Reliable Delay Constrained Multihop Broadcasting in VANETs
© Martin Koubek et al. 2010
Received: 26 November 2009
Accepted: 5 September 2010
Published: 19 September 2010
Vehicular communication is regarded as a major innovative feature for in-car technology. While improving road safety is unanimously considered the major driving factor for the deployment of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems, the challenges relating to reliable multi-hop broadcasting are exigent in vehicular networking. In fact, safety applications must rely on very accurate and up-to-date information about the surrounding environment, which in turn requires the use of accurate positioning systems and smart communication protocols for exchanging information. Communications protocols for VANETs must guarantee fast and reliable delivery of information to all vehicles in the neighbourhood, where the wireless communication medium is shared and highly unreliable with limited bandwidth. In this paper, we focus on mechanisms that improve the reliability of broadcasting protocols, where the emphasis is on satisfying the delay requirements for safety applications. We present the Pseudoacknowledgments (PACKs) scheme and compare this with existing methods over varying vehicle densities in an urban scenario using the network simulator OPNET.
The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and later the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) approved a frequency band reservation in the 5.9 GHz (in Europe 5 GHz) band for wireless communications between vehicles (V2V) and roadside (V2R) infrastructures. At present, the IEEE group is completing the final drafts of the IEEE 802.11p and IEEE P1609 "Standard for Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVEs)" . The European Commission through programmes like the i2010 Intelligent Car Initiative , which is a followup of eEurope 2005  is driving the rollout of intelligent vehicle systems in both European and international markets, by supporting ICT research and development in the area of transport. Under i2010, eSafety is a collaborative initiative involving the European Commission, industry, and other stakeholders to hasten the development, deployment, and use of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems (IVSSs) as a means of increasing road safety and reducing the number of road traffic accidents within Europe.
Integrating a network interface, GPS receiver, sensors, and on-board computers presents an opportunity to build a powerful car-safety system, capable of gathering, processing, and distributing information. By collecting accurate and up-to-date information concerning the status of the surrounding environment, a driver assistance system can quickly detect potentially dangerous situations and notify the driver regarding this impending peril. Notifying other drivers can be achieved via vehicle-2-vehicle (V2V) communications typically relying on broadcasting as the underlying dissemination technique. However, broadcasting is a very expensive dissemination technique that needlessly consumes channel communication capacity with increased collisions and packets losses . A broadcasting protocol for VANETs must guarantee fast and reliable delivery of information to all vehicles in the neighbourhood, where the wireless communications medium is shared, very unreliable, and with limited bandwidth. It must guarantee high delivery rates for priority messages with emergency payload data in all situations from small vehicle densities (rural areas) to crowded roads in cities during peak times with the communication network may be well saturated.
Broadcasting protocols (e.g., [5–9]), that have been proposed for VANETs have a common factor in that they cannot guarantee high reliability for safety-related data dissemination with  concluding that the probability of successful reception of the data decreases with growing distance from the sender. These factors have serious consequences for safety-related data dissemination where dangerous situations can be aggravated through unsuccessful broadcast communications.
In this paper, we propose a scheme called Pseudoacknowledgments (PACK) that interprets successful multihop broadcast transmission through overhearing successive rebroadcasts by its neighbours. As the broadcast packet traverses the network, each hop creates dynamic time slots in order to rebroadcast. Intermediate hops that receive the broadcast wait until the dynamic slot time expires and then rebroadcasts thereby acknowledging a link between itself and a previous hop. If the previous hop does not overhear the rebroadcast, it repeats the rebroadcasting. The dynamic slots are created locally at individual nodes and do not require a global clock.
The advantage of the PACK method is that it does not need any extra hardware and can be implemented on top of any broadcasting protocol, however, our simulation results have demonstrated that most gains in efficiency are achieved with location-based p-persistent CSMA/CA broadcasting protocols. The PACK schemes rapidly increase reception probability of broadcasting protocols with minimal additional overhead in terms of latency and retransmissions. In this paper, we compare the efficiency of the PACK method with existing schemes for reliable multihop broadcasting that increase the reception probability. The network simulator tool OPNET  is used to develop an accurate urban scenario based on the VANET specific WAVE communications protocol with realistic vehicle mobility patterns, radio propagation model using 802.11p.
2. Related Work
One of the primary concerns for broadcast protocols lies in the unreliable packet delivery. Protocols such as ALOHA and CSMA are some of the earliest works that focus on mitigating packet collisions in uncoordinated networks. Following on from this CSMA with Collision Avoidance was developed which is the basis for the IEEE 802.11 suite of communications protocols of which IEEE 802.11p for V2V communications is part of it. An RTS/CTS handshake exchange mechanism has been developed for unicast transmissions to increase reliability, however, broadcast transmissions still have to rely only on pure CSMA/CA protocol without RTS/CTS. A common concern for broadcasting algorithms in VANETs is their inability to achieve a packet reception rate close to .
