You are on page 1of 9

This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal.

Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

Better Platooning
Control Toward
Autonomous Driving
An LTE Device-to-Device Communications Strategy That Meets
Ultralow Latency Requirements

Claudia Campolo, Antonella Molinaro, Giuseppe Araniti, and Antoine O. Berthet

photo credit

latooning is the first step toward fully autonomous to reduce fuel consumption and gas emissions and to
driving, which is deemed as one of the most repre- achieve safe and efficient transport. Vehicles in a platoon
sentative fifth-generation (5G) use cases. Spacing follow the same path, driving close to each other and
and speed in a platoon of vehicles are regulated by keeping a fixed distance between vehicles in the order of
a fully automated control system that relies on updated 10 m [1]. The lateral and longitudinal positions of each
vehicles kinematics data. In this article, we investigate vehicle are controlled by regularly collecting information
the potential of long-term evolution (LTE) device-to- wirelessly about the state of other vehicles (e.g., position,
device (D2D) communications for data dissemination in speed, and acceleration). The more frequently informa-
the platoon. Exploiting pooled LTE resources and the tion is exchanged, the sooner each platoon participant
coordination by the in-front vehicle of the platoon, the can react and avoid instabilities. The cooperative auto-
proposed solution is shown to fulfill the ultralow latency mation system in a platoon requires highly reliable and
requirements of messaging in the platoon. As a further ultralow latency data delivery. Vehicles should be capa-
advantage, our proposal is able to provide spatial reuse ble of exchanging and processing information in less
of LTE resources among members of the same platoon than 100 ms.
and of different platoons, thus drastically reducing the In this article, we investigate and analyze the capabili-
capacity demand. ty of the LTE system to support intervehicular communi-
cation in a platoon. The idea is to exploit direct D2D
Platoon Support Through LTE communications, also known as proximity services
Platooning is one of the applications conceived in the (ProSe) in the Third Generation Partnership Project
context of cooperative intelligent transportation systems (3GPP), Release 12 [2], with the assistance of the cellular
network infrastructure. The theoretical potential of LTE
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MVT.2016.2632418 for vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communications has
Date of publication: 20 January 2017 been claimed in recent projects [e.g., Mobile and Wireless

