This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal.
Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
A Taxonomy and Survey of Edge Cloud Computing
for Intelligent Transportation Systems
and Connected Vehicles
Peter Arthurs , Lee Gillam , Paul Krause , Ning Wang , Senior Member, IEEE,
Kaushik Halder , and Alexandros Mouzakitis
Abstract— Recent advances in smart connected vehicles and
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) are based upon the
capture and processing of large amounts of sensor data. Mod-
ern vehicles contain many internal sensors to monitor a wide
range of mechanical and electrical systems and the move to
semi-autonomous vehicles adds outward looking sensors such
as cameras, lidar, and radar. ITS is starting to connect existing
sensors such as road cameras, traffic density sensors, traffic speed
sensors, emergency vehicle, and public transport transponders.
This disparate range of data is then processed to produce a
fused situation awareness of the road network and used to
provide real-time management, with much of the decision making
automated. Road networks have quiet periods followed by peak
traffic periods and cloud computing can provide a good solution
for dealing with peaks by providing offloading of processing
and scaling-up as required, but in some situations latency to
traditional cloud data centres is too high or bandwidth is too
constrained. Cloud computing at the edge of the network, close
to the vehicle and ITS sensor, can provide a solution for latency
and bandwidth constraints but the high mobility of vehicles and
heterogeneity of infrastructure still needs to be addressed. This
paper surveys the literature for cloud computing use with ITS
and connected vehicles and provides taxonomies for that plus
their use cases. We finish by identifying where further research
is needed in order to enable vehicles and ITS to use edge cloud
computing in a fully managed and automated way. We surveyed
496 papers covering a seven-year timespan with the first paper
appearing in 2013 and ending at the conclusion of 2019.
Index Terms— Connected vehicles, autonomous vehicles, edge
cloud computing, intelligent transportation systems, multi-access
edge computing.
I. I NTRODUCTION
T HE modern Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) relies
on a range of remote sensors to determine the live state
Manuscript received December 4, 2020; revised May 10, 2021; accepted
May 18, 2021. This work was supported by Jaguar Land Rover and the
United Kingdom’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
(UK-EPSRC) as part of the jointly funded Towards Autonomy: Smart and
Connected Control (TASCC) Program under Grant EP/N01300X/1. The
Associate Editor for this article was C. F. Mecklenbräuker. (Corresponding
author: Peter Arthurs.)
Peter Arthurs, Lee Gillam, and Paul Krause are with the Department of
Computer Science, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, U.K. (e-mail:
p.arthurs@surrey.ac.uk).
Ning Wang is with the 6G Innovation Centre, University of Surrey,
Guildford GU2 7XH, U.K.
Kaushik Halder is with the Department of Mechanical Engineering Sciences,
University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, U.K.
Alexandros Mouzakitis is with Jaguar Land Rover, Coventry CV4 7AL,
U.K.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TITS.2021.3084396
1558-0016 © 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: The Islamia University of Bahawalpur. Downloaded on June 06,2022 at 19:53:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1
of a road network and then communicate control signals to
roadside systems and road users. Future ITS may need to com-
municate with users of the road network and roadside furniture
to share situation awareness and control messages. Vehicles
may need to communicate with each other to exchange driving
intention information, such as emergency braking or road con-
ditions. Vehicles may also need to communicate with roadside
units to get advance warning about upcoming road conditions,
or to send control signals so that controlled junctions can clear
lanes for emergency vehicles and public transport. Both ITS
and connected vehicles can take advantage of the scalability
and on-demand nature of cloud, however, limitations of the
network infrastructure to cloud servers prevents some types
of services, such as those requiring ultra-low-latency or high
bandwidth. Edge cloud is aimed at solving the issues of
latency and bandwidth and when integrated with 5G networks,
will offer new types of services not previously achievable
with traditional cloud, such as collective perception of the
environment.
Current cloud suppliers provide services from datacentres
located in highly-connected areas of countries and regions with
a large commercial customer base. This has allowed the cloud
suppliers to reduce cost through bulk supply and simplified
management and maintenance, but network latency for end
users can be high due to long distances between the user
and the cloud datacentre, and using mobile networks adds
additional latency overheads. The demands of end users are
growing beyond being based at permanent physical locations
with hard network connections, to users with wireless network
connections, many of whom are actively mobile. This change
is amplified by the growing market for IoT devices that will
soon greatly outnumber people [1].
Incumbent cloud suppliers are starting to experiment with
edge-cloud by providing products based upon their core
cloud offering but which can operate on smaller compute
platforms while keeping compatibility with their core cloud
platforms. Several architectures have been proposed to address
the ‘edge’ user and these are covered in more detail in this
paper. These edge architectures have been defined to address
different uses, but over time have started to overlap and
precise definitions have broadened as more researchers use
published architectures to address their own problems and
use cases. It is apparent that a precise definition is required
for any paper covering edge cloud technologies to avoid
confusion.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

2 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

Fig. 1. Three Tier Architecture with connected vehicles at Tier 1, The edge cloud at Tier 2, and traditional cloud at Tier 3.

There are various definitions of edge computing and a TABLE I

simple definition is “technologies that allow computation to KPI S FOR S ERVER T IERS
be performed at the network edge so that computing happens
near data sources” [2]. Additionally, edge computing aims to
“provide context aware storage and distributed computing at
the edge of the networks” [3]. A further important requirement
for edge computing is location awareness. Mobile users need
to identify the most suitable compute resources and discover
local edge servers to determine that most suitable for the
tasks at hand, plus being able to predict future movements for
orchestration of cloud services as the current resource moves
out of suitable range. These are new requirement beyond the
remit of traditional cloud. For us, edge computing means
compute, memory, and storage facilities located within the
5G network, providing ultra-low-latency communications with
high bandwidth to the end user. As such, we equate edge
computing with the ETSI definition of Multi-access Edge
Computing (MEC) [4].
Architectures involving edge cloud tend to use three tiers
with the user at tier one, edge cloud at tier two, and traditional the bandwidth and protocols in use. Reducing geographical
cloud services at tier three. This is shown in Figure 1. coverage can increase the overall capacity if the medium
We have identified a list of key performance indicators (KPIs) allows it. Reducing coverage area for a given cell is a standard
which should be considered for any services or applications method for cellular networks but does lead to an increased
before determining the most suitable communications method number of cells. Quality of service (QoS) describes a method
and location for compute and storage. These are shown and of measuring a service so that guaranteed levels of service can
parameterised in Table I. be maintained. QoS may include any measurable parameter
Latency is the time delay between the source of data and such as latency, bandwidth, and server-side parameters such
the receiver of the data. It includes processing time to format as processor and memory availability. QoS is widely used in
and pack the data, transmission overheads, network delays, traditional cloud computing to define a level of availability of a
and processing time to decode the data at the receiving side. service and the move to edge cloud computing adds additional
In general, reducing the span of the network reduces latency. challenges due to the mobility of users and the need to select
End to end ultra-low-latency from vehicle, across 5G cellular edge cloud servers close to the user for lower latency. The
network, to edge cloud is surveyed in [5]. Latencies of 10ms expected heterogeneity of available edge clouds suggests that
are identified to allow for platooning and overtaking services QoS will be needed to allow live measurement of the cloud
to function, whilst raw video exchange needs less than 50ms. resource and network quality, to ensure migration to new edge
Road safety and traffic flow control services vary between clouds can occur in an orderly manner when the QoS of the
10ms and 100ms of acceptable latency. Reducing latency is a current service starts to decline. Orchestration is required if
key reason for using edge cloud computing and is the prompt applications are to be distributed across cloud tiers or when
for augmenting traditional cloud computing with edge cloud. deciding on the edge cloud to select. Migration of services and
In the context used here, bandwidth is the network band- data between edge clouds is needed for mobile users to ensure
width and higher bandwidth is normally better but is usually at QoS is maintained when the user starts to see increased latency
the cost of reducing the number of concurrent users. Capacity or other decreases in performance due to increased network
is the maximum number of users and is dependent upon paths or availability changes at the edge cloud server.

Authorized licensed use limited to: The Islamia University of Bahawalpur. Downloaded on June 06,2022 at 19:53:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
ARTHURS et al.: TAXONOMY AND SURVEY OF EDGE CLOUD COMPUTING FOR ITSs AND CONNECTED VEHICLES
A. Motivation for Research
Achieving future ITS implies the integration of sensors,
vehicles, and compute resources covering a geographical area
such as a town or city [6]. This broad range of data covering
a wide area will create a means to analyse, assess, and
coordinate entire transportation networks to minimise wasted
travel time and reduce pollution. Future ITS can be achieved
by using cloud services, as scalability of cloud allows for
peak periods while reducing excess use for quiet periods of
the day. Offloading of applications from vehicles into the
cloud can reduce energy usage and potentially reduce the
total amount of compute power required on the vehicle. New
types of driving services, such as platooning, may be made
possible, or improved using cloud computing to coordinate
communications and provide shared applications. However,
these may suffer from latency or bandwidth constraints that
are not achievable using traditional cloud computing facilities,
and architectures that move cloud computing to the edge of
the network, thereby reducing latency, may provide a solution.
These issues are currently highly relevant due to the rush to
automate many driving functions with the final goal of fully
autonomous vehicles.
There is a broad coverage of V2V and V2V ad-hoc net-
working in the literature and there is an expectation that
V2V will be used to provide a wide range of services for
connected vehicles. Edge cloud gets less coverage but may
offer additional benefits over V2V. There has also been limited
research into ITS using cloud computing at this time and
therefore this paper identifies current research and lists gaps
in the literature that will need filling to achieve the broad aims
of future transportation solutions for both connected vehicles
and ITS.
B. Our Contributions
In recent years there have been survey works in the areas
of cloud computing used for ITS [7], and connected vehicles
[8], [9]. Surveys covering fog and edge computing look at
various architectures addressing edge cloud and computational
offloading [10]–[13]. Challenges and research directions are
identified for connected vehicles using MEC [14], [15]. In [14]
they describe the “electronic horizon” that is the agglomeration
of cloud based virtual sensor data, map data, vehicle’s mobility
models, and additional data such as road conditions. They
identify a range of relevant issues for edge cloud although
their research directions do not put sufficient emphasis on edge
cloud migration issues for highly mobile vehicles. Communi-
cations using Vehicle to Everything (V2X), which incorpo-
rates all types of vehicle communications, is surveyed and
covers the three main protocol stacks, ITS standardisation
efforts, and radio access technologies [16]. [16] provides a
good introduction to current and proposed communications
standards, protocols, and technology. A taxonomy for resource
management of edge computing is provided in [17].
There are many documented use-cases for connected vehi-
cles and ITS. The majority of those that consider commu-
nications look at V2V, and very few have considered how
cloud services can implement and improve effectiveness of
Authorized licensed use limited to: The Islamia University of Bahawalpur. Downloaded on June 06,2022 at 19:53:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
3
the use-case. Surveys covering use cases that do consider
edge cloud include [9], [18], [19]. However, none of the
surveys have considered edge cloud use specifically for ITS
and connected vehicles and none provide a taxonomy. This
leaves a void covering future ITS and vehicle services that
rely upon lower latencies than are achievable by traditional
cloud services. Our work aims to fill such a significant gap.
Our contributions are summarised as follows.
1) We provide a comprehensive survey of edge cloud
computing for ITS and connected vehicles; to the best
of our knowledge is the first review of its kind.
2) We provide a taxonomy for edge cloud usage with
ITS and connected vehicles, and a taxonomy for their
respective use cases.
3) We identify key challenges needing solving to enable
edge cloud to support future ITS and connected vehicle
services, that should be of interest to future researchers.
