Vehicle Speed Profiles to Minimize Work

and Fuel Consumption

David J. Chang, M.ASCE,1 and Edward K. Morlok, M.ASCE2

Abstract: This paper addresses the question of what speed profile will minimize fuel consumption of a land transport vehicle 共road or
rail兲 in traversing a path or route. Numerous previous studies, using a control theory approach applied to specific profiles, have suggested
that fuel consumption is approximately minimized by operation at constant speed. This result is derived much more directly here, along
with boundaries on the conditions under which this result holds. The derivation relies on: 共1兲 the approximate proportionality between fuel
consumption and propulsive work; 共2兲 the inherent resistance of a vehicle having the usual quadratic form 共of road and rail vehicles兲; 共3兲
the energy conversion characteristics of on-board gasoline or diesel 共or diesel–electric兲 propulsion systems; and 共4兲 relatively long
distances between stops. Tests, using a train performance simulator, confirm the theoretical results. The results are discussed from the
standpoint of basic principles in transportation engineering, and as guidance for designing systems that conserve fuel.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-947X共2005兲131:3共173兲
CE Database subject headings: Fuel consumption; Optimization; Rail transportation; Highway transportation; Road design; Speed
control; Transportation engineering.

Introduction
This paper addresses the question of what speed profile will mini-
mize propulsive work expended by a land transport vehicle 共road
or rail兲 in traversing a path. The results of specific applications of
numerous previous studies of optimal speed profiles have sug-
gested that under a wide range of path conditions 共line profile,
curvature, speed limits兲 that fuel consumption of a motor vehicle
or train is approximately minimized by operation at constant
speed 共e.g., Schwarzkopf and Leipnik 1977兲. It is shown here that
under quite general conditions this is true. To derive general re-
sults, in this effort the fact that fuel consumption has been shown
to be approximately proportional to propulsive work is used. This
enables derivation of the optimal speed profile with respect to
minimizing propulsive work, and this will minimize fuel con-
sumption assuming proportionality between work and fuel con-
sumed. The key additional assumptions are that the vehicle’s in-
herent vehicle resistance follows the usual quadratic form used to
describe road and rail vehicles, that the usual energy conversion
limitations of on-board gasoline or diesel 共or diesel–electric兲 pro-
pulsion systems apply, and that distances traversed without stops
are relatively long. The rules are then tested using a simulator of
1
Research Fellow, Transportation and Logistics Systems Laboratory,
Univ. of Pennsylvania, 220 S. 33rd St., Philadelphia, PA 19104-6315.
E-mail: davidchang@earthlink.net
2
UPS Foundation Professor of Transportation and Professor of
Systems Engineering, Univ. of Pennsylvania, 220 S. 33rd St., Room 229,
Towne Building, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6315 共corresponding author兲.
E-mail: morlok@seas.upenn.edu
Note. Discussion open until August 1, 2005. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on July 25, 2003; approved on April 20, 2004. This
paper is part of the Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 131,
No. 3, March 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-947X/2005/3-173–182/
$25.00.
train performance and fuel consumption. The test results are con-
sistent with the theoretical results and also provide an indication
of the magnitude of fuel consumption increase resulting from
deviations from constant speed. The paper concludes with a dis-
cussion of the results and their significance, both as an interesting
theoretical result in transportation engineering and as guidance
for designing systems that conserve fuel.
Background
Before delving into the analysis and results, it is important to
discuss the reason this research was undertaken. At the most gen-
eral level, minimizing fuel consumption is an important compo-
nent of efficiency. It is also important from the standpoint of
conserving natural resources and reducing pollutant emissions.
The advent of various advances in vehicle control systems has
prompted considerable interest in using such technology to not
only increase capacity but also to improve the efficiency of op-
eration 共Smith et al. 1990兲. One aspect of operating efficiency is
of course fuel or energy conservation, which is important not only
because of cost and resource use but also because of pollution
reduction. Much work has been done using control theory to de-
termine fuel-minimizing speeds and throttle settings. However,
these methods require detailed analysis of both the vehicle and
the guideway path, and the results are unique to each. In this
paper we try to develop general guidelines that do not require
such a detailed analysis. The guidelines developed here are basi-
cally consistent with results that have been reported in the control
theory literature but are more complete in identifying boundaries
of their validity and are much simpler to apply. These should be
useful in systems that have the capability to pace vehicles over
long distances.
Approach and Assumptions
The basic approach used in this research is deductive. The deri-
vation begins with an analysis of the most basic case of a vehicle

JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2005 / 173

Table 1. Parameters 共a , b, and c兲 of Typical Vehicle Inherent Resistance Table 2. Resistance Values Calculated for Various Motor Vehicles at ␯
Equations 关for Eq. 共1兲兴 = 64 km/ h
a b c a b c R
a Type 共N兲 关N共h / km兲兴 关N共h / km兲2兴 共N兲
Automobiles TU cos ␣ CwA␳ / 2
Trucks and busesb TR1S TR2S 0.0024CA Auto 224.36 0.053 440.64
Trainsc 1.5T + 18X 0.03T CA Intercity bus 1,838.08 7.95 0.158 2,992.41
Note: A ⫽ frontal cross-sectional area of vehicle; C, Cw ⫽ air drag Tractor-trailer
coefficient; R1, R2 ⫽ rolling constant of truck and bus tires; S ⫽ road Empty 934.59 4.04 0.303 2,435.83
surface constant; T ⫽ weight of vehicle; U ⫽ coefficient of rolling resis- Loaded 1,841.55 7.96 0.303 3,593.71
tance for automobiles; X ⫽ number of axles on locomotive or car; ␣ ⫽ Note: Calculations are based on: Bosch 共1996兲, p. 554 and SAE 共2002兲,
ascent angle; and ␳=density of air. Sec. 36.09. Vehicle characteristics: auto: T = 17,258.58 N, U = 0.013, Cw
a
Bosch 共1996兲, p. 554. = 0.5, A = 2.276 m2, ␳ = 1.202 kg/ m3; bus: T = 266,388.46 N, R1 = 4.6, R2
b
Society of Automotive Engineers 共2002兲, p. 36.12. = 0.032, S = 1.5, C = 0.45, A = 7.897 m2; truck 共empty兲: T = 135,447.69 N,
c
AREMA 共2002兲, p. 16-2-4. Train coefficients are for R in pounds and T C = 0.64, A = 10.684 m2, otherwise same as bus; and truck 共loaded兲: T
in tons. = 266,892.00 N, otherwise same as empty truck.