2.1. Multihop Broadcasting Schemes
For multihop broadcasting protocols, several works have proposed acknowledging techniques to increase reliability in MARQ , BACK , and BSMA  schemes. These methods are based on reserving time slots where a sender allocates virtual time slots for all its neighbours and transmits the broadcast data. All its neighbours transmit ACKs in their virtual slot. The reserving of virtual time slots for individual ACK transmissions is problematic in denser networks as it leads to a dramatic increase in latency, a fundamental concern for the dissemination of safety related data. The authors in  proposed a broadcasting protocol called UMB that uses a handshake like RTS, CTS and ACK for one-directional broadcasting, however, this protocol requires the positioning of intersection repeaters that acknowledge the broadcast along the physical roadways. Other multihop broadcast protocols presented in  include V-TRADE and HV-TRADE. A node wishing to transmit or retransmit a broadcast transmits a position request at first to all neighbours and waits until all neighbours reply. After all replies have been received, the node transmits the broadcast with a list of selected nodes that act as forwarders similar to OLSR . This was one of the earlier works to address broadcasting in VANET, and the overhead incurred with the position request and reply packets at each hop can contribute to network congestion in denser networks and also increase delay.
From best of our knowledge, there is no method to increase broadcast reliability in multihop broadcast protocols for VANET networks that do not suffer from dramatically rising latency and/or increased load on the physical medium through numerous redundant transmissions. As a precursor to presenting the proposed PACK method, we discuss the mechanisms previously developed to increase reliability for 1-hop broadcasting.
2.2. 1-Hop Broadcasting Schemes
The second group of protocols relies on reserving time slots in the physical medium. For the RR-ALOHA , vehicles must continuously exchange 2-hop information to reserve free time slots without any central coordination units. The RR-ALOHA was proposed within the European research project CarTalk2000 .
The third group relies on the repetition of broadcasting transmissions. The SFR [18, 19] protocol randomly repeats broadcasted transmissions. The authors in  propose the OOC code that dynamically affects the number of repetition. The OOC method performed better against SFR [15, 20], but for fast moving vehicles the OOC protocol has difficulties with codeword synchronisation.
Another group of protocols not discussed in  investigated changing the transmission power of broadcasting messages to control the wireless bandwidth [21, 22]. The Adaptive Transmission Power (ATP) protocol  changes the transmit power depending on the number of 1-hop neighbours.
improves the reliability of multihop broadcast protocols,
with a marginal increase in latency and link load.
The proposed approach is based on creating flexible time slots at the transmitter and the pseudoacknowledging of transmissions by rebroadcasting nodes through overhearing. We choose three 1-hop reception schemes namely RR-ALOHA, SFR, and ATP that we have extended for use with multihop broadcasting and compared their performance with our proposed scheme we refer to as Pseudoacknowledgments (PACKs). We tested the schemes under different vehicle densities where we emulated local (accidents) and global (raining) events. An urban environment has been selected for experimental evaluation as opposed to a rural or motorway scenario as this environment will be densely populated with slower moving vehicles that force the use of multihop broadcast protocols as transmission distances are severely attenuated with obstacles present in the environment such as buildings, traffic lights, and restricted roadways that cause a build up and congestion in traffic flows.
3. Multihop Broadcast Protocol
The methods for increasing multihop broadcast protocol reliability have been overlaid on the same underlying base broadcast protocol namely the low latency Slotted Restricted Mobility-Based (SRMB) protocol as opposed to using flooding. The SRMB protocol is an extension of the Restricted Mobility-Based (RMB)  broadcasting protocol with SRMB minimising data collisions on forwarding broadcasts by using a dynamic slot wait time generated in the upper MAC layer in the order of milliseconds. PACK can be used with any broadcasting protocol, but dynamic slot wait times (SRMB) have been shown to reduce collisions by modifying the channel access times. Protocols, which include already some form of slot wait times, for example, in case of AODV  and OLSR  random wait time in the range of 0 to 100 ms, do not need necessary integrate SRMB extensions to use PACK.
The RMB, SRMB, and PACK algorithms are described next, prior to the presentation of the experimental evaluations.
3.1. Restricted Mobility-Based (RMB) Protocol
We have previously presented the RMB algorithm in . RMB is a flat (nonclustered), uncentralised, p-persistent CSMA/CA broadcasting protocol that reduces redundant broadcast transmissions using 1-hop location knowledge obtained from beacons. RMB was compared with the DV-CAST protocol , with RMB having fewer transmissions, lower end-to-end delay, and a high delivery ratio.
The basic principle of this algorithm is that before broadcasting (rebroadcasting) a transmitter determines a small set of its neighbours (Multipoint Relay set as used in OLSR ) with each node lying in a geographically different sector (maximum sectors)
To avoid redundant transmissions during broadcasting, each node (MPR, non-MPR) assesses whether all of its neighbours have received the broadcast packet. This is based on the knowledge of the position of the transmitter and all neighbours and the knowledge of transmission distance. If all neighbours are assessed by the to have received the broadcast and the has the same broadcast to transmit, then discards the packet and does not rebroadcast.
