428 IEEE WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS LETTERS, VOL. 7, NO.

3, JUNE 2018

Measurement and Configuration of DSRC Radios for

Vehicle-to-Train (V2T) Safety-Critical Communications
Junsung Choi , Vuk Marojevic, Aakanksha Sharma, Biniyam Zewede, Randall Nealy,
Christopher R. Anderson, Senior Member, IEEE, Jared Withers,
and Carl B. Dietrich, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—Despite the rapid development of wireless tech-

nology, there has been little application of the technology to
improve railroad crossing safety. We present vehicle-to-railroad
channel characterization and dedicated short range communica-
tions (DSRC) performance results at railroad crossings in rural
and suburban environments. Our results show that an omnidi-
rectional antenna provides slightly better performance in rural
conditions. However, a bi-directional antenna increased warning
range by more than 200 m in suburban conditions. A proper
configuration of the DSRC radio provides reliable warning of an
approaching train for cars near a railroad crossing.
Index Terms—DSRC, V2T, channel sounder, propagation char-
acteristics. Fig. 1. V2T communication scenario.

I. I NTRODUCTION Given the limited availability of empirical results in real

ESPITE recent efforts by projects such as Operation
D Lifesaver to install safety features at crossings, up to
80% of U.S. railroad grade crossings are still classified
as unprotected, and have no lights, warnings, or crossing
gates [1]. Moreover, for the year 2016, train-to-vehicle col-
lisions resulted in nearly 95% of all reported railroad accident
fatalities [1].
For Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), DSRC [2] is
the dominant protocol recommended for Vehicle-to-Vehicle
(V2V) and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) communications.
Enabled by features of DSRC, ITS are able to project and
provide an early warning of a potential collision [3].
Few studies address train collision avoidance warning sys-
tems using wireless technologies. The only description of such
a system that we are aware of is a train-to-vehicle early warn-
ing system designed and managed for railroad crossings in
Australia [4].
Manuscript received September 25, 2017; revised November 20, 2017;
accepted December 5, 2017. Date of publication December 11, 2017; date
of current version June 19, 2018. This work was supported by the Federal
Railroad Administration under Grant DTFR53-13-C-00064. The associate edi-
tor coordinating the review of this paper and approving it for publication was
Y. Gao. (Corresponding author: Junsung Choi.)
J. Choi, V. Marojevic, A. Sharma, B. Zewede, R. Nealy, and
C. B. Dietrich are with the Bradley Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061 USA
(e-mail: choijs89@vt.edu; maroje@vt.edu; sharma93@vt.edu; benyz@vt.edu;
rnealy@vt.edu; cdietric@vt.edu).
C. R. Anderson is with the Wireless Measurements Group Electrical and
Computer Engineering Department, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis,
MD 21402 USA (e-mail: canderso@usna.edu).
J. Withers is with U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad
Administration, Washington, DC 20590 USA (e-mail: jared.withers@dot.gov).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/LWC.2017.2781734
2162-2345 c 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
environments, we designed Revise to Vehicle-to-Train (V2T)
communications architecture and conducted measurements to
evaluate the suitability of DSRC for effective early warning at
grade crossings. This letter analyzes different antenna config-
urations and transmission parameter settings for the DSRC
transmitter on the train. The transmission parameters are
related to speed limits of the road and proper stopping
distance. Unlike typical V2V or V2I communications, the
designed system transmits warning messages of an approach-
ing train that is operating on a known track. We per-
formed measurements using omnidirectional and bi-directional
antenna configurations to explore the trade-off between trans-
mission range and antenna beamwidth, extending our analysis
in [5]. The measurements were done under a variety of oper-
ational conditions with the goal of finding the preferred
configurations. The wireless propagation environment was
characterized to confirm classification of each experiment
site as a rural or suburban environment. The measurements
took place at grade crossings of the Shenandoah Valley
Railroad (SVRR), a Class 3 short-line railroad in the Staunton,
VA area. We describe our measurements, data analysis, results,
and conclusions in the remainder of this letter.
