This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

Gerrit Naus, Ren´ Vugts, Jeroen Ploeg, Ren´ van de Molengraft, Maarten Steinbuch e e

Abstract— The design of a CACC system and corresponding experiments are presented. The design targets string stable system behavior, which is assessed using a frequency-domain-based approach. Following this approach, it is shown that the available wireless information enables small inter-vehicle distances, while maintaining string stable behavior. The theoretical results are validated by experiments with two CACC-equipped vehicles. Measurement results showing string stable as well as string unstable behavior are discussed.

wireless communication vehicle 3

x2 ¨ xr,3 , xr,3 ˙ vehicle 2 radar beam

x1 ¨ xr,2 , xr,2 ˙ vehicle 1

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of a platoon of vehicles equipped with CACC functionality, where xr,i , xr,i and xi represent the relative position, ˙ ¨ the relative velocity and the acceleration of vehicle i, respectively.

I. I NTRODUCTION Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (CACC) is an extension of Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) functionality. ACC automatically adapts the velocity of a vehicle if there is preceding trafﬁc. Commonly, a radar or lidar is used to detect preceding trafﬁc, enabling automatic following of a predecessor. As ACC is primarily intended as a comfort system, and, to a smaller degree, as a safety system, a relatively large inter-vehicle distance has to be adopted [2], [3]. Decreasing this distance to a small, preferably constant value of only several meters is expected to yield an increase in trafﬁc throughput, and, speciﬁcally focusing on heavy duty vehicles, a signiﬁcant reduction of the drag force, thus decreasing fuel consumption [1]. To enable this for a string of vehicles while maintaining so-called string stability, standard ACC functionality has to be extended with intervehicle communication [9]. Extending ACC functionality with wireless inter-vehicle communication is called Cooperative ACC (CACC). In Fig. 1, a schematic representation of a string of vehicles, a so-called platoon, equipped with CACC functionality is shown. This research focuses on the design of a CACC system using communication with the directly preceding vehicle only, as opposed to communication with multiple preceding vehicles or with a designated platoon leader. This is often called semi-autonomous ACC and facilitates easy implementation, see Fig. 1 [9]. Furthermore, heterogeneous trafﬁc is considered, i.e., vehicles with different characteristics [4], [10], and delay in the communicated signal is taken into account [6], [7], [11]. Finally, the communication will be implemented as a feedforward signal. Hence, if no communication is present, standard ACC functionality is still available [9], [12].

G.J.L. Naus, R.P.A. Vugts, M.J.G. v.d. Molengraft and M. Steinbuch are with the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Control Systems Technology group, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, P.O. box 513, Eindhoven, The Netherlands {g.j.l.naus, r.p.a.vugts, m.j.g.v.d.molengraft, m.steinbuch}@tue.nl. J. Ploeg is with the Business Unit Automotive, Department of Integrated Safety, TNO Science and Industry, P.O. box 756, Helmond, The Netherlands jeroen.ploeg@tno.nl.

The design and analysis of CACC systems generally evolve around the notion of string stability. The string stability of a platoon indicates whether oscillations are ampliﬁed upstream, i.e., from the leading vehicle i = 1 to vehicle i > 1 in the platoon. String stability is extensively discussed in literature. As a result, various deﬁnitions are present, see, e.g., [4], [6], [7], [9], [10], [14]. The main ambiguity concerns the signals to consider. Either the control input, the vehicle output or state, the error, or a combination of these is considered. In previous work [8], it is concluded that the vehicle output or state has to be considered when heterogeneous trafﬁc is taken into account in the analysis. Following the new approach presented in [8], a frequencydomain-based framework for the design of a CACC system and the deﬁnition of string stability is presented in Sect. II. Using this framework as an analysis tool, in Sect. III the inﬂuence of the available wireless information as well as the choice for the inter-vehicle spacing policy are discussed, focusing on string stability of the system. The main contribution of this paper involves the experimental validation of the presented framework. In Sect. IV, the implementation of the CACC system on a real vehicle platform is presented, according to the concept depicted in Fig. 1. The measurement results validate the assumptions made in the modeling of the system and the results of the theoretical string stability analysis. The paper is closed with conclusions and an outlook on future work. II. P ROBLEM FORMULATION A. Control structure Consider a string of vehicles, see Fig. 1. The primary control objective for each vehicle is to follow the corresponding preceding vehicle at a desired distance xr,d,i (t) xr,d,i (t) = ri + hd,i xi (t), ˙ for i ≥ 1 (1)

