Phase diagram of congested traffic flow: An empirical study

Physical Review E - Statistical Physics, Plasmas, Fluids, and Related Interdisciplinary Topics

Volumn 62, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 4737-4741

  Lee, H Y ^a   Lee, H W ^b   Kim, D ^c  

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b Korea Institute for Advanced Study   (South Korea)

^c Seoul National University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

APPROXIMATION THEORY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS;

PHASE BOUNDARY;

PHASE DIAGRAMS;

EID: 0034295753     PISSN: 1063651X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.62.4737     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. B. Shmittmann and R. K. Zia, in Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena, edited by C. Domb and J. Lebowitz (Academic, New York, 1995), Vol. 17.
2. K. Nagel and M. Schreckenberg, J. Phys. I 2, 2221 (1992)
3. B.S. Kerner and P. Konhäuser, Phys. Rev. E 48, R2335 (1993)
4. Phys. Rev. EM. Bando, K. Hasebe, A. Nakayama, A. Shibata, and Y. Sugiyama, 51, 1035 (1995)
5. Phys. Rev. ES. Krauss, P. Wagner, and C. Gawron, 55, 5597 (1997).
6. B.S. Kerner and H. Rehborn, Phys. Rev. E 53, R1297 (1996), and references cited therein.
7. B.S. Kerner and H. Rehborn, Phys. Rev. E 53, R4275 (1996).
8. B.S. Kerner and H. Rehborn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4030 (1997).
9. B.S. Kerner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3797 (1998).
10. H.Y. Lee, H.-W. Lee, and D. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1130 (1998).
11. D. Helbing and M. Treiber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3042 (1998).
12. D. Helbing, A. Hennecke, and M. Treiber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4360 (1999).
13. H.Y. Lee, H.-W. Lee, and D. Kim, Phys. Rev. E 59, 5101 (1999).
14. E. Tomer, L. Safonov, and S. Havlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 382 (2000).
15. M. Treiber, A. Hennecke, and D. Helbing, e-print cond-mat/0002177 (unpublished).
16. H.Y. Lee, H.-W. Lee, and D. Kim, e-print cond-mat/9905292 (unpublished)
17. H.Y. LeeH.-W. LeeD. KimPhysica A 281, 78 (2000)
18. The harmonic mean velocity u (Formula presented) is used instead of (Formula presented) (Formula presented) since (Formula presented) systematically underestimates the density when the velocity fluctuations are significant; see, for example, L. Neubert, L. Santen, A. Schadschneider, and M. Schreckenberg, Phys. Rev. E 60, 6480 (1999) whereas (Formula presented) takes a better account of the fluctuation effects. Also it can be shown that when both density and flux are temporally averaged [for example, (Formula presented) (Formula presented)], the ratio (Formula presented) is exactly equal to u.
19. E.A. Jackson, Perspectives of Nonlinear Dynamics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989), Vol. 1.