II. M EASUREMENT T YPES
A. V2T Communication Scenario
The V2T communication scenario considered here com-
prises an approaching locomotive, vehicles approaching the
crossing, and optional infrastructure transceiver near the cross-
ing as shown in Fig. 1. The scenarios comprise: the direct
warning case and the indirect warning case.
CHOI et al.: MEASUREMENT AND CONFIGURATION OF DSRC RADIOS FOR V2T SAFETY-CRITICAL COMMUNICATIONS
Fig. 2. (a) Elevation pattern of omnidirectional antenna, (b) horizontal pattern
of omnidirectional antenna, (c) elevation pattern and (d) horizontal pattern of
a directional antenna used in bi-directional antenna configuration.
In the direct warning case, the vehicle driver receives the
warning message directly from the train. Direct warning is
preferred when the speeds of the locomotive and the vehicles
are slow, e.g., less than 35 mph (15.56 m/s). For this scenario,
the nominal stopping distance for a vehicle would be 84 m and
the driver would have less than 5.4 s to stop [6]. In addition,
the direct warning case is applicable where the propagation
between the locomotive and the vehicle has a strong Line-of-
Sight (LOS) component.
In the indirect warning case, the locomotive broadcasts
warning messages to an infrastructure transceiver near
the crossing and the infrastructure retransmits the messages
to the vehicles. In this case, the infrastructure acts as a relay.
The indirect warning case will be applicable for high loco-
motive and vehicle speeds, e.g., 65 mph (28.89 m/s), nominal
vehicle stopping distance and time of 210 m and 7.3 s [6].
The minimum notification time before the projected time of
a potential collision must include warning recognition time,
driver reaction time, and stopping time. Warning messages
must be sent before or at the minimum notification time. The
boundary to decide whether to use the direct warning or the
indirect warning case is therefore based on the DSRC radio
performance, where proper warning time/stopping distance is
related to the speed of the vehicle and the locomotive.
The experiments reported here address the direct warning
use case.
B. DSRC Performance Measurement Method
The performance metric we chose to analyze the DSRC
performance was the distance over which packets were suc-
cessfully received with a Packet Error Rate (PER) less than
0.9. The transmitter-receiver distance values are calculated
between the GPS location of the crossing and the instantaneous
GPS location of the locomotive. All experiments were con-
ducted with a stationary vehicle and moving locomotive. The
measurements were performed at two crossings near Staunton,
429
VA. For these measurements, a DSRC On-Board Unit (OBU)
was installed on a locomotive engine and a DSRC OBU was
installed near each crossing in a location that represents an
approaching vehicle.
C. RF Propagation Characterization
Propagation characterization measurements were performed
to measure channel parameters for the area near the railroad
tracks. Broadband propagation measurements at the crossings
were performed in the 5.86-5.91 GHz band, which overlaps
with the 5.875-5.885 GHz DSRC band. We used a Direct-
Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS) channel sounder [7] with
length 2047 m-sequence spreading code. The m-sequence was
clocked at a rate of 25 MHz (50 MHz RF bandwidth), and
GPS disciplined oscillators provided a stable frequency ref-
erence. Both transmitter and receiver were software-defined
radio implementations using GNU Radio software and Ettus
USRP B210 hardware. A DSSS transmitter was installed about
7-8 m away from the each crossing, and a DSSS receiver
was installed on the locomotive. Post processing measurement
data allowed us to calculate the RMS Delay Spread (RDS),
path loss exponents, and the Ricean K-factors in order to evalu-
ate the channel conditions for the tracks. We then used channel
parameters to categorize each crossing as rural or suburban.
III. M EASUREMENT PARAMETERS
A. Test Site Locations
Crossing #1 (Fig. 3a) was classified as being in a rural
area because of the relatively open space around the tracks
and lack of significant infrastructure. Crossing #2 (Fig. 4a) was
classified as being in a suburban environment due to a greater
number of buildings and structures near the grade crossing.
B. Radio Station Settings
DSRC measurements—We used Cohda MK5 DSRC
radios [8]. One DSRC OBU was installed on top of the
EMD GP9 locomotive’s long hood immediately behind the
Engineer’s cab and operated on channel 174 (centered at
5.87 GHz); the antenna tip height from the ground was
approximately 5 m.