The RMB scheme ensures that during broadcasting if a collision occurs at an MPR node, some other non-MPR node with the second highest priority substitutes as the MPR and rebroadcasts. A strong advantage of this scheme lies in the fast broadcasting process where nodes wait for retransmitting generally less than a millisecond. A disadvantage is that the contention window size of a traffic class may not be sufficiently large enough to transmit without collisions at non-MPRs, for example, considering the "Voice" traffic class, there are only 3 Backoff time slots. This implies that non-MPR nodes can, with a high probability, be assigned the same time slot which leads to collisions, thus, effectively stopping the broadcast.
3.2. SRMB and PACK
A source node broadcasts at time with MPR set . All neighbours of that received the broadcast and because MPR nodes ( and ) set the Backoff time to "0" and are not within transmission range of each other (Hidden Terminal problem), and rebroadcast at time . Because and transmit in the same time (or within a short proximity), a collision occurs around in . The collision generally does not have an effect on surrounding nodes of because these nodes already received the broadcast in time . But does not overhear (receive) the broadcasts sent by and correctly and so does not know if its own broadcast transmission was successfully received at its neighbours.
To minimise collisions at the source node (and likewise at intermediate nodes that act as forwarders), we developed the Slotted Restricted Mobility-Based (SRMB) algorithm and the Pseudoacknowledgments (PACK) scheme.
3.2.1. Slotted Restricted Mobility-Based (SRMB) Algorithm
is the theoretical distance within which packets can be successfully received. This depends on the environment radio propagation characteristics. In our simulation, we set the transmission distance to 200 m, which has been determined from empirical data measurements and is described in Section 4.
AIFSN specifies the number of "slot" periods within the AIFS (Arbitration Interframe Space) value used by an access category during contention (Table 1).
AIFS is the lag time between the medium becoming idle and the time when the access category starts or resumes a random Backoff period.
CW is a number of slots in particular Contention Window (Table 1).
The SRMB algorithm extends the RMB principle and works as follows.
m is a multiplier added to avoid collisions when the networks become busy and (1) expires. The value is set to 1.5, which has been determined from simulation investigation.
Time slots are chosen based on an MPR node priority, and MPR nodes transmit one by one leaving sufficient time to avoid collisions at a source node and also to avoid collisions between other non-MPR nodes in different sectors.
3.2.2. Pseudoacknowledgments (PACK)
The fundamental difference between SRMB+PACK and slotted protocols such as RR-ALOHA is that SRMB+PACK uses access CSMA to the physical medium. Only specific nodes act as forwarders for the broadcast and in turn create virtual time slots during the broadcasting process at the upper MAC layer to further randomise the channel access time to decrease packet collisions. Nodes set the start of the repetition slots based on the time the packet is received so global synchronisation is not required and the slot size is determined using (3). After this wait time slot expires, the broadcast packet is passed from the upper MAC layer to the lower MAC layer for transmission according to the particular MAC standard (e.g., ).
The converse is true for slotted protocols such as RR-ALOHA, where TDMA is used to access the physical medium. All nodes must rely on a global clock for synchronization, and each node has its own reserved time slot to transmit with a fixed length, which makes this scheme unsuitable for variable length packets or event/bursty traffic.
3.3. Reliable Broadcast Schemes under Test
In this paper, we compared the proposed multihop SRMB+PACK scheme with 3 other reliable broadcast methods. These mechanisms also used SRMB as the underlying broadcasting mechanism with WAVE  as the communications protocol.
3.3.1. Synchronous Fixed Retransmission (SFR)
SFR has been presented in [18, 19] and is based on repetitively broadcasting the same message by a sender. The number of rebroadcasts is not constant and is randomly chosen according to the following principle.
Messages are assumed to have a specific lifetime, and this life time, is divided into time slots, and from this a random number of these slots are chosen to repetitively transmit the broadcast. The time slots are synchronized to a global clock. The authors have proposed other mechanisms but have shown that SFR achieves the better performance.
In , the message lifetime is set to 100 ms, which we see as unsuitable because it significantly lengthens safety messaging. Considering this, we decreased the lifetime to 10 ms and derived a suitable slot length of 1 ms using (1) and (2), giving sufficient time to perform repetitive broadcasting. Each sender can randomly choose from 0 to 9 repetitions for broadcasting and then broadcast in the selected slot.
3.3.2. Adaptive Transmission Power for Beacons (ATPBs)
The Adaptive Transmission Power (ATP) protocol presented in  is based on nodes listening to the medium and counting the collisions that occur in this period. Depending on this value and the number of neighbours, a node decreases or increases its transmission power appropriately. In , the threshold for the number of neighbours is set to 30, when this value is exceeded the transmit power is controlled using ATP.
Irrespective of the packet type, the same power is used to transmit all messages. Authors  highlight that such an approach leads to dangerously reduced transmission ranges for emergency data and this is counter productive, where emergency data is typically sent on the maximum transmit power to cover as many nodes as possible. Improved performance is achieved using the maximum transmit power as opposed to broadcasting over multiple hops. As an alternative to ATP, we developed the Adaptive Transmission Power for Beacons (ATPBs), which relies on the same method of assessing channel, but the transmit power is only modified for the periodic beacons to spare communication capacity for safety messages that are transmitted with the maximum possible transmit power.
