sensors

Article
Optimal Path Routing Protocol for Warning Messages
Dissemination for Highway VANET
Mumtaz Ali Shah 1,2 , Farrukh Zeeshan Khan 1 , Ghulam Abbas 2,3 , Ziaul Haq Abbas 2,4 , Jehad Ali 5, * ,
Sumayh S. Aljameel 6 , Irfan Ullah Khan 6 and Nida Aslam 7

1 Department of Computer Science, University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila 47080, Pakistan
2 Telecommunications and Networking Research Center, GIK Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology,
Topi 23640, Pakistan
3 Faculty of Computer Science and Engineering, Ghulam Ishaq Khan (GIK) Institute of Engineering Sciences
and Technology, Topi 23460, Pakistan
4 Faculty of Electrical Engineering, GIK Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology, Topi 23460, Pakistan
5 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Sejong University, Seoul 05006, Korea
6 Department of Computer Science, College of Computer Science and Information Technology,
Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, P.O. Box 1982, Dammam 31441, Saudi Arabia
7 SAUDI ARAMCO Cybersecurity Chair, College of Computer Science and Information Technology,
Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, P.O. Box 1982, Dammam 31441, Saudi Arabia
* Correspondence: jehadali@[Link]

Abstract: In vehicular ad hoc networks (VANETs), helpful information dissemination establishes

the foundation of communication. One of the significant difficulties in developing a successful
dissemination system for VANETs is avoiding traffic fatalities. Another essential success metric
is the transfer of reliable and secure warning messages through the shortest path, particularly on
highways with high mobility. Clustering vehicles is a general solution to these challenges, as it
Citation: Shah, M.A.; Zeeshan Khan, allows warning alerts to be re-broadcast to nearby clusters by fewer vehicles. Hence, trustworthy
F.; Abbas, G.; Abbas, Z.H.; Ali, J.; cluster head (CH) selections are critical to decreasing the number of retransmissions. In this context,
Aljameel, S.S.; Khan, I.U.; Aslam, N. we suggest a clustering technique called Optimal Path Routing Protocol for Warning Messages
Optimal Path Routing Protocol for (OPRP) for dissemination in highway VANETs. OPRP relies on mobility measured to reinforce
Warning Messages Dissemination for
cluster creation, evade transmission overhead, and sustain message authenticity in a high mobility
Highway VANET. Sensors 2022, 22,
environment. Moreover, we consider communication between the cluster heads to reduce the number
6839. [Link]
of transmissions. Furthermore, the cluster head is chosen using the median technique based on an
s22186839
odd or even number of vehicles for a stable and lengthy cluster life. By altering traffic densities and
Academic Editors: Lei Zhang and speeds, OPRP is compared with prominent schemes. Simulation results revealed that OPRP offers
Peter Han Joo Chong enhanced throughput, end-to-end delay, maximizing packet delivery ratio, and message validity.
Received: 21 June 2022
Accepted: 5 September 2022 Keywords: vehicular ad hoc networks; cluster stability; warning messages; bi-directional road traffic;
Published: 9 September 2022 routing protocol; security; safety application

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
1. Introduction
iations.
According to World Health Organization research [1], road accidents claim the lives of
almost 1.3 million people every year around the world. VANETs offer a viable approach for
avoiding such incidents. VANETs are mobile ad hoc networks [2] that can operate with a
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. diversity of models, such as the Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) model and Vehicle-to-Vehicle
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. (V2V) model, as depicted in Figure 1. Advanced communication protocols such as IEEE
This article is an open access article 802.11p and IEEE 1609 send information between vehicles in the fundamental VANET
distributed under the terms and architecture. VANETs encompass a diverse set of utilizations divided into two categories,
conditions of the Creative Commons i.e., comfort and safety applications. Cooperative collision prevention and traffic updates
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
are examples of safety applications.
[Link]/licenses/by/
4.0/).

Sensors 2022, 22, 6839. [Link] [Link]

 Sensors 2022, 22, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 24

Sensors 2022, 22, 6839 fundamental VANET architecture. VANETs encompass a diverse set of utilizations di- 2 of 23
vided into two categories, i.e., comfort and safety applications. Cooperative collision pre-
vention and traffic updates are examples of safety applications.

