Platooning in the Presence of a Speed Drop: A

arXiv:1709.10083v1 [cs.SY] 28 Sep 2017

Generalized Control Model
Sina Arefizadeh*, Alireza Talebpour†, and Igor Zelenko‡

Abstract
Platooning is expected to enhance the efficiency of operating autonomous vehicles. The positive
impacts of platooning on travel time reliability, congestion, emissions, and energy consumption has
been shown for homogeneous roadway segments. However, unveiling the full potential of platooning requires stable platoons throughout the transportation system (end-to-end platooning). Speed limit
changes frequently throughout the transportation network, due to either safety related considerations
(e.g., change in roadway geometry and workzone operations) or congestion management schemes
(e.g., speed harmonization systems). These abrupt changes in speed limit can result in shockwave
formation and cause travel time unreliability. Therefore, designing a platooning strategy for tracking a
reference velocity profile is critical to enabling end-to-end platooning. Accordingly, this study introduces
a generalized control model to track a desired velocity profile, while ensuring safety in the platoon of
autonomous vehicles. We define appropriate natural error terms and the target curve in the state space
of the control system, which is the set of points where all error terms vanish and corresponds to the case
when all vehicles move with the desired velocities and in the miniml safe distance between them. In this
way we change the tracking velocity profile problem into a state-feedback stabilization problem with
respect to the target curve. Under certain mild assumptions on the Lipschitz constant of the speed drop
profile, we show that the stabilizing feedback can be obtained via introducing a natural dynamics for
* Sina

Arefizadeh is a Ph.D Candidate in the Zachry Department of Civil Engineering at Texas A&M University, College

Station, TX 77843 USA (e-mail: sinaarefizadeh@tamu.edu).
†

Alireza Talebpour, is an Assistant Professor in the Zachry Department of Civil Engineering at Texas A&M University,

College Station, TX 77843 USA. (e-mail: atalebpour@tamu.edu).
‡

Igor Zelenko is an Associate Professor in the Department of Mathematics at Texas A&M University, College Station, TX

77843 USA, (e-mail: zelenko@math.tamu.edu).

1

2

the maximum of the error terms for each vehicle. Moreover we show that with this stabilizing feedback
collisions will not occur, if the initial state of the system of vehicles is sufficiently close to the target
curve. We also show that the error terms remain bounded throughout the time and space. Two scenarios
were simulated, with and without initial perturbations, and results confirmed the effectiveness of the
proposed control model in tracking the speed drop, while ensuring safety and string stability.

Index Terms
Vehicle platoons, Speed drop, Stability of nonlinear systems, String stability, Cascaded systems.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Combined safety and efficiency of the transportation system has long been a topic of interest
among traffic engineers. Human drivers tend to maximize their utility (e.g., minimize travel time
and maximize safety). From the decision-making perspective, that means drivers tend to drive
as close as possible to the free-flow speed, while keeping a safe distance from other drivers in
the surrounding (particularly, the immediate leader and follower). Human factors, however, can
cause uncertainties in this decision-making process and can potentially result in safety issues
and congestion. Consequently, variability between expected travel time and the actual travel
time is expected to increase, which results in reduction in travel time reliability. Note that any
unreliability and fluctuation in travel time can potentially result in user frustration, reduction in
travel comfort, and further safety issues [1].
Travel time of each vehicle is proportional to the inverse of its velocity. Therefore, tracking
a certain velocity profile can guarantee a fixed amount of travel time and can maximize the
reliability in transportation systems. In general, changes in speed limit are due to either safety
considerations or changes in the roadway classification. For instance, a decrease in speed limit
in workzone locations ensures drivers’ responsiveness in dealing with unexpected situations. In a
human dominated transportation system, tracking a sudden drop in the velocity profile (a change
in speed limit) may produce backward waves in the traffic flow that can propagate upstream,
change the traffic flow regime, and potentially result in flow breakdown [2].
Autonomous vehicles can potentially solve the above problem by removing the human element
from driving related decisions [3]. Although the current state-of-the-practice in designing and
testing autonomous vehicles is focused on isolated vehicles, it was shown that the effects
of these vehicles on congestion and safety can improve by platooning. Implementing such a

3

system requires additional infrastructure to provide Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-toInfrastructure (V2I) communications [4]. Unfortunately, complete information about the system
does not always exist due to signal interference and packet loss [5]. One potential solution
relies upon the combination of V2V/V2I communications and onboard sensros (e.g., radar and
LiDAR sensors). Accordingly, several decentralized inter-connected platooning strategies have
been proposed in the literature [6]. These studies consider two different platooning policies:
constant spacing and constant time headway. The constant spacing policy is focused on keeping
a constant space between the vehicles [7], while the constant time headway policy is focused on
keeping a fixed time headway between consecutive vehicles in a platoon [8]–[10]. Most of these
studies focused on disturbances in the platoon and utilized the concept of ”string stability” to
ensure that any disturbance will decay as it propagates upstream in the platoon [11]. A formal
definition of string stability was provided by Swaroop and Hedrick [12]. A generalization of
the definition was also proposed by Pant et al. [13], which is equivalent to stability in higher
spatial dimensions. Moreover, alternative definitions of string stability for linear systems were
also presented in other studies [14], [15].
In addition to investigating string stability in the presence of disturbances, there exists few
studies that focused on the problem of tracking a velocity profile [16], [17]. The approach in
these studies is based on feedback linearization. Note that these studies rely on the existence of
detailed information about the system. Such information should be transmitted to all vehicles,
which requires reliable vehicular communications.
The problem of tracking a velocity profile, while ensuring safety requires controlling two error
terms per vehicle (e.g., errors in tracking the velocity profile and keeping the safe distance) with
one control input (e.g., vehicle acceleration). In general, introducing a controller that can ensure
asymptotic stability for such a system is challenging. Note that in the linear control context, such
problem can be addressed after stabilizing and by using servo machines for a class of reference
velocity profiles (see Linear Control Theory, Lemma 13.6 [18]) and in nonlinear control, sliding
mode control can be adopted to resolve the tracking problem [19]. In the current research, we
take an alternative approach and introduce appropriate error terms and the target curve in the
state space of the control system. The target curve is the set of points corresponding to the case
where all error terms are vanished and all vehicles move at their desired speed, while keeping the
minimum safe distance from the leader. Accordingly, the problem of tracking a velocity profile
is changed into a state feedback stabilization problem with respect to the target curve. Such an

