| Literature DB >> 29970826 |
Fausto Granda1,2, Leyre Azpilicueta3, Cesar Vargas-Rosales4, Mikel Celaya-Echarri5, Peio Lopez-Iturri6, Erik Aguirre7, Jose Javier Astrain8, Pablo Medrano9, Jesus Villandangos10, Francisco Falcone11.
Abstract
Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs) are envisaged to be a critical building block of Smart Cities and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) where applications for pollution, congestion reduction, vehicle mobility improvement, accident prevention and sEntities:
Keywords: Smart Cities; Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networks (VANET), Vehicle-to-Infrastructure communication (V2I); Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN), 3D Ray-Launching
Year: 2018 PMID: 29970826 PMCID: PMC6069008 DOI: 10.3390/s18072133
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Urban scenario: (a) google map aerial view; (b) 2D-map schematic view; and (c) 3D-map frontal view.
Scenario reference.
| Reference | Abbreviation | Coordinates (x, y, z) m |
|---|---|---|
| Main Avenues | AV1/AV2 | (x, 83, 0)/(x, 69, 0) |
| Streets | ST1/ST2/ST3 | (161, y, 0)/ (117, y, 0)/ (175, y, 0) |
| Transmitter antenna (TX) | TX1/TX2 | (146, 63, 3.5)/(281, 63, 3.5) |
| Receiver antenna (RX) | RX | (x, y, 1.5) |
| Buildings | B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6 | Not applicable. |
Simulation parameters.
| Parameters | Values |
|---|---|
| 0 dBm/0 dB/5.9 Ghz/3.5 m | |
| −100 dBm/0 dB/5.9 Ghz/1.5 m | |
| /polarization. | omnidirectional. |
| π/180 rad | |
| Angular resolution of diffracted rays. | π/20 rad |
| Maximum permitted reflections. | 7 hops |
| Cuboid segmentation for analysis. | 1 m3 (1 × 1 × 1) m |
| (400 × 150 × 22) m |
Pt *: Power transmitted, RST ** (Received Signal Threshold).
Figure 2Location of vehicles, infrastructures, V2V and V2I communications links: real scenario (left) and schematic simulation scenario (right).
Figure 3Working scenario: (a–c) location of the vehicles used for the experimentation remarked in yellow; (d) antenna fixed in the infrastructure remarked in red; (e) working scenario.
Figure 4Two RB433 UAH MikroTik device, with two Ubiquiti XtremeRange2 and an Ubiquiti XtremeRange5 cards and the corresponding antenna.
Figure 5Communication devices for V2I and V2V communication: (a) laptop used to store the iperf traces; (b) AC/DC inverter plugged into the vehicle; (c) antenna placed on the vehicle; (d) spectrum analyzer; (e–g) antenna placed on the infrastructure; (h–i) antenna placed on the vehicle.
Figure 6Communication protocol stack implemented for the experiments.
Figure 7Spatial TX1-RSS Path Loss along: (a) AV1; (b) AV2; (c) ST1, ST2, ST3.
Path loss exponent (n) and standard deviation (STD) for TX1.
| Description | PLE (n) | STD (σ) [dB] |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| x: (0 to AV5/AV5 to TX1/TX1 to TX2/TX2 to 400) m | (2.8/2.5/2.8/4.3) | (30.8/13.1/25.1/44.6) |
|
| ||
| x: (0 to AV5/ AV5 to TX1/TX1 to TX2/ TX2 to 400) m | (2.6/2.4/2.5/5.0) | (20.1/11.3/18.0/44.0) |
|
| ||
| y: (AV2 to 150) m | 2.40 | 9.21 |
|
| ||
| y: (LoS: 1 to 21/NLoS: 21 to AV1) m | (4.13/ 2.48) | (11.32/8.11) |
|
| ||
| y: (LoS: 1 to 21/NLoS: 21 to AV1) m | (4.21/2.28) | (15.56/3.36) |
Figure 8Spatial RSS and coverage map: (a) TX1 RSS; (b) TX2 RSS; (c) TX1&TX2 RSS
Figure 9Coverage map: (a) scenario; (b) along AV2.
Figure 10Power Delay Profile: (a) measured points; (b) transmitting TX1; (c) transmitting TX1 and TX2.
Figure 11(a1–a2) Mean Excess Delay; (b1–b2) RMS delay spread; (c1–c3) Coherence Bandwidth.
Figure 12TX1-Doppler Shift (fd): (a) car velocity of 40 km/h, (b) car velocity of 60 km/h.
Figure 13Doppler Spread (BD) for TX1: (a) velocity of 40 km/h, (b) velocity of 60 km/h.
Figure 14CDF for TX1 (S1-to-S3) along AV2. (a) S1, S2, S3 (x: 1 m to 146 m); (b) S1 (x: 1 m to 60 m); (c) S2 (x: 60 m to 120 m); (d) S3 (x: 120 m to 164 m).
Data dispersion measurements and GOF test for TX1.
| Description | SCV ** | n *** | Lognormal | Gamma | Nakagami | Weibull |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.126 | 3.099 | |||||
| CDF-GOF: AD * (Hypothesis test/statistic) | T/8.029 | T/19.552 | T/7.485 | |||
| 1.715 | 2.345 | |||||
| AD (Hypothesis test/statistic) | T/3.951 | T/3.558 | T/23.013 | |||
| 8.473 | 2.449 | |||||
| AD (Hypothesis test/statistic) | T/20.25 | T/44.186 | T/7.9071 | |||
| 34.268 | 2.764 | T/11.261 | T/Inf | T/Inf | T/70.462 | |
| 27.526 | 3.041 | T/0.313 | T/4.544 | T/46.353 | T/2.495 | |
| 6.691 | 2.377 | |||||
| AD (Hypothesis test/statistic) | T/19.259 | T/46.353 | T/8.437 | |||
| 1.826 | 2.284 | |||||
| AD (Hypothesis test/statistic) | T/7.946 | T/34.403 | T/4.809 | |||
| 1.225 | 3.610 | |||||
| AD (Hypothesis test/statistic) | F/1.342 | T/4.658 | T/18.919 | T/4.668 |
AD *: Anderson-Darling test, SCV ** (Squared Coefficient of Variation), n *** (Path loss exponent). T = True, F = False (for hypothesis test)
Figure 15Disaggregation of the Kbytes transferred by each thread when considering a communication between vehicles (V2V) located on the same side (top) or on the opposite side (bottom) and different bandwidths (10 Mbps -left-, and 20 Mbps -right-).
Figure 16Average transmission. Number of Kbytes received.
Figure 17Average effective throughput received.
Figure 18Average packet error rate (PER) observed.
Figure 19Average jitter (ms) observed.
Figure 20Packet structure.
Figure 21GUI of the application.