However, there is a lack of systematic approach to achieve the performance requirements by leveraging the full potential of IEEE 802.11p and LTE-V2V hybrid which promises to improve driving safety [1]. Most researches also do not take into consideration the wide range of parameters like outage probability and beacon periodicity together with varying traffic densities for performance evaluation with different models like clustering and interface selection [2] [3]. Literature survey till now show that there is no fixed system model which can prove the optimal use of Dedicated Short-Range Communication as a hybrid system. One of the research shows that an intelligent interface selection scheme for the vehicle-based device which applied heterogeneous access technology with LTE and IEEE 802.11p. Another attempt towards hybrid system proposes a novel approach towards content distribution in hybrid LTE and IEEE 802.11p vehicular networks. The protocol employs a two-level clustering where IEEE 802.11p-based V2V communications in a high-density vehicular environment is the first cluster, and the second-level clustering is responsible for selecting gateway nodes which bridge V2V and LTE. Further Through computer simulations, it shows that protocol can provide a better performance than the existing baselines in various scenarios, achieving 23% throughput improvement in high-density scenarios. The project mainly focuses on comparing the performance of both DSRC and LTE-V2V system models on metrics like throughput, vehicular density, collision probability, etc. for various roadside conditions(mainly urban). The motive of the work is to propose a method/algorithm to optimize the use of both the standards to achieve better performance than before as an outcome. The algorithm is devised using the performance evaluation made in the first part of the project. The simulations will be realized using MATLAB as key tool. Further, the study can be extended by virtually simulating actual reality on platforms like OMNeT++ and SUMO.

1. Damodar Rajbhandari
System performance of IEEE 802.11p and LTE hybrid coexisting on a shared
frequency band with high mobility and dense traffic (Urban area) conditions for ITS
Performance Analysis IEEE 802.11p & LTE Hybrid 1
CSP 510 Advance Wireless Communication
Prasann Patel
Department of Information and Communication Technology
School of Engineering and Applied Science
prasann.p.btechi15@ahduni.edu.in
April 21, 2018
Sprint Review 2

2. Outline
Prasann PatelApril 21, 2018 Performance Analysis IEEE 802.11p & LTE Hybrid 2
1. Background
1.1. Literature Survey
2. Motivation
2.1. Assumptions/Limitation
3. Summary,Sprint Review-1
4. Problem Formulation
4.1. Network Architecture of Hybrid System
4.2. System Model
4.3. Performance Metric
5. Performance Analysis of IEEE 802.11p & LTE Hybrid System
6. Results (2x2 Format)
6.1. Result-I
6.2. Result-II
7. Future Work
8. End/Question(s)
9. Supporting Slides

3. Background (Current state of art)
Prasann PatelApril 21, 2018 Performance Analysis IEEE 802.11p & LTE Hybrid 3
1. Co-existence of LTE and IEEE 802.11p (DSRC).
1.1. Exponentially growing wireless-data
1.2. Limited N/W capacity
2. Cooperative Awareness of connected vehicles.
2.1. Beaconing : Continuous/periodic broadcast of information
2.1.1. Vehicle type
2.1.2. State
2.1.3. Speed
2.1.4. Location etc..
3. HOW?
3.1. Cluster based
3.1.1. Single-hop
3.1.2. Multi-hop
3.2. Interface selection

4. Literature Survey (Cluster based)
Prasann PatelApril 21, 2018 Performance Analysis IEEE 802.11p & LTE Hybrid 4
Prasann PatelMarch 7, 2018 Performace Analysis IEEE 802.11p & LTE Hybrid 4
[1] Source : E. Yaacoub, N. Zorba, "Enhanced connectivity in vehicular ad-hoc networks via V2V communications", Proc. 9th IWCMC, pp. 1654-1659,
Jul. 2015.
[2] Source : C. Wu, T. Yoshinaga, X. Chen, L. Zhang and Y. Ji, "Cluster-Based Content Distribution Integrating LTE and IEEE 802.11p with Fuzzy Logic and
Q-Learning," in IEEE Comput. Intell. Mag., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 41-50, Jan. 2018.
Integration of LTE and IEEE 802.11p with Multi-hop
clustering (the edge cluster head nodes are
generated by the first-level clustering, and the
gateway cluster head nodes are generated by the
second-level clustering).

5. Literature Survey (Interface selection)
Prasann PatelApril 21, 2018 Performance Analysis IEEE 802.11p & LTE Hybrid 5
Prasann PatelMarch 7, 2018 Performace Analysis IEEE 802.11p & LTE Hybrid 5
Prasann Patel 5
[3] Source : J. Park, W. H. Lee and S. S. Lee, "An intelligent interface selection scheme for vehicular communication system using LTE and IEEE
802.11p," 2016 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology Convergence (ICTC), Jeju, 2016, pp. 868-870.

6. Motivation
Prasann PatelApril 21, 2018 Performance Analysis IEEE 802.11p & LTE Hybrid 6
1. Limitation of IEEE 802.11p
1.1. Limited Channels (1-Control & 6-Service).
1.2. Higher level of error under heavy traffic.
1.3. Deployment of completely new RSU devices at large scale (Very costly!)
1.4. At higher distance (>300m) → High collision rate due to hidden terminals.
2. Advantages of LTE-V2V
2.1. Better if larger awareness range is targeted.
2.2. Same technology as cellular communications → exploiting the same hardware and most protocols.
2.3. Vehicles are already becoming equipped with a cellular interfaces.
2.4. Base stations are already deployed in large numbers.
3. Why not just use LTE then ?
3.1. half-duplex nature of devices and LTE frames → lower capacity than IEEE 802.11p if short distances and
very high vehicle density are targeted.
3.2. Poor latency performance (Release v.14).

