Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Estimating Critical Gap of Roundabouts by Different Methods: November 2010
Estimating Critical Gap of Roundabouts by Different Methods: November 2010
net/publication/224230507
CITATIONS READS
15 253
1 author:
Rui-Jun Guo
Dalian Jiaotong University
12 PUBLICATIONS 86 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Rui-Jun Guo on 30 January 2020.
Critical gap is an important parameter which affects the distribution but a definite value because of difference of
capacity and delay of unsignalized intersections. There driver operation, geometry of roundabouts and traffic
operation character.
are different critical gap values for drivers in different
geometry parameters and traffic conditions. Critical gap Many different methods estimating critical gap at
can be generally described by Erlang distribution, unsignalized intersections have been published in the
lognormal distribution, etc. Various methods international literature. Raff’s method (1950) involves
calculating critical gap at roundabouts have been the distributions of accepted gap and rejected gap. The
presented. Many studies on gap acceptance at sum of cumulative probabilities of accepted gap and
roundabouts have been carried out in America and rejected gap is 1 when the headway is equal to critical
Europe, whereas the same works have rarely been done gap. Critical gap can be obtained by drawing graph of
in China. This paper gives an overview of many cumulative probability. This method has been applied in
methods calculating critical gap. On the base of video many countries, whereas it lacks strict theoretic basis.
survey of Shuma Square roundabout in Dalian, we Robert Ashworth’s method (1969) is related to the
acquired a large number of rejected gaps and accepted distribution of accepted gap under the circumstances of
gaps in rush hour. The critical gaps can be calculated by different flow rates of circulating stream provided that
use of different methods including Ashworth’s method, the circulating headway follows exponential
Raff’s method and the maximum likelihood method. As distribution, critical gap and accepted gap follows
a result, the maximum likelihood procedure and the normal distribution. Miller (1974) deduced the formula
revised Raff’s method can be recommended for of critical gap provided that it follows Gamma
practical application, and Ashworth’s method will distribution based on Ashworth’s method.
result in larger result because it only uses values of M.M.Hammed et al. (1997) consider the distribution of
accepted gap. critical gap is related to the life background of driver,
waiting time and trip purpose etc. and the mean critical
1 Instruction gap is related to conflicting flow, the lane number of
entry, the proportion of left-turn lane and velocity of
Critical gap is an important parameter which influences
circulating stream. They built multiple regress model of
the capacity and delay of roundabouts, and it is usually
critical gap. The maximum likelihood method (Tian et
defined as a threshold whether drivers in entry vehicles
al. 1999) supposed the accepted gap, maximum rejected
run into the roundabout or not. If the headway between
gap and critical gap follow normal distribution, and the
the continued two vehicles of circulating stream is
mean and variance of critical gap can be calculated
larger than the critical gap, it is named as accepted gap
based on probability theory. Brilon et al. (1999) had a
since entry vehicles can accept the headway and run
comprehensive analysis on different methods and made
into roundabout. On the other hand, it is named as
a conclusion that maximum likelihood method (MLM)
and Hewitt’s method calculate well and truly. Abishai
Polus et al. (2003) considered critical gap decreased
with the increase of waiting time of entry drivers and
2
built an exponential model. where c is the variance of critical gap(s2)。 The
Based on the video survey of Shuma Square computer iteration can be applied to calculate critical
roundabout in Dalian, China, we calculated and gap using equation (3). We calculate critical gap by use
compared critical gap by use of varied methods based of equation (2) in this paper.
on the accepted gaps and rejected gaps of a certain 2.3 Maximum likelihood method
waving section during the rush time. Troutbeck and Brilon (1999) considered the MLM as
the most reliable of varied methods. Troutbeck
2 Calculation method assumed critical gap followed lognormal distribution,
while Brilon assumed critical gap followed ultra-Erlang
The critical gap is a hypothetical value which can’t be
distribution. The paper uses the former.
