Geometry-Based Channel Modelling for Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communication: A Review

Abstract

Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communication has received a lot of attention over recent years since it can improve the efficiency and safety of roads for drivers and travellers besides other numerous applications. However dynamic nature of this environment makes it difficult to come up with a suitable wireless communication channel model that can be used in the simulation of any V2V communication system. This paper reviews the recent techniques used for geometry-based stochastic channel modelling for V2V communication. It starts by presenting the various classes of wireless communication channel models available in the literature with more emphasis on the Geometry-Based Stochastic channel Models (GBSM). Then the paper discusses in more detail the state of the art of the regular-shaped and irregular-shaped GBSM for the two- and three-dimensional models. Finally, main challenges are identified and future research directions in this area are recommended.

Path Loss and Shadowing Modeling for Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications in Terrestrial TV Band

“…Among the advanced tools making use of the stochastic geometry, a commonly used V2V channel propagation model for 5.9 GHz is the Geometry-based Efficient propagation model for V2V communication (GEMV 2 ) proposed in [15], [16]. It requires modeling the shape of each building and car in the considered scenario.…”

Statistical Characteristics of 3D MIMO Channel Model for Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications

“…However, the WSSUS assumptions can be still fulfilled for V2V radio channels over the small time periods [26]. Therefore, the V2V radio channel inside the tunnel is assumed to be WSSUS in our analysis.…”

“…The WSSUS means actually firstand second-order stationarity in both time and frequency domains (wide-sense stationarity in time, uncorrelated scattering in delay) and holds in successive time and frequency interval. According to the measurement campaign in [25,26], the stationary interval, in which the WSSUS assumption is still valid for V2V environments, is substantially smaller than the observation interval. This implies that in V2V channels, the WSSUS assumptions are not being fulfilled in most of the cases.…”