4

approach can guarantee the minimum deviation from the velocity profile; thus, maximizes travel
time reliability. Moreover, this study shows that such an approach results in string stability.
Accordingly, the main contribution of this study is to introduce a novel methodology to deal
with multiple outputs using one input, while ensuring asymptotic stability and a reasonable error
bound in finite time (depending on the initial condition). To develop such a methodology, the
notion of string stability for a target curve is defined. Utilizing an appropriate target curve, a
time headway based state feedback is presented that ensures safety, while tracking the reference
velocity profile for all vehicles in the platoon. Such a methodology can significantly reduce the
level of difficulty of the platooning problem. In other words, using this method, the problem
is simplified to the problem of finding a control law from a system of ordinary differential
equations.
In addition to the above benefits, if vehicles are at their predefined location at the steady state
condition (i.e., all vehicles are following the target curve), one can accurately predict the traffic
flow regime. In other words, since all vehicles are at their reference points asymptotically, one
can change the behavior of the system by changing the reference points. Therefore, in addition to
the positive safety and congestion implications of the asymptotic behavior, designing/adjusting
the asymptotic behavior of a string of vehicles provides the opportunity to further manage and
regulate the traffic flow. As a result, specific densities and flows can be guaranteed at the steady
state condition along with increasing the travel time reliability and ensuring safety.
The paper is organized as follows. First we discuss the main motivations toward introducing
such an approach. In section III, we introduce the target curve and stabilty with respect to it and
formulate the main result (Theorem 1) on state-feedback stabilization with respect to the target
curve together with the treatment of noncollision and bounded control conditions. The proof of
this theorem is given in Section IV. Section V presents some simulation results and Section VI
presents a discussion on the findings of this study. Finally, the paper is concluded with some
remarks and future research needs in Section VII.
II.

MOTIVATION

In the dynamic behavior of platoons, inter vehicular spacing plays a key role. Accordingly,
two types of spacing policies are defined in the literature: constant spacing and constant time
headway. The constant spacing maintains a fixed spacing between successive vehicles [7], while
constant time headway operates with variable spacing defined based on a fix time headway [8].

5

Fig. 1: Vehicle positioning with respect to velocity profile at t0 , t0 + G, and t0 + N G.

As discussed previously, some innovative time delayed strategies were also introduced in the
literature [16], [17].
The constant spacing policy intuitively implies that any changes in the velocity of a vehicle in
the platoon should be transferred to the vehicles upstream (i.e., all the followers). Even though
it can work for short platoons in the constant desired speed situations (e.g., Adaptive Cruise
Control in a highway segment ), the definition of this spacing strategy makes it impossible to
follow a speed profile defined in the spatial domain [20]. Accordingly, the constant time gap
policy (also referred to as time delayed policy) was introduced [16], [17]. Although it was shown
that this policy can track a velocity profile [16], [17], it brings its own challenges.
To clarify the difference between the constant time headway and the constant time gap policies,
let us assume that the leader (vehicle A) passes a certain point, M , on the roadway segment
at time t0 . The vehicle arrives at point M 0 within time G (G stands for the time gap). Then
the follower (vehicle B), which started from an arbitrary point at time t0 , reaches M at t0 + G
with a given velocity. Figure 1 illustrates the relative position of the vehicles with respect to
the velocity profile at times t0 , t0 + G, and t0 + N G. Let xi (t), ẋi (t), and vd (xi (t)) denote the
location, spot speed, and desired velocity of vehicle i, i ∈ {A, B}, at time t. Regarding the
position of vehicles A and B, we can write the following:
Z

t0 +G

ẋA (t) = xA (t0 + G) − xB (t0 + G).
t0

In the ideal case where vehicle A follows the velocity profile accurately:
ẋA (t) = vd (xA (t)).

6

Therefore,
Z

t0 +G

vd (xA (t)) = xA (t0 + G) − xB (t0 + G).
t0

As a result, ∃Z ∈ [t0 , t0 + G] such that:
G.vd (xA (Z)) = xA (t0 + G) − xB (t0 + G).
It should be noted that xA (Z) ∈ [xB (t0 + G), xA (t0 + G)]. Clearly for the case that vd is not a
constant velocity profile, G does not yield T considering the following:
G=

xA (t0 + G) − xB (t0 + G)
6=
vd (xA (Z))
xA (t0 + G) − xB (t0 + G)
.
ẋB (t0 + G)

The right handside of the above expression shows Time Headway of vehicle B at the time
t0 + G. Therefore, in the fixed time gap policy, calculated time headways may not be constant.
Thus, flow may vary throughout the platoon, which is not desirable and can result in forward
or backward moving waves. Additionally, constant time gap cannot necessarily guarantee safety
considerations [20]. On the contrary, the definition of the constant time headway policy [21],
which is given below, shows that it ensures safety in the ideal case where there are no error
terms in tracking the target location of vehicle i.