Figure [Link]
Figure Thegeneral architecture
general of a VANET.
architecture of a VANET.
In contrast, comfort applications provide value-added services, including entertain-
In contrast, comfort applications provide value-added services, including entertain-
ment, travel time prediction, path identification, environmental protection, and road con-
ment,
ditionstravel
[3]. Thetime prediction,
prevention path
of traffic identification,
accidents is the mostenvironmental
crucial application protection,
among these. and road condi-
tions
Safety applications in VANETs mostly rely on warning message (WM) [Link] these.
[3]. The prevention of traffic accidents is the most crucial application
Safety
When aapplications
vehicle sensesina VANETs
hazardousmostly
incident, rely on warning
it transmits WMsmessage (WM) broadcasting.
to the surrounding vehi- When
acles,
vehicle
allowingsenses
themato hazardous incident,
take appropriate actionit to
transmits
avoid trafficWMs to the[4,5].
accidents surrounding
However, on vehicles, allow-
the other
ing themhand, unnecessary
to take appropriate broadcasting
action causes
to avoid several serious
traffic problems,
accidents including
[4,5]. However, road on the other
accidents, redundancy in transmission, and high latency [6].
hand, unnecessary broadcasting causes several serious problems, including road accidents,
Therefore, a rapid and reliable path for WMs is critical, as latency and packet drops
redundancy in transmission, and high latency [6].
during WMs delivery can cause large-scale collisions among vehicles [6]. When a sender
vehicleTherefore,
is ready toasendrapid WMs, and reliable
it may pathscenarios.
face two for WMs To is critical,
begin with, as latency
if there is justand
onepacket drops
during WMs delivery can cause large-scale collisions among
path to the target vehicle, it is unavoidable to take that path. Secondly, choosing the opti- vehicles [6]. When a sender
vehicle
mal routeiswithreadythe to send
least WMs,
latency it maydrop
and packet facebecomes
two scenarios. To begin
critical if multiple with,
paths to theif there is just
target
one vehicle
path are target
to the available. As a result,
vehicle, selecting the following
it is unavoidable to take that hop, path.
also known as thechoosing the
Secondly,
optimal forwarder
optimal route with (Of),the
is critical during the
least latency and delivery
packet of drop
[Link] critical if multiple paths to
Greedy routing methods [7] consider parameters such as the present positions of in-
the target vehicle are available. As a result, selecting the following hop, also known as the
termediate relay nodes and their distances from the target node. When vehicles are static,
optimal forwarder (Of ), is critical during the delivery of WMs.
such parameters are valid. In VANETs, the greedy routing protocols [8] chose the next-
hop in a target routing
Greedy methods
vehicle direction, [7] consider
which parameters
is a good strategy such as the
in uni-directional roadpresent
traffic. positions of
intermediate relay nodes
However, direction-based andprotocols’
greedy their distances
performances fromworsenthe target node. When
in bi-directional road vehicles are
static, suchaparameters
traffic when next-hop is picked are valid.
based on In its
VANETs, the greedy
current location routing of
in the direction protocols
the target [8] chose the
vehicle. The
next-hop in distances among vehicles
a target vehicle direction, change
which in aisbi-directional
a good strategy highway environment road traffic.
in uni-directional
because nodes
However, can move at high
direction-based speedsprotocols’
greedy in both directions.
performancesHence, due worsento theinconstant
bi-directional road
changes in topology, these vehicles leave and enter the transmission ranges with one other
traffic when a next-hop is picked based on its current location in the direction of the target
regularly. As a result, a path chosen at a specific time step does not remain fixed indefi-
vehicle. The alter
nitely. It may distances
at lateramong
time-stepsvehicles
somewhat change in a bi-directional
for transmitting even a single highway
warningenvironment
because
message. Thisnodes can move
alteration at high
may happen speeds in
concerning both directions.
a decreased or increasedHence,numberdue to the constant
of hops
changes
that affectinthetopology, these vehicles
latency appropriately. leave andpaths
Furthermore, enterare thebroken,
transmission
and newranges
paths are with one other
generated at
regularly. Asroutine
a result,intervals,
a pathpotentially
chosen atresulting
a specific intime
network steppartitions.
does notTherefore,
remain fixed all indefinitely.
Itwarning
may alter messages routed
at later across the
time-steps damaged paths
somewhat are dropped. These
for transmitting even aaspects
singlelead to
warning message.
high packet losses, delays in WMs transmission, and reduced throughput of the networks.
This alteration may happen concerning a decreased or increased number of hops that affect
We present a unique cluster-based approach, OPRP, to disseminate WMs in highway
the latency appropriately. Furthermore, paths are broken, and new paths are generated
VANETs, addressing the abovementioned difficulties. OPRP considers our mobility pa-
at routine
rameters intervals,
when choosingpotentially
a CH to improveresultingcluster in stability
network and partitions. Therefore, all warning
reduce communication
messages
overhead. Only routed acrosshead
a cluster the damaged paths the
can disseminate are WMs
dropped. among These aspects
its cluster lead to high packet
members.
losses, delays in WMs transmission, and reduced throughput of the networks.
We present a unique cluster-based approach, OPRP, to disseminate WMs in highway
VANETs, addressing the abovementioned difficulties. OPRP considers our mobility param-
eters when choosing a CH to improve cluster stability and reduce communication overhead.
Only a cluster head can disseminate the WMs among its cluster members. Moreover, CH
transmits WMs across adjacent cluster heads and increases network efficiency.

