Assessing Strong String Stability of Constant Spacing Policy under
Speed Limit Fluctuations
Sina Arefizadeh1, Aria Hasanzadezonuzy2, Alireza Talebpour3*, Srinivas Shakkottai4



Abstract— The speed limit changes frequently throughout the transportation network, due to either safety (e.g., change in
geometry) or congestion management (e.g., speed harmonization systems). Any abrupt reduction in the speed limit can
create a shockwave that propagates upstream in traffic. Dealing with such an abrupt reduction in speed limit is particularly
important while designing control laws for a platoon of automated vehicles from both stability and efficiency perspectives.
This paper focuses on Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) based platooning under a constant spacing policy, and investigates
the possibility of designing a controller that ensures stability, while tracking a given target velocity profile that changes as
a function of location. An ideal controller should maintain a constant spacing between successive vehicles, while tracking
the desired velocity profile. The analytical investigations of this paper suggest that such a controller does not exist.
Keywords: Autonomous Vehicle, Stability, Constant Spacing, Platooning, Speed Harmonization.

I. INTRODUCTION
Changing the speed limit is a common strategy to deal with safety concerns (e.g., change in the roadway geometry,
school zones, adverse weather condition, etc.) and to mitigate congestion (e.g., speed harmonization systems [1]). A
sudden change in speed limit can result in shockwave formation and propagation, which can potentially change the
traffic flow regime and cause flow breakdown. While the current practice in transportation systems adjusts the speed
limit at fixed locations throughout the roadway network, the introduction of connected vehicles technology provides
the opportunity to enhance safety and reduce congestion by providing speed limit information at any arbitrary location
along the roadway network. This technology also provides the necessary information to identify shockwaves at the
onset of formation.
However, the introduction of connected vehicle technology, coupled with potential speed changes in arbitrary
locations introduces new challenges for operating platoons of automated vehicles. In the past two decades, many
applications of automated driving, including Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) and Cooperative Adaptive Cruise
Control (CACC), have been developed ([2],[3],[4]). These platooning applications are designed to take advantage of
low reaction times in automated vehicles to maximize roadway capacity and mitigate congestion. Two main
approaches have been adopted in previous studies, namely, (i) constant spacing policy, and (ii) constant headway
policy. The constant spacing policy is focused on keeping a constant space between the vehicles, while the time
headway policy is focused on keeping a fixed time-headway between vehicles[5, 6]. Platoon stability is the key factor

1

Dept. of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, Email: sinaarefizadeh@tamu.edu.
Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Texas A&M University, Email: azonuzy@tamu.edu.
3
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, (Corresponding Author) Email: atalebpour@tamu.edu, Phone: 979.845.0875.
4
Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Texas A&M University, Email: sshakkot@tamu.edu.
2

in the success of these platooning applications. In fact, the individual vehicle control logic should ensure that the entire
platoon stays stable while dealing with a sudden speed drop.
To analyze the stability of a platoon facing this situation, this study introduces a new definition, “strong string
stability,” or in short, “strong stability,” (a generalization of the so-called “exponential string stability”[7] based on
two notions of error associated with the platoon. As Fig. 1 illustrates, the actual distance between vehicle i+1 and
vehicle i, as compared to the target following distance r, defines localized error between the two, referred to as ei.
Since each pair of vehicles experiences an error, the location of vehicle i+1 with respect to an imaginary lead vehicle
traveling at constant speed has an error from its target location by the sum of all the pairwise errors of vehicles ahead
of it. Such a sum over errors can be thought of as the platoon-level error as measured at vehicle i+1.

Fig 1. Local and global reference locations. 𝒆𝒊 is error term with respect to local target location. Blue dots represent global target
locations with respect to the leading vehicle. the shadowed vehicle in gray is the imaginary vehicle.

