1.

INTRODUCTION
Recent studies shows that about 60% of roadway accidents could be avoided
if the driver was warned just one-half second before the collision occurs. Actually, traffic
accidents have become the main cause of mortality, quite above illnesses. Emerging technologies
appears to provide faster, safer and more reliable communication techniques. Bring together, this
communication can be used in order to reduce collisions, as well as to support and improve the
quality of the traffic. There are different kinds of systems to assist drivers in the roads. This paper
is focused on the inter-vehicular communication (IVC). IVC has attracted research attention from
the transport industry of Japan, EU and US. Within this area there are also a lot of different
services that can be provided, and different strategies to implement them. The main goal of IVC
is to upgrade on-board devices (i.e. GPS, sensors) and, thus, to extend the horizon of drivers.
IVC applications can be categorized in three main groups. Cooperative assistance systems focus
on coordinate the vehicles in critical points like junctions with no traffic lights. Communicationbased longitudinal control tries to exploit the look-through capability of IVC to reduce accidents
and platooning vehicles to increase the capacity of the road, while information and warning
functions give support with real-time warning messages to avoid collisions. A protocol from this
last group is presented in this paper as an example of IVC.
The communication can also be categorized as follows. When the
communication occurs between vehicles, it is called Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communication. It
takes place in cooperative driver assistance or in decentralized floating car data sharing (i. e.
traffic monitoring). If the communication is between a vehicle and a infrastructure, that is,
Vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communication, then vehicles can communicate using a fix
infrastructure along the road to give support some services like Internet access, inter-vehicle
chat, mobile advertisingetc.
A number of projects are based on IVC technologies. The most important are
named and briefly described as follows. FleetNet is project whose goal is to provide Internet to
vehicles. Wireless Local Danger Warning (WILLWARN) is minded to prevent accidents.
Car2Car is a consortium of six European car manufacturers. It focuses on the V2V
communication and it is based on wireless LAN. It aim is to establish an open European
standard. The main purpose of Network on Wheels (NOW project) is to solve problems related to
data security and communication protocols. Finally is worth to mention CHAUFFEUR project.
This project offers an optimal way to use the roadways. The idea here is that a leading car driven
by a human sends information to a group of followers, which repeat exactly the same the driverpattern conduct of the leading car. This is called platooning of vehicles. Not only does it make a
better use of the roadway capacity, but it also saves power as the group become aerodynamic.
Most of these projects use the standard IEEE 802.11 for communication. But also GSM, UMTS,
GPRS protocols are used in some of these projects.
Vehicular network can be deployed by network operators and service providers or through
integration between operators, providers, and a governmental authority. Recent advances in
wireless technologies and the current and advancing trends in ad hoc network scenarios allow a
1

number of deployment architectures for vehicular networks, in highway, rural, and city
environments. Such architectures should allow communication among nearby vehicles and
between vehicles and nearby axed roadside equipment.

Figure 1 illustrates the reference architecture. This reference architecture is proposed within the
C2C-CC, distinguishing it from 3 domains: in-vehicle, ad hoc and infrastructure domain. The invehicle domain refers to a local network inside each vehicle logically composed of two types of
units:
an on-board unit (OBU) and
one or more application unit(s) (AUs).
An OBU is a device in the vehicle having communication capabilities (wireless and/or wired),
while an AU is a device executing a single or a set of applications while making use of the
OBU's communication capabilities. Indeed, an AU can be an integrated part of a vehicle and be
permanently connected to an OBU. It can also be a portable device such as a laptop or PDA that
can dynamically attach to (and detach from) an OBU. The AU and OBU are usually connected
with a wired connection, while wireless connection is also possible (using, e.g., Bluetooth,
WUSB, or UWB). This distinction between AU and OBU is logical, and they can also reside in a
single physical unit.
The ad hoc domain is a network composed of vehicles equipped with OBUs
and road side units (RSUs) that are stationary along the road. OBUs of different vehicles form a
mobile ad hoc network (MANET), where an OBU is equipped with communication devices,
including at least a short-range wireless communication device dedicated for road safety.
2

