Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.


Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Quang Le June 25, 2012 PERFORMANCE EVOLUTION OF THE DIVERGING DIAMOND INTERCHANGE Cal Poly Pomona."— Presentation transcript:


2  Project Objective  DDI Background  Project Methodology  Results  Conclusions  Further Research  Questions OVERVIEW

3 Project Objectives  Determine the behavior of several performance measures, such as delay, stop time, average speed, and queue length as the spacing between the two crossovers is increased or decreased.  Compare several performance measures using different volumes scenarios under fixed distances  Run models under a different signal timing parameter (not part of original proposal)

4 DDI OVERVIEW  The diverging diamond interchange (DDI), also known as the double crossover diamond (DCD) interchange, provides an alternative design solution to mitigate traffic congestion.  Allows Crossover of traffic to left side of the road to reduce traffic conflicts 1 ST DDI in Versailles, France (1970)

5 DDI IN THE UNITED STATES  Eleven (11) DDI can be found in the US  Missouri (5), Utah (4), Tennessee (1), and Kentucky (1).  The first DDI opened to traffic in the United States was the interchange connecting MO-13 with I-44 in Springfield, Missouri on June 21, 2009. DDI at MO-13 and I-44

6 ADVANTAGES  Vehicle Safety  Ex: The average number of reported traffic accidents before the DDI was fifty-three. Reduced to twenty-five in the one year after the DDI was constructed and open to the public (Missouri DOT).  Pedestrian safety is increased as accidents resulting from turning movements are eliminated.  The DDI has been shown to increase the capacity of the system.

7 CONFLICT POINTS IN A DDI TypeDiamondSPUIDDI Diverging1088 Merging1088 Crossing1082 Total302418

8  Reduction of total delay in the system. The DDI reduces the number of signals that are required in the system  The delay is decreased because the two interchanges are reduced to a two phase signal. This creates shorter cycle lengths and allows for the loss time to be saved from having fewer signal phases, which can be transferred to the green time.  Construction costs in a DDI have proven to be more economical than other conversions (Missouri DOT 2010). ADVANTAGES

9 DISADVANTAGES  Lack of Sample Size (first one built in 2009)  Traffic restrictions at the off-ramps to either a left or right turn  Public Perception: General public, engineers, political  The DDI is designed to work with heavy left turning volumes. Under free-flowing traffic conditions along the corridor, this design will become redundant, and actually increase the delay of the intersection with conflicts between opposing direction of travel.  Limited resources to reference when designing a new diverging diamond interchange. As a result, design criteria, such as signal timing and signal warrants, level of service criteria have not been generalized for the DDI.

10 PROJECT METHODOLOGY  Creation of initial model at L=550’ crossover spacing under low traffic volumes using same traffic parameters (same signal timing).  Calibrate model within 10% accuracy of the Bared paper.  Create model and simulate results for the remaining traffic volumes at L=550’ to obtain results as in the paper.  Increase crossover spacing to L=1,100ft, 1,650ft, and 275ft to develop further models.  Evaluate data output from VISSIM.  Alter signal timing to obtain better performance results in each DDI and compare the results

11 INITIAL HYPOTHESES  Currently, it can be deduced that larger interchange spacing between the on ramps and off ramps will be able to accommodate a larger traffic volumes in the system, resulting in fewer overall delays.  Developed during the literature review stage.

12 DIVERGING DIAMOND INTERCHANGE  Three lanes of traffic in each direction of the cross streets.  The right most lane merges into the freeway onramps, and the interchange becomes a two lane DDI between the two crossovers.  The roadway then remains two lanes leaving the DDI on the cross streets.  The northbound and southbound both have one lane for right turn traffic and two lanes for left turn traffic.

13 Geometrics

14 LocationSpacing (ft) Utah 1Main and I-15850 2500 East and I-15900 3Timpanogos Highway and I-15650 4Highway 201 and Bangerter Rd.800 Tennessee 5US 129 and Bessemer St.650 Kentucky 6Harrodsburg Road and New Circle Road700 Missouri 7I435 and Front Street450 8US 65 and Missouri 248750 9I44 and MO-13550 10I270 and Dorsett Ave500 11Mo 60 and National Ave700 CURRENT DDI SPACING Avg~680ft

15 DDI SPACING SCENARIOS L=550 ft L=1,100 ft L=1,650 ft L=275 ft

16 Design and Operational Performance of a Double Crossover Intersection and Diverging Diamond Interchange” by Joe Bared  Data taken from: “Design and Operational Performance of a Double Crossover Intersection and Diverging Diamond Interchange” by Joe Bared  Read only file from Bared with Input values DATA DESCRIPTION

17 Northbound Off Ramp (vph) Southbound Off Ramp (vph) Eastbound (vph)Westbound (vph)Total Flow Traffic ScenarioLTRLTRLTRLTR(vph) High 270004007000400 8005004008005005600 High 165003506500350 7504503507504505100 Medium40002004000200 5003002005003003200 Low20001002000100 3001501003001501700 TRAFFIC VOLUMES