where ri is the desired distance at standstill, hd,i is the socalled desired headway time, and xi (t) is the measured ve˙ locity of vehicle i. To anticipate high-frequent measurement

for i > 1 X0 X0 k=2 (10) where Si = (1 + Hi Gi Ki )−1 (11) is the closed-loop sensitivity corresponding to vehicle i..noise. demanding L(ei (t)) = 0.i ensures tracking of this desired acceleration via actuation of the throttle and brake system.i + s). String stability. and xr. Focus is on the magnitude of the so-called stringˆ stability transfer function SS i (s) Xi Xi ˆ = SS i = X1 X0 X1 X0 −1 where τi−1 = ωG. 2. The spacing error between the desired distance xr. i. a feedback controller with PD action provides the freedom to choose the closed-loop bandwidth of the closed-loop system Ti (s) (from xi−1 − ri to Hi xi ) Ti = Hi Gi Ki 1 + Hi Gi Ki (6) The headway time is the time it takes for vehicle i to reach the current position of the preceding vehicle i − 1 when continuing to drive with a constant velocity. yielding L (¨i−1 (t − θi )) = Di (s)s2 Xi−1 (s).i ωf. i = 1. In a generic form. velocity or acceleration. [4]. ˙ for i ≥ 1 (2) Given the vehicle dynamics Gi (s) (3) and the spacing policy dynamics Hi (s) (5). φi is the actuator delay time. including a controller Kl. It is assumed that an estimator for the delayed acceleration signal is not present. The resulting control setup is depicted schematically in Fig. The acceleration of the preceding vehicle xi−1 (t) is available via wireless communication. [7]. focusing on feasibility of implementation. which is represented by a constant delay time θi .i . the velocity signal is ﬁltered using a ﬁrst-order lowpass ﬁlter f (·) with cut-off frequency ωf. where Hi (s) = 1 + hd.i (t) and xr. Hence. To facilitate a decentralized controller design.d.e. Deﬁning ei (t) in this manner implies that positive control action. for i = 1. the input ui (t) of Gi (s) can be regarded as a desired acceleration. where xr. .e. Xi i X1 = Sk Fk Dk s2 + Kk Gk .i (t) − xr.d. The controller Kl. yielding xr.g. For ri = 0. a deﬁnition that is independent of other trafﬁc is desirable. is assumed to follow a given timevarying reference position x0 (t).i (t) = xi−1 (t) − xi (t).. where Gi the dynamics of the ith vehicle. Taking.d. The ˆ magnitude of SS i is a measure for the ampliﬁcation of . the position.. for i > 1 (8) s2 r1 u1 x1 e2 K2 G2 H2 e1 − K1 G1 H1 − x0 x2 x1 Fig. the ACC feedback controller Ki (s) is deﬁned as Ki (s) = ωK. equals L (ei (t)) = Ei (s) = Xi−1 (s) − Hi (s)Xi (s). Accordingly. for i ≥ 1 (7) s F2 u2 x2 2 D2 r2 vehicle 1 x1 ¨ where ωK. ri = r = 0. [9]. is used in a feedback setting by a ˙ standard ACC controller.i (t). for i > 1 (12) represents the so-called spacing policy dynamics. s2 (τi s + 1) for i ≥ 1 (3) . 