A traffic flow-oriented routing protocol for VANETs

Abstract

This paper presents a novel position-based routing protocol for vehicular ad hoc networks (VANETs) to enhance traffic safety and traffic organization and facilitate driving through a smart transportation system. The protocol is referred to as the traffic flow-oriented routing (TFOR) protocol for VANETs. It considers a real-time urban scenario with multi-lane and bi-directional roads. It chooses junction optimally considering vehicular traffic flows to accomplish robust routing paths and thereby forwarding the data packets. The new junction selection mechanism and routing between the junctions is based on two-hop neighbor information, which increases packet-delivery ratio and decreases end-to-end delay. We designed, implemented, and compared TFOR against existing routing protocols of VANETs (greedy-perimeter stateless routing (GPSR), geographic source routing (GSR), and enhanced greedy traffic-aware routing (E-GyTAR)). Simulation outcomes in urban scenarios show that TFOR minimizes average end-to-end delay and routing overhead by on average 15.3% and 19.5%, respectively, compared to GPSR. It reduces routing overhead up to 17% compared to GSR. TFOR maximizes packet-delivery ratio on an average of 17.5%, 10.7%, and 7.2% compared to GPSR, GSR, and E-GyTAR, respectively.

A Comprehensive Real-Time Traffic Map for Geographic Routing in VANETs

“…Alternatively, TFOR considers both the directional and the undirectional flow of traffic density. If Improved Greedy Traffic Aware Routing (E-GyTAR) [22], Traffic Flow-Oriented Routing (TFOR) [23], Intersection-based Connectivity Aware Routing (iCAR) [24], Adaptive Routing Protocol based on QoS and vehicular Density (ARP-QD) [25], and Adaptive QoS based Routing for VANETs (AQRV) [26] are based on the same idea of dynamic junction selection as GyTAR. E-GyTAR and TFOR further consider the flow directions of the roads.…”

Dynamic Multiple Junction Selection Based Routing Protocol for VANETs in City Environment

“…For the safety of drivers and regulating the flow of vehicles, the drivers have to be alerted to unwanted traffic accidents, traffic congestion, road conditions, and other associated features. The main objective of VANETs is to address these issues by providing the exact and timely information to the drivers [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12].…”

“…In VANETs, nodes are self-organized and capable of communicating in an infrastructure-less environment [1][2][3][4][5]13,14]. The integration of advanced wireless technologies in vehicles helps them to communicate without any infrastructure, which reduces the cost of hefty infrastructure deployment.…”

“…For Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) communications, 2 of 18 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has allocated a bandwidth of 75 MHz in 5.9 GHz band for licensed Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC). Each vehicle exchanges information with other vehicles as well as roadside units within their radio ranges by using the allocated bandwidth by FCC [1][2][3]13,14]. Also, various significant projects like CarTALK2000(Car Talk 2000) [15], C2CCC(Car 2 Car Communication Consortium) [16], California PATH(California Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology) [17], FleetNet [18], DEMO 2000 by Japan Automobile Research Institute (JSK) [19], Chauffeur in EU [20] and Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership (CAMP) [19] are initiated by different firms for developing vehicular communication.…”

“…The nodes in one area may be sparsely connected while in another area they can be densely connected. While, at the same time, the predictable mobility and mobility restrictions are helpful in establishing routes [2,3,8]. Traditional MANETs routing protocols are unable to handle these issues.…”