xref,i (t) = xi−1 (t) − T ẋi (t),
where xref,i (t) is the ideal location of vehicle i, xi−1 (t) denotes the actual location of vehicle
i − 1, and ẋi (t) is the actual velocity of vehicle i at time t. Based on this equation, if vehicle
i is at the ideal location, it takes T seconds with its current speed to reach the position of
vehicle i − 1; therefore, it maintains a safe distance with the following vehicle. The above
discussion motivates us to concentrate on the constant time headway policy and to introduce a
control method to guarantee a fixed flow and safety based on this policy, even if vehicles are
not initially at their predefined target locations (e.g., due to infrastructure heterogeneity).
III. P ROBLEM S TATEMENT AND M AIN R ESULTS
Consider the desired velocity profile of Figure 2. This figure shows a gradual drop in the
desired velocity. All vehicles are supposed to follow this velocity profile, where v0 is the velocity
of the string before the drop location, and (1 − ρ)v0 is the velocity of the string after the drop

7

Fig. 2: Schematic Velocity Profile

location. The quantity ρv0 represents the amount of velocity drop. Such velocity drops are
common in transportation systems due to changes in speed limit. Our objective is to ensure
that all vehicles in the platoon follow the profile presented in Figure 2 and maintain a safe
spacing from the immediate leader in the string over time and space, starting with a desirable
initial condition (A discussion on the desirable initial condition is provided in the next section).
Achieving this objective will maximize travel time reliability and ensure vehicle safety in the
platoon.
Let us consider a cascaded system in which all plants has one available input and multiple
error terms. For each plant, there is a vector of error terms of the same dimension for every
plant. Let εij (t) denote the component j(j = 1, .., m), of the error vector corresponding to plant
i(i = 1, . . . , n) at time t for all m, n ∈ N. Two main assumptions are made in the current study:
•

The whole state of (xi , ẋi ) can be measured directly so that the full state feedback is
available without assigning and using an observer. A similar assumption was made in the
study of longitudinal control of the lead car in a platoon by California PATH [22].

•

Following the study by Zheng et al. [23], it is assumed that vehicle dynamics can be captured
by a linearized model of vehicle. Note that a nonlinear model, considering drag, gravity,
etc., is more realistic; however, it makes the problem more complex.

Ignoring the actuation lag, vehicle dynamics can be described by the platoon control system
for all n ∈ N [24]
ẍi (t) = ui (t),

i = 1, . . . , n

(1)

8

or, equivalently, by



ẋi (t) = yi (t)

(2)


ẏi (t) = ui (t)
Define the following set on the phase space of X = {(x1 , x2 , . . . , xn , y1 , y2 , . . . , yn ) : xi , yi ∈
R} of the system (2):
Γ∗ = {x1 , x2 , . . . , xn , y1 , y2 , . . . , yn ) : yi = vd (xi ),
xj−1 = xj + T yj , i = 1, . . . , n, j = 2, . . . , n},
where T denotes the time headway. Note that Γ∗ is a curve in X . Indeed, all components of the
coordinate of a point (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn , y1 , y2 , . . . , yn ) ∈ Γ∗ are functions of xn only.
Since vehicles move with the desired velocity and the minimal safe distance on Γ∗ , the
following definition is natural.
Definition 1. We say that Γ∗ is the target curve.
It will be an ideal situation, if at every time moment the state of the system belongs to the
target curve. The natural question is whether there exists a state feedback for the control system
(2) so that any initial configuration of vehicles will approach the target curve as t → +∞.
To formalize what we mean by this, we give a series of definitions for stability of a curve,
Γ∗ (t), with respect to a state-feedback. These definitions are analogous to classical definitions
of stability of critical points as well as the string stability concept defined in the transportation
context [17]. In the remainder of this paper, the distance in the state space X is the Euclidean
distance in X .
Definition 2. The target curve Γ∗ is stable with respect to the state feedback

ui = f x1 (t), x2 (t), . . . , xn (t), ẋ1 (t), ẋ2 (t), . . . , ẋn (t) ,

(3)

applied to system (2), if for any  > 0 there exists δ > 0 such that for all initial conditions
xi (0) = x01 , ẋi (0) = yi0 ,

i = 1, . . . , n,

with

 
dist x01 , x02 , . . . , x0n , y10 , y20 , . . . , yn0 , Γ∗ < δ

the trajectory x1 (t), x2 (t), . . . , xn (t) of the system

ẍi (t) = f x1 (t), . . . , xn (t), ẋ1 (t), . . . , ẋn (t)

(4)

(5)

9

satisfies

 ∗
dist x1 (t), x2 (t), . . . , xn (t), ẋ1 (t), ẋ2 (t), . . . , ẋn (t) , Γ < ε
for all t > 0.
Definition 3. The target curve Γ∗ is asymptotically stable with respect to the state feedback (3)
applied to system (2) if it is stable in the sense of the previous definition and there exists δ > 0
such that for all initial conditions
xi (0) = x01 , ẋi (0) = yi0 ,

i = 1, . . . , n,

satisfying (4) the trajectory of the system (5) approaches Γ∗ as t approaches +∞, i.e.

 
dist x1 (t), x2 (t), . . . , xn (t), ẋ1 (t), ẋ2 (t), . . . , ẋn (t) , Γ∗ tends to 0 as t → +∞.
Definition 4. The curve Γ∗ is called globally asymptotically stable with respect to the state
feedback (3) if any trajectory of the system (5) approaches Γ∗ as t approaches +∞.
Note that in addition to providing asymptotic stability with respect to the target curve, the
desired state feedback should prevent collisions and keep a reasonable bound for control inputs.
Bounded control inputs are essential because engine power is limited and large values of control
inputs are not practical.
The idea to construct the desired state feedback is based on establishing the dynamics of the
following error terms over time:

εi1 (t) = ẋi (t) − vd xi (t) f or i = 1, . . . , n,

(6)

εi2 (t) = xi−1 (t) − xi (t) − T ẋi (t) f or i = 1. . . . , n,

(7)

By substituting the expression (6) and (7) for the error terms εi1 (t) and εi2 (t) into


ε̇i1 (t) = −εi1 (t)

if |εi1 (t)| ≥ |εi2 (t)|


ε̇i2 (t) = −εi2 (t)

if |εi1 (t)| < |εi2 (t)|,

(8)

10

we have the following system



0


ẍ
(t)
=
ẋ
(t)v
x
(t)
−
ẋ
(t)
+
v
x
(t)

i
d
i
i
i
i
d






if |ẋi (t) − vd xi (t) | ≥ |xi−1 (t) − xi (t) − T ẋi (t)|

(9)




ẍi (t) = T1 xi−1 (t) − xi (t) − T ẋi (t) + ẋi−1 (t) − ẋi (t)







if |ẋi (t) − vd xi (t) | < |xi−1 (t) − xi (t) − T ẋi (t)|),
for i = 1, . . . , n, n ∈ N. This system is in fact from the control system (2) by applying the state
feedback



0


ẋi (t)vd xi (t) − ẋi (t) + vd xi (t)







if |ẋi (t) − vd xi (t) | ≥ |xi−1 (t) − xi (t) − T ẋi (t)|
ui =


1

x
(t)
−
x
(t)
−
T
ẋ
(t)
+
ẋ
(t)
−
ẋ
(t)

i−1
i
i
i−1
i

T





if |ẋi (t) − vd xi (t) | < |xi−1 (t) − xi (t) − T ẋi (t)|).

(10)

The main results of the paper are gathered in the following theorem.
Theorem 1. Assume that the speed drop profile vd is Lipschitz with the Lipschitz constant M <

1
T

, where T stands for the constant time headway. Then the following statements hold:
1) The target curve Γ∗ is globally asymptotically stable with respect to the state feedback given
by (10);
2) (non-collision conditions) If, in addition, the desired velocity profile vd satisfies inf{vd (x) :
x ∈ R} > 0 then for all initial conditions
xi (t0 ) = x0i , ẋi (t0 ) = yi0 ,

i = 1, . . . , n,

satisfying
dist(x01 , . . . , x0n , y10 , . . . , yn0 , Γ∗ )
≤

T inf{vd (x) : x ∈ R}

(11)

,
max {2 + T, 1 + M }(1 + T )


the solution x1 (t), . . . xn (t) of the system (9) satisfies xi−1 (t) − xi (t) > 0 for any t ≥ t0 ;
3) If, in addition to item 1), the speed profile vd is bounded and piecewise differentiable with
bounded derivatives, then the control inputs in the state feedback (10) are bounded along
each trajectory of (9) for t ≥ t0 .

11

The proof of Theorem 1 will be given in the next section. A controller of the form (10) is a
distributed controller that receives information about the velocity profile from infrastructure (i.e.,
V2I communications). The decentralized nature of this model eliminates the need for information
from all the vehicles in the platoon. Such a requirement (receiving velocity and/or location
information from every vehicle) can decrease reliability, safety, and efficiency of the entire
system as signal interference can create information loss.
Remark. A similar result with almost the same proof is true for more general state feedback that
is obtained by using the following system of differential equations for error terms instead of (8)



ε̇i1 (t) = gi1 ε1 (t) if |ε1 (t)| ≥ |ε2 (t)|


ε̇i2 (t) = gi2 ε2 (t) if |ε1 (t)| < |ε2 (t)|,

for i = 1, . . . , n, where gij (·) are such that the equations ẋ(t) = gij x(t) are globally asymptotically stable at the origin for j = 1, 2.
IV. P ROOF OF T HEOREM 1
This section is focused on the proof of Theorem 1.
A. Proof of item 1)
This Proof is divided into two lemmas. Lemma 1 implies that under the state feedback (10),
the error terms (6) and (7) decay exponentially as t → +∞. This result is independent of the
assumption that vd is Lipschits with a specific upper bound for the Lipschitz constant. Lemma
2 implies that under assumptions on the Lipschitz constant, as in Theorem 1, the decay of the
error terms (6) and (7) yields the decay of the distance between the trajectory of the system (9)
and the target curve.
Since the following arguments are independent of n, for simplicity, we use ε1 and ε2 instead
of εi1 and εi2 in the system (8).
Lemma 1. For a system of differential equations of the form (8) and δ(t) = max{|ε1 (t)|, |ε2 (t)|},
we have δ(t) = Ae−t , where A = δ(t0 )et0 .
Proof. let S = {t ∈ R : |ε1 (t)| = |ε2 (t)|}, S is a closed set.
(i) On R\S (the compliment of S to R), δ(t) = ±εi (t) for some i ∈ {1, 2}. Therefore,
∀t ∈ R\S, δ̇(t) = −δ(t). As a result, δ(t) = Ae−t on each connected component of R\S

12

(The maximal connected subsets of a nonempty topological space are called the connected
components of the space).
(ii) On Int(S) (interior of S), δ(t) = ε1 (t). Thus, δ̇(t) = −δ(t). As a result, δ(t) = Be−t on
each connected component of Int(S).
(iii) For ∀t ∈ ∂S (∂S = S\Int(S)), we can use continuity of δ(t) to conclude that δ(t) = Ae−t .
From (i) and (ii) and continuity, one can conclude that constants near exponential terms are
the same. This completes the proof. 
Now define the following function E on the state space X of (2)
E(x1 , x2 , . . . , xn , y1 , y2 , . . . , yn ) =
(12)
max

i,j∈1,2,...,n

{|yi − vd (xi )|, |xj−1 − xj − T yj |}.

