A. Paulraj, T. McGiffen, S.

Beiker Research Proposal for Vehicle Communication, Stanford University, March 2012

CELLULAR-BASED VEHICLE COMMUNICATION TO SUPPLEMENT DSRC Proposal for a Post-Doctoral Research Study in Vehicle Communication Technology
Objective: To explore supplements to DSRC, the government led initiative for dedicated vehicle safety communication, which might not be broadly deployed within this decade. This project focuses on existing or soon to be released communication technology to improve driving safety and efficiency. Abstract: A modern automobile collects significant safety and efficiency data. Numerous benefits have been touted, if automobiles could share this information with each other. Driving is expected to be much safer and more efficient if we were told in advance of, for example, approaching automobiles around a blind turn, hazardous areas, or congested areas with sufficient time to prepare or even reroute; as opposed to discovering these situations with little prior notice. Modern communication networks will facilitate safer and more efficient driving through sharing safety and efficiency data and other information between automobiles and infrastructure. But work is needed to effectively use these networks. This proposal addresses that work. We focus on using cellular networks for vehicle to vehicle (V2V) and vehicle to infrastructure (V2I) communications. Alternatives exist, such as dedicated short-range communications (DSRC), and even Wi-Fi for limited applications and limited geography. We believe each has its native strengths. We seek to serve the public best by being cognizant of what is the right solution for each situation and time. The goals of our approach are information for a more effective allocation of funds and other resources, a more rapid market penetration of connected mobility services, and higher quality services, once deployed. However, DSRC might not deploy for many years. Thus, the native strength of already existing cellular networks brightly stands out as a readily available solution to usher in vehicle communication. But, todays communications networks may not be up to the challenges of connected mobility. For example, 3G/4G services designed for casual web browsing, or social texting have very relaxed latency requirements, and rarely consider location. But, sharing safety and efficiency data has much more stringent requirements in these areas, as well as other requirements. This research addresses such issues. First, we shall characterize the needs (latency, bandwidth, location, etc.) of safety, efficiency, and possibly other services of interest to the automobile. Second, we shall characterize the ability of current cellular systems in meeting these needs. Finally we will develop solutions to these issues, such as improvements to current cellular systems, or mitigation strategies to live with the issue until improvements can be made. The vision is that the automobile connects to the cellular network, and thereby becomes safer, more efficient, and more enjoyable. Background: Vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communications are promising as a means to improve safety, efficiency, and to provide infotainment services. Figures 1A and 1B help clarify what is possible. As can be seen in these figures, V2V and V2I can help quite a bit in mitigating accidents, improving safety, and efficiency. In Figure 1A, we have a possible accident, four automobiles are directly involved, and the ensuing traffic jam. In Figure 1B, we illustrate the envisioned improvements V2V and V2I add to this situation. Only two automobiles are directly involved. The traffic is effectively rerouted. Emergency vehicles can more readily respond.

A. Paulraj, T. McGiffen, S. Beiker Research Proposal for Vehicle Communication, Stanford University, March 2012

Figure 1A: Accident Scenario, with todays V2V, V2I communications.

1. 2. 3. 4.

Accident. Most drivers stay on the freeway, given no alternate route, no information about the accident. Motorist gets a first glimpse of the congestion, too late to avoid it, adding to it. Congestion makes emergency vehicle access difficult.

Figure 1B: Accident Scenario with Cellular- and Server-Based Vehicle Communication

5. V2I: Collision report, notice of deployed airbag. I2V: Emergency vehicle status, calls to occupants initiated. 6. No third, fourth auto in accident. V2V alert of sudden slowing ahead, allows accident avoidance. 7. I2V: Accident report, alternate routes. V2I: Possible updated itinerary to associates. 8. I2V: Accident report, instructions to stay right. 9. I2V: Collision report triggers dispatch to assess and manage. Available collision information, any images are sent. V2I: Location reports. 10. I2V: Airbag deployment triggers ambulance dispatch. Collision information provided. Discussion between ambulance and those involved in the collision can be established. 11. I2V: Warning that a collision is in intended route. Alternate route given. Auto avoids the freeway.