OBUs and RSUs can be seen as nodes of an ad hoc network, respectively,

mobile and static nodes. An RSU can be attached to an infrastructure network, which in turn can
be connected to the Internet. RSUs can also communicate to each other directly or via multichip,
and their primary role is the improvement of road safety, by executing special applications and
by sending, receiving, or forwarding data in the ad hoc domain.
Two types of infrastructure domain access exist: RSU and hot spot. RSUs
may allow OBUs to access the infrastructure, and consequently to be connected to the Internet.
OBUs may also communicate with Internet via public, commercial, or private hot spots (Wi-Fi
hot spots). In the absence of RSUs and hot spots, OBUs can utilize communication capabilities
of cellular radio networks (GSM, GPRS, UMTS, WiMax, and 4G) if they are integrated in the
OBU.

2. REQUIREMENTS
Availability, reliability, safety, integrity and security are among the main
requirements for IVC systems. However wireless communication is typically unreliable due to
packet collisions, channel fading, shadowing and the Doppler shifts caused by the high speed of
vehicles. It is then a big challenge to deal with sensor nodes that travel at a high speed.

Fig 2.1 The critical latency requirement.

The latency requirement can be critical, because of the high speed of the vehicles. In figure 2.1,
we have the typical collision scenario where A and B are driving at 180 Km/h. Then A sees an
obstacle and decides to break. In this case, IVC systems must support a warning mechanism that
warns B with enough time to stop in time.

2.1. V2V:
V2V (short for vehicle to vehicle) is an automobile technology designed to allow automobiles to
"talk" to each other. The systems will use a region of the 5.9 GHz band set aside by the United
States Congress in 1999, the unlicensed frequency also used by WiFi.
V2V is currently in active development by General Motors, which demonstrated the system in
2006 using Cadillac vehicles. Other automakers working on V2V include BMW, Daimler,
Honda, Audi, Volvo and the Car-to-Car communication consortium.
V2V is also known as VANETs (Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks). It is a variation of MANETs
(Mobile Ad Hoc Networks), with the emphasis being now the node is the vehicular. In 2001, it
was mentioned in a publication that ad hoc networks can be formed by cars and such networks
can help overcome blind spots, avoid accidents, etc. Over the years, there have been considerable
research and projects in this area, applying VANETs for a variety of applications, ranging from
safety to navigation and law enforcement.

Fig 2.2. Allowed delivery latency for V2V communication.

Precise mathematic calculations have been made in to show the graphic in
Figure 2.2. Here we can see that the latency requirement grows exponentially as the vehicle
move faster.
Security requirements are also important. A vehicle could transmit false warnings, in order to
show up as an emergency vehicle. Also, messages can be used to track a vehicle and get private
information about the driver and passengers. Security mechanisms such as authentication,
integrity and privacy protection must be supported.
The IVC networks must also support scalability. The network can become
dense in a very short time, if a lot of vehicles get stuck in a traffic jam.

3.ARCHITECTURE
On-board Equipment (OBE):

human machine interface

vehicle interfaces, (to on-board networks)

Applications, memory and processing

positioning, (GPS and dead-reckoning system)

communications functions (radio, antenna, etc)

Fig 3.1 Architecture of inter vehicle communiction

Roadside Equipment (RSE):

access nodes positioned along highways, at traffic intersections and

other locations

includes a DSRC radio, GPS, processor, and router to send messages

back through the IVC Network

Network:

The IVC Network interconnects the road-side RSEs, network services, and the
network end-users
6

3.1. SECURITY ARCHITECTURE:

Event data recorder: The EDR will be responsible for recording the vehicles critical data such
as position, time, speed etc. EDR will also record all the received safety messages.
Tamper Proof Device: The TPD will store all the cryptographic materials and perform
cryptographic operations like signing and verifying safety messages.