A definition of a strong stable platoon that accounts for both the local and platoon-level errors should have the
following characteristics: (i) all vehicles should be at their desired reference point with respect to vehicle ahead
asymptotically in time, and (ii) all vehicles should be within a bounded error from their desired target location (with
respect to the imaginary lead vehicle) asymptotically in time. The first characteristic is a necessary condition for a
system to follow a constant spacing policy, which is our key requirement to ensuring platoon safety. The second
characteristic guarantees a finite delay in vehicles travel time in the platoon. Thus, a strong stable system guarantees
the asymptotic performance of the string of vehicles, since all vehicles would be at their reference point. Such a
condition enables one to accurately predict traffic flow dynamics. As a result, specific densities and flows could be
guaranteed at the steady-state condition by choosing the spatial velocity profile appropriately.
The main objective of this study is to investigate the possibility of ensuring strong stability under the constant
spacing policy (where each autonomous vehicle tries to keep a pre-determined distance from its leader) in the presence
of a sudden speed drop. The main contribution of this paper is to show that regardless of the individual vehicles’
control law, a constant spacing policy cannot be maintained in a strong stable manner in the presence of a sudden
speed drop. As a result, the platooning based on constant spacing policy cannot result in a stable traffic flow since an
exponentially string stable (i.e. strong stable) control scheme does not exist based on constant spacing in the presence
of a speed drop. Note that ensuring traffic flow stability is critical for the success of any platooning strategy. It is
noteworthy that few studies investigated the possibility of ensuring string stability in a platoon based on the constant
spacing policy (see [8-11] for some examples). Ioannou and his colleagues studied string stability for particular type
of controllers such as PID and adoptive control based on the constant spacing and other platooning strategies [8, 9].
Ioannou and Chien [10] showed that V2V communications is the necessary condition to ensure string stability in a
platoon under the constant spacing policy. Later, Jovanovic and Bamieh [11] presented several issues associated with
the common approaches in vehicular platooning. Moreover, they presented a formulation of optimal control for
platooning problem that we will discuss it later in the paper. However, the main contribution of current study is to

show that platooning based on the constant spacing policy cannot result in a stable traffic flow, since a strong stable
control scheme does not exist based on the constant spacing in the presence of a speed drop.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: the next section presents the formal problem statement and
key definitions. Then, the control model is introduced along with the proof that if there exists a control system
guaranteeing a constant relative distance of successive vehicles, it is not able to track a speed drop. This section is
followed by a discussion on the findings of this study. Finally, significance and contributions and concluding remarks
and future research needs close the paper.
II. SIGNIFICANCE AND CONTRIBUTIONS
As it is mentioned earlier in the paper, previous studies [10, 11] presented some result in the similar cases. In these
papers considering a spatially invariant problem and a second ordered model for vehicles in the platoon, authors
illustrated that exponential string stability is impossible to achieve when only information on relative position errors
are available. In detail, at part 2), subsection B of the section III of [10], where reaching the cruise speed is the goal,
authors mentioned “ The lack of information about the actions of the lead vehicle causes a disturbance amplification
in the value of deviation constant spacing, velocities, and accelerations of the following vehicles”. Additionally, at
subsection C of section II of [11], defining the optimal control formulation and introducing the quadratic cost function,
for the case of approaching the cruise speed 𝑣𝑑 , authors proved that considering relative position errors of successive
vehicles will not result in exponentially stable string as the size of the platoon goes to infinity. As a result, the
formulation is ill-posed. However, later in this paper at section IV and V, authors modified the formulation by
introducing the absolute error terms to the formulation and proved that in this case problem become well-posed and
achieving an exponentially stable string is possible, which is equivalent to the case of providing information from the
leading vehicle.
In the current research, after justifying why spatial variation problem is important, we showed that when the velocity
profile is not constant, achieving exponentially string stable platoon using constant spacing policy in the presence or
absence of V2I is impossible.
The analysis in the paper is independent of the level of information provided and it is only based on the system
behavior around the potential equilibrium of the system. In other words, having information about relative position
errors and velocity errors with respect to the velocity profile is sufficient to induce impossibility of the exponential
string stability and extra information regarding absolute position errors has not been used throughout the analytical
argument of the current paper. However, tracking velocity profile beside relative position errors may imply such
information indirectly.
In sum, the current paper can be considered as an extension of the result of the constant spacing case studied in the
[11], where the problem is spatially variant.

III. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Consider the desired velocity profile of Fig. 2 that shows a sudden drop in the desired velocity. Assume that vehicle i
reaches the speed drop location at time i.T, where T is the time difference between the arrival of two consecutive

vehicles at the speed drop location. All vehicles are supposed to follow this velocity profile, where 𝑣0 is the velocity
of the string before the drop location, and (1 − 𝑝). 𝑣0 is the velocity of the string after the drop location. 𝑝. 𝑣0 is the
amount of drop in velocity at the speed drop location, where 0 ≤ 𝑝 ≤ 1. The objective is to ensure that all vehicles
follow the profile presented in Fig. 2 and maintain a fixed spacing with respect to the next vehicle in the string.

Fig 2. Desired Speed Profile.

As discussed in the Introduction, a useful set up is to consider an imaginary vehicle with a fixed velocity 𝑣0 ,
which provides a reference location that other vehicles can track. Hence, the rest of the vehicles follow the trajectory
of this imaginary vehicle with a delay due to speed drop within a time shift of T. Fig. 3 illustrates the trajectories of
the imaginary and actual vehicles. We indicate the imaginary lead vehicle by index 0, and real vehicles following it
starting with index 1.

Fig 3. Imaginary vs. Actual Vehicle Trajectories.

String stability is a concept defined to ensure a bounded error in states of an interconnected system throughout
the time and space, and preventing the errors from accumulating [12]. In other words, according to this definition the
error for vehicle i, 𝑒𝑖 , which is defined as the error term between reference point of vehicle i (i.e., desired position)
and its actual position with respect to vehicle ahead, should be greater than or equal to the error for vehicle 𝑖 + 1,
𝑒𝑖+1 , where vehicle 𝑖 + 1 is the immediate follower. Therefore, even when a shockwave is produced by a disturbance
(e.g., by a sudden brake), the system would still be called string stable if the wave propagates upstream with the same
disturbance rate. In this extreme case, the produced error remains in the string, and vehicles deviate from their
reference points. The collective movement of vehicles might become unpredictable.
Exponential string stability is another concept introduced to ensure string stability and zero error for all vehicles
asymptotically. (A string of vehicles is called exponential string stable if (1) ‖

𝐸𝑖 (𝑗𝑤)

‖ ≤ 1 for every 𝑖 ∈ 𝑁 ,𝑤 ∈ ℝ

𝐸𝑖−1 (𝑗𝑤)

[13], and (2) lim 𝑠. 𝐸𝑖 = 0 for every 𝑖 ∈ 𝑁 [7], where 𝐸𝑖 (s) denotes the error term for vehicle i in Laplace domain.) It
𝑠→0

is not difficult to show that exponentially string stability, when error propagation rate is strictly decreasing, results in
our definition of strong stability. In a Lemma introduced at the end of Section III, this result is shown for homogenous
platoons of vehicles. We first introduce the key definitions, and then proceed to evaluate the objective. The following
are the key definitions in this paper:
Definition 1. Local stability for vehicle 𝑖 is defined as follows:
lim 𝑒𝑖 (𝑡) = lim 𝑠. 𝐸𝑖 = 0,

𝑡→∞

𝑠→0

where 𝑒𝑖 is the error term in location in time and 𝐸𝑖 denotes the Laplace of 𝑒𝑖 .
Definition 2. A platoon is strong stable if local stability holds for each vehicle and:
lim ∑∞
𝑖=1 𝑒𝑖 (𝑡) < 𝑀 < ∞.

𝑡→∞

An immediate consequence of violating strong stability is that the vehicle deviates infinitely from its reference
point associated with the leading vehicle. Therefore, if its reference point is assumed to follow a specific velocity
profile, the actual vehicle will follow the velocity profile with an infinite delay, which is not desirable.
IV. CONTROL MODEL
Let us consider the control model illustrated in Fig. 4 to evaluate the vehicles’ ability to follow the desired velocity
profile. This is a generic control low and no specific controller is considered. Moreover, it addresses both the constant
spacing as well as velocity-tracking requirement in our problem. We consider an imaginary leading vehicle traveling
at a constant velocity, 𝑣0 . Vehicle i is supposed to reduce its speed to 𝑝. 𝑣0 (0 ≤ 𝑝 ≤ 1) at time i.T, while maintaining
a constant spacing r between vehicles. The feedback loop including controller 𝑘𝑝 is designed to keep a constant
distance between two successive vehicles. In order to address the tracking problem, let us consider another controller
that regulates the velocity profile of each vehicle. A feedback loop, including controller 𝐾𝑙 , tracks the desired velocity
profile by means of tracking the imaginary leader vehicle’s position with a predefined delay resulting in tracking the
desired velocity profile. The predefined delay should be of the form of ramp to guarantee a certain step delay in
velocity.

