Bibliographic Entry Details

M. Segata, B. Bloessl, S. Joerer, F. Erlacher, M. Mutschlechner, F. Klingler, C. Sommer, R. Lo Cigno, and F. Dressler, “Shadowing or Multi-Path Fading: Which Dominates in Inter-Vehicle Communication?,” Institute of Computer Science, University of Innsbruck, Technical Report CCS-2013-03, Jun. 2013

Abstract

We aim to resolve a long standing dispute in the vehicular networking community when it comes to modeling the physical layer most accurately. Essentially, two major groups have formed: one believes that shadowing is the most important source of signal attenuation (and fading can essentially be ignored); the other argues that the exact opposite is true. So, depending on the simulation study, either accurate shadowing models have been used - or the focus was on multi-path fading. Thus, we conducted specific measurements in the field, collecting extensive experimental data, to explore the dominance of one or the other aspect and resolve this dispute. Our aim was to define a set of models to be used in simulation that most realistically represents the signal attenuation in Inter-Vehicular Communication (IVC), while also preventing unnecessary complexity (and, thus, unnecessarily long simulation times). In brief, we can show that neither of the two effects is dominant over the other, and that both affect the received signal power considerably. As the most interesting result, we show that the distribution of the received signal power due to multi-path fading even depends on the amount of shadowing.


Bibtex

@techreport{segata2013shadowing,
  author = {Segata, Michele and Bloessl, Bastian and Joerer, Stefan and Erlacher, Felix and Mutschlechner, Margit and Klingler, Florian and Sommer, Christoph and Lo Cigno, Renato and Dressler, Falko},
  title = {{Shadowing or Multi-Path Fading: Which Dominates in Inter-Vehicle Communication?}},
  institution = {Institute of Computer Science, University of Innsbruck},
  location = {Innsbruck, Austria},
  month = {6},
  number = {CCS-2013-03},
  type = {Technical Report},
  year = {2013}
}