Note that the target curve Γ∗ is nothing but the zero level set of the function E.
Take a point
Q = x1 , . . . , xn , y1 . . . , yn



in the state space X . Then directly from the definition of the target curve Γ∗ , there exists the
unique point
Q∗ = x∗1 , . . . , x∗n , y1∗ , . . . , yn∗



on Γ∗ such that x∗1 = x1 .
Lemma 2. If the speed drop profile vd is Lipschitz with the Lipschitz constant M < T1 , then
|xi − x∗i | ≤ Ci (1 + T )E(Q) i > 1,
|yi − yi∗ | ≤ (Ci M (1 + T ) + 1)E(Q)
where
Ci =

i
X
k=2

i≥1

(13)
(14)

1
.
(1 − T M )i−k+1

Consequently, there exists a constant C > 0 such that for any point Q in the state space X ,
dist(Q, Γ∗ ) ≤ C E(Q).
Proof. Set
µi = xi − x∗i ,

ηi = ẋi − ẋ∗i .

(15)

13

Also, by analogy with (6) and (7), let
εi1 = yi − vd (xi ),

(16)

εi2 = xi−1 − xi − T yi .

(17)

Let δi = max{εi1 , εi2 }. Then the following recursive inequalities hold
|ηi | ≤ M |µi | + |εi1 |, i ≤ n,
1
1+T
|µi+1 | ≤
|µi | +
δi+1 , i < n.
1 − TM
1 − TM

(18)
(19)

Based on (16) and (17)


yi+1 = vd (xi+1 ) + εi+1,1

xi+1 = xi − T yi+1 − εi+1,2


y ∗ = vd (x∗ )
i+1
i+1

x ∗

i+1

=

x∗i

−

,

.

T vd (x∗i+1 )

Then first
ηi+1 = vd (xi+1 ) − vd (x∗i+1 ) + εi+1,1 .

(20)

Since vd is Lipschitzian with Lipschitz constant M we get (18).
Furthermore,
µi+1 = xi+1 − x∗i+1

= µi − T vd (xi+1 ) − vd (x∗i+1 ) − T εi+1,1 − εi+1,2 ,
Similar to the above case, since vd is Lipschitzian with Lipschitz constant M , we get
|µi+1 | ≤ µi + M T |µi+1 | + (1 + T )δi+1 ,

(21)

which together with the condition M T < 1 imply the inequality (19).
Applying the recursive formula as many times as necessary and using µ1 =0, we obtain
|µi | ≤ (1 + T )

i
X
k=2

δk
(1 − T M )i−k+1

(22)

which implies inequality (13)
This equation together with (18) implies (14). Finally, the inequality (15) follows immediately
from inequalities (18) and (19) and definition of the function E. 

14

Now, if Γ(t) is a trajectory of system (9), then from Lemma 1 it can be concluded that


E Γ(t) ≤ E Γ(t0 ) et0 −t , which together with inequality (15) implies that dist(Γ(t), Γ∗ ) ≤

CE Γ(t0 ) et0 −t . This completes the proof of item 1) of Theorem 1.
B. Proof of item 2)
Assume that

Γ(t) = x1 (t), . . . xn (t), ẋ1 (t), . . . , ẋn (t) .
Rewriting (7) based on (6) and using Lemma 1 we get

xi−1 (t) − xi (t) = T vd xi (t) + T εi1 (t) + εi2 (t) ≥
(23)
T inf{vd (x) : x ∈ R} − (1 + T )E(Q0 ).
for t ≥ t0 , where Q0 denotes the initial condition. Hence, xi−1 (t) − xi (t) > 0 for all t > 0, if
E(Q0 ) <

T inf{vd (x) : x ∈ R}
1+T

.

(24)

Lemma 3. For all Q ∈ X we have
E(Q) ≤ max {2 + T, 1 + M }dist(Q, Γ∗ ).

(25)

Proof. First, given a point Q ∈ X , the closest point of Γ∗ to Q exists. Indeed, Γ∗ is
parameterized by x1 and for a sufficiently large number N > 0, the distance from any points on
Γ∗ with |x1 | > N to the point Q is at least twice of dist(Q, Γ∗ ). So the distance form Q to Γ∗
is the same as the distance from Q to a part of Γ∗ corresponding to |x1 | ≤ N . The latter part
of Γ∗ is compact so that the infimum of the distance from Q to Γ∗ is indeed achieved at some
point Q∗ of Γ∗ .
Assume that Q∗ = (x∗1 , . . . , x∗n , y1∗ , . . . , yn∗ ). Set ∆ := dist(Q, Γ∗ ) = dist(Q, Q∗ ). To prove
inequality (25) we need first to estimate |xi−1 − xi − T yi |. By triangle inequality it is less than
or equal to
|xi−1 − xi − T yi∗ | + T |yi∗ − yi |,
for i = 1, . . . , n for all n ∈ N.
By assumptions,



|xi − x∗ | ≤ ∆
i


|yi − y ∗ | ≤ ∆
i

f or i = 1, . . . , n.