2. The ﬁrst vehicle in the string. [10]. Different deﬁnitions of string stability are present in literature.i s.i (t). Control structure of a platoon. as vehicle 1 does not receive wireless information of the preceding reference vehicle.i is the corresponding closed-loop bandwidth. which equals 1 for an appropriately designed feedback controller Kl.i (t) and the actual distance xr. Di the communication delay and Hi the spacing policy dynamics. the feedforward ﬁlter is given by Fi = Hi Gi s2 −1 Consider the setup depicted in Fig. and kG. . From (6). the transfer function from the input L(x0 (t)) = X0 (s) to Xi (s) is given by for i = 1 G1 K1 S1 . i. 2.i for the longitudinal vehicle dynamics. e. is required when the inter-vehicle distance xr. the corresponding closed-loop dynamics of each vehicle are represented as Gi (s) = kG. Consequently. ampliﬁcation of oscillations in the vehicle state. for i > 1 (9) B.i (t) as deﬁned in (2). 2. where x Di (s) = e−θi s .i (t) is too large with respect to the desired distance xr.i (t) equals ei (t) = xr.d. denoted by L(·). . These relations follow directly from the block diagram in Fig. The wireless communication includes delay. acceleration. when string stability of a platoon of heterogeneous trafﬁc is considered.i for i ≥ 1 (5) for i ≥ 1 (4) . Correspondingly. have to be considered [8]. [14]. 2.. [6]. s + ωf. xr.i is the loop gain.d. the subsequent analysis does not change. The acceleration of the preceding vehicle is used as a feedforward control signal via a feedforward ﬁlter Fi (s). a frequency-domain approach The design and analysis of CACC systems generally evolve around the notion of string stability.i (t). where i = 1 is not considered.i f (xi (t)).i (t) = ri + hd. The design of this feedforward ﬁlter is based on inverse model dynamics. Ki the corresponding ACC feedback controller.i e−φi s .i (ωK. for simplicity. The radar output data. vehicle 2 x2 ¨ Correspondingly. The model Gi (s) represents a closed-loop system.i the breakpoint of the controller. which is intuitive. it follows directly that the uncontrolled open-loop transfer equals Li (s) = Hi (s)Gi (s)Di (s)s2 . see. ¨ and is used in a feedforward setting. Fi the feedforward controller. the corresponding Laplace transform.i .

