The vehicular safety message feature is applied to avoid accident or collision avoidance on each vehicle. Analyzed the impact of IDM-IM and IDM-LC on AODV, AOMDV, DSDV and OLSR routing protocols in an urban scenario of Dhaka city. Recommend several concerns (drop rate, delay, jitter, route cost) before developing a realistic vehicular safety applications.

1. Impact of Two Realistic Mobility Models for Vehicular Safety Applications
Md. Habibur Rahman and Mohammad Nasiruddin
Dept. of Computer Science
American International University-Bangladesh and Univ. Grenoble Alpes-France
Contribution
• The vehicular safety message feature is applied to avoid accident or
collision avoidance on each vehicle
• Analyzed the impact of IDM-IM and IDM-LC on AODV, AOMDV,
DSDV and OLSR routing protocols in an urban scenario of Dhaka city
• Recommend several concerns (drop rate, delay, jitter, route cost)
before developing a realistic vehicular safety applications
Objectives
• To see the traffic condition of a Megacity like Dhaka
• To incorporate PBC agent for vehicular safety message transmission
among vehicles to avoid accident or collision avoidance
• Design a realistic mobility scenario (Fig. 1) using VanetMobiSim
• Combined the stop signals, traffic lights and activity based realistic
macro-mobility for smart intersection management and lane change
Figure 1. Vehicular mobility scenario
Conclusion
• Existing four routing protocols, and two mobility models were not
up to the mark for each parameter of QoS metrics/other
performance metrics for vehicular safety applications
• A robust routing protocol is required for VANETs before developing a
realistic safety application of VANET
Result Analysis
Protocol Mobility model PDR (%) Drop (%) Avg. throughput (kbps)
AODV IDM-IM 42.53 57.47 229.14
IDM-LC 42.06 57.94 225.53
AOMDV IDM-IM 11.076 0.015 1.171
IDM-LC 10.595 0.014 1.165
DSDV IDM-IM 1.048 0.003 1.000
IDM-LC 0.993 0.003 1.000
Protocol Mobility model NRL Route cost Mean hop
AODV IDM-IM 49.745 0.057 1.793
IDM-LC 50.508 0.056 1.843
AOMDV IDM-IM 42.30 57.70 228.09
IDM-LC 42.78 57.22 229.75
DSDV IDM-IM 29.91 70.09 159.83
IDM-LC 32.58 67.42 147.72
OLSR IDM-IM 47.08 52.92 252.57
IDM-LC 45.77 54.23 245.00
OLSR IDM-IM 2.234 0.006 1.000
IDM-LC 2.273 0.006 1.000
Quality Evaluation Metrics
• Drop, Delay, Jitter,
• Avg. Throughput,
• Normalized Routing Load, Route Cost,
• Packet Delivery Ratio, Mean Hop,
Pd  Pr  Ps Di  Rt  St Ji  Di1  Di
100
8





 






T
N
A
n
t
h



P
P
M
s
f
h



P
P
s
r PDR
N
N
R
t
r
c 



P
R
N
r
p
l
Figure 2. Delay for AODV Figure 3. Delay for AOMDV
Figure 4. Delay for DSDV Figure 5. Delay for OLSR
Figure 6. Jitter for AODV Figure 7. Jitter for AOMDV
Figure 8. Jitter for DSDV Figure 9. Jitter for OLSR
Table 3. PDR, Drop rate & Avg. Throughput of routing protocols
Table 4. NRL, Route cost & Mean hop of routing protocols
Parameter Value
MAC Type IEEE 80211p
Channel Type Wireless
Mobility Model IDM-IM, IDM-LC
Simulation Area 1000 X 1000 m2
Simulation Time 100s
Traffic Model 40 CBR connection
Packet Size 512 byte
No. Of Vehicles 100
Vehicle Speed 10 - 80 Km/hr
Packet Rate 4 packets/s
Radio Propagation
Model
Nakagami
Routing Protocols
AODV, AOMDV,
DSDV, OLSR
Table 1. Vehicular Mobility Parameters Table 2. Simulation Parameters
Parameter Value
Max. Acceleration 0.6m/s2
Max. Deceleration 0.9m/s2
Vehicle Length 5m
Min. Congestion
Distance
1m
Safe Headway Time 0.5s
Visibility Distance 200m
No. Lane 2
Max. Multi-lane Road 10
Politeness 0.5
Lane Change Threshold 0.5m/s2
Traffic Light Transition 10s
No. interaction with
traffic light
500