19 MICROSCOPIC SIMULATIONS  VISSIM is a microscopic, time step and behavior-based simulation model  Each entity is simulated individually  Macro: averages simulation  Microscopic simulation is a safer, less expensive, and faster than field implementation and testing.  Provides the ability to control factors not easily measured in the field.  Cannot obtain field data for this project  VISSIM  Developed by PTV from Germany  Difficulties modeling DDI with other software, such as SYNCHRO

20 MODEL CONSTRAINTS  Existing Geometry / Lane configuration  Traffic parameters from Bared Study were used to obtain similar results  Adjacent Intersections/ramps (focus on DDI network)  No Pedestrian traffic were modeled  One signal timing from Bared Study was used

21 Model Calibration/Verification  Model calibration is defined as the process by which the individual components of the simulation model are adjusted or fine tuned so the model will accurately represent field measured or observed traffic conditions.  Usually performed with real life data, in this case, data generated from the Bared Study.  Goal: 10% of the MOEs as determined in the Bared Study.  Delay  Stop Times

22 Traffic Scenario Model Delay Base Delay Low Base Delay Base Delay High % Error Low % Error% Error High 550 Low18.516.51717.489.1991.8994.05 550 Median21.819.52020.489.4591.7493.58 550 High 132.731.53232.496.3397.8699.08 550 High 241.539.54041.495.1896.3999.76 COMPARISON OF BASE MODEL (L=550 FT) WITH BARED PAPER

23 MODEL PARAMETERS  Signal Timing  Driver Behavior Settings  Route Assignments  Routing Decisions  Areas of Reduced Speed  Priority Rules  Travel Time Locations  Queue Counter Locations

24 LOCATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS  8 Total Signals and 6 phases were used. 1 1 2 5 34 4 6

25  Phase 2=Phase 5  Phase 3=Phase 6 Signal Timing Diagram from Bared Study

26  Model from the Bared Study  Yell=4 sec  All Red =1 sec INITIAL SIGNAL TIMING PARAMETERS

27 UPGRADED SIGNAL TIMING PARAMETERS FOR L=1100 FEET SCENARIOS  18 second difference between signals

28 UPGRADED SIGNAL TIMING PARAMETERS FOR L=1650 FEET SCENARIOS  28 second difference between signals


30 Scenario Total Vehicles (Initial) 275Low1524 275Med2880 275High14908 275High25244 550Low1572 550Med2880 550High14908 550High25544 1100Low1488 1100Med2880 1100High14908 1100High25382 1650Low1572 1650Med2880 1650High14908 1650High25382 MODEL THROUGHPUT

31 DELAY RESULTS (BARED TIMING) Traffic Scenario Delay (sec/veh)) Stop Time (sec/veh) # Stops %Diff Delay %Diff Stop Time % Diff #Stops 275Low19.814.80.74 275Med2315.80.8716.166.76 17.57 275High134.922.11.2176.2649.32 63.51 275High247.8311.6141.41109.46 116.22 550Low18.513.10.71 550Med21.814.30.8217.849.16 15.49 550High132.719.91.0576.7651.91 47.89 550High241.524.31.3124.3285.50 83.10 1100Low20.8150.81 1100Med2415.40.8615.382.67 6.17 1100High13117.41.0149.0416.00 24.69 1100High235.619.71.1171.1531.33 37.04 1650Low19.913.70.85 1650Med21.813.50.829.55-1.46 -3.53 1650High128.715.80.9544.2215.33 11.76 1650High231.917.21.0160.3025.55 18.82

32  Consistent trend that delay increases with increasing traffic volumes and is reduced as crossover spacing is increased  Same trend for number of stops and stop times  A greater percent delay difference is found in lower crossover spacing and higher volume scenarios  Shows that the DDI is more sensitive under these conditions DELAY RESULTS (BARED TIMING)

33 DELAY RESULTS (IMPROVED SIGNAL TIMING) Traffic Scenario Delay (sec/veh) Stop Time (sec/veh) # Stops %Diff Delay %Diff Stop Time % Diff #Stops 275Low19.814.80.74 275Med2315.80.8716.166.7617.57 275High134.922.11.2176.2649.3263.51 275High247.8311.6141.41109.46116.22 550Low18.513.10.71 550Med21.814.30.8217.849.1615.49 550High132.719.91.0576.7651.9147.89 550High241.524.31.3124.3285.5083.10 1100Low17.612.10.63 1100Med18.411.60.624.55-4.13-1.59 1100High128.216.50.8560.2336.3634.92 1100High23418.80.9793.1855.3753.97 1650Low17.311.90.67 1650Med18.711.60.678.09-2.520.00 1650High126.314.90.8252.0225.2122.39 1650High230.916.90.9178.6142.0235.82