15

Therefore,
|xi−1 − xi − T yi∗ | = |xi−1 − xi − (x∗i−1 − x∗i )|

(26)

≤ | − xi + x∗i | + |xi−1 − x∗i−1 | ≤ 2∆.
Considering (26) we have
|xi−1 − xi − T yi∗ | + T |yi∗ − yi |
≤ (2 + T )∆,
thus
|xi−1 − xi − T yi | ≤ (2 + T )∆,

(27)

for i = 1, . . . , n.
Further, estimate |yi − vd (xi )|:
|yi − vd (xi )| ≤ |yi − yi∗ | + |yi∗ − vd (xi )|.
Since vd (.) is Lipschitz and yi∗ = vd (x∗i ) we have
|yi∗ − vd (xi )| ≤ M |xi − x∗i |,
then
|yi − vd (xi )| ≤ (1 + M )∆

(28)

for i = 1, . . . , n. Then (27) and (28) result in the inequality (25). 
Combining inequality (24) and Lemma 3, we get that inequality (11) implies that xi−1 (t) −
xi (t) > 0, which completes the proof of item 2) of Theorem 1.
C. Proof of item 3)

Let x1 (t), . . . , xn (t) be a solution of (9), εi1 (t) and εi2 (t) are as in (6) and (7), and δi (t) =

max{|εi1 (t)|, |εi2 (t)|}. Rewriting control input in (10) for the case of |ẋi (t) − vd xi (t) | ≥
|xi−1 (t) − xi (t) − T ẋi (t)|, we have

 0


ui = vd xi (t) + εi1 (t) vd xi (t) − εi1 (t).
Consequently, using Lemma 1 we get that for all t ≥ t0

 0

|ui | ≤ |vd xi (t) | + δi (t0 ) |vd xi (t) | + δi (t0 ).

(29)

16


For the case of |ẋi (t) − vd xi (t) | < |xi−1 (t) − xi (t) − T ẋi (t)|, we have




1
ui =
εi2 (t) + vd xi−1 (t) + εi−1,1 (t) −
T



vd xi (t) + εi1 (t) .
Therefore, using Lemma 1, we have
|ui | ≤



1
|vd xi−1 (t) | + |vd xi (t) |+
T

2δi (t0 ) + δi−1 (t0 )

(30)

Combining estimates (29) and (30) with the assumption that vd is bounded and have piecewise
continuous bounded derivative, we can conclude that the control input ui (t) is bounded for
t ≥ t0 . 
Remark. The differential equation of the form (8) switches between two linear systems: ε̇2 (t) =
−ε2 (t) for |ε1 (t)| < |ε2 (t)| and ε̇1 (t) = −ε1 (t) for |ε1 (t)| ≥ |ε2 (t)|. Note that ε̇2 (t) = −ε2 (t)
for |ε1 (t)| < |ε2 (t)| has no equilibrium point since ε2 (t) = 0 results in ε1 (t) = 0, while in this
case, ε̇1 (t) = −ε1 (t) for |ε1 (t)| ≥ |ε2 (t)| gets activated. Therefore, ε1 (t) = 0 can be considered
as an equilibrium and |ε2 (t)| = 0 as a state constraint. Note that the state constraint may impose
a hard constraint on the original state space variables. Considering ε2 (t) = 0 and ε1 (t) = 0, we
have the following:

ẋi (t) = vd xi (t) ,

(31)

xi−1 (t) − xi (t) = T ẋi (t).

(32)

Therefore, macroscopic parameters of flow q and density k, corresponding to the system state
at the equilibrium point can be calculated as follows:
1
,
T
1
k(l) =
,
T vd (l)
q(l) =

(33)
(34)

where l denotes the measurement location and q, k, and v denote flow rate, density, and
velocity, respectively. Two types of fundamental equations can be defined for vehicular traffic:

17

i) conservation of mass [25] and ii) Wardrop principal for the steady state condition [26]. The
following equations show the mass conservation and Wardrop Principal, respectively.
∂k(t, x) ∂q(t, x)
+
= 0, ∀t, x ∈ R,
∂t
∂x

(35)

q(l) = k(l)vd (l).

(36)

Note that (33), (34) can be utilized in (35) and (36) to model and predict traffic flow dynamics.
Therefore, the presented approach can be utilized to further manage and regulate the traffic flow.
As a result, specific densities and flows could be guaranteed at the steady state condition along
with increasing travel time reliability and ensuring safety. This will be discussed in detail in
Section VI.
V. S IMULATION R ESULTS
In the previous section, we showed that the proposed controller is capable of following a
desired speed profile, while ensuring safety. In this section, we investigate the behavior of the
proposed controller through a series of simulations. Accordingly, we simulate the dynamic system
of the form (9) for a gradual speed drop from 20m/s to 10m/s for time headway of one second.
The length of the speed drop is 500m. A string of 100 vehicles is simulated for two scenarios.
In scenario 1, no error in the initial condition is considered, while in scenario 2, the location of
vehicle 3 is perturbed for 10m. Figures 3 and 4 present the results of these simulations. Figure
3a shows the velocity profile versus location for vehicles 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and
100 for Scenario 1, while Figure 3b presents the changes in time headway over distance for the
above vehicles. Figures 4a and 4b shows the similar graphs for Scenario 2.
Based on Figures 3a and 4a, the proposed system accurately follows the velocity profile for
both cases (with and without external perturbation). Figures 3b and 4b indicate that the calculated
time headway only fluctuates within a small bound (i.e., [0.98,1.04]), which indicates that the
system ensures safety. Note that these small fluctuations are due to discretization by the solver
(Matlab’s ODE113 solver is used to solve the system of differential equations). Overall, velocity
profiles of all vehicles are similar to the desired velocity profile given in Figure 2 (with small
deviations from the desired profile for the first few vehicles). Moreover, external perturbations
disappear such that, even in Scenario 2, the velocity profile of vehicle 100 (yellow line) is almost
identical to the desired velocity profile and its time headway reaches 1s.