moving on a level, tangent 共straight兲 path, or guideway. The re- R = ⌺ a I + ⌺ b Iv + ⌺ c Iv 2 = ⌺ R I 共3兲

sults for that case can then be generalized to other situations
involving gradients and curves. The end result is that for a readily
determined range of guideway conditions constant speed is the
optimal speed.
Vehicle Inherent Resistance
The results depend only on some very basic characteristics of
land based vehicles 共e.g., automobiles, trucks, buses, and trains兲.
As is described in any book on automotive engineering 关e.g.,
Bosch 共1996兲 or Society of Automotive Engineer’s Handbook
共SAE 2002兲兴 or railroad engineering 共e.g., Hay 1982兲, the inher-
ent resistance to motion 共i.e., resistance on a straight, level path兲
of the vehicle 共R兲 is described by the following equation. The
values of the parameters a , b, and c depend on certain design
characteristics of the vehicle 共and pavement surface in the case of
motor vehicles兲, and v is the velocity of the vehicle
An example calculation of the values of Rl and R for a train is
given in Table 3. This train consists of four GE 2,685 kW 共3,600
hp兲 four-axle diesel–electric locomotive units, 40 loaded trailer-
on-flatcar 共TOFC兲 cars with two loaded trailers each 关the average
weight of each car being 67,131 kg 共74 t兲兴, ten TOFC cars without
cargo 关each 39,916 kg 共44 t兲兴, 40 loaded container-on-flatcar
共COFC兲 cars 关each 65,589 kg 共72.3 t兲兴, and ten COFC cars with-
out cargo 关each 29,302 kg 共32.3 t兲兴. The parameter values are
determined empirically; typical values are given in Morlok 共1978,
pp. 121–130兲, Hay 共1982, pp. 69–89兲, and American Railway
Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association 共2002, Sec.
16-2-3兲.
In rail and road transportation, fuel consumed z is approxi-
mately proportional to total propulsive work 共W兲 performed by
the prime movers
z=W*r 共4兲

R = a + bv + cv2 共1兲 The constant r⫽fuel rate.

Propulsive work is the work performed by the propulsive force
Table 1 presents typical expressions used to calculate a , b, and c. as the vehicle moves along its path. Thus, if propulsive force at
The values of these individual resistance terms and the total in- point x along a path is defined as Pm共x兲, then the total propulsive
herent resistance for example motor vehicles 共using the expres- work in traveling from x1 to x2 would be

冕
sions in Table 1兲 are given in Table 2.
x2
Railroad trains normally consist of multiple units 共one or more
W= Pm共x兲dx 共5兲
locomotive units and cars兲. The total inherent resistance 共R兲 of the x1
entire vehicle 共train兲 is the sum of the inherent resistance of each
locomotive or car in the train 共RI兲. These are given by the follow- This basic equation appears in various forms in the rail and
ing equations; road literature. For example, for automobiles the Automotive
handbook 共Bosch 1996, p. 554兲 presents an equation for propul-
R I = a I + b Iv + c Iv 2 共2兲 sive force 共termed there “thrust and tractive forces”兲 that has the

Table 3. Resistance Values Calculated, for Example Freight Train at ␯ = 64 km/ h

a b c Ri R
Number Type 共N兲a 关N共h / km兲兴a 关N共h / km兲2兴a 共N兲 共N兲
1 Lead locomotive 1,227.70 11.28 0.660 4,650.932 4,650.932
3 Trailing locomotives 3,683.11 33.83 0.453 2,568.543 7,705.629
10 Empty container-on-flat-car cars 5,357.86 26.78 0.215 795.140 7,951.403
40 Loaded container-on-flat-car cars 32,107.11 239.81 3.092 1,502.953 60,118.110
10 Empty trailer-on-flat-car cars 6,138.52 36.49 0.215 935.298 9,352.980
40 Loaded trailer-on-flat-car cars 32,560.82 245.45 4.294 1,646.432 65,857.272
104 Entire train 81,075.12 593.64 8.928 — 155,636.327
a
Based on: AREMA, Sec. 16-2.1, pp. 16-2-4–16-2-6, converted to SI units.