C. Paper Organization
The rest of this paper is as follows. In Section II we review
and discuss the background to edge cloud. In Section III
we look at a range of use cases and provide a use case
taxonomy for ITS and connected vehicles. In Section IV
we provide a taxonomy and carry out a detailed survey of
the literature covering edge cloud computing for ITS and
connected vehicles. In Section V we consider important topics
that the literature fails to cover in suitable depth and list the
challenges and opportunities that need to be researched to fully
enable the concepts.
II. BACKGROUND AND R ELATED W ORK
In this section we compare V2V and cellular communica-
tions for connected vehicles and look at various forms of edge
cloud computing.
A. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
ITS is identified as the seamless integration of emerg-
ing technologies for connected vehicles, cloud computing,
and Internet of Things (IoT) with transportation infrastruc-
tures [20]. ITS will allow issues such as reducing fuel use, high
CO2 emissions, traffic congestion, and improving road safety.
Current ITS has relied upon closed systems but must evolve
to being fully open and integrated with other systems to allow
data fusion and analysis, leading to better decision making
and to regulate traffic flow to reduce accidents and divert traffic
from road blockages [21]. These improvements have the added
benefit of reducing CO2 and particulate pollution by reducing
overall congestion and travel time.
Authorities responsible for managing transportation net-
works can use cloud-based ITS to manage vehicle traffic
and provide safety and other information to drivers to tackle
problems such as road congestion [22]. An ITS framework
is also provided to address these and other issues cover-
ing storage mechanisms, access, and information manage-
ment, for the public, commercial vehicles, and emergency
services [22]. It includes the integration of vehicle ad-hoc
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
4 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
networks (VANETS) with other networks to extend the ITS.
A key feature is that the vehicle is both a consumer of cloud
resources and a provider in a cooperative mode when V2I is
unavailable. The framework, called Vehicular Cloud Transport
Management (ViCTiM) provides for the management service
and introduces Cooperation as a service (CaaS) and Informa-
tion as a Service (INaaS).
Connected vehicles will play a central role in ITS [23],
allowing vehicles to act as “smart nodes” that collect and share
information on other vehicles, roads, and their surroundings.
This information can be collated, analysed, distributed, and
acted upon either by other vehicles, or by more centralised
command and control systems.
The performance and cost benefits of placing ITS applica-
tions into the edge cloud using cellular networks is investigated
and results suggest that growing performance requirements
will give cost-benefit improvements for offloading to the edge
cloud [24].
B. Connected Vehicles
Wireless communications for connected vehicles consist of
either V2V, or cellular via a 4G or 5G network, often termed
Vehicle to Everything (V2X). Vehicles could be fitted with
one or both technologies and different computing services are
possible depending upon which is available.
V2V allows for broadcast messages, sent to all vehicles
within receiving range, or direct peer-to-peer (P2P) messages
that are exchanged between two vehicles. Roadside units can
be fitted with V2V and this is referred to as Vehicle to
Infrastructure (V2I) communications. V2I allows for vehicles
to communicate directly with roadside systems such as traffic
lights, which can be used to prioritise traffic lights for emer-
gency vehicles, or in the future, inform approaching vehicles of
the current light sequence, allowing for autonomous vehicles
to time their approach to coincide with a green light. Broadcast
messages may be used to inform all surrounding vehicles
of important and time-sensitive information such as emer-
gency braking in progress or obstacles in the road. Broadcast
messages allow for the periodic broadcast of each vehicle’s
position, speed, and direction, which provides a localised
situational awareness. P2P may allow for ad-hoc networks to
be formed, enabling new services such as sharing of sensor
data or platoon control.
The internet of vehicles introduces the equivalent concept
of the internet of things (IoT) and represents the agglomer-
ation of all internet connected vehicles [25]. Content centric
networking could give vehicles the ability to share relevant
content with other vehicles while coping with the highly
mobile nature of vehicles. Cellular networks communicate via
a Radio Access Network (RAN), that connects several masts
within a cell. A cell covers an area, and these vary in size
depending upon user density. Using cells covering a smaller
area can accommodate a higher number of users per given
area as the limitation is the number of users and bandwidth
per cell. In general, densely populated areas tend to have small
cells and sparsely populated areas have large cells.
Cellular radio is often fitted to roadside infrastructure which
extends range beyond V2I and enables internet services to
Authorized licensed use limited to: The Islamia University of Bahawalpur. Downloaded on June 06,2022 at 19:53:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
make use of sensor data or allow for remote management.
Roadside infrastructure fitted with both V2V and either a wired
connection or cellular to the internet may allow for a gateway
to the internet for vehicles only fitted with V2V.
V2V can provide an ad-hoc network covering local vehicles
but suffers from limited range and capacity compared to
cellular networks. Ranges are very short, in the region of
hundreds of metres rather than kilometres, and capacity is
limited in the order of one hundred vehicles before packet
loss starts to occur due to channel overcrowding.
5G cellular can also provide a V2V style network called
Cellular-Vehicle to Everything (C-V2X). This uses the RAN
to coordinate members of the C-V2X network. Comparisons
of V2V using 802.11p versus C-V2X show that C-V2X gives
greater range but at the potential cost of lower data capac-
ity [26], [27]. 5G networks also feature network slicing [28].
Network slicing provides the ability to divide the network
into several logical networks, each having differing QoS
requirements. The dynamic provision of network slices will
enable ultra-reliable low-latency communications (URLLC)
that will be needed to provide some of the future services
not possible under 4G or V2V networks.
Success for connected vehicles involves sensing of the local
environment, access to external data, and processing of all
data to allow for accurate decision making. A local situation
awareness of surrounding objects is essential for safe driving
decision making. A wider ranged situation awareness allows
for route planning with the ability to route around areas of slow
traffic and road obstructions. Connectivity to roadside furniture
on the planned route may allow for careful timing of arrival
at junctions to prevent the need for stopping. Finally, new
services such as platooning may be enabled by connectivity
to cloud services for the planning and coordination of platoons,
whilst live management of a platoon will need sharing of vehi-
cle data and coordination of movement between all vehicles
within the platoon.
C. VANET
A vehicle ad-hoc network (VANET) is defined as a set of
mobile vehicles communicating over a wireless network to
exchange data between themselves (V2V) and with local road-
side units (V2I). This allows for the distribution of information
to increase the safety and comfort of passengers. A VANET
is a decentralised, self-organising, dynamic network that is
bandwidth constrained and limited in range to direct peer-
to-peer communications or extended range through use of
relay stations [29], [30]. Protocols allow for direct one-to-one
communications or broadcast to all vehicles or a selection
of vehicles. Safety related messages can be prioritised to
minimise latency. Analysis of using cloud to store safety
related messages and VANET to provide rapid dissemination
to the target area suggests that this approach can rapidly and
efficiently disseminate messages while significantly reducing
the cost of cellular communications [31]. This provides for
suitably geolocated gateway equipped vehicles to forward or
broadcast messages from cloud servers, over VANET to other
vehicles.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
ARTHURS et al.: TAXONOMY AND SURVEY OF EDGE CLOUD COMPUTING FOR ITSs AND CONNECTED VEHICLES
D. Cloud Computing
Cloud computing provides the ability to develop and
deploy computing services with minimal effort, equipment,
and up-front costs. At its core, cloud computing is a service
provided by third-party companies to deliver remotely hosted
computing resources. The main advantage is that organisations
deploy cloud applications without having to invest in hardware
and without having to predict future loading requirements up-
front. The cloud application, whether that is a dedicated tool
performing a rigid function, or an operating system running
the organisations own software, or some other variation, all
have in common the requirement to be run remotely with
the underlying physical equipment and location normally of
little interest beyond network bandwidth and latency consid-
erations. There are a range of cloud services available with
three principal service models recognised [32]. These are
Software as a Service (SaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS),
and Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS). A fourth type of service,
called Function as a Service (FaaS), is not included by NIST
and in reality, is a form of PaaS. FaaS adds the distinct
capability of serverless functions, which are components that
can deploy and scale on demand and only use resources which
are billable when called.
E. Edge Cloud
There is much confusion as to what is meant by “the edge”
caused by the many competing architectures reusing the word.
Edge can mean the edge of the network, the device sitting
at the edge, the edge of the permanent infrastructure sitting
between the wireless network to the user and the rest of the
internet, etc. A very broad definition is “enabling technologies
that allow computation to be performed at the network edge
so that computing happens near data sources” [2].
Toczé and Nadjm-Tehrani identify three categories of
edge [17]. Their first category is edge server. Edge server is
connected to the rest of the network, including the cloud. This
edge server has lower computational power than conventional
cloud but is still considered high power compared to the user
device. Covered in this category are Cloudlets, Micro/Nano
data centres and local cloud. They have not considered MEC
Cloud which we include in this category. They do not define
what is meant by “high power” or go into detail with what
types of cloud services are included or the architecture.
Their second category is called coordination device and is
an architecture where one device acts as coordinator between
other end devices and can also act as an interface to core cloud.
Compared to edge server, this category can be portable and
has less computational power. This covers architectures such
as fog, vehicular clouds (using V2V), and local clouds with a
resource coordinator. Their third category is device cloud and
covers architectures where end devices communicate with each
other to discover and deliver needed resources. This category
merges the device level and edge level into a single entity. This
includes opportunistic computing, cooperative based mobile
cloud computing, and transient clouds.
The physical location of the edge server is normally not
relevant from a services point of view. The important feature
of edge cloud is the ability to select a cloud server that meets
Authorized licensed use limited to: The Islamia University of Bahawalpur. Downloaded on June 06,2022 at 19:53:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
5
TABLE II
C OMPARISONS OF M OBILE C LOUDS
the user’s application requirements with regards to latency,
computational demand, etc. The user’s application will need
to determine what suitable cloud servers are available that
meet its requirements based upon its current location plus
that of its near future locations. The options available will
provide various hardware and software architectures and
the users applications will need to make decisions based
upon its reconfigurability capabilities to meet those varying
edge-cloud architectures.
One form of edge computing is Vehicular Cloud that
represents a development of the internet of vehicles and
enables local collaboration for distribution of applications and
content [25]. A vehicle cloud is constructed from vehicles’
compute resources and includes processing and storage with
the aim of providing services that are not possible for indi-
vidual vehicles. It is a temporary merging of vehicle and
road-side units using peer-to-peer networking and requires a
common virtual platform to be achievable. Table II provides a
comparison of vehicular clouds over V2V versus edge cloud
and a hybrid of both.
F. Edge and Traditional Cloud Architectures
There are a range of published architectures addressing
several issues associated with mobile computing needs, such as
lowering latency, pushing compute and power intensive func-
tions off the mobile device, and reducing bandwidth usage.
These architectures use n-tier cloud solutions with three tiers
being the most common. Three-tier designs have (a) mobile
user; (b) edge-cloud; (c) core-cloud. We explore the current
state of solutions for edge-type cloud in its various formats.
Cloud for automotive use has limited treatment in the
literature but an architectural approach is covered which
describes an automotive cloud architecture concept using a
service-orientated architecture [33]. The architecture, called
DARWIN, is a two-tier architecture with the vehicle as one
tier, and the external server as the second tier. The external
server is not defined but could be either edge or core cloud.
They identify real-time performance as a critical parameter,
without which the system might fail. They assert that the
automotive software must be classed as safety critical to
provide the assurance of safety, reliability and security.
V-Cloud provides a three-layer architecture that combines
VANET, cyber physical systems (CPS), and cloud comput-
ing [34]. Vehicles form a network cluster over V2V and will
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
6 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
join and leave the network according to distance and location
with other network participants. The expectation is that the
vehicle in front will communicate with the vehicle directly
behind, and vice versa. The network cluster is based upon road
segment covering a limited range and each cluster will allow
information to be broadcast to all other cluster members as
well as neighbouring clusters. Clusters that have a base-station
in proximity will allow for cluster information to be sent
to cloud computing resources. Traditional cloud computing
provides the key component of the architecture to allow for
provision of services.
