CHAPTER 5. SIMULATION RESULTS
64
|
7 am |
1 |
5 |
10 |
15 |
20 |
|
-5 |
100.78 |
176.36 |
227.51 |
315.94 |
431.76 |
|
10 |
331.23 |
170.70 |
209.57 |
328.41 |
447.78 |
|
20 |
171.06 |
159.35 |
220.92 |
317.50 |
455.86 |
|
30 |
174.27 |
186.60 |
201.32 |
313.75 |
434.55 |
|
40 |
163.65 |
158.75 |
218.66 |
298.10 |
395.19 |
|
50 |
185.92 |
174.17 |
212.77 |
270.32 |
382.63 |
|
60 |
194.06 |
176.39 |
201.84 |
266.33 |
380.58 |
|
70 |
168.73 |
189.32 |
206.75 |
257.62 |
379.14 |
|
80 |
196.74 |
210.29 |
188.80 |
258.15 |
375.52 |
|
90 |
210.41 |
199.20 |
208.46 |
256.69 |
401.59 |
|
100 |
219.50 |
205.07 |
208.69 |
248.20 |
338.72 |
|
110 |
223.47 |
221.07 |
223.38 |
276.40 |
349.14 |
Table 5.10: Wetstraat 7am, platoon controller: ATWT values for different values
of θ and φmin. Rows represent different values for θ, columns represent different
values for φmin.
not always predictable. With φmin = 5 the traffic light controller works as
expected but will have a higher ATWT which is still good.
• If θ = 10 and φmin = 1 the first junction of the Wetstraat will interleave
the traffic of the Wetstraat and its side-road. This causes a very high av-
erage trip waiting time and a large waiting queue at the beginning of the
Wetstraat. Behind the first junction the traffic density is much lower and the
next junctions have no problems. If φmin = 5 for the same θ this problem
is solved.
If those ATWT values are compared with the results for the optim control
method (ATWT=358.11), it shows that all values for φmin = 5or10 are smaller
than for optim. The lowest value is only 44.32% of the ATWT value of optim.
The highest value is 63.53% of the optim ATWT value. The platoon controller
with θ = 5 and φmin = 1 has the lowest ATWT (28.14% of optim ATWT), but it
has some unexpected side-effects, which are not acceptable.
If the best ATWT has to be selected without side-effects it would be around
170, which is a reduction in ATWT of 52%.