3.3.3. Reliable Reservation-ALOHA (RR-ALOHA)
The RR-ALOHA protocol presented in  has been developed within the European research project CarTalk2000 . This is a slotted technique (TDMA access), where nodes rely on synchronised time slots for communications, where nodes are assigned a single dedicated slot for transmission. To prevent nodes from using the same slot, the Reservation-ALOHA (R-ALOHA)  protocol uses a central repeater that announces used slots. This concept is impracticable for use within VANETs because the inclusion of static infrastructure would restrict VANET communications to centralised vehicle-2-Infrastructure communications. To avoid the use of central repeaters, RR-ALOHA  was developed and proposes that each node sends beacons containing information identifying which slot is used for communications with their 1-hop neighbours. A node, which receives beacons from its 1-hop neighbour nodes, indirectly receives information identifying the used slots for its 2-hop neighbours. This allows nodes to access free slots and to avoid the Hidden Terminal Problem.
4. Simulation Environment
Bandwidth of channel
Two-Ray Ground model with shadowing
Minimum broadcast distance
Maximum num hops
Speed of vehicles
Number of Hazardous locations
3 (accident), 1 (rain)
Repetition interval of safety messages
Size of beacons
Size of safety messages
To approximate real world radio propagation, we implemented a realistic radio propagation models in OPNET. The model is based on the Two-Ray Ground model with shadowing, where the parameters are set based on empirical testing of 802.11p radio modules . The packet loss ratio is in the region of for distances up to 100 m between the transmitter and receiver while the losses increase to with distances of between 100 m and 150 m, and losses are achieved with distances beyond 200 m.
For experimental investigation, we modelled an urban scenario using the road traffic simulator SUMO , where the scenario represents a topology of collector roads in a 5 km2 area in the Bishopstown district in Cork City, Ireland. The traffic model contained dynamically moving vehicles with varying speeds that are restricted to a maximum speed of 70 kmph along 2-lane roads with a mixture of signalled intersections, traffic circles, and stop signs. The density of vehicles ranged from 10 to 140 vehicles per km2, which represented traffic flows at night time to peak time. Two types of emergency situations were investigated representing safety of life applications and low-priority hazard/environmental warning applications.
The first scenario emulates 3 accidents in 3 roads in low, medium, and high density road sections. Accidents can be detected by vehicles within 50 m of the accident location. A vehicle entering this 50 m sensing range detects and immediately invokes a broadcast relating to this emergency. A vehicle that is within this 50 m range when the accident occurs selects a random wait time over a uniformly distributed interval of 100 ms (corresponds to the WAVE SYNC INTERVAL) before broadcasting. This distributes the generation of broadcasts over the complete WAVE frame and randomises the intervals at which vehicles rebroadcast and lessen collisions due to broadcast storms. The broadcasting is repeated at 1 s intervals.
The second scenario was designed to focus on the throughput of the whole network and emulates an environmental network wide event, rain detection in this case. Each scheme was tested with different loads in the network. All vehicles detect the rain event uniformly distributed in time over 1 s and repeatedly broadcast every 1 s.
5. Performance Analysis
Network overview (Figure 5)—shown in this diagram—is the mean number of 1st hop and 2nd hop neighbours that nodes have in the network. The diagram shows a limitation of ATPB and RR-ALOHA schemes.
Link Load (Figure 6)—this is calculated as the mean ratio of the number of nodes that transmit safety broadcast packet against the number of nodes that receive the packet. The lower this value the better as this indicates that fewer transmissions are needed to disseminate the broadcast packet.
End-to-End Delay (Figure 7)—this is a measure of the mean time delay between the source of a safety message and the node that receives the broadcast last. This also covers the time delay created by time slots CCH TS and SCH TS in the Wave protocol. In the case of the SFR scheme, this is measured as the delay between the source node and the reception of last repetition broadcast.
Delivery Ratio (Figure 8)—this measure is dependent on the density of a network and it is the mean delivery ratio taken as the number of nodes inside an area that receive safety broadcast versus the number of nodes in that area. The area was defined by a source node as an area inside a circle with the source node at the centre, and the radius is defined by the Minimum broadcast distance. For the SFR scheme, this was measured based on the number of nodes inside the area that received safety broadcast (from any repetition) versus the number of nodes in the area.
Delivery Ratio versus Distance (Figure 9)—this shows the effect on the mean delivery ratio against increasing distance from the source up to the Minimum broadcast distance.
Throughput (Figure 10)—this measure was collected over the complete network and refers to global network events. All vehicles in a scenario detect a global event (e.g., raining) using sensors and all vehicles broadcast this event. The purpose of this measurement was to investigate the impact of the broadcast repetition interval, which was varied from 0.01 to 3 packets per second, on the delivery ratio (the number of nodes that receive the broadcast) in a network that was moderately busy, with 60 vehicles/km2.
6. Theoretical and Experimental Results
6.1. Theoretical Results
We compare the proposed PACK scheme with 3 existing schemes, namely SFR, ATPB, and RR-ALOHA. All the schemes were overlaid on the SRMB broadcasting protocol. According to the WAVE standard , time was divided to frames (Sync interval) with a length of 100 ms. Each frame contains two slots the Control Channel (CCH TS) and the Service Channel (SCH TS) time slots, each with a length of 50 ms. Each of these slots begins with a Guardian time of 5 ms to allow a unit to switch from one channel to another. In the Guardian time interval, no messages can be sent. Beacon messages and safety messages were sent only in CCH TS after the Guardian time. If a safety message was sent in CCH TS, the beacon message was omitted to prevent overloading the medium.
is the length of Sync interval 100 ms specifies in Wave .
H is the mean number of hops and is set to 6. The number was taken from mean number of hops in the simulations that increased with increasing density.
It is presumed that with is the delay applied mainly at the origin of the broadcast, where broadcasts are sent in different sectors based on the priority of the MPR nodes. Here, J represents the average number of MPR nodes per hop, based on simulation evaluation this was set to
Where k is the number of repetitions. This value depends on the data traffic on the physical medium, where in less busy network the repetition value was approximately one repetition per the complete broadcast and this went up to approximately 7 for busy networks. For theoretical estimation, we set , which is compared to medium busy network.
6.1.2. Synchronous Fixed Retransmission (SFR)
k is the mean number of broadcast repetitions equally distributed from 0 to 9 as specified by the SFR scheme.
6.1.3. Adaptive Transmission Power of Beacons (ATPBs)
The theoretical overall time delay of multihop broadcasting was kept the same as in SRMB protocol. From the perspective of broadcasting delay, the ATPB and SRMB schemes work on the same principle. ATPB only affects the transmission power of the beacons and does not straight impact on the dissemination of emergency (WSM) data.
6.1.4. Reliable Reservation-ALOHA (RR-ALOHA)
where is the size of the MAC header with 272 bits, and is the size of the WSA beacons with length of 480 bits. From a knowledge of the maximum available time of 45 ms in the CCH TS and from maximum transmission delay (1), we determine that the maximum number of time slots S used by RR-ALOHA is 90 with length of a slot being 0.5 ms. The overhead was calculated as 11 bits 90 time slots, which is 990 bits.
The delay depends on the number of hops H and how many retransmit nodes are chosen. Theoretically, with 10 hops (10 hops in the maximum number of allowable hops for a broadcast) the delay can vary from 18 ms (see (5)) to 1000 ms (see (9)) depending on the selecton of forwarding hops and their time slot.
RR-ALOHA gives the longest delay, 17 times higher than SRMB and 14 times higher than SRMB+PACK and SFR.
6.2. Experimental Results
All the results presented are represented by mean values for individual data points which are averaged over approximately 600 values with 3 seeds. The data sets in most cases have a skewed distribution, so it is preferable to use the first and third quartiles ( , ) as descriptive statistics.
6.2.1. Network Overview
Network overview (Figure 5)—this shows the mean number of 1-hop and 2-hop neighbours that nodes have in the network. In , for the ATP scheme the neighbour threshold is set to 30 nodes, meaning that if a node has more than 30 neighbours, then the node should change its transmission power which would then affect the broadcasting performance. As can be seen in Figure 5, the number of neighbours exceeds 30 between and (vehicles/km2). The RR-ALOHA protocol uses time slots, where the number of time slots, was set to 90 using (1) and (8). The number of 1st hop and 2nd hop neighbours exceeds the maximum number of slots, that is, 90 at (vehicles/km2), beyond this density some nodes will have to share the same time slot.
The results show a limitation of the ATPB and RR-ALOHA as the number of neighbouring nodes can affect the broadcast performance. SRMB+PACK and SFR are not restricted by number of neighbours and can work across all neighbour densities.
6.2.2. Link Load
Link Load (Figure 6) showed that all schemes (except SFR because of repetitions) have a rapidly decreasing link load trend. As the vehicle density increases, the network connectivity goes from sparsely connected to well connected. After SFR, the SRMB protocol performs the next worst in terms of link load (with a Link Load Ratio mean value of , with 1st and 3rd quartiles being , , taken at the highest density of vehicles with vehicles/km2) in denser networks. The PACK scheme in lower density networks performs marginally poorer ( , this drop in performance is attributed to the repetition of broadcasts for unacknowledged sectors) than SRMB with , , and , at a vehicle density /km2 in less busy networks. For higher density networks with vehicles/km2,values of , , and are achieved, and this represents an improvement of when compared with SRMB. For more saturated networks, the pseudoacknowledgements used by PACK to acknowledge sectors reduce the probability of non-MPR nodes rebroadcasting and thus reduce the probability of collisions which results in fewer transmissions in the congested medium. The ATPB and SRMB schemes have a similar performance as the power control aspect of ATPB only applies to the beacons. The best performance across all densities was achieved by RR-ALOHA as expected with a improvement over SRMB at a vehicle density of km2 and #LL , , and . This performance is attributed to the fact that RR-ALOHA uses one slot per node transmissions and will always outperform CSMA/CA methods, on which the other schemes are based. The better performance in terms of link load is offset by the poor end-2-end delay and throughput achieved with RR-ALOHA. The worst performance, that is, the greatest number of transmissions was attributed to SFR, which significantly differs from the other schemes. In the lightest density, SFR reached a value (#LL , , , and density ) 5 times greater than SRMB. In the heaviest density network, SFR flooded the network, which led to rapidly increasing unsuccessful transmissions (#LL , , , and density ) with values 30 times greater than in SRMB.
The link load results show that all schemes (except SFR) perform broadcasting with a very low number of transmissions and decrease the number with increasing density of vehicles as network increasing in connectivity due to a larger number of nodes. At higher densities, SFR flooded network because of repetitions and is actually worse than using a simple flooding protocol making SFR unsuitable for VANETs.
6.2.3. End-to-End Delay
End-to-End Delay (Figure 7)—As expected due to their similar operation, the results for end-to-end delay showed that the SRMB protocol and the ATPB scheme maintain the same relatively constant short time delay (End-to-End Delay, , , , and density ), which matched the theoretical result achieved with (5). In comparison, the PACK method had a slightly increased delay across all densities from lighter densities ( , , , and density ) with a deterioration in performance when compared with SRMB of and in larger densities ( , , , and density ) a deterioration of again comparing to SRMB. Using (6) and a repetition factor of 2.5 and looking at a medium density network with /km2,theoretical results matched experimental result ( , , , and density ). The SFR scheme gave the 2nd longest delay across a low-density network ( , , , and density ) to a high-density network ( , , , and density ) with a deterioration in performance ranging from to when compared against SRMB. Using (7), the theoretical end-to-end delay does not match the empirical result. Equation (7) is derived using the maximum transmission time from (1) which does not consider a saturated case (i.e., collisions are not considered). Equation (1) is valid only for lightly loaded networks. In more dense networks if a transmission on the medium is detected while a node is in Backoff, a new Backoff time is set and the transmission delay (1) is increased. With the SFR protocol, we have an increasing load on the physical medium as a consequence of repetitions that saturate the network and lead to collisions. The longest delay is given by RR-ALOHA across all densities from the lowest ( , , , and density ) to highest ( , , , and density ) with a deterioration from 7.5 times to 35 times that of SRMB. Using (9), we see that the theoretical result depended strongly on the number of hops and the selection of the next hops based on their time slots. This variation was described in Section 6.1.4 and matched experimental results.
The results showed that the SRMB, ATPB, PACK, and SFR schemes reach a fraction of driver reaction time (around 0.05 s of 0.7 s ). On the basis of the results, we show that these schemes in terms of end-to-end delay are appropriate for VANETs. As RR-ALOHA has prohibitively long end-to-end delays across all densities, we conclude that this method based on comparison with driver reaction speeds is unsuitable for emergency data dissemination in VANETs.
6.2.4. Delivery Ratio
Delivery Ratio (Figure 7)—Results showed that the SRMB protocol reached relatively constant values for Delivery Ratio, , , , and density to , , , and density . Similar results were achieved with ATPB and acknowledged that sparing communication capacity by decreasing transmit power of beacons did not have significant effect on delivery ratio. The PACK method in low-density network gave values of ( , , , density ) and in high density gave ( , , , and density ). These results reflect improvements of 2% to 36% when comparing against SRMB from medium- to high-density networks ( , , , and medium density ) with PACK improving overall other methods in medium- to high-density networks. SFR gives the best performance in lower density networks because of the repetitions in a sparsely connected network ( , , , and density ) with improvements of over SRMB. In medium busy densities ( , , , and density ), SFR has a slight deterioration of when compared to PACK and in the highest density ( , , , and density ), the decline in performance falls to when compared to PACK. The RR-ALOHA scheme gave a slightly poorer results when compared to PACK (low density ( , , , and density ) to high density ( , , , and density ) with a decline in performance.
The results show that PACK, SFR, and RR-ALOHA significantly improved delivery ratio across all densities with ATPB giving a performance again similar to SRMB. Again this shows the unsuitability of the ATPB protocols for reliable broadcasting in VANETs as it only refers to beacon frames.
6.2.5. Delivery Ratio versus Distance
Delivery Ratio versus Distance (Figure 8)—these results were captured at a density of 60 vehicles/km2 (medium busy network) and showed that for all schemes the Delivery Ratio fell of with increasing distance. Again SRMB and ATPB give similar results. PACK, SFR, and RR-ALOHA improve on SRMB and give very similar values up to a distance, m from a sender, with an improvement of over SRMB.
Further, from the sender at a distance m, SFR gives an improvement of , PACK gives and RR-ALOHA over SRMB. On the boundary of the Minimum broadcast distance (500 m), improvements with SFR were , RR-ALOHA , and PACK over SRMB.
The results showed that with increasing distance the delivery ratio falls off, but again SFR, PACK, and RR-ALOHA improve broadcasting performance.
Throughput (Figure 10)—results showed that all schemes have a decreased delivery ratio for broadcasts with increasing load in the network. As before, SRMB and ATPB perform similarly. SRMB (likewise ATPB) give the lowest throughput ratio , , , and load packets/1 s under low load and this decreases , , and , with increasing load packets/1 s (high load). In low load, packets/1 s RR-ALOHA has #TP = 0.49, which improves on SRMB by 9% and maintained a trend similar to PACK until reaching a moderately loaded network packets/1 s, where #TR = 0.25, , , and load packets/1 s fell to 22% below SRMB. This performance deterioration is attributed to the fact that RR-ALOHA uses TDMA access and will always perform worse than CSMA/CA access, on which the other schemes are based. SFR reached the highest values with , , and under low load packets/1 s and deteriorated , , and under greater load packets/1 s due to saturating the network with repeat broadcasts but still improved on SRMB by 31%. The PACK scheme reached values similar to RR-ALOHA under low load. With increasing load, the PACK improves on these with , , and , high load packets/1 s giving an improvement of 40% over SRMB, 80% over RR-ALOHA, and 7% over SFR.
The results showed that with increasing load the throughput ratio dropped across all schemes. TDMA-based channel access in RR-ALOHA shows reduced throughput against CSMA/CA-based access in highly loaded networks. SFR scheme showed decreased throughput due to overloading of network with many repetitions but still maintains a higher performance then SRMB. The PACK scheme in moderate to highly loaded networks gives a better performance than the SFR, RR-ALOHA, and SRMB (ATPB). These advantages of the PACK algorithm can be further highlighted when safety application is required to report with a higher rate (<1s) as it can maintain high delivery ratio for moderate- to high-density networks (e.g., vehicle platooning).
7. Discussion, Conclusions, and Future Work
In this paper, we have concentrated on techniques that increase reliability of a multihop broadcast protocol. We have proposed the Pseudoacknowledgments (PACK) scheme that improves reliability in multihop broadcasting protocols by repeating broadcast transmissions on unsuccessful links. The scheme was compared with existing mechanisms over an urban scenario using the network simulator tool OPNET  with an empirical-based propagation model , realistic mobility patterns using the road traffic simulator SUMO , and the Wave  standard. All schemes were overlaid on the low-latency p-persistent CSMA/CA broadcasting protocol called the Slotted Restricted Mobility-Based (SRMB) protocol.
Changing transmission power of beacons does not have a significant effect on performance of broadcasting, as has been demonstrated by examining the performance of ATPB.
Repeating broadcasts leads to increased delivery ratio, but it also increases the number of transmissions in the network. This can lead to flooding the network with repetitions and can decrease the delivery ratio in denser networks. The throughput results show that SFR scheme can easily saturate the network under higher loads which leads to a rapidly decreasing delivery ratio. The redundancy incurred as a consequence of repetitions which can lead to flooding makes this scheme unsuitable for VANETs.
Using small time slots for broadcasts leads to a high delivery ratio due to minimum collisions in particular slots but this increases end-to-end delay as broadcasts are delayed at successive rebroadcast nodes. In the case of RR-ALOHA, the delay reaches large values that cannot be tolerated for safety-related data dissemination. Another disadvantage of slotting is that it decreases throughput in densely loaded network which corresponds with the throughput performance when comparing CSMA/CA access with ALOHA access. When the number of nodes exceeds the maximum number of available slots, nodes must share slots. However, this limitation does not have a significant effect on the broadcasting performance in our simulations.
In Summary, PACK in moderate-to high-density networks achieves an increase in delivery ratio of approximately over SFR and over RR-ALOHA while this may appear to be a minor increment RR-ALOHA is unsuitable for VANETs due to its excessive end-to-end delay, for example, 741 ms for RRALOHA against 32 ms for PACK in high-density networks. While SFR has a tolerable end-to-end delay for VANETs, it does so at the expense of saturating the network with repeat broadcasts and this is highlighted by the link load metric which at a vehicle density of 140/km2 is 35 times higher than of PACK. While PACK and SFR give similar delivery ratio metrics, SFR does so at the expense of excessive bandwidth usage in comparison to PACK. Furthermore, due to less saturating of the network PACK achieved the highest throughput in moderate to high density networks. This makes PACK suitable for applications that need to frequently report (e.g., vehicle platooning, crashed vehicle detection).
From the experimental results presented in this paper, we can conclude that the PACK mechanism increases the reliability of multihop broadcasting and is suitable for safety-related data dissemination. In terms of end-to-end delay and bandwidth savings, PACK outperforms RR-ALOHA and SFR, respectively, making PACK a more reliable protocol for safety data dissemination in VANETs.
Although SRMB+PACK protocol has been primarily tested on a specific case of safety application (accident reporting), the SRMB+PACK mechanism can be used as a multihop data dissemination mechanism for a range of applications that require high packet delivery and low latency in very dynamic ad hoc networks. The SRMB+PACK protocol could be used in route discovery for reactive routing protocols in VANETs. From the route discovery, perspective routes would be built based on latency, bandwidth consumption, and mobility of nodes in the source-destination path. Nodes with similar mobility behaviour (speed, motion vector) would be selected as intermediate hops as this supports the generation of stable routes and reduces route maintenance overhead.