Fig4. Control Model.

For each vehicle, controlling two output using one input in the linear control framework is impossible (see Linear
Control Theory, Lemma 13.6 [14]). Hence, we need a combination of two controllers which are 𝐾𝑙 , 𝐾𝑝 .
In the control model of Fig4:
r: constant spacing,
p: amount of the sudden drop,
v0 : initial speed before the speed drop location,
i.T: time when vehicle i reaches the drop location,
U(.): unit step function,
𝐸𝑖 : error in Laplace domain between spatial positioning of vehicle i and its actual location with respect to the next
vehicle in the platoon,
𝐾𝑙 , 𝐾𝑝 : leading and predecessor controller,
𝑋0 (𝑠): Target location of imaginary reference vehicle in the Laplace domain,
𝑋1 (𝑠): actual leading vehicle position in the Laplace domain,
𝐸′𝑖 : difference between the actual location of vehicle i and its imaginary reference point,
𝐻: Dynamics of the vehicle,
𝐿[. ]: Laplace of the function inside the bracket.
Our goal is to identify the conditions for strong stability in a platoon of autonomous vehicles using the above
control system under the speed drop scenario.
Proceeding in the manner of Shaw and Hedrick [13], we define the control laws as follows:
𝑈1 = 𝐸1 . 𝐾𝑙 ,

(1)

𝑈𝑖 = 𝐸′𝑖 . 𝐾𝑙 + 𝐸𝑖 . 𝐾𝑝 .

(2)

The following equations can be derived based on the controller (see Fig. 4 for more details):
(3)

𝑋1 = 𝐸1 . 𝐾𝑙 . 𝐻,
𝑟 𝑝𝑣

𝐸1 =

𝑋0 − − 20 𝑒 𝑠𝑇
𝑠 𝑠

.

1+𝐾𝑙 .𝐻

(4)

For all other vehicles (𝑖 ≥ 2), we have:
𝑟

𝑝𝑣0

𝑠

𝑠2

𝑋𝑖 = 𝐾𝑝 . 𝐸𝑖 . 𝐻 + 𝐾𝑙 . 𝐻 (𝑋0 − 𝑖. −
𝐾 .𝐻

𝑝
𝑋𝑖 = (1+𝐾

𝑙 .𝐻)

𝐾𝐻

. 𝐸𝑖 + (1+𝐾𝑙

𝑙 .𝐻)

𝑒 𝑠.𝑖.𝑇 − 𝑋𝑖 ),

𝑟

𝑝𝑣0

𝑠

𝑠2

. (𝑋0 − 𝑖. −

𝑒 𝑠.𝑖.𝑇 ) .
(5)

Consequently, the following equations can be derived based on the definition of 𝐸2 :
𝑟

𝐸2 = 𝑋1 − 𝑋2 − ,
𝑠

𝐸2 =
𝐸2 =

𝑟 𝑝𝑣
𝑋0 − − 20 𝑒 𝑠𝑇
𝑠 𝑠

1+𝐾𝑙 .𝐻

𝐾 .𝐻

𝑝
. 𝐾𝑙 . 𝐻 − (1+𝐾

−𝐾𝑙 .𝐻
[1+(𝐾𝑙 +𝐾𝑝 )𝐻]

.(

𝑝𝑣0
𝑠2

𝑒 𝑠.𝑇 −

𝑙 .𝐻)

𝑝𝑣0
𝑠2

𝐾𝐻

. 𝐸2 + (1+𝐾𝑙
𝑒 2𝑠.𝑇 ) −

𝑙 .𝐻)

𝑟

𝑝𝑣0

𝑠

𝑠2

. (𝑋0 − 2. −
𝑟
𝑠

[1+(𝐾𝑙 +𝐾𝑝 )𝐻]

𝑟

𝑒 2.𝑠.𝑇 ) − ,

.

