COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING – GUINDY

ANNA UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI

DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING

ESTIMATION OF PASSENGER CAR UNIT FOR THE

URBAN ARTERIAL ROADS

Guided by,
Presented by
Mrs. K. Karthiga , M.E
ABDULLAH M
Assistant professor.
(2019266002)
College of Engineering Guindy,
Anna University, 1
Chennai 25
 Introduction

Need for the study

Table of
contents
Objectives

Methodology

Works done 2
 INTRODUCTION

• In developing countries like India the nature of the traffic conditions

are heterogeneous - no lane discipline is followed and no
segregation of different classes of vehicles.
• In order to study the traffic characteristics, the different vehicular
categories should be converted to one common standard vehicular
unit.
• It is the common practice to consider the passenger car as the
standard vehicle unit to convert the other vehicle classes and this
unit is called the Passenger Car Unit or PCU.
• The PCU value varies based on the traffic characteristics, hence
dynamic PCU values have to be adopted.

3
 NEED FOR THE STUDY

• The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) has stated PCU values for the different vehicle
categories and for the different road sections.
• The stated values are static in nature but many researches has found out that the PCU values
are dynamic in nature – it varies depends upon the nature of the vehicular dimensions and
the traffic characteristics.
• Many researches has found out many methods for the estimation of the dynamic PCU’s for
different kind of vehicle categories but the PCU values found out using those methods
varies from one another.
• A slight variation in the PCU values may lead to the inappropriate effects in calculating the
capacity of the roads.
4
 Contd…..

• The present study is an attempt to discuss the suitability of the different methods for
different circumstances so that one can make the right choice while adopting a PCU
estimation method.
• This study considers all the factors which may lead to the variations in the PCU values
and comes up with a new methodology for the estimation of the PCU, so that the
variations may be less when compared to the other estimation methods.

5
 OBJECTIVES

Following are objective of this study,

 To Identify the various factors which affects the PCU values in the urban arterial roads.
 To study the suitability of different PCU estimation methods for the urban arterial roads.
 To come up with a new methodology for estimating the PCU based on heterogeneous traffic
conditions.

6
 LITERATURE REVIEW

• The study of Literature Review is carried in relation to the objective of this study and identified
the different methodologies and concepts adopted in estimating the PCU of a selected section
of the road.
• The following are the different methods adopted to find out the PCU values
 PCU based on speed and area ratio
 PCU based on Homogeneous Co-efficient Method
 PCU based on Lagging headway Method
 PCU based on Platoon Formation Method

7
 INFERENCE FROM LITERATURE REVIEW

 The lane width and the number of the lanes have the significant effect on the speed of the vehicles.

 The provision of a service lane has higher benefit cost ratio as compared to adding an extra lane on the main
carriageway without a service lane.

 The physical size of a vehicle is an indicator of the pavement occupancy, which is crucial in operational
characteristics of traffic stream.

 The PCU for a vehicle type increases linearly with the carriageway width.

 The influence of the roadway and traffic characteristics on vehicular movement could be easily studied from
the model which simulates the traffic flow characteristics

8
 Contd…..

 When volume of the traffic increases, the physical dimensions and low maneuverability of heavy vehicles
become dominating and therefore heavy vehicles become more detrimental to the traffic stream as
compared to all other vehicle types.

 The PCE of the vehicle type varies with the traffic volume and its composition. It increases with an
increase in compositional share of respective vehicle types in the traffic stream.

 The parameters used in the estimation of PCU for homogeneous and mixed traffic are different for almost
all the facility types.

 Dynamic PCU values might better define the influence of a vehicle type in a traffic stream over different
traffic flow conditions.

9
Methodology Problem Identification

Formulation of objective

Review of literature

Selection of study stretch

Data collection

Geometric data: IR method:

Carriageway width Classified volume count
Roadway type Speed
Presence of shoulders Headway

Data extraction

PCU Estimation by the selected methods

Result and Conclusion

10
 Study location

For this study, a 4-lane divided urban road and a 6- lane divided urban road are selected as study locations in
Chennai.

6 lane divided roads

Rajiv Gandhi Road or IT Corridor is a major road in suburban Chennai, India, beginning at
the Madhya Kailash temple in Adyar in South Chennai and continuing south till Mahabalipuram, ultimately
merging with the East Coast Road. This road is State highway-49A
4 lane divided roads

Sardar Patel road which connects Guindy and Adyar. It is a Four Lane Divided Carriageway.