2 ||| 1556-6072/172017ieee IEEE vehicular technology magazine |

This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

Communications Enablers for the 2020 Information Soci- depends equally on the information from both the
ety (METIS)] and is current- immediate front and back neighbors. This strategy suf-
ly under discussion in the 3GPP [3]; in other fora involving fers from larger spacing errors between vehicles as the
automotive stakeholders, telecom operators, and vendors platoon size grows [1].
actively contributing to the 5G deployment, like the 5G The behavior and stability of the platoon also can be
Infrastructure Public Private Partnership [4]; and in the highly affected by the performance of intervehicle com-
research community at large [5]. munications. Concerns arise especially when consider-
Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, insight ing the CA M exchange through the IEEE 802.11
into the achievable LTE-D2D performance for platooning standard, the de facto communication technology for
has yet to be provided. To this aim, we design a simple vehicular networking. The underlying carrier sense
D2D strategy for message dissemination within a platoon multiple access with collision avoidance (CSMA/CA)
that builds on the following concepts: protocol is known to be quite unsatisfactory in guaran-
It takes advantage of the periodic message generation teeing bounded delay and high reliability at high net-
pattern coordinated by the in-front vehicle of the pla- work load, mainly due to the lack of a centralized
toon, the platoon leader (PL), to allocate pooled LTE resource management.
resources. Enhancements have been proposed to CSMA/CA to
It leverages short intervehicle distances and low trans- support the strict delivery demands of platooning appli-
mission power to enable spatial reuse of LTE resources cations in 802.11 networks. In [6], a channel is dedicated
intraplatoon, interplatoon, and eventually with nonve- for the exchange of platooning messages to reduce inter-
hicular (e.g., a pedestrian) cellular users. ference and packet collisions. However, assigning for pla-
toon control one of the few (up to five or seven) channels
Background and Motivations allocated for vehicular communications in the 5.9-GHz
band would be a waste of resources. A time-division multi-
Platooning Basics ple access (TDMA) scheme, built on top of the 802.11
A platoon can be defined as a group of vehicles that medium access control (MAC) layer, is proposed in [7],
share a common mobility pattern and maintain a forma- where vehicles in the platoon transmit sequentially so to
tion (typically, a fixed intervehicle distance and speed avoid interference within the platoon and with other
alignment). It is a complex system that integrates com- ongoing transmissions sharing the same channel. Simi-
puting, communication, and control technologies [1]. The larly, in [8], TDMA is used with the PL always broadcast-
platoons stability is ensured through the exchange of ing at the maximum transmission power (20 dBm) to
information among vehicles about their current kinemat- reach all PMs and PMs transmitting at 0 dBm to reach
ics status and intended maneuvers. Such information only the vehicle behind. A collision-free protocol is fore-
feeds an in-vehicle controller that regulates the accelera- seen in [6], where channel access is centrally governed
tion/deceleration of the car. and prescheduled by the PL.
Information is conveyed in cooperative awareness The discussed attempts to shift toward contention-
messages (CAMs) exchanged at each update cycle, free schemes, by patching the natively contention-based
regularly initiated by the PL that manages the group 802.11 protocol to support platooning demands, may sug-
of following vehicles, the platoon members (PMs). The gest exploring alternative solutions, which include, by
cycle duration must be kept in the order of 100 ms or design, a centralized resource management. In particu-
lower and is set by the PL according to the speed of lar, this work aims to investigate the potential of the LTE-
vehicles, the distance between them, and the size of D2D technology presented in the following, which has, so
the platoon. far, been unexplored to support communications within
Different control strategies (the type of information a platoon.
required by the control algorithm and the consequently
provided stability features) may be considered when LTE D2D: An Overview
designing the CAM dissemination policy [1]. In the pre- In LTE systems, radio resources are centrally managed
decessorfollowing control strategy, each vehicle only by an LTE base station (the eNodeB) at every trans-
communicates with the preceding one to know its rela- mission time interval (TTI, 1 ms duration). A number
tive position. This strategy may suffer from string insta- of orthogonal subbands of 180 kHz is assigned for each
bility due to the error amplification along the string of 1-ms long transmission time unit (one subframe). One
vehicles. Such an undesirable effect can be prevented subband over one scheduling time unit is defined as
under the predecessorleader control strategy, accord- one resource block (RB). D2D (also referred to as side-
ing to which each vehicle additionally gets position link [9]) supports direct communications between
information about the platoon lead vehicle. In a bidirec- devices that are in proximity without traversing the
tional strategy, the control action at each update cycle eNodeB or the core network. Thus, the D2D technology