The design variables are the feedback controller Ki (s). Fi (s) = 0. Hence. yielding Hi (s) = 1. Condition (14). ACC case Consider the spacing-policy dynamics Hi (s) as deﬁned in (5).x0 (t) upstream the platoon. Marginal in this case indicates that the design is not robust for uncertainties or modeling errors.. rather than oscillations in the distance error.5 rad s−1 . a peak will be present in the complementary sensitivity Ti∗ (s).i = 0. for i > 1. i. Furthermore. yielding Gi (s) = s−2 . for i > 1. ﬁnding a minimum headway time hd. Xi−1 for i > 1 (15) ˆ SS i = k=2 SSk . In this ﬁgure. The output string stability transfer function (17) reduces to SSi = Gi Ki = Ti∗ .i − 2ωK.i = 0. Fi (s) = 0. . Velocity-dependent inter-vehicle spacing. ∀ω (13) instead of a CACC system results. The consequences of this assumption with respect to practice will be evaluated later on.i. As communication with the directly preceding vehicle only is considered. Considering heterogeneous trafﬁc. Combining (10) and (15) yields the string stability transfer function SSi (s) Gi Fi Di s2 + Gi Ki SSi = . only marginal string stability |SSi (jω)| = 1.i for i > 1. B. d. resulting in an increased magnitude at other frequencies. substitution of Gi (s) = s−2 . in this section. Considering realvalued frequencies ω ∈ R implies min{ω 2 } = 0. imposes string stable behavior at every position in the platoon.i and assuming φi = 0. Focusing on string stability (14). In this case. this requires an extensive communication structure. string stability can not be guaranteed for a constant intervehicle spacing. Suppose that ωK.i = ωK. A. For the sake of clarity. a velocity-dependent inter-vehicle spacing is adopted. It is assumed that the feedback controller Ki (s) as deﬁned in (7) is used. a CACC system results. Ki (s) (7) and Hi (s) (5) in (20) shows that string stability can be guaranteed if SSi = −1 −2 h2 + 2ωK. a peak will be present in the string stability transfer function as well. ∀ω (21) where ωf. yields −1 −2 h2 + 2ωK. ideal vehicle dynamics result.e.i A sufﬁcient condition for string stability of a platoon of heterogeneous vehicles is thus deﬁned by (14). Correspondingly.i for i > 1 (22) From (22) it follows directly that string stability can be guaranteed for ωK. a more conservative condition for string stability is deﬁned as |SSi (jω)| ≤ 1. S YSTEM ANALYSIS FOCUSING ON STRING STABILITY Consider the CACC system setup as presented in Sect. For example. in case of an ACC system. considering an appropriate controller Kl. [11]–[14]. taking into account time delay as well would mean that no string stability can be achieved. in practice.i ≥ d. . on the other hand.i − 2ωK. Without feedforward. A necessary condition for string stability thus is ˆ SS i (jω) ≤ 1. then hd. . (14) is a sufﬁcient condition for string stability.min ≈ 1. sensor noise or model errors will impose high-frequent rolloff. consider the case of no feedforward. rather than preventing collisions.i hd. Di (s) = 1. The output string stability transfer function (17) then equals SSi = 1 + Gi K i = 1. the deﬁnition of string stability (14) targets preventing so-called shockwave behavior.i hd.. for i > 1. the feedforward ﬁlter Fi (s) and the spacing policy dynamics Hi (s).i . the dynamics of all vehicles k ∈ {1. As a result.i. Consequently.i hd. In the case that the feedforward ﬁlter is taken into account.. where SSi = As it holds that i for i > 1. local string-unstable behavior can be allowed in the platoon. for i > 1 (20) 1 + Hi Gi Ki Considering real-valued frequencies ω ∈ R only. Comparing this to the string stability deﬁnitions in [9]. In the case of no feedforward. ∀ω (14) Xi . due to the well-known Bode-sensitivity-integral constraint.i ≥ 31/2 − 1 ≈ 0. simulation results are shown corresponding to a platoon of three vehicles following a .73. 3. which is not discussed further at this point. Hence. where Fi (s) = 1 for Hi (s) = 1 and Gi (s) = s−2 (see (9)).i ≥ hd.46 s has to hold to ensure string stability.e. 1 + Gi Ki for i > 1 (19) condition (13) is automatically satisﬁed if (14) is satisﬁed. this yields Gi Ki . Constant inter-vehicle spacing To start with.min for hd. can be achieved. IIA. for i > 1 (16) where Ti∗ (s) is the complementary sensitivity of the resulting system. Hence. in which an ACC system instead of a CACC system results. Constant inter-vehicle spacing implies hd. i. i−1} have to be known. ampliﬁcation of oscillations in the vehicle state is considered. Considering Ti∗ (s). This is illustrated in Fig. 1 + Gi Ki for i > 1 (18) To fulﬁll condition (13) for vehicle i > 2.i in (21). ∀ω. i.i ≥ 0. communication delay is not taken into account. 1 + Hi Gi Ki for i > 1 (17) Hence.e. This particular choice for ωf. the inﬂuence of the design of Hi (s) and Fi (s) is evaluated. ωK.i actually improves the string stability characteristics of the system. Condition (13) considers the platoon as a whole: if compensated somewhere else. an ACC system ω2 4 . III. .