11
Study Stretch – IT corridor, Madhya
Kailash

12
Study Stretch – Sardar Patel Road

13
 PARAMETERS INFLUENCING PCU VALUES

For homogeneous traffic conditions several factors Besides these for mixed traffic some other parameters
are considered, some of them are listed below are also considered which are as follows

Platoon Area
Headway Speed Formation occupancy

Delay Influence area Time

Travel time
occupancy

Density V/C ratio Vehicle

Queue Discharge
hours
flow

Note : Road width, Presence of shoulders, roughness of road, traffic composition, Land use and type of facility
are also some of the factors which influences the PCU values
14
 Characteristics of study area

IT-Corridor Sardar patel

Study area road

Location SH – 49 A SH – 49

Direction Towards Perungudi Towards Guindy

Type Six lane divided Four lane divided

Lane width 3.1 m 3.5 m

Shoulder type No Shoulder Paved Shoulder

15
 Vehicle Composition – IT Corridor
Auto
2 - Wheeler 12 %
57 %

Car
23 %

MCV
3%

LCV
4% 16
 Vehicle Composition – Sardar Patel Road

2 - Wheeler Auto
53 % 10 %

MCV
3%

Car
30 %

LCV
4% 17
 Lane usage – IT Corridor

• Lane usage are detected by the instrument used for

data collection known as TIRTL.
• Based on the time interval between the infrared
beams from transmitter to the receiver, the lane
usage are detected.
• The collected data shows that the 28% of the total
vehicle used L1, 40% of the total vehicle used the
22 % 6% 9%
40 %
23 % lane L2, 22% of the total vehicle used L3, 6% of the
total vehicle doesn’t follows the lane discipline and
travels in between lane 1 and lane 2 and 9% of the
L1 L2 L3 L1 – L2 L2 – L3 total vehicle doesn’t follows the lane discipline and
travels in between lane 2 and lane 3
18
 Lane usage – Sardar Patel road

• Lane usage are detected by the instrument used for data

collection known as TIRTL.
• Based on the time interval between the infrared beams from
transmitter to the receiver, the lane usage are detected.
• The collected data shows that the 56% of the total vehicle
used L1, 33% of the total vehicle used the lane L2, 11% of
33 % 11 %
56% 0% the total vehicle travelled in the intermediate distance, 0% of
the total vehicle used shoulder for maneuvering

L1 L2 L1 – L2 SL

19
 Speed and area

01
ratio

Platoon Formation
02
PCU estimation
methods Based on
Homogeneous
03 Co-efficient method

Lagging headway

04
20
 Speed and area ratio method

• The PCU of different categories of vehicles are estimated based on the

speed of the individual vehicles and the area occupied by them. PCU could
be estimated from the relation shown below

PCUi = (Vc /Vi ) / (Ac/Ai )

PCUi = Passenger Car Unit of vehicle type i.

Vc, Vi = Average speed of small car and vehicle type i, respectively

Ac, Ai = Projected area of small car and vehicle type i, respectively.

21
 Speed and area ratio method

Sardar Patel Road

Vehicle Category Minimum Value PCU Maximum Value
2-Wheeler 0.14 0.24 0.44

Auto 0.64 1.02 2.66

Car - 1 -

LCV 1.17 2.04 4.16

MCV 4.23 6.11 9.74

IT Corridor
Vehicle Category Minimum Value PCU Maximum Value
2-Wheeler 0.2 0.25 0.36
Auto 0.87 1.1 1.61
Car - 1 -
LCV 1.65 2.2 3.79
MCV 5.11 6.51 10.29 22
 PCU based on Homogeneous Co-efficient Method

Permanent International Association of Road Congress (PIARC) proposed a model

to determine Homogeneous Coefficient (or PCU) of a vehicle category present in a
mixed traffic stream. The speed, as well as the length of a vehicle, were considered to
formulate the Homogeneous Coefficient (HCi) as given below.

PCUi = (Li/ Vi) / (Lc / Vc )

Where Li is the length of the subject vehicle (m)

Lc is the length of the standard car
Vi is the speed of the subject vehicle (Km/hr)
23
 PCU based on Homogeneous Coefficient Method
Sardar Patel Road
Vehicle Category Minimum Value PCU Maximum Value
2-Wheeler 0.29 0.44 1.05
Auto 0.56 0.9 2.72
Car - 1 -
LCV 0.65 1.15 2.25
MCV 1.13 5.25 9.37
IT Corridor
Vehicle Category Minimum Value PCU Maximum Value
2-Wheeler 0.38 0.46 0.65
Auto 0.75 0.96 1.42
Car - 1 -
LCV 0.82 1.18 2.43
MCV 1.66 2.4 3.67
24
 PCU based on lagging headway

Here, PCEs is defined as the ratio of the mean lagging headway of a subject vehicle
divided by the mean lagging headway of the basic passenger car. Lagging headway
is defined as the time or space from the rear of the leading vehicle to the rear of the
vehicle of interest; it is composed of the length of the subject vehicle and the
intravehicular gap.
  PCUi = (Hij) / (Hpcj )

Lagging headway of various categories of vehicles was calculated from the

aggregated data and the PCUs of various categories of vehicles are calculated.