| IEEE vehicular technology magazine ||| 3

This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

allows devices to transmit at higher data rate with interfering transmissions within the same and other
lower latency and power consumption and better spec- platoons in coverage of a given eNodeB. Before going
trum utilization. into the details of our proposed strategy, we present
D2D communications can be supported on the same preliminary assumptions and notions about the platoon
cellular spectrum (i.e., inband) or on unlicensed spec- and the D2D settings.
trum (i.e., outband) [10]. Inband communication can be
further divided into underlay and overlay categories. In LTE-D2D for Platooning: Main Assumptions and
the former case, cellular and D2D communications share Requirements
the same radio resources. In the latter ones, D2D links
are given dedicated cellular resources. Underlay D2D Platoon Assumptions
can create interference between D2D and cellular users. As a reference scenario for our study, we consider a road
Interference needs to be adequately mitigated through environment where M $ 1 platoons are under the cover-
proper resource allocation algorithms [10] that, unlike age of a serving eNodeB (Figure 1). A snapshot of the pla-
traditional LTE scheduling, can enforce spatial reuse toon behavior is taken at the steady state: joining/leaving
[11], which allows different transmissions to be allocated procedures are not considered here. This means that the
in the same RBs by improving the spectrum utilization. platoon size, i.e., the number of vehicles in platoon
In Release 12 [2], ProSe shares the uplink radio resourc- i ! {1, f, M}, is fixed at S i and its length is L i (including
es with cellular traffic. Being ProSe standardized with vehicles length and intervehicle distances). The distance
the requirements of public safety and commercial con- d i between two consecutive vehicles, moving at a speed
sumer applications in mind, one-to-many communica- v i, in the platoon, is referred to as an intraplatoon gap,
tions are mainly supported, whereas less attention has which represents the length of the link to be covered
been devoted so far to address unicast communications, through D2D communication.
for which several open issues exist [4]. We assume a predecessorleader controller strategy.
D2D communication can be extended to support inter- Such a choice is due to the previously discussed better
vehicular links [3] and has been recently explored as an stability features compared to other strategies. Informa-
enabling technology for the cooperative exchange of bea- tion exchanged in platoon i is conveyed in CAMs and
cons and safety-critical data [5], [12]. By enabling local- needs to be periodically updated by the PL (every update
ized communications, D2D can easily support road cycle of Ti seconds) to satisfy the demands of the con-
safety applications based on messages exchanged in a troller algorithm in each vehicle. Ti must be kept in the
vehicle neighborhood. order of 100 ms or lower; i.e., the update frequency must
be at least 10 Hz. Ensuring shorter update cycles (more
Contributions frequent CAM updates) permits an increase in vehicle
The proposed solution builds on the aforementioned speed with no collision risks.
concepts. We recommend the use of inband underlay Platoons can be either following one another in the
D2D communications for the CAMs exchanged in a pla- same lane or moving in adjacent lanes. In the former case,
toon. Similar to [6], the transmission opportunities of the distance between the last PM of a platoon and the PL
the PMs are notified by the PL, but, in contrast to [6], of the next platoon on the same lane, referred to as inter-
intervehicle communications occur over licensed LTE platoon gap (3), is typically in the order of 40 m. In the lat-
frequency bands. The centralized LTE network architec- ter case, the distance between members of adjacent
ture, by having a global view of the resource status, can platoons can be much shorter. In the worst case of two
orchestrate their wise usage and efficient reuse. Indeed, aligned platoons, such distance is in the order of a few
in our analysis, a focal point is the spatial reuse of LTE meters (typically, 4 m), being constrained by the lane
resources that is allowed to support simultaneously not width (d) .

D2D Assumptions
CAMs are exchanged in the platoon
eNodeB LTE PM between on-board user equipment
(UE) directly over D2D links. As pre-
Platoon 1 Platoon 2
viously mentioned, underlay mode is
S1 2 d1 1 S2 3 2 d2 1 assumed with uplink radio resourc-

es assigned by the eNodeB to the PL
Si 3 2 di 1
Platoon i for a nonexclusive use of its PM
(referred to as the sidelink mode 1
in [9]). The network operates in
Figure 1 A multiplatoon scenario is shown with the main notations marked. time-division duplex (TDD) mode,

4 ||| IEEE vehicular technology magazine |

This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

which is the common division duplexing

mode for D2D communications since it Table 1 The number of uplink subframes and their position in the TDD frame
for different LTE TDD frame configurations.
reduces the device cost and complexity
by requiring a single radio chain. Ten sub- Subframe Number
frames of 1 ms each make an LTE TDD Configuration 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 U Subframes
frame, as specified in the standard. The 0 D S U U U D S U U U 6
number of uplink subframes (U subframes 1 D S U U D D S U U D 4
in the sequel) and their position in the 2 D S U D D D S U D D 2
TDD frame are reported in Table 1 for
3 D S U U U D D D D D 3
different LTE TDD frame configurations.
4 D S U U D D D D D D 2

LTE Resource Demand for Platoon 5 D S U D D D D D D D 1

We consider a CAM size that varies 6 D S U
5 U U D S U U D
between 50 and 500 B, and show in Fig- U: uplink; D: downlink; S: special.

ure 2 the number of RBs per U subframe

needed to transmit a single CAM, under
different hypothesis of modulation formats, and related in two phases: 1) during phase 1, the PL transmits its
transport block size index values, as specified in [13]. CAM to all the PMs, and 2) during phase 2, each PM sends
The figure also shows, as horizontal lines, the available its CAM to the following vehicle until the tail of the pla-
number of RBs per subframe, N RB, for different LTE toon is reached.
deployments settings, i.e., for different channel band-
width, B (ranging 520 MHz). Phase 1: PL to PMs
For a typical CAM size of 300 B, fewer than 25 RBs are To satisfy the requirements of the platoon control strat-
requested for each considered modulation and coding egy, our proposal starts with the PL transmitting its
scheme (MCS), so one U subframe is sufficient in case of a CAM in broadcast with a sufficient power to reach all
common LTE cell deployment, say B = 5 MH Z. Longer PMs. Alternately, if the platoon i ! {1, f, M} is very long,
CAMs, instead, would not be accommodated in one sub- we consider that the PL transmits with a power to
frame with B = 5 MH Z if quadrature phase-shift keying coverarange R equal to a fraction of the platoon length
(QPSK), the most robust modulation format, is used, as it is
assumed in the remainder of our work for higher reliability.
Longer QPSK-modulated CAMs can be accommodated only
if a larger bandwidth B is considered. In the remainder of B = 20 MHz (100 RB)
this article, we will consider a CAM size of 300 B. 100