Consequently, the following recursive relation can be derived for 𝐸𝑖 :

𝑠

(6)

𝐸𝑖 =

𝐾𝑝 .𝐻
[1+(𝐾𝑙 +𝐾𝑝 )𝐻]

. 𝐸𝑖−1 +

𝐾𝑙 .𝐻

.(

[1+(𝐾𝑙 +𝐾𝑝 )𝐻]

𝑝𝑣0
𝑠2

𝑝𝑣0

𝑒 𝑖.𝑠.𝑇 −

𝑠2

𝑒 (𝑖−1).𝑠.𝑇 ) −

𝑟
𝑠

[1+(𝐾𝑙 +𝐾𝑝 )𝐻]

.

(7)

Theorem 1. If there exists a linear controller guaranteeing: (i) constant relative distance of successive vehicles, (ii)
tracking of a velocity profile as a function of location that takes the form of a step function, and (iii) strong stability,
it should satisfy the following equation:
lim

𝑥→0,𝑛→∞

{−

𝐾𝑝 .𝐻
1+𝐾𝑙 .𝐻

.

𝑥.𝐸𝑛
𝑛

𝐾𝑙 .𝐻

−

.

𝑝𝑣0

(𝑒 𝑥.𝑇 − 𝑒 𝑛.𝑥.𝑇 ) −

1+𝐾𝑙 .𝐻 𝑛.𝑥

𝑛−1
𝑛

.

𝑟
1+𝐾𝑙 .𝐻

} = 0.

Proof. Let us define: 𝐸̃𝑛 = ∑𝑛𝑖=2 𝐸𝑖 , the following equation can be obtained from (7):
𝐸̃𝑛 − 𝐸2 =

𝐾𝑝 .𝐻
[1+(𝐾𝑙 +𝐾𝑝 )𝐻]

𝐾𝑝 .𝐻

. 𝐸̃𝑛 −

[1+(𝐾𝑙 +𝐾𝑝 )𝐻]

. 𝐸𝑛 −

𝐾𝑙 .𝐻
[1+(𝐾𝑙 +𝐾𝑝 )𝐻]

.(

𝑝𝑣0
𝑠2

𝑒 2.𝑠.𝑇 −

𝑝𝑣0
𝑠2

𝑒 𝑛.𝑠.𝑇 ) −

(𝑛−2)𝑟
𝑠

[1+(𝐾𝑙 +𝐾𝑝 )𝐻]

.

(8)
Simplifying (8), we have:
1+𝐾𝑙 .𝐻
[1+(𝐾𝑙 +𝐾𝑝 )𝐻]

. 𝐸̃𝑛 = −

𝐾𝑝 .𝐻
[1+(𝐾𝑙 +𝐾𝑝 )𝐻]

. 𝐸𝑛 −

𝐾𝑙 .𝐻
[1+(𝐾𝑙 +𝐾𝑝 )𝐻]

.(

𝑝𝑣0
𝑠2

𝑒 𝑠.𝑇 −

𝑝𝑣0
𝑠2

𝑒 𝑛.𝑠.𝑇 ) −

(𝑛−1)𝑟
𝑠

[1+(𝐾𝑙 +𝐾𝑝 )𝐻]

.

(9)

One can multiply (9) by
𝑠.𝐸̃𝑛
𝑛

(𝐾𝑝 .𝐻)

= − (1+𝐾

[1+(𝐾𝑙 +𝐾𝑝 )𝐻] 𝑠

(𝐾 .𝐻)

𝑠

. (for any arbitrary n >0) to obtain

1+𝐾𝑙 .𝐻

. . 𝐸𝑛 − (1+𝐾𝑙

𝑙 .𝐻) 𝑛

𝑛

𝑠

. .(

𝑙 .𝐻) 𝑛

𝑝𝑣0
𝑠2

𝑒 𝑠.𝑇 −

𝑝𝑣0
𝑠2

𝑒 𝑛.𝑠.𝑇 ) −

(𝑛−1)𝑟

.

