Traffic Signal Control Using Fuzzy Logic

Traffic signal control using fuzzy logic
A
SEMINAR REPORT
ON
TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROL USING FUZZY LOGIC
ABSTRACT
Traffic congestion has become a serious problem in the urban districts. This is mainly
due to the rapid increase in the number and the use of vehicles. Travel time, travel safety,
environmental quality, and life quality are all adversely affected by traffic congestion.
Many traffic control systems have been developed and installed to alleviate the problem
with limited success. Traffic demands are still high and increasing. The main focus of this
paper is to introduce a versatile traffic flow model capable of making optimal traffic
predictions. This model can be used to evaluate various traffic-light timing plans. More
importantly, it provides a framework for implementing adaptive traffic signal controllers
based on fuzzy logic technology.
This paper simulates the control logic of experienced human traffic controllers such as
police officers who supersede signal controls at over-saturated intersections during
special events. Given real-time traffic information, the FLC controller decides on whether
to extend or terminate the current green phase based on a set of fuzzy rules.
The FLC strategy was compared with pretimed and actuated control strategies using a
typical intersection with varying traffic volume levels. Based on delay, speed, % stops,
time in queue and throughput-to-demand ratio statistics, the FLC strategy produced
Transportation Division -1-
significant improvements over pretimed and actuated control strategies under heavy
traffic volumes. This indicates that FLC has the potential to improve operations at over-
saturated intersections.
CONTENTS
Page No
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 GENERAL 1
1.2 OBJECTIVES 2
1.3 Types in traffic signal control 2
2. FUZZY SET AND FUZZY LOGIC 4
2.1Fuzzy Set 4
2.2 Fuzzy Logic 5
3. TERMINOLOGY AND NOTATION 7
3.1 Terminology 7
3.2 Notation 8
4. MODELING A SINGLE INTERSECTION 10

5. METHODOLOGY 12
6. INVESTIGATING OF FUZZY LOGIC SIGNAL
CONTROL MODEL PERFORMANCE 17
7. CASE STUDY 21
8. CONCLUSION 25
REFERENCES 26
LIST OF FIGURES
FIG NO DESCRIPTION PAGE NO
2.1 Fuzzy logic system 6
3.1 Single 4- leg intersection 7
3.2 Illustration of the traffic phases 8
4.1 The 4- phases of the c-th signal cycle 11
4.2 Determination of coefficient aln using
a linear regression model 11
5.1 Fuzzy sets for QC,QN and AR 13
5.2 Initial threshold values for fuzzy sets
for QC,QN and AR 15
6.1 Comparison of fuzzy logic model values
with traffic actuated model values for
two phasing control and equal traffic volumes. 17
6.2 Comparison of fuzzy logic model values with
traffic actuated model values for two phasing
control and different (not equal) traffic volumes. 18

traffic actuated model values for three phasing
control and equal traffic volumes. 19
traffic actuated model values for three phasing
control and different (not equal) traffic volumes. 19
7.1 Geometry of the Intersection 21
7.2 Pretimed signal 22
7.3 Actuated signal 23
7.4 Results of case study 24
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO DESCRIPTION PAGE NO
5.1 Fuzzy Rules 14
5.2 Fuzzification of Input Traffic 16
5.3 Fuzzy Inference using Max- Min Composition Method 16
7.1 Traffic volumes(veh/hr) 21
7.2 Parameters for Fuzzy logic controller 23

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
Intersections are common bottlenecks in roadway systems. More intelligent traffic signal
control would make the current roadway system operate more efficiently without
building new roadways or widening existing roadways which is often impossible due to
scarce land availability and public opposition to roadway expansion in many locations. It
has been recognized that signal improvement is one of the most useful and cost-effective
methods to reduce congestion
While controlling the traffic flows at signalized intersections, it is aimed to decrease

delays of vehicles and environmental effects and also increase intersection capacity at
same time.
Most signal controls are implemented with either pretimed controls or actuated controls.
A pretimed controller repeats preset signal timings derived from historical traffic
patterns. An actuated controller computes phase durations based on real-time traffic
demand obtained from the detection of passing and stopped traffic on all lanes leading
into an intersection.

