GRD Journals- Global Research and Development Journal for Engineering | Volume 3 | Issue 12 | November 2018

ISSN: 2455-5703

Methods for Optimization of Signal Cycle Length

Vaidehi J. Patel
UG Student
Department of Civil Engineering
Dr. S. & S.S. Ghandhy Government Engineering College, Surat

Vipinkumar G. Yadav Pratik V. Parmar

Assistant Professor UG Student
Department of Civil Engineering Department of Civil Engineering
Dr. S. & S.S. Ghandhy Government Engineering College, Dr. S. & S.S. Ghandhy Government Engineering College,
Surat Surat

Abstract
Traffic on the existing road is increasing due to rapid urbanization and industrialization due to extreme growth of vehicles all over
the world. Due to this, some problems like congestion, delay and pollution remain a big challenge. These problems can be solved
by providing an effective traffic signal control at the intersection for achieve continuous movement of vehicles at the intersection.
The primary objective of this study is to review methods for develop an optimized traffic signal cycle length model for signalized
intersections. Most traffic signal timing plans are designed to decrease delay time of vehicle. Signal timing is most important and
it is used to decide green time of the traffic signal.
Keywords- Effective Traffic Control, Signal Cycle Length, Delay Time, Green Time, Optimization

I. INTRODUCTION
Traffic engineering is a branch of engineering that deals with efficient and safe movement of people, goods and vehicles. It also
deals with planning and geometric design of highways and measures to reduce accidents on highway.
Traffic signal is a commonly used traffic operation management device at roadway intersections in urban area. The
capacity of urban road network generally depends on the capacity of the traffic signals. Traffic signal control is one of the most
useful methods to reduce the effect of traffic congestion at intersections.
Traffic optimization is an emerging area in the recent few years, with the rapid development of data analysis studies and
techniques. Intersection is the hub of road traffic and plays a vital role in alleviating the pressure on road traffic. With the rapid
development of India’s economy, the urban population has expanded constantly, and the amount of traffic has significantly
increased. As a result, serious road congestion, traffic chaos and other issues are occurring. Therefore, it is quite urgent to improve
the road service capacity and achieve the scientific management of road conditions.
The intersection is a vital part of urban road networks which plays a key role in the speed of vehicle and for operating the
entire road network effectively. However, with rapidly increase in motorization during past two decades, bottle-neck effects have
been exposed more and more at intersection of urban areas.
The benefits for developing the signalized intersections are many. First one is the control afforded by the traffic lights
separates the irrelevant traffic flows in time and improves safety of vehicle and operation efficiency; second one is the vehicles on
the approach are suspended periodically, causing delays. Therefore, the traffic signal cycle plays a vital role in traffic control at
intersection. A suitable cycle length can decrease or prevent traffic congestion and reduce noise pollution, emissions, energy
consumption and travel delay time effectively.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

Cheng et al. (2003) modified old Webster’s minimum delay cycle length equation based on HCM 2000. For an isolated intersection,
the delay will become infinity when the degree of saturation of a lane group approaches one based on Webster’s delay equation,
which is unrealistic, while the delay based on HCM 2000 method can accommodate some random failures and short-term
oversaturation situations. They used HCS software to conduct experiments for a typical four-phase intersection over a wide range
of volume and lost time scenarios. And the results were used to modify the original Webster minimum delay cycle length equation.
The modified equation significantly improves the accuracy of predicting the optimal cycle length for isolated intersections at high
traffic volume conditions.
To improve the Webster’s optimal cycle length equation, three regression models were implied. The form of recalibrated
Webster model is,
aL+b
Co = (1)
1−Y

All rights reserved by www.grdjournals.com 12

 Methods for Optimization of Signal Cycle Length
(GRDJE/ Volume 3 / Issue 12 / 003)

By using SPSS software a=1 and b=7.6 were obtained.