174 / JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2005

Table 4. Gradient and Curvature Resistance Formulas for Automobiles,
Trucks, Buses, and Trains
F H
a tive Handbook 共Bosch 1996, p. 328兲 for road vehicles, and the
Automobiles T sin ␣
Trucks and busesb T sin关tan−1共p / 100兲兴
Trainsc 20Tq 0.8Td
Note: d⫽degree of curvature; p⫽percent grade 共vertical rise/horizontal
distance兲; q⫽percent grade 共vertical rise/distance along track兲; T⫽vehicle
weight; and ␣⫽ascent angle.
a
Bosch 共1996兲, p. 554.
b
Society of Automotive Engineers 共2002兲, p. 36.12.
c
AREMA 共2002兲, p. 16-2-7. Coefficients are for R in pounds and T in
tons
inherent resistance on a level road as the following function of
speed:
R = TU + CA共␳/2兲v2 共6兲
The various constants 共all terms except v and R兲 are defined in
Table 1.
The total resistance equals the sum of the inherent resistance
共R兲, any added curvature resistance 共H兲, if the vehicle is rounding
a curve, and any gradient force F, if the vehicle is ascending or
descending a grade. Table 4 presents typical gradient and curva-
ture resistance expressions for automobiles, trucks, buses, and
trains. Note for motor vehicles H is taken as zero 共probably be-
cause the added resistance is nil or very small兲. For trains, H is
simply a function of vehicle weight and the degree of curvature
共or equivalently, radius of curvature兲. The fact that neither gradi-
ent nor curvature resistance is a function of speed is important for
the later derivations.
Thus we have the required propulsion force P equal to the
total resistance of the vehicle plus the acceleration force, if any
P = max共E,0兲 共7a兲
E = R + H + F + M v̇ 共7b兲
where M⫽mass of the vehicle; v̇⫽its acceleration; and
P⫽propulsion force.
Note that F can be positive 共for an upgrade兲 or negative 共for a
downgrade兲. If the resultant force E is less than zero, then no
propulsion force is needed. A braking force is applied to control
vehicle speed as necessary. In some applications, particularly au-
tomobiles, the rolling resistance portion of inherent resistance is
adjusted downward on a nonzero gradient 共as implied in Table 1兲,
to reflect the reduced load on the bearings and wheels. Of signifi-
cance is that this adjustment is not a function of speed.
The important conclusion from the foregoing is that road and
rail vehicles have the same general form for the total resistance
equation and the same form for the propulsive work equation. The
coefficients a, b, and c in the inherent resistance portion, and the
constants in the curvature resistance portion differ only by their
magnitude between the various land based vehicles. The gradient
force term is identical for all vehicles, of course. This provides
the basis for the analytical treatment to follow that yields optimal
speed results that will apply similarly to various vehicles.
Two assumptions should be mentioned. In the analysis below,
it is assumed that the inherent resistance equation parameters
共a, b, and c兲 of the vehicle remain unchanged as the vehicle
traverses its path. In particular, this means that the reduction in
vehicle weight due to any consumption of fuel is negligible and
can be ignored. Also, the approximation that fuel consumption is
JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2005 / 175
proportional to propulsive work will be used. This assumption is
consistent with the literature for both rail and road vehicles. In
particular, the same assumption is employed in the SAE Automo-
AREMA Handbook 共AREMA 2002, Sec. 16-2-16兲 presents the
procedure for railroad trains.
As stated earlier, much prior research suggests that constant
speed operation of a vehicle tends to minimize fuel consumption.
So the next section contains a review of this prior work as a
prelude to the derivation of optimal speed profiles using the pro-
pulsive work approximation.
Prior Research on Optimal Speeds
Most of the prior work relates to the speed of road vehicles using
essentially control theory approaches. The inputs to such models
are detailed descriptions of the road or rail line, including gradi-
ents, speed limits, and in the case of some models for railroads,
curves. The output identifies the points at which either control
settings of the power unit 共throttles, brakes, etc.兲 or desired speed
are to be changed, and the new setting. In one of the earliest
works, Schwarzkopf and Leipnik 共1977, pp. 279–286兲 developed
a nonlinear optimal control model of motor vehicle throttle set-
tings to minimize fuel consumption under varied road conditions.
Schwarzkopf and Leipnik concluded that the optimal velocity for
a level road is a steady state velocity. The optimal velocity for
various grades was not found in closed form, but is to be found
through use of a heuristic procedure. Hooker 共1988, pp. 183–
201兲, building on Schwarzkopf and Leipnik, developed a model
for minimizing motor vehicle fuel consumption subject to speed
and time constraints over a specified distance. It also considers
gradients. He applied his method to a variety of model vehicles,
and found that constant speed satisfies the optimality conditions
for a constant road grade. In fact such a result is valid for only a
certain range of gradients, as will be derived later in this paper.
Numerous others, including Kormanski et al. 共1983兲, developed
similar models and to varying degrees had results that suggested
at least close to constant speed operation in order to minimize fuel
consumption.
In the rail transportation area, the Scheduling and Control
Group at the Univ. of South Australia have developed an exten-
sive set of models for train operation based on optimal control
theory. One result was that where operation at constant speed is
possible on level track, it is optimal 共Howlett and Pudney 1995, p.
30兲. In a more empirical vein, a major study at the Transportation
Systems Center in 1975–1982 共Hopkins et al. 1975, 1977, 1978兲
published fuel consumption measurements and estimates for vari-
ous rail freight service scenarios, including variations in train
speed, size 共weight and length兲, power to weight ratio, and terrain
共path profile兲. While they did not address the optimal speed ques-
tion directly, Hopkins noted that, in scenarios examined, a non-
uniform velocity profile could consume 5–15% more fuel than
would a constant speed profile, while yielding the same average
speed 共Hopkins 1982兲. Also of note is the fact that the basic
model used in the analytical portions of the effort was essentially
a propulsive work relationship.
Thus prior works in both the road and rail modes suggest that
constant speed operation is a good policy from the standpoint of
minimizing fuel consumption, at least on a level guideway. How-
ever, the analytical results depend upon various relatively com-
plex methods for arriving at the conclusion. Also, all of these are
intended to apply to specific cases in which detailed vehicle char-
acteristics and guideway profiles are provided. The method pre- ⳵ L/⳵ v1 = rbs1 + 2rcs1v1 + ␭ s1v1−2 = 0 共17兲
sented in this study is comparatively more direct, and reaches a
closed form solution for constant speed minimizing propulsive
⳵ L/⳵ v2 = rbs2 + 2rcs2v2 + ␭ s2v2−2 = 0 共18兲
work or fuel consumption. This paper also generalizes the solu-
tion for application to all land transport vehicles—road and rail,
provided they follow the usual resistance characteristics, and it ⳵ L/⳵ ␭ = s1/v1 + s2/v2 − t = 0 共19兲
also provides clear boundary conditions on the guideway profiles Multiplying Eq. 共17兲 by 共v1兲2 / rs1 and Eq. 共18兲 by 共v2兲2 / rs2
for which the constant speed operation is optimal. yields, respectively

b共v1兲2 + 2c共v1兲3 + ␭/r = 0 共20兲

Optimal Speed on Level Tangent Paths
b共v2兲2 + 2c共v2兲3 + ␭/r = 0 共21兲
First, we examine the case when the vehicle is traveling on a level
tangent path. Assume s is the total length of the segment, and that Moving ␭ / r to the right hand side and equating these two expres-
it is divided into two sections, 1 and 2, with length s1 and s2, sions yields
respectively b共v1兲2 + 2c共v1兲3 = b共v2兲2 + 2c共v2兲3 共22兲
s1 + s2 = s 共8兲 Rewriting Eq. 共22兲 as follows:
It is assumed that the sections are greater than zero length, for
2c/b = 共v22 − v12兲/共v13 − v23兲 共23兲
otherwise there is no problem
reveals that the only way this can be satisfied with the coefficients
s1 ⬎ 0 共9兲 and the variables v1 and v2 being positive real numbers is for the
two speeds to be equal
s2 ⬎ 0 共10兲
v1 = v2 共24兲
For the initial derivation, it is assumed that the sections will be
traversed at constant speeds, v1 and v2, respectively. This could If v2 is not equal to v1, then either c or b must be negative, which
reflect there being only a small difference between these two cannot be.
speeds, or alternatively, that the distances are great. However, The constraint on overall segment travel time 关Eq. 共15兲兴 is
later this assumption will be relaxed, and the results remain valid. also the last equation resulting from the differentiation of the
Then the total travel time t over the segment is as follows, with Lagrangian. It yields the specific speed v satisfying the overall
v being the overall average speed: travel time t:

t = t1 + t2 = s1/v1 + s2/v2 = s/v 共11兲 v = s/t = v1 = v2 共25兲

Note that in the context of comparing different combinations of v1 It remains to show that this solution is a minimum and not a
and v2 the total travel time t should be a constant, thus Eq. 共11兲 maximum. This is done by use of the second partial derivatives
forms a constraint on the solution.
The two speeds must be greater than zero, since a zero speed ⳵2L/⳵ v12 = 2rcs1 + 2␭s1v1−3 共26兲
makes satisfying Eq. 共11兲 with finite speeds impossible. Also, the
speeds will be limited by an upper bound Vmax that depends on the ⳵2L/⳵ v22 = 2rcs2 + 2␭s2v2−3 共27兲
vehicle and guideway characteristics. Thus
⳵2L/⳵ v1 ⳵ v2 = 0 共28兲
0 ⬍ v1 艋 Vmax 共12兲
The discriminant function is
0 ⬍ v2 艋 Vmax 共13兲
共⳵2L/⳵ v12兲共⳵2L/⳵ v22兲 − ⳵ 2L/⳵ v1v2
The fuel consumed 共z兲 with this speed profile in traversing the
two level tangent sections is = 4r2c2s1s2 + 4␭s1s2共rcv1−3 + rcv2−3 + ␭v1−3v2−3兲 共29兲
Since it is ⬎0, the point is a relative minimum.
z = r共a + bv1 + cv12兲s1 + r共a + bv2 + cv22兲s2 共14兲
It might be noted that there is another approach to obtaining
The problem is thus to minimize Eq. 共14兲 while satisfying the this result that would appear to be simpler than the one used
constraint on sections speeds embodied in Eq. 共11兲. The latter can above. It is to use Eq. 共15兲 to transform Eq. 共14兲 into a function of
be rewritten as only v1 and then solve for the optimal value. This was our origi-
nal approach. While conceptually simple, it turns out to be very
s 1/ v 1 + s 2/ v 2 − t = 0 共15兲 tedious compared to the Lagrangian approach used above. The
This problem can be solved by Lagrangian methods. The La- result is the same—that the speeds on the two sections must be
grangian to be minimized is equal. Since this alternative approach has the advantage of using
more basic calculus than the Lagrangian, this is provided on our
L共v1, v2,␭兲 = ras1 + rbs1v1 + rcs1v12 + ras2 + rbs2v2 + rcs2v22 web site 共Chang and Morlok 2003兲.
Two issues remain to be addressed in connection with this
− ␭共s1/v1 + s2/v2 − t兲 共16兲
result. The first is to show that if the acceleration and deceleration
where ␭⫽Lagrangian multiplier. between speeds is included, the result that speed should be uni-
Taking the partial derivatives with respect to the three vari- form remains. The second is to derive the optimal speed around
ables yields curves and on 共nonzero兲 gradients.