The DSRC OBUs on the road vehicles were located at each
crossing as marked in Fig. 3a and Fig. 4a. For each of the test
sites, the locomotive engine made a pass through the measure-
ment region. The locomotive engine started 300-400 m before
the crossing, accelerated to the desired test speed of 10 mph
(4.44 m/s) (the maximum speed permitted due to the track reg-
ulations), maintained this speed through past the crossing and
then decelerated to a stop after it passed 300-400 m beyond
the crossing. Two types of antennas were used on the train:
omnidirectional and bi-directional (two directional antennas;
one facing toward the front and one facing toward the back of
the train).
The roadside OBU was installed on the roof of a pickup
truck at a height of about 2 m. The truck was positioned about
60-70 m away from the tracks.
Two omnidirectional antennas were mounted on the roof
of the truck, as the roadside OBU’s utilize antenna diversity
430
Fig. 3. (a) Crossing #1 receiver position and measurement track, (b) 3D PDP for omnidirectional, (c) PER with relative distance for omnidirectional, (d) 3D
PDP for bi-directional, (e) PER with relative distance for bi-directional.
Fig. 4. (a) Crossing #2 receiver position and measurement track, (b) 3D PDP for omnidirectional, (c) PER with relative distance for omnidirectional, (d) 3D
PDP for bi-directional, (e) PER with relative distance for bi-directional.
TABLE I
H ARDWARE C ONFIGURATION
to improve performance. The antenna patterns are shown in
Fig. 2; other hardware configurations are shown in Table I.
Propagation measurements—Data was recorded to disk in
intervals of 0.5 s. The transmitter was placed at the roadside
and the receivers were placed on top of the locomotive. The
transmitter used an omnidirectional antenna and the receivers
used the same bi-directional and omnidirectional antennas that
were used for the DSRC measurements.
IV. DATA A NALYSES
For Crossing #1 and Crossing #2, the speed limit on the
roads that intersect the railroad track is 25 mph (11.11 m/s).
IEEE WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS LETTERS, VOL. 7, NO. 3, JUNE 2018
At these speeds, the typical vehicle stopping distance for a wet
surface road is 27 m and the typical stopping time is 2.43 s [6].
We consider the minimum notification time as 15 s; the loco-
motive moves 67 m in 15 s with speed of 10 mph (4.44 m/s).
With this information, if the DSRC performance is satisfac-
tory within 67 m from the crossing, we can assume that the
vehicle driver can receive the warning within the notification
time of 15 s for the direct warning use case.
A. DSRC Data Analysis
We used the Basic-Safety-Message (BSM) application with
a packet length of 99 bytes which was continuously transmit-
ted at one packet every 0.05 s. We evaluated PER every 20 m.
The average number of transmitted packets during the time
window was 94. We set the threshold for packet reception
as receiving at least 10 packets corresponding out of 94; if
fewer than 10 packets were received at this distance, we con-
cluded that reliable communication was not achieved. When
PER equals 0.9, at least 10 packets were captured, and we
CHOI et al.: MEASUREMENT AND CONFIGURATION OF DSRC RADIOS FOR V2T SAFETY-CRITICAL COMMUNICATIONS
TABLE II
P ROPAGATION C HANNEL PARAMETERS FOR
C ROSSING #1 AND C ROSSING #2
concluded the performance as satisfactory, representing the
minimum requirement for safety.
B. Propagation Data Analysis
Power Delay Profiles (PDPs) were created by cross-
correlating the received channel sounder signal with a copy
of the m-sequence. Given the 25 MHz chip rate, our multi-
path time resolution was 65 ns. The Ricean K-factors is the
ratio of LOS or dominant path signal power to multipath sig-
nal power in each PDP. The RDS and path loss exponent were
calculated from the PDPs using standard techniques published
in the literature. All calculations used relative position of the
locomotive and crossings.
V. R ESULTS
The results are plotted as a function of distance from the
crossing, where negative distances indicate the locomotive is
approaching the crossing.
The propagation channel parameters for Crossing #1 and
#2 are given in Table II. Both the Ricean K-factor and path
loss exponents for omnidirectional antenna values are consis-
tent with values for rural environments reported in [11]. Since
the position of the DSSS transmitter is near the crossing, the
surrounding obstacles had little effect on the measurements
and the measured values of channel parameters are consistent
with those observed in rural environments.