Fig 3.2 Security architecture of inter vehicle communication

Vehicular Public Key Infrastructure:-In VPKI infrastructure Certificate Authorities will issue
certified public/private key pairs to vehicles
Authentication: Vehicles will sign each message with their private key and attach
corresponding certificate. Thus when another vehicle receives the message it verifies key used to
sign the message and then it verifies the message.
Privacy: To conceal vehicles identity, set of anonymous keys that changes frequently can be
used. These keys are preloaded into vehicles Tamper Proof Device for long duration
7

4. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
Two categories of draft standards provide outlines for
vehicular networks. These standards constitute a category of IEEE standards for a special mode
of operation of IEEE 802.11 for vehicular networks called Wireless Access in Vehicular
Environments (WAVE). 802.11p is an extension to 802.11 Wireless LAN medium access
layer (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specification. As of November 2006 Draft 1.3 of this
standard is approved . 802.11p aims to provide specifications needed for MAC and PHY layers
for specific needs of vehicular networks. IEEE 1609 is a family of standards which deals with
issues such as management and security of the network:

1609.1 -Resource Manager: This standard provides a resource manager for WAVE,
allowing communication between remote applications and vehicles.

1609.2 -Security Services for Applications and Management Messages

1609.3 -Networking Services: This standard addresses network layer issues in WAVE.

1609.4 -Multi-channel Operation: This standard deals with communications through

multiple channels.

The current state of these standards is trial-use. A vehicular communication networks

which complies with the above standards supports both vehicular on-board units (OBU) and
roadside units (RSU). RSU acts similar to a wireless LAN access point and can provide
communications with infrastructure. Also, if required, RSU must be able to allocate channels to
OBUs. There is a third type of communicating nodes called Public Safety OBU (PSOBU) which
is a vehicle with capabilities of providing services normally offered by RSU. These units are
mainly utilized in police cars, fire trucks, and ambulances in emergency situations.
As mentioned before DSRC provides several channels (seven 10 MHz channels in
North America) for communications. Standards divide the channels into two categories: a control
channel and service channels. Control channel is reserved for broadcasting and coordinating
communications which generally takes place in other channels. Although DSRC devices are
allowed to switch to a service channel, they must continuously monitor the control channel.
There is no scanning and association as there is in normal 802.11. All such operations are done
via a beacon sent by RSUs in the control channel. While OBUs and RSUs are allowed to
broadcast messages in the control channels, only RSUs can send beacon messages.

In North America DSRC devices operate over seven 10 MHz channels. Two of the
channels are used solely for public safety applications which mean that they can only be used for
communications of message with a certain priority or higher.

5. THE VEHICULAR COLLISION WARNING

COMMUNICATION PROTOCOL
5.1. INTRODUCTION:
As mentioned in section 1, the reduction of traffic accidents can save a lot of
human lives. The Vehicular Collision Warning Communication (VCWC) protocol presents a
communication mechanism to warn vehicles when an abnormal situation occurs, so that they can
stop before crashing.
This protocol uses the standard 802.11for the communication between vehicles. Due to the
unreliable wireless communication, this protocol must provide this reliability by retransmitting
packets that did not reach their destination because of collisions, or channel fading.
There are two different basic approaches to establish the way the vehicles will send warning
messages. The passive approach makes vehicles to frequently broadcast their motion
information. High precision vehicle positioning information is needed, along with a high refresh
rate. In the active approach the message are only sent when a problem occurs, that is, when a
vehicle acts abnormally. This protocol chooses the active approach because it causes much less
traffic in the net.
As seen in section 2, the delay is a critical requirement. When an emergency occurs (i.e. strong
change of direction, mechanical failure) then the vehicle is referred as Abnormal Vehicle (AV).
This vehicle must send an Emergency Warning Message (EWM) to let the surrounding cars
know about this event. The delay of these EWMs must be in the order of milliseconds as shown
in section 2.

5.2. ASSUMPTIONS:
In this protocol it is assumed that every vehicle is equipped with a system
which is able to get the geographical position of the vehicle. It is also assumed that the vehicle
has a wireless transceiver. All vehicles use the same IEEE 802.11 standard and share a common
channel.
The VCWC protocol does not require all vehicles to be able to send or receive
these messages, since this protocol is also helpful when not all the vehicles have a transceiver.
Even when the majority of vehicles do not count with this system, the VCWC protocol brings
benefits to all vehicles.

