Released by permission of Dr Ali Al-Sherbaz. Work is by Mina Alaa Hussein The project aims to evaluate and analyse of Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol for Vehicular Ad hoc Networks (VANETs) to achieve high reliability and low delay delivery of safety related messages as well as provide QoS requirements for non-safety messages

1. By
Mina Alaa Hussein
Supervisor:
Assist. Prof. Dr. Mohammed A. Abdala
Dr. Ali Al-Sherbaz
9/12/2014 11:24 PM 1

2.  Aim of Project
 Introduction
 Background of multi-channel protocol
 The problems
 Simulation
 Results
 Conclusion
9/12/2014 11:24
PM 2

3. Aim of Project
 Introduction
 Background of multi-channel protocol
 The problems
 Simulation
 Results
 Conclusion
9/12/2014 11:24
PM 3

4.  The project aims to evaluate and analyse of Medium Access Control
(MAC) protocol for Vehicular Ad hoc Networks (VANETs) to achieve
high reliability and low delay delivery of safety related messages as
well as provide QoS requirements for non-safety messages.
9/12/2014 11:24
PM 4

5. 9/12/2014 11:24
PM 5
Wish to know about
traffic jam condition
at next turn or road
condition ahead
Wish to avoid accidents or
have advance information
if any met with an
accidents on the road
ahead

6. 9/12/2014 11:24
PM 6
Wish to have prior
alert, of vehicle in
front of you is
applying breaks

7.  Aim of Project
 Introduction
 Background of multi-channel protocol
 The problems
 Simulation
 Results
 Conclusion
9/12/2014 11:24
PM 7

8.  VANET (Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networks): is the technology of building a
robust Ad-Hoc network between mobile vehicles and between
mobile vehicle and roadside units
 VANETs are classified as an application of Mobile Ad Hoc Network
(MANET) that has the potential in improving road safety and in
providing travelers comfort.
 VANET applications are classified into two types, safety application
and non-safety applications.
 Compared with MANET, VANET has more frequent path loss, a shorter
link life-time, and lower packet throughput as a result of high
mobility, road environment, and volume of traffic.
9/12/2014 11:24
PM 8

9. 9/12/2014 11:24 PM 9

10.  Predictable mobility
 Providing safe driving, improving passenger comfort and enhancing
traffic efficiency
 No power constraints
 Variable network density
 Rapid changes in network topology
 Large scale network
 High computational ability
9/12/2014 11:24
PM 10

11.  Aim of Project
 Introduction
 Background of multi-channel protocol
 The problems
 Simulation
 Results
 Conclusion
9/12/2014 11:24 PM 11

12.  IEEE WAVE MAC Protocol (IEEE
802.11p+IEEE 1609.4)
 IEEE 802.11p uses CSMA/CA
 provide data rate from 3 to 27 mbps and bandwidth with 10 MHz
and communication distance from 300-1000 m distance.
 uses EDCA QoS extension defined in IEEE 802.11e.
 IEEE 1609.4 standard enhances the operation of IEEE802.11P by
supporting multi-channel operation
Figure 1. Channel allocation for WAVE according to FCC
9/12/2014 11:24 PM 12

13. Data rates : 6 to 54Mbps
signal bandwidth : 20 MHz
Symbol duration: 4 ㎲
Guard Time: 0.8 ㎲
FFT period: 3.2 ㎲
Preamble duration: 16 ㎲
CW min: 15
CW max: 1023
9/12/2014 11:24 PM
13
Wi-Fi
802.11 a/b/g
WAVE
802.11P
Data rates : 3 to 27 Mbps
Signal bandwidth : 10 MHz
Symbol duration : 8㎲
Guard Time : 1.6 ㎲
FFT period: 6.4 ㎲
Preamble duration: 32 ㎲
CW min: 15
CW max: 1023

14. 9/12/2014 11:24 PM 14
Implemented
part

15.  Aim of Project
 Introduction
 Background of multi-channel protocol
The problems
 Simulation
 Results
 Conclusion
9/12/2014 11:24 PM 15

16. 9/12/2014 11:24 PM 16

17.  Aim of Project
 Introduction
 Background of multi-channel protocol
 The problems
Simulation
 Results
 Conclusion
9/12/2014 11:24 PM 17

18. OMNeT++ is a popular open source simulator
SUMO (Simulation of Urban Mobility)
Veins is an open source framework for running vehicular
network simulations.
9/12/2014 11:24 PM 18

19. Scenarios: Multi-channel & Single-channel
9/12/2014 11:24 PM 19
highway
Low density
Queue size=1
A B
Only Safety messages
Queue size=2
Safety & non-safety
A B
Implemented
Using
Queue size=5
Or
A B
High density
Queue size=1
A B
Queue size=2
A B
Queue size=5
A B
messages
Case A: Beacon length=100, packet length= 800
Case B: Beacon length=400, packet length= 1000