176 / JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2005

Fig. 1. Actual speed versus distance profile for two level tangent
sections
Including Acceleration and Deceleration
Including acceleration 共and deceleration兲 between the speeds does
not change the result. This result can be shown by examining the
speed profile with acceleration 共and deceleration兲 included in the
determination of propulsive work 共and hence fuel consumption兲.
Fig. 1 shows the speed profile of a vehicle that has an overall
average speed of vA but that operates at a lower speed 共vL ⬍ vA兲 in
one section 共A – D兲 and a higher speed vH 共vH ⬎ vA兲 in the other
section 共D – G兲. The beginning and ending speeds are identical
and equal vA. The vehicle speed at location A is vA. The vehicle
speed is reduced, and at B the lower speed vL is achieved. This
speed is maintained to C. At C the vehicle starts to increase speed
to vA, and vA is reached at D. The speed continues to increase to
the higher speed vH, which is reached at E. This speed is main-
tained to F, at which point the vehicle starts to decrease speed to
vA, which is reached at location G. This speed profile will be
referred to as the actual speed profile.
Let the fuel consumption of the vehicle with the actual speed
profile from location A to location G be zA–G. This is the sum of
the fuel consumed in each section
zA–G = zA–B + zB–C + zC–D + zD–E + zE–F + zF–G 共30兲
where zi–f ⫽fuel consumption in section i – f. From Eq. 共4兲 the fuel
consumption zB–C in section B – C is the product of the fuel rate r,
the inherent resistance RL at speed vL, and the length of the sec-
tion SB–C
zB–C = r共RL兲SB–C 共31兲
Similarly
zE−F = r共RH兲SE−F 共32兲
However, the fuel consumption in each of the other sections
共zA−B, zC−D, zD−E, and zF−G兲 includes both overcoming inherent
resistance and acceleration or deceleration. The net change in
propulsive work due to the changing of speed equals the change
in kinetic energy 共Serway 1996兲
Wi−f = K f − Ki = 0.5M v f 2 − 0.5M vi2 共33兲
where K⫽kinetic energy; K f ⫽kinetic energy at location f;
Ki⫽kinetic energy at location i; M⫽mass of vehicle; v f ⫽speed of
vehicle at location f; vi⫽speed of vehicle at location i; and
Wi−f ⫽work performed or saved due to changing speed from lo-
cation i to f.
Thus the actual propulsive work performed in segment A – B
equals the propulsive force to overcome the inherent resistance
and the propulsive work saved by the vehicle reducing speed
from vA to vL. This assumes that all kinetic energy saved is used
JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2005 / 177
Fig. 2. Propulsive-work-equivalent speed versus distance profile
共corresponding to speed profile in Fig. 1兲 used in proof of optimality
of uniform speed
to reduce the propulsive work required to overcome resistance
共that is, no braking occurs兲, a reasonable assumption that will be
relaxed later. The fuel consumption over segment A – B is then
冋冕 册
x=B
zA−B = r R共v共x兲兲 · dx + 0.5M共vL兲2 − 0.5M共vA兲2 共34兲
x=A
The integral term can be replaced by the product of the average
inherent resistance of the vehicle as it decelerates from vA at
location A to vL at location B. Thus we can write
zA–B = r关共RA–B * SA–B兲 + 0.5 * M * 共vL兲2 − 0.5 * M * 共vA兲2兴 共35兲
where
冋冕 册
x=B
RA–B = R共v共x兲兲 · dx /SA–B 共36兲
x=A
Thus RA–B⫽average inherent resistance of the vehicle as it decel-
erates over segment A – B. It is useful to note at this point that
corresponding to RA–B is an equivalent speed vA–B that has an
inherent resistance equal to RA–B.
Similarly the actual propulsive work performed in the section
C – D is the propulsive work to overcome the inherent resistance
and the additional work expended to increase vehicle speed.
Again using an average inherent resistance RC–D, the resulting
fuel consumption is
zC–D = r关共RC–D * SC–D兲 + 0.5 * M * 共vA兲2 − 0.5 * M * 共vL兲2兴 共37兲
Note that in Eqs. 共35兲 and 共37兲 the terms for change in kinetic
energy are identical but of opposite sign. Thus these two terms
cancel one another when these are substituted into Eq. 共30兲. This
makes intuitive sense: The propulsive work saved when decreas-
ing speed from vA to vL equals the additional propulsive work
required when increasing speed from vL to vA, so these two terms
cancel out, leaving just the propulsive work to overcome the in-
herent resistance.
The same cancellation occurs with the kinetic energy terms for
sections D – E and F – G. Thus the total fuel consumption over the
distance A – G is
zA–G = r关共RA–B * SA–B兲 + 共RL * SB–C兲 + 共RC–D * SC–D兲
+共RD–E * SD–E兲 + 共RH * SE–F兲 + 共RF–G * SF–G兲兴 共38兲
As observed earlier, RA–B has a corresponding speed that is
between vL and vA. Similarly the average resistance yields resis-
tance in each of the segments C – D , D – E, and F – G and has a
corresponding speed lying between the initial and final speeds in
that segment. The relative magnitude of these speeds is shown in
Fig. 2. This profile with equivalent speeds is called the
propulsive-work-equivalent speed profile. But the fuel consump-
tion of the propulsive-work-equivalent speed profile will be
greater than that of a uniform speed that covers that distance A – G
in the same overall time, as shown earlier. That uniform speed is
vA. Thus even incorporating acceleration and deceleration does
not alter the optimality of a uniform speed over the entire dis-
tance.
One assumption was made above which can now be relaxed.
That assumption was that no braking occurs when the vehicle
decelerates. If braking occurs, then some of the vehicle’s kinetic
energy is dissipated to its environment 共as heat, etc.兲 rather than
used to overcome the vehicle’s resistance to motion. This in-
creases the overall work required to traverse the distance, and
thus increases the fuel consumption. Thus the optimality of the
uniform speed is retained.
Level Tangent Combined with Level Curved Section
Now the case involving a curve will be examined. Assume the
path is straight for the first section 共length s1兲 and then curved for
the second section 共length s2兲. The fuel consumption equation is
similar to Eq. 共14兲 but has the added resistance due to curvature
共H兲 on section s2
z = r共a + bv1 + cv12兲s1 + r共a + bv2 + cv22 + H兲s2 共39兲
From the Table 4 definition of curvature resistance, curvature re-
sistance is not a function of velocity. Again this problem can be
solved by the Lagrangian method. The Lagrangian to be mini-
mized is
L共v1, v2,␭兲 = ras1 + rbs1v1 + rcs1v12 + ras2 + rbs2v2 + rcs2v22
+ rHs2 − ␭共s1/v1 + s2/v2 − t兲 共40兲
The partial derivatives with respect to the three variables are iden-
tical to Eq. 共17兲–共19兲. Thus, the results for the tangent path must
hold for this case also. Keeping the speed constant throughout a
level path that includes both tangent and curved sections will
minimize fuel consumption.
Level Tangent Section Combined with Upgrade
Tangent Section
For the case of level path for one section 共length s1兲 and then an
upgrade for the other section 共length s2兲, the analysis is similar.
The fuel consumption equation will be changed in Section 2, by
the addition of F, the added resistance due to the upgrade
z = r共a + bv1 + cv12兲s1 + r共a + bv2 + cv22 + F兲s2 共41兲
F is invariant with speed. Thus Eq. 共44兲 is identical to Eq. 共39兲,
except for the substitution of the constant F for the constant H.
Therefore the same result will apply in this case: the optimal
speed is uniform over a path containing a level section and an
upgrade section.
Level Tangent Combined with Downgrade Tangent
Section
For the case of level path for the first section 共length s1兲 and then
a downgrade for the second section 共length s2兲, there are two
cases to be considered. Case I is when the vehicle requires no
178 / JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2005
braking to maintain a constant speed on the downgrade. Some
propulsive force may be required to overcome the inherent resis-
tance reduced by the gradient force in order to maintain a speci-
fied downgrade speed, or the inherent and gradient forces may
cancel one another, so that no propulsive work is required 共and
the vehicle coasts at a constant speed兲. Case II is where the down-
grade is steeper, such that the gradient force exceeds 共but is op-
posite in sign to兲 the inherent resistance. The vehicle will accel-
erate under this condition, and ultimately either braking will be
needed or the speed will increase to the point where the inherent
resistance and gradient forces balance one another. Case II is not
considered in this paper. 共The question of how common Case I is
compared to Case II is addressed at the end of this section兲. Case
I assumes
F 艋 a + bv + cv2 共42兲
where the fuel consumption equation in this case is similar to Eq.
共44兲, except the gradient force F is subtracted from the resistance
of the downgrade section, and F 艌 0. This situation will yield the
same optimal speed solution as Eq. 共39兲, since resistance from the
downgrade is not a function of velocity. The results for the level
section must hold for the level and downgrade case also. There-
fore, keeping the speed constant over a level section followed by
a Case I downgrade will minimize propulsive work.
Some general data exist on the question of how common Case
I is for both rail and road networks. In particular, a study 共Abacus
Technology Corp. 1991兲 comparing truck and rail freight fuel
consumption sponsored by the 共United States兲 Federal Highway
Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration 共with
substantial motor carrier and railroad industry input兲 provides
data on this question. This study compared the two modes over
many routes, which were chosen so as to be typical of rail and
road routes in the United States. These routes ranged from about
30 km 共18.6 mi兲 to over 3,000 km 共1,863.4 mi兲 in length. These
are composed of guideway segments corresponding to the various
types of paths 共level, on an upgrade, etc.兲 being analyzed here.
Turning first to truck routes, “it was determined that the
amount of time on brakes may be indicative of terrain difficulty”
共Abacus Technology Corp. 1991, pp. 5–20兲. This happens to be
precisely the distinction between Case I and Case II gradients
used in this paper. The listing of routes indicated that the ratio of
braking time in minutes to route distance in miles ranged from 0
to 0.0513. At a speed of 96 km/ h 共60 mi/ h兲 this decimal fraction
corresponds exactly to the fraction of time spent braking. At half
this speed, probably the lowest speed typical for truck origin to
destination movements, the fraction is only twice the value given,
for a maximum of 10.26%. This indicates that Case I applies to
the vast majority of truck movements, assuming the study routes
are in fact typical.
This information for trucks is also indicative of the situation
for automobiles and buses. The gradient values at the boundary
between Cases I and II for all the road vehicles considered in the
example calculations of resistances in Table 2 are presented in
Fig. 3. This gradient value is termed the transition gradient. 共The
absolute magnitude of the value is used, since a gradient is posi-
tive in one direction, negative in the other. This also reflects com-
mon usage.兲 As can be seen, the automobile has a much higher
transition gradient at all speeds than either of the trucks. This
indicates that, on the routes used in the comparative study, even
less braking would be necessary for automobiles. And as might be
expected, the bus boundary gradient is close to that for the
truck—between the values for the example loaded trailer truck
and those for the corresponding empty trailer truck. So a bus is