18

(a)

(b)

Fig. 3: Simulation results for Scenario 1, where vehicles try to follow the velocity profile without
any external perturbation: (a) velocity profile for vehicles 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and
100, and (b) time headway evolution over distance for the same vehicles. In Figure 3a yellow
line indicates velocity profile of the last vehicle. The red line in Figure 3b is also a representative
of Time Headway for the last vehicle.

VI. D ISCUSSION
In previous works by Besselink and Johanson [16] and Shaw et al. [27], controllers in space and
time domains were proposed to ensure string stability (and bounded errors, consequently), while
tracking the velocity profile of a leading vehicle with constant time headway and constant spacing
policies, respectively. However, their methodology requires information about other vehicles
movement (particularly, they either need information about the time that each vehicle is at a
certain location or location of other vehicles at a particular time). The safety and efficiency of
these methodologies can be influenced by the availability of the information, which should be
transmitted to all vehicles in the platoon using V2X communications. As discussed previously,
due to several factors, including signal interference, such information might not be available at all
times. Therefore, those and similar approaches might not apply to the real-world applications.
Moreover, the performance of these methodologies can degrade with increasing the number

19

(a)

(b)

Fig. 4: Simulation results for Scenario 2, where vehicle 3 is perturbed for 10m: (a) velocity
profile for vehicles 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100, and (b) time headway evolution
over distance for the same vehicles. In Figure 4a yellow line indicates velocity profile of the last
vehicle. The red line in Figure 4b is also a representative of Time Headway for the last vehicle.

of vehicles in the platoon and/or uncertainties in communications. Moreover, in those studies,
control laws are based on the time delay in the presence of speed profile. Therefore, achieving
a particular flow in the link may not be guaranteed as the flow is defined base on time headway,
which is not under control. Additionally, maintaining a constant time headway is a reliable
measure to ensure safety, while a time delayed spacing policy may not be as effective. In
the current research, we proposed a decentralized controller based on manipulating maximum
error associated with a vehicle movement (error in velocity concerning the velocity profile and
error in the location with respect to the leading vehicle). Assuming that full information of
states is accessible without an observer, sufficient conditions to avoid the collision and keeping
acceleration/deceleration bounded are straight forward to obtain based on the proposed method .
Analysis showed that the proposed control method guarantees the string stability. Mathematical
analyses presented in the paper are valid for any velocity profile that satisfies the conditions
expressed in the Theorem, such as being Lipschitz with Lipschitz constant M satisfying T M < 1,

20

where T is the constant Time Headway.
Overall, the main advantage of the proposed control method over the previously discussed
studies is the decentralized nature of it. Such a characteristic provides robustness against uncertainties in the communications network as the controller only needs information about the
leader’s location and speed. Such information is available through on-board sensors (e.g., radar
and LiDAR).
VII. C ONCLUSION
Connected and autonomous vehicles continue to promise improvements in safety and efficiency. Even though the current practice of designing and operating autonomous vehicles
is based on isolated vehicles, platooning is expected to significantly enhance the efficiency
throughout the transportation system (e.g., improving congestion and reducing emissions and
energy consumption). There are, however, particular challenges that need to be addressed to
ensure a safe and reliable operation of the platoons of autonomous vehicles. One of the key
challenges is following a certain velocity profile (e.g., changes in speed limit due to work zone
operations), while ensuring safety. While very few studies focused on this problem, they rely on
accurate and timely information from V2V and V2I communications network. Such information
is not always available, which can cause efficiency and possibly safety issues. Accordingly,
this study, using the state feedback of the form (10) for the simple vehicle dynamics of the
form ẍi (t) = ui , presents a methodology that, for some desirable initial conditions, avoids
collision throughout the time and space, while tracking a desired velocity profile. Tracking the
desired velocity profile ensures high travel time reliability. Additionally, predetermined constant
time headway ensures predictable traffic flow dynamics, which is important from a system
perspective and can be utilized for congestion prediction and mitigation. We showed that error
terms corresponding to the velocity profile and safe distance are adjusted asymptotically. It is
noteworthy that using the state feedback loop, all error terms remain bounded throughout the
time and space. Our simulation results also indicated that the proposed methodology is robust
to internal and external disturbances in the system and can follow the desired profile, while
ensuring safety. This method could be potentially useful to stabilize nonlinear interconnected
systems, where number of outputs are greater than number of inputs. Accordingly, generalizing
this approach has been left for future research.

21

R EFERENCES
[1] H. Mahmassani, T. Hou, and M. Saberi, “Connecting networkwide travel time reliability and the network fundamental
diagram of traffic flow,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, no. 2391, pp.
80–91, 2013.
[2] D. Helbing, M. Treiber, A. Kesting, and M. Schönhof, “Theoretical vs. empirical classification and prediction of congested
traffic states,” The European Physical Journal B-Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 583–598,
2009.
[3] A. Talebpour and H. S. Mahmassani, “Influence of connected and autonomous vehicles on traffic flow stability and
throughput,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 71, pp. 143–163, 2016.
[4] N. H. T. S. Administration et al., “Us department of transportation releases policy on automated vehicle development,”
Washington, DC: NHSTA, 2013.
[5] A. Talebpour, H. S. Mahmassani, and F. E. Bustamante, “Modeling driver behavior in a connected environment: Integrated
microscopic simulation of traffic and mobile wireless telecommunication systems,” Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, no. 2560, pp. 75–86, 2016.
[6] L. Wischhof, A. Ebner, and H. Rohling, “Information dissemination in self-organizing intervehicle networks,” IEEE
Transactions on intelligent transportation systems, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 90–101, 2005.
[7] D. Swaroop and J. Hedrick, “Constant spacing strategies for platooning in automated highway systems,” Journal of dynamic
systems, measurement, and control, vol. 121, no. 3, pp. 462–470, 1999.
[8] D. Swaroop and K. Rajagopal, “A review of constant time headway policy for automatic vehicle following,” in Intelligent
Transportation Systems, 2001. Proceedings. 2001 IEEE.

