Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by Auburn University Libraries, Saturday, August 24, 2019

ARTICLE INFO
Article ID: 12-02-01-0001
Copyright © 2019
SAE International
doi:10.4271/12-02-01-0001

A Review of Sensor Technologies

for Automotive Fuel Economy
Benefits
Van Wifvat, Brendan Shaffer, and Scott Samuelsen, University of California, Irvine, USA

Abstract History
Received: 30 Jul 2018
This article is a review of automobile sensor technologies that have the potential to enhance fuel Revised: 19 Oct 2018
economy. Based on an in-depth review of the literature and demonstration projects, the following Accepted: 23 Oct 2018
sensor technologies were selected for evaluation: vehicular radar systems (VRS), camera systems e-Available: 11 Dec 2018
(CS), vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) systems, and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) systems.
V2V and V2I systems were found to have the highest merit in improving fuel economy over a Keywords
wide range of integration strategies, with fuel economy improvements ranging from 5 to 20% with Vehicle, Sensor technology,
V2V and 10 to 25% for V2I. However, V2V and V2I systems require significant adoption for practical Fuel economy, Efficiency
application which is not expected in this decade.
Numerous academic studies and contemporary vehicular safety systems attest VRS as more Citation
technologically mature and robust relative to other sensors. However, VRS offers less fuel economy
Wifvat, V., Shaffer, B., and
enhancement (~14%). Vehicular CS are relatively technologically mature and promise fuel economy Samuelsen, S., “A Review of
enhancement but require integration with other sensor technologies for robust performance. Sensor Technologies for
Automotive Fuel Economy
Benefits,” SAE Int. J. of CAV
2(1):5–16, 2019,
doi:10.4271/12-02-01-0001.

ISSN: 2574-0741
e-ISSN: 2574-075X

5
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by Auburn University Libraries, Saturday, August 24, 2019
6 Wifvat et al. / SAE Int. J. of CAV / Volume 2, Issue 1, 2019
1. Introduction
A
pproximately one-third of the United States’ green-
house gasses (GHGs) are emitted by the transporta-
tion sector [1], and issues such as climate change,
urban air quality, and underlying energy security have made
transportation efficiency increasingly consequential. Vehicle
fuel efficiency can be enhanced when environmental signals
in the near vicinity of the vehicle are better interpreted by
drivers or by running control systems, whether a car is in stop-
and-go traffic, approaching a lower speed zone, or approaching
an intersection [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7].
Many technologies can be integrated with a vehicle to
aid in detecting environmental signals, though a wide range
of technological capability, maturity, cost of integration,
flexibility of being integrated with other sensor technologies,
and robustness is required to detect environmental signals
under various environmental conditions. This review
addresses the advantages and disadvantages of various
sensor technologies for their potential to enhance vehicular
fuel economy.
The review is structured as follows. First, the review iden-
tifies (1) the environmental signals that can be detected to
improve vehicular fuel efficiency and (2) the state-of-the-art
sensor technologies that can be used to detect these signals.
The review focuses on sensor technologies with a relatively
strong promise as documented in previous academic works
and collaborations with auto manufacturers and demonstra-
tion projects. Second, from this initial step, each sensor is
analyzed for the potential to achieve an improvement in fuel
economy and vehicular integration. Note that while the
studies presented consistently measure efficiency impacts of
standard internal combustion powertrain type, the fuel
economy changes cited are indicative but not precise based
on assumptions made.
2. Preliminary Review of
Environmental Signals
and Corresponding
Sensor Technologies
The review begins with determining the environmental
signals that are amenable to enhance fuel economy. Safety
technology signals are considered as well. For example, vehicle
response to safety-critical scenarios, such as preventing a
forward collision, can be associated with vehicle efficiency
scenarios, such as preventing excessive acceleration and decel-
eration. Therefore, the review begins with demonstration
projects and academic publications which test and evaluate
state-of-the-art technologies that mitigate major threats to
both efficiency and safety.
2.1. Slowing or Stalled
Vehicles
Slowing or stalled vehicles pose a safety risk to drivers, and
the sensor technologies designed to preclude a frontal collision
can also be used to mitigate the effects of excessive accelera-
tions and decelerations. To this end, a number of research
initiatives have evaluated sensor technologies to address
slowing or stalled vehicles. For example, a “Grand Cooperative
Driving Challenge (GCDC),” held in 2011, was designed to
explore practical applications associated with Cooperative
Adaptive Cruise Control (CACC) systems, namely, adaptive
cruise control (ACC) systems with vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V)
telemetry. Sensor technologies such as vehicular radar systems
(VRS), camera systems (CS), Light Detection and Ranging
(LiDAR) systems, and V2V communication options were
evaluated [8, 9, 10]. While CACC systems were estimated to
improve fuel economy by approximately 10%, the results of
neither the 2011 GCDC nor a second GCDC in 2016 [11]
published results validating this 10% estimate. While the
GCDC held in 2016 continued an assessment of CACC, fuel
saving was not emphasized as a principal focus [11].
A second example is the “Automotive Collision Avoidance
System Field Operational Test” involving the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the
General Motors Company. Together, these entities investi-
gated forward collision warning systems and ACC systems
incorporating CS and VRS for their ability to improve driver
safety and user-friendliness [12]. A third example is the
“Connected Vehicle Safety Pilot” lead by the U.S. Department
of Transportation (USDOT) and automakers to test V2V and
V2I technologies in real-world scenarios for their ability to
prevent crashes without distracting drivers [13].
A fourth example is the “CAR 2 CAR Communication
Consortium” where over 12 major automakers collaborated
to develop industry standards for an array of connected
vehicle technologies such as V2V and V2I [14]. Finally, the
“Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership (CAMP),” a collabora-
tive research initiative conducted by a number of automakers
together with the “National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA),” evaluated the capabilities of
connected vehicle systems such as V2V and V2I to enhance
driver safety in a multitude of driving scenarios [15].
2.2. Stoplights and Stop
Signs
Stoplights and stop signs can create scenarios for fuel effi-
ciency loss when signals change or the location of these signals
is unknown to the driver. Research efforts offer insight into
how these signals can work collaboratively with drivers and
vehicular systems and to what extent travel efficiency can
be  improved. Research projects such as the “Cooperative
Vehicle-Infrastructure Systems (CVIS)” have developed a real-
world technological platform to enable data transfer between
vehicles and the surrounding transit infrastructure with the
© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by Auburn University Libraries, Saturday, August 24, 2019

Wifvat et al. / SAE Int. J. of CAV / Volume 2, Issue 1, 2019 7

goal of enhancing driver awareness and transportation TABLE 1  Environmental signals and associated
efficiency [16]. sensor technologies.
The “Dynamic Information and Application for Mobility Environmental signal Associated sensor technology

© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved

with Adaptive Networks and Telematics Infrastructure
CS
(DIAMANT)” project strived to meet similar goals with
VRS
regard to using V2V and V2I technology to keep drivers Slowing or stalled vehicles
informed of potentially changing traffic patterns [17]. The V2V
“Safe and Intelligent Mobility-Test Field Germany (simTD)” V2I
project performed a real-world test of connected vehicle tech- V2V
Stoplights and stop signs
nologies and determined ways to resolve technical issues V2I
surrounding V2I communication [18]. CS
Weather conditions V2V
V2I
2.3. Weather Conditions
Weather conditions can play a significant role in the efficiency relative to the sensors presented in this review [25].
of a journey. Therefore, it is important for drivers to be aware Additionally, the focus for LiDAR has been primarily on the
of the optimal route to take. In this context, researchers have identification of obstacles, similar to a VRS, though with the
proposed real-time weather notification systems to inform visual obstruction weaknesses typical of CS. For example,
drivers and running control systems by using various sensors LiDAR systems provide information on what type of object
placed both along roadways and within vehicles [19]. Such is nearby from a 360 degree view (similar to a system of
research enhances both safety and fuel economy. In particular, cameras), but cannot interpret the characters on traffic signs
adapting vehicle speed to safely avoid hazards also enables or the status of traffic signals [26, 27, 28]. As with CS, LiDAR
vehicles to conserve fuel when approaching these hazards. systems are vision-based in that they work on the exchange
Similarly, onboard CS have been proposed to alert drivers of of light and would therefore not be able to perform in heavy
increasingly hazardous levels of precipitation, allowing drivers rain, in fog, or in dusty conditions [29, 30, 31]. While LiDAR
to adjust their speed sooner for safer and more efficient travel systems help provide a comprehensive source of information
[20]. This concept has also garnered automaker support, where for applications such as autonomous vehicles, they do not
vehicles can anticipate changing traffic patterns resulting from provide information in support of the present research which
changes in weather by retrieving weather data from local (1) concerns detection of the outside-of-vehicle environment
sources and passing data among vehicles using CACC for eliciting fuel economy improvements and (2) employs
systems [21]. novel sensor integration strategies.