Urban traffic control using cloud computing to increase
throughput and optimise traffic to increase safety and reduce
fuel consumption and carbon emissions is described [35]. They
treat each vehicle as a cloud service which uses cloud comput-
ing methodology for discovery and invocation. Geographically
limited multicast addressing is used to coordinate traffic flow
between intersections, with computation carried out at city or
region wide cloud system. Their system gathers traffic data
from sensors at the intersection and from individual vehicles
to create a dynamic situation map. This map can be used to
assess road situation and make short term forecasts for vehicle
control.
1) Fog Computing: Fog computing was devised to improve
the cloud computing model to meet mobility support require-
ments by providing location awareness and low-latency to
support utilising a massively distributed number of compute
sources at the edge [36], [37]. Fog provides the same types
of resources as traditional cloud, such as networking, com-
pute, and storage, and uses the same architectures providing
virtualisation and multi-tenancy. However, fog is designed to
deliver services and applications not normally addressed by
the traditional cloud.
A definition of fog is a large number of het-
erogeneous and decentralised devices that communicate
and potentially cooperate among themselves to perform
processing tasks and storage, without intervention of
third-parties [38].
Useful characteristics are as follows [39]:
• Fog application code runs on fog nodes as part of a
distributed cloud application.
• Fog nodes provide low and predictable latency.
• Fog computing nodes provide geolocation awareness and
device context.
• Fog nodes can orchestrate movement of fog applications
to new instances on different fog nodes, to cope with
mobile users moving out of minimum latency range of
the original server.
• Fog nodes are typically accessed over wireless networks.
Fog complements the cloud rather than replaces it, by pro-
viding local compute resources where necessary but also
falling back to traditional cloud for services where more
appropriate.
2) Vehicular Cloud: Parked vehicles currently represent an
unused resource and as they become more capable, with
increased compute capability and additional sensors, it makes
sense for these resources to be reutilised for ITS and edge
cloud purposes. Parked vehicles could be utilised for real-time
Authorized licensed use limited to: The Islamia University of Bahawalpur. Downloaded on June 06,2022 at 19:53:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
monitoring of road conditions, such as traffic density, road
congestion, and parking availability [40]. A self-organising
network of parked vehicles can act as a backbone for moving
vehicles using V2V communications, with onboard sensors
and processing capability used, whilst rotating tasks between
parked vehicles to minimise battery usage. Analysis suggests
that this can serve as a viable alternative to fixed roadside
units [40].
Vehicular cloudlets that share resources using V2V/I/X can
be established to carry out specific tasks [41]. Called mobile
cloudlets, they can consist of either cloudlets of moving
vehicles, or cloudlets of parked vehicles, and address different
types of cloud services. Services can include: roadside-safety
for hazard notification; collision avoidance; harsh weather
conditions; improving traffic efficiency; and passenger comfort
services for internet, messaging, and infotainment. Vehicular
cloud challenges are identified as setup and management,
resource management, data processing, and security [42].
Vehicular cloud nodes are ephemeral as mobile units move out
of range of other cloud participants, and even parked nodes
eventually move away. For this reason, resource estimation,
resource allocation, load balancing, and data dissemination are
key to making vehicular clouds viable.
Combining IoV with MEC may reduce bottlenecks at
popular edge servers by offloading some compute to the
IoV network [43]. Their framework is called Vehicular Edge
Multi-Access Network (VE-MAN) and provides for a hierar-
chical network that allows redundant tasks to be completed in
a collaborative manner.
Vehicle edge cloud provides a network of vehicles with
access to an edge cloud server [8]. Vehicles can network
V2V and a subset of these vehicles that have other network
connectivity to edge cloud, such as over 4G or 5G, can provide
network as a service (NaaS) connectivity for those vehicles
that lack the connectivity.
Offloading edge cloud to vehicular cloud is proposed to min-
imise response time and scheduling is identified as important
to allow efficient offloading of the computation tasks [44]. The
problem is identified as a task allocation problem which is NP-
hard, and the proposed solution in [44] is a low-complexity
modified genetic algorithm.
The ITS-Cloud proposes using cloud computing to remove
the current situation where vehicles must have appropriate
platform, hardware, and software, to achieve the desired ser-
vice by replacing that infrastructure with generic cloud-based
solutions charged as pay as you go [21]. ITS-Cloud offers
the traditional cloud model with IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS but
also proposes a “temporary cloud” model where the connected
vehicles combine to provide a temporary vehicular cloud
service to complement traditional cloud. Their main output is a
method for load balancing across the ITS-Cloud. They propose
a V2V Cluster for an ad hoc network of local vehicles, and a
V2I network for connectivity to cloud computing. The vehicle
cyber-physical system collates raw sensor data and provides
necessary services to the user.
Cloud computing formed from spare compute capacity in
nearby vehicles, called temporary cloud, and merged with
traditional cloud services, called permanent cloud, is proposed
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
ARTHURS et al.: TAXONOMY AND SURVEY OF EDGE CLOUD COMPUTING FOR ITSs AND CONNECTED VEHICLES
and an architecture provided called VANET Cloud [45]. Sen-
sor as a Service (SenaaS) is introduced as a new service model
where vehicles make their onboard components, including
sensors, available.
3) Multi-Access Edge Computing (MEC): MEC started life
called mobile edge computing and was focussed on utilising
future 5G networks to provide edge cloud computing for
mobile use cases. A name change to Multi-access Edge Com-
puting was made to recognise that a range of communications
methods will be utilised by future systems. The standards body
ETSI defined MEC [46] to enable mobile edge applications to
run on virtualised infrastructure, as per current cloud solutions.
MEC stands out from other edge cloud architectures because
it is defined and managed by an official organisation and is
designed to be provisioned at the 5G network, integrated with
the network functions virtualisation (NFV) system.
The MEC system consists of the edge hosts and manage-
ment system required to run the mobile edge applications on
a 5G operators’ network or subset of their network [46]. The
mobile edge host is a platform and virtualisation infrastructure
that provides the compute, storage, and network resources, and
essential functionality to allow running of the mobile edge
applications. Mobile edge applications run within a virtualised
environment configured by a mobile edge management system.
Mobile edge management includes both system and host level
management. System level management includes a mobile
edge orchestrator and host level management has a platform
manager and virtualisation infrastructure manager.
These combined systems provide a comprehensive archi-
tecture to provide localised multi-tenanted scalable cloud with
orchestration across different MEC installations and aims to
address the requirements of low-latency, location awareness,
and mobility support that is not normally available from
traditional cloud [47].
MEC extends cloud computing to the edge of the radio
access network (RAN). It is envisioned that MEC cloud servers
will be hosted within the RAN and at or very close to the
5G radio mast to minimise latency. A MEC server may be
dedicated to a single radio cell or amalgamate several cells,
depending upon the local topology. MEC design and standards
are led by the ETSI organisation as part of their remit to
provide a standardised and open 5G environment [46].
MEC offers context awareness with real time informa-
tion to applications and content suppliers, such as network
load and user’s location. This enables context aware ser-
vices that can improve QoS for users. A range of properties
that define MEC are listed [48], including (a) proximity;
(b) low latency; (c) location awareness; (d) network context
information. Benefits for applications include (a) computation
offloading; (b) collaborative computing; (c) content delivery.
These benefits allow applications to distribute compute tasks,
providing claimed benefits for power savings and increased
processing capability, while enabling low-latency services for
the sharing of information. They [48] also identify several
challenges including standardisation, mobility management,
and heterogeneity. Heterogeneity includes diversity of radio
networks and compute resources across MEC clouds and
is a significant concern with mobile users moving between
Authorized licensed use limited to: The Islamia University of Bahawalpur. Downloaded on June 06,2022 at 19:53:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
7
diverse infrastructures. Degradation of services caused by
mobility with effects such as varying network parameters:
delay, bandwidth, jitter, are serious challenges which will
require management techniques to resolve.
It is predicted that as the number of connected vehicles
increases with the corresponding increase in data volume,
the use cases will evolve the need to minimise latency and
optimise QoS [49]. MEC will be useful for vehicle applications
and data and will accelerate movement of services from core
cloud to the edge cloud for uses such as roadside units. This
will help with keeping data and analytics applications closer
to vehicles. Communications from roadside units will also
distribute useful information to nearby vehicles without delay,
allowing reactions in a timely fashion to avoid accidents and
improve road safety.
Many of the challenges concerning edge computing are
identified and include how to handle mobility of vehicles,
how to scale, how to deploy and orchestrate ad-hoc services,
and how to maintain availability for externally deployed ser-
vices [14]. Strategies are discussed on how these challenges
may be addressed.
The use of MEC to reduce latency and transmission cost
for computational offloading is considered and a framework
provided for use by vehicular networks [50]. They considered
resource-limited MECs located within roadside units, and
which had variable range. For maximising value of the MEC
service, a contract-based scheme for offloading and resource
allocations is recommended.
4) Cloudlets: Cloudlets developed by Carnegie Mellon Uni-
versity can be considered as a mini datacentre. Cloudlets sit in
the second tier of a three-tier architecture [39]. A cloudlet is
defined as a small-scale cloud data centre or “datacentre in a
box”, located geographically close to the user that provides a
resource rich compute service for nearby mobile devices [51].
A ‘datacentre in a box’ is a self-contained and self-managing
system with little more than power, internet connection, and
access control for initial setup. Users are expected to be
mobile and therefore need a management service to seamlessly
migrate to other cloudlets as the user moves away from the
current one in use. Additionally, the management service
needs to discover and select an appropriate cloudlet prior to
provisioning for it.
5) Mobile Cloud Computing (MCC): The proliferation of
mobile devices has created a market for offloading compu-
tation intensive applications and services from user to cloud.
This helps improve battery life and storage capacity at the cost
of network bandwidth. This offloading paradigm is generally
called mobile cloud computing (MCC) and utilises core cloud
computing resources. The MCC forum defined MCC as an
infrastructure where both data storage and data processing hap-
pen outside of the mobile device. MCC moves the computing
power and storage away from mobile devices and into the
cloud.
MCC is defined by [52] as an infrastructure where data
storage and data processing are offloaded from the device to
more powerful and centralised computing platforms in the
cloud. The two-tier architecture has mobile devices using a
network operators’ network for wireless access, which then
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
8 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
connects the device to the public internet and on to the core
cloud. This architecture does not address use cases which have
low-latency requirements and cannot be considered as edge
computing architecture.
A survey of MCC identifies research that recognises the
advantages of MCC [52]. These advantages are given as
(a) extending battery life; (b) improving data storage capacity
and processing power; (c) improving reliability. They also
claim MCC inherits (d) dynamic provisioning; (e) scalability;
(f) multitenancy; (g) ease of integration.
Extending battery life by application offloading has been
shown to give energy savings up to 45% [53]. Supplementing
data storage capacity is an obvious advantage and improv-
ing processing power with code offloading has been shown
by [54], [55], and [55] also shows energy saving advantages.
Reliability is suggested by the architecture of cloud computing
providing high availability for storage and backup of data and
application, and hence reducing the chance of local data loss.
Dynamic provisioning, scalability and multitenancy are core
features of cloud computing, but multitenancy can also be
considered a negative feature when considering security.
Offloading of applications to reduce power consumption
and/or increase processing performance are of interest to
battery powered vehicles as battery life directly relates to the
obtainable travel distance. The trade-off for manufacturers is in
reducing both power consumption and weight, so if offloading
improves both these parameters by allowing for less capable
but lighter processing hardware, or temporary power saving by
reducing processing functions, this may become a significant
use case for vehicular cloud computing. To enable offloading,
the research problems of cloud orchestration and migration
need to be solved.
III. I NTRODUCTION TO ITS AND C ONNECTED
V EHICLE U SE C ASES
In this section we investigate a range of use cases that may
be enabled or improved by using cloud services or distributed
computing. The list of use cases is in no way exhaustive and
we expect that many new use cases will be devised once the
technology becomes more established.