Fuzzy logic is one of these new methods introduced in 1960 by Lutfi Askerzade (Zadeh)
at University of California (Berkeley) and it was based on set theory.
The main benefit of fuzzy set theory is the opportunity to model the ambiguity and the
uncertainty of decision making. The basic idea of fuzzy traffic signal control is to model
the control based on human expert knowledge, rather than the modelling of the process
itself. Fuzzy logic has the ability to comprehend linguistic instructions and to generate
control strategies based on a priori communication.
1.2 OBJECTIVES
The main goal of traffic signal control is to ensure safety at signalized intersections by
keeping conflicting traffic flows apart. Traffic signal control can contribute to this as part
of a wider traffic management system with consistent and well-defined aims. Some of the
areas where changing the objectives of traffic signal control could make a difference are:
- pedestrian friendly signals,
- separate signals for cyclists,
- public transport priorities,
- heavy vehicle priorities,
- Environmental sensitivity.
The objectives of fuzzy signal control were:
- to present fuzzy logic as a control method in adaptive traffic signal control,
- to make a general theoretical analysis of fuzzy traffic signal control,
- to formulate generalized fuzzy control rules for traffic signal control in different
cases using linguistic variables,
- to discuss fuzzzification and defuzzification in the control process.
1.3 Types in traffic signal control:

a. Fixed time control
Fixed time signal control is based on the historical traffic data, assuming traffic
conditions are unchanged in the time periods. A local field signal controller uses the
preset timing plan to control intersection signals. Since the traffic demands are changing
all time in the real world, the fixed time signal control is obviously not satisfactory.
b. Adaptive signal control

As an improvement over fixed time control, this control scheme uses the online data that
are collected from sensors and detectors installed at an intersection. The operation of
signal control depends on the actual traffic situation.
Vehicle-actuated Signals, in many cases, for isolated intersections, the fixed time
control when abandoned and replaced by vehicle-actuated control. The most important
elements of vehicle-actuated control are demand and extension. The traditional vehicle-
actuated control of isolated intersections attempts continuously to adjust green times. The
main disadvantage is that the control algorithm looks only at the vehicles on green while
not taking into account the number of vehicles waiting at red. The simplest type of
vehicle-actuated installation has a detector located at a distance A ahead of the stop line
at an intersection approach, and a controller sensitive to signals sent by the detector.
It follows that simple traffic-actuated signals suffer from some of the same weaknesses as
those of fixed-timed signals. They will work well if the actual traffic flow matches the
flow assumed when the unit extension of green was selected. An obvious direction of
improvement is to design traffic-actuated signals with variable unit extension, varying
with the length of green and/or with the changes in flow rate. Such improvements are, in
fact, operational.

2. FUZZY SET AND FUZZY LOGIC
Fuzzy set theory is suitable for systems that involve imprecise and vague information.
The fuzzy set theory was first introduced by Zadeh in 1965 as a mathematical method for
representing vagueness in everyday life. It has been recognized as a useful mathematical
tool in a variety of research fields, including transportation engineering and planning.
Based on basic fuzzy set theory, Zadeh first introduced fuzzy logic in 1973. Fuzzy logic
is a mathematical representation of human concept formulation and reasoning. In recent
years, fuzzy logic has been applied to practical problems with controls and decisions
which involve or are similar to the imprecise human reasoning process. It is a promising
mathematical approach for modelling traffic control processes which are characterized by
subjectivity, ambiguity and imprecision.
2.1Fuzzy Set
In the classic theory of sets, also known as crisp set theory, very precise bounds separate
the elements that belong to a certain set from the elements outside the set. In other words,
it is easy to determine whether an element belongs to a set or not. The membership of

element x in set A is described in the classic theory of sets by the membership function
αA(x), as follows:
αA(x) = 1, if and only if x is not a member of A
= 0, if and only if x is a member of A
However, many sets encountered in real life do not have precisely defined bounds that
separate the elements in the set from those outside the set. For example, if we denote by
A the set of “long delay at a signal,” how could we establish which element belongs to
this set? Does a delay of 40 sec. belong to this set? What about 30 sec. or 60 sec.? It is
obvious that the binary logic of having each single element to either belong to a set
(membership = 1) or not belong to a set (membership = 0) is not appropriate for most
categories describing real-world situations that do not possess well-defined boundaries.
Fundamentally then this initiates the development of fuzzy set theory.
In contrast to the classical set theory, fuzzy sets admit intermediate values of class
membership. A fuzzy set is represented by a membership function which expresses the
degree that an element of the universal set belongs to the fuzzy set: larger values denote
higher degrees of membership, smaller values indicate lower degrees of membership. The
most commonly used range of values of membership functions is the unit interval [0,1].
Each membership function maps elements of a given universal set X into real numbers in
[0,1]. In other words, the membership function of a fuzzy set A, αA(x) , is defined as
α A : X→ [0,1]
2.2 Fuzzy Logic