For developing second model, the optimal cycle length from HCM2000 and Webster’s equation were plotted with 1/ (1-
Y) for the total lost time. For lower values of 1/ (1-Y) Webster’s and HCM2000 give nearer result but for higher values they do
not give better result. For these following modified Webster’s model is suggested:
aL+b
Co = +c (2)
1−Y
Where, a and b can be obtained by linear regression on slope versus the lost time and c is equal to the mean value of intercepts.
The third model, the exponential type of nonlinear regression model is given as:
Co = αLeβY (3)
Where α and β are two regression parameters. α= 1.5 and β= 1.8.
For comparing these three models, the R-squared values for the above models are calculated using;
SS SS
R2 = R = 1 − E (4)
SST SST
Where SSR= regression sum of squares; SSE= the error sum of squares; SST= total corrected sum of squares.
Table 1: R-squared Values for the Minimum Delay Cycle Length Models
Webster Equation Recalibrated Webster Model Modified Webster Model Exponential Cycle Length Model
SST 19196 19196 19196 19196
SSE 18938 7620 824 2011
R2 0.013 0.603 0.957 0.895
From the Table 1 it is concluded that recalibrated Webster model is better than Webster equation and the modified Webster model
is the best.
Zakariya and Rabia (2016) proposed two regression formulas for estimating the minimum delay optimal cycle length
based on a time-dependent delay formula. This formula overestimates the cycle length for high degrees of saturation. These time
dependent models are widely used in capacity guides as in the Canadian Capacity Guide and the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
to improve the estimate of the overall vehicle delay. They provide good estimate of the optimal cycle length for high degrees of
saturation and have same performance as Webster’s method for lower degree of saturation.
The basic equation for estimating the average overall delay is,
d = k f d1 + d2 (5)
Where,
d= average overall delay
kf = progression adjustment factor
g
C(1− e )2
c
d1= average overall uniform delay = g
2(1−min(X,1) e )
C
240X
d2= average overflow delay = 15t e [(X − 1) + √(X − 1)2 + ]
cte
C= cycle length (sec)
ge= effective green time (sec)
X= degree of saturation
c= capacity (PCU/h)
te= evaluation time (min)
The new minimum delay cycle length formula improves the accuracy of predicting the optimal cycle length for isolated
intersection at higher traffic flow. Two regression models are proposed to modify Webster’s optimal cycle length formula. First
one recalibrates the Webster’s minimum delay cycle length formula as follows:
𝑎𝐿+𝑏
Co = (6)
1−𝑐𝑌
Where; a, b and c is regression parameters. With help of MATLAB software
a= 1.978, b= 5.109 and c= 0.9013.
Second one is the exponential type of non-linear regression model:
d
Copt = aLebY + c (7)
Where a, b, c and d is regression parameters. They are estimated by MATLAB software.
1.712
Copt = 0.6256Le3.694 Y + 14.87 (8)

All rights reserved by www.grdjournals.com 13

 Methods for Optimization of Signal Cycle Length
(GRDJE/ Volume 3 / Issue 12 / 003)

Fig. 1: Comparison between Webster’s model, search algorithm, regression formulas, and simulation results

From Figure 1 it is clear that the regression formulas and the search algorithm give approximately the same performance as the
simulation results.
Wu, et al. (2015), collected traffic data from 50 signalized intersections in Xi’an city. The primary objective of this study
was to develop an optimization traffic signal cycle length model for signalized intersections. In this study they used many models
like Webster’s delay model, optimization cycle length model, TRRL model and ARRB model. Using comprehensive delay data,
the optimization cycle length model is re-recalibrated to the Chinese traffic conditions based on the Webster delay model. In the
optimization cycle length model, they took vehicle delay time, pedestrian crossing time, and drivers’ anxiety into consideration.
To evaluate the effects of the optimization cycle length model, three intersections were selected for a simulation. They compared
optimization cycle length model and Webster delay model on the basis of delay time and queue length.
Table 2: Comparison of Signal Cycle Length
TRRL model NEW model
Cycle length (sec) Co = (1.5L + 5) / (1- Y) C = (1.45L + 3) / (1-Y)
Intersection 1 30 40
Intersection 2 140 120
Intersection 3 230 180
In Table 2, intersection 1 has low traffic flow; intersection 2 has medium traffic flow; intersection 3 has very busy traffic
flow. From these observations, it was concluded that, for the medium and high traffic flow the NEW model gives small cycle
length as compared to TRRL model considering pedestrian and anxiety of driver.
Surisetty and Sekhar (2017) used Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) intersection saturation for identifying periods of
time when cycle length could be substantially short. These data are used to identify normal flow of the roadway and determine the
influence of heavy vehicles or pedestrians on vehicular traffic volume. They compared HCM 2000 and Webster’s delay equation.
As a result, they concluded that Webster’s minimum delay cycle length equation overestimates the optimal cycle length compared
to the results based on the HCM 2000 method.
Kesur (2017) found that mixed cycle length operation can substantially improve performance in traffic networks where
there is a large difference in the volume of traffic processed by individual signals, Whereas Webster’s cycle length formula is
generally used as a heuristic to determine which signals to operate at lower and higher cycle lengths. This study demonstrates that
the use of mixed cycle lengths as given by the heuristic is inferior to operation under a common cycle length. Mixed cycle length
operation is found to be of a more limited application.
In this method, he discusses the study of Kreer.
Table 3: Cycle Times Examined in Test Networks
Kreer’s network Real world network
Cycling scenario
Cmin Cmax Cmin Cmax
Common cycle 30 120 36 144