Fig. 3. Transition gradient from shallow to steep grades 共Case I
versus Case II兲 versus velocities, for example vehicles
likely to have approximately the same transition gradient as a
truck of identical weight. Thus it seems as though Case I will
apply to many routes of motor vehicles.
For rail, in the same report, routes were characterized by a
gradient severity index that corresponded to the steepness of the
maximum gradient encountered on the route. The severity index
ranged from 0 to 5.00. Interpreting the data requires knowledge of
the transition gradient between Case I and Case II for railroad
trains 共again, using the absolute value of the gradient兲. Railroad
engineering books contain graphs and tables of inherent resis-
tance for typical freight cars. These show values at
64– 128 km/ h 共40– 80 mi/ h兲 of 0.0392– 0.0637 N / kg 共8 –
13 lb/ t兲 for empty cars, and of 0.0196– 0.0343 N / kg 共4 – 7 lb/ t兲
for very heavy cars 共Hay 1982, pp. 79–80, using the adjustment—
lowering inherent resistance—for modern stock兲. Taking
midrange values of 0.0196– 0.0343 N / kg 共7 – 11 lb/ t兲, reflecting
a mix of car types and loaded versus empty cars on a typical train,
at the midrange speed 96 km/ h 共59.6 mi/ h兲, the corresponding
maximum gradients for Case I are approximately 0.35–0.55%.
Such gradients are not exceeded on most of the routes consid-
ered in the fuel consumption study. A severity index of 2.49 or
less corresponded to the maximum gradient on the route being
0.5624% or less 共Abacus Technology Corporation 1991, p. E-2兲.
The gradient severity data grouped routes into only nine catego-
ries; the 0.5624% boundary is closest to the value of 0.55% of
interest. Thirty-three of the 43 rail routes considered had grade
severity index levels below 2.49 共Abacus Technology Corporation
1991, p. C-1兲. A severity index of 1.99 or less corresponded to a
maximum gradient of 0.3749%. Such gradients were encountered
on 21 of the 43 routes. Thus gradients close to or below the
transition gradient value for Case I seem to be very common on
main rail lines.
The transition gradient for the example train is also shown in
Fig. 3. The particular type of train used as an example has a
relatively low inherent resistance, and hence has a relatively low
transition gradient.
In summary, these transition gradient calculations and data
from the road versus rail fuel consumption study serve to cor-
roborate the evidence from the previously mentioned study that
Case I would apply to many routes of both modes.
A final point is that coasting where it would result in a de-
crease in speed is not considered. This would require increasing
speed in the other section to compensate for the decrease in
speed, and the analysis would require consideration of continu-
ously changing speeds in the downgrade section. This is beyond
the type of analysis employed here. It should be noted that in
Case I it is possible for the gradient force to just equal the inher-
JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2005 / 179
ent resistance force, so that coasting under that constant speed
condition is included in the analysis.
Combinations of Grades and Curves
It should be evident from the foregoing that guideway sections
containing both grades and curves in the same location will have
the same result of a uniform speed being optimal. This is because
the change to the total resistance equation is similar to that for the
cases already considered.
Furthermore, the results then generalize to all guideways of
any length, provided they do not exceed the downgrade limitation
identified previously. This follows from the fact that a long guide-
way or path for a vehicle must consist of combinations of the
elements that have already been considered. The tests of these
results described below will be made on paths of extended length
with varying guideway characteristics.
Verification Using Train Performance Simulator
The analytical results from previous sections are tested utilizing a
train performance simulator (TPS). Train performance simulators
are commercial computer programs that simulate the movement
of a given train over a given line in considerable detail. They are
used by railroads to predict train running time, adjust locomotive
size 共including number of units兲, and type to train size 共primarily
weight兲 and speed requirements 共American Railway Engineering
and Maintenance-of-Way Association 2002, pp. 16-2-8–16-2-14兲.
The TPS is used as the test for many reasons. It accounts for
multiunit vehicles, and takes into consideration curvature resis-
tance. The TPS also contains modules of actual track conditions
共guideway characteristics兲 and is widely regarded as being quite
accurate 共Abacus Technology Corporation 1991, p. A-4兲. Also,
the major U.S. Department of Transportation rail fuel consump-
tion study referred to earlier included an extensive comparison of
TPS and actual fuel consumption. It found that TPS calculations
are typically within 2.2% of field measurements 共Hopkins et al.
1978, p. 82兲. Thus TPS simulation is an appropriate method for
testing the general results of this analytical research regarding
optimal speeds.
Typical TPS inputs are a specification of the train, including
the types of locomotives and cars, and a specification of the line
共tracks兲 over which it is to be operated, including grades, curves,
speed limits, signals, etc. A TPS output includes a detailed trajec-
tory of the train’s movement over the line, including time at fre-
quent intervals 共usually at a minimum at each point of change of
grade or curvature兲, speed, acceleration rate, and fuel consump-
tion. The more sophisticated TPSs include considerable detail on
the resistance to motion and acceleration of the train, including
rotational inertia, which was not included in the basic equations
described above. They also include detailed consideration of the
locomotive power plant and transmission, and of braking and de-
celeration. Thus a TPS program can provide a check on the va-
lidity of the results from analytic models that do not take into
account such a high level of detail. This is useful in the present
case, because our analytic results depend upon the assumption of
fuel consumption being proportional to work and the basic resis-
tance equations.
The TPS tests of our analytical results were performed using
the train performance simulator developed by Corporate Strate-
gies Inc. 共1995兲, a simulator widely used in the railroad industry,