Novelty and Contributions

We used a hybrid mechanism to disseminate warning messages. For this, we consid-
ered a cluster-based bi-directional highway scenario. The contributions and novelty are
as follows:
Sensors 2022, 22, 6839 3 of 23

• Dissemination of warning messages has been performed on bi-directional highway

roads, but in a non-cluster scenario. The novelty of this paper is the directional-based
clustering technique for disseminating warning messages on bi-directional highways.
• We propose a modified K-medoids algorithm for selecting cluster heads. To the best of
our knowledge, the modified K-medoids have never been used in the literature for
cluster head selection in a bi-directional highway scenario. The modified K-medoids
algorithm is presented in Section 3.2.3, Equation (5).
• We use the positions and movement directions of the nodes to disseminate warning
messages in a clustering-based approach. Previously, either the positions or movement
directions of nodes have been used, but not both.
• We use the Hamming distance function to find the direction of a node. To the best of
our knowledge, Hamming distance has never been used previously in a bi-directional
clustering-based approach. It is presented in Section 3.2.1, Equation (2).
• We use Euclidean distance for cluster formation in the bi-directional highway. To the
best of our knowledge, this was the first time Euclidean distance was employed for
cluster formation in a bi-directional clustering-based approach.
Simulation results reveal that OPRP outperforms renowned WMs dissemination
schemes concerning information coverage, end-to-end delay (E2E), network overhead,
message reliability, and PDR. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Sec-
tion 2 reviews related work. Section 3 offers a system model, and Section 4 estimates its
performance. Finally, Section 5 presents the conclusion and future work.

2. Related Work
The dissemination of WMs in VANETs has received a lot of interest in recent years.
By broadcasting WMs on time, drivers can avoid collisions. As a result, dissemination
speed is a vital performance component, particularly for time critical WMs [9]. Designing
such solutions for enormously dynamic vehicle networks is extremely difficult. Therefore,
timely WMs transmission and computationally effective solutions are required for WM
dissemination in VANETs. The schemes discussed in this subsection address specific WM
dissemination issues, such as lowering network overhead and end-to-end delay while
boosting information coverage and PDR.
In VANETs, timely and reliable warning messages are as critical as accurate collision
detection. For VANETs, several clustering techniques have been suggested. The authors
of [10] presented a clustering technique for VANETs called the Distributed Multichannel
and Mobility-Aware Cluster-based MAC Protocol (DMMAC). The DMMAC considers
speeding a significant aspect while forming the cluster to improve stability, using a fuzzy
framework to measure vehicle speeds. Furthermore, the DMMAC uses a temporary
cluster head idea when the original cluster head is unreachable. For every cluster, the
protocol chooses a secondary CH. These protocols [10,11] are helpful in high-mobility areas,
although primary cluster heads frequently change as topologies change. As a result of the
frequent switching generated by the primary CH, the secondary cluster head’s efficiency is
diminished. Therefore, the clusters become unstable.
Furthermore, the authors of [12] offered a novel clustering approach that relies on
affinity propagation to tackle instability. This technique does not need a constant number of
nodes to create a cluster; instead, it employs similarity measurements to transmit messages
across data points throughout cluster creation. Although the affinity technique can aid
with cluster stability, it does so by involving several iterative loops, which lengthens cluster
creation time, and as a result, produces more significant latency.
To achieve effective bandwidth utilization and minimize message delivery time [13]
introduced an event-driven cluster-based method. Furthermore, clustering after event
finding produces an end-to-end delay, which is inconvenient for time-crucial information
in bi-directional road traffic. The authors of [14] suggested a clustering strategy called
time barrier-based emergency message dissemination in the vehicular ad-hoc network
(TBEM) that relies on the time barrier technique and aims to reduce excessive message
Sensors 2022, 22, 6839 4 of 23

