2014 IEEE 80th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2014-Fall) 2014
DOI: 10.1109/vtcfall.2014.6965879
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Analysis of Medium Access Protocols for Power Line Communication Realizing In-Car Networks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3
3

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In Fig. 6, the modified HPGP [18] is adopted to cope with more nodes, i.e., 10 nodes, the HPGP based solution performs even better than the standard CAN and thus can better cope with a large node scenarios. It is worth noting that the number of contending nodes over a single bus in vehicle should be properly designed in order to satisfy the hard delay requirement.…”
Section: B Simulation Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In Fig. 6, the modified HPGP [18] is adopted to cope with more nodes, i.e., 10 nodes, the HPGP based solution performs even better than the standard CAN and thus can better cope with a large node scenarios. It is worth noting that the number of contending nodes over a single bus in vehicle should be properly designed in order to satisfy the hard delay requirement.…”
Section: B Simulation Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is clear that when collision happens, i.e., BPC >= 1, the worst delay performance cannot satisfy the hard requirement of in-vehicle control and safety applications, which is largely because of the beacon periods incurred by the retransmission. For the cases when more nodes need to access the channel, our work [20] and [18] have proposed modified HPGP solutions to achieve collision free transmission for in-vehicle networks, which is out of scope of this paper. Compared with Table I, the worst delay bounds obtained show that it is not recommended to use HPGP in a direct manner for delay-critical in-vehicle communications, particularly when the number of nodes and priorities are not properly configured to avoid collision.…”
Section: Collision Impact On Delay Performancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The adoption of HomePlug into vehicle communications has been considered until recently [26]- [28], in which the authors proposed modified HomePlug and IEEE 1901 protocols for in-car PLC. However, it is not clear what is the fundamental limit of the solution in handling time-critical invehicle data transmission.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The CAN bus, which is used in powertrain and driver assistant control domains, can support up to 8 byte data but with stringent delay and transmission rate requirements. Therefore, given a typical invehicle frame length of up to 8 byte, we consider the same case [26] where the short MAC protocol Data Unit (MPDU) with only frame control (128 bits) is employed by HPGP for in-vehicle communications purposes. Therefore, the equivalent total frame length of short MPDU can be derived as as L s = 2500 bits, which includes the aforementioned protocol overhead and data frame.…”
Section: B Data Modelingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…PLCs are designed to transfer high level of data rate that is undesirable in-vehicle field because it causes somewhat high protocol overhead. However, according to (T. Gehrsitz, 2014), it is possible to optimize HomePlug GP protocol to meet in-vehicular communication requirements. In this paper, it has been shown that optimized HomePlug GP could be a valid candidate for in-vehicular communication because it provides prioritization according to importance of each message as CAN does.…”
Section: In-vehicle Communicationmentioning
confidence: 99%