LTE D2D CAM Dissemination for Platooning

According to our proposed strategy, only the PL interacts 80 B = 15 MHz (75 RB)
with the eNodeB to get pooled resources (number and
position of U subframes) to assign for direct communica-

tions between all members of its platoon. Unlike tradition- 60

al resource allocation algorithms, as in [11], typically fed B = 10 MHz (50 RB)
with link quality and buffer status information obtained
from served users, the eNodeB additionally receives from 40
the PL information about the platoon, such as its size, the
intraplatoon spacing, and the required CAM size and fre- B = 5 MHz (25 RB)
quency. We assume that such PL-to-eNodeB interaction
leverages existing LTE handshake procedures for
resource requests and fulfillments. Then the enhanced
resource allocation algorithm at the eNodeB decides
050 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
which resources to assign to cellular UEs and D2D users
under its control, to fulfill traffic demands and to mitigate CAM Packet Size (Byte)
interference. The specification of such an algorithm will QPSK, I TBS = 6 16-QAM, I TBS = 9
be a subject for future work. Due to the periodic traffic 64-QAM, I TBS = 15
pattern of CAMs, semipersistent scheduling is assumed to
avoid the overhead of the per-TTI scheduling. At each Figure 2 The number of occupied RBs is shown as a function of
update cycle Ti, CAMs are exchanged within the platoon theCAM packet size.

| IEEE vehicular technology magazine ||| 5

This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

L i (L i = [S i - 1] d i) . We set R not larger than 100 m, eNodeB, without causing interference (and CAM corrup-
since larger ranges would generate a high interference tion) at the receiving PMs. This reduces the bandwidth
level, which is harmful for D2D communications. If the demand for the platoon.
PL cannot cover the entire platoon with a single trans- To understand to which extent resources allocated to
mission, then the last PM reached by the CAM is in a platoon can be reused, we consider a single-lane topol-
charge to forward it to the rest of the PMs. We assume ogy as in Figure 3 and introduce the reuse distance, d r ,
that the transmission range of such a relay PL is also R. here defined as the minimum distance at which two dif-
The CAM from the PL also carries resource assignment ferent PMs [the intended transmitter (TX ) and the
information (e.g., when to transmit and which resources interferer ( I )] can transmit over the same RBs without
to use on each direct link) for each PM. Such a choice harmful interference. Among possible interfering PMs for
reduces the signaling over the eNodeB-to-vehicle air RX, we consider only the closest one to RX, expected to
interface, otherwise required to communicate a more heavily affect its reception. Let d be the distance
resource request or assignment between each PM and kept between each couple of intended TX and receiver
the eNodeB. (RX ) in the platoon, also called the intraplatoon gap. In
the sequel, the subscript I introduced in the previous sec-
Phase 2: PM to PM tion is removed for ease of notation. Let d I be the dis-
Once the CAM from the PL is received in the platoon, tance between the potential I and the intended RX.
each PM can start transmitting its own CAM in unicast Clearly, the reuse distance d r is related to d I and d by
to update the PM just behind. The selected predeces- the relation d r = d I + d. Finally, let PD2D be the transmis-
sorleader controller strategy permits short-range D2D sion power of the PMs. The average signal-to-interfer-
links to be set up between adjacent PMs with low trans- ence-plus-noise ratio (SINR) at the intended RX is
mission power, and makes spatial reuse of LTE uplink expressed as
radio resources possible. Thus, different, properly
spaced PMs in the same platoon can simultaneously PD2D PL D2D (d )
c (d, d I ) = , (1)
transmit by using the same RBs, as indicated by the PD2D PL (d I ) + N 0

