gravity g equals 10 m/s2 . All the simulation results in this paper are dimensionless.
Vehicle density in periodic boundary condition is expressed as k = N/L, thus, the
flux q = kv, where v is the mean velocity of the system during time interval T .
1950073-6
(a) (b)
Fig. 3. (Color online) (a) Fundamental diagram and (b) density-velocity curve.
3.1. Kinetic energy loss of SNF model

In this part, simulations were carried out in a single lane road. Models tested
included NaSch model, NF model and SNF model. While previous studies based
on NaSch model or other models were under a normal situation, we set µ = 0.7
and vmax = 6 as a normal condition (a fine day with dry pavement) in SNF model.
The speed limitation is 6 in NaSch model and NF model, random delay probability
pr = 0.3 in all models.
Fundamental diagram is usually used to represent the traffic efficiency of mod-
els under different vehicle densities, as shown in Fig. 3(a). Obviously, the flux of
SNF model keeps higher when vehicle density k ∈ [0.14, 0.5], while the capacity
(maximum flux) is slightly improved. In Figs. 3(a) and 3(b), there are two critical
density k1 , k2 ,exactly the critical points in NF model.
1 − pr
k1 = , (21)
vmax + 1 − 2pr
the outcome of k1 is approximately 0.12 in the simulation of the part, while k2 = 0.5
is an exact value of NF model.3 Although our model is safer and more realistic, it
is still an improved version of the NF model. As a result, theoretical critical points
k1 , k2 of NF model are also the critical points of SNF model, the simulation results
in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b) can be a strong evidence. The flux oscillates in this density
interval mainly caused by the dynamic safety gap, this observation indicates that
SNF model can better describe real traffic flow features.
As shown in Fig. 4(a), ∆Er (energy dissipation rate caused by random slow-
down) of the three models keep a maximum level in free flow. An earlier collapse of
NaSch model when density k = 0.08, while a sharp decline of NF and SNF model
when density k = 0.14, ∆Er drop until a global congestion (k = 1). When density
k > 0.5, ∆Er of the three models are almost equal, even ∆Ed (energy loss caused
by deterministic brake) of NF model and SNF model are very close as shown in
Fig. 4(b). Thus, we will focus on the energy dissipation in low and medium flow
(k ≤ 0.5).
1950073-7
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 4. (Color online) Kinetic energy loss rate. (a) Caused by random slowdown, (b) caused by
deterministic brake and (c) total energy loss rate.
∆Er of NaSch model keeps the lowest, for deterministic brake step is followed
by the random slowdown step in NaSch model while noise first (random slowdown
is at first step) in NF and SNF model. In free flow, ∆Er of SNF model is equal
to ∆Er of NF model. No congestion when k < k1 , where k1 is the critical density,
approximately equals to 0.11 in the simulation. Since our density step is 0.02, there
is a decline both in flux and ∆Er when k = 0.12. The average random energy loss of
SNF model keeps highest against other models. Although our model can maintain
a higher average speed, the introduction of the dynamic safety gap and the speed
of LV, the speed difference of the adjacent time steps increases accordingly. Thus,
the random energy consumption of SNF model is higher.
From Fig. 4(b), we can see that ∆Ed of SNF model is much lower than that of
NF model when k ∈ [0.12, 0.5], also lower than NaSch model when k ∈ [0.02, 0.46].
This finding suggests SNF model can reduce the chance of emergency braking and
cut down the consumption of kinetic energy, keeping a stable traffic flow meanwhile.
The total energy loss curve of SNF model shown in Fig. 4(c) is approximately con-
vex when k ∈ [0.12, 0.5], local minimum and global minimum of the total energy
loss ∆E can be found, the corresponding vehicle density is meaningful for traffic
management. ∆E of SNF model is lower than other models when k ∈ [0.12, 0.44], in-
dicating that previous models overestimated the energy consumption under medium
traffic density. This observation also infers that our revised model is more capable
of reflecting the real-life traffic flow dynamics.
3.2. Kinetic energy loss under different weather conditions

