Comparative Analysis of IEEE 802.11p and IEEE 802.16-2004 Technologies in a Vehicular Scenario

A major challenge of the automobile industry and safety authorities is how to improve the way cars can communicate either among themselves or with infrastructure designed to assist drivers. Sichitiu and Kihl in [1] describe a taxonomy based on the way nodes (in this case, cars) exchange data. Their work involves two forms of vehicular communication: vehicle-to-vehicle communication (IVC) and vehicle to roadside communication (RVC). IVC can employ either a one hop strategy between two cars (SICV) or multi-hop strategy between many cars (MIVC). It is important to note that multi-hop strategies begin with one car but use several other cars to relay the information to the car requiring the information. Furthermore, the communication strategy can also be either ubiquitous (URVC) or scarce (SRVC). Because of the highly dynamic nature and multiple demands inherent in Vehicular Communication Networks (VCN), these networks have their own very unique requirements:  The radio transceiver technology must provide omni-directional coverage.  Rapid vehicle-to-vehicle communications must keep track of dynamic topology changes.  Highly efficient routing algorithms need to fully exploit network bandwidth. The increased interest in vehicle-to-vehicle (IVC) and vehicle-to-roadside communication (RVC) is due, in part, to the need to expand the amount of information relayed to vehicles. As previously mentioned, the information relayed today is no longer limited to cellular telephone service. As the need to transmit more information grows, so must the technology used to carry that information from car to car or from communications tower to tower. Some applications are more suitable for vehicle-to-roadside communications in applications that involve automatic payment, route guidance, cooperative driving and parking management, just to name just a few. However, there are other applications that are more appropriate for vehicle-to-vehicle communications, including intelligent cruise control, intelligent maneuvering control, lane access and emergency warning, among others. Basically, there are three main categories of applications that have been targeted: (i) road safety applications, (ii) traffic efficiency applications, and (iii) value-added applications. Each

[1]  P. Besnier,et al.  Physical layer performance analysis of V2V communications in high velocity context , 2009, 2009 9th International Conference on Intelligent Transport Systems Telecommunications, (ITST).

[2]  Michel Dubois,et al.  Performance Evaluation of the , 1995 .

[3]  Michael J. Chu,et al.  Effect of mobile velocity on communications in fading channels , 2000, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol..

[4]  Ying-Chang Liang,et al.  Optimal Relay Selection in IEEE 802.16j Multihop Relay Vehicular Networks , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology.

[5]  Stephan Eichler,et al.  Performance Evaluation of the IEEE 802.11p WAVE Communication Standard , 2007, 2007 IEEE 66th Vehicular Technology Conference.

[6]  Troels B. Sørensen,et al.  In-Band Interference Effects on UTRA LTE Uplink Resource Block Allocation , 2008, VTC Spring 2008 - IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference.

[7]  Robert W. Heath,et al.  The future of WiMAX: Multihop relaying with IEEE 802.16j , 2009, IEEE Communications Magazine.

[8]  Maria Kihl,et al.  Inter-vehicle communication systems: a survey , 2008, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[9]  Jianhua He,et al.  A Multihop Peer-Communication Protocol With Fairness Guarantee for IEEE 802.16-Based Vehicular Networks , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology.

[10]  Lothar Stibor,et al.  Evaluation of Communication Distance of Broadcast Messages in a Vehicular Ad-Hoc Network Using IEEE 802.11p , 2007, 2007 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference.

[11]  Erik G. Ström,et al.  Evaluation of the IEEE 802.11p MAC Method for Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communication , 2008, 2008 IEEE 68th Vehicular Technology Conference.

[12]  Soumaya Cherkaoui,et al.  Handoff in IEEE 802.11p-based vehicular networks , 2009, 2009 IFIP International Conference on Wireless and Optical Communications Networks.

[13]  Nitin H. Vaidya,et al.  A vehicle-to-vehicle communication protocol for cooperative collision warning , 2004, The First Annual International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Networking and Services, 2004. MOBIQUITOUS 2004..

[14]  Hariharan Krishnan,et al.  Performance evaluation of safety applications over DSRC vehicular ad hoc networks , 2004, VANET '04.

[15]  Rajesh Rajamani,et al.  An Experimental Comparative Study of Autonomous and Co-operative Vehicle-follower Control Systems , 2001 .

[16]  Pravin Varaiya,et al.  Smart cars on smart roads: problems of control , 1991, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control..

[17]  K. Psounis,et al.  IEEE 802.11p performance evaluation and protocol enhancement , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Conference on Vehicular Electronics and Safety.

[18]  Kun-Chan Lan,et al.  A Feasibility Study on Vehicle-to-Infrastructure Communication: WiFi vs. WiMAX , 2009, 2009 Tenth International Conference on Mobile Data Management: Systems, Services and Middleware.

[19]  Jianping Wu,et al.  Vehicle to vehicle communication outage and its impact on convoy driving , 2000, Proceedings of the IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium 2000 (Cat. No.00TH8511).