Elsevier

Computer Communications

Volume 127, September 2018, Pages 172-186
Computer Communications

Vehicle-to-barrier communication during real-world vehicle crash tests

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2018.05.009Get rights and content

Abstract

Vehicle-to-barrier (V2B) communication is expected to facilitate wireless interactions between vehicles and roadside barriers in next-generation intelligent transportation systems. V2B systems will help mitigate single-vehicle, run-off-road crashes, which account for more than 50% of roadside crash fatalities. In this work, the characteristics of the wireless channel prior to and during a crash are analyzed using orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) techniques, which has been used in existing vehicular communication systems. More specifically, the performance of OFDM-based V2B links are measured in real-world crash tests for the first time. Three crash tests conducted at the Midwest Roadside Safety Facility, Lincoln, Nebraska, are reported: a bogie vehicle crashing into a soil-embedded post at 27 mph, a sedan crashing to a concrete curb at 15 mph, and a pickup crashing to a steel barrier at 62 mph. Metrics including signal to interference plus noise ratio received signal strength, error vector magnitude, phase error, channel coherence, and bit error rate, are used to illustrate the impacts of antenna type, antenna deployment, speed, and mobility during the crash tests. The empirical evidence shows that barrier-height (0.7–0.9 m) antennas at the barrier can improve V2B signal quality compared to higher deployments (≥1.5 m) due to the stronger reflection of electromagnetic waves at a larger angle of incidence. Moreover, compared to omni-directional barrier antennas, directional barrier antennas can increase signal quality, connectivity, and coherence time of V2B channel because of reduced multi-path effects, however, the antenna orientation needs to be carefully determined to maintain connectivity.

Introduction

Connected vehicles of tomorrow and autonomous vehicles of the near future are slated to operate on roadside infrastructure designed decades ago. Today, more than 50% of all traffic fatalities are a result of run-off-road (RoR) crashes [1], [2], [3]. These RoR crashes include vehicular crashes caused by hitting the fixed objects, rollovers, cross-median crashes, return-to-travelway crashes etc. Specifically, 40% of the defined RoR crashes represents single-vehicle crashes [2]. Roughly 20% of all traffic fatalities are related to RoR fixed-object crashes [4]. Recent vehicles are equipped with sensory technologies, such as blind-spot detection or lane-departure warning. Yet, recent statistics released by the White House and U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration show that 8.3% (2483) more people died in traffic-related accidents in 2015 than in 2014, and this increasing trend continued in 2016 with 5.8% (1900) more fatalities compared to 2015 [5]. This unfortunate data point breaks a recent historical trend of fewer deaths occurring per year [6].

For nearly two decades, intelligent transportation systems (ITS) have been in development to provide transportation systems with information and communication facilities. New technologies are developed for connected vehicles dubbed V2X communication paradigms (Fig. 1): such as vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) [8], vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) [9], vehicle-to-pedestrian (V2P) [10], and vehicle-to-cloud (V2C) [11]. The recent ITS strategic plan aims to enable safer vehicles and safer roadways by developing better crash avoidance for all road vehicles [12]. The available intelligent collision avoidance mechanisms mostly focus on inter-vehicle collisions [13], [14], [15].

Section snippets

Motivation and V2B use cases

The core motivation of V2B communications is to prevent and mitigate run-off-road crashes. A car-to-barrier crash lasts nearly 1 to 2 seconds; depending on the encroachment velocity of the vehicle [16]. Introduction of a V2B communication infrastructure that shares information between errant vehicles and roadside barriers will lead to a rapid-response safety system, detect an on-coming crash, take precautions within vehicle to avoid the crash, and if a crash is inevitable, take control of

Experimental setup

The wireless communication experiments are piggybacked on four crash tests at MwRSF:

Bogie to post crash (bogie) test: In this test, a bogie vehicle, as shown in Fig. 3(a), is crashed into a post buried in the ground. The experimental setup is illustrated in Fig. 2(a). The bogie started its journey 60 m away from the crash point, and crashed to the post with a velocity of 27 mph (12.1 m/s). Snapshots from the experiment at the beginning, encroachment, crash, and post-crash are shown in Fig. 6

Experiment results

In this section, we first present the communication experiment results of the three crash tests: 1) Bogie Test, 2) Sedan Test, and 3) Pickup test. Metrics discussed in Section 3.3, RSS, SINR, EVM, PE, coherence time, symbol missing rate (SMR), frame bit error rate, and BER are presented. Then, based on these results, an in-depth analysis of the impact of antenna height and directivity, vehicle type and mobility on the channel characteristics is provided in Section 4.4.

To compare the

Conclusions

Vehicle to barrier (V2B) communication system is a new addition to the family of V2X communication approaches, aiming to enhance transportation safety. To guide the development of V2B communication solutions, in this paper, real-world crash test results are presented, which reveal the effects of the vehicle crash on OFDM signal transmission on the 5.8 GHz band.

Besides environmental complexity and vehicle mobility, antenna height and directivity are also found to have a significant influence on

Acknowledgments

This work is partly supported by NSF CNS-0953900, CNS-1247941, DBI-1331895, and CNS-1423379 awards. The crash tests described in this paper are conducted under the National Strategic Research Institute Contract FA4600-12-D-9000 - Task Order 0055 (TOPR 0002) with funding provided by the US Department of Defense Surface Deployment and Distribution Command Transportation Engineering Agency (SDDCTEA). The data discussed in this paper are ancillary to the data collected for SDDCTEA, and SDDCTEA’s

References (45)

  • T. Sukuvaara et al.

    Wireless traffic service platform for combined vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications

    IEEE Wirel. Commun.

    (2009)
  • N. Liu et al.

    When transportation meets communication: V2p over vanets

    Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), 2010 IEEE 30th International Conference on

    (2010)
  • R. Hussain et al.

    Rethinking vehicular communications: merging vanet with cloud computing

    IEEE 4th Intl. Conf. on Cloud Computing Technology and Science (CloudCom)

    (2012)
  • U.S. Department of Transportation

    ITS 2015–2019 Strategic plan

    (2015)
  • S. Joerer et al.

    A vehicular networking perspective on estimating vehicle collision probability at intersections

    IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.

    (2014)
  • S. Khlmorgen et al.

    Improving communication-based intersection safety by cooperative relaying with joint decoding

    2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV)

    (2017)
  • Q. Wu et al.

    Early car collision prediction in vanet

    2015 International Conference on Connected Vehicles and Expo (ICCVE)

    (2015)
  • R. Faller et al.

    Midwest guard-rail system for standard and special applications

    Transp. Res. Rec.

    (2004)
  • Tesla car that crashed and killed driver was running on autopilot, firm says,...
  • K. Abboud et al.

    Interworking of dsrc and cellular network technologies for v2x communications: a survey

    IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.

    (2016)
  • C.F. Mecklenbrauker et al.

    Vehicular channel characterization and its implications for wireless system design and performance

    Proc. IEEE

    (2011)
  • W. Viriyasitavat et al.

    Vehicular communications: survey and challenges of channel and propagation models

    IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag.

    (2015)
  • Cited by (19)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text