Reducing Air Pollutants through Road Innovative Intersections Marco Guerrieri 1,a , Ferdinando Corriere 2,b , Giuseppe Parla 2,c , Dario Di Vincenzo 2,d , Antonio Messineo 1,e 1 Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, University of Enna “Kore”, Italy 2 Faculty of Engineering, University of Palermo, Italy a marco.guerrieri@tin.it, b ferdinando.corriere@unipa.it, c giuseppe.parla@unipa.it, d dariodv@tiscali.it, e messineo.ingegneria@gmail.com Keywords: Innovative intersections, Conventional roundabouts, Delay, Pollutant emissions. Abstract. Road pollutant emissions are correlated mainly to infrastructural capacity and to traffic intensity and typology. With the aim to improve road intersections performances in the last years was designed many new geometric layouts, like “turbo roundabouts” and “flower roundabouts”. The main objective of this paper is carried out a comparative analysis between conventional and innovative roundabouts in terms of CO, CO 2 , NO and PM 2,5 vehicular emissions, evaluated by means of COPERT Software which is developed as a European tool for the calculation of emissions from the road transport sector. Entry capacity at turbo and flower roundabouts In conventional roundabouts, if the capacity of one or more entries has to be increased, in recently-built or already operating intersections, specific lanes (bypass) can be added in order not to let vehicles go into the ring road [1, 2]. On the other hand, nowadays some new and unconventional layouts are available, like turbo-roundabouts and flower roundabouts. This new types of circular intersections were designed to improve safety and capacity performances [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. The entry lanes capacity at turbo roundabouts can be calculated by means of the following equations [3,4, 8, 9]: ) 2 ( 3600 min , min 1 ) 3600 1 ( 600 3 T T T q f R E f g K K e T q T C - - ⋅ - ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ - ⋅ = (1) 3600 3600 , , , 1 x f k x g k T q T q k TLT E e e q C ⋅ - ⋅ - - ⋅ = (2) Q) 0,65 - 1069 /( ) Q Q 0,00073 Q 0,644 - 0,715 - 1119,5 ( ped , c ped e , c , ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ + ⋅ ⋅ = e R E Q M (3) )] ( 0,65 - 1069 /[ ] Q ) ( 0,00073 Q 0,644 - ) ( 0,715 - 1119,5 [ i , c e , c ped i , c e , c ped i , c e , c , Q Q Q Q Q Q M TLT E + ⋅ ⋅ + ⋅ + ⋅ + ⋅ = (4) R E R E ped R E M C C , , , ⋅ = (5) TLT E TLT E ped TLT E M C C , , , ⋅ = (6) ] C Q , C Q max[ ) Q Q ( C ped TLT , E TLT , E ped R , E R , E TLT , E R , E ped E + = (7) Where: M E,R ped = right-turn lane pedestrian capacity reduction factor; M E,TLT ped = through and left-turn lane pedestrian capacity reduction factor; C E,R ped = right-turn lane vehicle capacity considering impact of pedestrians [veh/h]; C E,TLT ped = through and left-turn lane vehicle capacity considering impact of pedestrians [veh/h]; C E,R = right-turn lane vehicle capacity (no pedestrian Applied Mechanics and Materials Vol. 459 (2014) pp 563-568 © (2014) Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.459.563 All rights reserved. No part of contents of this paper may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of TTP, www.ttp.net. (ID: 79.56.162.6-24/10/13,16:35:21)