5.3. MESSAGE DIFFERENCIATION:

The VCWC protocol uses different types of messages. As they have different
priorities, the protocol must support a mechanism of differentiation between messages. Of course
the messages with the highest priority are the EWMs, followed by the forwarded EWMs. The
forwarded EWMs occur when a vehicle receive a EWM and must spread the warning alert to
following vehicles. The third type of messages is the non-time-sensitive messages, with deal with
control tasks, independent of events.
In order to perform this differentiation, the way 802.11 coordinates media
access is analyzed. When a vehicle has a packet to transmit, it has to wait the channel to be idle
during the Interframe Space (IFS). Then, a random backoff is selected to transmit. Different
levels of priorities can be established using different IFS. For example, messages with high
priority use a smaller IFS.

5.4. CONGESTION CONTROL OF EWMs:

It is common that more than one AV coexists in time. For example, if a car stops in the highway
due to a mechanical failure, it remains sending EWMs messages to approaching vehicles and
will remain AV until it is retired from the road. Also, due to the natural chain effect that is
produced in emergency events. The coexisting AVs might send messages at the same time,
leading to packet collisions. The VCWC protocol has to deal with multiple AVs.

Fig 5.1. Typical collision scenario

Another phenomenon might increase the congestion in the network. This is known as
Redundant EWMs. In Figure 5.1 is shown an example of this. Vehicle A suddenly stop, N3
breaks because of A detention. In this case, the EWM sent by N3 and the EWM sent by A are
actually warning about the same event.

10

Fig 5.2 Waiting Time and Retransmission Delay

To ensure a reliable communication over unreliable wireless channel, EWMs
must be repeatedly sent at a certain rate. However, if the retransmission rate is too high, there are
more EWM messages travelling in the same time which leads into a high congestion of the
network. In addition, as an EWM cannot be transmitted until the previous has been transmitted,
the inter-transmission duration of EWMs adds delay to the retransmission delay as shown in
Figure 6.
Delay = Delaywait + Delayretransmission (1)
Figure 5.2 shows the total delay, described by equation 1. Hence, a high
transmission rate would contribute to high congestion, increasing the waiting time (Delaywait).
In the other hand, a low transmission rate would increase the retransmission time
(Delayretransmission). A good balance must be found. The strategy presented in the VCWC
protocol takes into accounts the fact that at the beginning of an accident event the delay must be
minimized.

Fig 5.3 Delay requirement relaxation.

However, once the closer vehicles have been warned, the higher distance with the
approaching cars allows a certain delay relaxation. This is shown in Figure 5.3, where A must
11

quickly alerts N3, but can offer a bigger delay to warn N6. This relaxation delay allows the
VCWC protocol to reduce the transmission rate, and consequently reduce the traffic congestion
in the network.
For this purpose the Decreasing Algorithm for EWMs is presented. The main
idea is to start with a high EWM transmission rate and use a multiplicative decrease. If the
decrease is too slow, the traffic congestion might increase rapidly, with the consequent increase
of the waiting time. On the contrary, if it is decreased too quickly, then the retransmission delay
gets larger and larger.
Empirical experiments and mathematical analysis are executed in [2], to set a function which
optimally decreases the transmission time. The equation is:
F(0,k) = max (min, 0/ak/L) (2)
Where 0 is the initial transmission rate, k is the number of the EWM to transmit, min is the
minimum transmission rate allowed, a is a factor which optimal value according the
mathematical analysis is a=2, and L is the number of transmitted EWMs so far.

5.5. STATE TRANSITIONS OF AVs:

The main goal of the state transition mechanism is to guarantee EWM coverage
avoiding redundant EWMs. Redundant EWMs was first addressed in section VI-D. An initial AV
can enter the non-flagger AV state, if it becomes aware of another node sending the same alert.
Non-flagger AVs do not send any EWMs.

Fig 5.4 State transition diagram.