2.4. Human-to-Vehicle 3. Vehicle-to-Vehicle
Interaction
The influence of the human driver is the subject of study in
Sensor Technology
both demonstration projects and the literature. Research in
V2V sensor technology enables a vehicle to have an awareness
the human-to-vehicle interface has spanned many years and
of the status (speed, position, acceleration/deceleration, etc.)
evaluated the relationship between human/machine interac-
of surrounding vehicles while also broadcasting the same
tion and the efficiency of vehicle operation [22]. Demonstration
information to surrounding vehicles [32]. The fuel economy
projects, such as the “ecoDrive project” and the “eCoMove
benefits of installing these systems on standard powertrain
project,” have evaluated the results of this research [23, 24].
vehicles are between 5 and 20%, depending on driving
After (1) reviewing demonstration projects for environ-
behavior, as evidenced by simulations estimating efficiency
mental signals and sensor technologies with a connection to
improvements from speed and distance data, as well as with
fuel efficiency, and (2) investigating the research initiatives
on-vehicle testing with human drivers [2, 3].
behind each sensor technology, the sensor technologies
selected for the research reported herein are presented
in Table 1.
Note that LiDAR and various human machine interface
3.1. Briefing
technologies are not included. Research on the integration of V2V systems consist of dedicated short-range communication
LiDAR systems into vehicles for fuel economy enhancement (DSRC) using Wi-Fi transmitters on the 5.85-5.925  GHz
is not yet represented in literature as a stand-alone technology. bands, as defined in the Wireless Access in Vehicular
Research activities, such as the GCDC and others, have evalu- Environments (WAVE) standards (IEEE 1609/ITS-G5). IEEE
ated vehicles with multiple sensors, including LiDAR, at once, 1609 and ITS-G5 are the specific standards which define the
but as of this writing, there is little research evidence to allow architecture and standardize the collection of services and
the authors an adequate comparison of fuel savings potential interfaces for secure V2V and V2I communications [33, 34].
© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by Auburn University Libraries, Saturday, August 24, 2019
8 Wifvat et al. / SAE Int. J. of CAV / Volume 2, Issue 1, 2019
V2V systems enable two-way communication between
vehicles including the following location information, as an
example, standardized by SAE J2735:
•• Random vehicle ID
•• Sequence number
•• Time stamp
•• Position coordinates and accuracy
•• Motion data (velocity, acceleration, braking status,
possibly transmission state)
•• Vehicle size
V2V technology has promise to enhance vehicle fuel
efficiency in ways similar to the promise of enhancing
occupant safety. While the technology has the ability to alert
for objects to avoid, it can also signal regenerative braking
for traffic jams, stationary vehicles, or other potential hazards
ahead [35, 36, 37].
In this regard, V2V technology has the potential to
enhance ACC systems and ultimately provide advanced
“awareness” of situations where fuel can be saved and poten-
tially where regenerative braking can be applied automati-
cally for hybrid vehicles. Increasingly, ACC systems, which
are currently radar-based, can obtain additional perspective
of the vehicle’s surrounding environment, thus adding to
the overall context of the driving environment. For example,
sudden high traffic scenarios can be perceived sooner to
minimize wasted fuel and to maximize the opportunity for
regenerative braking. The concept of adding V2V technology
to an ACC system (i.e., CACC) can improve fuel economy
by preventing the traffic speed oscillations of stop-and-go
traffic from occurring in the first place and by conserving
fuel and storing energy when the vehicle encounters such
situations [38].
3.2. Conceptual Applications
This section presents two novel ways of applying V2V tech-
nology that are not normally associated with V2V but have
merit of enhancing fuel economy while also illustrating V2V
technological flexibility.
3.2.1. Concept 1: V2V Garnering Weather/
Weather Report Data to Enhance Vehicle Per-
ception This concept builds on the idea of enhancing
vehicular perception to include information on changes to
weather on a route specifically using V2V sensor technology.
This has been investigated in terms of safety, but also in the
context of fuel savings where weather can have a impact on
the optimal cruising speed and route for the vehicle. The
weather information is sourced by vehicles informing other
vehicles about weather conditions using onboard sensors [19,
20]. Note that automaker investment is being directed to
developing weather-assisted vehicle communication systems
in this context [21, 39].
3.2.2. Concept 2: Using V2V Data to Predict
­Vehicle Trajectories and More Efficient Routes This
concept involves processing raw V2V data to create direct,
timely suggestions for the driver. One example is the provi-
sion of a fuel-efficient velocity profile for the driver to con-
sider in driving situations such as stop-and-go traffic. Such
information can account for up to 8% fuel economy enhance-
ment for standard powertrain vehicles, as measured by opti-
mal fuel usage simulations [40, 41]. The same concept could
work in combination with an ACC system, where the throttle
and braking movements are automatically controlled by the
vehicle itself. While the ACC system would normally be sub-
ject to string instability, resulting in the uncoordinated veloc-
ity fluctuations of stop-and-go traffic, a greater environmen-
tal awareness for vehicular running control would reduce this
effect [42].
Data from connected vehicles could also be  used to
suggest the most efficient route for the driver. While this
concept has been investigated based on an aggregated pool of
data from a centralized online source [43], the use of real-time
V2V data directly from vehicles has not yet been addressed.
As with the previous concept review, the concept of efficient
routing and efficient vehicle trajectories is a focus of various
automaker companies [44].
3.3. Technology Outlook/
Maturity
This section addresses expectations for the deployment of V2V
technology. When combined with the other technologies, the
result is a relativistic chart that organizes the various levels
of technical maturity for the different environmental
sensor technologies.
V2V technology is well studied in real-world demonstra-
tion projects such as the “Cooperative Vehicle-Infrastructure
Systems (CVIS)” and well documented in the literature.
Additionally, V2V technology has various standards either
accepted or in progress to regulate use on public roads [32].
However, V2V technology relies on fleet-wide integration for
signals to be effectively relayed. As a result, it will take time
before sufficient V2V-enabled vehicles are deployed to make
a difference on the roads, a time longer than the integration
of systems such as CS and VRS.
3.3.1. V2V Technological Status V2V technology is
steadfastly, albeit slowly, moving toward a deployed state, as
evidenced in domestic policy proceedings, publications, aca-
demic collaborations with automakers, and demonstration
projects. The U.S. NHTSA released an “Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)” in August 2014, as well as
“Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis” in December 2016.
The proposal would add a “Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS #150)” to require V2V sensor technology
for all new light-duty vehicles.
3.3.2. V2V Standards: Current and Pending In
addition to the domestic policy movement, domestic s­ tandards
© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by Auburn University Libraries, Saturday, August 24, 2019
Wifvat et al. / SAE Int. J. of CAV / Volume 2, Issue 1, 2019 9
have been established which regulate the integration of V2V
technology on vehicles to be sold in the future. These stan-
dards provide additional support to the likelihood that such
systems will deploy. The first is IEEE 1609, “Family of Stan-
dards for Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments
(WAVE).” This accepted standard defines the services, inter-
faces, and architectures for V2V communication. Similarly,
the accepted SAE J2735 standard defines the message content
that is relayed between vehicles. These standards not only
direct the details of how these technologies will operate but
also serve to exemplify forces that are accelerating the
­deployment of these technologies into vehicles in the not-
too-distant future.
3.4. Conclusion
V2V technology has the potential to increase fuel efficiency in
addition to passenger safety. The conventional applications of
V2V technology alert the driver to upcoming traffic conditions
or hazards, which in the fuel efficiency context enables the
driver to proactively ease the throttle or engage regenerative
braking. Depending on driver behavior, the fuel efficiency of
the vehicle can be enhanced between 5% and 20% as evaluated
on standard powertrain vehicles [2, 3]. V2V technology can
also be integrated with an ACC system which could execute
these functions automatically. Additionally, concepts have been
investigated by automakers looking to apply V2V technology
in other ways such as garnering and using weather information
and projecting efficient vehicle trajectories to inform drivers
and vehicles. These are concepts that also have merit in the fuel
efficiency context, with conclusions of Concept 2 being an 8%
fuel efficiency increase for standard powertrain vehicles [41].
V2V technology is relatively mature in the context of fuel
economy compared to the other technologies such as CS and
VRS. Demonstration projects that test and evaluate V2V tech-
nology have shown the technology to be effective and econom-
ically feasible to install. Domestically, NHTSA is supportive
for mandatory V2V systems in vehicles. However, should a
mandate be  promulgated, a population of V2V-enabled
vehicles must be deployed to have a meaningful impact on
fuel efficiency. As an additional practical consideration, the
costs associated with V2V technology are relatively low, esti-
mated below $300 US per unit [32].
4. Vehicle-to-Infrastructure
Sensor Technology
The core technologies behind the data transfer are largely the
same for V2V and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) systems.
However, with V2I systems, the data are transferred between
vehicles and infrastructure sources such as traffic signals. This
review covers how V2I technology enables a vehicle to utilize
the surrounding infrastructure for a potential fuel
economy benefit.
© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
4.1. Briefing
V2I anonymously exchange wireless data between vehicles
and a centralized source of data, commonly referred to as the
“infrastructure.” Whereas V2I and V2V use the same core
technology for data transfer and operate to the same stan-
dards, V2V relay data between vehicles, while V2I exchange
data with a common source. The similarities and differences
between V2V and V2I vary by application with each offering
a particular benefit to fuel economy. For example, typical
applications of V2V provide left-turn assistance (from
knowing vehicle position), pre-collision warning (from
knowing vehicle position and movement information), lane
change warning (from knowing vehicle position), and emer-
gency electronic brake light (which is an electronic emergency
message that a stalled vehicle can send which cannot
be obscured with fog or other visual limitations) [32].
On the other hand, some applications of V2I may include
traffic signal warnings where, in the efficiency context, the
vehicle can (1) activate regenerative braking systems when
approaching a red stoplight, (2) communicate with the signal
and change it prior to reducing speed, or (3) activate regenera-
tive braking in a dangerous or reduced-speed curve ahead
warning [32].
4.2. Conceptual Applications
This section illustrates unconventional applications of V2I
which are not immediately associated with V2I itself. These
concepts have the merit of enhancing fuel economy while also
demonstrating the technological flexibility of these sensors.
4.2.1. Concept 1: Vehicle-Traffic Signal Coopera-
tion A vehicle that stops at a red light and accelerates again
produces up to four times the CO2 emissions of a vehicle
driving at constant speed [45]. Preventing such situations
would have significant impacts on vehicular fuel efficiency in
