| Literature DB >> 30201923 |
VanDung Nguyen1, Tran Anh Khoa2, Thant Zin Oo3, Nguyen H Tran4,5, Choong Seon Hong6, Eui-Nam Huh7.
Abstract
In vehicular ad hoc networks (VANETs), many schemes for a multi-channel media access control (MAC) protocol have been proposed to adapt to dynamically changing vehicle traffic conditions and deliver both safety and non-safety packets. One such scheme is to employ both time-division multiple access (TDMA) and carrier-sense multiple access (CSMA) schemes (called a hybrid TDMA/CSMA scheme) in the control channel (CCH) interval. The scheme can adjust the length of the TDMA period depending on traffic conditions. In this paper, we propose a modified packet transmitted in the TDMA period to reduce transmission overhead under a hybrid TDMA/CSMA multi-channel MAC protocol. Simulation results show that a MAC protocol with a modified packet supports an efficient packet delivery ratio of control packets in the CCH. In addition, we analyze the hybrid TDMA/CSMA multi-channel MAC protocol with the modified packet under saturated throughput conditions on the service channels (SCHs). The analysis results show that the number of neighbors has little effect on the establishment of the number of time slots in TDMA periods and on SCHs under saturated throughput conditions.Entities:
Keywords: VANET; multi-channel MAC; saturation throughput
Year: 2018 PMID: 30201923 PMCID: PMC6165098 DOI: 10.3390/s18093028
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
DSRC data traffic requirements [10,11].
| Priority | Network Traffic Type | Application | Allowable Latency (ms) | Packet Size (Bytes)/Bandwidth |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safety of life | Event | Intersection collision warning/avoidance | ∼100 | ∼100 |
| Safety of life | Event | Emergency vehicle warning | ∼100 | ∼100/∼10 Kbps |
| Safety of life | Periodic | Cooperative collision warning | ∼100 | ∼100/∼10 Kbps |
| Safety of life | Periodic | Speed limits notification | ∼100 | ∼100/∼10 Kbps |
| Safety of life | Periodic | Traffic ligh speed advisory/violation | ∼100 | ∼100/∼10 Kbps |
| Safety | Event | Transit vehicle signal priority | ∼1000 | ∼100 |
| Safety | Periodic | Work zone warning | ∼1000 | ∼100/∼1 Kbps |
| Non-safety | Event | Toll collection | ∼50 | ∼100 |
| Non-safety | Periodic | Service announcements | ∼500 | ∼100/∼2 Kbps |
| Non-safety | - | Movie download (2 h of MPEG 1): 10 min download time | N/A | ∼100/>20 Kbps |
Figure 1The considered multi-channel MAC protocol.
Figure 2Comparison of frameworks used in hybrid MAC protocols.
Comparison of hybrid MAC protocols in VANET.
| Name | Published | TDMA Period Adjustment | Optimized Interval | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DMMAC [ | 2010 | Yes | No |
The safety packets under various traffic conditions guarantee transmission delay Provides collision-free transmission. |
Simulations of DMMAC are carried out on straight road scenarios with a smaller number of time slots than the number of vehicles Access and merging collisions degrade the performance of DMMAC under various traffic conditions. |
| HER-MAC [ | 2014 | Yes | No |
Improves non-safety packet delivery ratio and throughput. |
The throughput on the CCH decreases due to the control overhead. The operation needs a high level of coordination. |
| HTC-MAC [ | 2016 | Yes | No |
HTC-MAC eliminates HELLO packets. HTC-MAC outperforms HER-MAC in terms of the average number of nodes that acquire a time slot. |
HTC-MAC also requires a large overhead due to the periodic broadcasting of ANC messages. |
| EFAB [ | 2017 | Yes | No |
Improves broadcast safety packets. Higher safety packet delivery ratio on the CCH. |
Does not consider a scenario where the control vehicle leaves. |
| CS-TDMA [ | 2014 | Yes | No |
Reduces transmission delay and packet collision rate. |
The use of a GPS and a digital map makes this system expensive. |
| Our proposal | - | Yes | Yes |
Improves system throughput for non-safety packets. Trade-off between time slot selection in both the TDMA period and on SCHs under a saturated traffic load condition. |
They require a pre-determined channel access. |
Figure 3Operation of the adjustment scheme for node d. (a) each node periodically broadcasts its MANC packet; (b) Step 1: All one-hop neighbors successfully receive MANC packets, and node d, which occupies the last time slot , will consider a move to a new time slot. As node d can move to , it will include in the switched time slot field of its MANC packet and broadcasts it in its reserved time slot, ; (c) Node d checks the switched time slot fields of all MANC packets sent by its one-hop neighbors; (d) If all one-hop neighbors updated the information from node d, node d successfully acquires the new time slot, , reducing the length of the TDMA period in the next frame.
Figure 4Markov chain of the WSA transmission.
Figure 5Contention model of making a reservation on the CCH.
Parameter settings.
| Parameters | Value | Parameters | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data rate of each channel | 3 Mbps | Number of SCH | 4 |
| Highway length | 1 km | Lane width | 5 |
| Lanes | 4 | Direction | 2 |
| Speed mean | 100 km/h | Speed deviation | 20 km/h |
| #slot for TDMA period | 10 to 100 | Transmission range | 150 m |
| Data rate | 12 Mbps | ACK | 14 bytes |
| WSA | 100 bytes | RES | 14 bytes |
| Slot time | 13 | SIFS | 32 |
| Propagation time | 1 | DIFS | 58 |
|
| 25 pkts/s |
| 16 |
| MAC header | 256 bits |
| 64 |
| Service packet length | 256 bits | PHY header | 192 bits |
Manc packet delay in Emmac protocol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 1891 | 0.16 | 20.76 | 21.28 |
| 20 | 1921 | 0.16 | 21.01 | 22.12 |
| 40 | 1981 | 0.17 | 21.51 | 23.75 |
| 60 | 2041 | 0.17 | 22.01 | 25.45 |
| 80 | 2101 | 0.18 | 22.51 | 27.12 |
| 100 | 2161 | 0.18 | 23.01 | 28.78 |
Figure 6Time slot acquisition rate.
Figure 7Packet delivery ratio of safety packets.
Figure 8Packet delivery ratio of WSA packets.
VALUE .
| N | 40 | 50 | 60 | 70 | 80 | 90 | 100 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| 6 | 24 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 22 | 22 | 22 | |
| 30 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | |
| 60 | 14 | 14 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | |
| 90 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | |
| 120 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
VALUE .
|
| 40 | 50 | 60 | 70 | 80 | 90 | 100 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| 10 | 114 | 108 | 102 | 96 | 90 | 84 | 78 | |
| 20 | 114 | 108 | 102 | 96 | 90 | 84 | 78 | |
| 40 | 114 | 108 | 102 | 96 | 90 | 84 | 78 | |
| 60 | x | x | 96 | 90 | 84 | 78 | 72 | |
| 80 | x | x | x | x | x | 78 | 72 | |
Figure 9The difference of at and .
Figure 10Normalized throughput.