dissemination. If an event occurs during work, the farthest vehicle is a relay to cover a
greater distance. As there are multiple vehicles along the same length of road, numerous
vehicles can send the same message, causing network congestion. Furthermore, vehicles
are permitted to transmit messages after the time limit expires, resulting in redundancy
and affecting network performance.
The authors of [15] suggested the distributed vehicular broadcast (DV-CAST) protocol
to enhance coverage area and eliminate detached network difficulties adaptively. DV-
CAST is the only solution we identified in the literature that tackles varying connectivity
situations in VANETs. To improve coverage information, DV-CAST uses a store-carry-
forward (SCF) method [16–19]. Furthermore, the transmitting vehicles send WMs to the
farthest vehicle with a high probability of shortening the waiting time. However, when
the distance between two vehicles grows, a message’s transmission probability increases
linearly. As a result, the SCF method causes end-to-end latency. Multiple vehicles can
retransmit the same message in a probabilistic approach, causing network congestion.
The k-medoids [20] and k-means [21] algorithms add to the clustering diversity
but have similar tendencies. However, a k-medoids algorithm performs better in some
cases [22]. Both algorithms divide the entire sample space into groups of comparable nodes
depending on the shortest distance among nodes and a central node, CH. In a k-medoids
algorithm, the cluster’s center is always a node, but in a k-means algorithm, it may or
may not be. As the mobility of nodes in VANET is high, choosing a geographical place
other than the node as the cluster center can induce clustering instability. Furthermore,
any approximation made in this direction by choosing the closest node to a central place
will reduce accuracy and increase processing overhead. Moreover, compared to a k-means
algorithm, a k-medoids algorithm is much more tolerating of outliers [21].
The study in [23] presents the fuzzy logic-based technique for creating clusters with
long lifetimes. Three parameters are taken into account in this approach. First, it combines
node relative speeds with their associated CHs. Second, it examines a node’s number
of available links inside a cluster, and third, it considers node security. This method can
still be used in uni-directional highway scenarios. In a bi-directional highway scenario,
however, selecting member nodes with the same speed as its CHs may be ineffective because
they could travel in different directions. This reduces the time it takes for the node to be
associated with a cluster. Another similar clustering strategy was proposed in [24]; however,
it lacks the potential to tolerate the variability of bi-directional road traffic. In addition,
the authors of [25] considered connection dependability during clustering. However, this
strategy assumes a fixed arrival rate for motorway nodes, which is unsustainable.
The work of [26] presents a comparative distance-based clustering algorithm that
performs poorly in real highway scenarios due to a lack of direction evaluation. Likewise,
the authors of [27] adopted a grey wolf optimization-based clustering method to limit
the number of clusters. On the other hand, the approach has a significant computational
overhead when identifying weak and aging nodes. One well-known clustering protocol
is Low-Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy (LEACH) [28], which has various multi-
hop and single-hop variations. LEACH Fuzzy Inference System (LEACH-FIS) [29] and
Quadrature Low Energy Adaptive Cluster Hierarchy (FCM-QLEACH) [30] are two current
VANET-specific variations. All LEACH techniques are energy-efficient, which is their main
advantage, but significant clustering overheads limit their performance.
Similarly, the authors of [31] presented a clustering technique in which a gateway node
is introduced as a relay node between CHs. The gateway node provides the connection
between two cluster heads to increase information range without needing roadside units.
This scheme is best for uni-directional traffic, and suitable for urban VANETs and unsuitable
for highway environments. EEMDS also ignores the node’s direction, degrading the
scheme’s performance. The work of RBO-EM [32] presents a clustering scheme in which
the nodes’ numbers are reduced that can retransmit an emergency message, and linked
condition reliability is employed to choose a trustworthy gateway. RBO-EM also ignores
the node’s direction, degrading the scheme’s performance.
Sensors 2022, 22, 6839 5 of 23