where PL D2D is the path loss on the D2D link and N 0 the
background additive white Gaussian noise power. In this
dr = dI + d
definition, the numerator accounts for the received sig-
dI nal power from the intended TX, and the denominator for
d the interference power from the simultaneously trans
mitting node I and the noise power. We assume a line-of-
sight environment and ignore multipath propagation and
shadowing effects. Substituting d r - d for d I in (1) and
Figure 3An illustration of the reuse distance. setting c (d, d r - d) equal to a target SINR value c D2D
(above which communication is assumed reliable) allows
us to determine the value of d r . The achieved d r is
reported in Figure 4, under the settings in Table 2, and
for different values of d. In particular, PL D2D (d ) is com-
120 puted according to the propagation scenario #PS9 of the
Reuse Distance, dr (m)

METIS project, leveraging the model in [14], with parame-

ters set to match a highway environment and a convoy
80 path loss.
More robust MCS schemes need lower c D2D, thus trans-
60 lating in smaller d r and better spatial reuse of resources.
Such results provide insights about the possibility to
enforce spatial reuse intraplatoon, interplatoon, and with
20 other UEs. For instance, for a common intraplatoon gap of
d = 10 m and a target SINR c = 0 dB, the reuse distance
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
is larger than 20 m; this implies the following findings:
Target SINR, D2D (dB)
Intraplatoon: PMs spaced more than 20 m apart can
d = 10 m d = 15 m d = 20 m simultaneously transmit by using the same RBs. It is
the case of vehicle 2 and vehicle 5 in Figure 5.
Figure 4 The reuse distance is compared with the target SINR Interplatoon: The interplatoon gap T is typically larger
values. than 20 m; thus, different platoons traveling on the

6 ||| IEEE vehicular technology magazine |

This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

same lane, one after the other, can reuse the same
RBs. On the contrary, the spatial reuse would be more Table 2The main D2D settings.
difficult to achieve between platoons traveling over Parameter Value
adjacent lanes, if aligned, because of the short lane Transmission power 10 dBm (uniformly distributed
width d % 20 m. ^PD 2Dh over the available RBs)
With other UEs: UEs at a distance higher than 20 m Noise power (N0) 104.5 dBm
from the road where platoons move can reuse the
Path loss ^PL D 2D [d ] h PL0 + 10nlog10 (d/d0) + X v [14]
same RBs. Such a condition is likely to be met in a
Reference path loss 63.3 [14]
highway, where pedestrian users are expected not to (PL0)
move closer to the road infrastructure.
Path loss exponent 1.77 [14]
Performance Evaluation Reference distance 10 m [14]
Early results are derived in a developed link-level MATLAB (d0)
simulator to assess to which extent our proposal fulfills the Normally distributed Mean n = 0; standard deviation
strict platooning latency requirements. Essentially, we aim random (X v) v = 3.1 [14]
to check if the actual update cycle, Tact , which refers to the
time required to accommodate all the CAM transmissions
(PL to PMs and PM to PM) within a platoon according to the
LTE-D2D resource allocation, is lower than the target
update cycle T. To ease the interpretation of results, such LTE
values are derived under ideal channel conditions (no Network
errors), when considering a target SINR, c D2D, equal to 0 dB; PL
B = 5 MHz (unless differently stated); CAM size = 300 B; eNodeB
intraplatoon gap equal to 10 m; and other settings as report-
ed in Table 2. d
No Spatial Reuse 6 5 4 3 2 1
The first set of results is derived by assuming that the PL
and PMs transmit sequentially and no spatial reuse is t2
enabled, as a representative of a worst-case resource 6 5 4 3 2 1
allocation scenario. Figure 6 shows Tact for different LTE
frame configurations and platoon size values (from five
to 20). Vehicles in the platoon transmit in sequence over
6 5 4 3 2 1
different U subframes (each carrying 25 RBs). The figure
highlights the lines corresponding to target update cycle
Figure 5 Snapshots of the update cycle in a platoon ( S = 6,
T values equal to 10, 50, and 100 ms. d = 10 m, Z D 2D = 0 dB ) showing spatial reuse enabled (d r 2 20 m)
It is clear that the higher the number of U subframes at various time instants ^t 1, t 2, t 3h . The instants represent U sub-
per TDD frame, the shorter the Tact . In particular, for each frames (e.g., in the third frame configuration they are adjacent).
Phase 1 occurs at t 1; Phase 2 occurs at ^t 2, t 3h . Vehicles spaced
LTE TDD frame configuration, except configuration 5, a more than 20m apart (vehicles 2 and 5) transmit simultaneously
platoon with 20 vehicles completes the update cycle with- (at t 2 ) using the same RBs.
in 100 ms, hence, matching the requirement of the control-
ler algorithm to be updated at every T = 100 ms. assumed in the sense that platoons are perfectly aligned
Moreover, using frame configurations 0, 1, and 6 permits (i.e., corresponding members of two adjacent platoons are
to match also T = 50 ms for S = 20. A stricter T = 10 ms only separated by the lane width, d) so that interplatoon
constraint is only met by small platoons (S = 5) when spatial reuse is not enforced (d 1 d r ) and resources are
considering frame configuration 0. allocated to platoons in a round-robin fashion; in contrast,
intraplatoon reuse is implemented.
Spatial Reuse Figure 7 reports the actual update cycle, Tact , when vary-
Next, we investigate a scenario where up to four platoons ing the number of platoons (M). Two LTE TDD configuration
with 20 vehicles (typically considered as an upper bound frames (number 0 and 5, respectively representative of the
to S) are located over adjacent parallel lanes covered by an worst and best case in terms of available U subframes) are
eNodeB (one platoon per lane) to simulate a highway sce- taken as examples when N RB = 25 and N RB = 100. Results
nario. In this case, the eNodeB is enabled to schedule the show that with 25 RBs, Tact is less than 50 ms for both frame
simultaneous transmissions over the same RBs, according configurations, if there is only one platoon to be served.
to the spatial reuse constraints. A worst-case setting is Both values are significantly less than the results