lim hd. equipment of more vehicles was not possible. Based on these models. The solid lines represent the vehicles i = 1 to i = 3 for the dark to the light colored lines. For hd. The CACC system is implemented at 100 Hz on a dSpace AutoBox using rapid control prototyping. The use of only two vehicles instead of a larger platoon requires extrapolation of the results. Hi (1 + Hi Gi Ki ) for i > 1 (23) Not taking into account communication delay. B. for i ∈ {1. as opposed to the corresponding results shown in Fig. 2. Experimental setup. The results in the upper and lower ﬁgure correspond to hd.min (θi ) is not discussed here. Fi (s) and Hi (s) is discussed. 20 0 −20 0 velocity [m s−1] 10 20 time [s] 30 40 50 Fig.i. the design of Ki (s). The acceleration of vehicle 1 is derived from the ESP system and communicated to vehicle 2. yielding string unstable behavior. 2. the controller Kl.e. a minimum value hd. II. 5.i = 0. three different experiments are executed. For hd. Using a zero-order hold approach for the communicated signal.reference vehicle. additional vehicles with the same CACC system will show the same behavior. combination of the corresponding delay and the communication delay yields θi ≈ 60 ms as a total delay for Di (s) (8).min for hd.i = 0.0 s (the upper ﬁgure). CACC case For the CACC case. In Fig. for i > 1 (24) Hi Consequently. respectively. In practice.5 s (the lower ﬁgure). the minimum required headway time hd.i = 2. III-A). the standard Wi-Fi protocol IEEE 802. it is assumed that the internal closed-loop dynamics of the vehicle has bandwidth ωG. Simulation results of a platoon of three CACC-equipped vehicles following a reference vehicle. the theory can be validated using only two vehicles. 4.. Depending mainly on θi .0 s and hd. represented by the dashed line. IV. yields 1 SSi = . However. C. if the theory is validated for the ﬁrst two vehicles in a platoon. Further analysis of θi →0 hd. see Fig. A.i = 0.i. i. Vehicle 2 is equipped with a customized brake-by-wire system and a corresponding controller for the longitudinal dynamics of the vehicle [5].min for which string stability can still be guaranteed.5 s. are shown.i for Taking into account communication delay as well. only marginal string stability can be achieved (see Sect. Simulation results of a platoon of three ACC-equipped vehicles following a reference vehicle. respectively. The solid lines represent the vehicles i = 1 to i = 3 for the dark to the light colored lines.i > 0. with an update rate of 10 Hz. as (24) indicates. Di (s) as deﬁned in (8). however.11g is used. represented by the dashed line.5 s is used. Finally. 3 in which an ACC system is employed. for i ∈ {1.i .5 s.i = 2. all vehicles in the platoon follow the reference vehicle while decreasing the amplitude of the velocity of preceding vehicles in the platoon. The results correspond to hd. the simulation results of a platoon of vehicles where hd.i. respectively.i = 0. 3. however. is signiﬁcantly smaller in the case of CACC than in the case of ACC. As these results show. where Fi (s) is as deﬁned in (9). velocity [m s−1] 20 0 −20 20 0 is required to guarantee string stability.e. i. all vehicles in the platoon follow the reference vehicle while actually decreasing the amplitude of the velocity signal..i . e For the wireless inter-vehicle communication. 3}. the string stability transfer function (17) equals SSi = Di + Hi Gi Ki .i. Fig. Vehicle model identiﬁcation In the problem setup presented in Sect.i = 0. Hence. 3}. experiments are performed using two vehicles. Experimental setup Two Citro¨ n C4’s are used as testing platform. Di = 1. string stability can be guaranteed for any hd. For hd. the amplitude of the velocity signal is indeed ampliﬁed upstream the platoon. For budget reasons. E XPERIMENTAL VALIDATION To validate the theory. Furthermore. Velocity-dependent inter-vehicle spacing. The models for the communication delay Di (s) and the vehicle models Gi (s) are identiﬁed using measurements.min (θi ) = 0. an OMRON laser radar with 150 m range is built-in. The communication delay equals on average 10 ms. GPS time stamping is adopted to synchronize the measurements of the two vehicles. 5. velocity [m s−1] −20 0 5 10 15 20 25 time [s] 30 35 40 45 Fig. 4.

