2025-11-14T00:16:11.031729

Optimising Communication Control Factors for Energy Consumption in Rural LOS V2X

Zhao, Dinh-Van, Mo et al.
Connected braking can reduce fatal collisions in connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs) by using reliable, low-latency 5G New Radio (NR) links, especially NR Sidelink Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X). In rural areas, road side units are sparse and power-constrained or off-grid, so energy efficiency must be considered alongside safety. This paper studies how three communication control factors including subcarrier spacing ($\mathrm{SCS}$), modulation and coding scheme ($\mathrm{MCS}$), and transmit power ($P_{\mathrm{t}}$) should be configured to balance safety and energy consumption in rural line-of-sight (LOS) scenarios in light and heavy traffic scenarios. Safety is quantified by the packet receive ratio ($\mathrm{PRR}$) against the minimum communication distance $D_{\mathrm{comm}}$, defined as the distance that the vehicle travels during the transmission of the safety message. Results show that, under heavy traffic, increasing $P_{\mathrm{t}}$ and selecting a low-rate $\mathrm{MCS}$ at $\mathrm{SCS} = 30$ kHz sustains high $\mathrm{PRR}$ at $D_{\mathrm{comm}}$, albeit with higher energy cost. In light traffic, maintaining lower $P_\mathrm{t}$ with low $\mathrm{MCS}$ levels achieves a favorable reliability-energy trade-off while preserving acceptable $\mathrm{PRR}$ at $D_{\mathrm{comm}}$. These findings demonstrate the necessity of adaptive, energy-aware strategy to guarantee both safety and energy efficiency in rural V2X systems.
academic

Optimising Communication Control Factors for Energy Consumption in Rural LOS V2X

Basic Information

  • Paper ID: 2510.12539
  • Title: Optimising Communication Control Factors for Energy Consumption in Rural LOS V2X
  • Authors: Zhanle Zhao, Son Dinh-Van, Yuen Kwan Mo, Siddartha Khastgir, Matthew D. Higgins
  • Classification: eess.SY (Systems and Control), cs.SY (Systems and Control), eess.SP (Signal Processing)
  • Publication Date: October 14, 2025 (arXiv preprint)
  • Institution: School of Manufacturing Engineering, University of Warwick
  • Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.12539

Abstract

This paper investigates how to balance safety and energy consumption in Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) systems in rural line-of-sight (LOS) scenarios by optimizing three critical communication control factors: subcarrier spacing (SCS), modulation and coding scheme (MCS), and transmit power (Pt). The research is based on 5G NR Sidelink V2X technology and addresses both light and heavy traffic scenarios, using packet reception rate (PRR) and minimum communication distance (Dcomm) as quantitative safety metrics. The study reveals that under heavy traffic, increasing transmit power and selecting low-rate MCS at 30 kHz subcarrier spacing maintains high PRR but incurs higher energy consumption; under light traffic, maintaining lower transmit power and low MCS levels achieves a favorable reliability-energy consumption tradeoff.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

  1. Core Problem: How to optimize V2X communication parameters in sparsely-infrastructured rural areas to balance safety performance and energy efficiency
  2. Practical Challenges: Rural areas have sparse roadside units (RSUs) with limited or off-grid power supply, necessitating energy minimization while maintaining safety guarantees

Research Significance

  • Safety Requirements: Connected braking technology can reduce fatal collisions through reliable, low-latency 5G NR links
  • Energy Efficiency Demands: Power limitations in rural infrastructure make energy efficiency a critical consideration
  • Technical Gap: Existing research predominantly focuses on urban scenarios, lacking systematic analysis for rural environments

Limitations of Existing Approaches

  1. Lack of joint optimization of Pt, SCS, and MCS factors
  2. Insufficient consideration of unique channel characteristics in rural environments
  3. Neglect of energy consumption tradeoffs in communication control factor optimization
  4. Absence of adaptive strategies for different traffic densities

Core Contributions

  1. Systematic Analysis: First systematic study of the joint impact of SCS, Pt, and MCS on safety and energy consumption in rural V2X systems
  2. Theoretical Modeling: Development of analytical formulas for Dcomm, PRR, and energy consumption, establishing quantitative relationships between communication control factors and safety-critical performance metrics
  3. Experimental Validation: Extensive simulation verification of communication control factors' effects on safety and energy consumption, providing benchmarks for adaptive control strategies
  4. Optimization Strategy: Identification of appropriate parameter configurations for joint optimization of safety and energy efficiency under different traffic conditions

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Input: V2X communication scenario in rural LOS environment, including RSU, ego vehicle, and target vehicle Output: Optimized communication control parameter configuration (SCS, MCS, Pt) Objective: Minimize energy consumption while guaranteeing safety performance

System Model

Traffic Model

  • Scenario Setup: Rural LOS highway, bidirectional 4-lane, 2000m per lane
  • Vehicle Density: Light traffic 30-50 vehicles/km, heavy traffic 80-100 vehicles/km
  • Speed Distribution: 50-110 km/h, following Gaussian distribution (standard deviation 7 km/h)

Critical Distance Dcomm Definition

Dcomm represents the distance traveled by a vehicle from RSU sending a braking signal until the ego vehicle receives the first correct data packet:

Dcomm=Nvpps(1−PRR)D_{comm} = \frac{Nv}{pps}(1-PRR)

Where:

  • N: Total number of transmitted packets
  • v: Average vehicle speed
  • pps: Packet transmission rate per second
  • PRR: Packet reception rate

Performance Modeling

Bit Error Rate Analysis

BER(di)=1−PRR(di)1/LBER(d_i) = 1 - PRR(d_i)^{1/L}

Where L is the packet length. For different modulation schemes:

Q\left(\sqrt{\frac{E_b}{N_0}(d_i)}\right), & M = 4 \\ \frac{3}{8}Q\left(\sqrt{\frac{4}{5} \cdot \frac{E_b}{N_0}(d_i)}\right), & M = 16 \end{cases}$$ #### Data Rate Calculation $$R = 12 \cdot N_{sub} \cdot N_{bits/symbol} \cdot R_c \cdot SCS \cdot N_{symbols}$$ #### Energy Consumption Analysis Total energy consumption with truncated HARQ: $$E_{total} = N_{pkt} \cdot P_t \cdot \frac{L_{bits}}{R} \cdot \frac{1-(1-PRR)^H}{PRR}$$ Where H is the maximum transmission attempts per packet. ### Technical Innovations 1. **Joint Optimization Framework**: First to incorporate SCS, MCS, and Pt into a unified optimization framework 2. **Safety Distance Quantification**: Introduction of Dcomm as a direct quantitative metric for safety performance 3. **Adaptive Strategy**: Dynamic parameter adjustment strategy based on traffic density 4. **Energy-Safety Tradeoff**: Explicit consideration of the tradeoff relationship between safety performance and energy consumption ## Experimental Setup ### Simulation Environment - **Simulator**: WiLabV2XSim open-source simulator - **Channel Model**: 3GPP rural LOS propagation model - **Shadow Fading**: Variance 3dB, decorrelation distance 25m ### Communication Parameter Settings - **Center Frequency**: 5.9 GHz (ITS band) - **Bandwidth**: 20 MHz - **Transmit Power Density**: 13 dBm/MHz - **Antenna Gain**: 3 dBi - **Packet Size**: 350 bytes ### Control Factor Ranges - **MCS**: 8-10 (QPSK), 12-18 (16-QAM) - **SCS**: 15 kHz and 30 kHz - **Pt**: 23-26 dBm ### Evaluation Metrics 1. **PRR**: Packet reception rate 2. **Dcomm**: Minimum communication distance 3. **Eb/N0**: Energy per bit to noise power spectral density ratio 4. **Total Energy Consumption**: Total energy for transmitting all packets ## Experimental Results ### SCS Optimization Results - **30 kHz vs 15 kHz**: 30 kHz outperforms across all traffic densities - **Performance Improvement**: 30 kHz achieves ~0.05-0.1 PRR improvement at 375m distance - **Physical Reason**: Better Doppler tolerance and phase noise suppression capability ### Transmit Power Optimization #### Critical Distance Analysis - **23 dBm**: Dcomm = 375m (50 km/h) - **26 dBm**: Dcomm ≈ 100m (50 km/h) - **Performance Gain**: 3dB power increase reduces Dcomm by approximately 75% #### Traffic Density Adaptability | Traffic Density (vehicles/km) | 23 dBm PRR | 26 dBm PRR | Improvement | |-------------------------------|------------|------------|-------------| | 30 | 0.75 | 0.95 | +0.20 | | 50 | 0.65 | 0.90 | +0.25 | | 80 | 0.45 | 0.85 | +0.40 | | 100 | 0.35 | 0.80 | +0.45 | ### MCS Optimization Results - **Optimal Choice**: MCS = 8 performs best across all scenarios - **Performance Comparison**: MCS 8 vs MCS 10 achieves 0.05-0.10 PRR improvement - **Energy Efficiency Consideration**: Higher MCS improves spectral efficiency but increases retransmission probability and energy consumption ### Energy Consumption Analysis #### Total Transmission Count Comparison | Pt (dBm) | ρ=30 | ρ=50 | ρ=80 | ρ=100 | |----------|---------|----------|----------|----------| | 23 | 528,209 | 1,476,832| 3,721,318| 5,677,773| | 26 | 535,225 | 1,469,037| 3,665,039| 5,731,340| #### Total Energy Consumption Comparison | Pt (dBm) | ρ=30 | ρ=50 | ρ=80 | ρ=100 | |----------|--------|--------|---------|---------| | 23 | 90.69J | 300.68J| 817.57J | 1255.92J| | 26 | 157.52J| 579.09J| 1795.39J| 2523.51J| **Key Findings**: - Light Traffic: Power increase of 74-93% results in proportional energy increase - Heavy Traffic: Power increase of 101% results in more than doubled energy consumption ## Related Work ### V2X Communication Optimization Existing research primarily focuses on single-parameter optimization in urban environments, such as: - Transmit power optimization [16] - SCS optimization [17] - MCS optimization [20,21] ### Energy-Efficient V2X Research Related work [22-26] explores energy efficiency in V2X communication but lacks: 1. Special considerations for rural environments 2. Multi-parameter joint optimization 3. Explicit modeling of safety performance ### Advantages of This Work 1. First systematic study for rural LOS scenarios 2. Three-parameter joint optimization framework 3. Quantitative tradeoff analysis between safety and energy efficiency ## Conclusions and Discussion ### Main Conclusions 1. **Parameter Configuration Strategy**: - SCS = 30 kHz + MCS = 8 as optimal baseline configuration - Light Traffic: Pt = 23 dBm achieves favorable energy efficiency tradeoff - Heavy Traffic: Pt = 26 dBm ensures safety performance but significantly increases energy consumption 2. **Necessity of Adaptive Strategy**: - Traffic density is a critical decision factor - Dynamic power adjustment needed to balance safety and energy efficiency 3. **Quantified Tradeoff Relationships**: - Heavy Traffic: 100% safety improvement but 101% energy increase - Light Traffic: 74-93% energy savings achievable through power reduction ### Limitations 1. **Scenario Constraints**: Only considers rural LOS scenarios, excluding NLOS cases 2. **Model Simplification**: Employs idealized geometric distribution assumptions 3. **Dynamic Factors**: Insufficient consideration of real-time traffic variations 4. **Hardware Constraints**: Does not account for practical device power adjustment limitations ### Future Directions 1. **Intelligent Adaptive Algorithms**: Real-time parameter optimization based on machine learning 2. **Multi-Scenario Extension**: Extension to NLOS and hybrid scenarios 3. **Collaborative Optimization**: System-level optimization considering multi-RSU cooperation 4. **Practical Deployment Validation**: Performance verification in real environments ## In-Depth Evaluation ### Strengths 1. **Strong Problem Relevance**: Focuses on rural V2X, an overlooked yet important application scenario 2. **Complete Methodology**: Comprehensive research chain from theoretical modeling to simulation verification 3. **High Practical Value**: Provides specific parameter configuration guidance 4. **In-Depth Analysis**: Quantitatively reveals the tradeoff relationship between safety and energy efficiency ### Weaknesses 1. **Verification Limitations**: Based solely on simulation, lacking real-world environment validation 2. **Model Simplification**: Some assumptions may be overly idealized 3. **Dynamic Adaptation**: Lacks specific design of real-time adaptive mechanisms 4. **Cost Considerations**: Insufficient consideration of hardware upgrade and maintenance costs ### Impact 1. **Academic Contribution**: Provides important benchmark for rural V2X research 2. **Engineering Value**: Offers parameter configuration guidance for practical deployment 3. **Policy Significance**: Supports rural intelligent transportation infrastructure planning ### Applicable Scenarios 1. **Rural Highways**: Directly applicable to rural highway V2X deployment 2. **Resource-Constrained Environments**: Suitable for power-limited V2X system design 3. **Safety-Critical Applications**: Applicable to optimization of delay-sensitive safety applications ## References The paper cites 31 related references, covering: - V2X Communication Technology [5-8] - Communication Parameter Optimization [16-21] - Energy Efficiency Optimization [22-26] - Simulation Modeling [27-30] Key references include the authors' prior work [10] and 3GPP standards [28], ensuring research continuity and standards compliance. --- **Overall Assessment**: This paper conducts a systematic study on safety and energy efficiency optimization for rural V2X systems, proposing valuable parameter configuration strategies. Despite certain limitations, it provides important theoretical foundations and engineering guidance for practical deployment of rural intelligent transportation systems.