It is expected that vehicles will possess both V2V and
5G connectivity allowing for a choice of how to exchange
data with other vehicles and infrastructure. Either method
has a range of benefits and disadvantages and selecting the
best method for communications for the desired application is
important to ensure an acceptable quality of service (QoS).
Use cases can be divided into several categories such as
entertainment, emergency/safety, traffic/route planning, and
driving enhancement services. Emergency and safety services
will increase the safety of driving through the use of emer-
gency and warning messages. These will predominately be
broadcast messages sent to all vehicles within the vicin-
ity. They will require low latencies to ensure messages are
received in time for other vehicles to take avoidance measures
and will tend to use little bandwidth but will need priority
over other less urgent types of message. Traffic and route
planning services will need to have access to live data on road
conditions such as traffic and average speeds. This will allow
Authorized licensed use limited to: The Islamia University of Bahawalpur. Downloaded on June 06,2022 at 19:53:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 2. Taxonomy of use cases.
live route monitoring and dynamic changing of the route as
road conditions alter. This is best suited to cloud services over
a cellular network. Driving enhancement services will enable
vehicles to autonomously drive and includes services such as
platooning, lane changing and overtaking, and enhanced local
situation awareness for improved predictive and coordinated
behaviour. These services may use a combination of V2V and
cellular networks with edge cloud over cellular as a preferred
solution for those services needing persistence. A taxonomy
for use cases is shown in Figure 2.
Passenger entertainment covers any use by passengers that
is not related to vehicle use and includes online gaming and
video streaming. We do not provide any further coverage
for passenger entertainment as this is widely covered in the
broader area covering mobile phone services.
A. Emergency and Safety Use Cases
1) Controlled Junctions and Traffic Lights: A controlled
junction uses traffic lights to control when vehicles may
enter the junction. This is used to streamline access to a
road chokepoint to attempt to smooth access. Traffic light
junctions are often controlled by sensors that detect where
traffic is building up at the approach to the junction, and
then allow a longer period on green for those approaches so
that extra vehicles can pass through. Junctions can also have
transponders that detect when emergency services or public
transport are approaching, and this can be used to prioritise
access to the junction to speed up transit for those vehicles
through the junction.
Intersection control aims to optimise junction throughput
and minimise stopping time by the careful control of traffic
signal timing and the speed of approaching vehicles. CIVIC-
E2 researches this and provides an algorithm they show to
significantly improve intersection performance under a range
of traffic conditions [56]. They use a roadside unit at the
intersection that communicates with approaching vehicles and
provides an approach strategy coordinated with other vehicles
to minimise energy consumption for all vehicles. Results
suggest that energy reductions of 31% and queue length
reductions of 95% are achievable. Fuel savings by CAVs at
junctions are shown to increase when the ratio of CAV to
non-CAV increases [57], although this saving reduces as traffic
density increases. With 100% of CAV penetration, the optimal
fuel savings are realised.
Traffic lights can have a significant effect on fuel con-
sumption and travel time. Using cloud to discover traffic light
phasing can be used to predict traffic light state at arrival and
then used to manage vehicle velocity to time the arrival to
minimise or avoid stopping time [58]. Detecting traffic light
status by using mobile cameras and using cloud computing for
image recognition [59] was considered for blind and visually
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
ARTHURS et al.: TAXONOMY AND SURVEY OF EDGE CLOUD COMPUTING FOR ITSs AND CONNECTED VEHICLES
impaired pedestrians but could be equally useful for sharing
with other vehicles in the vicinity to provide advance warning.
Sharing traffic light data with a central ITS and other road
users may improve overall traffic flow through a region by
synchronising several lights to reduce the overall amount of
stopping and allowing vehicles to plan their approach. Vehicles
may number in tens to hundreds at major junctions and may
want to interrogate the traffic light some kilometres away so
that the most optimal approach can be calculated. Traffic light
processing could be done at the roadside, at another edge
cloud, at core cloud, or at a dedicated centre. Communications
to the traffic lights could utilise V2V or cellular.
Using cellular communications to edge cloud for inter-
section intelligence followed by V2V communications when
within range of the intersection for shared intelligence shows
improvements in reducing congestion, fuel use, and emis-
sions [60]. Longer awareness of the intersection provided by
edge cloud allows greater analysis and management of the
approach to better ensure a timed approach that minimises
stopped time.
Using deep learning for the control of traffic lights shows
early promise for achieving a more optimal control of traffic
lights to improve vehicle throughput [61].
2) Intelligent Speed Adaption (ISA): Fuel efficiency can be
improved by considering the route and vehicle parameters to
find the optimal speed profile. A framework dealing with the
optimisation problem using cloud computing claims significant
fuel saving in a simulated scenario [62]. Another comparative
solution using cloud for computing purposes shows 5% to
15% saving when using parameters such as driving style,
road geometry, and traffic conditions to determine the optimal
velocity profile [63].
3) Traffic Accident Rescue: Traffic management during a
traffic accident rescue is explored [64]. The use of fog or
cloud reduces V2V burden whilst allowing for safety use
cases such as better traffic-signal control to reduce traffic
to improve emergency vehicle response times; accident
notification to allow avoidance of congestion; fast rescue
route and traffic prioritisation; and live video analysis to
allow remote assessments.
4) Disaster Management: An Intelligent Cloud-based Dis-
aster Management System (ICDMS) is proposed in [65] with
an architecture that uses cloud computing as the base platform
and V2I to provide communication gateways to V2V networks.
Using cloud computing allows for control and management
of the distributed system for high-level queries and data
validation. The system addresses how to acquire real-time data
from VANETs and how to forward messages to the dynamic
topology that make up VANETs. In a disaster scenario, this
could be used to manage and communicate evacuation areas
to civilians to improve response times for emergency services.
B. Autonomy and Driving Enhancements Use Cases
1) Platooning: Platooning is defined as a line of vehicles
with a leader and at least one following vehicle that is
controlled based upon the movements of the lead vehicle.
The aim is to ensure all vehicles stay in the same lane whilst
maintaining a consistent speed and spacing between adjacent
Authorized licensed use limited to: The Islamia University of Bahawalpur. Downloaded on June 06,2022 at 19:53:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
9
vehicles [66]. Failing to maintain consistent spacing leads to
backwards moving shockwaves in speed called concertinaing
where the lead vehicle slows and following vehicles fail to
react quickly, causing a knock-on effect as each vehicle in
line brakes harder than the previous to ensure safe separation.
Most platooning research relies upon CACC using V2V
communications, but the limited range and capacity of V2V
means that cloud computing could provide more efficient
management and broader coverage. A wide-area platoon
discovery service would provide a means to find platoons that
both cover a planned route and will be in the correct vicinity
at the time needed.
Fortelle et al [67] introduce a local cooperative area
for platooning, within which platoon management may be
undertaken, but provide little information on how the local
cooperative area communicates beyond mentioning several
protocols. They propose using Master and Platoon Leader
vehicles and distinguish platoons from convoys: a convoy does
not have a leader. Their definition of a platoon is characterised
as two or more automated cooperative vehicles in line (in the
same lane), typically spaced with a 0.25 second separation to
reduce drag. A platoon has a platoon leader that coordinates
the platoon members and interacts within a larger local coop-
erative area to extend coverage. They define a convoy as three
or more cooperative vehicles maintaining a formation using
cooperative adaptive cruise control (CACC) with separation
distances greater than 0.5 seconds. Their local cooperative
areas are defined as either static and controlled by a roadside
fixture; or dynamic and controlled by a moving vehicle.
A dynamic local cooperative area is used to share manoeuvring
data and can contain a group of vehicles including platoons
and convoys. Finally, they have a Master which is an entity
in charge of interactions between the local cooperative area
and other areas and entities (e.g. platoons). How the master is
agreed upon and managed, the motivation to be a Master, and
how continuity of service is maintained when a Master leaves,
is not defined.
Cooperative adaptive driving (CAD) using MEC is proposed
in [68] for addressing concertinaing in platoons and their
numerical results show that using edge cloud does improve
for the number of shockwaves, average vehicle velocity, and
average travel time.
2) Collective Perception of Environment: Video streaming
of vehicle camera sensors is described as a reverse content
delivery network and a multi-tier approach is described to
provide for caching and storage together with aggregation and
processing prior to distribution to core cloud services [69].
3) Night Fog Detection: Detecting night-time fog can pro-
vide for significant accident prevention by giving advance
warning to drivers prior to entering the fog. A solution using
in-car cameras to detect the halo effect could be an integral
element of an ITS system when combined with roadside
warnings and direct messaging to vehicles that are heading
towards the fog [70].
C. Traffic and Route Planning Use Cases
1) Traffic Detection and Prediction: Navigation-based
autonomous traffic avoidance.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
10
Fig. 3. Taxonomy for papers covering edge cloud where used with ITS or connected vehicles.
A solution to combine traffic data sources and use it to do
data analytics at the edge cloud is offered [71]. The solution
creates a “digital twin” from gathering data from roadside
cameras and combining with historical data to enable deep
learning techniques to predict driver intention.
2) Road & Parking Information and Toll Collection:
Improving the ability to discover available parking spaces prior
to arrival can reduce pollution and congestion by removing
the need to tour parking areas looking for a free space.
A VANET cloud-based parking information service (PIaaS) is
proposed using a privacy-based system for vehicles and RSUs
to share parking information whilst preserving privacy and
confidentiality for contributing vehicles [72].
IV. TAXONOMY OF E DGE C LOUD C OMPUTING
FOR ITS AND C ONNECTED V EHICLES
In this section we provide a taxonomy for edge cloud within
the framework of ITS and connected vehicles. A search for
suitable taxonomies already available within the literature was
unsuccessful although a related taxonomy for road manage-
ment using vehicular cloud covers cloud formation, cloud
types, and basic services [73]. A second related taxonomy
covers mobile edge computing but is not focussed on ITS or
connected vehicles [48].
Our taxonomy shown in Figure 3 identifies five main
branches with subcategories. Our Deployment Levels branch
covers the various compute tiers where applications and
services can be deployed. There are four tiers starting on
board the vehicle, followed by deployment at edge cloud
over cellular, vehicle cloud over V2V, and core cloud using
traditional cloud resources. The Deployment Methods branch
covers application offloading and distributed applications.
Offloading moves the application to one of the cloud tiers.
Distributed applications make use of multiple tiers and an
n-tier architecture may use some or all these tiers to deploy
applications or make use of services. The Networks branch
covers communications methods with short range peer-to-peer
communications involving V2V, and cellular communications
using either 4G or 5G technology. Service Delivery covers
issues revolving around using edge cloud for fast moving
vehicles. This includes heterogeneity of hardware, software,
and other resources at the edge cloud; discovery of edge clouds
Authorized licensed use limited to: The Islamia University of Bahawalpur. Downloaded on June 06,2022 at 19:53:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
Fig. 4. Publications by year covering edge cloud issues.
that meet the QoS requirements; orchestration of services to
manage where and when to run services at an edge cloud;
migration of services between edge clouds as QoS changes
at the current edge cloud; and methods of maintaining QoS.
Security and Privacy is included in the taxonomy but is
considered an overhead with a latency cost in the context of
this paper, and is therefore not considered any further.
A. Search Method
Our research surveys the literature for taxonomies and the
current state of the art for edge cloud when used with either
ITS or connected vehicles. The method is based upon a full
search covering all words within a document. We use Google
Scholar (https://scholar.google.co.uk/), and the search includes
patents and citations.
The search phrase is designed to capture all papers that
cover “edge cloud” and either “intelligent transportation sys-
tems” or “connected vehicles”. The Google Scholar results
included many papers that did not contain the exact search
terms and therefore papers were retained only if the paper was
relevant for edge cloud within the context of ITS or vehicular
use. Selected papers were categorised and summarised where
appropriate within the relevant sections of this paper.
Google Scholar gave 496 results to the end of 2019 and
there are zero results prior to 2013. After removal of irrelevant
papers, the result drops to 333 papers. Figure 4 shows Google
Scholar results versus filtered results indicated by year. The
search results indicates the substantial growth in this new
area of research with approximately half the papers published
in 2019. Figure 5 indicates the volume of mentions of edge
cloud issues.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
ARTHURS et al.: TAXONOMY AND SURVEY OF EDGE CLOUD COMPUTING FOR ITSs AND CONNECTED VEHICLES
Fig. 5. Coverage in 113 papers that note edge cloud issues.
B. Taxonomic Definitions
1) Deployment Nodes: This category covers the tier at
which an application or service can run, and the vehicle,
edge and core cloud tiers have been covered in depth in
Section III. Local node is the connected vehicle using its
own processing capability. This is clearly the best location
for time sensitive and safety-critical applications but may not
be the best location to run applications that need data from
multiple sources, such as cooperative perception. Vehicles are
also likely to have less processing capability on-board and
process intensive applications can benefit from offloading to
cloud nodes if speed of completion is important.
2) Deployment Methods: This covers the methods and
architectures used to offload applications onto networked com-
pute devices and dividing an application into multiple smaller
instances for offloading to a distribution of compute resources.
(i) Offloading: Optimal placement of applications looks at
how best to deploy elements of the application at differ-
ent tiers [24], [74]–[77]. Partitioning of the application to
best suit the resources available at each tier is required to
gain maximum benefit for power usage, compute resources,
and bandwidth. Latency aware proximity zones around MEC
servers are proposed to enable optimisation of edge cloud
deployment [78]. This will provide real-time network and
server performance information to allow informed selection
of edge clouds and timely migration if QoS is threatened.
Awareness of load distribution at the edge server is shown to
prevent overloading of the server caused due to the imbalance
of task arrivals [79]. These task arrivals are considered to be
underestimated by other research and the proposed scheme is
shown to reduce computation cost and increase task success
rates. Encapsulating the latency and other requirements into
the offloading request sent to the server could allow the server
to only select tasks based upon its resource availability [80].
This can ensure that the server is not overloaded by over
resourcing and thereby provide greater guarantee of QoS.
Rejected offloading requests can look to other edge servers
or decide to compute locally. A scheme to decide when and
where to offload tasks, including using delayed offloading
to take advantage of an edge cloud currently outside the
end-to-end latency requirements, is shown to reduce overall
delay compared against methods that use the nearest server
offloading schemes [81].
Cooperative object detection is one of the most challenging
use cases and edge cloud may provide the best means to
Authorized licensed use limited to: The Islamia University of Bahawalpur. Downloaded on June 06,2022 at 19:53:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
11
implement it. A method for object detection using edge cloud
for initial detection together with core cloud to improve the
performance of the detection model is shown to be more
accurate and faster [82].
(ii) Distributed Application: Distributing applications
involves dividing an application into multiple parts and then
offloading those parts to various tiers and nodes for compu-
tation. [74] considers how this may be beneficial for applica-
tions that depend upon low latency and information sharing
and provides a tool to optimise deployment of distributed
applications. Edge Mesh is described to enable distributed
intelligence among IoT devices such as ITS [83]. It uses an
n-tier architecture to distribute compute tasks among edge
cloud nodes and involves management of tasks, computation,
communications, data, resource discovery, device information,
and network information. A platform is described in [84] that
provides agents at edge nodes that carry out tasks. Agents
are distinct from applications as they have restricted access to
local resources and this enables enforcement of security and
access control policies at distributed nodes. Further frame-
works provide means to characterise the tasks, decide how
to distribute, and provide scheduling and caching to meet
performance requirements [85], [86].
3) Networks: This covers the communications methods for
connected vehicles and includes two technologies.
(i) Short Range V2V and V2I Communications can provide
a high speed with low-latency network but with very limited
range and highly subject to signal loss through poor placement
of antennas [87], or shadowing or blocking by high sided
vehicles and roadside features such as trees or buildings
[88], [89]. Useable range is expected to be up to 1km subject
to the highly dynamic local environment but with significant
packet loss increasing with range. A number of communica-
tions standards are published and in use and a comprehensive
survey is available [16].
(ii) Cellular Communications is only considered feasible on
4G and 5G networks, with 4G not expected to be useable for
ultra-low latency services due to lower bandwidth and higher
latency. The new 5G standard introduces ultra-low latency,
bandwidth in hundreds of Mbps and a much greater number
of concurrent users. We expect 5G to be essential for the full
rollout of services for autonomous vehicles with 4G providing
an intermediate but reduced capability.
4) Service Delivery: When we look at the areas concerning
the management of cloud services and placement of applica-
tions, we discover that the topic of offloading applications to
the cloud has the most coverage with 49% of papers, see Fig. 5.
These papers cover a wide range of offloading concerns.
(i) Heterogeneity: Traditional cloud computing suffers from
issues with heterogeneity in both hardware and software.
Individual cloud suppliers offer differing cloud services that
are not interchangeable. At the hardware level, suppliers have
differing hardware advertised as the same price level of service
where newer versions have updated specifications that offer
differing levels of processing speed. Without ordering a service
and then measuring what has been supplied, it is not possible
to know absolutely the capabilities of the cloud resource,
although estimations can be made. Much of the literature
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
12
researching heterogeneity is concerned with mobile cloud
computing.
(ii) Edge Cloud Scheduling: Scheduling of tasks at edge
cloud is considered challenging due to the high mobility of
vehicles causing them to need regular migration and therefore
carefully planned or scheduled transfer of operations at the
neccessary time. Scheduling is a trade-off between minimising
duplicate use of edge cloud resources and ensuring there is no
drop-off in service provision during the period of migration.
A scheduling scheme for balancing cost and benefits of
offloading for mobile users is proposed in [90] and claims to
adapt to system context while maintaining QoS. They define
the problem as a utility optimisation problem and the model
shows improved cloud QoS for mobile users together with
improved cloud resource utilisation and cost. A contract-based
incentive system designed to optimize resource schedul-
ing among parked vehicles is shown to encourage partic-
ipation with parked vehicles providing idle computational
resources [91]. Task scheduling with heterogeneous edges is
investigated and shows an improvement with trade-off between
solution quality and computation time [92]. Scheduling algo-
rithms for smart city use are compared with the selected use
case of vision processing of interest to both connected vehicles
and ITS [93]. Multi-tier cloud architectures are considered to
address scheduling and show efficient allocation of resources
in bandwidth constrained environments [94], with job depen-
dency and incentive mechanisms identified as areas for future
research [95].
(iii) Orchestration of Services: Offloading of applications
moves a complete application into the cloud but it can be
more efficient to divide the application into sub-applications,
to run at multiple locations to make best use of the resources
available at each. To enable this using multiple tiers requires
orchestration of the application and, when using vehicular
and edge clouds, is more complex due to the dynamic and
heterogeneous nature of those clouds. A survey of current
research up to 2017 is provided with a taxonomy for service
placement [96].
Resource management is identified as an important objective
to enable the effective use of edge resources and breaks
that down with a number of sub-objectives [17]. These are
resource estimation, resource discovery, and resource allo-
cation. Resource allocation covers both where to allocate a
resource, and also when and how to migrate the resource if
necessary and take changes in location into account. They
consider resource optimisation and decide that QoS (under-
stood as latency), energy, and operational cost are the deter-
mining factors. Various optimisation methods are identified
in the broader literature which may be of interest for edge
cloud.
A proposed Platform for Smart Cyber Physical Sys-
tems (PsCPS) provides a means to integrate distributed sys-
tem and application agents across multiple edge and cloud
nodes [84]. Agents operate on nodes to provide control and
processing capabilities as needed by applications. Another
approach covering resource provisioning and workload assign-
ment decomposes the computational task into delay-aware
and edge server resource selection sub-problems, allowing the
Authorized licensed use limited to: The Islamia University of Bahawalpur. Downloaded on June 06,2022 at 19:53:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
development of cost effective strategies for edge planning and
design [97].
(iv) Migration of Services: The migration problem for
vehicular clouds is investigated and is defined as “the trade-off
between the cost of migration, the network overhead, and the
latency for users” [98].
Simulations are used to look at machine learning based
migration schemes aimed at minimising the response time for
offloading of computing tasks in vehicle clouds [98].
A layered framework for migrating active edge cloud ser-
vices while minimising downtime is shown [99]. The layering
divides a VM into components with the base layer containing
the guest OS, virtualisation data, and system kernel. Applica-
tions and their running states are placed into an instance layer.
The base layer is transferred in advance and the instance layer
transferred at migration time. The instance layer can be further
reduced by pre-loading an application layer that contains
idle versions of the applications. This layered approach is
shown to have downtimes for some example use cases of two
seconds or greater for containers and 56 seconds or greater
for VMs. A method of node resource allocation aimed at
minimising latency and energy use through avoiding redundant
downloads is verified and shown to have low energy cost,
real-time migration without interruption by pre-configuring the
environment in advance, and high resource utilisation through
analysing node usage globally [100]. A method for migration
of unfinished computing tasks from edge cloud on to vehicular
cloud using a reinforced leaning based migration scheme is
shown to adapt to the heterogeneous environment in vehicular
cloud, while guaranteeing low computing latency [98].
(v) Service Level Agreements (SLA) and Quality of Service
(QoS): Allocating resources in the cloud can be challenging
due to the heterogeneity of cloud suppliers, the dynamic
nature of infrastructure and systems, and common failure of
resources [101]. Ensuring QoS is crucial to providing a reliable
service running in the cloud and SLAs are used to provide
guarantees of reliability on which to make decisions regarding
duplication of resources and locations of those resources to
ensure failure does not lead to outage of services. QoS aware-
ness allows for monitoring and measurement of the status of
all cloud and networking resources, and automatic resource
provision allows systems to repair and replace resources that
are failing to meet the QoS parameters [101].
5) Security and Privacy: Both security and privacy are
critical components of any system and are included in our
taxonomy for completeness. However, this paper is focused
on service provision and therefore security and privacy are
not covered any further.
V. D ISCUSSION AND O PPORTUNITIES
FOR F UTURE R ESEARCH
Vehicular clouds are not feasible for any applications
that require more than short-range and immediate exchange
of information. The mobility of VANET assets means that
vehicular clouds will largely be of short duration and are
suited to applications that require immediate exchange of data,
such as safety messages, collective perception, or situation
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
ARTHURS et al.: TAXONOMY AND SURVEY OF EDGE CLOUD COMPUTING FOR ITSs AND CONNECTED VEHICLES
awareness at fixed infrastructure; such as junctions, traffic
lights, or roundabouts.
Edge cloud provides for permanency as cloud services
can run indefinitely, allowing for the limited resources at
an edge cloud, but mobility of vehicles leads to latencies
increasing as vehicles move out of range of the RAN where
the edge cloud resides. Additional issues concern the ability
to identify and then select an edge cloud that is suitable and
available, and orchestrate that selection over the entirety of a
road trip with regular migration of applications between edge
clouds.
The hybrid approach of using vehicular cloud as appropriate
for immediate use by close-by vehicles, with edge cloud
providing more substantive and persistent applications reduces
cost of cloud services, but requires the ability to distribute
applications across tiers (local, vehicular cloud, edge cloud,
and core cloud) and application context awareness; the ability
to determine the best division of an application across multiple
tiers and nodes, and manage that division as resources change.
The change in resource can be at the vehicle tier – to save
battery; at the vehicular cloud tier as vehicles move into and
out of range; at the edge cloud tier as services are migrated
on to new servers that have differing resources, offering
varying compute, memory, storage, etc. The ability to deploy
distributed applications across tiers and manage the variability
at each deployment in real-time, together with migration of
services between edge cloud nodes without noticeable reduc-
tion in operation, is needed to realise the future of ITS.
Based upon our review of the literature and analysis of
future work identified within that literature, we identify key
challenges for the implementation of future ITS and connected
vehicle services as follows.
1) Migration of live edge cloud services across edge servers
is of concern as fast moving vehicles will regularly
move between cellular RANs and if this is not managed
with server migration, latencies will build up as the
connectivity adds extra network hops to reach the in-use
cloud server [8]. Different applications will have differ-
ing acceptable latencies and so the regularity of server
migration will vary. Where acceptable latency starts
to match core cloud, the use of edge cloud becomes
unnecessary. The challenge for edge cloud is therefore
achieving migration with service downtime being less
than the acceptable latency. This is expected to be in
the sub 10ms for ultra-low latency applications, and up
to 100ms for other applications.
2) To manage the migration between edge servers, discov-
ery of local edge servers and their current capabilities
is needed. This will allow for the best selection from
a possible multitude of edge servers, all with varying
levels of heterogeneity with regards to hardware, such
as memory, CPU, server loading, latency to other edge
and core cloud servers; and software, such as operating
system, locally stored applications and libraries.
3) Orchestration of applications across vehicles, edge
cloud, and core cloud may be desirable to improve
QoS so that applications can be distributed across the
three tiers to allow components of the application to
Authorized licensed use limited to: The Islamia University of Bahawalpur. Downloaded on June 06,2022 at 19:53:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
13
run in the most suitable location. However, aware-
ness of the current live level of functionality at each
tier, which will change as the networking environment
changes, is needed to allow changes in the distribution
as required. A method of measuring QoS and predicting
changes in performance so that alternate configurations
can be instigated prior to an unacceptable drop in
performance is needed to address this issue.
VI. C ONCLUSION
Edge cloud for connected vehicles and ITS is a new area
that is starting to gain attention as indicated with the doubling
of papers in 2019. We have provided a taxonomy of use cases
together with a broad review of the research covering those
use cases. We also provide a taxonomy and survey of edge
cloud for ITS and connected vehicles that involved reviewing
496 papers, and which we believe will provide a valuable
resource for researchers of ITS and connected vehicles using
emerging edge cloud technology.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Peter Vermaat, UK Trans-
port Research Laboratory, Dr Mehrdad Dianti, University of
Warwick, Principle Investigator for CARMA, David Oxtoby,
Jaguar Land Rover, Coventry, CV4 7AL, for support given
during the course of this research.
R EFERENCES
[1] K. Lueth. (2018). State of the IoT 2018: Number of IoT Devices
Now at 7B, Market Accelerating. [Online]. Available: https://iot-
analytics.com/state-of-the-iot-update-q1-q2-2018-number-of-iot-
devices-now-7b/
[2] W. Shi and S. Dustdar, “The promise of edge computing,” Computer,
vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 78–81, May 2016, doi: 10.1109/MC.2016.145.
[3] K. Dolui and S. K. Datta, “Comparison of edge computing imple-
mentations: Fog computing, cloudlet and mobile edge computing,” in
Proc. Global Internet Things Summit (GIoTS), Jun. 2017, pp. 1–6, doi:
10.1109/GIOTS.2017.8016213.
[4] ETSI. Multi-Access Edge Computing (MEC). Accessed: Mar. 18, 2019.
[Online]. Available: https://www.etsi.org/technologies/multi-access-
edge-computing
[5] I. Parvez, A. Rahmati, I. Guvenc, A. I. Sarwat, and H. Dai, “A survey
on low latency towards 5G: RAN, core network and caching solu-
tions,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 3098–3130,
May 2018, doi: 10.1109/COMST.2018.2841349.
[6] M. Ma, S. M. Preum, M. Y. Ahmed, W. Tärneberg, A. Hendawi, and
J. A. Stankovic, “Data sets, modeling, and decision making in smart
cities: A survey,” ACM Trans. Cyber-Phys. Syst., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1–28,
Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1145/3355283.
[7] Q. Li, P. Chen, and R. Wang, “Edge computing for intelligent trans-
portation system: A review,” in Cyberspace Data and Intelligence, and
Cyber-Living, Syndrome, and Health, H. Ning, Ed. Singapore: Springer,
2019, pp. 130–137.
[8] S. Raza, S. Wang, M. Ahmed, and M. R. Anwar, “A survey on vehicular
edge computing: Architecture, applications, technical issues, and future
directions,” Wireless Commun. Mobile Comput., vol. 2019, pp. 1–19,
Feb. 2019, doi: 10.1155/2019/3159762.
[9] L. Liu, C. Chen, Q. Pei, S. Maharjan, and Y. Zhang, “Vehicular
edge computing and networking: A survey,” 2019, arXiv:1908.06849.
[Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.06849
[10] A. Yousefpour et al., “All one needs to know about fog computing and
related edge computing paradigms: A complete survey,” J. Syst.
Archit., vol. 98, pp. 289–330, Sep. 2019. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383762118306349,
doi: 10.1016/j.sysarc.2019.02.009.
[11] R. A. Dziyauddin et al., “Computation offloading and con-
tent caching delivery in vehicular edge computing: A sur-
vey,” 2019, arXiv:1912.07803. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/
abs/1912.07803
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
14
[12] J. Zhang and K. B. Letaief, “Mobile edge intelligence and computing
for the Internet of vehicles,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 246–261,
Feb. 2020.
[13] M. Mukherjee, L. Shu, and D. Wang, “Survey of fog computing: Funda-
mental, network applications, and research challenges,” IEEE Commun.
Surveys Tuts., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1826–1857, 3rd Quart., 2018.
[14] D. Grewe, M. Wagner, M. Arumaithurai, I. Psaras, and D. Kutscher,
“Information-centric mobile edge computing for connected vehi-
cle environments: Challenges and research directions,” in Proc.
Workshop Mobile Edge Commun. (MECOMM). Los Angeles, CA,
USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2017, pp. 7–12, doi:
10.1145/3098208.3098210.
[15] R. Soua, I. Turcanu, F. Adamsky, D. Führer, and T. Engel, “Multi-
access edge computing for vehicular networks: A position paper,” in
Proc. IEEE Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps), Dec. 2018, pp. 1–6.
[16] P. K. Singh, S. K. Nandi, and S. Nandi, “A tutorial survey on vehicular
communication state of the art, and future research directions,” Veh.
Commun., vol. 18, Aug. 2019, Art. no. 100164. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214209618300901,
doi: 10.1016/j.vehcom.2019.100164.
[17] K. Toczé and S. Nadjm-Tehrani, “A taxonomy for management and
optimization of multiple resources in edge computing,” Wireless Com-
mun. Mobile Comput., vol. 2018, pp. 1–23, Jun. 2018.
[18] T. Ojanperä et al., “Development and piloting of novel 5G-enabled
road safety services,” in Proc. IEEE Wireless Commun. Netw. Conf.
Workshop (WCNCW), Apr. 2019, pp. 1–6.
[19] J. Gedeon, F. Brandherm, R. Egert, T. Grube, and M. Muhlhauser,
“What the fog? Edge computing revisited: Promises, applications and
future challenges,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 152847–152878, 2019.
[20] J. A. Guerrero-Ibanez, S. Zeadally, and J. Contreras-Castillo, “Inte-
gration challenges of intelligent transportation systems with connected
vehicle, cloud computing, and Internet of Things technologies,” IEEE
Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 122–128, Dec. 2015, doi:
10.1109/MWC.2015.7368833.
[21] S. Bitam and A. Mellouk, “ITS-cloud: Cloud computing for intel-
ligent transportation system,” in Proc. IEEE Global Commun.
Conf. (GLOBECOM), Dec. 2012, pp. 2054–2059, doi: 10.1109/
GLOCOM.2012.6503418.
[22] R. I. Meneguette, “A vehicular cloud-based framework for the
intelligent transport management of big cities,” Int. J. Distrib.
Sensor Netw., vol. 12, no. 5, May 2016, Art. no. 8198597, doi:
10.1155/2016/8198597.
[23] R. Malekian, K. Wu, K. Steenhaut, R. H. Jacobsen, and M. A. Igartua,
“Guest editorial: Introduction to the special issue on connected
vehicles in intelligent transportation systems,” IEEE Trans. Intell.
Transp. Syst., vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 2301–2304, Jul. 2018, doi:
10.1109/TITS.2018.2846418.
[24] A. Mehta and E. Elmroth, “Distributed cost-optimized placement for
latency-critical applications in heterogeneous environments,” in Proc.
IEEE Int. Conf. Autonomic Comput. (ICAC), Sep. 2018, pp. 121–130,
doi: 10.1109/ICAC.2018.00022.
[25] M. Gerla, E.-K. Lee, G. Pau, and U. Lee, “Internet of vehicles: From
intelligent grid to autonomous cars and vehicular clouds,” in Proc.
IEEE World Forum Internet Things (WF-IoT), Mar. 2014, pp. 241–246,
doi: 10.1109/WF-IoT.2014.6803166.
[26] A. Bazzi, B. M. Masini, A. Zanella, and I. Thibault, “On the perfor-
mance of IEEE 802.11p and LTE-V2V for the cooperative awareness
of connected vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 66, no. 11,
pp. 10419–10432, Nov. 2017, doi: 10.1109/TVT.2017.2750803.
[27] V. Mannoni, V. Berg, S. Sesia, and E. Perraud, “A comparison of
the V2X communication systems: ITS-G5 and C-V2X,” in Proc.
IEEE 89th Veh. Technol. Conf. (VTC-Spring), Apr. 2019, pp. 1–5, doi:
10.1109/VTCSpring.2019.8746562.
[28] I. Afolabi, T. Taleb, K. Samdanis, A. Ksentini, and H. Flinck, “Network
slicing and softwarization: A survey on principles, enabling technolo-
gies, and solutions,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 20, no. 3,
pp. 2429–2453, 3rd Quart., 2018, doi: 10.1109/COMST.2018.2815638.
[29] S. Olariu, I. Khalil, and M. Abuelela, “Taking VANET to the clouds,”
Int. J. Pervas. Comput. Commun., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 7–21, Apr. 2011.
[30] A. Singh, M. Kumar, R. Rishi, and D. K. Madan, “A relative study of
MANET and VANET: Its applications, broadcasting approaches and
challenging issues,” in Advances in Networks and Communications,
N. Meghanathan, B. K. Kaushik, and D. Nagamalai, Eds. Berlin,
Germany: Springer, 2011, pp. 627–632.
[31] B. Liu, D. Jia, J. Wang, K. Lu, and L. Wu, “Cloud-assisted safety
message dissemination in VANET–cellular heterogeneous wireless net-
work,” IEEE Syst. J., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 128–139, Mar. 2017, doi:
10.1109/JSYST.2015.2451156.
Authorized licensed use limited to: The Islamia University of Bahawalpur. Downloaded on June 06,2022 at 19:53:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
[32] P. Mell and T. Grance, “The NIST definition of cloud computing,”
Special Publication, Nat. Inst. Standards Technol., Gaithersburg, MD,
USA. Accessed: Feb. 11, 2019, doi: 10.6028/NIST.SP.800-145.
[33] A. Iwai and M. Aoyama, “Automotive cloud service systems
based on service-oriented architecture and its evaluation,” in Proc.
IEEE 4th Int. Conf. Cloud Comput., Jul. 2011, pp. 638–645, doi:
10.1109/CLOUD.2011.119.
[34] H. Abid, L. T. T. Phuong, J. Wang, S. Lee, and S. Qaisar, “V-cloud:
Vehicular cyber-physical systems and cloud computing,” in Proc. 4th
Int. Symp. Appl. Sci. Biomed. Commun. Technol. (ISABEL). Barcelona,
Spain: Association for Computing Machinery, 2011, pp. 1–5, doi:
10.1145/2093698.2093863.