| IEEE vehicular technology magazine ||| 7

This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

Tact is less than 50 ms, even for M = 4 platoons. In con-

200 trast, the actual update cycle sharply increases with
180 frame configuration 5 when M 2 1, and for more than
Actual Update Cycle (Tact) (ms)

160 two platoons the target update cycle of 100 ms cannot be

guaranteed. With M = 4 platoons, however, Tact is less
than 200 ms, which is a value close to the one achieved
T = 100 ms in a single platoon when spatial reuse is not enabled
(Figure 6, S = 20) .
80 W hen considering a more capable LT E cell
60 T = 50 ms deployment, with N RB = 100 (B = 20 MHz), the adjacent
40 platoons, even if not spatially reusing the LTE resources,
20 may, however, use orthogonal subbands in the same sub-
T = 10 ms
frame and not interfere reciprocally. For instance, vehi-
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 cles in the first lane can transmit in the RB range 125,
Platoon Size (S) whereas vehicles in the second lane can simultaneously
Frame No. 0 Frame No. 1 Frame No. 2 transmit over RBs in the range 2650, and so forth. In
Frame No. 3 Frame No. 4 Frame No. 5 such a case, the system behaves as if a single platoon
Frame No. 6
exists by largely meeting the 10 Hz constraint. More
interestingly, for frame configuration 0, the Tact is less
Figure 6 This graph depicts the actual update cycle ^Tacth for different
platoon sizes (S) when varying the LTE TDD frame configuration
than 10 ms; hence, suggesting the possibility to meet the
(N RB = 25; no intraplatoon spatial reuse). requirements of high-density platooning [4].

Conclusions and Future Research Directions

In this article, we investigated the use of LTE D2D tech-
nology for platooning applications. We have proposed
Actual Update Cycle (Tact) (ms), Logscale