(10)

𝑛.(1+𝐾𝑙 .𝐻)

Since (10) is valid for every arbitrary n, we have
lim

𝑠.𝐸̃𝑛

𝑠→0,𝑛→∞ 𝑛

=

lim

𝑠→0,𝑛→∞

(𝐾 .𝐻)

𝑝
{− (1+𝐾

(𝐾 .𝐻)

𝑠

. . 𝐸𝑛 − (1+𝐾𝑙

𝑙 .𝐻) 𝑛

𝑠

. .(

𝑝𝑣0
𝑠2

𝑙 .𝐻) 𝑛

𝑝𝑣0

𝑒 𝑠.𝑇 −

𝑠2

𝑒 𝑛.𝑠.𝑇 ) −

(𝑛−1)𝑟

}.

𝑛.(1+𝐾𝑙 .𝐻)

(11)

Now, (11) should be satisfied for every particular path of 𝑠 → 0 in the complex plane. Let us consider 𝑠 = 𝑥 + 𝑦 ∗ 𝑗
in the direction of 𝑥 + 0 ∗ 𝑗, which passes through origin. Then we have
lim

𝑥.𝐸̃𝑛

𝑥→0,𝑛→∞ 𝑛

=

lim

𝑥→0,𝑛→∞

(𝐾 .𝐻)

𝑝
(− (1+𝐾

(𝐾 .𝐻)

𝑥

. . 𝐸𝑛 − (1+𝐾𝑙

𝑙 .𝐻) 𝑛

1

. .(

𝑝𝑣0

𝑙 .𝐻) 𝑛

Assuming that the platoon is strong stable, we must have
the final value theorem,

lim

𝑠→0,𝑛→∞

𝑥

𝑒 𝑥.𝑇 −

lim

𝑡→∞,𝑛→∞

𝑝𝑣0
𝑥

𝑒 𝑛.𝑥.𝑇 ) −

(𝑛−1)
𝑛.(1+𝐾𝑙 .𝐻)

𝑟). (12)

𝑒̃𝑛 (𝑡) = 𝑀 < ∞. This implies that, according to

𝑠. 𝐸̃𝑛 (𝑠) = 𝑀.

Therefore, the left hand side of (12) can be rewritten as follows:
𝑥. 𝐸̃𝑛
1
= lim . lim 𝑥. 𝐸̃𝑛 = 0.
𝑥→0,𝑛→∞ 𝑛
,𝑛→∞ 𝑛 𝑥→0,𝑛→∞
lim

Hence, a necessary condition for the stability is
lim

𝑥→0,𝑛→∞

(𝐾 .𝐻)

𝑝
{− (1+𝐾

𝑥

(𝐾 .𝐻)

. . 𝐸𝑛 − (1+𝐾𝑙

𝑙 .𝐻) 𝑛

1

. .(

𝑙 .𝐻) 𝑛

𝑝𝑣0
𝑥

𝑒 𝑥.𝑇 −

𝑝𝑣0
𝑥

𝑒 𝑛.𝑥.𝑇 ) −

(𝑛−1)𝑟

} = 0.

𝑛.(1+𝐾𝑙 .𝐻)

(13)

Note that for all paths of 𝑥 → 0, 𝑛 → ∞, (13) should be satisfied. Thus, (13) provides a necessary condition for the
stability of platoons of vehicles. ■
The next question is whether we can construct a controller than can satisfy the necessary conditions that we have
derived. We first define 𝑓0 (𝑠) as polynomial of s such that 𝑓0 (𝑠) is non-singular (𝑠 and 𝑓0 (𝑠) are coprime). Then
we have the following corollary.
Corollary. There is no controller satisfying the conditions of Theorem 1
Proof. Substituting 𝑓0 (𝑠) into (13), there are some polynomials of 𝑓01 (𝑠), 𝑓02 (𝑠), 𝑓03 (𝑠) and 𝑎, 𝑏, 𝑐 ∈ 𝑍 such that:
𝑥 𝑎 𝑓02 (𝑥)

lim

𝑥→0,𝑛→∞

{

𝑛

.

𝑓01 (𝑥)

. (𝑥. 𝐸𝑛 ) + 𝑥 𝑏 .

𝑓03 (𝑥) 𝑝𝑣0
𝑓01 (𝑥)

.