the oscillations in the velocity of vehicle 1 are ampliﬁed by vehicle 2. the generic model for Gi (s) (3) represents a feedforward controller incorporating mass compensation. 6. in this case. Hence. Based on the linear.01 0. |SSi (jω)| ≤ 0 holds for Experiment i. however. Analogous to the analysis in Sect.2 −0. i.01 1 −10 0.the longitudinal vehicle dynamics consists of a feedforward part only. 7. III. The Bode magnitude plots of SSi (s) show corresponding results. ideal vehicle dynamics are assumed. the model Gi (s) is a sufﬁcient model to describe the vehicle dynamics including the controller for the longitudinal vehicle dynamics. 9 and 10.i .01 0. 8. In both experiments. In Fig. the cutoff frequency of the low-pass ﬁlter f (·) (see (2)) equals ωf.i . 100π rad s−1 . although. in practice. (a) identiﬁcation step response data. considering the identiﬁed model.i ( 3 − 1) ≈ 1. 6 correspond to the model G∗ (s) = Gi (s)s2 where kG. Experiment i ii iii communication no no yes hd. This corresponds to the analysis presented in Sect. τi = i 0. Hence. the time constant τi = ωG. Bode magnitude plots of |SSi (jω)|. The identiﬁed vehicle model. see Fig.i [s] 2. III-B).i = 0. Measurement results (black). for Experiment ii. measurement results for Experiment iii are shown.i .i = 0.1 frequency [rad s−1] 1 Fig. Consequently. Hence. D.5 rad s−1 . and (b) validation data. III. In Fig.9. 7. String stability experiments To validate the theory of Sect. The cut-off frequency of the low-pass ﬁlter equals half the sample frequency. 0. corresponding simulation results (grey) with the model G∗ (s) = Gi (s)s2 . wireless information is not taken into account.2 0 acc. −1 Fi (s) = Hi (s) would yield string stable dynamics. i C.0 0. and (b) Experiment ii. the amplitude of the oscillations in the velocity of vehicle 2 is smaller than that of vehicle 1. and the step input signal (thin black). and actuator delay φi . which is not the case for Experiment ii.i = 1. 11. [m s−2] −0.2 (rad/s)−1 and θi = 0. 8. TABLE I OVERVIEW OF THE EXPERIMENTS .e. CACC design The implemented feedback controller Ki (s) is a combination of the PD-controller (7) and a ﬁrst-order low-pass ﬁlter to prevent ampliﬁcation of high-frequent noise. However. is not ideal.1 frequency [rad s−1] (b) 1 Fig.i = 0.5 0. for (a) Experiment i.. the corresponding acceleration of vehicle 2 shows saturated behavior at 2 m s−2 (Fig.5 < 1. Considering ideal vehicle dynamics.i . In Fig. the inﬂuence on the closed-loop system is negligible in the frequency range of interest. Bode magnitude plots of |SSi (jω)|. considering an ideal vehicle model (dashed black). the resulting dynamics are string unstable. The simulation results in Fig.2 s. The breakpoint of the PD-controller lies at ωK. III-B. .46 s.i = 2. For the design of the feedforward controller Fi (s) (9). In Fig. the concept still seems to hold. i. −1 The gain kG. for hd. see Table I.5 Fig.i = 0.6 −0. and the delay time φi are identiﬁed using step response measurements. −1 yielding Fi (s) = Hi (s). the behavior of vehicle 2 is string unstable. no feedforward ﬁlter is present and an ACC system results. which corresponds to the anticipated string stable behavior.5 s. as hd.e. three experiments are performed.. a low-pass ﬁlter with cut-off frequency ωG. For Experiment i. The main characteristics of the closed-loop vehicle model are covered appropriately. and the identiﬁed model (solid black).46 s. However. Bode magnitude plots of the corresponding string stability transfer function SSi (s) are shown. whereas string unstable behavior is expected in Experiment ii. measurement results for Experiments i and ii are shown. Hence. the Bode magnitude plots corresponding to the setups used in Experiments i and ii are shown. 6. frequencydomain-based analysis.0 > ωK.8 −1 30 31 32 time [s] (a) 33 34 2 1 0 −1 −2 −3 200 210 220 time [s] (b) 230 240 1 magnitude [dB] 0 −1 −2 −3 0.i = ωK. Analogously. the system should exhibit string stable behavior in √ −1 Experiment i. no theoretical guarantees regarding string stability of the corresponding behavior can be given. 10). Based on the theory (see Sect. as hd. a true CACC 5 magnitude [dB] magnitude [dB] 0. Gi (s) = s−2 . The wireless information is used to determine an additional feedforward control signal. The main difference with respect to a feedback controller is the low-frequent gain kG.4 −0. [m s−2] acc.1 frequency [rad s ] (a) −1 5 0 0 −5 −5 −10 0.

