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