The development of fuzzy logic dates back to 1973. Introducing a concept he called
“Approximate reasoning”, Zadeh successfully showed that vague logical statements
enable the formation of algorithms that can use vague data to derive vague inferences.

Fuzzy logic makes it possible to compute with words, which enables complex analysis
reflecting the human thinking process. Each fuzzy logic system can be divided into three
elements (Figure 2.1): fuzzification, fuzzy inference and defuzzification.
Figure 2.1 Fuzzy logic system
Input data are most often crisp values. Fuzzification maps crisp numbers into fuzzy sets.
The fuzzifier decides the corresponding membership grades (or degrees of membership)
from the crisp inputs. The resulting fuzzy values are then entered into the fuzzy inference
engine. Fuzzy inference is based on a fuzzy rule base which contains a set of If →Then
fuzzy rules. A typical fuzzy rule would be:
If {Queue Length is Long} and {Arriving Rate is High} and
{Queue length on the cross street is Short}
Then {Green Light is extended}
The fact following “If” is a premise or antecedent and the fact following “Then” is a consequent.
Transportation Division - 10 -
3. TERMINOLOGY AND NOTATION
To facilitate the discussion in the subsequent sections, some special terminology and
notation are introduced.
3.1 Terminology
Without loss of generality, it is sufficient to consider a single four-leg intersection, which
usually arises from two intersecting arteries (roadways). As shown in Figure 3.1, a
typical intersection has the configuration described below.
- Four approaches: south (I = l), east (I = 2), north (I = 3), and west (I = 4).
- Three lanes in each approach: left-turn (n = l), straight-forward (n = 2), and
Right- turn (n = 3).
Figure 3.1. Single 4- leg intersection
In addition, it is assumed that each signal cycle of the traffic light consists of four phases.
Referring to Figure 3.2, each phase signifies the duration of the green signal intended for
the traffic in specific lanes and specific approaches. Specifically,
- Phase 1: For left-turn, south (approach 1) and north (approach 3) traffic.
- Phase 2: For straight-forward and right-turn, south (approach 1,) and
north (approach 3) traffic.
- Phase 3: For left-turn, east (approach 2) and west (approach 4) traffic.
- Phase 4: For straight-forward and right-turn, east (approach 2) and
west (approach 4) traffic.
Figure 3.2 Illustration of the traffic phases
3.2 Notation
(a) A traffic state vector, denoted by
is a 3D vector, which is used to describe the number of queue vehicles in approach 1 at

time t. The term approach refers to an artery or roadway that converges to an intersection.
The components x1l(t) , x2l(t) , and x3l(t) denote the number of queue vehicles in the
left-turn lanes, straight-forward lanes, and right-turn lanes, respectively. The queue
vehicles at an intersection with four approaches are depicted in Figure 2.
(b) A traffic flow vector, denoted by
is a 3D vector, which specifies the flow rate of incoming traffic for approach l at
time t. The three components J1l(t), J2l(t) and J3l(t) represent the traffic flow rate
(vehicle/second) in the left-turn lanes, straight-forward lanes, and right-turn lanes,
respectively.
(c) Green signal parameters

For an intersection where each signal cycle has I phases, the parameter
Specifies the length of green signal in phase i for approach I during signal cycle c.
The duration of signal cycle c is denoted as Tc.
4. MODELING A SINGLE INTERSECTION
In this section, a dynamic model is formulated to describe the traffic flow at an

intersection. The purpose is to acquire capability to adequately predict the traffic flow
process. Without loss of generality, it is sufficient to consider a single four-leg
intersection (Figure 3.2). A typical signal cycle has I = 4 phases as illustrated in
Figure 4.1
It is of great practical interest to maintain an accurate count of queue vehicles at the