Fig. 4. Fuel consumption versus velocity ratio differences for
64 km/ h average velocity plotted on log scale
and the intermodal freight train used earlier. The first consists of
operating a train on a level tangent track divided into two equal
sections, each 16 km 共10 mi兲 long, following the velocity profile
of Fig. 1 共and the inverse of a higher speed in the first section兲.
The speeds were chosen so as to achieve the intended overall
average speed of 64 km/ h 共40 mi/ h兲 in each case. One hundred
runs were made with different combinations of speeds.
The results are shown in Fig. 4, with the ratio of the speeds on
the two sections 共v2 / v1兲 on a log scale on the horizontal axis, and
the fuel consumption per unit distance in liters per kilometer
共L / km兲 on the vertical axis. The figure shows that fuel consump-
tion is a minimum when the speed ratio is unity and that fuel
consumption increases rapidly for deviations from the uniform
speed condition. These results are consistent with the analytic
result that fuel is minimized with a uniform speed. The log scale
is used in this figure to make the figure visually symmetric. With
a uniform speed of 64 km/ h 共40 mi/ h兲, the fuel consumption is
10.02 L / km 共4.26 gal/ mi兲. With a speed ratio 共v2 / v1兲 equal to
1.5 关average speed of 88.6 km/ h 共55 mi/ h兲 over the first section,
followed by about 58.5 km/ h 共37 mi/ h兲 in the second section兴,
the fuel consumption increases by 60% to 16 L / km
共6.83 gal/ mi兲. Thus varying speed can result in a substantial in-
crease in fuel consumption.
Verification on Actual Railroad Line
In addition, the TPS was used to simulate the effect of speed
variations 共versus a constant speed兲 on an actual route 共that from
Corbin Ky., to Englewood, Tenn.兲. The route was chosen to be
typical of moderately undulating 共level and up and down grades兲
profiles. This serves as a further test of the results, and also would
be suggestive of the magnitude of differences in fuel consumption
that would occur due to deviations from constant speed.
Three simulation runs were conducted, and each run used a
different scenario for controlling speed. The first scenario applied
the rule from this research, i.e., to try to maintain a constant speed
共subject to speed restrictions, of course兲. This simulation run was
performed by a person experienced at running the simulation and
hence experienced controlling vehicle speed by power and brake
applications. The second scenario applied the same speed rule,
but by a person experienced with neither the simulation nor ve-
hicle operation. The purpose was to create a run with consider-
ably more deviation in speed. The third and last scenario involved
applying, to the extent possible, a constant amount of power for
the entire trip 共i.e., the same throttle position兲, also leading to
180 / JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2005
Fig. 5. Effects of increasing speed variation 共standard deviation兲 on
fuel consumption over test route
substantial speed variation 共and the highest standard deviation of
speed among the three scenarios兲.
The standard deviation 共SD兲 of vehicle speed is plotted against
fuel consumption for each scenario in Fig. 5. The standard devia-
tion was calculated from the speeds recorded by the TPS program
at the 163 markers on the line 共at points of change in gradient or
curves兲. As expected, Scenario 1 had the lowest speed variation,
with Scenarios 2 and 3 successively higher. Fuel consumption
followed a similar pattern. Scenario 1 had a SD of 17.4 km/ h
共10.8 mi/ h兲, and fuel consumption of 4,159.8 L 共1,097.6 gal兲.
Scenario 3 had a SD of speed of 26.7 km/ h 共16.6 mi/ h兲, a 53.4%
increase, with fuel consumption of 4,645.5 L 共1,225.7 gal兲, an
11.7% increase.
These results are consistent with field measurements of rail
fuel consumption made in the previously mentioned USDOT rail
energy study. Hopkins et al. 共1978, p. 60兲 reported finding that a
nonuniform velocity profile can result in consuming from 5 to
15% more fuel than would be the consumed at a constant speed
共with the same average speed兲.
Thus the theoretical result that a constant speed is the optimal
speed profile under a wide range of conditions is supported by
these simulation results.
Conclusions and Future Considerations
The analyses in this paper have shown that the optimal speed
profile for fuel consumption of a land transportation vehicle,
under many different guideway characteristics, is a constant
speed. Specifically, constant speed is optimal for a guideway that:
共1兲 is level or has an ascending gradient; 共2兲 has a descending
gradient such that braking is not applied 共a Case I grade兲; and 共3兲
can be tangent or curved. The speed must satisfy any speed limits,
and the vehicle must have sufficient power to maintain the speed
on the ascending grades. The results are based on the proportion-
ality between fuel consumption and propulsive work, which is a
good approximation for both rail and road vehicles at moderate to
high speeds. A significant feature of the analysis is that these
results are derived using methods of calculus, which make them
accessible to students in introductory transportation engineering
courses 共sophomore or junior year兲.
These results also confirm what was suggested as an optimal
or nearly optimal speed profile in many analyses using control
theory. Of course, control theory is not normally studied by trans-
portation engineers in a civil engineering curriculum, so those
results are often unavailable to them.
 It should be noted that guideway characteristics could be dif- R 1, R 2 ⫽ rolling constant of truck and buses tires;
ferent from those considered here. One example is a relatively r ⫽ fuel rate;
steep downgrade where the gradient force exceeds the inherent S ⫽ road surface constant;
resistance of the vehicle. Another is where the speed limit on a Si−f ⫽ length of section from location i to location f;
section must be lower than the average speed desired over the T ⫽ vehicle weight;
entire route, and hence a speed increase to compensate for the t ⫽ total segment travel time;
restricted speed operation is a necessity. Yet another is where the U ⫽ rolling resistance coefficient 共motor vehicle兲;
vehicle must stop frequently in the course of a trip. Also, these v ⫽ average segment speed;
results do not apply for regenerative braking or energy storage v̇ ⫽ acceleration of vehicle;