(𝑒 𝑥.𝑇 − 𝑒 𝑛.𝑥.𝑇 ) + 𝑥 𝑐 .

𝑛

𝑛−1
𝑛

.

𝑟

(14)

} = 0.

𝑓01 (𝑥)

If min{𝑎, 𝑏, 𝑐} is a negative number, we can multiply (9) by 𝑠 − min{𝑎,𝑏,𝑐} and rewrite (10) through (13) so that the new
values of 𝑎, 𝑏, and 𝑐 are non-negative. Hence, without any loss of generality, let us consider these parameters as nonnegative numbers. Rearranging (14), we have:
𝑥 𝑎 𝑓02 (𝑥)

lim

𝑥→0,𝑛→∞

{

𝑛

.

𝑓01 (𝑥)

. (𝑥. 𝐸𝑛 ) + 𝑥 𝑐 .

𝑛−1
𝑛

.

𝑟

} = − lim 𝑥 𝑏 .

𝑓01 (𝑥)

𝑥→0,𝑛→∞

𝑓03 (𝑥) 𝑝𝑣0
𝑓01 (𝑥)

.

𝑛

(𝑒 𝑥.𝑇 − 𝑒 𝑛.𝑥.𝑇 ) .

(15)

The left hand side of (15) exists and equals zero; therefore, the right hand side must exist and equal zero for every
path in which 𝑥 → 0, 𝑛 → ∞. Let us consider the path of 𝑥 =
1

lim

𝑏

𝑛→∞ 𝑛 2+1

. 𝑒 𝑇.√𝑛 = lim

𝑒 𝑇.√𝑛
𝑏

𝑛→∞ (2+1)∗ln(𝑛)
𝑒

= ∞.

1
√𝑛

. Then

(16)

Therefore, (16) yields a contradiction, since necessary condition of (13) does not hold. ■
Remark 1. The problem of determining local stability (sometimes called plant stability) in control systems is typically
analyzed by the Hurwitz criteria for continuous systems. Due to the fact that the term 𝑒 𝑖𝑠𝑇 appears in our analysis,
addressing stability issues using such an approach is challenging. Therefore, this paper adopts a more basic analysis
based on the final value theorem.
The combination of above theorem and corollary indicates that a controller that can maintain a fixed spacing
among the vehicles in the platoon, while following a sudden speed drop cannot exist. Below is an illustration of a
more specific scenario.
Lemma. For a homogenous string of vehicles, exponential string stability with strictly decreasing error propagation
rate results in strong stability.
Proof. Since at exponential string stability local (plant) stability holds for every single vehicle in the string we have:
lim 𝑠. 𝐸𝑛 (𝑠) = lim 𝑒𝑛 (𝑡).
𝑠→0

Since

𝑡→0

‖𝐸𝑖+1 ‖
‖𝐸𝑖 ‖

=𝑃<1

(17)

1
1−𝑝

‖𝐸1 ‖ = ∑∞
𝑖=1‖𝐸𝑖 ‖, and

lim‖𝑠‖.
𝑠→0

1
1−𝑝

(18)

∞
‖𝐸1 ‖ = lim‖𝑠‖. ∑∞
𝑖=1‖𝐸𝑖 ‖ = lim ∑𝑖=1‖𝑠. 𝐸𝑖 ‖.
𝑠→0

𝑠→0

(19)

Considering local stability, (17) should be zero. Therefore, if each side of (19) equals zero, the other side should be
zero as well. It should be noted that left hand side of (19) determines total error in the string with error propagation
rate less than one. Thus, the right hand side of (19) shows total error in the string, which equals zero if and only if all
vehicles asymptotically take place at their predefined reference point. Such a criterion implies strong stability. ■
V. DISCUSSION
In the linear control framework, equilibrium points play a key role. The asymptotic behavior of a stable system with
zero steady-state error can be determined by studying the equilibrium. In order to have a generic control model, we
assumed there is a feedback loop, including an arbitrary controller that guarantees constant spacing asymptotically,
and another feedback loop, including an arbitrary controller, that addresses the speed tracking (following the step in
the velocity profile). Since it is impossible to control two output (i.e., error in relative distance and error in velocity)
using one input in linear control, the main controller should be a combination of these controllers. Therefore, we
proposed the generic control model in Fig. 4. For a constant velocity profile, it results in leader-predecessor following
control strategy that its stability for a constant velocity profile was addressed [15].
In this research, we claimed that it is impossible to simultaneously achieve all the following for the constant
spacing policy, while tracking a velocity profile that has a sudden drop:
1.