7. Summary, Sprint Review 1
Prasann PatelApril 21, 2018 Performance Analysis IEEE 802.11p & LTE Hybrid 7
Performance analysis of IEEE 802.11p under following conditions :
1. Collision probability vs. distance
1.1. Dense (ρ > 0.2)
1.2. Moderate
1.3. Sparse (ρ < 0.05)
2. Max. Beacon Periodicity vs. densities
2.1. Collision Probability
2.1.1. Pc = 0.01
2.1.2. Pc = 0.1
2.2. Awareness Range
2.2.1. 200m
2.2.2. 400m

8. Summary, Sprint Review 1 (Max. Beacon Periodicity vs. densities)
Prasann PatelApril 21, 2018 Performance Analysis IEEE 802.11p & LTE Hybrid 8

9. Summary, Sprint Review 1 (Collision probability vs. distance)
Prasann PatelApril 21, 2018 Performance Analysis IEEE 802.11p & LTE Hybrid 9

10. Problem Formulation
Prasann PatelApril 21, 2018 Performance Analysis IEEE 802.11p & LTE Hybrid 10
Beacon Periodicity (BP) ῤ or ḟb
: Frequency at which the OBU transmits safety messages.
The two technologies are compared either with the same ρ (density) in terms of maximum BP, denoted by ḟb
,
or with the same ḟb
in terms of maximum vehicle density, denoted by ˆρ.
Tradeoff : Higher BP implies that more frequent updates are possible, thus increasing safety, whereas a
higher vehicle density implies that the given BP can be supported in heavier traffic conditions.
How frequently a beacon should be transmitted is a critical issue ?

11. System Model & Network Architecture
Prasann PatelApril 21, 2018 Performance Analysis IEEE 802.11p & LTE Hybrid 11
H(0) : d < 300m, Pc < 0.1 → DSRC (11p)
Cluster Formation & Message Broadcast
H(1) : o/w → LTE-V2V
Mathematical system model is yet not defined
in any previous literatures.

12. Analytical Framework & Parameters
Prasann PatelApril 21, 2018 Performance Analysis IEEE 802.11p & LTE Hybrid 12
1. Collision Probability
• Visible
• Hidden terminals
• Capture Effect
2. Vehicular density (Poisson distributed)
• Dense ( ρ > 0.2) → 30 vehicles/km/lane
• Moderate
• Sparse ( ρ < 0.05 )
3. Max. Beacon Periodicity
4. Awareness range (Source-destination distance)

13. Algorithm I
Prasann PatelApril 21, 2018 Performance Analysis IEEE 802.11p & LTE Hybrid 13

14. Algorithm II
Prasann PatelApril 21, 2018 Performance Analysis IEEE 802.11p & LTE Hybrid 14

15. Algorithm II
Prasann PatelApril 21, 2018 Performance Analysis IEEE 802.11p & LTE Hybrid 15

16. Results (Max. Beacon Periodicity vs. densities)
Prasann PatelApril 21, 2018 Performance Analysis IEEE 802.11p & LTE Hybrid 16

17. Results (Max. Beacon Periodicity vs. densities)
Prasann PatelApril 21, 2018 Performance Analysis IEEE 802.11p & LTE Hybrid 17

18. Results (Collision/Outage probability vs. distance for various densities)
Prasann PatelApril 21, 2018 Performance Analysis IEEE 802.11p & LTE Hybrid 18

19. Future Work
Prasann PatelApril 21, 2018 Performance Analysis IEEE 802.11p & LTE Hybrid 19
1. Package delivery ratio
2. End-to-end delay : directly proportional to vehicular density in both standards
3. Throughput : throughput is bound to increase if BP is increased
4. Avg. speed : E.g. Packet delivery ratio and end-to-end delay should remains almost constant w.r.t
speed in LTE but not in IEEE 802.11p

20. Damodar Rajbhandari Performance Analysis IEEE 802.11p & LTE Hybrid 20April 21, 2018
The End
Thank-you
Questions?
prasann.p.btechi15@ahduni.edu.in

21. Supporting Slide - I
Prasann PatelApril 15, 2018 Performance Analysis IEEE 802.11p & LTE Hybrid 21
[4] Source : A. Bazzi, B. M. Masini, A. Zanella and I. Thibault, "On the Performance of IEEE 802.11p and LTE-V2V for the Cooperative Awareness of
Connected Vehicles," in IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 66, no. 11, pp. 10419-10432, Nov. 2017.

22. Supporting Slide - II
Prasann PatelApril 15, 2018 Performance Analysis IEEE 802.11p & LTE Hybrid 22
[4] Source : A. Bazzi, B. M. Masini, A. Zanella and I. Thibault, "On the Performance of IEEE 802.11p and LTE-V2V for the Cooperative Awareness of
Connected Vehicles," in IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 66, no. 11, pp. 10419-10432, Nov. 2017.

23. Supporting Slide - III
Prasann PatelApril 15, 2018 Performance Analysis IEEE 802.11p & LTE Hybrid 23
[4] Source : A. Bazzi, B. M. Masini, A.
Zanella and I. Thibault, "On the
Performance of IEEE 802.11p and LTE-V2V
for the Cooperative Awareness of
Connected Vehicles," in IEEE Trans. Veh.
Technol., vol. 66, no. 11, pp. 10419-10432,
Nov. 2017.

24. Supporting Slide - IV
Prasann PatelApril 15, 2018 Performace Analysis IEEE 802.11p & LTE Hybrid 24
[4] Source : A. Bazzi, B. M. Masini, A. Zanella and I. Thibault, "On the Performance of IEEE 802.11p and LTE-V2V for the Cooperative Awareness of
Connected Vehicles," in IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 66, no. 11, pp. 10419-10432, Nov. 2017.