A. Paulraj, T. McGiffen, S. Beiker Research Proposal for Vehicle Communication, Stanford University, March 2012

Some of the proposed near term services that will provide these benefits, and others, include Safety and efficiency: Poor traction alerts. Sudden slowing alerts. Slow traffic alerts. Alert other vehicles around a blind turn. Sharing location, itinerary with friends and allies, or for parental control. Communicating vehicle logistics information, particularly for commercial vehicles. Provide images/video of road hazards, congestion areas, or destinations. Accident notification, including extent of damage. Pay tolls with minimal slowing Locate services along the route (gas, EV charging, food, shopping, points of interest, errand management). Use of onboard cameras and sensors along with GPS to identify and report available parking in congested urban areas Tracking unusual vehicle performance for interactive/later diagnosis Entertainment services Due to the urgency of safety and efficiency information, and the different nature of entertainment services, work on these services are not the goal if this research. We simply list some of these services for completeness. Games Music Video (YouTube, movies, TV). In the longer term, V2I and V2V can negotiate with traffic lights, implement elements of autonomous vehicle control, and so forth. The issues of concern in implementing these services, and much of what we wish to address in this proposed work include Latency in transferring data, both when a new link is needed, and when a link exists. Reliability, both in establishing the link, and in maintaining it. Bandwidth Cost Ubiquity Appropriately sharing information amongst vehicles. Being regionally close at the same time is often important. The use of intranets, broadcast methods, p2p, and client/server architectures are potential solutions. Graceful rollout of the new service/application. Of particular concern is a service that makes sense, given a limited market penetration. Cellular, dedicated short-range communications (DSRC), and to a limited extent, Wi-Fi have all been proposed as communications infrastructure for at least a portion of these services. Table 1 catalogs these strengths and weaknesses concerning connected mobility. We include Wi-Fi for completeness. We are aware of trials providing some V2I communications with Wi-Fi in urban areas. We also feel there is merit in using Wi-Fi to provide a relatively high speed link when one is parked at a home with Wi-Fi, or other hot spot. However, it is hard to imagine sufficient geographical coverage with Wi-Fi. Therefore, it is not seen as a sufficient solution to our problem. In a cellular vs. DSRC comparison, the major issue we see is funding infrastructure, both in its deployment, and in its maintenance. Cellular infrastructure exists, is widely deployed, and is being maintained by private industry. To date, we are unaware of any practical way to fund infrastructure for 3

A. Paulraj, T. McGiffen, S. Beiker Research Proposal for Vehicle Communication, Stanford University, March 2012

DSRC. The most obvious source of funding for DSRC infrastructure is government. In the USA (and Europe), government funding is problematic, due to various financial problems. It is likely cellular has a clear long-term economic advantage in rural areas, and perhaps in more populated areas. And, we do foresee the eventuality of multimedia services to the automobile. Given DSRC does not currently support multimedia while mobile, we do not consider it a full communications solution for the automobile. However, it is undeniable that DSRC is a purpose built system. Demanding communications requirements could drive DSRCs eventual deployment. And, we are confident regarding DSRCs potential deployment. Our real goal is not a smartphone in every car. Our real goal is to serve the public best. We propose cellular as the better near-term solution overall, and the better final solution in at least rural areas, and for multimedia. A DSRC deployment in the USA is perhaps ten years away, and possibly much longer. And, a DSRC deployment would certainly benefit by having services already deployed on cellular. Many issues can be worked out on cellular without the major cost of new infrastructure and risk of an incorrect solution. Additionally, DSRC would deploy much smoother into a sea of automobiles that are already communicating with each other. For those reasons we propose cellular-based vehicle communication as a supplement to DSRC. Table 1: Strengths and Weaknesses of Relevant Communications Systems Strengths Weakness Cellular Widely deployed infrastructure. Currently needs subscription Handsets changed often = more Not under direct control of auto industry, or opportunities to change departments of transportation. communications capabilities. Currently no broadcast capability IP Handoff = multimedia support DSRC Power control. Helps with dense number of users. Security features. Under direct control of auto industry and departments of transportation. Broadcast capability. Limited infrastructure does exist. Usage tends to be relatively inexpensive. No existing infrastructure. No known way to fund deployment. Around fifteen year hardware lifetime = difficult to revise communications capabilities No IP address hopping as part of security. So, need an alternate solution for multimedia. No IP address hopping, so needs an alternate solution for multimedia. No broadcast capability. Often limited range.