20.  M1 junction 14
to junction 15
 Street length: 2 Km
 Number of lanes=3
 Speed range: 80 km/h
(50 m/h) to 160 km/h
(100 m/h)
 acceleration=2.6 m/s²
 Length of vehicle=5,10 m
 Min. Gap=2.5 m
 Krauss Mobility Model
 Number of vehicle:
 Low density: ~12vehicle/km/lane
 High density: ~25vehicle/km/lane
9/12/2014 11:24 PM 20

21. 9/12/2014 11:24 PM 21

22. 9/12/2014 11:24 PM 22

23.  Aim of Project
 Introduction
 Background of multi-channel protocol
 The problems
 Simulation
Results
 Conclusion
9/12/2014 11:24 PM 23

24. Beacon Delay -msec
4.183
4.183
3.939
3.655
3.655
2.681 2.564
2.73 2.79 3.655
2.659 2.79 3.602
3.65
9/12/2014 11:24 PM 24
 Only safety messages used
2.687 2.56
2.863 2.77
4.37
4.936
2.711 2.601 4.232 3.602
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
low density, single channel high density, single channel low density,multi channel high density, multi channel
Q=1,B=100,P=800 Q=2,B=100,P=800 Q=5, ,B=100,P=800
Q=1,B=400, P=1000 Q=2,B=400, P=1000 Q=5,B=400, P=1000

25. Beacon Throughput- Mbps
0.127
0.4985
0.4985
0.511
0.47006
0.47
0.47
0.12084
0.074
0.289
0.296
0.0716
0.0716
0.2741
0.159 0.13
9/12/2014 11:24 PM 25
 Only safety messages used
0.138
0.1514
0.0809
0.0728 0.126 0.073319 0.082 0.1203
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
low density, single channel high density, single channel low density,multi channel high density, multi channel
Q=1,B=100,P=800 Q=2,B=100,P=800 Q=5, ,B=100,P=800
Q=1,B=400, P=1000 Q=2,B=400, P=1000 Q=5,B=400, P=1000

26. 9/12/2014 11:24 PM 26
 Only safety messages used
low density,
single channel
Lost Packet
high density,
single channel
low
density,multi
channel
high density,
multi channel
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Q=5,B=400, P=1000 540 2579 1298 5486
Q=2,B=400, P=1000 1095 3228.9 1298 5486
Q=1,B=400, P=1000 742.3 3228.9 1987 5486
Q=5, ,B=100,P=800 1204.7 2579 3079 4689
Q=2,B=100,P=800 832.2 2483 1306 4820
Q=1,B=100,P=800 900 2272 8908 4689

27.  both safety and non-safety messages used
Beacon Delay- msec
4.509
3.7013
4.5453
3.39 4.348
4.265
4.868
3.23 3.987 4.681 4.066
9/12/2014 11:24 PM 27
3.399
4.095
4.761 4.121
3.316
4.275
4.584
4.368
3.23
4.006
4.925
3.2405 4.261
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
low density, single channel high density, single channel low density,multi channel high density, multi channel
Q=1,B=100,P=800 Q=2,B=100,P=800 Q=5, ,B=100,P=800
Q=1,B=400, P=1000 Q=2,B=400, P=1000 Q=5,B=400, P=1000

28.  both safety and non-safety messages used
9/12/2014 11:24 PM 28
350 Data Delay- msec
low density, single
channel
high density, single
channel
low density,multi
channel
high density, multi
channel
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Q=5,B=400, P=1000 5.462 7.4603 53.579 58.181
Q=2,B=400, P=1000 4.316 5.3594 52.98 53.83
Q=1,B=400, P=1000 4.128 4.347 51.879 51.6
Q=5, ,B=100,P=800 4.69 6.897 55.08 57.37
Q=2,B=100,P=800 4.128 4.927 52.928 53.7
Q=1,B=100,P=800 3.814 4.174 51.531 51.28

29.  both safety and non-safety messages used
9/12/2014 11:24 PM 29
Lost Packet
low density, single
channel
high density, single
channel
low density,multi
channel
high density, multi
channel
3500000
3000000
2500000
2000000
1500000
1000000
500000
0
Q=5,B=400, P=1000 289075 629671 104445 205710
Q=2,B=400, P=1000 258173 535779 46743 85325
Q=1,B=400, P=1000 270792 412153 21503 45313
Q=5, ,B=100,P=800 360661 707406 183571 20568
Q=2,B=100,P=800 322750 579715 49288 93207
Q=1,B=100,P=800 263108.9 449010 21361 42883

30.  both safety and non-safety messages used
Throughput of Beacon- Mbps
9/12/2014 11:24 PM 30
low density, single
channel
high density, single
channel
low density,multi
channel
high density, multi
channel
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Q=5,B=400, P=1000 0.1259 0.142 0.2871 0.475
Q=2,B=400, P=1000 0.128 0.0383 0.2689 0.463
Q=1,B=400, P=1000 0.1339 0.171 0.285 0.466
Q=5, ,B=100,P=800 0.0349 0.0394 0.147 0.1186
Q=2,B=100,P=800 0.036 0.041429 0.0798 0.128
Q=1,B=100,P=800 0.0386 0.0437 0.06923 0.122