In the lower part of the ﬁgure. R. S. July 2004. and S. Transport information and control systems . shows saturated behavior. M. Choi. Based on the theory.G. Direct adaptive longitudinal control of vehicle platoons. the acceleration of vehicle 2 is shown. Dyn. The Netherlands. In the upper ﬁgure. Dyn. Syst. The impact of Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control on trafﬁc ﬂow characteristics. Boston. and P. November 1993. 23(8):597425. and R. theoretical guarantees regarding string stability can only be given for linear vehicle models.K.velocity [km h−1] 60 40 20 2 0 −2 −4 200 210 220 time [s] 230 240 250 velocity [km h−1] acc. Massachusetts. Control.Performance requirements and test procedures. Control Conf.. Zhu. Davison.. IEEE Trans.J. De Kok. Syst. Syst. Mahal. [8] G. June 1992. Sheikholeslam and C. July 2004.B. 50(1):150–161. Constant spacing strategies for platooning in automated highway systems. 2002. the effectiveness of the proposed CACC setup is evident. August 2001. [13] D.J. Control. Intell. Desoer. [4] M. Veh. C. December 2006. Transp. Meas.. Massachusetts. C. again. October 2002. 7.A. Stockholm. J. 51(5):1186–1192. limitations of the implementation of the CACC system on a practical setup are also shown. it is shown that the feedforward controller enables small intervehicle distances. January 2001. velocity [km h−1] 80 60 40 20 2 0 −2 −4 50 60 70 time [s] 80 90 100 acc. Khatir and E. September 2009. Towards on-the-road implementation of cooperative adaptive cruise control. Adaptive cruise control with stop&go: documentation of the vehicle controller. Visser. IEEE Trans. Van de Molengraft. research focuses on taking into account saturations as well as including robustness against model uncertainties. December 2007. In the upper ﬁgure. no theoretical guarantees can be given regarding string stability of the system. system is tested. In Proc. Further experimental validation of the concept is part of future research. Lu. Furthermore. pages 625–630. [5] D.K. and M.. and Exhib.C. November 1994. Veh. Sweden. In Proc. 10.K. pages 2769–2776. March 2004. TNO Automotive.J. J. IEEE Trans. and J. Meas. however. [6] X. Intell.A. The framework enables assessment of the string stability characteristics of the system. Veh.. Nevertheless. see Fig. Chien. the velocity of vehicle 1 (grey) and vehicle 2 (black) are shown. Veh.. Control. Decentralized control of a large platoon of vehicles using non-identical controllers. Shaw and J. 16th World Congr. Hedrick. Syst. Conf.C. Technol. In Proc.. C ONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK A theoretical framework for the frequency-domain analysis and design of a CACC system is presented.K. Helmond. 2004 Am. V. A comparison of spacing and headway control strategy for automatically controlled vehicles. A system level study of the longitudinal control of a platoon of vehicles. Hedrick. Swaroop and J. linear approach. IEEE Intell.K. Furthermore. J.G. pages 4722–4727. [9] R. the acceleration of vehicle 2 is shown. Swaroop. while maintaining string stability. 