English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) defines six levels of driving automation, ranging from Level 0 to Level 5. Automated driving systems perform entire dynamic driving tasks for Levels 3–5 automated vehicles. Delegating dynamic driving tasks from driver to automated driving systems can eliminate crashes attributed to driver errors. Sharing status, sharing intent, seeking agreement, or sharing prescriptive information between road users and vehicles dedicated to automated driving systems can further enhance dynamic driving task performance, safety, and traffic operations. Extensive simulation is required to reduce operating costs and achieve an acceptable risk level before testing cooperative automated driving systems in laboratory environments, test tracks, or public roads. Cooperative automated driving systems can be simulated using a vehicle dynamics simulation tool (e.g., CarMaker and CarSim) or a traffic microsimulation tool (e.g., Vissim and Aimsun). Vehicle dynamics simulation tools are mainly used for verification and validation purposes on a small scale, while traffic microsimulation tools are mainly used for verification purposes on a large scale. Vehicle dynamics simulation tools can simulate longitudinal, lateral, and vertical dynamics for only a few vehicles in each scenario (e.g., up to ten vehicles in CarMaker and up to twenty vehicles in CarSim). Conventional traffic microsimulation tools can simulate vehicle-following, lane-changing, and gap-acceptance behaviors for many vehicles in each scenario without simulating vehicle powertrain. Vehicle dynamics simulation tools are more compute-intensive but more accurate than traffic microsimulation tools. Due to software architecture or computing power limitations, simplifying assumptions underlying convectional traffic microsimulation tools may have been a necessary compromise long ago. There is, therefore, a need for a simulation tool to optimize computational complexity and accuracy to simulate many vehicles in each scenario with reasonable accuracy. This research proposes a traffic microsimulation tool that employs a simplified vehicle powertrain model and a model-based fault detection method to simulate many vehicles with reasonable accuracy at each simulation time step under noise and unknown inputs. Our traffic microsimulation tool considers driver characteristics, vehicle model, grade, pavement conditions, operating mode, vehicle-to-vehicle communication vulnerabilities, and traffic conditions to estimate longitudinal control variables with reasonable accuracy at each simulation time step for many conventional vehicles, vehicles dedicated to automated driving systems, and vehicles equipped with cooperative automated driving systems. Proposed vehicle-following model and longitudinal control functions are verified for fourteen vehicle models, operating in manual, automated, and cooperative automated modes over two driving schedules under three malicious fault magnitudes on transmitted accelerations.

Longitudinal Control for Connected and Automated Vehicles in Contested Environments