Strong stability,

2.

Local stability,

3.

A linear controller.

Violating either one of strong stability, and local stability has some undesirable consequences. First, since summation
of errors in relative distance of all vehicles downstream appears in the error term for tracking velocity profile, violating
the strong stability causes a vehicle to track velocity profile with an infinite delay. Such an infinite delay will cause
infinite travel time. Second, violating local stability means constant relative distance is impossible. Considering all
the above findings and discussions, one can conclude that platoons of autonomous vehicles with constant spacing
policy are incapable of handling common practices in managing transportation systems. It should be noted that since
the behavior of nonlinear dynamic systems around the equilibrium states is similar to the corresponding linear system,
the result can be extended to the nonlinear systems. Thus, no controller can guarantee the string stability in a large
platoon based on the constant spacing policy.
VI. CONCLUSION
Speed drops are common throughout the transportation systems to ensure safety and improve congestion. However,
they can cause shockwave formation and breakdown. Accordingly, this paper investigated the possibility of reacting
to such sudden speed drops within the platoons of autonomous vehicles controlled by constant spacing policy. It was

analytically shown that it is indeed impossible to ensure strong stability, while following the speed profile with a
sudden drop. One potential solution, that has been left for future research, is to refine the constant spacing policy to
widen the stability region.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

Talebpour, A., H. Mahmassani, and S. Hamdar, Speed harmonization: Evaluation of effectiveness under
congested conditions. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
2013(2391): p. 69-79.
Vahidi, A. and A. Eskandarian, Research advances in intelligent collision avoidance and adaptive cruise
control. IEEE transactions on intelligent transportation systems, 2003. 4(3): p. 143-153.
Van Arem, B., C.J. Van Driel, and R. Visser, The impact of cooperative adaptive cruise control on trafficflow characteristics. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2006. 7(4): p. 429-436.
Vander Werf, J., et al., Effects of adaptive cruise control systems on highway traffic flow capacity.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2002(1800): p. 78-84.
Peters, A.A., R.H. Middleton, and O. Mason, Leader tracking in homogeneous vehicle platoons with
broadcast delays. Automatica, 2014. 50(1): p. 64-74.
Öncü, S., et al., Cooperative adaptive cruise control: Network-aware analysis of string stability. IEEE
Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2014. 15(4): p. 1527-1537.
Swaroop, D. and J. Hedrick, String stability of interconnected systems. IEEE transactions on automatic
control, 1996. 41(3): p. 349-357.
Ioannou, P. and Z. Xu, THROTTLE AND BRAKE CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR AUTOMATIC VEHICLE
FOLLOWING∗. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 1994. 1(4): p. 345-377.
Ioannou, P., et al. Intelligent cruise control: theory and experiment. in Decision and Control, 1993.,
Proceedings of the 32nd IEEE Conference on. 1993. IEEE.
Ioannou, P.A. and C.-C. Chien, Autonomous intelligent cruise control. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular
technology, 1993. 42(4): p. 657-672.
Jovanovic, M.R. and B. Bamieh, On the ill-posedness of certain vehicular platoon control problems. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, 2005. 50(9): p. 1307-1321.
Naus, G.J., et al., String-stable CACC design and experimental validation: A frequency-domain approach.
IEEE Transactions on vehicular technology, 2010. 59(9): p. 4268-4279.
Shaw, E. and J.K. Hedrick. String stability analysis for heterogeneous vehicle strings. in 2007 American
Control Conference. 2007. IEEE.
Bhattacharyya, S.P., A. Datta, and L.H. Keel, Linear control theory: structure, robustness, and optimization.
Vol. 33. 2009: CRC press.
Shaw, E. and J.K. Hedrick. String stability analysis for heterogeneous vehicle strings. in American Control
Conference, 2007. ACC'07. 2007. IEEE.