Crossing #2, which we classified as suburban, experienced
higher RDS, Ricean K-factors, and path loss exponents.
As expected, the advantage of a bi-directional antenna is
that it provides a longer range for Crossing #2. The dis-
tance for which satisfactory performance was achieved is
200 m longer than for an omnidirectional antenna. Because the
tracks are almost straight near the crossing; the bidirectional
antenna provides good coverage to the road near the crossing.
The disadvantage of a bi-directional antenna can be observed
in the Crossing #1 data – it exhibits poor performance when
operating in a NLOS communication condition.
VI. C ONCLUSION
This letter discussed the performance of a V2T communi-
cation system to prevent train-to-vehicle collisions by warning
drivers near unprotected railroad crossings of an approaching
train. To evaluate the feasibility of providing warning signals
431
using DSRC communication systems, we measured the propa-
gation characteristics and DSRC performance in terms of PER
and evaluated whether these systems could provide sufficient
warning time to allow a driver to come to a complete stop
before reaching the grade crossing.
For the performance evaluation for the given crossing and
speed regulation; we considered a range of 67 m with respect
to the crossing. Within this zone, all modulation types used
with high power and a bi-directional antenna met the require-
ment, for both rural and suburban environments. For low
power, an omnidirectional locomotive-mounted antenna would
be suitable in a rural environment, whereas a bi-directional
antenna would be better suited for a suburban crossing.
Our architecture was designed to demonstrate a proof-
of-concept early warning system with receive-only vehicles.
Therefore, our results do not take into account co-channel
interference or greater network traffic that would appear in
a fully mature DSRC network. A greater number of full-
duplex DSRC-equipped vehicles also means an increase in
the number of potential relay nodes, potentially providing
a greater overall robustness of the delivery of the early warning
message.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Benjamin True and the
Shenandoah Valley Railroad staff for their help planning and
conducting the measurements.
R EFERENCES
[1] Federal Railroad Administration. (Sep. 2017).
FRA Office of Safety Analysis. [Online]. Available:
http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/Default.aspx
[2] A. Rostami et al., “Stability challenges and enhancements for vehicu-
lar channel congestion control approaches,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp.
Syst., vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 2935–2948, Oct. 2016.
[3] X. Xiang, W. Qin, and B. Xiang, “Research on a DSRC-based rear-
end collision warning model,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 15,
no. 3, pp. 1054–1065, Jun. 2014.
[4] J. Singh et al., “Cooperative intelligent transport systems to improve
safety at level crossing,” in Proc. 19th ITS World Congr., Vienna,
Austria, 2012.
[5] X. Ma et al., “Analysis of directional antenna for railroad crossing safety
applications,” in Proc. Consum. Commun. Netw. Conf., Las Vegas, NV,
USA, 2017, pp. 1–6.
[6] Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles. (Jan. 2017).
Virginia Driver’s Manual. [Online]. Available:
http://www.dmv.state.va.us/webdoc/pdf/dmv39.pdf
[7] C. R. Anderson, “Design and implementation of an ultrabroadband
milli meter-wavelength vector sliding correlator channel sounder and in-
building multipath measurements at 2.5 & 60 GHz,” M.S. thesis, Dept.
Elect. Eng., Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA, 2002.
[8] Cohda Wireless. (Jan. 2017). MK5 OBU. [Online]. Available:
http://www.cohdawireless.com/solutions/hardware/mk5-obu/
[9] Mobile Mark. (Mar. 2014). Broadband, Omni-Directional DSRC
5.9 GHz. [Online]. Available: https://www.mobilemark.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/04/antenna-spec-144-eco-5900.pdf
[10] Ventev. (2017). 4.9-6.1 GHz, 20.5-23 dBi Dual Polarized
Outdoor Panel Antenna With N Connectors. [Online]. Available:
http://www.ventevinfra.com/
[11] R. He et al., “Measurements and analysis of propagation channels in
high-speed railway viaducts,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 12,
no. 2, pp. 794–805, Feb. 2013.