首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Advanced Transportation >A comparison between PARAMICS and VISSIM in estimating automated field-measured traffic conflicts at signalized intersections
【24h】

A comparison between PARAMICS and VISSIM in estimating automated field-measured traffic conflicts at signalized intersections

机译:比较PARAMICS和VISSIM在估计信号交叉口的自动实测交通冲突中的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

The main objective of this study is to investigate the relationship between field-measured conflicts and simulated conflicts estimated from microsimulation model (PARAMICS) using the surrogate safety assessment model. An urban signalized intersection was selected for analysis. Automated video-based computer vision techniques were used to identify field conflicts. The applicability of a two-step model calibration procedure applied to VISSIM in a recent study was investigated using PARAMICS. In the first calibration step, the PARAMICS model was calibrated to ensure that the simulation gives reasonable results of average delay times. The second calibration step used a genetic algorithm procedure to calibrate PARAMICS parameters to enhance the correlation between simulated and field-measured conflicts. Finally, the results obtained from PARAMICS were compared with results obtained from VISSIM. The comparison included three aspects: (i) the car-following model and safety-related parameters; (ii) the correlation between simulated and field-measured conflicts; and (iii) the conflict spatial distributions. The results show that the default simulation model parameters give poor correlation with the field-measured data, and therefore, using simulation models without a proper calibration should be avoided. Overall, good correlation between field-measured and simulated conflicts was obtained after calibration for both models, especially at higher time-to-collision (TTC) values. At TTC threshold of 1.5 s, PARAMICS overestimates the number of conflicts and VISSIM underestimates it. Both models overestimated the number of conflicts at TTC threshold of 3.00 s. There were major differences between field-measured and simulated conflicts spatial distributions for both simulation models. This indicates that despite the good correlation obtained from the calibration process, both PARAMICS and VISSIM do not capture the actual conflict occurrence mechanism. Copyright (C) 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
机译:这项研究的主要目的是调查使用代理安全评估模型从微观模拟模型(PARAMICS)估算的实测冲突与模拟冲突之间的关系。选择了一个城市信号交叉口进行分析。使用基于视频的自动计算机视觉技术来识别现场冲突。使用PARAMICS研究了在最近的研究中应用于VISSIM的两步模型校准程序的适用性。在第一步校准中,对PARAMICS模型进行了校准,以确保模拟给出合理的平均延迟时间结果。第二个校准步骤使用遗传算法过程校准PARAMICS参数,以增强模拟冲突和实地测量冲突之间的相关性。最后,将从PARAMICS获得的结果与从VISSIM获得的结果进行比较。比较包括三个方面:(i)跟车模型和安全相关参数; (ii)模拟冲突与实测冲突之间的相关性; (iii)冲突空间分布。结果表明,默认的仿真模型参数与实测数据的相关性较差,因此应避免使用未经适当校准的仿真模型。总体而言,在对两个模型进行校准后,尤其是在较高的碰撞时间(TTC)值下,实测和模拟的冲突之间获得了良好的相关性。在1.5 s的TTC阈值下,PARAMICS高估了冲突数量,而VISSIM低估了冲突数量。两种模型都高估了TTC阈值3.00 s时的冲突数量。两种模拟模型的实测冲突空间分布和模拟冲突空间分布之间都存在主要差异。这表明尽管从校准过程中获得了良好的相关性,但是PARAMICS和VISSIM均未捕获实际的冲突发生机制。版权所有(C)2016 John Wiley&Sons,Ltd.

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号