## 4 Numerical Simulations
### Operating Efficiency Analysis of the Proposed CLC Control Strategy  
A good CLC control strategy should not only have good control performance but also ensure considerable execution efficiency. The execution efficiency of a control strategy determines whether the control strategy is feasible to be embedded in an actual control module. It is usually evaluated by the control strategy computational simulation time and memory usage of the control strategy. These two indicators were also used in this study to evaluate the execution efficiency of the proposed CLC control strategy. In addition, since in this study, the proposed CLC control strategy is performed with 0.1 s as the execution cycle and the control inputs are obtained by continuously rolling-horizon optimization as time advances, the control strategy execution (computational) time and memory usage within each execution cycle are collected and analyzed of the above two lane change scenarios in this section. The control strategy execution time and memory usage within each execution cycle for the entire simulation time in scenario 1 and scenario 2 are shown in Figures 16 and 17, respectively. From Figure 16, it can be found that the execution time of the proposed CLC control strategy in each execution cycle fluctuates mainly in the range of 0.06-0.075 s for both scenario 1 and scenario 2, and there are a few cases where the execution time is longer than 0.08 s. And the maximum execution time in both scenario 1 and scenario 2 is 0.089 s, and the average execution time are 0.064 s and 0.063 s, respectively, after statistical calculation. From the viewpoint of all execution durations in the whole simulation time, although there are fluctuations of a certain magnitude, the overall is less than 0.1 s, which can satisfy the minimum requirement of the algorithm embedded in the control module. In addition, the average execution times of 0.063 s and 0.064 s for the two scenarios are basically in line with the control application requirements, and the maximum execution time of 0.089 s is also an acceptable boundary value. As shown in Figure 17, it can be easily found that the memory usage of the proposed CLC control strategy is mainly in the range of 0.08-0.20 MB in each execution cycle, with a few cases of more than 0.25 MB. This memory usage is overall in a reasonably acceptable range, and there are no drastic changes, indicating that the proposed CLC control strategy implementation has good stability. And the maximum memory usages in scenario 1 and scenario 2 are 0.367 MB and 0.340 MB, and the average memory usages are 0.1419 MB and 0.1388 MB, respectively. Due to the limitation of the hardware and computing capacity of the experimental computer equipment, there are cases that the memory consumption \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Indicators**Control Strategies & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scenario 1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scenario 2**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **CLC** & **CAC\_Sine** & **CLC** & **CAC\_Sine** \\ \hline AvgLA\_M (m/s\({}^{2}\)) & 0.166 & 0.166 & 0.067 & 0.066 \\ StdL\_M (m/s\({}^{2}\)) & 0.459 & 0.805 & 0.674 & 1.144 \\ MaxLA\_M (m/s\({}^{2}\)) & 1.823 & 2.0 & 1.365 & 2.0 \\ AvgLA\_A (m/s\({}^{2}\)) & 0.067 & 0.066 & 0.033 & 0.033 \\ StdL\_A (m/s\({}^{2}\)) & 0.974 & 1.521 & 1.071 & 1.516 \\ MaxLA\_A (m/s\({}^{2}\)) & 2.0 & 2.0 & 1.980 & 2.0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Indicator comparison for longitudinal accelerations of two control strategies.