addition to the emissions benefits. One way in which V2I can
prevent this specific transportation inefficiency is by enabling
traffic signals to broadcast their status to oncoming vehicles.
If a vehicle is equipped with the necessary V2I and an ACC
system, the vehicle will have an advanced perception of the
signal status and apply the appropriate velocity curve [46].
The aforementioned research simulation, using an optimiza-
tion-based control algorithm, explored the fuel savings
potential in three example case studies and found that about
40% fuel savings can be  accomplished by eliminating stop-
and-go behavior at traffic lights when vehicles know in
advance the signal status and duration of the signal status.
Another V2I application was designed to relay information
to intersection-bound autonomous vehicle traffic for eliciting
greater traffic efficiency [47]. Impacts were measured using
the VISSIM microscopic simulation package together with
the EPA MOVES model for energy and emissions measure-
ments. Results indicated that overall energy consumption
could be reduced by 12-15% depending on traffic conditions
and simulation parameters.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by Auburn University Libraries, Saturday, August 24, 2019
10 Wifvat et al. / SAE Int. J. of CAV / Volume 2, Issue 1, 2019
Demonstration projects such as CVIS have shown that
this concept is supported with available technology and
industry moving toward incorporating V2I in future vehic-
ular fleets [48]. Current European research efforts continue
the push for use of V2I in the ITS-Europe ecoDrive project,
where fuel savings of up to 25% have been measured in
computer simulations of representative traffic through an
intersection.
4.2.2. Concept 2: Driver Awareness of Future
Traffic Light Status/Green Light Optimal Speed
Advisory (GLOSA) A less complex application of V2I
relies on the driver to prevent red light losses in fuel efficiency,
resulting in approximately 10% fuel savings as tested on stan-
dard powertrain vehicles [4]. For example, approaching an
intersection about 20 seconds of travel away, the driver
receives two dashboard messages: the signal is red and the
recommended speed with which to approach the intersec-
tion. Such systems could also display information on how
long the traffic light will remain in a particular phase [4, 49].
This technology is also being investigated with automaker
support in the context of safety as the part of a “Cooperative
Intersection Collision Avoidance System (CICAS)” where,
rather than displaying a message regarding an oncoming
intersection and recommended velocity profile, the system
provides an emergency alert to a driver approaching a
dangerous intersection that may constitute a collision course
with another vehicle [50].
4.3. Technology Outlook/
Maturity
For V2I, maturity toward deployment is demonstrated in
projects such as the IntelliDrive project, DIAMANT, simTD,
and CVIS. These demonstration projects all involve automaker
support and have reached conclusions that V2I can improve
fuel economy. One V2I demonstration project, the IntelliDrive
project, found a 15% fuel savings on standard powertrain test
vehicles interacting with adaptive traffic lights (i.e., traffic
lights which change when vehicles approach) [51]. As a point
of reference, the 5-20% fuel economy improvements resulting
from V2V would likely be similar by implementing the same
technologies on infrastructure points rather than on vehicles
alone. There are fewer standards regulating V2I than V2V
though, as of this writing, one standard has been approved
for V2I. The International Organization for Standardization
(ISO) 26684:2015 standard defines the performance require-
ments for cooperative intersection signal information and
violation warning systems (CIWS).
V2I depends on the integration of the technology with
the infrastructure, the latter of which is the responsibility of
local governments. Significantly more V2I demonstration
projects are emerging in Europe than in the United States, as
indicated by the previously cited demonstration projects.
Because of this, V2I is behind in deployment compared to
V2V when considering readiness to integrate V2I-equipped
vehicles in the U.S. market.
4.3.1. V2I Technological Status Much like V2V, V2I
is supported by a substantial record of publications and dem-
onstration projects involving numerous automakers. While
V2I is approaching the deployed state in a very similar time-
frame as V2V, the need for local government support will
likely require more time to deploy V2I.
4.3.2. V2I Standards: Current and Pending Though
the underlying technology for V2I is similar to V2V, the
expected lag in implementation and the relative lack of operat-
ing standards suggest that V2I is less technologically mature
than V2V. As V2I deployments can largely depend on local
government investment, the V2I technological maturity in the
United States lags European countries given the relatively
strong European investment in V2I demonstration projects.
4.3.3. V2I Research Initiatives and Collabora-
tions Four major demonstration projects identified in this
work have facilitated the development of V2I systems. The
demonstration projects which support V2I are largely concen-
trated in Europe, but initiatives in the United States (such as
the Connected Vehicle Safety Pilot) suggest that infrastructure
development will be domestically supported as well.
In addition, the technology to make drivers aware of traffic
signals was successfully implemented with the expectation of
similar results to those of automatically changing traffic lights
[51]. It was concluded from this project that similar systems
can be made with 3G/4G support for more rapid deployment
of V2I technology, which could accelerate the time at which
carmakers can integrate V2I technology in automobiles. The
California Department of Transportation has described their
vision for intelligent intersections (i.e., locations for V2I trans-
mitters) once every 10 miles on state highways, which might
be privately funded with an incentive program. This vision for
domestic V2I must be considered when determining the poten-
tial for domestic adoption of this technology.
While the DIAMANT project was mostly concerned with
advancing V2V, the project also installed V2I in vehicles. The
project concluded that 5/1000 vehicles can provide representa-
tive understanding of traffic flow [52]. While the simTD
demonstration evaluated the overall effectiveness of V2I, the
DIAMANT project results indicate that drivers with equipped
vehicles are quicker to adapt speed, following distance, and
behavior to changing traffic speed [18]. The CVIS project
tested a number of V2I applications, including green light
speed advice (where the vehicle issues the driver a recom-
mended speed based on V2I traffic light signals and the traffic
sign status on dashboard), social networking to enable ride-
sharing, and various collaborative safety applications [48].
4.4. Conclusion
V2I has much of the same merit to increase fuel efficiency as
V2V through informing the driver of traffic conditions, traffic
signal status, and optimal velocity profiles. In the literature,
the increase in efficiency was found, from simulations, to
range from 10% [4] to 40% [46] for standard powertrain
© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by Auburn University Libraries, Saturday, August 24, 2019
Wifvat et al. / SAE Int. J. of CAV / Volume 2, Issue 1, 2019 11
vehicles. Similar to V2V technology, V2I technology can
be integrated with an ACC system and perform more efficient
driving behaviors automatically.
In terms of technological maturity, V2I is proven to enhance
fuel economy. V2I is practical and effective with fuel efficiency
increases on standard powertrain vehicles ranging from 15%,
in the IntelliDrive project, to 25%, with the ecoDrive project.
Most demonstration projects are centered in Europe suggesting
that the infrastructure necessary to support V2I-enabled
vehicles in the United States will lag deployment in European
countries. This is an important distinction, because this tech-
nology relies on local government support for the deployment
timeframe. Heavy investment in European V2I research suggests
that local governments in Europe are seriously supporting V2I
communication technologies. As a result, V2I systems are likely
to take longer to implement in the United States than other
sensor technologies such as CS and VRS. In terms of cost, the
authors would estimate similar relatively low in-vehicle costs
for the “vehicle” component of V2I, as there was for V2V.
However, equipment and installation costs associated with the
“infrastructure” for V2I are expected to be relatively expensive,
with estimates currently in the range of $15,000-$20,000 US per
infrastructure communication point [53].
5. Camera Systems
CS can be installed into vehicles for the purpose of increasing
fuel efficiency relatively easier, at lower cost, and operating with
less technological complexity than V2V, V2I, and VRS [31, 54].
CS are vision-based sensors that detect and interpret light and
are capable of interpreting traffic signals, street signs, and object
types such as pedestrians, cars, and trucks [5, 6, 7]. However,
the main limitation of CS is that available light can become
obscured by dust on the camera and weather conditions such
as rain or fog [31]. The present review addresses whether and
the extent to which CS can enable a standard powertrain vehicle
to experience a fuel economy benefit.
5.1. Briefing
CS collect and process the visual information of the surrounding
environment and consist of one or more onboard cameras
together with image processing software/hardware. This is a
passive system, meaning an absence of interaction with the
outside environment in contrast to V2V, V2I, and VRS. As a
result, CS are significantly lower cost, technologically simpler,
and easier to install [31, 54]. The core limitation of CS is the
visual information surrounding the vehicle being obscured by
weather conditions (such as heavy rain, snow, and fog) [31].
The innovations in CS have less to do with the cameras
and camera arrangements which are well studied and ubiqui-
tous and more to do with the innovations in image processing
and increasingly affordable computing power [54, 55]. CS
therefore have the advantage to be continually improved in
response to image processing and image recognition innovations.
© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
For example, early CS applications alerted drivers to
potential oncoming hazards by tracking large objects ahead
and determining if the large objects pose a hazard to drivers
[56], whereas the current state-of-the-art image recognition
techniques allow CS to reliably interpret vehicles based on
object/vehicle type (truck, car, motorcycle, pedestrian, etc.) as
well as traffic signs [5, 6, 7]. CS sensors are commonly deployed
to enhance safety as “Forward Collision Warning (FCW)”
systems (where the system objective is to enhance driving
safety) and as “Lane Departure Warning (LDW)” systems
(where the CS tracks vehicle position in surrounding lanes
and alerts the driver if crossing lane boundary without
signaling) [57].
CS work by executing the following two steps: (1) gener-
ating a hypothesis of whether the object in image is a threat
and the type of the object (automobile, pedestrian, etc.) and
(2) verifying the hypothesis [55]. The hypothesis can be gener-
ated in several ways, first by using a pre-programmed visual
knowledge of object features such as colors, shadows, corners,
textures, symmetry, and features such as taillight/license plate
position (which can be accomplished with a single camera),
second by using stereovision (requiring multiple cameras), or
third by using motion-based methods (which can be accom-
plished with a single camera). Motion-based methods use the
relative motion of processed objects to determine whether an
object is a potential threat and whether the object is approaching
(converging) or moving away (diverging) the host vehicle.
To verify the generated hypothesis, the CS can operate by
using one of the two methods: (1) by using template-based
methods, which compares the detected image to a predefined
template of expected vehicle characteristics, or (2) by using
appearance/pattern methods, which is similar to template-
based but relies more on machine learning which can continu-
ally improve to define objects in the detected image as vehicle
or non-vehicle.
5.2. Conceptual Applications