All rights reserved by www.grdjournals.com 14

 Methods for Optimization of Signal Cycle Length
(GRDJE/ Volume 3 / Issue 12 / 003)

Single/double cycling 60 120 72 144

Double/ triple cycling 90 240 108 288
In Table 3, the domains of cycle times examined for each network and cycling scenario are given. In Table 3, the values
of Cmin and Cmin for the mixed cycle length were chosen to ensure that the minimum and maximum implemented cycle lengths
correspond to the minimum and maximum cycle lengths under the common cycle length scenario. From the table, Kreer’s network
gives less and uniform value of Cmin and Cmax as compared to Real world network. So signal can operate with common cycle
length ignoring longer cycle length.
Zhou et al. (2017) discussed traffic signal timing of individual interactions. In this method, a signal timing algorithm
based on multi-objective optimization was developed after an analysis and comparison of various road indexes. The idea of multi-
objective optimization is intended to achieve an optimized state of balance in problems involving more than one objective. In this
paper, the algorithm obtains multi-objective optimization through the simultaneous improvement of road capacity, average delay
time and the number of vehicle stops.
Table 4: Table of Indexes of Timing Design Algorithm
Green time/ Green time ratio
Timing method Period
1st phase 2nd phase 3rd phase
Research status 114 57/0.5 23/0.2 25/0.22
Webster timing 72 37/0.47 14/0.19 15/0.21
Multi-objective optimization 152 80/0.53 29/0.19 34/0.22
Table 5: Table of Indexes of Timing Design Algorithm
Timing method Average delay time Average number of stops Total traffic capacity
Research status 29 85 4901
Webster timing 20 57 4448
Multi-objective optimization 36 109 5096
From the data in the tables 4 and 5 it is seen that, for low traffic flow Webster method gives smaller period than the multi-
objective optimization. In the case of large traffic flow Webster method’s effect is not good.
Terzi et al. (2017) used Elimination Pairing System (EPS) for optimization of traffic signal timing at oversaturated
intersections. The EPS system is used for calculating green times for oversaturated intersection. In this method, a performance
index is calculated and optimized by the two input parameters as thedelay occurring at intersection and stop – start numbers for
the cars approaching the intersection. Then the results are compared with Transyt 14 software and Webster method.
First of all, total cost value is calculated as:
C(d, ∆) = ∑ d + ∑ ∆ (9)
Where (d, Δ) is the total cost value according to the delay and stop-start arguments ($);
∑d is the total delay (pcu-hour/hour) and
∑∆ is the total stop-start number per hour.
φ + Q clean τ ≤ g
∆= { 3600 3600 (10)
2 ((τ − g)θ (( ) − 1) + φ) + (φ + (g ∗ θ)) ∗ ( )τ > g
c c
Where, φ is the number of vehicles at the beginning of green time; Qclean is the number of vehicles approaching the
intersection during green time; τ is the time needed for cleaning up the queue; g is the green time; θ is the incoming flow rate; c is
the cycle length.
Input parameters are selected as green time from phase one and the cycle time. The min and max values for the input
parameters are as follow;
c ∈ R, 20 ≤ c ≤ 150;
g ∈ R, 1 ≤ g ≤ (c − t allred ).
Table 6: Comparison of Signal Planning Methods
Webster method Transyt 14 Elimination pairing system
Calculated optimal cycle length 422 103 119
Green time for phase one 188 44 50
Green time for phase two 226 51 61
From the above table concluded that green time and cycle length calculated with Transyt 14 and EPS are more realistic
than Webster method.
Krishna et al. (2018) used Webster method for signal design for four legged intersection. The design is totally based on
Webster method, in this method, total cycle of the signal is determined which gives total least delay.
For the length of change of interval:
v85
Y=t+ (11)
2a+19.6g
Where,
y = length of yellow interval in seconds,
t = reaction time of the driver,
v85 = 85th percentile speed of approaching vehicles in m/s,
a = deceleration rate of vehicles in m/s2,

