View
13
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
DSRC Performance AssessmentDSRC Performance Assessmentfor Crash Warning Applications
Fumio Watanabe (Alps Electric North America, Inc.)
Carlos Velasquez (Alps Electric North America, Inc.)
Hiro Onishi (Alpine Electronics Research of America, Inc.)
Fanny Mlinarsky (octoScope, Inc.)
1© 2014 Alps Electronics, Inc. Not for commercial distribution.
INDEX
1. Background
INDEX
1. Background2. Objectives 3. Approach‐1: Develop Antenna3. Approach 1: Develop Antenna4. Approach‐2: Identify Critical Use Cases5. Preliminary Assessment Results5. Preliminary Assessment Results6. Suggestions:
‐ Industrial performance requirementsIndustrial performance requirements
‐ Performance assessment
‐ Comparison of assessment methodologiesComparison of assessment methodologies
7. Summary
2
1. Background
Crash warning with DSRC is a hot research topic worldwide.
Possibility to detect objectives in NLOS (Non Line‐of‐Sight)
Utilize communication module for other applications.
In general, affordable integration, compared to Radar
b d( g )
or camera based systems.
e.g. ‐ Hazard information delivery‐ Traffic signal timing delivery
Required:DSRC, Antenna, (GPS*)
Traffic signal timing delivery‐ Electric toll booth, etc
*: Can be shared withother applications
Not required:Radar, Camera, Image processor, etc
Building ~ SafetySign.com
~ Public announcementby Fujitsu Ten
3
1. Background
However wireless communication is NOT almighty.
Radio channel impairment‐2:Radio channel impairment ‐1:
Range, Obstacles in a communication path* Multipath, Doppler, etc.
e.g. Urban canyon, Tunnel*: Trucks/buses, Buildings, etc
Building
Radio interference:Dependency of antenna performance /installation:
From other vehicles, from other radio resources
Source US‐DOTfrom other radio resources
4
2. Objectives
Prerequisite for crash warning with DSRCPrerequisite for crash warning with DSRC
I) DSRC performance assessment for crash warning:a) Performance, considering vehicle integration,
including antenna performance/installation.
b) Performance, considering critical use cases,
II) Unified DSRC performance rules for crash warning:
U ifi d f ic) Unified performance requirements, in the entire of the industry
d) Repeatable and unified performance assessment methodology
5
3. Approach‐1: Develop Antenna
Communication performance strongly dependson antenna performance and profile.
Source US‐DOT
Sample‐2:(ordinarily vehicles communicate
h i t l l b t)
Sample‐1:Antenna (output & sensing)
/
Sample‐3:Too strong peak gain interferes ith otheron horizontal planes, but)
Vertical antenna profile impacts communication performance in mountain/hilly areas.
profile impacts design/usability of crash warning applications.
interferes with other communications between neighboring vehicles.
/ y
To be determined:
6
Diversity antenna, MIMO, Antenna location etc. Analyze the effectiveness & unify the rules in the industry
3. Approach‐1: Develop Antenna
Antenna performance and profiles
Plane ZX plane ZY plane XY plane
P k G i 5 8 [dBi] 4 4 [dBi] 5 1 [dBi]
Antenna performance and profiles
Peak Gain 5.8 [dBi] 4.4 [dBi] 5.1 [dBi]Average Gain ‐0.2 [dBi] ‐1.7 [dBi] 0.8 [dBi]
< ZX Plane > < ZY Plane > 0Diversity
< XY Plane >
-20
-10
0
1030
60-60
-30Unit : dBi
Diversity
-40
-30
90
120-120
-90
120
150
180
-150
-120
0deg
X
Z
0deg
Z 90deg
X
Y
< Side View > < Front View >
0deg
‐90degX
‐90deg 90degY
180deg
< Bottom View >7* Condition: 5900MHz. Antenna is installed at ordinary sharkfin position of GM Buick.
3. Approach‐1: Develop Antenna
Antenna installationAntenna installation
LTE/3G + DSRC‐1
GPS + XM
LTE/3G + DSRC‐2LTE/3G DSRC 2
Di i / h ld b d d t ’ t
8
Dimension/shape could be upgraded, per customers’ requests.