and evaluated a communication strategy coupled with a

predecessorleader control algorithm that allows intra-
T = 100 ms
100 and interplatoon spatial reuse. Preliminary results dem-
onstrated the viability of the proposal in timely
T = 50 ms
disseminating messages within the platoon. Each vehi-
cle's control system is triggered at a frequency higher
than 10 Hz, which helps guarantee safe regulation at
high speeds, even for multiple platoons. The work con-
T = 10 ms tributes to the deployment path toward 5G-enabled
vehicular networking and promotes further investiga-
tion in this hot topic. Deeper analysis is required to
1 2 3 4 address the following D2D issues that are exacerbated
Number of Adjacent Platoons (M) in the platooning scenarios due to its unique features
25 RBs, Frame No. 0 25 RBs, Frame No. 5 and strict demands.
100 RBs, Frame No. 0 100 RBs, Frame No. 5
Handover Management
A semipersistent resource allocation can reasonably
Figure 7 A graph depicting the actual update cycle ^Tacth when be assumed during the permanence of the platoon
varying the number of adjacent platoons (M) and the available
bandwidth (N RB ) for LTE TDD frame configurations 0 and 5 within a cell (around 1030 s). Then, at the cell edge,
(N RB = 25 and 100; with intraplatoon spatial reuse and no the PL and the following PMs may be controlled by dif-
interplatoon spatial reuse).
ferent e NodeBs. To keep signaling under control and
reduce latency, it is beneficial to keep the vehicles of
in Fig ure 6 with S = 20 for frame configuration 5 the platoon controlled by the same eNodeB, as pro-
(. 183 ms Vs . 43 ms) and 0 (. 33 ms Vs . 9 ms) . This posed for static D2D pairs in [15]. However, this may
outcome clearly shows the advantage of the intraplatoon be difficult as the platoon size and/or intraplatoon gap
spatial reuse. increases.
When more platoons are considered, Tact increases, A solution could exploit the fact that the platoon
since more distinct U subframes are allocated to accom- mobility is predictable. Thus, during the handover prepa-
modate the capacity needs of each platoon. Also, in this ration phase, the serving eNodeB can exchange informa-
case, however, when frame configuration 0 is considered, tion with the target eNodeB via the X2 interface and

