Calibration and validation of simulated vehicle safety performance at signalized intersections
Abstract
A systematic procedure is presented for calibrating and validating a microscopic model of safety performance. The context in the model application is the potential for rear-end crashes at signalized intersections. VISSIM v.4.3 provides the simulation platform for estimating the safety performance for individual vehicles and has been calibrated and validated using separate samples of observed vehicle tracking data extracted from the FHWA/NGSIM program. The calibration exercise involves four sequential steps: (1) heuristic selection of initial model inputs, (2) statistical screening using a Plackett-Burnman design, (3) fractional factorial analysis relating inputs to safety performance, and (4) genetic algorithm procedure for obtaining best estimate input values. Three measures of safety performance were considered: crash potential index, number of vehicles in conflict and total conflict duration per vehicle. Model consistency was assessed by comparing simulated and observed safety performance based on a separate validation sample of vehicle tracking data. The suggested procedure was found to effectively estimate model input parameters that closely matched safety performance measures in the observed validation data. This procedure yields an objective and efficient means for simulation model calibration applied for estimating safety performance at signalized intersections.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
CPI is the probability that the DRAC of the following vehicle is greater than the vehicle's specific maximum deceleration in a vehicle following situation.
“In addition, CPI is the probability that the DRAC of the following vehicle is greater than the vehicles specific maximum deceleration in a vehicle following situation [51].”
From Evaluation of Autonomous Driving Safety by Operational Design Domains (ODD) in Mixed Traffic (2024) · cites this paper as [51]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Evaluation of Autonomous Driving Safety by Operational Design Domains (ODD) in Mixed Traffic
Kim, H., Ko, J., Oh, C., & Kim, S. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16229672 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
“In addition, CPI is the probability that the DRAC of the following vehicle is greater than the vehicles specific maximum deceleration in a vehicle following situation [51].”
- Authors
- Cunto, F., & Saccomanno, F. F.
- Affiliations
- University of Waterloo (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Cunto, Flávio
- ORCID
- Cunto, Flávio
- Venue
- Accident Analysis & Prevention
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008-05
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1171-1179
- ISSN
- 0001-4575 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2067173632
- Cited by
- 286
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 10.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Accident Analysis & Prevention (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Traffic control and management
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Traffic and Road Safety
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Ocean Engineering › Evacuation and Crowd Dynamics
- Keywords
- microscopic traffic simulation, VISSIM, simulation calibration, model validation, signalized intersections, rear-end collisions, vehicle tracking data, NGSIM, genetic algorithm, conflict duration, vehicle safety performance
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Analysis of Variance, Calibration, Computer Simulation, Humans, Microscopy, Models, Theoretical, Ontario, Safety, Models, Statistical, Motor Vehicles
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review