This section addresses the manner by which CS can integrate
with other vehicular systems to provide a potential fuel
economy enhancement.
5.2.1. Concept 1: Automatic Regenerative Brak-
ing from Combined CS and ACC Systems CS such
as those from Mobileye are installed to alert the driver to
objects of interest on the road with the goal of maximizing
safety [56]. The objects typically include approaching vehicles
which are too close to the front of the vehicle (the alert would
help prevent forward collisions and discourage risky behavior
such as tailgating), LDW, and speed limit alerts. The CS ability
to recognize traffic signs is one of the biggest advantages of
the visual information-based system over other advanced
driver assistance technologies, aside from relatively low cost
and ease of installation. Additionally, unlike most approaches
to V2V and V2I systems, CS are ready for deployment today.
In the context of fuel efficiency, conventional CS will alert
the driver to reduce throttle position or to notify the driver to
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by Auburn University Libraries, Saturday, August 24, 2019
12 Wifvat et al. / SAE Int. J. of CAV / Volume 2, Issue 1, 2019
apply regenerative braking, depending on the situation. In the
safety context, CS have already been shown to provide roughly
a 3% increase in fuel efficiency for light-duty vehicles in the
euroFOT project from testing standard powertrains [58].
However, in the fuel economy context, a more optimal system
could be created which reduces speed and applies “Automotive
Regenerative Braking (ARB)” automatically based on the infor-
mation processed by the CS. This more optimal system would
consist of CS to detect and process speed limit information
working with ACC or a standard “Cruise Control (CC)” system
to execute the change in speed automatically depending on the
detected vehicles or traffic sign information.
As on this writing, the specific concept of an integrated
CS/ACC/ARB has not been found in literature. To indicate an
industry movement on this concept, Tesla Motors Inc. has
these combined technologies but as of yet does not integrate
the traffic sign recognition with the ACC systems.
5.3. Technology Outlook/
Maturity
Technological maturity for CS is demonstrated largely from
the successful integration of these systems for safety with
many automaker companies already installing these systems,
as is described below. Being that these systems are already
integrated on vehicles for enhancing safety, using these sensors
to enhance fuel economy is likely much closer of a step than
integrating V2V or V2I for fuel economy enhancement.
5.3.1. Vehicular Camera System Technological
Status CS have been deployed in an array of commercial
vehicles in the context of safety in LDW and FCW systems. In
particular, the company Mobileye Vision Technologies Ltd. has
been partnering with universities and Continental AG in pro-
viding core technologies to a number of automaker companies,
some since 2007, such as Audi, BMW/Mini, Chrysler, Ford,
General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Land Rover, Mitsubishi,
Nissan, Opel, Peugeot/Citroen, Scania, Tesla, Volvo, and Yulon
[6, 56]. Most other automaker companies have similar CS as an
option for new vehicles, and, while all systems are marketed
with the premise of enhancing safety, a fuel efficiency impact of
CS stems from fostering more efficient driving behavior such as
driving less erratically and observing speed limits. While many
automakers source CS from Mobileye, Daimler-Benz has
invested in their own CS development, as evidenced by various
published academic works [59, 60].
5.4. CS Standards: Current
and Pending
The standards which regulate CS are focused on applying the
technology to FCW systems such as ISO 15623:2013 and SAE
J3029 and to LDW systems such as LV NCAP 2010, ISO/DIS
17361, and Commission Regulation (EU) No. 351/2012. As a
result of these standards, CS are integrated in a number of
passenger vehicles today with the potential to detect other
signals such as traffic signs and enhance vehicle fuel economy
relatively soon.
5.4.1. Research Initiatives and Collaborations CS
have been evaluated in demonstration projects such as the
Automotive Collision Avoidance System Field Operational
Test which addressed technical challenges with the technology
such as image processing errors [12]. Another demonstration,
the euroFOT project, evaluated a variety of t­echnologies
including a FCW system consisting of an integrated radar and
CS. When this system was coupled with an ACC system, fuel
savings were measured to be approximately 3% for standard
powertrain cars and 2% for trucks, not including additional
efficiencies resulting from improved traffic flow [58].
5.5. Conclusion
CS are unique among the sensor technologies given that they
are relatively cheap, are easy to install, and can interpret
visually available information that would normally be detected
by the human eye. Image recognition software is continuously
improving, and, despite the state of the art being traffic sign
recognition, one can imagine additional opportunities to use
this technology as more visually available information can
be interpreted and computing power becomes less expensive.
Since CS require environmental conditions which are visually
clear, the addition of a more robust signal detection tech-
nology is important (an example of which is discussed in the
following section on radar technology). This would ensure
that baseline object detection would always be available for
the driver and running control support.
While fewer direct demonstrations of fuel efficiency are
available, CS has proved useful in commercial vehicles for safety,
and numerous accepted standards are in effect which indicate
government acceptance for CS deployment. Opportunities exist
for CS to directly enhance fuel economy. For example, by adding
CS to alert the driver of unsafe behavior, fuel efficiency has been
shown in the euroFOT project to increase by 3% for standard
powertrain vehicles. CS with the capability to detect traffic signs
would likely have a greater fuel economy impact when inte-
grated with an ACC. The costs associated with CSs are relatively
inexpensive when compared to other technologies, with
optional vehicle safety packages with CS and VRS together
costing in the range of $1000-$2,000 US [28].
6. Vehicular Radar
Systems
This section highlights VRS which, like CS, are a mature tech-
nology in the safety context. VRS are more robust than CS,
meaning that the radar system will continue to provide
distances and velocities of objects despite visual obscurities
[61, 62]. One limitation of VRS sensors is that they are relatively
crude, solely measuring distances and relative-to-vehicle veloc-
ities and not the finer details that CS can interpret. This section
© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by Auburn University Libraries, Saturday, August 24, 2019
covers how VRS enable a standard powertrain vehicle to poten-
tially improve fuel economy by as much as 14% [63]. This
section also addresses combining VRS and CS for system
robustness and capacity to improve fuel efficiency.
6.1. Briefing
VRS work by emitting, detecting, and processing radio waves
which reflect off objects in the environment and arrive back
at the vehicle, granting the perception of both the position
and the movement of objects in the range of the VRS [64].
Common safety applications for VRS are for use in FCW and
ACC systems, similar to CS. Integrating VRS with vision-
based sensors, such as those in CS, offers the benefit of object
detection regardless of adverse weather conditions (such as
rain, snow, and fog) or debris (such as dust, dirt, and road
spray) covering the sensor [61, 62].
Object detection effectiveness for VRS depends on the
following factors [64]:
•• Range and precision of object detection
•• Range and precision of speed detection
•• Angular field of view and resolution
These parameters influence the design of the radar sensor(s)
included in VRS, and depending on the desired factors, there
are several categories of radar sensors [64] (Table 2).
6.2. Conceptual Applications
At the time of this writing, the search for conceptual applica-
tions yielded few novel VRS sensor integration strategies.
While VRS have the potential to combine with other technolo-
gies (namely, CS) to improve the overall robustness of envi-
ronmental perception, applications of the technology to V2V
and V2I are just emerging.
6.2.1. VRS Sensor Fusion Concept In the context of
fuel efficiency, VRS act as a robust FCW sensor where the
leading benefit of VRS is a relatively deep perception of
oncoming hazards and changing traffic conditions. The driver
of the vehicle can then make better informed decisions of
such hazards and changes, resulting in safer and more effi-
cient driving behavior, and an ACC system can act on this
information automatically. Altogether, by “smoothing”
TABLE 2  Radar technologies.
Radar range Description
Short-range Typical range in the tens of meters yet has a
radar (SRR) relatively high angular field of view and precise
range and speed measurements
Long-range Typical range from 100 to 200 meters with a
radar (LRR) narrower field of view and less precision than
the SRR
Medium-range Performance characteristics between those of
radar (MRR) long- and short-range radars
© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved
© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
Wifvat et al. / SAE Int. J. of CAV / Volume 2, Issue 1, 2019 13
v­ ehicle velocity with VRS, up to 14% fuel economy savings
have been measured in standard powertrain vehicles [63]. In
optimal conditions, CS will suffice for this purpose while
offering the capability to interpret visually available informa-
tion, such as traffic signs. However, the merit of integrating
VRS in an ­advanced vehicle is that VRS operate over a wider
range of weather and road conditions and produce similar
basic-­object detection capabilities [65, 66, 67, 68].
6.3. Technology Outlook/
Maturity
As with CS, VRS have been integrated into many modern-day
vehicles for safety as part of FCW systems, and numerous
standards pertain to VRS integration. Because this technology
is already conventional in many modern vehicles, VRS can
be  integrated with vehicles for a fuel efficiency-specific
purpose on a shorter timescale than V2V or V2I systems.
6.3.1. Vehicular Radar System Technological
Status and Standards VRS are a standard component of
most vehicles with ACC systems, and the technology has the
support of numerous accepted domestic and international
standards. The European Telecommunications Standards
­Institute (ETSI) TR 1-1 982 defines the equipment to be used
in 24 GHz band radar systems, and the ETSI TR 102 263 stan-
dard defines the equipment to be used in the 77-81 GHz bands.
The FCC 47 CFR 15.515 defines the technical requirements for
VRS in terms of operating frequency and operating power.
These standards reflect successful present-day VRS integra-
tion, mostly if not entirely in the context of vehicle safety. Yet,
as the cited research indicates, there is much merit for radar
systems to contribute toward the overall vehicular fuel efficiency.
6.4. Conclusion
Overall, VRS have been primarily applied to enhance safety,
being that VRS are capable of robustly detecting objects that
may pose a threat to passenger safety. However, in the context
of enhancing fuel efficiency, the information VRS provide the
driver or running control systems is similar to that of CS but
without the capability to differentiate between objects or inter-
pret traffic signs. In the context of integration strategies, VRS
offer significant benefits in terms of robustness and are not
subject to weather conditions and debris. In addition to
providing information regarding nearby objects, VRS provide
a baseline efficiency improvement that can be as high as 14%
as measured for standard powertrain vehicles [63].
VRS have value in making CS more robust, which is
particularly important because the technologies particular
to CS are advancing to include road sign detection among
other possible capabilities. The maturity of VRS and the
maturity of CS mean that integrating the two systems
together can serve a realistic short-term initiative for
enhancing vehicular fuel economy. As with CS costs, the
current market offering for VRS and CS safety packages is in
the relatively inexpensive range when compared to other
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by Auburn University Libraries, Saturday, August 24, 2019