We will examine the kinetic energy loss of SNF model when weather conditions
were taken into consideration. A fine day is denoted with µ = 0.7, rainy days with
µ = 0.5, a snow day with µ = 0.2 and on icy pavement µ = 0.1. Delay probability pr
is still set as 0.3 in the numerical experiment. Speed control is regarded as a common
traffic management measure especially in extreme weather conditions. Thus, we set
an empirical speed limit for different weather conditions in the simulation, the speed
1950073-8
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 5. Kinetic energy loss rate. (a) Caused by random slowdown in a rainy day and a fine day,
(b) caused by deterministic brake in a rainy day and a fine day and (c) total energy loss rate in a
rainy day and a fine day.
limit is vmax = 6 (129.6 km/h) on dry pavement, vmax = 5 (108 km/h) in rainy
days, vmax = 3 (64.8 km/h) in a snowy day and vmax = 2 (43.2 km/h) on the icy
roads. We compared the effects of different speed limit schemes on kinetic energy
loss under different weather conditions. Still, more attention is being paid to energy
consumption under low- and medium-traffic flow (k ≤ 0.5).
Notable differences of ∆Er on fine days and rainy days with speed limit are
found only in free flow as shown in Fig. 5(a), there is little difference between the
random energy loss on dry roads and ∆Er on rainy days without speed limit. But
as a whole, ∆Er with speed limit keeps lower than that without speed control.
In rainy days, limiting the maximum speed does little to reduce random energy
consumption, but in many cases (k ∈ [0.3, 0.5] and k = 0.2, 0.24, 0.26) it inversely
increases deterministic energy consumption as shown in Fig. 5(b). Furthermore,
the total energy loss rate ∆E also presents this numerical relationship and trend as
presented in Fig. 5(c). From Fig. 5(b), we can see that ∆Ed of all cases are zero in
free flow as there are sufficient gaps for vehicles to maintain the high speed. After
the critical point, ∆Ed is on the rise until k = k2 . Then, it keeps declining until
it is zero again. According to Eq. (21), critical density k1 will be no big difference
when vmax = 6 (k1 ≈ 0.12) and vmax = 5 (k1 ≈ 0.14), therefore, we will only say k1
when we discuss energy loss on rainy days. For total energy loss ∆E in Fig. 5(c), in
the range of k1 < k < k2 , speed control does not affect the overall changing trend
of two cases, while ∆E with speed limit is higher in most situations.
When the road is snow-covered, for 0.2 < k < 0.5 (the boundaries are the
critical points of NF model when vmax = 3), the most obvious feature is that
the ∆Ed and total energy loss ∆E increase monotonously as well as ∆Er has
monotonous decreasing tendency, all shown in Figs. 6(a), 6(b) and 6(c). The above
changes are so regular that there are no wide oscillations as in other cases. It can
be inferred that the dynamic safety distance scarcely has influence on the speed of
the system at this time. In fact, the same simulation results were obtained when
we set vmax = 3 in NF model. For ∆Er on snowy day with speed control scheme
1950073-9
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 6. (Color online) Kinetic energy loss rate. (a) Caused by random slowdown in a snowy day
and a fine day, (b) caused by deterministic brake in a snowy day and a fine day and (c) total
energy loss rate in a snowy day and a fine day.
when k < 0.5, it is rather obvious that its value is lower than other conditions as in
Fig. 6(a). The deterministic energy loss plots in Fig. 6(b) show that speed control
scheme will definitely aggrandize energy consumption when k is in the range of
0.2 to 0.5. We can see that total energy loss on snowy day without speed limit is
higher than that with speed control at critical point k1 = 0.2 as shown in Fig. 6(c).
But soon (k = 0.24), the situation is reversed. In the following two density steps,
∆E without speed limit is back to the higher again. But from now on, ∆E with
speed control always maintains the higher until k = 0.5. Over the second critical
point k2 = 0.5, the energy consumption is the same in all cases for the failure of
dynamic safety gap, because the average space between vehicles is no more than
1 cell. Although the energy consumption with the speed limit may be higher than
that in the case of non-speed limit with a high probability, it is necessary to adopt
speed control measures in snowy days for security.
Comparing Fig. 7 with Fig. 6, respectively, it is found that the changing regu-
larity of energy consumption with speed control on icy pavement are similar with
snowy days, the first critical point for the phase transition is different for the differ-
ence of vmax , k1 ≈ 0.3 when vmax = 2. The significant difference of random energy
consumption is found only when k < k1 as presented in Fig. 7(a). Different from
∆Ed on rainy days and snowy days, ∆Ed on an icy road with speed limit is always
lower than that without speed limit management when k < 0.5. It also creates
a situation that the total energy consumption without speed limit is higher than
the situation before density reaches the second critical point as shown in Fig. 7(c).
When compared to normal weather (µ = 0.7), ∆E without speed control on an
icy road (µ = 0.1) is much higher. This comparison shows that driving in extreme
weather will consume more energy if speed limit scheme were castoff. This also
proves that speed limit control in extreme weather is a ponderable and effective
traffic management measure in terms of safety and energy consumption.
1950073-10