- Intelligent Transportation Systems Standards Fact Sheet IEEE 1609—Family of Standards for Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE), ITS Standards ProgramGoogle Scholar
- Chen W, Guha RK, Kwon TJ, Lee J, Hsu IY: A survey and challenges in routing and data dissemination in vehicular ad-hoc networks. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Vehicular Electronics and Safety, September 2008, Columbus, Ohio, USA 328-333.Google Scholar
- Torrent-Moreno M, Jiang D, Hartenstein H: Broadcast reception rates and effects of priority access in 802.11-based vehicular ad-hoc networks. Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Workshop on Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANET '04), 2004, Philadelphia, Pa, USA 10-18.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Korkmaz G, Ekici E, Ozguner F, Ozguner U: Urban multiHop broadcast protocol. Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Workshop on Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks, 2004, Philadelphia, Pa, USA 76-85.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Sun M, Feng W, Lai T, Yamada K, Okada H, Fujimura K: GPS-based message broadcasting for inter-vehicle communication. Proceedings of the International Conference on Parallel Processing, 2000, Toronto, Canada 279-286.Google Scholar
- Heissenbuttel M, Braun T, Walchli M, Bernoulli T: Optimized stateless broadcasting in wireless multi-hop networks. Proceedings of the 25th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM '06), April 2006, Barcelona, Spain 1-12.Google Scholar
- Si W, Li C: RMAC: a reliable multicast MAC protocol for wireless ad hoc networks. Proceedings of the International Conference on Parallel Processing (ICPP '04), August 2004 494-501.Google Scholar
- Peng J: Slim ARQ for reliable broadcasting in wireless LANs. Proceedings of the IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC '08), 2008 2164-2169.Google Scholar
- Sheu S-T, Tsai Y, Chen J: A highly reliable broadcast scheme for IEEE 802.11 multi-hop ad hoc networks. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC '02), 2002, New York, NY, USA 1: 610-615.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Tang K, Gerla M: Random access MAC for efficient broadcast support in ad hoc networks. Proceedings of the IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC '00), 2000, Los Angeles, Calif, USA 454-459.Google Scholar
- Hassanzadeh F: Reliable broadcast of safety messages in vehicular ad hoc networks, M.S. thesis. Graduate Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; 2008.Google Scholar
- Borgonovo F, Capone A, Cesana M, Fratta L: RR-ALOHA, a Reliable R-ALOHA broadcast channel for ad-hoc inter-vehicle communication networks. 2002, ftp://ftp.elet.polimi.it/users/Flaminio.Borgonovo/PUBBC/2002medhoc.pdf
- Xu Q, Mak T, Ko J, Sengupta R: Medium access control protocol design for vehicle—vehicle safety messages. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 2007, 56(2):499-518.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Xu Q, Senguptay R, Mak T, Ko J: Vehicle-to-vehicle safety messaging in DSRC. Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Workshop on Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks, 2004 19-28.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Farnoud F, Valaee S: Repetition-based broadcast in vehicular ad hoc networks in Rician channel with capture. Proceedings of the 27th Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM '08), 2008 1-6.Google Scholar
- Yang L, Guo J, Wu Y: Channel adaptive one hop broadcasting for VANETs. Proceedings of the 11th IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC '08), 2008, Beijing, China 369-374.Google Scholar
- Torrent-Moreno M, Santi P, Hartenstein H: Distributed fair transmit power adjustment for vehicular ad hoc networks. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual IEEE Communications Society on Sensor and Ad Hoc Communications and Networks (Secon '06), 2006, Reston, Va, USA 2: 479-488.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Koubek M, Rea S, Pesch D: Effective emergency messaging in WAVE based VANETs. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE '08), December 2008Google Scholar
- Tonguz O, Wisitpongphan N, Bai F, Mudalige P, Sadekar V: Broadcasting in VANET. Proceedings of the Mobile Networking for Vehicular Environments (MOVE '07), May 2007 7-12.Google Scholar
- 802.11e-2005, IEEE Standard for Information technology—telecommunications and information exchange between systems—local and metropolitan area networks—specific requirements—part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications Amendment 8: Medium Access Control (MAC) Quality of Service Enhancements 2005.Google Scholar
- Mittag J, Thomas F, Härri J, Hartenstein H: A comparison of single- and multi-hop beaconing in VANETs. Proceedings of the 6th ACM International Workshop on Vehicular Inter-Networking (VANET '09), 2009 69-78.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Crowther W, Rettberg R, Waldem D, Ornstein S, Heart F: A system for broadcast communications: reservation ALOHA. Proceedings of the 6th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, January 1973Google Scholar
- Brickley O, Koubek M, Rea S, Pesch D: A network centric simulation environment for CALM-based cooperative vehicular systems. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Simulation Tools and Techniques (SIMUTools '10), 2010Google Scholar
- Green M: "How long does it take to stop?" Methodological analysis of driver perception-brake times. Transportation Human Factors 2000, 2(3):195-216. 10.1207/STHF0203_1View ArticleGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.