intersection. Accordingly, the number of queue vehicles at time t in lane n of approach I
during signal cycle c is modelled by the following differential equation:
Where,
Figure 4.1 The 4- phases of the c-th signal cycle
Intuitively, this model stipulates that the rate of traffic flow in a lane of any approach is
proportional to the current number of queue vehicles plus the flow rate of incoming
traffic.
In this formulation, it is taken that the signal cycle c starts at t = T, which is the total
duration of (c-1) cycles. The green signal parameters gil(c), are read from the stored
timing plans, which are optimally calculated using Webster's theory.
It may be mentioned that the coefficients aln, are determined by fitting a linear regression
model to simulate the relationship between the vehicles crossing intersection per unit
time and the number of queue vehicles. This procedure is depicted in Figure 4.2
Figure 4.2 Determination of coefficient aln using a linear regression model

5. METHODOLOGY
Signal control is basically a process for allocating green time among conflicting
movements. Alternatively, signal control is a process for determining whether or to
extend or terminate the current green phase. The proposed fuzzy logic controller (FLC)
works in the same way but it is significantly different from actuated control. Actuated
control extends green time based on an extension interval, a maximum green time and the
vehicular actuations on the subject approach. No examination of the conditions on
conflicting movements and no optimization is involved in the actuated control process.
The proposed fuzzy logic controller determines whether to extend or terminate the
current green phase based on a set of fuzzy rules. The fuzzy rules compare traffic
conditions with the current green phase and traffic conditions with the next candidate
green phase. The set of control parameters is:
QC = Average queue length on the lanes served by the current green, in veh/lane.
QN = Average queue length on lanes with red which may receive green in the next
phase, in veh/lane.
AR = Average arrival rate on lanes with the current green, in veh/sec/lane
TMIN = minimum green time for each phase, in sec.
TMAX_ TH = maximum green time for through lanes which can vary for different
approaches, in sec.
TMAX_LT = maximum green time for left-turn lanes which can vary for different
approaches, in sec.
The fuzzy logic controller determines whether to extend or terminate the current green
phase after a minimum green time of TMIN has been displayed. If the green time is
extended, then the fuzzy logic controller will determine whether to extend the green after
a time interval Δt. The interval Δt may vary from 0.1 to 10 sec. depending on the
controller processor speed. Δt = 5 sec. in this study. If the fuzzy logic controller
determines to terminate the current phase, then the signal will go to the next phase. If not,
the current phase will be extended and the fuzzy logic controller will make the next
decision after Δt and so forth until the maximum green time is reached.
The decision making process is based on a set of fuzzy rules which takes into account the
traffic conditions with the current and next phases. The general format of the fuzzy rules
is as follows:
If {QC is X1} and {AR is X2} and {QN is X3} Then {E or T}.
Where,
X1, X2, X3 = natural language expressions of traffic conditions of
respective variables
E = Extension of green phase
T = Termination of green phase
QC and QN are divided into four fuzzy sets: “short,” “medium,” “long” and “very long.”
AR is divided into three fuzzy sets: “low,” “medium” and “high.” The number of fuzzy
rules is dependent on the combinations of fuzzy sets for X1, X2, and X3. A total of
4⋅ 3⋅ 4 = 48 fuzzy rules are listed in Table 5.1
The parameters QC, QN, and AR are characterized by fuzzy numbers as shown in Fig 5.1
Trapezoidal fuzzy numbers are used in this study. Q1 to Q6 are threshold values to define
fuzzy sets for QC and QN; AR1 to AR4 are threshold values to define fuzzy sets for AR.
Figure 5.1 Fuzzy sets for QC,QN and AR
Table 5.1 Fuzzy Rules
The input data (traffic conditions) are first fuzzified using the proposed fuzzy sets for
QC, QN, and AR. Then the fuzzified input data are entered into the fuzzy inference
system which is composed of a set of fuzzy rules as described above. The max-min
composition method is applied for making inferences. The membership grades (or
degrees of membership, between 0 and 1) for E (Extend) and T (Terminate) are
compared. The one with the highest membership grade is chosen as the control action.
The initial threshold values for fuzzy sets for QC, QN, and AR are shown in Figure 5.2
Figure 5.2 Initial threshold values for fuzzy sets for QC,QN and AR
The entire fuzzy logic control process can be represented with a simple example as
follows. Suppose that after a time interval Δt = 5 sec. (within the maximum green time),
the fuzzy logic controller needs to make a decision whether to extend or terminate the
current green phase based on the following traffic conditions:
QC = 7.5 veh/lane
AR = 0.18 veh/sec/lane
QN = 10.5 veh/lane
Based on Figure 5.2 the input data QC, AR, and QN are fuzzified as shown in Table 5.2.
Based on the fuzzified input data, it is found that fuzzy rules 19, 20, 23, 24, 31, 32, 35,
and 36 in Table 5.1 are involved in this fuzzy inference. The fuzzy inference procedure
using max-min composition method is shown in Table 5.3. Based on the fuzzy logic
inference procedure, the fuzzy logic controller will decide to extend the green time for
the current phase.
Table 5.2 Fuzzification of Input Traffic Data
Table 5.3 Fuzzy Inference using Max- Min Composition Method
6. INVESTIGATING OF FUZZY LOGIC SIGNAL CONTROL

MODEL PERFORMANCE
Performance of Fuzzy Logic Signal Control Model is investigated using simulation

studies. Fuzzy logic signal control model is compared with traffic actuated model for two
and three phased controlled intersections with respect to average delays. Average delay
values are calculated by using weighted average method considering traffic volumes of
approaches and it is expressed as seconds per vehicle unit for each flow.
Comparisons are done by considering two cases of traffic volumes; equal and different
(not equal) values at approaches of intersection. Results for two phasing situation are
given in Figure 6.1 and Figure 6.2, respectively.
Figure 6.1. Comparison of fuzzy logic model values with traffic actuated model values for
two phasing control and equal traffic volumes.
Figure 6.2. Comparison of fuzzy logic model values with traffic actuated model values for
two phasing control and different (not equal) traffic volumes.
Second situation which is considered for researching the performance of the fuzzy logic
controller is not equal or different traffic volumes on approaches of intersection at the
same time. Some experimental studies are made for determining considered traffic
volumes and results of comparisons are indicated in Figure 6.2
Results for three phasing situation are given in Figure 6.3 and Figure 6.4 respectively.
Figure 6.3 Comparison of fuzzy logic model values with traffic actuated model values for
three phasing control and equal traffic volumes.
Figure 6.4 Comparison of fuzzy logic model values with traffic actuated model values
for three phasing control and different (not equal) traffic volumes.
According to the simulation studies, it is understood that results of the fuzzy logic
controller is the same as the traffic actuated controller when considering two phasing
controlled situation and little traffic volumes. But if the variation and values of traffic
volumes are bigger, the fuzzy logic controller decreases the delays of vehicles and
increases performance about 15 percent. When considered three phasing controlled
situation, fuzzy controller also decreases the delays and increases the capacity for equal
and different traffic volumes.
7. CASE STUDY
FLC was evaluated against pretimed and actuated control strategies. The MOE used in
the evaluation were (1) network delay, (2) network speed, (3) % stops, (4) network time
in queue, and (5) network throughput-to-demand ratio. The best control strategy is the
one that provides the lowest delay, highest speed, lowest % stops, lowest time in queue,
and highest throughput-to-demand ratio.
The geometry of the intersection is illustrated in Figure 7.1 Left-turn lanes were made
long enough to accommodate left-turning traffic queues. Traffic volumes varying from
20% to 100% of the highest volume are shown in Table 7.1 The 100% traffic volume
level represents a condition where two conflicting movements have a volume-to-capacity
ratio greater than 1.0, thus, the intersection is substantially over-saturated
Figure 7.1 Geometry of the Intersection

Table 7.1 Traffic volumes(veh/hr)
Two simplifications were applied: no right turn on red and no pedestrian demand. The
pretimed signal timings shown in Figure 7.2 were optimized with TRANSYT-7F using
“delay and stops” as the objective function. Figure 7.3 displays the actuated control
phases and phase timing. For all phases minimum green time is 8sec and maximum green
time is 40sec.Vehicle extension intervals of 2, 3 and 4 sec. were tried and the value that
produced the best performance in terms of speed and delay was used to compare actuated
control with FLC.
Figure 7.2. Pretimed signal
Figure 7.3. Actuated signal
Table 7.2. Parameters for Fuzzy logic controller
Five different combinations of control parameters (Q1-Q6, AR1-AR4, TMAX_TH, TMAX_LT,