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 7. (Color online) Kinetic energy loss rate. (a) Caused by random slowdown on icy roads and
a dry road, (b) caused by deterministic brake on icy roads and a dry road and (c) total energy
loss rate on icy roads and a dry road.
From the above, we see speed control will not reduce total energy loss on rainy
days and snow-covered roads in most cases. But speed limit scheme can reduce
energy consumption in extreme road conditions (coefficient of friction is very small
in our simulation). In general, although speed limit does not always reduce energy
consumption, for the sake of safety, reasonable speed limit measures are relatively
simple and effective traffic management measures. In addition, we find that when
the speed limit is set as 3 or 2, SNF model will degenerate into NF model, because
of the failure of dynamic safety gap. This also shows that the low-speed motion of
vehicles can be well described by the previous models, but the high-speed motion
still needs to be further studied.
4. Conclusion
The aim of the study is to demonstrate that a reasonable modification of existing
models could lead to a further understanding of traffic flow dynamics and energy
loss of the road system, the results of this study are satisfactory. In this paper, the
friction coefficient of pavement is used as a quantitative index of different weather
conditions, dynamic safety distance can be calculated based on different friction
coefficient and the speed difference between LV and FV. A safer and realistic CA
model was proposed and applied to depict the kinetic energy consumption under
different weather conditions. We found that our new model can maintain a high flux
in medium density (k < 0.5), and most preceding models overestimated the kinetic
energy loss. Cut down trips and traffic control measures are suggested when bad
weather comes, for energy consumption increases according to our findings. Surpris-
ingly, speed limits on a rainy or snowy day will increase the energy consumption in
most cases, but in case of collisions, speed limits scheme must be adopted.
It must be stressed that the model has only been tested in a simulation envi-
ronment. Kinetic energy loss during vehicle deceleration is considered and defined
1950073-11
only, which does not involve energy consumption in the acceleration process. In
addition, the kinetic energy loss defined in this paper is the kinetic energy dissipa-
tion of traffic flow rather than fuel consumption. We hope to further explore the
real energy consumption (or fuel consumption) in the acceleration and deceleration
process with actual experiments in the future. Although there are deficiencies, it
has guiding significance for traffic management and promotes our understanding of
traffic flow dynamics and energy consumption of road system.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by Key R&D Project of Shandong Province (Grant
No. 2017GGX50104) and Scientific Research Foundation of Shandong University of
Science Technology for Recruited Talents (Grant No. 2015RCJJ032).
References
1. K. Nagel and M. Scherckenberg, J. Phys. I. France 2 (1992) 2221.
2. X. B. Li, Q. S. Wu and R. Jiang, Phys. Rev. E 64 (2001) 066128.
3. Y. Xu, L. Y. Dong, L. Li and S. Q. Dai, Phys. Rev. E 71 (2005) 026123.
4. W. Knospe et al., J. Phys. A 33 (2000) 48.
5. Y. S. Qian et al., Nonlinear Dynam. 89(2) (2017) 1099.
6. K. Malecki, J. Comput. Sci. 28 (2018) 32.
7. J. W. Zeng et al., Mod. Phys. Lett. B 32(25) (2018) 1850301.
8. B. S. Kerner, Physica A 333 (2004) 379.
9. B. S. Kerner, S. L. Klenov and D. E. Wolf, J. Phys. A 35(47) (2002) 9971.
10. Y. S. Qian, X. Xiao and J. W. Zeng, Physica A 479 (2017) 509.
11. Y. Nakayama, Y. Sugiyama and K. Hasebe, Phys. Rev. E 65 (2002) 016112.
12. T. Wang, Z. Y. Gao and X. M. Zhao, Acta Phys. Sin. 55 (2006) 634.
13. W. Shi and Y. Xue, Physica A 381 (2007) 399.
14. B. A. Toledo et al., Phys. Rev. E 75 (2007) 026108.
15. W. Zhang, W. Zhang and Q. Xian, Physica A 387 (2008) 4657.
16. H. H. Tian et al., Acta Phys. Sin. 58 (2009) 4506.
17. J. Wen et al., Acta Phys. Sin. 59 (2010) 7693.
18. W. X. Zhu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 24 (2013) 1350046.
19. W. X. Zhu and L. D. Zhang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 25 (2014) 1450018.
20. Y. S. Qian et al., Mod. Phys. Lett. B 29 (2015) 1450264.
21. H. Q. Zhang, Ph.D. thesis, Southeast University, Nanjing (2016).
22. H. C. Dan, L. H. He and B. Xu, Int. J. Pavement Eng. 18 (2017) 485.
1950073-12

10 1142@S0217984919500738

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 1142@S0217984919500738

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modern Physics Letters B

1950073 (12 pages)

Modeling the kinetic energy dissipation of road system considering

Lei Huang, De-Yong Guan∗ and Xin-Hong Qiang

No. 579, Qianwangang Road, Qingdao 266590, China

Received 1 November 2018

In this study, we proposed a safer one-dimensional CA model and focused on the

Fig. 1. Illustration of a car-following situation.

2.1. Dynamic safety gap in case of rear-end collision

vehicles and air resistance, thus, equations of mechanic are

2.2. Update in single lane

(iii) Random braking with the probability pr :

vn (t + 1) = min[vn (t + 2/3), dneff ] . (16)

2.3. The definition of kinetic energy loss

3. Simulations and Results

3.1. Kinetic energy loss of SNF model

(a) (b) (c)

3.2. Kinetic energy loss under different weather conditions

(a) (b) (c)

rainy day and a fine day.

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)

You might also like