4. Approach‐2: Identify Critical Use Cases
Identify critical use cases from 6 applications in the demo of ITS World Congress 2011 (by US‐DOT & CAMP VSC‐3)
Source 18th ITS World Congress
9
Reference: US DOT & CAMP VSC‐3, Connected Vehicle Technology Demo, in ITS World Congress 2011 www.itsworldcongress.org/techshowcase_usdot.html
4. Approach‐2: Identify Critical Use Cases
6 crash warning candidates
II) EEBL (Emergency Electronic Brake Light)I) FCW (Forward Collision Warning)
6 crash warning candidates
III) BSW (Blind Spot Warning) IV) DNPW (Do Not Pass Warning)
V) LTA (Left Turn Assist)VI) IMA
(Intersection Movement Assist)
*HV: Host VehicleRV: Remote Vehicle
10Reference: US DOT , V2V‐SP Light Vehicle Driver Acceptance Clinics and Model Deployment Support
in ITS World Congress 2011. www.its.dot.gov/presentations/pdf/V2V_SP_WC2011.pdf
4. Approach‐2: Identify Critical Use Cases
Identified critical use casesIdentified critical use cases
a) LTA beyond a large vehicleb) EEBL be ond a large ehicleb) EEBL beyond a large vehicle
c) IMA beyond a buildingith t fl ti i l
d) IMA beyond a buildingith fl ti i l
BuildingBuilding
without reflection signal with reflection signal
11
Building BuildingBuilding
5. Preliminary Assessment Results
Measurement condition / base‐line testMeasurement condition / base‐line test
Conditions Values / ResultsCo d t o s/Parameters Values / Results
Frequency 5890 MHz(=Channel 178), Channel Width = 10 MHz
Output Power 20 dBm
Antenna Architecture Rx‐diversity (Not MIMO)
T V hi l
PER(Packet Error Rate)Count
‐ Count on physical layer (without multiple continuous transmission)‐ Used a counter provided by DSRC radio supplier
Architecture
AntennaInstallation
Tx Vehicle:
Mercedes Benz – sedan
Rx Vehicle:
Base‐line test LOS(Line of Sight) ¼ miles(~ 400m): PER = 0 8 %
Toyota Camry – sedan Antenna
12
Base line test LOS(Line of Sight) ¼ miles( 400m): PER = 0.8 %
Measured by octoScope/Alpine on Jun 20 ’13 (in Marlboro, MA)
5. Preliminary Assessment Results
Beyond buses/trucksBeyond buses/trucks
PER: 0 2 %PER: 0.2 %
Test car 1Test car 1 Test car 2Test car 2
PER: 0 %
Test car 1Test car 1 Test car 2Test car 2
13Measured by octoScope/Alpine on Jun 20 ’13 (in Marlboro, MA)
5. Preliminary Assessment Results
Beyond building without reflection signalBeyond building without reflection signal
CornerCorner
RxRx Tx
Distance(from the Corner) PER( ) PER(Packet Error Rate)
0 mTx Rx
15 m 0 %
15 m 15 m
30 m 15 m
30 m 30 m
47.1 %
32.6 %
87 0 %
14
30 m 30 m 87.0 %
Measured by octoScope/Alpine on Jun 20 ’13 (in Marlboro, MA)
5. Preliminary Assessment Results
Beyond building with reflection signalBeyond building with reflection signal
W llW ll
RxRxTxTx
CornerCorner
WallWall
Distance(from the Corner) PER(Packet Error Rate)Tx Rx
30 m 30 m60 m30 m
60 m43 m
43.9 %
56 8 %
1.4 %
15
60 m43 m 56.8 %
Measured by octoScope/Alpine on Jun 20 ’13 (in Marlboro, MA)
6. Suggestions
a) Industry Performance Requirement
Wide deployment of crash warning with DSRC requires
a) Industry Performance Requirement
Wide deployment of crash warning with DSRC requires unified DSRC performance rules in the entire industry. (as well as unified standards and protocols)
Unified and repeatable performance measurements should be available in laboratories around the world.