11. Ioannou. Transp. Controller design for string stable heterogeneous vehicle strings. Implementation of the CACC system on a real vehicle platform is presented. [11] S. In Proc. In the lower part of the ﬁgure. J. The measurement results in Fig. 11.. In the upper ﬁgure. Measurement results validate the assumptions made in the modeling and the theoretical results of the string stability analysis. 121:462–470. [m s−2] ideal low-level vehicle dynamics. Moreover.Y. Technol. Measurement results of Experiment ii. [10] E. Liu and S. Measurement results of Experiment i. Sep. Theoretical analysis of the CACC system shows that a velocity-dependent spacing policy is required to achieve string stable system behavior. as the corresponding acceleration signal. Shladover. However. volume 5. the velocity of vehicle 1 (grey) and vehicle 2 (black) are shown.. [12] D. Measurement results of Experiment iii. Using the proposed. Comparing the results of the ACC system in Experiment ii and the CACC system in Experiment iii clearly illustrates the potential of the proposed design. ISO 15622. Van Driel. In the lower part of the ﬁgure. 114(2):286–292. show that vehicle 2 does not amplify the oscillations in the velocity. Effects of communication delay on string stability in vehicle platoons. Sys.J. Hedrick. the system should exhibit string unstable behavior. Hedrick. Rajamani and C.P. pages 2868–2875. the velocity of vehicle 1 (grey) and vehicle 2 (black) are shown.. Sys. Dyn. [m s−2] Fig. Swaroop. Hedrick. Control Conf.Adaptive Cruise Control systems . [14] D.A.. Heavy-duty truck control: Short inter-vehicle distance following.O. Boston. Vugts. 7(4):429–436. Chien.S. [2] International Organization for Standardization. Naus. Semi-autonomous Adaptive Cruise Control systems. Autonomous intelligent cruise control.E. [m s−2] 80 80 60 40 20 2 0 −2 −4 150 160 170 time [s] 180 190 200 Fig. 46th IEEE Conf. 1999. the acceleration of vehicle 2 is shown.L.A. Ioannou and C. [3] P. Decis. acc. TNO report. R EFERENCES [1] B. Am. Serv. IEEE Trans. Ploeg. indicating string stable behavior.. Van Arem. Technol. such as the presence of saturation and non- . 9. J. Transp. Fig. Steinbuch. [7] X. In Proc. 42(4):657–672..

- HASHIM_Optimal Speed Control for DC Motors Using LQR
- 9FR-00-5
- AAC_06_global_chassis.pdf
- AdaptiveDC Control
- pub-6
- PB4
- Katun Antilock Brakes
- Crankshaft Vibration
- Federico Piscaglia Slides
- PID Controller of Speed and Torque of ServoMotor Using MATLAB
- CONTROL SYSTEMS
- 6 Pankaj Sahu 1816 Research Communication VSRDIJEEC May 2013
- Ecp 09430113
- J1939-15.pdf
- Untitled
- Optimization of an Intelligent Controller for An
- prjts
- 33I17-IJAET1117374_v6_iss5_2253-2261
- [08CV-0019] Yaw Stability Control of Tractor Semi-Trailers
- p35_Moormann
- IJAIEM-2015-03-29-81
- Sequense Control
- A View of Automotive Control System
- Modeling of Variable Intake Valve Timing in SI Engine
- 0D_1D model
- Controller Truck
- 11025583 PVED-CL Controller for Electro-Hydraulic Steering
- 17 Application optimixzation
- Aw 021311318
- SCThG

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd