Abstract
Intervehicle communication promises to prevent accidents by enabling applications such as crosstraffic assistance. This application requires information from vehicles in nonlineofsight (NLOS) areas due to building at intersection corners. The periodic cooperative awareness messages are foreseen to be sent via 5.9 GHz IEEE 802.11p. While it is known that existing microcell models might not apply well, validated propagation models for vehicular 5.9 GHz NLOS conditions are still missing. In this article, we develop a 5.9 GHz NLOS pathloss and fading model based on realworld measurements at a representative selection of intersections in the city of Munich. We show that (a) the measurement data can very well be fitted to an analytical model, (b) the model incorporates specific geometric aspects in closedform as well as normally distributed fading in NLOS conditions, and (c) the model is of low complexity, thus, could be used in largescale packetlevel simulations. A comparison to existing microcell models shows that our model significantly differs.
1 Introduction
Vehicular communication is envisioned to increase range and coverage of location and behavior awareness of vehicles, thus enabling highly developed proactive safety systems.
The idea is that all vehicles communicate information like position, speed, and heading periodically to other vehicles in cooperative awareness messages to enable the derivation of an environment picture, used as basis for movement prediction. An ad hoc communication technology working on 10 MHz wide frequency bands centered around 5.9 GHz in the U.S./Europe is in development. Medium and physical access is standardized as IEEE 802.11p [1].
For this radio technology, crosstraffic assistance at inner city intersections is one of the most challenging use cases. It needs to monitor two spatial dimensions and is very sensitive to heading estimation inaccuracies [2], thus implying the need for high information update rates. At the same time, the corners at inner city intersections will often be occupied by buildings. They can block the radio lineofsight (LOS). If the LOS is blocked, diffraction, reflection, and refraction of radio waves can enable nonlineofsight (NLOS) reception (Figure 1). But, the relatively high frequency of 5.9 GHz and a difficult radio fading environment might complicate the NLOS reception of packets.
Figure 1. Nonlineofsight (NLOS) radio propagation (here due to reflection) at an urban intersection.
Our analysis of building locations at intersections in the city of Munich [3] showed a need for NLOS reception: If two cars are approaching an intersection with 50 km/h, only 30% of all intersection corners provide LOS at a desired warning point of 3 s [4,5] to a potential impact (≈ intersection center). While road side units (RSU) might rebroadcast messages and reduce the need for NLOS reception, urban street crossings with sparse traffic are likely not to be equipped with a dedicated RSU. Such scenarios require robust signal transmission between vehicles approaching a crossing. These situations predominantly exhibit NLOS radio link conditions between vehicles, motivating to investigate NLOS reception.
First measurements on 5.9 GHz NLOS reception were done with channel sounders in [6] and with offtheshelf radios in [710]. While showing that NLOS reception is generally feasible, they did not investigate the influence of factors like building placement on reception quality. Also, all of them lack a systematic and representative test site selection, questioning the generalizability of results. NLOS pathloss models werealbeit simplisticdeduced in [9,10].
While NLOS models related to vehicletovehicle (V2V) communication exist in cellular researchfor below rooftop base stations [1116], those were only validated at lower frequencies (0.92.1 GHz) and higher transmitter heights (34 m). Therefore, a validated 5.9 GHz NLOS model for V2V communication is still missing.
To gain more insight about 802.11p NLOS reception properties, we performed an extensive field test, specifically targeted to measure the quality of NLOS reception and to characterize propagation [17]. Special attention was paid to a wellfounded selection of representative test cases and to find a test setup that allows for the derivation of predominant influence factors such as interbuilding distance. A comparison of the data to the existing cellular models showed that they cannot be properly applied in the intended scenario.
In consequence, we developedbased on the measurement dataa specific 5.9 GHz NLOS propagation model for intervehicle communication. The proposed pathloss and fading model is intended to be used in packet level load simulations.
The article is organized as follows: our measurements will be presented in Section 2. Subsequently, we will deduce the NLOS pathloss model, called VirtualSource11p, and characterize NLOS smallscale fading in Section 3. Afterwards, we will compare our model to existing models in Section 4.
2 NLOS reception measurement campaign
Proper measurements are inevitable to judge existing models and deduce our new specific one. Therefore, a summarization of our measurements as published in [17] is provided here.
2.1 Test design
We used offtheshelf radios to measure the channel in terms of per packet reception power values. While radios cannot provide detailed insight into the impulse response of the channel such as channel sounders do, the collected data provide the same per packet generalization as packet level simulators assume. With respect to limitations in reproducibility and traffic synchronization, we opted against a setup with two vehicles independently moving against each other. Our solution is a discretization of the transmitter (tx) position, with the receiver (rcv) driving on the crossing street. Consequently, we split the dimension tx↔rcv into tx↔center (of intersection) and center↔rcv. The measurement design is visualized in Figure 2, showing the fixed transmitter and moving receiver vehicle. By default, we tested two tx↔center distances on each side street, 30 and 60 m to the center, corresponding to 2 and 4 s to center at 50 km/h. An additional position near the intersection center (0 m) was tested for LOS comparison.
Figure 2. Test design. Transmitter positioned at discrete distance to center. Receiver driving on crossing street. Example shows transmitter positions in one streetleg. We tested with transmitter placed in all four legs.
2.2 Used hardware
The receiver was integrated into a BMW 5 Series GT. GPS information was taken from the CAN bus, providing a high accuracy position (GPS data are enhanced by vehicle sensor data and map matching). A tripod with 35 × 35 cm metal plate at a height of 1.45 m was used as the transmitter mount as it is well placeable. Also, a vehicle would have blocked other traffic.
We used a LinkBirdMX V3 [18] 802.11p communication box by NEC containing two DCMA82N1 MiniPCI cards with Atheros 802.11 radio chips. To resemble a closetoproduction system, we used small lowprofile puck antennas from Nippon Antenna. They provide a gain of 0 dB at 0° (= horizon) and +5 dB at 15°. Each antenna cable inherits a loss of 2.4 dB. These values are according to the corresponding data sheets.
2.3 Systematic intersection selection
The urban canyon microcellular NLOS models predict the influence of geometrical aspects, probably most important of the interbuilding distance in a side street (≡ side street width). The general assumption is: the smaller this distance, the less power in NLOS in the crossing street. An intuitive explanation of this observationa better view into the side streetis visualized in Figure 3. We intended to verify this observation by selecting intersections with the same as well as with differing width.
Figure 3. Exemplary visualization of change of LOS/NLOS area size and propagation by increase of interbuilding distance from 20 to 30 m. The increased reflection angle in the right leads to a farther propagation of the reflected wave into the crossing street.
To achieve generalizable results, a prototype intersection ("Main Case") was defined as found by clustering in [3], whose geometry is representative for ≈50% of all traffic intersections in Munich. Those intersections exhibit an interbuilding distance between 20 and 25 m in each side street. Intersections with 90° angles were selected for comparability. Since the classification is based on nearest building vertex, and front gardens (with bushes and trees) can further limit the field of view, we suspected suburban intersections to provide worse reception conditions at similar distances into the crossing street compared to urban ones. To be able to check the influence, we selected three suburban and one urban ones with the "Main Case" dimensions, identified by ID 1, 2, 3 and 10 in Table 1.
Table 1. Tested intersections
To check the influence of street width, we selected one urban intersection with 30 m width (ID 20), and another inbetween (ID 11). A really wide one (ID 21) and one with only two occupied corners (ID 9) complete the selection.
2.4 Parameters, evaluation and results
We tested, in general, with 3 Mbps and 20 dBm transmission power. The transmission frequency was 100 Hz and payload 200 Bytes. With headers, packets had a size of 258 Bytes.
The transmitter positioning and test of 4leg intersections leads to 20 runs for a typical tested intersection (see Figure 2). In total, we tested 71 txpositions and performed ≈170 runs. Table 2 shows an overview of the resulting setup. We generated reception power/rate versus rcv↔center distance plots and a mapbased result visualization for each run, available at [19]. One of those plots is shown in Figure 4. Averaged results over back/forth run showed that for one tx↔center distance, the results from all four side streets are mostly very similar, as can be seen in Figure 5. Therefore, we also produced intersection wide averages per tx↔center distance. For 60 m tx↔center distance, they are visualized in Figure 6.
Table 2. NLOS reception testing configuration
Figure 4. Three step evaluationpart 1. One of the 170 tests. Intersection 10, 60 m tx↔center distance, Transmitter in street 1.
Figure 5. Three step evaluationpart 2. Backforth run averaged. Transmitter street comparison, intersection 10, 60 m tx↔center distance.
Figure 6. Three step evaluationpart 3. Intersection comparison, intersection wide average per tx↔center distance (here 60 m).
Figure 6 shows that intersections with same street width and setting (suburban intersections 1, 2, 3) exhibit the same performance, and that pathloss decreases with increased street width (compare urban intersections 10, 11, 20, and 21 with increasing width). Suburban intersections have an estimated 34 dB less rcvpower compared to urbans with same width (urban intersection 10 against suburban 1, 2, 3). In general, NLOS reception is well feasible, with 50% or more reception rate at 50 m to center for transmitter and receiver.
3 NLOS propagation model development
Subsequent, we deduce a specific vehicular 5.9 GHz NLOS pathloss modelVirtualSource11pfrom the measurements and characterize smallscale fading in NLOS areas.
3.1 Data quality and system loss
To deduce pathloss and fading from an oftheshelf radio, it needs to provide reliable reception power values. We got per packet reception power values with 1 dBm resolution via the level value in the iw_statistics.iw_quality struct from a SIOCGIWSTATS socket call. Measured values equal to the reported values in iwconfig and the Linkbird wlan11p tool. Observed values range between 5 and 92 dBm. This corresponds well to the reception sensitivity of 92 as reported in data sheets such as [20]. Figure 7 shows the good quality of the reported power values over time for two exemplary 20 m street stretches. Differences in smallscale fading between NLOS and LOS are clearly visible. The resulting power histograms (compare Figure twelve in later Section 3.3) show very reasonable results too. More of these detailed plots are available at the website [19] covering this work.
Figure 7. Detailed look at the measured power values over time. Data are from intersection 3, For 20 m stretches on lane 1 and drive direction from lane 1 to 3. The plot reveals how well the radiochip reports power values: In LOS, the smallscale fading power curve is clearly visible. In contrast, the sample rate of 100 Hz is not high enough to produce a clear curve of the faster fading channel in NLOS, leading to the more chaotic power distribution in the NLOS measurement.
There was only one issue: power histograms revealed that there are no packets reported with 69, 68 and 67 dBm. A figure illustrating this can be seen on the website [19]. The same gap can be seen in [21]. We believe that the chipset changes its sensitivity in this power range, and reports values above 69 dBm by 3 dB too strong. We corrected this by subtracting 3 dB from all reported values >69 dBm. The reported reception sensitivity was not changed by the correction.
We measured received power, where in dBm space: RxPower = Txpower  SystemLoss  PathLoss. To determine pathloss, we need to know system loss. The cables lead to a combined loss of ≈ 4.8dB and the antennas to a gain of two times some value between 0 (0°) and 5 dB (15°).
To determine the average loss, we took the LOS measurements from most intersections (excluding free space, special case 9, and 1) and determined the deviation between average power curve and the theoretical limit. The fit equation used is
It comprises the common Log Distance model and free space path loss (FSPL) for determination of reference loss. Unfortunately, curve attenuation interferes with slope variation. Therefore, three fits were performed (Variable, SL = 0, LE = 2). Figure 8 visualizes fit input and results. We limited the fit input to 20 < x < 150 m, as packet loss occurred at x < 150 m and small distances are inaccurate as the transmitter was not exactly positioned in intersection centers.
Figure 8. Determination of system loss by theory comparison.
The fit reveals a loss of 2.75 dB with LE = 2. With SL = 0, it shows a loss exponent of 2.1, being higher as in FSPL. Subsequently, we will assume 1.75 dB system loss, as revealed by fitting both variables. The resulting average gain of 1.5 dB per antenna seems realistic, given its characteristic. Note that such loss determination absorbs the problem that real transmitted power might slightly differ from the configured value.
3.2 NLOS pathloss model development
To determine pathloss with respect to variable streetwidth and suburban/urban differences, we fit the intersection wide average power distance curves of multiple intersections (such as in Figure 6) to a unified pathloss equation. The basis for our fit equation is the cellular model proposed in [14]. The original VirtualSource equation (as given in [14], but indices modified to Figure 9 and as positive pathloss in dB) is
Figure 9. Basic VirtualSource11p pathloss model parameters.
The model takes the distance of transmitter and receiver to intersection center (d_{t }and d_{r}), receiver street width (w_{r}), and distance of transmitter to wall (x_{t}) as input. Last two values reflect building position influence. Adaption to differing streets is enabled by a street parameter (α). A higher loss is present at high rcvdistances (due to a diffraction, rather than reflection predominance), determined by a break even distance (d_{b}).
The geometric input parameters d_{t}, d_{r}, w_{r}, h_{r}, h_{t}, and x_{t }are given by the measured data. Therefore, we first fitted the pathloss exponent and α. As both are fitted globally, α represents a relative shift of the fitting curve. These first fits showed that especially the influence of street width w_{r }is not properly reflected by the existing equation. Therefore, we replaced the fixed factor for x_{t}w_{r }by a fittable exponent. As d_{t }also influences the "view" and therefore energy into a crossing street, it was also made fittable. A suburban loss factor was added to incorporate the observation of less power in suburban scenarios from Section 2.4. The following fit equation (in dBm) was found:
Value i_{s }is specifying suburban (i_{s }= 1) or urban (i_{s }= 0). As d_{b }≈ 180 m for our setup, which exceeds the highest distance d_{r }with reception, the d_{r }> d_{b }equation is of no use for the fitting.
The final fit to determine the five variable parameters is visualized in Figure 10. We fitted the intersection wide average median reception power per txdistance curve. Each of these curves abstracts (averages) eight measurements, thus providing a stable input to the fit and keeping the complexity on a moderate level. We showed in [17] that this averaging is viable, as the performance is very similar despite the transmitter being in the different side streets.
Figure 10. Fit of measured values to NLOS pathloss equation.
The fit input values are form the regular shaped (≈90° and w_{t }≈ w_{r}) intersections with buildings at each corner: intersection 2, 3, 10, 11, and 20, with w_{r }being 21, 21, 23, 26 and 30 m, respectively, and intersection 2 and 3 having i_{s }= 1. The fitted measurements have d_{t }values of 30 and 60 m (plus 100 m for intersection 11).
Each input value (visualized as a cross in Figure 10) is complemented by the reception rate in the bin and the intersection wide w_{r }and i_{s }values as input to the equation and for preselection. w_{r }is set to as w_{t }and w_{r }were selected similar per intersection and we fit intersection wide average values. System loss is set to 1.75 dB and (as this dimension was not tested).
We did not fit intersection 1, 9, and 21 due to differing reasons: intersection 1 was the very first tested intersection. Here, we measured with alternating transmission power (20 dB, 10 dB) and rate (3 Mbps, 6 Mbps) in each second. In consequence, there are spatial gaps in the data for each of the four configurations, leading to empty bins at the 5 m bin width in the fit. Anyhow, the performance is very close to intersection 2 and 3, as shown in [17]. Intersection 9 has missing reflection facades. This dimension was not incorporated in the fit, as it would have complicated the fit by another dimension. Furthermore, we only tested one intersection of such type (as it is rare), leading to insufficient data to provide a reliable fit in this additional dimension. Intersection 21 was excluded due to two reasons: First, one of the street legs has a non 90° angle. Second, the interbuilding distance in the two streets differs a lot (55 m against 30 m). It is questionable whether the averaging over the four side street simplification is applicable for this particular intersection. Despite the exclusion of these three intersections, the fit covers 11 data rows from five intersections, stemming from 88 testruns.
We fitted the median reception power curve, as it is more stable at lower reception rates. The average reception power curve suffers (bin values are too high) from incomplete data as soon as the reception rate sinks below 1.0. The median is technically accurate as long as reception rate is greater than 0.5. However, due to smallscale fading leading to variations and potential measurement inaccuracies around the reception threshold of the radio, median values also turn out to be slightly too high at reception rates close to 0.5. This is visible in plots. To prevent a negative influence on the fit, an exclusion criterion of receptionrate >0.65 was selected.
We also excluded small distances to center, as they are in LOS. The root mean square (RMS) error of the fit showed that x > 10 m is a good exclusion criterion: RMS error decreases from 2.4 with x > 0 to 0.8 with x > 10, but not much further with higher x. The very low RMS error of 0.8 corresponds to the good fit quality (compare input values to resulting model curves in Figure 10). The resulting VirtualSource11p pathloss equation, as determined by the fit, is
Despite the no available measurement data for high d_{r }distances, an increased loss at high distances (d_{r }> d_{b}) due to diffraction rather than reflection being dominant is incorporated (as in [11,12,14,15]).
Note that close to intersection center, loss is really low (similar to FSPL having a heavy slope close to 0). Figure 11 depicts a representative example for intersection 10. In consequence, the VirtualSource11p pathloss equation only applies to NLOS conditions and not to the complete crossing street. At LOS on the crossing street, either the normal LOS pathloss should be used with distance as d_{t }+ d_{r }or a percental value between LOS at intersection center and NLOS value at the first point of NLOS. The latter is potentially more accurate.
Figure 11. Power over distancemeasurements and model.
3.3 NLOS smallscale fading classification
Smallscale fading leads to a distribution of power values around an average value. Figure 12 shows the different power probability distributions of received packets for different distances to the center in suburban intersection 3. It reveals e.g. a high variation in the 1020 m bin as it includes LOS and NLOS conditions, or a variance limitation due to failed receptions (measurement limitation) for larger distances.
Figure 12. Power distribution in different distances to center in NLOS.
To determine fading in NLOS conditions, we centered the power probability distribution curves to their average and compared curves from different intersections for a certain street stretch in NLOS. Figure 13 shows the curves for d_{t }= 30 m and bin 4050 m. This stretch exhibits NLOS conditions for all intersections and is in most cases (except probably intersection 2) not influenced by the radio reception limit. The curves from different intersections show a very similar shape. While they fit well to both, Nakagamim and the Normal Distribution, the RMS error is slightly smaller for the Normal Distribution. Using visual judgment, they clearly match the Normal Distribution better. Therefore, we propose to model fading in NLOS as a normal distribution with σ = 4.1 dB.
Figure 13. NLOS fading determination. Power distribution around average for receptions in 4050 m to center stretch in cross street.
For LOS conditions, we were able to verify that a 5.9 GHz vehicular channel is properly modeled by the often assumed Nakagamim = 1 distribution. The corresponding fit is given in Figure 14. It reveals a good visible match to the Nakagami curve with fitted m = 1.05.
Figure 14. LOS fading determination. Power distribution around average for receptions in 4050 m to intersection center.
4 Pathloss model comparison
In this section, we compare our model to previously proposed NLOS models. One was measured under Car2X conditions at 790 MHz, the rest are microcellular models for urban street canyons where base stations are typically located inside street canyons, for example at signal lights. Note that we do not compare with the models in [9,10], as they do not take important influence factors such as streetwidth into account.