When a vehicle becomes AV for some reason, it enters in the Initial AV state. Here
the algorithm presented in section VI-D will decrease the transmission rate. In the Non-flagger
12

state the node does not send any EWM, while in the Flagger state the node send EWMs at the
minimum rate min.
In order to retire redundant EWM and reduce traffic congestions, if a node receives an
overheard EWM from a vehicle positioned behind right in the same lane (a follower), this node
enter the Non-Flagger AV state and stop sending EWMs. Thanks to positioning systems (i.e.
GPS) the vehicles are able to detect their followers according the above description of
follower.
All this process happens after a period of time that is denoted Talert Within this period
the node should have been able to send the EWM to the nearest vehicles which are in real
danger.

Fig 5.5 Node A becomes non-flagger.

Such an example is shown in Figure 5.5, where node A stop transmitting EWMs as it
becomes aware that N3 is also sending EWMs. After Talert ,when A overheard EWMs from N3
enters the non-flagger state.

Fig 5.6 Node A becomes flagger.

Following the example in Figure 5.6, it might happen that N3 stops forwarding EWMs
from A. Suppose, for example, that N3 change of lane as shown in Figure 10. Then vehicle A
should warn again possible affected vehicles like N6. For this purpose VCWC protocol make AV
13

to switch between states of non-flagger and flagger AV. After Flagger Timeout (FT) expires, the
node becomes Flagger if it stops receiving overheard EWMs.
Finally the reason to switch from flagger to non-flagger state is the same as when the AV is in the
initial AV: Overheard EWMs are the key to detect redundancy and stop transmitting.
Sometimes, when a vehicle detects an AV ahead, it make breaks dramatically becoming itself an
AV. This natural dissemination makes unnecessary for the VCWC protocol to implement an
emergency forwarding mechanism.

Fig. 5.7 Natural dissemination does not work.

There is a case where the natural dissemination would not occur. In this
scenario, Figure 5.7, A stops suddenly and N3 and N6 receive the corresponding EWM, but
neither N3 nor N6 break strong enough to become an AV. Then N9 which is out of the
communication range of the AV A could have problems to stop in time since it is not aware of
the abnormal behavior that caused the reaction of both N3 and N6.

14

6. APPLICATIONS

Vehicular communication networks will provide a wide range of applications

with different characteristics. As these networks have not yet been implemented, a list of such
applications is speculative and apt to change in the future (However safety, which is the main
purpose of these networks, will most probably remain the most important applications).
Furthermore, some of these applications require technologies that are not available now.
Ultimately we would like to delegate the full handling control of our cars to the vehicles
themselves; somewhat similar to autopilot. The classifications of applications is not unique and
many institutions involved in intelligent transportation systems propose their own set of
applications and classifications. We classify the possible applications in the following categories:
6.1. SAFETY:
Providing safety is the primary objective of vehicular communication networks. Vehicles who
discover an imminent danger such as an obstacle inform others. Electronic sensors in each car
can detect abrupt changes in path or speed and send an appropriate message to neighbors.
Vehicles can notify close vehicles of the direction they are taking so the drivers can make better
decisions; a more advanced version of turn signals. In more advanced systems, at intersections
the system can decide which vehicle has the right to pass first and alert all the drivers. Some of
the immediate applications are:

Warnings on entering intersections.

Warnings on departing the highways

Obstacle discovery

Sudden halts warnings

Reporting accidents

Lane change warnings

6.2. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENTS:

Traffic management is utilized by authorities to ease traffic flow and provide a real time response
to congestions. Authorities may change traffic rules according to a specific situation such as hot
pursuits and bad weather. Applications include:
15

Variable speed limits

Adaptable traffic lights

Automated traffic intersection control

Accommodating ambulances, fire trucks, and police cars

6.3. DRIVER ASSISTANCE SYSTEM:

Roadside units can provide drivers with information which help them in controlling the vehicle.
These may be conventional vehicles driven by humans or they could even be autonomous
vehicles. Even in the absence of RSUs, small transmitters may be able to issue warnings such as
bridge or tunnel height or gate width:

Parking a vehicle

Cruise control

Lane keeping assistance

Roadsign recognition

6.4. POLICING AND ENFORCEMENT:

Police, governments, and private entities can use vehicular communications in several ways:

Surveillance

Speed limit warnings

Restricted entries

Pull-over commands

6.5. PRICING AND PAYMENTS:

Electronic payment results in convenient payments and avoiding congestions caused by toll
collection and makes pricing more manageable. For instance tolls can be variable for weekdays
and weekends and during rush hours:

Toll collecting
16

Parking payments

6.6. DIRECTION AND ROUTE OPTIMIZATION:

For reaching a destination there are usually many different routes. By collecting relevant
information system can find the best paths in terms of travel time, expenses (such as toll and
fuel), Cars can talk to each other to inform you about traffic jams before you reach them so
that you can take less congested road.

6.7. ADVERTISING, TRAVEL-RELATED INFORMATION:

In an unfamiliar town drivers may be assisted to find relevant information about available
services: Businesses could use information about passing vehicles and their movements to target
advertising, or to select outlet locations. Vehicle identification and communications could be
correlated with individuals identity and with handheld devices to extend the range of tracking
and information gathering.

Maps

Business locations

Car services

Gas stations

Location-based service

6.8. GENERAL INFORMATION SERVICES:

As with many other communication networks, vehicular networks can be used to obtain various
content and services (not directly related to traveling). In this respect there are numerous
applications. In the case that wireless vehicular networks are integrated to the Internet, which is
very likely, virtually every application that is currently used in the Internet will find its way to
vehicular networks as well. However applications with lower bandwidth requirements are likely
to become widespread sooner. Some applications can be:

Web surfing
17

File downloads

Email

Gaming

6.9. AUTOMATED HIGHWAYS:

Automated highway is not yet realizable but nevertheless is an important application. In these
highways the vehicles are able to cruise without help of their drivers. This is done by cooperation
between vehicles. For example, each vehicle knows the speed and direction of travel of its
neighboring vehicles through communication with them. The status is updated frequently;
therefore each vehicle can predict the future up to some necessary time.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE

Recognition of collision scenarios and obstacles:

Front to rear and front to front collisions are identified on straight and curved roads.

Algorithm runs and calculates the expected trajectory of the vehicle and relative distances
and velocities of surrounding vehicles.

Based on the analyzed information, it sends information to driver about the safest path
that can be taken.

Automatic deactivation of system:

The system will be ineffective when there is a large snowfall, high precipitation, as there is a
possibility of faulty interpretation of data especially while using laser or ultrasonic sources for
sensing. So, in these cases the system will be automatically turned off.

Future developments:
Use of radar, laser, ultrasonic sensors have certain limitations and will not offer communication
between large number of vehicles, such as vehicles at a junction, etc. So, GPS and wifi are the
two methods by which any type of communication can be achieved in all types of conditions.
18

Automatically analyzing the traffic signs and signals is also possible by incorporation of cameras
onto the vehicles or emission of warning signals directly from the traffic boards which can be
read by the receivers in the vehicle.

REFERENCES
[1] Jawhar, I., Mohamed, N., Zhang, L.: Inter-Vehicular Communication Systems, Protocols and
Middleware. pp. 1--3 (2010)
[2] Yang, X., Liu, J., Zhao, F., Vaidya N. H.: A Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communication Protocol for
Cooperative Collision Warning. pp 1--14. (2003)
[3] Thangavelu, A., Saravanan, K. Rameshbabu, K.: A Middleware Architectural Framework for
Vehicular Safety over VANET (InVANET). pp 277--282 (2009)
[4] Luo, J., Hubaux, J.: A survey of Inter-Vehicle Communication. pp 1--12. (2004)
[5] Bhm, A.: State-of-the-art in networks aspect for Inter-Vehicle communication. pp 1--25.
(2007)
[6] Keskin, U.: In-Vehicle Communication Networks: A literature Survey. pp 14 (2009).
[7] Nekovee., M.: Quantifying Performance Requirements of Vehicle-to Vehicle Communication
Protocols for Rear-end Collision Avoidance. pp 1--5. (2008)

19