measured based on the field samples, it can be only
estimated by measuring the accepted gap and rejected MLM uses two terms of gaps including accepted gaps
gap. There are many methods to estimate critical gap and maximum rejected gaps. The maximum rejected
such as regression method, MLM, Raff’s, Harder’s, gap is the maximum value of all rejected gaps during a
Ashworth’s, Siegloch’s and so on.
driver waits to running into the roundabout. The mean
2.1 Raff’s method
and variance of critical gap can be calculated used of
Raff consider the number of rejected gap larger than
the maximum likelihood function of probability theory.
critical gap is equal to the number of accepted gap
smaller than critical gap. He created the formula as We assume critical gap follows lognormal distribution,
that is to say, t ~ LN(u, ) . The maximum
2
follow. c
1 Fr (t) Fa (t) (1) where ai is the logarithm of the gap accepted by the
i th driver; ri is the logarithm of the maximum gap
where Fa (t) is the cumulative proportion of
rejected by the i th driver, r = 0 if no gap was
i
accepted gap; Fr (t) is the cumulative proportion of
rejected ; f (t ) , F(t) are the probability density
rejected gap; t is the headway of two continued
function and cumulative distribution function for the
vehicles of circulating stream.
normal distribution respectively.
The critical gap is the cross point of two cumulative
The logarithm of function (4) is as follow.
proportion curves of accepted gap and rejected gap.
n
i i
3.46 1.16 3.35 1.93 2.97 0 5.21 3.01 5.11 2.45 3.22 0
5.75 0 4.01 1.93 3.78 1.92 2.01 0 5.54 2.36 3.67 1.93
3.22 0 4.66 3.35 3.97 2.77 3.56 2.24 3.96 2.1 7.24 2.18
2.18 1.16 4.26 2.94 4.22 2.18 4.25 2.14 5.25 1.89 3.49 2.32
3.49 0 4.22 3.6 3.6 2.69 5.21 2.54 5.47 2.58 4.1 2.72
3.74 2.72 5.26 2.34 3.13 1.39 3.45 0 4.12 2.47 5.16 2.56
4.12 0 3.55 2.11 3.03 1.48 2.64 0 4.25 2.45 5.21 2.22
0-1.1 0 0 0 0 0 1
1.1-1.4 0 3 0 0 0.05 1
3.8-4.1 8 1 0.08 0.63 0.02 0.02 gaps from table 1 in six ranges.
4.1-4.4 13 0 0.13 0.76 0 0
6.2-6.5 0 0 0 0.98 0 0
6.5-6.8 0 0 0 0.98 0 0
2
Table 3. test on normal distribution of accepted
The accumulative probability of accepted gap is the
probability which the accepted gap is smaller than the gap
upper limit of range, for example, the accumulative
Range(s) vi pi npi vi2 / npi
probability of accepted gap, 0.14 at the range of 2.3-
2.6s refers to the probability which accepted gap is 0-2 3 0.048 4.824 1.866
smaller than 2.6s. On the contrast, the accumulative 2-3 22 0.182 18.211 26.577
probability of rejected gap is the probability larger than 3-4 34 0.344 34.374 33.630
The curves of accumulative probability can be drawn 5-6 16 0.112 11.234 22.789
as figure 2. The critical gap is 2.91s which is the cross >6 2 0.021 2.089 1.915
Test of hypothesis to normal distribution of accepted is the frequency of accepted gaps in each range; n is
gap. The figure 3 shows the frequencies of accepted the total frequency and n 100 , pi is the
2
probability of distribution in the range and
2
104.851-100 4.851. The equation can be
2
derived in search of distribution table as the
significance level is 0.05 and free degree is 3 as follow.
2
0 .953 7.815 4.851
So the hypothesis can be accepted and the accepted gap
0.9485 follows normal distribution.
2
114.381-105 9.381
0
2
.95(8) 15.507 9.381.