Skip to main content
Log in

Efficient Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control Including Platoon Kinematics

  • Published:
Automotive Innovation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cooperative adaptive cruise control (CACC) is acknowledged as an efficient solution to relieve traffic congestion while ensuring traffic safety. This paper aims to improve traffic efficiency via both the effective following spacing policy and the CACC with platoon kinematics. Firstly, the correlation mechanism of safety spacing policy and time headway policy is analyzed, a versatile generic spacing model is established, and an efficient spacing policy is proposed by leveraging the concept of safety redundancy. Secondly, based on the “virtual centroid” of the platoon, the CACC upper control strategy with platoon kinematics is proposed to improve traffic efficiency. The strategy is complemented by the design of a sliding mode controller, which precisely allocates longitudinal acceleration. Additionally, a lower controller is developed to track the desired acceleration accurately and rapidly under various driving and braking conditions. Thirdly, eight typical scenarios for urban traffic are reconstructed via three-layer decompositions, and the index named synchronization is proposed to evaluate the performance of CACC with platoon kinematics. Finally, a simulation test is conducted, demonstrating that the proposed CACC strategy synchronously responds to the kinematics of the preceding platoon, reducing the accumulation of response delay, ensuring both vehicle following safety and efficiency.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Levine, W.S., Athans, M.: On the optimal error regulation of a string of moving vehicles. IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr. 11(3), 355–361 (1966)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Xiao, L., Gao, F.: A comprehensive review of the development of adaptive cruise control systems. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 48(10), 1167–1192 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Van Arem, B., Van Driel, C.J.G.: The impact of cooperative adaptive cruise control on traffic-flow characteristics. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 7(4), 429–436 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Montanaro, U., Dixit, S., Fallah, S., et al.: Towards connected autonomous driving: review of use-cases. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 57(6), 779–814 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Amoozadeh, M., Deng, H., Chuah, C.N., et al.: Platoon management with cooperative adaptive cruise control enabled by VANET. Veh. Commun. 2(2), 110–123 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rajamani, R., Tan, H.S., Law, B.K., et al.: Demonstration of integrated longitudinal and lateral control for the operation of automated vehicles in platoons. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 8(4), 695–708 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Madeleine, E.L.Z., Dafflon, B., Gechter, F., et al.: Vehicle platoon control with multi-configuration ability. Procedia Comput. Sci. 9, 1503–1512 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang X, Li W, Guo K, et al.: Longitudinal acceleration allocation for cooperative adaptive cruise control including platoon kinematics. In: 2019 IEEE 28th International Symposium on Industrial Electronics (ISIE), pp. 1512-1517. Vancouver (2019)

  9. Shladover, S.E.: Longitudinal control of automotive vehicles in close-formation platoons. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control. 113, 231–241 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Marsden, G., McDonald, M., Brackstone, M.: Towards an understanding of adaptive cruise control. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 9(1), 33–51 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ploeg J, van de Wouw N, Nijmeijer H.: Fault tolerance of cooperative vehicle platoons subject to communication delay. In: Proceedings of the 12th IFAC Workshop on Time Delay Systems (TDS 2015), Ann Arbor, MI, United States, 28–30 Jun 2015, pp. 352–357 (2015)

  12. Yanakiev, D., Kanellakopoulos, I.: Nonlinear spacing policies for automated heavy-duty vehicles. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 47(4), 1365–1377 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhang, X., Huang, Y., Guo, K., et al.: Integrated spacing policy considering micro-and macroscopic characteristics. Automot. Innov. 2(2), 102–109 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tongue, B.H., Packard, A.K., Sachi, P.: An approach to determining worst case platoon behavior. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 28(6), 357–383 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Yang, H., Rakha, H., Ala, M.V.: Eco-cooperative adaptive cruise control at signalized intersections considering queue effects. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 18(6), 1575–1585 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Li, Y., Wang, H., Wang, W., et al.: Evaluation of the impacts of cooperative adaptive cruise control on reducing rear-end collision risks on freeways. Accid. Anal. Prev. 98, 87–95 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. International Organization for Standardization: ISO 20035:2019 - Intelligent transport systems Cooperative adaptive cruise control systems (CACC) Performance requirements and test procedures (2019)

  18. Xiao, L., Gao, F.: Practical string stability of platoon of adaptive cruise control vehicles. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 12(4), 1184–1194 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhou, J., Peng, H.: String stability conditions of adaptive cruise control algorithms. IFAC Proc. Vol. 37(22), 649–654 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Special thanks are due to the National Natural Science Foundation of China (52072144, 52122216, 51675217), and the Opening Founding of State Key Laboratory of Automotive Simulation and Control (20201101) for supporting authors' research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xinjie Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all the authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Appendices

Appendix A

The detailed derivation of Eq. (1):

In the extreme manual braking case, the host vehicle travels at constant acceleration \({a}_{{\text{max}}}\), and its preceding vehicle travels at constant deceleration \({a}_{{\text{bmax}}}\), the braking process can be described by Figs. A1 and A2.