systems. These situations require another approach, and control vf ⫽ vehicle speed at location f;
theory is an obvious candidate. So the type of analysis in this W ⫽ propulsive work performed;
paper does not replace the control theory approach. Wi−f ⫽ work performed or saved due to change in speed
The results lend support to much general practice in guideway from location i to f;
design for long distance transportation. Specifically, modern free- X ⫽ number of axles of locomotive or car;
way type facilities usually are designed for a uniform speed limit, z ⫽ fuel consumed;
despite wide variations in terrain and other conditions. While zi−f ⫽ fuel consumed traveling from location i to location
there are many reasons for having a uniform speed limit, these f;
results reveal that such design is optimal from the standpoint of ␣ ⫽ ascent angle;
fuel consumption 共under the conditions noted above兲. A similar ␭ ⫽ Lagrangian multiplier; and
situation is found in rail transport. ␳ ⫽ density of air.
Another possible use for these results is to provide the basis
for a lower bound estimate of fuel consumption, against which
actual fuel consumption could be measured. By providing an es- References
timate of the minimum fuel necessary to achieve the transport
objectives 共vehicle trips, quantity of goods or person transported, Abacus Technology Corporation. 共1991兲. “Rail vs. truck fuel efficiency:
travel time, etc.兲, it could be a useful metric for considering al- The relative fuel efficiency of truck competitive rail freight and tuck
ternatives to reduce fuel or energy consumption. This can provide operations compared in a range of corridors.” Final Report No. FRA-
guidance to designing new facilities or upgraded ones, and indeed RRP-91-2 to U.S. Federal Railroad Administration. Report No. PB-
for new forms of ground transportation, from the standpoint of 244150, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va.
minimizing fuel consumption. American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association
共AREMA兲. 共2002兲. Manual for railway engineering, AREMA, Wash-
ington, D.C.
Acknowledgments Bosch, R. 共1996兲. Automotive handbook, 4th Ed., Society of Automotive
Engineers, Warrendale, Pa.
This study has been partly supported by a grant from the National Chang, D. J., and Morlok, E. K. 共2003兲. “Alternative approach to deriving
Science Foundation 共Grant No. CMS-0085658兲, a grant from the the optimality of uniform speed to minimize vehicle work and fuel
U.S. Department of Transportation through the Mid-Atlantic Uni- consumption.” ⬍http://www.seas.upenn.edu/sys/morlokpage/
versities Transportation Center, and the UPS Foundation Profes- DerivOneVar.pdf⬎ 共February 17, 2004兲.
sorship in Transportation at the University of Pennsylvania. The Corporate Strategies Inc. 共CSI兲. 共1995兲. Professional transportation soft-
assistance of Mr. Robert Leilich, CEO of the firm providing the ware series, train performance simulator, users manual, version 3.0.,
TPC software and railroad data when this work was undertaken, CSI, Springfield, Va.
Hay, W. W. 共1982兲. Railroad engineering, Wiley, New York.
is gratefully acknowledged. Such support implies no endorsement
Hooker, J. N. 共1988兲. “Optimal driving for single-vehicle fuel economy.”
of the findings. Comments and suggestions from Dr. Peter M.
Transp. Res., Part A, 22A共3兲, 183–201.
Hahn of the University of Pennsylvania and an anonymous re-
Hopkins, J. B. 共1975兲. “Railroads and the environment—estimation of
viewer were very helpful in improving the derivation of optimal fuel consumption in rail transportation Volume I: Analytical model.”
speed. Final Rep. No. FRA-OR&D-75-74.I to U.S. Federal Railroad Admin-
istration, Rep. No. PB-244150, National Technical Information Ser-
vice, Springfield, Va.
Notation Hopkins, J. B. 共1982兲. “Where does the energy go? A simplified perspec-
tive on fuel efficiency in rail freight transportation.” Transportation
A ⫽ frontal cross-sectional area of vehicle; Research Record 838, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
C ⫽ air drag coefficient; D.C., 55–61.
Cw ⫽ air drag coefficient 共automobile兲; Hopkins, J. B., Hazel, M. E., and McGrath, T. 共1978兲. “Railroads and the
d ⫽ degree of curvature; environment—estimation of fuel consumption in rail transportation
Volume III: Comparison of computer simulations with field measure-
K ⫽ kinetic energy;
ments.” Final Rep. No. FRA-OR&D-75-74.III to U.S. Federal Rail-
Kf ⫽ kinetic energy at location f;
road Administration, Rep. No. PB-288866, National Technical Infor-
M ⫽ vehicle mass; mation Service, Springfield, Va.
P ⫽ propulsion force; Hopkins, J. B., and Newfell, A. T. 共1977兲. “Railroads and the
p ⫽ percent grade 共vertical rise/horizontal distance兲; environment—estimation of fuel consumption in rail transportation
q ⫽ percent grade 共vertical rise/distance along track兲; Volume II: freight service measurements.” Final Rep. No.FRA-
R ⫽ inherent resistance of vehicle; OR&D-75-74.II to U.S. Federal Railroad Administration, Rep.
RI ⫽ inherent resistance of car or locomotive I in train; No.PB-273277, National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
R L, R H ⫽ resistance at speed vL, vH; Va.

JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2005 / 181

Howlett, P. G., and Pudney P. J. , 共1995兲. Energy-efficient train control,
Series in advances in industrial control, Springer, London.
Kormanski, H., Mazurek, S., and Rudzinska, K. 共1983兲. “Analysis of real
and optimal vehicle driving strategy,” Int. Symp. on Automotive Tech-
nology and Automation Proc., ISATA, Cologne, Germany, 1123–1143.
Morlok, E. K. 共1978兲. Introduction to transportation engineering and
planning, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Schwarzkopf, A. B., and Leipnik, R. B. 共1977兲. “Control of highway
vehicles for minimum fuel consumption over varying terrain.” Transp.
182 / JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2005
Res., 11共4兲, 279–286.
Serway, R. A. 共1996兲. Physics for scientists and engineers with modern
physics, 4th Ed., Saunders College Press, Chicago.
Smith, M., Resor, R., Patel, P., and Kondapalli, P. 共1990兲. “Benefits of the
meet/pass planning and energy management subsystems of the ad-
vanced railroad electronics system.” J. Transp. Res. Forum, 30共2兲,
301–309.
Society of Automotive Engineers 共SAE兲. 共2002兲. 2002 SAE handbook,
SAE, Warrendale, Pa.