Advertisement

Wireless Personal Communications

, Volume 101, Issue 1, pp 239–249 | Cite as

Verification of Fresnel Zone Clearance for Line-of-sight Determination in 5.9 GHz Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications

  • Jhihoon Joo
  • Hong-Jong Jeong
  • Dong Seog Han
Article

Abstract

The determination of the path clearance is one of the most important factors for channel propagation models because most of them classify their models into line-of-sight (LOS) and non-LOS (NLOS) environments. In particular, the path for vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication is more easily obstructed owing to its characteristics such as low antenna heights and high mobility. In this paper, we verify the first Fresnel zone clearance, which is a widely employed method for the determination of path clearance in V2V scenarios. In the analytical model of the first Fresnel zone in V2V scenarios, the ground acts as an obstacle and thus induces NLOS environments for farther than a certain distance. In contrast, our measurement results reveal no additional loss due to the ground obstruction. Therefore, we conclude that the first Fresnel zone calculation is not applicable for determining the path clearance in V2V scenarios, which has significant impact on the accuracy of channel propagation modeling.

Keywords

Path clearance determination Vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) The first Fresnel zone Path loss modeling Measurement-based analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was partially supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF-2016R1D1A3B03934420) and Korea Institute for Advancement of Technology (KIAT) grant funded by the Korea govenment (MOTIE) (No. P0000535, Multichannel telecommunications control unit and associated software).

References

  1. 1.
    Viriyasitavat, W., Boban, M., Hsin-Mu, T., & Vasilakos, A. (2015). Vehicular communications: Survey and challenges of channel and propagation models. IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine, 10(2), 55–66.  https://doi.org/10.1109/mvt.2015.2410341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chandra, A., Kukolev, P., Prokes, A., Mikulasek, T., & Mecklenbrauker, C. F. (2017). UWB measurements for spatial variability and ranging: Parked car in underground garage. IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, 16, 1859–1862.  https://doi.org/10.1109/lawp.2016.2628390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Spatial channel model for multiple input multiple output (MIMO) simulations, 3rd Generation Partnership Project, Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France, TR 25.996, Dec. 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.3gpp.org
  4. 4.
    WINNER II channel models, Eur. Commiss., IST-WINNER, Munich, Germany, Tech. Rep. D1.1.2 (2007).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    He, R., Molisch, A. F., Tufvesson, F., Zhong, Z., Ai, B., & Zhang, T. (2014). Vehicle-to-vehicle propagation models with large vehicle obstructions. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 15(5), 2237–2248.  https://doi.org/10.1109/tits.2014.2311514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boban, M., Vinhoza, T. T. V., Ferreira, M., Barros, J., & Tonguz, O. K. (2011). Impact of vehicles as obstacles in vehicular ad hoc networks. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 29(1), 15–28.  https://doi.org/10.1109/jsac.2011.110103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boban, M., Barros, J., & Tonguz, O. K. (2014). Geometry-based vehicle-to-vehicle channel modeling for large-scale simulation. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 63(9), 4146–4164.  https://doi.org/10.1109/tvt.2014.2317803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sommer, C., Joerer, S., Segata, M., Tonguz, O. K., Cigno, R. L., & Dressler, F. (2015). How shadowing hurts vehicular communications and how dynamic beaconing can help. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 14(7), 1411–1421.  https://doi.org/10.1109/tmc.2014.2362752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Akhtar, N., Ergen, S. C., & Ozkasap, O. (2015). Vehicle mobility and communication channel models for realistic and efficient highway VANET simulation. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 64(1), 248–262.  https://doi.org/10.1109/tvt.2014.2319107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Segata, M., Bloessl, B., Joerer, S., Sommer, C., Gerla, M., Lo Cigno, R., et al. (2015). Toward communication strategies for platooning: Simulative and experimental evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 64(12), 5411–5423.  https://doi.org/10.1109/tvt.2015.2489459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Propagation by diffraction, ITU-R, Rec. P.526-10 (2007).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rappaport, T. S. (1996). Wireless communications: Principles and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Joo, J., Han, D. S., & Jeong, H. J. (2015). First Fresnel zone analysis in vehicle-to-vehicle communications. In 2015 International conference on connected vehicles and expo (ICCVE) (pp. 196-197).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Adhikari, N., Kumar, A., & Noghanian, S. (2016). Multiple antenna channel measurements for car-to-car communication. IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, 15, 674–677.  https://doi.org/10.1109/Lawp.2015.2468221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Electronics EngineeringKyungpook National UniversityDaeguKorea
  2. 2.Wayties Inc.SeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations