1 / 31

Optimal Adaptive Signal Control for Diamond Interchanges Using Dynamic Programming

Optimal Adaptive Signal Control for Diamond Interchanges Using Dynamic Programming. FALL 2005 UMASS Amherst Operations Research / Management Science Seminar Series Fang (Clara) Fang, Ph.D. Assistant Professor The University of Hartford. Outline of Presentation. Background Methodology

tawana
Download Presentation

Optimal Adaptive Signal Control for Diamond Interchanges Using Dynamic Programming

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Optimal Adaptive Signal Control for Diamond Interchanges Using Dynamic Programming FALL 2005 UMASS AmherstOperations Research / Management Science Seminar Series Fang (Clara) Fang, Ph.D. Assistant Professor The University of Hartford

  2. Outline of Presentation • Background • Methodology • Dynamic Programming Formulation • Vehicle Arrival-Discharge Projection Model • Algorithm Implementation • Using Simulation for Evaluation • Sensitivity Analysis and Comparisons • Conclusions and Recommendations

  3. Diamond Interchanges D = 400 – 800 ft or less Freeway Surface Street Freeway

  4. Geometric Layout of a Diamond Interchange Freeway On-Ramp Freeway Off-Ramp Arterial Freeway On-Ramp Freeway Off-Ramp

  5. Common Signalization Schemes • Three-phase Plan • Four-phase Plan Freeway Off-Ramp Freeway On-Ramp Arterial Freeway On-Ramp Freeway Off-Ramp

  6. Common Signalization Schemes Phase - part of cycle (sum of green, yellow and red times) allocated to any combination of traffic movements receiving the right-of-way simultaneously.

  7. 4 6 6 6 1 1 5 5 2 2 2 8 Common Signalization Schemes • Three-phase Plan • Four-phase Plan Freeway Off-Ramp Freeway On-Ramp Arterial Freeway On-Ramp Freeway Off-Ramp

  8. Background • PASSER III (Signal Optimization Tool for Diamond Interchanges) • Off-line and pre-timed • Search: three-phase or four-phase plan

  9. Background • Adaptive Control • Generates and implements the signal plan dynamically based on real time traffic conditions that are measured through a traffic detection system

  10. Objectives • To develop a methodology for real-time signal optimization of diamond interchanges • To evaluate the developed optimal signal control using micro-simulation

  11. Optimization MethodDynamic Programming (DP) • To optimize a sequence of inter-related decisions • Global optimal solution Optimal signal switch sequence Time Decision Tree

  12. DP Formulation - Decision Network Optimization Horizon (10 seconds) State Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Input: Initial Phase & Queue Length Arrivals from t0 – t4 Output: Optimal Decision Path Three-Phase Ring Structure

  13. Optimization Objective • Performance Measure Index (PMI) Weights Queue Length, Storage Ratio, Delay, etc.

  14. Fixed Weights vs.Dynamic Weights Dynamic Values: Fixed Values

  15. DP FormulationForward Recurrence Relation Minimal PMI from stage 0 to stage n-1 Minimal PMI from stage 0 to stage n Immediate Return over stage n, due to decision k, state (n-1,j) changing to state (n,i), given initial queue lengths at stage n-1 Minimal PMI over all decisions

  16. Vehicle Projection Model Distance, ft DP Horizon Implement Optimal Signal Plan 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 20 Stop-line Time, sec Queue Detection Period DP Calculation Detector Time, sec -16 -15 -12 -2 0 -8.5 -2 5.5 Detection Overlap

  17. Detectors PlacementLayout

  18. Signal ImplementationMajority Rolling Concept For each horizon of 10s, a majority signal phase is implemented for Either 7.5s green if this majority phase is the same as the previous one, Or otherwise 2.5s yellow-and-all-red clearance timefollowed by 5s green

  19. Using Simulation to Evaluate the DP Algorithm Select one diamond interchange, Collect field data Select a simulation model from AIMSUN, CORSIM & VISSIM Calibrate the model Simulate the DP algorithm by the calibrated simulation model Sensitivity Analysis Simulate three signal plans by the calibrated simulation model Comparisons DP Algorithm PASSER III TRANSYT-7F

  20. Diamond InterchangeField Data

  21. AIMSUN Simulation GETRAM Extension Module Detection Information Signal Timing DP Algorithm Coded in C++ Generate *.DLL AIMSUN and the DP Algorithm

  22. Code Flow Structure and Time Logic GetExtLoad idprolling=0 isimustep=-1 idp=0 GetExtManage GetExtInit Detecting over every 0.5 seconds for all lane groups. • . Discharging headway • . Arrival vehicles traveling speed • . Arrival vehicle number If time >=284 If isimustep<27 Block 1 isimustep=isimustep+1 If isimustep=27, isumstep=0 Detection Overlapping Estimating the initial queue at t=300+idprollong*10, based on the queue and signal at t=298, and the averaged number of arrival vehicles every 0.5 second If time =298 Arrival Projection and discharge dynamics calculation DP value forward iteration DP optimal signal backward declaration Block 2 & Block 3 If 298<time <300 Layer 0 to 4 i=0~3 Disable the current fixed control plan If time = 300 Block 4 idp=idp+1 If idp=4, then idp=0 Idprolling=0 Implement the DP optimal signal, rolling 2.5 sec forward, for a total of 4 DP intervals If time=300+idp*2.5 Step-wise simulation is finished Time = time + 0.5 No If time=7200, Switch to fixed control Yes GetExtFinish GetExtUnLoad

  23. Sensitivity Analysis • Delay vs. PMI • Sum of Average Queue Length Per Lane for All Approaches • Sum of Average Delay Per Lane for All Approaches • Sum of Total Delays for All Approaches • Sum of Storage Ratio Per Lane for All Approaches • Delay vs. Weights • Ramp Weights • Arterial Weights • Internal Link Left Turning Weights Weights

  24. ComparisonsDynamic Weights & Fixed Weights System Delays (sec/veh) Saving 36% - 49%

  25. Summary Fixed Weights and Dynamic Weights • When the demand varies unpredictably every 15 minutes and is unbalanced, using dynamic weights can reduce the system delay up to 49%, compared to using fixed weights. • With dynamic weights, operations remain under-saturated for higher demands than with fixed weights. • With dynamic weights, users do not need to manually adjusting the weights. • The performance of dynamic weights also depends on how their values are defined.

  26. ComparisonsDP, PASSER III & TRANSYT-7F System Delays (sec/veh)

  27. Conclusions • Developed a methodology and the corresponding algorithm for optimal and adaptive signal control of diamond interchanges • Various performance measures • Dynamic weights • Built a vehicle arrival-discharge projection model at the microscopic level • Simulated the algorithm using AIMSUN • Studied the algorithm performance

  28. Conclusionsfor the Algorithm Performance • Optimize both phase sequence and phase duration • The real-time DP signal algorithm is superior to PASSER III and TRANSYT-7F in handling demand fluctuations • The dynamic weighted algorithm is appropriate to be applied in special events or incidents when high demands are unexpected and varying

  29. Future Research • Expand the decision network of signal control • When it is not possible or practical to place detectors far enough • Results compared to other adaptive signal systems and/or actuated control systems • Apply the method for urban arterials and small networks

  30. Questions and Comments?

More Related