31.  both safety and non-safety messages used
9/12/2014 11:24 PM 31
Throughput of Data - Mbps
low density, single
channel
high density, single
channel
low density,multi
channel
high density, multi
channel
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Q=5,B=400, P=1000 0.0559 0.03265 0.0144 0.006415
Q=2,B=400, P=1000 0.055 0.06511 0.008599 0.00435
Q=1,B=400, P=1000 0.0626 0.0369 0.005599 0.003005
Q=5, ,B=100,P=800 0.0462 0.0291 0.01085 0.00537
Q=2,B=100,P=800 0.0454 0.02928 0.00627 0.00349
Q=1,B=100,P=800 0.05131 0.02905 0.00505 0.00236
Q=1,B=100,P=800 Q=2,B=100,P=800 Q=5, ,B=100,P=800
Q=1,B=400, P=1000 Q=2,B=400, P=1000 Q=5,B=400, P=1000

32.  By setting CWmin=500
Improved
58%
9/12/2014 11:24 PM 32
21361
8951
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
lost packet
CWmin=15 CWmin=255

33.  By setting CWmin=500
9/12/2014 11:24 PM 33
Beacon Throughput- Mbps
0.06923
0.073108
0.074
0.073
0.072
0.071
0.07
0.069
0.068
0.067
Increased
CWmin=15 CWmin=255
5%

34.  By setting CWmin=500
Decreased
5%
9/12/2014 11:24 PM 34
4.68
4.473
4.7
4.65
4.6
4.55
4.5
4.45
4.4
4.35
Beacon Delay- msec
CWmin=15 CWmin=255

35.  By setting CWmin=500
9/12/2014 11:24 PM 35
Increased
51.531
55.43
56
55
54
53
52
51
50
49
Data Delay- msec
5%
CWmin=15 CWmin=255

36.  By setting CWmin=500
9/12/2014 11:24 PM 36
Data Throughput- Mbps
Increased
0.00505
0.012266
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
CWmin=15 CWmin=255
58%

37.  Aim of Project
 Introduction
 Background of multi-channel protocol
 The problems
 Simulation
 Results
 Conclusion
9/12/2014 11:24 PM 37

38. For safety messages
scenario:
Throughput of beacon:
 For both safety and
non-safety messages
scenario:
9/12/2014 11:24 PM 38
Single-channel>Multi-channel
• For low density [25.6%]
• For high density [6%]
Single-channel
low density< high
density [67%]
Multi-channel
low density< high
density [59%]
Single-channel<Multi-channel
• For low density [56%]
• For high density [73%]
Single-channel
low density> high
density [4%]
Multi-channel
low density< high
density [35.8%]

39. For safety messages
scenario:
Delay of beacon:
 For both safety and
non-safety messages
scenario:
9/12/2014 11:24 PM 39
Single-channel<Multi-channel
• For low density [36%]
• For high density [26%]
Single-channel
low density≈ high
density
Multi-channel
low density> high
density [15.5%]
• For low density
Single-channel<Multi-channel[28%]
• For high density
Single-channel ≈ Multi-channel
Single-channel
low density< high
density [21.4%]
Multi-channel
low density> high
density [6%]

40. For safety messages
scenario:
Lost Packets:
 For both safety and
non-safety messages
scenario:
9/12/2014 11:24 PM 40
Single-channel<Multi-channel
• For low density [70%]
• For high density [46%]
Single-channel
low density< high
density [67%]
Multi-channel
low density< high
density [41%]
Single-channel>Multi-channel
• For low density [75%]
• For high density [85%]
Single-channel
low density< high
density [46.7%]
Multi-channel
low density< high
density [13%]

41. 9/12/2014 11:24 PM 41
 For both safety and non-safety
messages scenario:
 Data Delay:
 Data Throughput:
Single-channel<Multi-channel
• For low density [91%]
• For high density [89%]
Single-channel
low density< high
density [21%]
Multi-channel
low density< high
density [2%]
Single-channel>Multi-channel
• For low density [83%]
• For high density [88%]
Single-channel
low density> high
density [29.7%]
Multi-channel
low density>high
density [50%]

42.  For only safety messages
single-channel protocol better than multi-channel protocol
 For both safety and non-safety messages
multi-channel protocol better than single-channel protocol
9/12/2014 11:24 PM 42

43.  Enhancing IEEE 802.11p single-cahnnel
protocol by using CWmin= 500.
 Develop the protocol for multi-hop system.
 Test the protocol performance in urban
scenario and investigate the effect of obstacles.
9/12/2014 11:24 PM 43

44. 9/12/2014 11:24 PM 44