The models and their claimed validity (or verification setup) are given in Table 3. A model based on car to infrastructure measurements at 790 MHz was proposed in [22] by Toyota staff. Two different microcellular models are provided in the ITUR P14115 recommendation for planning of short range communication systems [12]; one in section 4.2.3 for 0.82 GHz, the other in 4.2.4 for claimed 216 GHz and low height terminals, but receive street width w_{r }limited to <10 m. The second model seems to be based on [13]. Another urban microcell model stems from the WINNER II propagation measurement project [11]. It has been selected in the iTETRIS EUproject [23] to model urban 5.9 GHz V2V communication by adapting the frequency and transmitter height. At last, [15] is an analytical model based on propagation theory as used in raytracing. It was used in a reparameterized way in the CORNER 5.9 GHz V2V simulation implementation proposed in [8].
Table 3. Street canyon NLOS model comparison
All models except the second ITUR model are only specified for up to 2 GHz and h_{t }> 4 m. Also, those models are not based on measurements with vehicular ground plate antennas as in our measurements, except the receiver side in [22]. In iTETRIS, the model was not verified with the new environment parameters; in CORNER only very briefly. Our model was derived from measurements in 5 intersections and 11 losscurves, based upon 88 test runs.
We implemented all pathloss equations in gnuplot to compare them against our intervehicle measurements and the proposed VirtualSource11p model. Figure 15 shows the resulting received power when configured same as our measurements in intersection 10 with tx↔center distance d_{t }= 30 m. All models are configured with their proposed default configuration. It can be seen that the models selected in CORNER and iTETRIS differ to our measurements by 10 dB and more in critical NLOS areas. Only the P14115 216 GHz and the Toyota model come close to the measurements in this scenario. Note that the very low pathloss of the Toyota model in LOS is a strange behavior of their formula when parameterized to 5.9 GHz; at specified 0.79 GHz, the curve is just below FSPL.
Figure 15. Model comparison. 5.9 GHz, 20 dBm txpower, 1.75 dB SystemLoss, 30 m tx↔center distance, 1.5 m tx/rcvheight, 23 m tx/rcvStreetWidth, urban, intersection 10 measurement.
Obviously, the VirtualSource11p model shows a very good accordance to measurements due to its fitting based development. Comparisons to the other tested scenarios reveal similar results and show that our model especially follows changes in the street width better than the P14115 216GHz and the Toyota model.
5 Conclusion
With VirtualSource11p, we present a well validated, low complexity NLOS pathloss model for 5.9 GHz V2V communications at intersections. It was deduced from data collected in an extensive measurement campaign, specifically targeted to measure NLOS reception quality. A founded selection of test intersections enabled to quantify the influence of interbuilding distance and suburban/urban differences in a single pathloss equation with only a few simple geometric inputvalues.
Due to its fittingbased generation, the equation corresponds well to measurement data in different scenarios, especially with changing interbuilding distances. In contrast, existing street canyon NLOS pathloss models for microcellular environments at lower frequencies differ mostly substantially from the measurements when parameterized to 5.9 GHz V2V communication. Of course, our model is also limited in its validity to the measurement environment it is based on. While we certainly did not cover every special case, we selected the test intersections as representative as possible, building upon an own building positioning investigation [3]. To the best of our knowledge, this is a novel approach and has not been done before.
In addition to pathloss, we investigated NLOS fading, finding a normal distributed power variation around average. In conclusion, this article provides a wellfounded general framework to include NLOS propagation conditions into packet level simulations of 5.9 GHz intervehicle communication, thus enabling largescale load simulations in intersection environments.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Matthias Michl, who worked with us at the underlying measurements during his Bachelor Thesis.
References