8 ||| IEEE vehicular technology magazine |

This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

migrate the resource allocation demands for the platoon research activity focuses on mobile and wireless net-
(as indicated by the PL) so to guarantee service continu- working, vehicular networks, the Internet of Things, and
ity. If reallocation of resources is needed in the new cell, information-centric networking.
PMs are informed in advance by the PL. Giuseppe Araniti ( received his lau-
A further option could be to switch from the sidelink rea and Ph.D. degrees in electronic engineering at the Uni-
scheduled mode 1, where resources for the platoon are versity Mediterranea of Reggio Calabria, Italy, in 2000 and
assigned by the eNodeB, to the sidelink mode 2 (con- 2004, respectively, where he is currently an assistant pro-
ceived in Release 12 for out-of-coverage scenarios [9]). In fessor of telecommunications. His major areas of research
this case, the PL autonomously selects the radio resourc- include personal communications systems, enhanced
es from a preconfigured resource pool to be granted to wireless and satellite systems, traffic and radio resource
PMs, without the assistance of the eNodeB. management, multicast and broadcast services, device-
to-device, and machine-type communications over fifth-
Reliability Support generation cellular networks.
In this study, an error-free channel has been assumed to Antoine O. Berthet (antoine.berthet@centralesupelec
better focus on the LTE D2D capability to support platoon- .fr) received his engineers degree from Tlcom SudParis,
ing. However, packet losses can be experienced that vry, France, in 1997; his M.Sc. degree in signal processing
would mine the platoon stability. To support reliability, from Tlcom ParisTech, France, in 1997; his Ph.D. degree
solutions allowing the hybrid automatic repeat request in computer science, electronics, and telecommunications
operation, to be directly handled by platoon participants from the University Pierre et Marie Curie (UPMC), Paris,
over D2D links (i.e., the D2D RX sends Acknowledgment/ France, in 2001; his Ph.D. degree in computer science from
Negative Acknowledgment to the D2D TX), may alleviate Tlcom ParisTech in 2001; and his HDR degree from UPMC
the network burden and reduce the feedback delay. These in 2007. Since 2001, he has been with CentraleSuplec,
technical aspects are under investigation in Release 14, Chtenay-Malabry, France, where he is currently a full pro-
specifically studying the LTE support of V2X services. fessor. His research interests include information theory,
Other nontechnical issues also need to be addressed, like error-correction coding theory, network coding, codes on
the definition of a novel business model for mobile net- graphs, iterative decoding, and iterative receiver design.
work operators to provide such services, which is current-
ly under debate in relevant bodies [4].
[1] D. Jia, K. Lu, J. Wang, X. Zhang, and X. Shen, A survey on platoon-
Author Information based vehicular cyber-physical systems, Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol.
Claudia Campolo ( received 18, no. 1, pp. 263284, 2016.
[2] Proximity-Based Services (ProSe); Stage 2. V12.5.0, (Rel-12), 3GPP TS
her laurea degree and her Ph.D. degree in telecommunica- 23.303, July 2015.
tions engineering at the University Mediterranea of Reg- [3] Y. L. Tseng, LTE-advanced enhancement for vehicular communica-
tion, IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 47, 2015.
gio Calabria, Italy, in 2007 and 2011, respectively, where [4] European Commission. (2015, Oct. 20). 5G automotive vision, 5GPPP.
she is currently an assistant professor of telecommunica- Ertico. Brussels, Belgium. White Paper. [Online]. Available: https://5g-
tions. She was a German Academic Exchange Service fel- motive-Vertical-Sectors.pdf
low at the University of Paderborn, Germany, from March [5] A. Bazzi, B. Masini, and A. Zanella, Performance analysis of V2V
beaconing using LTE in direct mode with full duplex radios, IEEE
to April 2015. Her main research interests are in the field Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 685688, 2015.
of wireless and vehicular networking and information- [6] A. Bhm, M. Jonsson, and E. Uhlemann. Performance evaluation of
a platooning application using the IEEE 802.11 p MAC on a control
centric networking. channel vs. a centralized real-time MAC on a service channel, in
Antonella Molinaro ( Proc. 2013 IEEE 9th Int. Conf. Wireless Mobile Computing Networking
Communications, Lyon, France, pp. 545552.
received a laurea degree in computer engineering from [7] P. Fernandes and U. Nunes, Platooning with IVC-enabled autono-
the University of Calabria, Italy, in 1991. She received mous vehicles: strategies to mitigate communication delays, improve
safety and traffic flow, IEEE Intell. Transp. Syst. Mag, vol. 13, no. 1, pp.
her M.S. degree in information technology from 91106, 2012.
CEFRIEL/Polytechnic of Milano, Italy, in 1992 and her [8] M. Segata, B. Bloessl, S. Joerer, C. Sommer, M. Gerla, R. Lo Cigno, and
F. Dressler. Toward communication strategies for platooning: simu-
Ph.D. degree in multimedia technologies and communi- lative and experimental evaluation, IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech, vol. 64, no.
cations systems from the University of Calabria in 1996. 12, pp. 54115423, 2015.
[9] Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); LTE Physical
She was with Siemens in Munich as a Commission of Layer; General Description, V12.2.0, (Rel-12), 3GPP TS 36.201, 2015.
European Community fellow from 1994 to 1995, and she [10] A. Asadi, Q. Wang, and V. Mancuso, A survey on device-to-device
communication in cellular networks, Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 16,
was with Polytechnic of Milano as a research fellow from no. 4, pp. 18011819, 2014.
1997 to 1998. She was then with the University of Messi- [11] G. Nardini, G. Stea, A. Virdis, D. Sabella, M. Caretti, Resource al-
location for network-controlled device-to-device communications in
na from 1998 to 2001 and the University of Calabria from LTE-Advanced, Wireless Networks, pp. 118, 2016. doi:10.1007/s11276-
2001 to 2004 as an assistant professor. She is an associ- 016-1193-3.
[12] C. Campolo, A. Molinaro, and R. Scopigno, From todays VANETs to
ate professor of telecommunications at the University tomorrows planning and the bets for the day after, Veh. Commun.,
Mediterranea of Reggio Calabria, Italy. Her recent vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 158171, 2015.

| IEEE vehicular technology magazine ||| 9

This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

[13] Tech. Specif. Group Radio Access Network; Physical Layer Procedures [15] O. N. C., Yilmaz, Z. Li, K. Valkealahti, M. A. Uusitalo, M. Moisio, P.
(Release 9), 3GPP TS 36.213, 2010. Lundn, and C. Wijting, Smart mobility management for D2D com-
[14] N. Czink, A. Paier, F. Tufvesson, and A. F. Molisch, Path loss model- munications in 5G networks, in Proc. 2014 Wireless Communications
ing for vehicle-to-vehicle communications, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., Networking Conf. Workshops, Istanbul, Turkey, 2014.
vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 323328, 2011. 

10 ||| IEEE vehicular technology magazine |