14 Wifvat et al. / SAE Int. J. of CAV / Volume 2, Issue 1, 2019

TABLE 3  Summary of conclusions. 3. Lang, D., Schmied, R., and Del Re, L., “Prediction of
Preceding Driver Behavior for Fuel Efficient Cooperative
Potential fuel
economy benefit Domestic
Adaptive Cruise Control,” SAE Int. J. Engines 7(1):14-20,
(relative to maturity Cost (relative 2014, doi:10.4271/2014-01-0298.
Sensor conventional (years until to other 4. Raubitschek, C., Schutze, N., Kozlov, E., and Baker, B.,
technology vehicle) ready) sensors) “Predictive Driving Strategies under Urban Conditions for

© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved

V2V 5-20% 10 years out Inexpensive Reducing Fuel Consumption Based on Vehicle Environment
V2I 10-25% 15 years out Inexpensive-on Information,” in 2011 IEEE Forum on Integrated and
(United States) vehicle Sustainable Transportation Systems, 2011, 13-19.
Expensive- 5. Enzweiler, M. and Gavrila, D.M., “Monocular Pedestrian
infrastructure Detection: Survey and Experiments,” IEEE Trans. Pattern
costs Anal. Mach. Intell. 31(12):2179-2195, Dec. 2009.
CS At least 3% Today (safety) Inexpensive 6. Raphael, E., Kiefer, R., Reisman, P., and Hayon, G., Development
(<5 years fuel of a Camera-Based Forward Collision Alert System, (Apr. 2011).
economy)
7. Ruta, A., Porikli, F., Watanabe, S., and Li, Y., “In-Vehicle
VRS 14% Today Inexpensive Camera Traffic Sign Detection and Recognition,” Mach. Vis.
Appl. 22(2):359-375, Dec. 2009.
technologies, as combined CS and VRS vehicle safety 8. Guvenc, L., Uygan, I.M.C., Kahraman, K., Karaahmetoglu,
packages typically cost in the range of $1000-$2,000 US [28]. R. et al., “Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control
Implementation of Team Mekar at the Grand Cooperative
Driving Challenge,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst.