16
6. Suggestions
b) Major Assessment Methodologiesb) Major Assessment Methodologies
3 major wireless assessment methodologies
I) Computer simulationI) Computer simulation
II) Field assessment
III) Channel emulation
17
6. Suggestions
c) Performance Assessment I – Computer Simulationc) Performance Assessment I – Computer Simulation
Simulationwith Geographical Data
Computer simulation – Concept
Computer simulation – Sample output
Reference: Japan Automotive Research Institute, Prototype integration of the ITS simulator, (Jun. ’10)
18
www.ieee‐jp.org/japancouncil/chapter/VT‐06/vt.files/VTS‐ITS20100623‐5.pdf
6. Suggestions
c) Performance Assessment II – Field Assessmentc) Performance Assessment II – Field Assessment
Evaluation for “VI) IMA (Intersection Movement Assist)”beyond a building with/without reflection signal at Urban street
4building
◆Test Condition : • System : UMTRI safety pilot test bed2 V hi l (CAR L CAR R) H d A d
y g g
4building corner
• 2‐Vehicles (CAR‐L, CAR‐R) : Honda Accord• DSRC box : DSRC radio supplier• Antenna : ALPS Twin‐Sharkfin• Test location : ・1 building corner : “S Main St & WWilliam St” in Ann Arbor Michigan・1 building corner : “S.Main St & W William St” in Ann Arbor, Michigan・4 building corner : “S.Main St & W Liberty St” in Ann Arbor, Michigan
1building corner
CAR-R CAR-L
corner
19
Field assessment – Location Map Field assessment – Test Condition
Measured by Alps on Jun.12 & 13/2013 (in Ann Arbor, MI)
6. Suggestions
c) Performance Assessment II – Field Assessment (Continued)c) Performance Assessment II – Field Assessment (Continued)
Comparizon : "1-building corner" vs "4-building corner"
CAR-R
50
60
70
80
o C
orne
r [m
]
1b-test1-1 1b-test2-1 1b-test3-1 1b-test4-1 1b-test5-1
CAR RPoint-N
CAR-RPoint-1
20
30
40
50
ce fr
om C
ar-L
to
4b-test1-2 4b-test2-2 4b-test3-2 4b-test4-2 4b-test5-2
0
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Dis
tanc
Distance from Car-R to Corner [m]
4b test5 2
CAR-LPoint-1
CAR-LPoint-N
Field assessment – “1 building corner” Field assessment – Result
Distance from Car R to Corner [m]
Expectation from this field testi) If the distance of each building is more than 20m, it would be less impact of multi‐path from
building, but if it is getting more narrow, it should give more influence.ii) 5 9GHz radiation have a quite strong characteristic to go straight so it covers almost all of
20
ii) 5.9GHz radiation have a quite strong characteristic to go straight, so it covers almost all of driver's field of vision. So, it might be better to install antenna at the front of vehicles.
Measured by Alps on Jun 12 & 13 ’13 (in Ann Arbor, MI)
6. Suggestions
c) Performance Assessment III – Channel Emulationc) Performance Assessment III – Channel Emulation
Channel emulationChannel emulation Channel emulation – Concept
Channel emulation – Equipment
21
Reference: F. Mlinarsky, DSRC Evaluation under Controlled Environment, in ITS‐America web‐seminar (Feb. ’13) http://itsa.org/images/Francis/its‐america‐webinar‐30208.pdf
6. Suggestions
d) Comparison of Assessment Methodologiesd) Comparison of Assessment Methodologies
Item ComputerSimulation
FieldAssessment
ChannelEmulation
I II III
Actual ModuleAssessment
Simulation
Easy Radio Parameter
Not Available
Assessment Emulation
OK
il bl
OK
Easy Radio ParameterControl
Avoidance of VehiclesDrivers, Courses, etc
OK
OK
Not Available
Not Available
OK
OK
Assessment withoutFCC’s Certification
Avoidance of
Drivers, Courses, etc
OK
OK
Not Available
Not Available
OK
OKUnexpected Interference
OK Not Available OK
22
7. Summary
DSRC performance is a key for crash warning applications
Develop antenna considering vehicle integration‐ Develop antenna, considering vehicle integration
‐ Identified critical use cases in crash warning
Wider deployment with crash warning with DSRC requiresWider deployment with crash warning with DSRC requires
‐ Industrial DSRC performance requirements
U ifi d/ t bl th d l t f‐ Unified/repeatable methodology to assess performance
Auto industry can learn from wireless industry,y y,
which utilizes ‘Channel emulation’ (refer to our paper)
23
Acknowledgement
Acknowledgement
To: Ms. Debra Bezzina and UMTRI(University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute) staffs
For: + Offering the test vehicles g+ Support on DSRC evaluation in Ann Arbor testbed
24
Th k f tt ti !!Thank you for your attention!!
Fumio Watanabe ‐ Contact to DSRC antenna and field assessmentAlps Electric North America, Inc.fumio watanabe@alps com Tel: +1 248 391 5284fumio.watanabe@alps.com, Tel: +1‐248‐391‐5284
Fanny Mlinarsky ‐ Contact to DSRC measurementoctoScope IncoctoScope, Inc.fm@octoscope.com, Tel: +1‐978‐376‐5841
Hiro OnishiAlpine Electronics Research of America, Inc.honishi@alpine‐la.com, Tel: +1‐310‐783‐7281
Slid d i
25
Slide design:Mari Hatazawa
mhatazawa@alpine‐la.com
Recommended