|
| Category | Proposal | Main focus | Performance evaluation | Results and findings | Metrics |
|
| MAC layer | [9] Eichler, 2007 | WAVE performance | Analytical Evaluation | (i) IEEE 802.11p std do not support heavy loads: throughput decreases while delay increases | (i) Collision probability
(ii) Delay
(iii) Throughput |
| [10] Wang et al., 2008 | Two new MAC protocols | NS2 simulation | (i) A poor throughput when using backoff time size | (i) Throughput |
|
| PHY layer evaluation for IEEE 802.11P | [11] Jafari et al., 2012 | Impact of packet size on V2X transmission | NS2 simulations | (i) The same probability of the well-received packets when range is 136 meters
(ii) Both throughput and delay increase while the packet size increases | (i) PLR
(ii) Delay
(iii) Throughput
(iv) Range
(v) Mobility |
| [12] Park et al., 2013 | Impact of packet size on V2X transmission | NS2 simulations | (i) Data packet size is very important factor in V2X communication | (i) Packet size |
| [13] Sassi et al., 2013 | Real-world measurements | Experimentation
(Arada LocoMate On-Board Unit (OBU)) | (i) The more the speed grows, the more the PLR increases
(ii) The maximum data transmission range is 1000 m and 300 m, respectively, for high and low data rate | (i) Range
(ii) PLR
(iii) Data rate |
| [14] Demmel et al., 2012 | Test tracks measurements
| Experimentation | (i) Latency remains under 4 ms
(ii) The frame loss still acceptable on most of the range, but it remains dependent on environmental conditions | (i) Range
(ii) Latency
(iii) Frame loss |
| [15] Gozalvez et al., 2012 | V2I measurements | Experimentation
(DENSO Wireless Safety Unit (WSU)) | (i) Several environment metrics (trees, heavy vehicles, terrain elevation, etc.) should be considered for efficient data exchange | (i) Range
(ii) Packet delivery rate (PDR) |
| [22] Sukuvaara et al., 2013 | V2X measurements | Experimentation
(NEC LinkBird-MX) | (i) IEEE 802.11p has better general performance than traditional Wi-Fi solution
(ii) Hybrid solution combining IEEE 802.11p and 3G can be attractive on commercial systems | (i) Throughput
(ii) Delay
(iii) Mobility |
| [17] Paier et al., 2010 | V2I measurements | Experimentation
(CVIS CALM M5) | (i) Environment parameters (antenna high, electromagnetic waves, traffic) affect IEEE 802.11p performance
(ii) The maximum coverage range is about 700 m for FSR > 0.25 and data rate 3 Mbits/s.
(iii) Packet length decrease can offer better performances | (i) Frame success ratio (FSR)
(ii) Data rate
(iii) Range
(iv) Speed |
| [18] Paier et al., 2010 | V2I measurements | Experimentation
(Kapsch TrafficCom (RSU) and V2X MIMO testbed (OBU)) | (i) Overview of different receive techniques
(ii) Driving direction can have an effect on the V2I transmission performance (5% lower FSR) | (i) FSR
(ii) Driving direction
(iii) Frame Error Rate (FER)
(iv) Data rate |
| [19] Fernández-Caramés et al., 2012 | V2X measurements | Experimentation
(FPGA emulator) | (i) SIMO and MIMO transceivers offer better results than SISO systems: they require less transmission power to attain the same BER/FER
(ii) The deployment environment of the transmission system can affect the error ratio | (i) FER
(ii) BER
(iii) Speed |
|
| PHY layer enhancement | [20] Lin et al., 2009 | Estimation based enhancing technique | Matlab simulation | (i) The application of the Least Square algorithm assisted by the sequence of Zadoff-Chu on the preamble field and cyclic prefix offers best results than baseline method | (i) Delay
(ii) Speed
(iii) BER |
| [21] Zaho et al., 2013 | Estimation based enhancing technique | Simulation | (i) The proposed scheme outperforms BER performance
(ii) The Constructed Data Pilots (CDP) proposed scheme has the better computational complexity compared with the standardized channel estimation techniques | (i) Packet size
(ii) BER
(iii) Data rate |
|