25
 PCU based on lagging headway
Sardar Patel Road
Vehicle Category Minimum Value PCU Maximum Value
2-Wheeler 0.23 0.89 3.27
Auto 0.10 0.85 4.36
Car - 1 -
LCV 0.14 1.31 3.91
MCV 0.13 1.15 4.6
IT Corridor
Vehicle Category Minimum Value PCU Maximum Value
2-Wheeler 0.23 0.78 3.27
Auto 0.10 0.87 4.36
Car - 1 -
LCV 0.14 1.04 3.91
MCV 0.13 1.2 4.6 26
 Platoon Formation Method

The proper value of critical headway is used to decide whether vehicles included in platoons or not.
The value of critical headway can be determined based on the mean relative speed method.

RSPi = Si – Si-1

RSPi is the relative speed between vehicles i and i-1 in km/h

Si is the speed of vehicles i in km/h.

In the present study, to estimate the PCU values of car, two-wheeler, LCV, MCV and trucks, the
Huber’s concept was used. In Huber method two streams, one containing only Passenger car (base
stream) and the other containing Passenger cars and vehicle type for which PCU values is going to
be estimated

  .
27
 Platoon Formation Method
Sardar Patel Road
Vehicle Category Minimum Value PCU Maximum Value
2-Wheeler 0.53 0.55 0.55
Auto 0.55 0.71 0.75
Car - 1 -
LCV 1.07 1.15 1.22
MCV 2.47 2.66 3.35
IT Corridor
Vehicle Category Minimum Value PCU Maximum Value
2-Wheeler 0.44 0.52 0.55
Auto 0.52 0.7 0.78
Car - 1 -
LCV 1.16 1.18 1.23
MCV 2.37 2.47 2.52 28
 CAPACITY ESTIMATION - Greenshield model
Sardar Patel Road
Speed and area ratio method Homogeneous Coefficient method Lagging Headway method Platoon formation method
70
70
70
60 60
60
50 50
50
40 40
Speed

40

Speed
Speed
30 30
30
20 20 20

10 10 10

0 0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 00 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
0 00 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
20 4 6 8 20 4 6 8
Flow10 12 14 16
Flow Flow 10 12 14 16
70 70
70

60 60
60
50
50 f(x) = − 0.162165225750003 x 50 f(x) = − 0.159753096536397 x f(x) = − 0.1032507014007 x
+ 53.8448764982283 + 53.7332028457652 + 51.737121841508
Speed

40
40 R² = 0.644922295212354 40 R² = 0.635067361203626 R² = 0.476430927717229

Speed
Speed

30
30 30
20
20 20
10
10 10
0
0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Density Density Density

29
 CAPACITY ESTIMATION - Greenshield model

Sardar Patel Road

PCU estimation Capacity (PCU/hr) R2 value Equation

Methods

Speed and area ratio 4469 0.6449 Y= -0.1622x + 53.845

method.

Homogeneous 4517 0.6351 Y= -0.1598x + 53.733

coefficient method

Lagging headway 6478 0.4764 Y= -0.1033x+ 51.737

method

Platoon formation 3008 0.1948 Y= -0.3261x +53.866

method

30
 CAPACITY ESTIMATION - Greenshield model
IT Corridor
Speed and area ratio method Homogeneous Coefficient method Lagging Headway method Platoon formation method
60 60 60
50 50 50

40 40 40
Speed

30 30

Speed

Speed
30

20 20
20
10
10
10
0
0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Flow
Flow Flow

60 60
60
50 50
f(x) = − 0.145509430231 x + 52.823837051723 f(x) = − 0.137212720603241 x 50
R² = 0.321855844578947 + 52.9045117873264 f(x) = − 0.077823832267 x
40 40 40 + 50.77772342695
R² = 0.359511394852247
R² = 0.333500405097898
Speed

Speed

Speed
30 30 30

20 20 20

10 10 10

0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Density Density Density

31
 CAPACITY ESTIMATION - Greenshield model

IT Corridor

PCU estimation Capacity (PCU/hr) R2 value Equation

Methods
Speed and area ratio 4295 0.3219 Y= -0.1455x + 52.824
method.
Homogeneous 5100 0.3595 Y= -0.1372x + 52.905
coefficient method
Lagging headway 8285 0.3335 Y= -0.0778x + 50.778
method
Platoon formation 7140 0.1462 Y= -0.0467x + 49.145
method

32
 PCU Comparison

IT Corridor
7.00 6.51

6.00
Speed area ratio
method
5.00

4.00 Homogeneous Coef -

ficient Method
3.00
2.4 2.47
2.20 Lagging headway
2.00 method
1.10 1.18 1.18 1.2
0.96 1.001 1 1 1.04
0.87
1.00 0.78
0.46 0.52
0.7
Platoon PCU
0.25

0.00

33
 PCU Comparison

7.00 Sardar Patel Road

6.11

6.00
speed and area ratio
5.00

4.00 Homogeneous coef -

ficient method
3.00
PCU

2.66

2.04
2.15
Lagging Headway
2.00
1.31
1.15 1.15 1.15
1.02 1.00 1 1 1
0.891581682036748 0.90.85
1.00 0.55
0.71 Platoon PCU
0.437420781578535
0.24

0.00
2 Auto Bicycle Car HCV LCV MAV MCV Tractor Cycle
Wheeler Rickshaw

Vehicle class
34
 CONCLUSION

 Based on the analysis of the observed data it was found out that the Speed and area ratio method is
the best suited for estimating the PCUs of the different vehicle categories in the Urban roads in which
there is no lane discipline is being followed.
 The platoon formation methods could also be used to identify the PCU values in a situation in
which the Speed and area ratio method is found to be unreliable.

Sathish Chandra Homogeneous Lagging headway Platoon formation

Capacity (PCUs/hr)
method Coefficient method method method

Sardar Patel Road 4469 4517 6479 3008

IT Corridor 4795 5100 8285 7140

35
 LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

 Because the data was collected on urban roads, large vehicles such as HCVs, MAVs, and tractors
have a very minor role in the traffic flow. As a result, the PCU values for these vehicles could not be
calculated in this study.

 If the nature of the traffic flow changes, the PCU values found out during this study may alter.

 Since the PCU values found out using the Platoon formation method are based on the vehicular
combinations, if there are more combinations available then the PCU values may alter.

36
 REFERENCE
1. Anand. S., Sekhar. S. V. C., & Karim. M. R. (1999). Development of passenger car unit values for Malaysia.
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.3, No.3, September, 73-80.
2. Ashish Dhamaniya and Satish Chandra (2013), Concept of Stream Equivalency Factor for Heterogeneous Traffic
on Urban Arterial Roads, Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 139, No. 11, November 1, 2013.
3. Chandra, S., and Sikdar, P. K. (2000). “Factors affecting PCE in mixed traffic situations on urban roads.” Road
Transp. Res., 9(3), 40–50.
4. Debasis Basu, Swati Roy Maitra and Bhargab Maitra (2006), Modelling Passenger Car Equivalency at an urban
midblock using stream speed as the measure of equivalence, European Transport \ Trasporti Europei n. 34 (2006):
75-87.
5. Geetam Tiwari, Joseph Fazio, Sri Pavitravas (2007), ‘Passenger car units for heterogenous traffic using modified
density method’, National transportation library, US department of Transportation, Document 8612, pp. 246.
6. Pooja Raj, Kalaanidhi Sivagnanasundaram, Gowri Asaithambi and Ayyalasomayajula Udaya Ravi Shankar
(2019), Review of Methods for Estimation of Passenger Car Unit Values of Vehicles, Journal of Transportation
Engineering, Part A: Systems. 37
7. Rahman and Nakamura (2005), Measuring Passenger Car Equivalents for nonmotorized vehicle (rickshaws) at
mid-block sections, Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 119 - 126, 2005.
8. Sabayasachi Biswas, Ms. Somya Singh, Mr. Nihal Malik, Mr. Atul V.Bisen (2018), Estimation of Passenger Car
Unit by Multi-objective optimization technique.
9. Satish Chandra and U. Kumar (2003), “Effect of Lane Width on Capacity under Mixed Traffic Conditions in
India.” Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE 129 (2): 155–160. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
947X(2003)129:2(155).
10. Subhadip Biswas, Satish Chandra & Indrajit Ghosh (2018): An advanced approach for estimation of PCU values
on undivided urban roads under heterogeneous traffic conditions, Transportation Letters, DOI:
10.1080/19427867.2018.1563268
11. V. Thamizh Arasan and Reebu Zachariah Koshy (2005), Methodology for Modeling Highly Heterogeneous
Traffic Flow, the Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 7, July 1, 2005.
12. V. Thamizh Arasan and Shriniwas S. Arkatkar (2010), Microsimulation Study of Effect of Volume and Road
Width on PCU of Vehicles under Heterogeneous Traffic, the Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 136, No.
12, December 1, 2010
38
39