Fig. 7
figure 7

The braking process of the \(i\)th vehicle

Fig. 8
figure 8

The position of the \(i\)th vehicle during braking process

\({\tau }_{11}\) is the time required to detect that the preceding vehicle starts to brake, \({\tau }_{12}\) is the time for the driver to release the accelerator pedal completely; \({\tau }_{21}\) is the time to move the foot to the braking pedal and eliminate the mechanical clearance of the braking system, \({\tau }_{22}\) is the time to increase braking force, \({\tau }_{3}\) is the continuous braking time, and \({\tau }_{4}\) is the braking release time.

During the period of \({\tau }_{11}\), the host vehicle travels at a uniform acceleration, so the distance and velocity is derived as:

$$\begin{array}{l}{s}_{10}={v}_{i}{\tau }_{11}+\frac{1}{2}{a}_{{\text{max}}}{\tau }_{11}^{2} \end{array}$$
(A1)
$$\begin{array}{l}{v}_{1}={v}_{i}+{a}_{{\text{max}}}{\tau }_{11} \end{array}$$
(A2)

During the period of \({\tau }_{12}\), it is assumed that the acceleration decreases linearly, so the velocity and distance are calculated through integration:

$$\begin{array}{l}{v}_{2}={v}_{1}+{\frac{1}{2}{\tau }_{12}a}_{{\text{max}}}\end{array}$$
(A3)
$$\begin{array}{l}{s}_{11}={v}_{1}{\tau }_{12}+\frac{1}{6}{a}_{{\text{max}}}{\tau }_{12}^{2} \end{array}$$
(A4)

During the period of \({\tau }_{21}\), the vehicle travels at constant speed \({v}_{2}\):

$$\begin{array}{l}{s}_{20}={v}_{2}{\tau }_{21} \end{array}$$
(A5)

During the period of \({\tau }_{22}\), it is assumed the deceleration increases linearly, the velocity and distance are calculated through integration:

$$\begin{array}{l}{v}_{3}={v}_{2}-\frac{1}{2}{a}_{{\text{bmax}}}{\tau }_{22} \end{array}$$
(A6)
$$\begin{array}{l}{s}_{21}={v}_{2}{\tau }_{22}-\frac{1}{6}{a}_{{\text{bmax}}}{\tau }_{22}^{2} \end{array}$$
(A7)

During the period of \({\tau }_{3}\), the host vehicle travels at a uniform deceleration, so the distance and velocity is derived as:

$$\begin{array}{l}{s}_{3}=\frac{{v}_{3}^{2}}{2{a}_{{\text{bmax}}}} \end{array}$$
(A8)

Above all, the braking distance of the host vehicle is:

$$\begin{array}{l}{S}_{i}={s}_{10}+{s}_{11}+{s}_{20}+{s}_{21}+{s}_{3} \end{array}$$
(A9)

Since the preceding vehicle travels at a uniform deceleration, the braking distance is derived as:

$$\begin{array}{l}{S}_{i-1}=\frac{{v}_{i-1}^{2}}{2{a}_{{\text{bmax}}}} \end{array}$$
(A10)

To guarantee the safety, the distance that the host vehicle should maintain from the preceding vehicle is:

$$\begin{aligned} D_{{{\text{min}}i}} & = S_{i} - S_{{i - 1}} + d_{{ai}} = \frac{{v_{i}^{2} - v_{{i - 1}}^{2} }}{{2a_{{{\text{bmax}}}} }} + \left[ {\tau _{{11}} + \tau _{{12}} + \tau _{{21}} + \frac{{\tau _{{22}} }}{2}} \right. \\ & \quad \left. { + \frac{{a_{{{\text{max}}}} }}{{a_{{{\text{bmax}}}} }}\left( {\tau _{{11}} + \frac{{\tau _{{12}} }}{2}} \right)} \right]v_{i} - \frac{1}{{24}}a_{{{\text{bmax}}}} \tau _{{22}}^{2} \\ & \quad + a_{{{\text{max}}}} \left[ {\frac{{\tau _{{11}}^{2} }}{2} + \tau _{{11}} \tau _{{12}} + \frac{1}{6}\tau _{{12}}^{2} + \left( {\tau _{{11}} + \frac{{\tau _{{12}} }}{2}} \right)\left( {\tau _{{21}} + \frac{{\tau _{{22}} }}{2}} \right) + \frac{{a_{{{\text{max}}}} }}{{2a_{{{\text{bmax}}}} }}\left( {\tau _{{11}} + \frac{{\tau _{{12}} }}{2}} \right)^{2} } \right] + d_{{ai}} \\ \end{aligned}$$
(A11)

where \({d}_{ai}\) is a safety margin.

Appendix B: Description of parameters

\({a}_{{\text{bmax}}}\):

Maximum deceleration \(({\text{m}}/{{\text{s}}^{2}})\)

\({a}_{{\text{max}}}\):

Maximum acceleration \(({\text{m}}/{{\text{s}}^{2}})\)

\({\tau }_{11}\):

Time to detect that the preceding vehicle starts to brake (\({\text{s}}\))

\({\tau }_{12}\):

Time for driver to release the accelerator pedal completely (\({\text{s}}\))

\({\tau }_{21}\):

Time to move the foot to the braking pedal and eliminate the mechanical clearance (\({\text{s}}\))

\({\tau }_{22}\):

Time to increase braking force (\({\text{s}}\))

\({\tau }_{3}\):

Continuous braking time \(({\text{s}})\)

\({\tau }_{4}\):

Braking force release time (\({\text{s}}\))

\({d}_{{\text{min}}}\):

Centroid distance between the host vehicle and preceding vehicle when their velocities are 0 \(({\text{m}})\)

\(th\):

Constant time headway \(({\text{s}})\)

\({v}_{i}\):

Velocity of the \(i\)th vehicle (\({\text{m}}/{\text{s}}\))

\({d}_{{\text{emei}}}\):

Safe distance of the emergency braking case \(({\text{m}})\)

\({d}_{{\text{stei}}}\):

Safe distance of the steady following case \(({\text{m}})\)

\({d}_{{\text{saf}}i}\):

Safe distance of the safety spacing policy \(({\text{m}})\)

\({{th}}_{{\text{gen}}i}\):

Time headway of the generic spacing model (\({\text{s}}\))

\(th({v}_{i})\):

Time headway on \({v}_{i}\) (\({\text{s}}\))

\({t}_{{\text{safe}}}\):

Time headway of the safety spacing policy \(({\text{s}})\)

\({v}_{\text{c}}\):

Critical velocity (\({\text{m}}/{\text{s}}\))

\({d}_{{\text{ef}}i}\):

Distance from the \(i\)th vehicle to its preceding vehicle of the efficient spacing policy \(({\text{m}})\)

\({d}_{i}\):

Centroid distance between the \(i\)th vehicle and its preceding vehicle (\(({\text{m}})\))

\({e}_{i}\):

Centroid distance tracking error of the \(i\)th vehicle (\({\text{m}}\))

\({d}_{{\text{G}}}\):

Distance of the virtual centroid (\({\text{m}}\))

\({v}_{{\text{G}}}\):

Velocity of the virtual centroid (\({\text{m}}/{\text{s}}\))

\({a}_{{\text{G}}}\):

Acceleration of the virtual centroid (\({\text{m}}/{{\text{s}}}^{2}\))

\({d}_{{\text{des}}i}\):

Desired centroid distance between the \(i\)th vehicle and following target \(({\text{m}})\)

\({a}_{{\text{des}}i}\):

Desired acceleration of the \(i\)th vehicle \(({\text{m}}/{{\text{s}}^{2}})\)

\(\lambda\):

Sliding surface convergence speed

\(c\):

Sliding surface parameter

\({\widehat{\tau }}_{s}\):

Estimation of the vehicle response time

\({W}_{i}\):

Weight of \(i\)th vehicle in the platoon

\({u}_{{\text{throttle}}}\):

Throttle opening

\({u}_{{\text{b}}}\):

Brake master cylinder pressure

\({I}_{{\text{s}}}\):

CACC Synchronic index \(({\text{s}})\)

\({\tau }_{s}\):

Vehicle response time (\({\text{s}}\))

\(\tau\):

Braking response time (\({\text{s}}\))

\({a}_{i,{\text{des}}}\):

Desired acceleration of the \(i\)th vehicle for ACC (\({\text{m}}/{{\text{s}}}^{2}\))

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, X., Li, S., Guo, K. et al. Efficient Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control Including Platoon Kinematics. Automot. Innov. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42154-023-00243-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42154-023-00243-2

Keywords

Navigation