Wi-Fi

Problem Statement: We seek to identify safety and efficiency applications of interest to the automotive community, characterize how well these applications would work using cellular for V2V and V2I communications as a supplement to DSRC, and propose detailed solutions where there is a deficiency. Our approach: Since the issue at hand is early deployment of new services, this implies understanding performance tradeoffs of the network that are relevant to these services, developing architectures for various services, and solving critical issues that may arise. The steps we propose are: 1) Complete a literature search/network with experts to further identify existing work in this area. 2) Identify new applications of interest, and develop a cursory understanding of their requirements in terms of latency, bandwidth, and other communications issues. 3) Compare these requirements with cellular standards (4G, 3G, 2G, SMS). 4G/LTE would be the highest priority standard. Characterize how well these applications work on cellular, based on this

A. Paulraj, T. McGiffen, S. Beiker Research Proposal for Vehicle Communication, Stanford University, March 2012

information, and draw comparisons to DSRC. In conjunction, we wish to be in touch with the major carriers to discuss how compliant they are with each standard, coverage maps, deployment schedules. We would also consider other issues, such as the location of servers, sharing only location relevant data, security, etc. 4) Working with those partners who will be funding this project, we will identify low hanging fruit, that is, applications/services that can be fielded in the near term. 5) Continue developing using cellular for the applications in step 4 and draw comparisons to DSRC. Validate these applications by computer simulation of the communications network and/or automotive traffic flow. 6) Technology transfer consisting of reports, supporting a potential demonstration fielded by our industry partners, consultation, etc. These steps are not completely sequential. We will iterate between steps as need arises.

Figure 2: Proposed Timeline

Manpower and Funding: The principle investigator shall be Professor (Emeritus) Arogyaswami Paulraj. Professor Paulraj is the author of over 400 research papers, two text books, and co-inventor of 52 US patents. Professor Paulrajs interests and expertise includes 4G/LTE systems, and multiple-input multipleoutput wireless communications. The researcher working with Professor Paulraj shall be Tom McGiffen. Tom has over 10 years industry experience as an electrical engineer, and will have completed his doctorate in electrical engineering at Stanford prior to starting this project.

A. Paulraj, T. McGiffen, S. Beiker Research Proposal for Vehicle Communication, Stanford University, March 2012

Requested funding per industry supporter for this project is USD $30,000 per year, for 2 years. 5 to 6 partners in the automotive, IT, and communication industries are being sought for support of this program. This funding shall cover full-time salary for Tom McGiffen, part time salary for Professor Paulraj, computing equipment, travel expenses for industry conferences, and applicable University overhead charges. Summary: It is our desire to advance connected mobility to improve safety and efficiency. We feel that cellular as a supplement to DSRC serves society, government, and industry best in the near term, as it solves the onerous issue of infrastructure cost and deployment. Without this supplement, i.e. promoting DSRC as the only vehicle communication standard, we regrettably conclude that the wait for vehicle safety communication shall continue for an undetermined time ahead. With this approach, and the contribution this project will make, we feel the next several years of waiting shall be turned into an exciting time of developing and delivering automobiles that are safer, result in fewer fatalities, are more efficient, and more convenient. Thank you for your attention and consideration. We look forward to your responses. Please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Sven Beiker or Tom McGiffen for any additional information.

Tom McGiffen, PhD Student in Electrical Engineering, mcgiffen@stanford.edu Sven Beiker, Executive Director Center for Automotive Research at Stanford, beiker@stanford.edu March 2012