7. Conclusions and 13(3):1062-1074, Sep. 2012.

9. Ploeg, J., Shladover, S., Nijmeijer, H., and van de Wouw, N.,
Recommendations “Introduction to the Special Issue on the 2011 Grand
Cooperative Driving Challenge,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp.
The present work compares sensors that are amenable to Syst. 13(3):989-993, 2012.
achieving fuel economy benefits based on (1) their potential 10. Geiger, A., Moosmann, F., Lauer, M., and Ranft, B., “Team
for realizing a fuel economy benefit, (2) the maturity of each AnnieWAY’s Entry to GCDC (2011),” Gcdc, 2011, 1-13.
sensor technology for commercial deployment, and (3) the 11. Englund, C., Chen, L., Ploeg, J., Semsar-Kazerooni, E. et al.,
cost of each technology. The results are summarized in Table 3. “The Grand Cooperative Driving Challenge 2016: Boosting
The evolution of the automobile brings forth advances in the Introduction of Cooperative Automated Vehicles,”
safety and efficiency. As a present-day example, CS and VRS IEEE Wirel. Commun. 23(4):146-152, 2016.
are improving vehicular safety and, in parallel, demonstrating 12. Ervin, R., Sayer, J., LeBlanc, D., Bogard, S. et al., “Automotive
the potential to increase vehicular fuel economy. In the near Collision Avoidance System Field Operational Test Report:
term, advancements in image processing will enhance CS Methodology and Results Appendices,” vol. UMTRI-2005,
object detection capability and enable, thereby, further no. 2005, 430.
increases in fuel economy improvements. In the long term, 13. Shogan, S., “Connected Vehicle Safety Pilot Overview and
V2V and V2I systems have the potential to be ubiquitous Infrastructure Readiness,” no. August 2011, 2013, 37.
throughout Europe and the United States and facilitate safer 14. Festag, A., Baldessari, R., Zhang, W., Le, L. et al., “CAR-2-X
and more efficient roadway transit. Communication for Safety and Infotainment in Europe,”
NEC Tech. J. 3(1):21-26, 2008.
Acknowledgments 15. Ahmed-Zaid, F., Bai, F., Bai, S., Basnayake, C. et al., “VSC-A
Final Report,” Nhtsa, no. September, 2011, 1-102.
The authors thank Toyota Motor North America, Inc. for their 16. Schlingelhof, M., Bétaille, D., and Bonnifait, P., “Advanced
support and interest in this subject. Positioning Technology Approach for Co-Operative Vehicle
Infrastructure Systems (CVIS),” Tech. Pap. ITS …, 2007.
17. B. und S. (BMVBS) Bundesministerium für Verkehr, “Status
References und Rahmenbedingungen für Intelligente Verkehrssysteme
(IVS) in Deutschland,” 17(1):1-165, 2010.
1. Duduta, N. and Bishins, A., “Citywide Transportation 18. Stübing, H., Jaeger, A., Bißmeyer, N., Schmidt, C. et al.,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories: A Review of Selected “Verifying Mobility Data Under Privacy Considerations in
Methodologies,” World Resour. Inst. 1-19, 2010. Car-To-X Communication,” 1-12.
2. Gonder, J., Earleywine, M., and Sparks, W., “Analyzing 19. El-Tawab, S. and Abuelela, M., “Real-Time Weather
Vehicle Fuel Saving Opportunities through Intelligent Notification System using Intelligent Vehicles and Smart
Driver Feedback,” SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Electron. Electr. Sensors,” in 2009 IEEE 6th International Conference on
Syst. 5(2):450-461, 2012, doi:10.4271/2012-01-0494. Mobile Adhoc and Sensor Systems, 2009, 627-632.
© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by Auburn University Libraries, Saturday, August 24, 2019
Wifvat et al. / SAE Int. J. of CAV / Volume 2, Issue 1, 2019 15
20. Kurihata, H., Takahashi, T., Ide, I., Mekada, Y. et al., “Rainy
Weather Recognition from In-Vehicle Camera Images for
Driver Assistance,” IEEE Proceedings. Intelligent Vehicles
Symposium, 2005. 2005:205-210, 2005.
21. Dannheim, C., Mader, M., and Loewenau, J., “A Novel
Approach for the Enhancement of Cooperative ACC by
Deriving Real Time Weather Information,” in 16th
International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITSC 2013), 2013, 2207-2211.
22. Harvey, C., McIlroy, R.C., and Stanton, N.A., “Getting
Drivers to do the Right Thing: A Review of the Potential for
Safely Reducing Energy Consumption Through Design,”
IET Intell. Transp. Syst. 8(4):388-397, Jun. 2014.
23. Hibberd, D., Jamson, H., Jamson, S., Pauwelussen, J.J. et al.,
“Ecodriver. D12.2: Multi-Modal In-Vehicle and Nomadic
Device Eco-Driving Support for car Drivers,” 2014.
24. Schmits, T., Cooperative Mobility Systems and Services for
Energy Efficiency: High Level Architecture, 2014.
25. Gawron, J.H., Keoleian, G.A., De Kleine, R.D., Wallington,
T.J. et al., “Life Cycle Assessment of Connected and
Automated Vehicles: Sensing and Computing Subsystem and
Vehicle Level Effects,” Environ. Sci. Technol.
52(5):3249-3256, 2018.
26. Temiz, M.S., Kulur, S., and Dogan, S., “Real Time Speed
Estimation From Monocular Video,” ISPRS - Int. Arch.
Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. XXXIX-
B3(September):427-432, 2012.
27. Bibuli, M., Caccia, M., and Lapierre, L., “Path-Following
Algorithms and Experiments for an Autonomous Surface
Vehicle,” IFAC Proc. Vol. 7(PART 1):81-86, 2007.
28. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Study of the
Potential Energy Consumption Impacts of Connected and
Automated Vehicles,” no. March, 2017, 96.
29. Fairfield, N. and Urmson, C., “Traffic Light Mapping and
Detection,” Proc. - IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom, 2011,
5421-5426.
30. Hsu, S., Acharya, S., Rafii, A., and New, R., “Performance of
a Time-Of-Flight Range Camera for Intelligent Vehicle
Safety Applications,” Adv. Microsystems Automot. Appl.
205-219, 2006.
31. Bertozzi, M., Broggi, A., and Fascioli, A., “Vision-Based
Intelligent Vehicles: State of the Art and Perspectives,”
Rob. Auton. Syst. 32(1):1-16, Jul. 2000.
32. Harding, J., Powell, G., Yoon, R., Joshua, F. et al., “Vehicle-to-
Vehicle Communications: Readiness of V2V Technology for
Application,” no. August, 2014.
33. Eichler, S., “Performance Evaluation of the IEEE 802.11p
WAVE Communication Standard,” in 2007 IEEE 66th
Vehicular Technology Conference, 2007, 2199-2203.
34. Yang, X., Liu, J., Zhao, F., and Vaidya, N.H., “A Vehicle-To-
Vehicle Communication Protocol for Cooperative Collision
Warning,” in Proceedings of MOBIQUITOUS 2004 - 1st
Annual International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous
Systems: Networking and Services, 2004, 114-123.
35. Lang, D., Stanger, T., and del Re, L., “Opportunities on Fuel
Economy Utilizing V2V Based Drive Systems,” Apr. 2013.
© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
36. Hartenstein, H. and Laberteaux, K.P., “A Tutorial Survey on
Vehicular ad hoc Networks,” IEEE Commun. Mag.
46(6):164-171, Jun. 2008.
37. Milanés, V., Onieva, E., Pérez, J., Simó, J. et al., “Making
Transport Safer: V2V-Based Automated Emergency Braking
System Emergency Braking System,” vol. 4142, no.
October, 2011.
38. Brackstone, M. and McDonald, M., “Car-Following: A
Historical Review,” Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav.
2(4):181-196, 1999.
39. Dannheim, C., Mader, M., Icking, C., Loewenau, J. et al.,
“TEAM-CO2 Reduction through Online Weather Assistant
for Cooperative ACC Driving,” in 2013 Fifth International
Conference on Computational Intelligence, Communication
Systems and Networks, 2013, 369-373.
40. Brakatsoulas, S., Pfoser, D., Salas, R., and Wenk, C.,
“On Map-Matching Vehicle Tracking Data,” in VLDB 2005 -
Proceedings of 31st International Conference on Very Large
Data Bases, 2005, vol. 2, 853-864.
41. Kerper, M., Wewetzer, C., Trompeter, H., Kiess, W. et al.,
“Driving More Efficiently-The Use of Inter-Vehicle
Communication to Predict a Future Velocity Profile,” in 2011
IEEE 73rd Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring),
2011, 1-5.
42. Piao, J. and McDonald, M., “Advanced Driver Assistance
Systems From Autonomous to Cooperative Approach,”
Transp. Rev. 18(5):659-684, 2008.
43. Fleischmann, B., Gnutzmann, S., and Sandvoß, E., “Dynamic
Vehicle Routing Based on Online Traffic Information,”
Transp. Sci. 38(4):420-433, Nov. 2004.
4 4. Rincon-Garcia, N., Waterson, B.J., and Cherrett, T.J.,
“Requirements from Vehicle Routing Software: Perspectives
from Literature, Developers and the Freight Industry,”
Transp. Rev. 0(0):1-22, 2017.
45. Kishore Kamalanathsharma, R. and Rakha, H.A.,
“Leveraging Connected Vehicle Technology and Telematics
to Enhance Vehicle Fuel Efficiency in the Vicinity of
Signalized Intersections,” J. Intell. Transp. Syst. 1-12,
Feb. 2014.
46. Asadi, B. and Vahidi, A., “Predictive Cruise Control:
Utilizing Upcoming Traffic Signal Information for
Improving Fuel Economy and Reducing Trip Time,”
IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 19(3):707-714, May 2011.
47. Li, Z.R., Chitturi, M.V, Yu, L., Bill, A.R. et al., “Sustainability
Effects of Next-Generation Intersection Control For
Autonomous Vehicles,” vol. 4142, no. October, 2017.
48. Koenders, E. and Vreeswijk, J., “Cooperative
Infrastructure,” in 2008 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles
Symposium, 2008, 721-726.
49. van Keulen, T., Naus, G., de Jager, B., van de Molengraft, R.
et al., “Predictive Cruise Control in Hybrid Electric
Vehicles,” World Electr. Veh. J. 3(1), 2009.
50. Maile, M., Neale, V., Ahmed-Zaid, F., Basnyake, C. et al.,
“Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance System
Limited to Stop Sign and Traffic Signal Violations
(CICAS-V),” 2008.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by Auburn University Libraries, Saturday, August 24, 2019