34  Updated signal timing shows a greater delay savings overall  Improved overall performance,  Same behavior where percent differences are higher for lower cross over spacing DELAY RESULTS (IMPROVED SIGNAL TIMING)

35 DIFFERENCE IN DELAY BETWEEN TWO SIGNAL TIMING PARAMETERS Traffic Scenario Delay (sec/veh) Stop Time (sec/veh)# Stops% Delay Savings 1100Low3.22.90.1815.38 1100Med5.63.80.2423.33 1100High12. 1100High21. 1650Low2.61.80.1813.07 1650Med3.11.90.1514.22 1650High12. 1650High210.30.13.13  Greater delay savings shown for lower crossover spacing.

36 HCM DELAY FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LOSDelay (seconds) A0-10 B10-20 C20-35 D35-55 E55-80 F>80 Applying values to DDI are over exaggerated, but gives a starting point for a comparative analysis. HCM does not have dedicated table for DDI, used for relative comparison purposes only.

37 Movement Delay (HCM) Left from Corridor Avg.Left from Fwy Avg. Traffic ScenarioDelayLOSDelayLOS 275Low20.3C29.6C 275Med23.3C34.95C 275High133.9C65E 275High238.75D101.9F 550Low23.7C24.25C 550Med29.8C28.6C 550High151.8D34.75C 550High262.9E45.9D 1100Low21.1C21.5C 1100Med23.55C24.2C 1100High134.6C41.3D 1100High243.55D47.2D 1650Low17.9B24.7C 1650Med22.2C28.8C 1650High137.25D30C 1650High246.55D32.85C








45 DELAY SUMMARY  Delays consistently increase as volumes increase in each scenario being modeled.  Delays consistently increase as crossover spacing is decreased.  Greater percent difference in delays and stop times as crossover is decreased and volumes is increased  Sensitivity of the models.  Using an updated signal timing increases the delay savings.  Isolating the delays for left turning movements allows us to examine performance of key turning movements.  Same results were found for stop time and number of stops  DDI shows poor performance in the L=275 scenario, best as cross over spacing is increased.

46 Traffic ScenarioAverage Speed (MPH) % Speed Diff. 275Low16.354 275Med15.005-8.25 275High112.171-25.58 275High29.676-40.83 550Low15.737 550Med14.718-6.48 550High111.937-24.15 550High210.352-34.22 1100Low17.826 1100Med16.975-4.77 1100High115.128-15.14 1100High214.082-21.00 1650Low20.711 1650Med19.995-3.46 1650High118.003-13.08 1650High217.187-17.02 AVERAGE SPEED (BARED SIGNAL TIMING)  Similar behavior as delay analysis.

47 ScenarioAverage Speed (MPH)% Speed Diff. 1100Low19.234 1100Med18.436-4.15 1100High115.852-17.58 1100High214.41-25.08 1650Low21.438 1650Med20.739-3.26 1650High118.446-13.96 1650High217.407-18.80 AVERAGE SPEED (IMPROVED SIGNAL TIMING)  Overall higher average speeds are found.

48 Traffic Scenario Speed Difference (mph)% Difference 1100Low1.4087.32 1100Med1.4617.92 1100High10.7244.57 1100High20.3282.28 1650Low0.7273.39 1650Med0.7443.59 1650High10.4432.4 1650High20.221.26 DIFFERENCES OF SPEED IN TWO TIMINGS

49 Average Speed Summary  Average speed consistently decreases as volumes are increased.  Average speed consistently increases as crossover spacing is increased.  Similar results as delay concerning increased sensitivity at higher volumes and lower crossover spacing.


51 PROJECT SUMMARY  DDI exhibits better performance in average speed, delay, and stop time in large crossover spacing  DDI exhibits better performance in average speed, delay, and stop time under lower traffic volumes  No significant advantages at lower traffic volumes  Performance decreases as a faster rate as volume is increased at lower crossover spacing  Optimizing the signal timing on the main corridor serves to significantly increase network performance  Recommended spacing not be less than ~550ft  DDI begins to show excessive delays

52 FUTURE RESEARCH  More specific traffic patterns that focus on special cases where individual travel movements govern the system.  Compare individual approaches and traffic movements, rather than the performance of the entire network.  The task of updated the signal timing was limited in this study as to maintain signal timing as a constant in throughout the sixteen models.  Research may be performed to compare the results of a 4-lane DDI with a 6-lane DDI.  Pedestrian performance. They were omitted in this study as adding pedestrians to the system will have no impact to the vehicular traffic as long as the signal timing parameters for the pedestrians coincides with that of the vehicles.  Further analysis on LOS requirements for DDI.

53 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  Xudong Jia, CSU Pomona  Syed Raza, CSU Pomona  Joe Bared, FHWA



Similar presentations

Ads by Google