All rights reserved by www.grdjournals.com 15

 Methods for Optimization of Signal Cycle Length
(GRDJE/ Volume 3 / Issue 12 / 003)

g = grade of approach expressed as a decimal.

SSD = stopping sight distance and
v = speed of the vehicle
The lost time can be given as:
l = ∑ni=1 ei (12)
Where,
ei = the difference between the actual headway and h for the ith vehicle
The green time required to clear N vehicles can be found out as,
T = l + hN (13)
Where,
T = time required to clear N vehicles through signal,
l = start-up lost time, and
h = saturation headway in seconds.

III. CONCLUSION
– Each intersection signal design method has its own characteristics. Optimization of signal cycle length is based on situation at
location.
– At low traffic volume condition, Webster’s optimal equation is good.
– For an isolated intersection, HCM 2000 method is better than Webster’s delay formula.
– Modified Webster’s delay cycle length equation significantly improves the accuracy for isolated intersections at high traffic
volume condition.
– Minimum delay optimal cycle length based on time dependent formula gives better estimation for the optimal cycle length at
high intersection flow ratio compared to Webster’s formula.
– Multi-objective optimization is used to achieve an optimized state of balance in problems involving more than one objective.
– Mixed cycle length operation has been recommended for networks where individual intersection process considerably
different traffic volumes.
– EPS method optimizes cycle length and green time together whereas most of software or methods calculate them separately.

REFERENCES
[1] Ahmed Y. Zakariya and Sherif I. Rabia, “Estimating the minimum delay optimal cycle length based on a time-dependent delay formula” Alexandria
Engineering Journal (2016) 55,pp. 2509–2514.
[2] DingXin Cheng, Carroll J. Messer, Zong Z. Tian and Juanyu Liu, “Modification of Webster’s Minimum Delay Cycle Length Equation Based on HCM 2000”
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM.
[3] Ekinhan Eriskin, Sebnem Karahancer, Serdal Terzi, Mehmet Saltan, “Optimization of Traffic Signal Timing at Oversaturated Intersections Using Elimination
Pairing System” 10th International Scientific Conference Transbaltica 2017: Transportation Science and Technology, Procedia Engineering 187 ( 2017 ) 295
– 300.
[4] K.Hari Krishna, K. Vinay Kumar, Dr. Ch. Hanumantha Rao, “Signal design using Webster’s method (4 legged intersections)” IndianJ.Sci.Res. 17(2): 113-
119, 2018.
[5] Khewal Bhupendra Kesur, “Optimization of mixed cycle length traffic signals” journal of advanced transportation J. Adv. Transp. 2014; 48:431–442.
[6] Pengzhe Zhou, Zhiyi Fang, Hongliang Dong, Jiayue Liu and Shuaining Pan, “Data Analysis with Multi-objective Optimization Algorithm: a Study in Smart
Traffic Signal System” IEEESERA 2017, June 7-9, 2017, London, UK.
[7] Ramesh Surisetty and Soma N Sekhar, “Designing of a Traffic Signaling System at T-Intersection” Ramesh Surisetty. Int. Journal of Engineering Research
and Application ISSN: 2248-9622, Vol. 7, Issue 4, (Part -3) April 2017, pp.82-86.
[8] YaoWu, Jian Lu, Hong Chen and Haifei Yang, “Development of an Optimization Traffic Signal Cycle Length Model for Signalized Intersections in
China”Hindawi Publishing Corporation Mathematical Problems in Engineering Volume 2015, Article ID 954295, 9 pages.

All rights reserved by www.grdjournals.com 16