IEEE, 2001, pp. 65–69.

[9] A. A. Peters, R. H. Middleton, and O. Mason, “Leader tracking in homogeneous vehicle platoons with broadcast delays,”
Automatica, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 64–74, 2014.
[10] S. Öncü, J. Ploeg, N. van de Wouw, and H. Nijmeijer, “Cooperative adaptive cruise control: Network-aware analysis of
string stability,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1527–1537, 2014.
[11] S. Darbha and K. Rajagopal, “Intelligent cruise control systems and traffic flow stability,” Transportation Research Part
C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 329–352, 1999.
[12] D. Swaroop and J. K. Hedrick, “String stability of interconnected systems,” IEEE transactions on automatic control,
vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 349–357, 1996.
[13] A. Pant, P. Seiler, and K. Hedrick, “Mesh stability of look-ahead interconnected systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 403–407, 2002.
[14] L. Peppard, “String stability of relative-motion pid vehicle control systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 579–581, 1974.
[15] S. Sheikholeslam and C. A. Desoer, “Longitudinal control of a platoon of vehicles with no communication of lead vehicle
information: A system level study,” IEEE Transactions on vehicular technology, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 546–554, 1993.
[16] B. Besselink and K. H. Johansson, “Control of platoons of heavy-duty vehicles using a delay-based spacing policy,” in
12th IFAC Workshop on Time Delay Systems, Ann Arbor, United States, 2015, 2015.
[17] ——, “String stability and a delay-based spacing policy for vehicle platoons subject to disturbances,” IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 9, pp. 4376–4391, 2017.
[18] S. P. Bhattacharyya, A. Datta, and L. H. Keel, Linear control theory: structure, robustness, and optimization. CRC press,
2009, vol. 33.

22

[19] S. GOPALSWAMY and J. KARL HEDRICK, “Tracking nonlinear non-minimum phase systems using sliding control,”
International Journal of Control, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 1141–1158, 1993.
[20] T. S. Arefizadeh, Hasanzadehzenouzy, “Assessing strong string stability of constant spacing policy under speed limit
fluctuations.”
[21] P. A. Ioannou and C.-C. Chien, “Autonomous intelligent cruise control,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular technology,
vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 657–672, 1993.
[22] D. N. Godbole and J. Lygeros, “Longitudinal control of the lead car of a platoon,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular
Technology, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 1125–1135, 1994.
[23] Y. Zheng, S. E. Li, J. Wang, L. Y. Wang, and K. Li, “Influence of information flow topology on closed-loop stability
of vehicle platoon with rigid formation,” in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2014 IEEE 17th International
IEEE, 2014, pp. 2094–2100.

Conference on.

[24] D. Swaroop, J. Hedrick, C. Chien, and P. Ioannou, “A comparision of spacing and headway control laws for automatically
controlled vehicles1,” Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 597–625, 1994.
[25] P. Kachroo and K. M. Özbay, Feedback control theory for dynamic traffic assignment.

Springer Science & Business

Media, 2012.
[26] J. Wardrop, “Some theoretical aspects of road traffic research,” in Inst Civil Engineers Proc London/UK/, 1900.
[27] E. Shaw and J. K. Hedrick, “String stability analysis for heterogeneous vehicle strings,” in American Control Conference,
IEEE, 2007, pp. 3118–3125.

2007. ACC’07.

Sina Arefizadeh is currently a PhD student of Transportation Engineering at Texas A&M University. He
received his M.Sc. in Civil Engineering from Sharif University of Technology in 2011 and his B.S. degree
in Civil Engineering from Ferdowsi university in 2013. His research interests includes: linear and nonlinear control systems, Dynamic Programming, Traffic Modeling and Simulation, Intelligent Transportation
System, Mathematical Analysis, and Queuing Theory.

Alireza Talebpour received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Civil Engineering from Sharif University of
Technology, Tehran, Iran, in 2007 and 2009, respectively. He received his Ph.D. in Civil and Environmental
Engineering from Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA, in 2015. He is currently an Assistant
Professor in the Zachry Department of Civil Engineering at Texas A&M University, College Station, TX,
USA. He has pursued multiple research topics, including driver behavior modeling, traffic flow theory,
safety, and intelligent transportation systems. His current research focuses on connected and automated
transportation systems.
Igor Zelenko received his B.S., M.S., and PhD degrees in Mathematics from Technion- Israel Institute of
Technology, in 1994, 1998, and 2002 respectively. He is currently an Associate Professor in the Department
of Mathematics at Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA. He was a Research Associate
and Visiting Associate Professor at International School for Advanced Studies (SISSA-ISAS), Trieste,
Italy. He won several national and international grants including NSF and Simons Collaboration Grants
and Research Grants from Italian Ministry of Education and Science (MIUR). He is currently active in
Differential Geometry and Geometric Control Theory. His main direction of current research is the construction of canonical
frames and differential invariants for a wide class of geometric structures and control systems on manifolds.