[35] P. Jaworski, T. Edwards, J. Moore, and K. Burnham, “Cloud computing
concept for intelligent transportation systems,” in Proc. 14th Int.
IEEE Conf. Intell. Transp. Syst. (ITSC), Oct. 2011, pp. 391–936, doi:
10.1109/ITSC.2011.6083087.
[36] F. Bonomi, R. Milito, J. Zhu, and S. Addepalli, “Fog computing and its
role in the Internet of Things,” in Proc. 1st Ed. MCC Workshop Mobile
Cloud Comput. (MCC). Helsinki, Finland: Association for Computing
Machinery, 2012, pp. 13–16, doi: 10.1145/2342509.2342513.
[37] F. Bonomi, R. Milito, P. Natarajan, and J. Zhu, “Fog computing: A plat-
form for Internet of Things and analytics,” in Big Data and Internet
of Things: A Roadmap for Smart Environments. Cham, Switzerland:
Springer, 2014, pp. 169–186, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-05029-4_7.
[38] L. M. Vaquero and L. Rodero-Merino, “Finding your way in the fog:
Towards a comprehensive definition of fog computing,” ACM SIG-
COMM Comput. Commun. Rev., vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 27–32, Oct. 2014,
doi: 10.1145/2677046.2677052.
[39] G. I. Klas. (Nov. 2015). Fog Computing and Mobile Edge Cloud Gain
Momentum: Open Fog Consortium, ETSI MEC and Cloudlets. [Online].
Available: http://yucianga.info/wpcontent/uploads/2015/11/15-
11-22-Fog-computing-and-mobile-edge-cloud-gain-momentum -
%E2%80%93-Open-Fog-Consortium-ETSI-MEC-Cloudlets-v1.pdf
[40] A. B. Reis, S. Sargento, and O. K. Tonguz, “Smarter cities with parked
cars as roadside units,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 19, no. 7,
pp. 2338–2352, Jul. 2018, doi: 10.1109/TITS.2018.2796845.
[41] A. Boukerche and R. E. De Grande, “Vehicular cloud computing:
Architectures, applications, and mobility,” Comput. Netw., vol. 135,
pp. 171–189, Apr. 2018. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S1389128618300057, doi: 10.1016/j.comnet.
2018.01.004.
[42] T. Mekki, I. Jabri, A. Rachedi, and M. B. Jemaa, “Vehicular cloud
networks: Challenges, architectures, and future directions,” Veh.
Commun., vol. 9, pp. 268–280, Jul. 2017. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214209616300559,
doi: 10.1016/j.vehcom.2016.11.009.
[43] G. Qiao, S. Leng, K. Zhang, and Y. He, “Collaborative task
offloading in vehicular edge multi-access networks,” IEEE Commun.
Mag., vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 48–54, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.1109/MCOM.
2018.1701130.
[44] F. Sun et al., “Cooperative task scheduling for computation offloading
in vehicular cloud,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 67, no. 11,
pp. 11049–11061, Nov. 2018, doi: 10.1109/TVT.2018.2868013.
[45] S. Bitam, A. Mellouk, and S. Zeadally, “VANET-cloud: A generic
cloud computing model for vehicular ad hoc networks,” IEEE
Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 96–102, Feb. 2015, doi:
10.1109/MWC.2015.7054724.
[46] Framework and Reference Architecture, document ETSI GS MEC 003
V1. 1.1, Mobile Edge Computing, ETSI Industry Specification Group,
2016.
[47] E. Ahmed and M. H. Rehmani, “Mobile edge computing:
Opportunities, solutions, and challenges,” Future Generat.
Comput. Syst., vol. 70, pp. 59–63, May 2017. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167739X16303260,
doi: 10.1016/j.future.2016.09.015.
[48] A. Ahmed and E. Ahmed, “A survey on mobile edge computing,” in
Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Intell. Syst. Control (ISCO), Jan. 2016, pp. 1–8,
doi: 10.1109/ISCO.2016.7727082.
[49] S. Shahzadi, M. Iqbal, T. Dagiuklas, and Z. U. Qayyum, “Multi-access
edge computing: Open issues, challenges and future perspectives,”
J. Cloud Comput., vol. 6, no. 1, p. 30, Dec. 2017, doi: 10.1186/s13677-
017-0097-9.
[50] K. Zhang, Y. Mao, S. Leng, A. Vinel, and Y. Zhang, “Delay constrained
offloading for mobile edge computing in cloud-enabled vehicular
networks,” in Proc. 8th Int. Workshop Resilient Netw. Design Mod-
eling (RNDM), Sep. 2016, pp. 288–294, doi: 10.1109/RNDM.2016.
7608300.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
ARTHURS et al.: TAXONOMY AND SURVEY OF EDGE CLOUD COMPUTING FOR ITSs AND CONNECTED VEHICLES
[51] M. Satyanarayanan et al., “Pervasive personal computing in an Inter-
net suspend/resume system,” IEEE Internet Comput., vol. 11, no. 2,
pp. 16–25, Mar. 2007, doi: 10.1109/MIC.2007.46.
[52] H. T. Dinh, C. Lee, D. Niyato, and P. Wang, “A survey of mobile
cloud computing: Architecture, applications, and approaches,”
Wireless Commun. Mobile Comput., vol. 13, no. 18, pp. 1587–1611,
Dec. 2013. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.
com/doi/abs/10.1002/wcm.1203, doi: 10.1002/wcm.1203.
[53] A. Rudenko, P. Reiher, G. J. Popek, and G. H. Kuenning, “Saving
portable computer battery power through remote process execution,”
ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Comput. Commun. Rev., vol. 2, no. 1,
pp. 19–26, Jan. 1998, doi: 10.1145/584007.584008.
[54] E. Cuervo et al., “MAUI: Making smartphones last longer with code
offload,” in Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Mobile Syst., Appl., Services (MobiSys).
San Francisco, CA, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2010,
pp. 49–62, doi: 10.1145/1814433.1814441.
[55] K. Kumar and Y.-H. Lu, “Cloud computing for mobile users: Can
offloading computation save energy?” Computer, vol. 43, no. 4,
pp. 51–56, Apr. 2010, doi: 10.1109/MC.2010.98.
[56] Y. Hou et al., “Cooperative and integrated vehicle and inter-
section control for energy efficiency (CIVIC-E2),” IEEE Trans.
Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 2325–2337, Jul. 2018, doi:
10.1109/TITS.2017.2785288.
[57] Y. Zhang and C. G. Cassandras, “The penetration effect of connected
automated vehicles in urban traffic: An energy impact study,” in Proc.
IEEE Conf. Control Technol. Appl. (CCTA), Aug. 2018, pp. 620–625,
doi: 10.1109/CCTA.2018.8511339.
[58] M. Kerper, C. Wewetzer, A. Sasse, and M. Mauve, “Learning traffic
light phase schedules from velocity profiles in the cloud,” in Proc. 5th
Int. Conf. New Technol., Mobility Secur. (NTMS), May 2012, pp. 1–5,
doi: 10.1109/NTMS.2012.6208704.
[59] P. Angin, B. Bhargava, and S. Helal, “A mobile-cloud collaborative traf-
fic lights detector for blind navigation,” in Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Mobile
Data Manage., 2010, pp. 396–401, doi: 10.1109/MDM.2010.71.
[60] B. Filocamo, A. Galletta, M. Fazio, J. A. Ruiz, M. A. Sotelo, and
M. Villari, “An innovative osmotic computing framework for self
adapting city traffic in autonomous vehicle environment,” in Proc. IEEE
Symp. Comput. Commun. (ISCC), Jun. 2018, pp. 01267–01270, doi:
10.1109/ISCC.2018.8538675.
[61] X.-Y. Liu, Z. Ding, S. C. Borst, and A. Walid, “Deep rein-
forcement learning for intelligent transportation systems,” CoRR,
vol. abs/1812.00979, pp. 1–8, Dec. 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.00979v1.pdf
[62] J. Wollaeger et al., “Cloud-computing based velocity profile generation
for minimum fuel consumption: A dynamic programming based solu-
tion,” in Proc. Amer. Control Conf. (ACC), Jun. 2012, pp. 2108–2113,
doi: 10.1109/ACC.2012.6314931.
[63] E. Ozatay et al., “Cloud-based velocity profile optimization for every-
day driving: A dynamic-programming-based solution,” IEEE Trans.
Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 2491–2505, Dec. 2014, doi:
10.1109/TITS.2014.2319812.
[64] J. C. Nobre et al., “Vehicular software-defined networking and
fog computing: Integration and design principles,” Ad Hoc
Netw., vol. 82, pp. 172–181, Jan. 2019. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570870518305080,
doi: 10.1016/j.adhoc.2018.07.016.
[65] Z. Alazawi, M. B. Abdljabar, S. Altowaijri, A. M. Vegni, and
R. Mehmood, “ICDMS: An intelligent cloud based disaster manage-
ment system for vehicular networks,” in Communication Technologies
for Vehicles, A. Vinel, R. Mehmood, M. Berbineau, C. R. Garcia,
C.-M. Huang, and N. Chilamkurti, Eds. Berlin, Germany: Springer,
2012, pp. 40–56.
[66] S. E. Li et al., “Dynamical modeling and distributed control of con-
nected and automated vehicles: Challenges and opportunities,” IEEE
Intell. Transp. Syst. Mag., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 46–58, Jul. 2017, doi:
10.1109/MITS.2017.2709781.
[67] A. De La Fortelle et al., “Network of automated vehicles:
The AutoNet 2030 vision,” in Proc. ITS World Congr., Detroit,
MI, USA, Sep. 2014, pp. 1–9. [Online]. Available: https://hal-mines-
paristech.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01063484
[68] R.-H. Huang, B.-J. Chang, Y.-L. Tsai, and Y.-H. Liang, “Mobile
edge computing-based vehicular cloud of cooperative adaptive driving
for platooning autonomous self driving,” in Proc. IEEE 7th Int.
Symp. Cloud Service Comput. (SC), Nov. 2017, pp. 32–39, doi:
10.1109/SC2.2017.13.
[69] H. Moustafa, E. M. Schooler, and J. McCarthy, “Reverse CDN in fog
computing: The lifecycle of video data in connected and autonomous
vehicles,” in Proc. IEEE Fog World Congr. (FWC), Oct. 2017, pp. 1–5,
doi: 10.1109/FWC.2017.8368540.
Authorized licensed use limited to: The Islamia University of Bahawalpur. Downloaded on June 06,2022 at 19:53:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
15
[70] R. Gallen, A. Cord, N. Hautiere, and D. Aubert, “Towards night
fog detection through use of in-vehicle multipurpose cameras,” in
Proc. IEEE Intell. Vehicles Symp. (IV), Jun. 2011, pp. 399–404, doi:
10.1109/IVS.2011.5940486.
[71] R. S. S. Thejaswini and S. Rajaraajeswari, “A real-time traf-
fic congestion-avoidance framework for smarter cities,” AIP Conf.,
vol. 2039, no. 1, 2018, Art. no. 020009. [Online]. Available: https://aip.
scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.5078968, doi: 10.1063/1.5078968.
[72] Q. G. K. Safi, S. Luo, C. Wei, L. Pan, and Q. Chen, “PIaaS:
Cloud-oriented secure and privacy-conscious parking information as
a service using VANETs,” Comput. Netw., vol. 124, pp. 33–45,
Sep. 2017. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S138912861730244X, doi: 10.1016/j.comnet.2017.06.001.
[73] I. Ahmad, R. M. Noor, I. Ali, M. Imran, and A. Vasilakos,
“Characterizing the role of vehicular cloud computing in road traf-
fic management,” Int. J. Distrib. Sensor Netw., vol. 13, no. 5,
p. 14, May 2017. [Online]. Available: http://journals.sagepub.com/
doi/10.1177/1550147717708728, doi: 10.1177/1550147717708728.