and TMIN) were tried for FLC control and the best one in terms of delay, speed, % stops,
and time in queue was chosen for the comparison among FLC, pretimed and actuated
control strategies.
The simulation results for FLC are listed in the lower half of Table 7.2. The columns with
shaded background are the best FLC control for each volume level. As expected, FLC
control parameters increase with increasing traffic volumes.
FLC is compared with pretimed and actuated control as summarized in Figure 7.4. The
summary table in Figure 7.4(a) shows average proportional differences of FLC’s MOE
over pretimed and actuated control for the test intersection. FLC produced the best
performance for all MOE examined.
Figure 7.4. Results of case study
8. CONCLUSION
A basic fuzzy logic control (FLC) algorithm for full intersections with two-way streets
and left-turn lanes was developed. The FLC strategy simulates the control logic of
experienced humans such as police officers directing traffic who often replace signal
controls when intersections experience unusually heavy traffic volumes (e.g., during
special events.) The FLC controller makes the decision whether to extend or terminate
the current green phase based on a set of fuzzy rules and real-time traffic information.
FLC was compared with pretimed and actuated control strategies using a typical
intersection with varying traffic volume levels. Measures of effectiveness including
delay, speed, % stops, time in queue, and throughput-to-demand ratio were examined.
FLC showed substantial improvements over pretimed and actuated control strategies for
all MOE except % stops under heavy traffic volumes. Overall, the simulation results
indicated that FLC has the potential to improve operations at oversaturated intersections.
REFERENCES
[1] Lin Zhang, Honglong li, Panos D Prevedours, 2004 ,”Signal Control for over
saturated intersections using Fuzzy Logic” , A presentation for publication in the
Transportation Research Record.
[2]Yetis Sazi Murat, Ergun Gedizlioglu, “Approach for Fuzzy Traffic Signal Control”,
Istanbul Technical University, Turkey
[3] Qinghui lin, B. W. Kwan, L.J.Tung ,”Traffic Signal Control Using Fuzzy Logic”,
FAMU-FSU College of Engg ,U S A
[4] Klir, G. J., and B. Yuan,1995, “Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic: Theory and
Applications”. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey .
[5] Teodorovic, D,1999, “Fuzzy Logic Systems for Transportation Engineering: the State
of the Art”. Transportation Research, Part A, Vol. 33, pp. 337-364.

Traffic Signal Control Using Fuzzy Logic

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Traffic Signal Control Using Fuzzy Logic

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Traffic signal control using fuzzy logic

TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROL USING FUZZY LOGIC

4. MODELING A SINGLE INTERSECTION 10

6.3 Comparison of fuzzy logic model values with

Transportation Division -4-

While controlling the traffic flows at signalized intersections, it is aimed to decrease

Transportation Division -5-

1.3 Types in traffic signal control:

b. Adaptive signal control

Transportation Division -7-

2. FUZZY SET AND FUZZY LOGIC

Transportation Division -8-

2.2 Fuzzy Logic

Transportation Division -9-

Figure 2.1 Fuzzy logic system

3. TERMINOLOGY AND NOTATION

Figure 3.1. Single 4- leg intersection

Figure 3.2 Illustration of the traffic phases

(a) A traffic state vector, denoted by

is a 3D vector, which is used to describe the number of queue vehicles in approach 1 at

(b) A traffic flow vector, denoted by

(c) Green signal parameters

4. MODELING A SINGLE INTERSECTION

In this section, a dynamic model is formulated to describe the traffic flow at an

It is of great practical interest to maintain an accurate count of queue vehicles at the

Figure 4.1 The 4- phases of the c-th signal cycle

Figure 4.2 Determination of coefficient aln using a linear regression model

Figure 5.1 Fuzzy sets for QC,QN and AR

Table 5.1 Fuzzy Rules

Table 5.3 Fuzzy Inference using Max- Min Composition Method

6. INVESTIGATING OF FUZZY LOGIC SIGNAL CONTROL

Performance of Fuzzy Logic Signal Control Model is investigated using simulation

Figure 7.1 Geometry of the Intersection

Figure 7.2. Pretimed signal

Figure 7.3. Actuated signal

Table 7.2. Parameters for Fuzzy logic controller

Five different combinations of control parameters (Q1-Q6, AR1-AR4, TMAX_TH, TMAX_LT,

Figure 7.4. Results of case study

Anda mungkin juga menyukai