16 Wifvat et al. / SAE Int. J. of CAV / Volume 2, Issue 1, 2019

51. Aparicio, J., Tas, N.C., Rosca, J., Miller, D. et al.,
“Intersection Information Services: A Flexible and
Extensible Connected Vehicle Framework,” 2012 Int. Conf.
Connect. Veh. Expo 290-291, 2012.
52. E. Opel Media, “Media Europe Traffic Jam-Free Future: Opel
Presents Status of Telematic,” 2011.
53. Chang, J., Hatcher, G., Hicks, D., Schneeberger, J. et al.,
“Estimated Benefits of Connected Vehicle Applications:
Dynamic Mobility Applications, AERIS, V2I Safety, and Road
Weather Management Applications,” no. August, 2015, 57p.
54. Davison, A.J., Reid, I.D., Molton, N.D., and Stasse, O.,
“MonoSLAM: Real-Time Single Camera SLAM,” IEEE Trans.
Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 29(6):1052-1067, Jun. 2007.
55. Sun, Z., Bebis, G., and Miller, R., “On-Road Vehicle
Detection: A Review,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach.
Intell. 28(5):694-711, May 2006.
56. Dagan, E., Mano, O., Stein, G.P., and Shashua, A., “Forward
Collision Warning with a Single Camera,” in IEEE Intelligent
Vehicles Symposium, Proceedings, 2004, 37-42.
57. LeBlanc, D.J., Johnson, G.E., Venhovens, P.J.T., Gerber, G.
et al., “CAPC: A Road-Departure Prevention System,”
IEEE Control Syst. Mag. 16(6):61-71, 1996.
58. Freek Faber, T., Eline Jonkers, T., Martijn van Noort, T.,
Mohamed Benmimoun, I. et al., “Final Results: Impacts on
Traffic Efficiency and Environment,” 2012.
59. Enzweiler, M., Hummel, M., Pfeiffer, D., and Franke, U.,
“Efficient Stixel-Based Object Recognition,” in 2012 IEEE
Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, 2012, 1066-1071.
6 0. Hartmann, O., Gabb, M., Schweiger, R., and Dietmayer, K.,
“Towards Autonomous Self-Assessment of Digital Maps,”
in 2014 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium Proceedings,
2014, 89-95.
61. Beg, C., Vajedi, M., Nezhad-Ahmadi, M.R., Azad, N.L., et al.,
“A Cost-Effective Radar System for Automotive Powertrain
Control Applications,” in 2012 15th International IEEE
Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2012,
84-89.
62. Turner, J.D. and Austin, L., “Sensors for Automotive
Telematics,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 11(2):R58-R79, Feb. 2000.
63. Stiller, C., Puente León, F., and Kruse, M., “Information
Fusion for Automotive Applications - An Overview,”
Inf. Fusion 12(4):244-252, Oct. 2011.
64. Kissinger, D., “Millimeter-Wave Receiver Concepts for
77 GHz Automotive Radar in Silicon-Germanium
Technology,” 2012.
65. Gern, A., Franke, U., and Levi, P., “Robust Vehicle Tracking
Fusing Radar and Vision,” in IEEE International Conference
on Multisensor Fusion and Integration for Intelligent Systems,
2001, 323-328.
66. Gern, A., Franke, U., and Levi, P., “Advanced Lane
Recognition - Fusing Vision and Radar,” in IEEE Intelligent
Vehicles Symposium, Proceedings, 2000, 45-51.
67. Barth, A. and Franke, U., “Estimating the Driving State of
Oncoming Vehicles From a Moving Platform Using Stereo
Vision,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 10(4):560-571,
Dec. 2009.
68. Ji, Z., Luciw, M., Weng, J., and Zeng, S., “Incremental Online
Object Learning in a Vehicular Radar-Vision Fusion
Framework,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 12(2):402-411,
Jun. 2011.

© 2019 SAE International. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE International.

Positions and opinions advanced in this work are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE International. Responsibility for the content of the work lies
solely with the author(s).