IEEE Standards Association, IEEE P802.11p/D11.0, Draft Part 11: WLAN MAC and PHY Specifications: Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE)

G Nitz, F Klanner, Evaluation Of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems For Supportive Brake Application. Proceedings of FISITA 2008 World Automotive Congress, Munich 2008

T Mangel, F Schweizer, T Kosch, H Hartenstein, Vehicular Safety Communication at Intersections: Buildings, NonLineOfSight and Representative Scenarios. 8th International Conference on Wireless OnDemand Network Systems and Services (WONS), Bardonecchia (2011)

INTERSAFE2  An FP7 Project Funded By The EUROPEAN COMMISSION, User Needs and Operational Requirements for a Cooperative Intersection Safety System  Deliverable D3.1

TRL Limited on behalf of the EU Commission, Automated Emergency Brake Systems: Technical requirements, costs and benefits

J Karedal, F Tufvesson, T Abbas, O Klemp, A Paier, L Bernado, AF Molisch, Radio Channel Measurements at Street Intersections for VehicletoVehicle Safety Applications. 2010 IEEE 71st Vehicular Technology Conference (2010)

R Miucic, T Schaffnit, Communication in Future Vehicle Cooperative Safety Systems: 5.9 GHz DSRC NonLineofSight Field Testing. SAE International Journal of Passenger CarsElectronic and Electrical Systems 2, 56 (2009)

E Giordano, R Frank, G Pau, M Gerla, CORNER: a Realistic Urban Propagation Model for VANET. Wireless Ondemand Network Systems and Services, 1–4 (2010)

C Sommer, D Eckhoff, R German, F Dressler, A Computationally Inexpensive Empirical Model of IEEE 802.11p Radio Shadowing in Urban Environments. 8th International Conference on Wireless OnDemand Network Systems and Services, WONS, Bardonecchia (2011)

M Schack, J Nuckelt, R Geise, L Thiele, T Kurner, Comparison of path loss measurements and predictions at urban crossroads for C2C communications. 5th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EUCAP), Rome: IEEE, 2896–2900 (2011)

ITUR, Recommendation ITUR P.14115: Propagation data and prediction methods for the planning of shortrange outdoor radio communication systems and radio local area networks in the frequency range 300MHz to 100 GHz. ITUR Rec (2009)

V Erceg, S Ghassemzadeh, M Taylor, L Dong, DL Schilling, Urban/Suburban OutofSight Propagation Modeling. IEEE Communications Magazine 30(6), 56–61 (1992). Publisher Full Text

HM ElSallabi, Fast path loss prediction by using virtual source technique for urban microcells. IEEE 51th Vehicular Technology Conference  VTC 2000Spring, 2183–2187 (2000)

Q Sun, S Tan, K Teh, Analytical formulae for path loss prediction in urban street grid microcellular environments. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 1251–1258 (2005)

L Denegri, L Bixio, F Lavagetto, A Iscra, C Braccini, An Analytical Model of Microcellular Propagation in Urban Canyons. IEEE 65th Vehicular Technology Conference  VTC2007Spring (2007)

T Mangel, M Michl, O Klemp, H Hartenstein, RealWorld Measurements of NonLineOfSight Reception Quality for 5.9GHz IEEE 802.11p at Intersections. 3rd International Workshop on Communication Technologies for Vehicles (Nets4Cars), Oberpfaffenhofen, Munich, Germany (2011)

T Mangel, Website to this article: Complete measurement evaluation (all plots and map based) and interactive model [http://dsn.tm.kit.edu/download/bmw/nlos_model/] webcite

ddwrt.com: MiniPCI WiFi Module: DCMA82 [http://www.ddwrt.com/shop/catalog/pdf/dcma82.pdf] webcite

R Miucic, Z Popovic, SM Mahmud, Experimental characterization of DSRC signal strength drops. 12th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, ITSC, St. Louis (2009)

S Sai, E Niwa, K Mase, M Nishibori, J Inoue, M Obuchi, T Harada, H Ito, K Mizutani, M Kizu, Field evaluation of UHF radio propagation for an ITS safety system in an urban environment. IEEE Communications Magazine 47(11), 120–127 (2009)

iTETRIS  An Integrated Wireless and Traffic Platform for RealTime Road Traffic Management Solutions, D4.1 V2V Wireless Communications Modeling