[74] A. Reale, P. Kiss, C. Ferrari, B. Kovács, L. Szilágyi, and M. Tóth,
“Application functions placement optimization in a mobile distributed
cloud environment,” Studia Inf., vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 37–52, 2018.
[75] Y. Wang, X. Tao, X. Zhang, P. Zhang, and Y. T. Hou, “Cooperative
task offloading in three-tier mobile computing networks: An ADMM
framework,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 2763–2776,
Mar. 2019, doi: 10.1109/TVT.2019.2892176.
[76] Q. Qi et al., “Knowledge-driven service offloading decision for vehic-
ular edge computing: A deep reinforcement learning approach,” IEEE
Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 4192–4203, May 2019, doi:
10.1109/TVT.2019.2894437.
[77] D. Liu, L. Khoukhi, and A. Hafid, “Prediction-based mobile
data offloading in mobile cloud computing,” IEEE Trans. Wire-
less Commun., vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 4660–4673, Jul. 2018, doi:
10.1109/TWC.2018.2829513.
[78] M. C. Filippou, D. Sabella, and V. Riccobene, “Flexible MEC service
consumption through edge host zoning in 5G networks,” in Proc.
IEEE Wireless Commun. Netw. Conf. Workshop (WCNCW), Apr. 2019,
pp. 1–6, doi: 10.1109/WCNCW.2019.8902852.
[79] L. Li, H. Zhou, S. X. Xiong, J. Yang, and Y. Mao, “Compound model
of task arrivals and load-aware offloading for vehicular mobile edge
computing networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 26631–26640, 2019,
doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2901280.
[80] X. Lyu et al., “Selective offloading in mobile edge computing for
the green Internet of Things,” IEEE Netw., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 54–60,
Jan. 2018, doi: 10.1109/MNET.2018.1700101.
[81] D. Tang, X. Zhang, and X. Tao, “Delay-optimal temporal-spatial com-
putation offloading schemes for vehicular edge computing systems,”
in Proc. IEEE Wireless Commun. Netw. Conf. (WCNC), Apr. 2019,
pp. 1–6, doi: 10.1109/WCNC.2019.8885702.
[82] J. Guo, B. Song, S. Chen, F. R. Yu, X. Du, and M. Guizani, “Context-
aware object detection for vehicular networks based on edge-cloud
cooperation,” IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 7, no. 7, pp. 5783–5791,
Jul. 2020, doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2019.2949633.
[83] Y. Sahni, J. Cao, S. Zhang, and L. Yang, “Edge mesh: A new paradigm
to enable distributed intelligence in Internet of Things,” IEEE Access,
vol. 5, pp. 16441–16458, 2017, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2739804.
[84] J. Al-Jaroodi and N. Mohamed, “PsCPS: A distributed platform for
cloud and fog integrated smart cyber-physical systems,” IEEE Access,
vol. 6, pp. 41432–41449, 2018, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2856509.
[85] K. Kamran, E. Yeh, and Q. Ma, “DECO: Joint computation, caching
and forwarding in data-centric computing networks,” in Proc. 20th
ACM Int. Symp. Mobile Ad Hoc Netw. Comput. (Mobihoc). Catania,
Italy: Association for Computing Machinery, 2019, pp. 111–120, doi:
10.1145/3323679.3326509.
[86] Y. Wang, X. Tao, X. Zhang, P. Zhang, and Y. T. Hou, “Cooperative
task offloading in three-tier mobile computing networks: An ADMM
framework,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 2763–2776,
Mar. 2019, doi: 10.1109/TVT.2019.2892176.
[87] S. Kaul et al., “Effect of antenna placement and diversity on vehicular
network communications,” in Proc. 4th Annu. IEEE Commun. Soc.
Conf. Sensor, Mesh Ad Hoc Commun. Netw., Jun. 2007, pp. 112–121.
[88] A. Paier et al., “Average downstream performance of measured IEEE
802.11p infrastructure-to-vehicle links,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Com-
mun. Workshops, May 2010, pp. 1–5.
[89] J. Gozalvez, M. Sepulcre, and R. Bauza, “IEEE 802.11p vehicle to
infrastructure communications in urban environments,” IEEE Commun.
Mag., vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 176–183, May 2012.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
16
[90] L. Chunlin, Y. Xin, Z. Yang, and L. Youlong, “Multiple context based
service scheduling for balancing cost and benefits of mobile users and
cloud datacenter supplier in mobile cloud,” Comput. Netw., vol. 122,
pp. 138–152, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.comnet.2017.04.039.
[91] C. Li, S. Wang, X. Huang, X. Li, R. Yu, and F. Zhao, “Parked vehicular
computing for energy-efficient Internet of vehicles: A contract theoretic
approach,” IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 6079–6088,
Aug. 2019.
[92] H. A. Alameddine, S. Sharafeddine, S. Sebbah, S. Ayoubi, and C. Assi,
“Dynamic task offloading and scheduling for low-latency IoT services
in multi-access edge computing,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 37,
no. 3, pp. 668–682, Mar. 2019.
[93] Y. Deng, Z. Chen, X. Yao, S. Hassan, and J. Wu, “Task scheduling for
smart city applications based on multi-server mobile edge computing,”
IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 14410–14421, 2019.
[94] J. Nguyen, Y. Wu, J. Zhang, W. Yu, and C. Lu, “Real-time data
transport scheduling for edge/cloud-based Internet of Things,” in Proc.
Int. Conf. Comput., Netw. Commun. (ICNC), Feb. 2019, pp. 642–646.
[95] J. Feng, Z. Liu, C. Wu, and Y. Ji, “Mobile edge computing for the
Internet of vehicles: Offloading framework and job scheduling,” IEEE
Veh. Technol. Mag., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 28–36, Mar. 2019.
[96] F. A. Salaht, F. Desprez, and A. Lebre, “An overview of service
placement problem in fog and edge computing,” Univ. Lyon, EnsL,
UCBL, CNRS, Inria, LIP, Lyon, France, Res. Rep. RR-9295, Oct. 2019,
pp. 1–43. [Online]. Available: https://hal.inria.fr/hal-02313711
[97] N. Kherraf, H. A. Alameddine, S. Sharafeddine, C. M. Assi, and
A. Ghrayeb, “Optimized provisioning of edge computing resources
with heterogeneous workload in IoT networks,” IEEE Trans. Netw.
Service Manage., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 459–474, Jun. 2019.
[98] F. Sun, N. Cheng, S. Zhang, H. Zhou, L. Gui, and X. Shen, “Rein-
forcement learning based computation migration for vehicular cloud
computing,” in Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM),
Dec. 2018, pp. 1–6, doi: 10.1109/GLOCOM.2018.8647996.
[99] A. Machen, S. Wang, K. K. Leung, B. J. Ko, and T. Salonidis,
“Live service migration in mobile edge clouds,” IEEE Wire-
less Commun., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 140–147, Feb. 2018, doi:
10.1109/MWC.2017.1700011.
[100] T. Lian, Y. Zhou, X. Wang, N. Cheng, and N. Lu, “Predictive task
migration modeling in software defined vehicular networks,” in Proc.
IEEE 4th Int. Conf. Comput. Commun. Syst. (ICCCS), Feb. 2019,
pp. 570–574, doi: 10.1109/CCOMS.2019.8821707.
[101] S. Singh, I. Chana, and M. Singh, “The journey of QoS-aware auto-
nomic cloud computing,” IT Prof., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 42–49, Mar. 2017,
doi: 10.1109/MITP.2017.26.
Peter Arthurs received the M.Sc. degree in
computer science from the University of Surrey,
Guildford, U.K., in 2017, where he is currently
pursuing the Ph.D. degree as part of the CARMA
Project.
He previously worked with the aerospace and
defence industries providing systems architect and
design engineering for communications and nav-
igation systems. His main area of research is
in edge-cloud computing over 5G networks for
autonomous vehicles.
Lee Gillam received the Ph.D. degree in arti-
ficial intelligence from the University of Surrey
in 2004. He is currently a Senior Lecturer with
the Department of Computer Science, University
of Surrey, a Chartered IT Professional Fellow of
the British Computer Society (FBCS CITP), and
a member of the EPSRC Peer Review College.
He is the Founding Editor-in-Chief of Open Access
Journal of Cloud Computing Advances, Systems and
Applications (JoCCASA) (Springer), with its first
articles in April 2012, and which followed on from
co-editorship of the first Springer book on cloud computing in 2010. He has
both led and contributed to government-funded research projects relating to
cloud computing and started three companies that are variously exploiting such
research. He has been a coauthor of reports for EPSRC on cloud computing
(research use cases and costs), has been teaching a bespoke module on cloud
computing to the master’s students since 2010.
Authorized licensed use limited to: The Islamia University of Bahawalpur. Downloaded on June 06,2022 at 19:53:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
Paul Krause is currently a Professor in complex
systems with the University of Surrey. He has over
forty years’ research experience in the study of
complex systems in a wide variety of domains,
in both industrial and academic research laborato-
ries. He is also the Leader of the recently founded
Digital Ecosystems Research Group, Surrey, which
although-based with the Department of Computer
Science, collaborates strongly with other disciplines
throughout the university. He has been working and
leading strong interdisciplinary teams since 2006 in
the EU funded DBE and OPAALS projects, more recently in the RCUK
funded projects ERIE (for evolution and resilience of industrial ecosystems)
and MILES projects. These last two were funded under the Complexity in
the Real World and Bridging the Gaps. He is currently active in the TASCC,
SPEAR, and HBP projects. He also has forty years’ experience as a volunteer
in practical nature conservation projects. He has over 120 publications and the
author of a textbook on reasoning under uncertainty. His research currently
focuses on distributed systems for the digital ecosystem and future Internet
domains. He is a fellow of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications,
and a Chartered Mathematician.
Ning Wang (Senior Member, IEEE) received the
Ph.D. degree in electronic engineering from the Cen-
tre for Communication Systems Research (CCSR),
University of Surrey, in 2004. He is currently a Full
Professor with the 5G Innovation Centre (5GIC),
Institute for Communication Systems (ICS), Univer-
sity of Surrey. He has published over 150 research
articles in the areas of future networks, 5G, the Inter-
net of Things, and network and service manage-
ment. His research interests include 5G networking,
edge computing, quality of services, and network
management and control.
Kaushik Halder received the B.Tech. degree in
electronics and instrumentation engineering from
the Haldia Institute of Technology, Haldia, India,
in 2008, the M.E. degree in power engineering
and the Ph.D. degree in engineering from Jadavpur
University, Kolkata, India, in 2010 and 2018, respec-
tively. He was an Assistant Professor in electronics
and instrumentation engineering with the National
Institute of Science and Technology, Berhampur,
India, from 2010 to 2013. He is currently a Postdoc-
toral Researcher with the Department of Mechanical
Engineering and Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, U.K. He has
authored or coauthored 20 research articles in refereed scientific journals and
papers in conferences. His research interests include control theory, networked
control systems, and vehicle platooning.
Alexandros Mouzakitis is currently the Head of
the Electrical, Electronics, and Software Engineer-
ing Research Department, Jaguar Land Rover Ltd.
He has over 15 years of technological and manage-
rial experience especially in automotive embedded
systems. In his current role, he is responsible
for leading a multidisciplinary research and tech-
nology department dedicated to deliver a port-
folio of advanced research projects in the areas
of human–machine interface, digital transformation,
self-learning vehicle, smart/connected systems, and
onboard/off board data platforms. In his previous position within Jaguar
Land Rover, he served as the Head of the Model-based Product Engineering
Department, responsible for model-based development, and automated testing
standards, and processes.