Similarly, the authors of BRUP [33] presented a network that was hierarchically par-
titioned into numerous clusters on a roundabout in an urban scenario, each associated
with the CH. Only the CH was accountable for the retransmission of WMs in every cluster
to avoid redundant transmission and ensure reliable WM dissemination. Furthermore,
ref. [33] employed a k-medoids algorithm for CH selection and Hamming distance for
finding a node’s movement direction to maximize the cluster’s lifetime, and it has been
proven to operate well in a roundabout in urban settings. BURP does not apply to high-
ways environment where mobility is very high. This paper proposes OPRP as an extension
of [33] to highway environments. The authors of [1,34] described message dissemination
using SND. However, SDN separates the data and control plane, and the controller should
interact with the underlying network to have a global view of the status of the data plane.
Hence, when there are dynamic changes in the network, there should be a frequent status
update in the SDN controller.
When there is a new packet for which the flow rules do not exist in the underlying
switches, it must be sent to the controller, and the same applies for the updated status.
Consequently, it adds delay. Moreover, when the algorithm for dissemination runs and the
new updates rules are found, those rules must be pushed to the flow tables of the SDN
switches. Hence, there will be an additional flow setup delay. Table 1 shows a comparison
of several WM dissemination techniques.

Table 1. Comparison of VANET WM dissemination techniques.

Consider Network WM Dissemination

Technique Year Clustering-Based PDR Delay
Bi-Directional Traffic Scenario Mechanism
DVCAST [15] 2010 × Highway Broadcast, SCF √ Medium High
Schwartz et al. [16] 2011 × Highway Broadcast, SCF √ High Medium
Chen et al. [17] 2014 × Highway Broadcast, SCF √ Medium Medium
Nguyen et al. [18] 2017 × Highway SCF √ Medium Medium
Yaqoob et al. [9] 2018 × Urban Fog server-based √ Medium Medium
DABFS [8] 2019 √ Highway Direction-based √ High Low
Kamakshi et al. [19] 2019 × Highway Broadcast √ Medium Medium
TBEMD [14] 2019 × Urban Broadcast √ Medium Medium
RBO-EM [32] 2020 × Highway Broadcast, uni-cast √ High Medium
P-DACCA [22] 2020 √ Highway Broadcast √ Medium Low
EEMDS [31] 2021 × Urban Broadcast, uni-cast √ High Low
BURP [33] 2022 √ Urban Broadcast √ High Low
OPRP √ Highway Direction-based √ High Low

3. Proposed Protocol
This section proposes our protocol (OPRP) enabling V2V communication betwixt
nodes traveling in the real-time bi-directional highway environment. The timely prop-
agation of WMs is crucial in VANET environments, necessitating an effective routing
mechanism. In the following subsection, we propose the system model for bi-directional
highway VANETs. CH selection, WM distribution, and dynamic cluster formation are all
included in the proposed approach.

3.1. System Model

Figure 2 depicts a detailed outline of the proposed protocol, which achieves direction-
based priority assignments among numerous routes to a destination. Collisions among
nodes on a wide scale could be caused by an ineffective routing strategy for vehicle collision
prevention. As a result, routing performance becomes equally essential in addition to the
importance of node collision detection. Delivering timely and reliable WMs is crucial for
implementing collision-prevention procedures. Once a source node is willing to send a WM,
and there is only one path to the destination, following that path becomes unavoidable.
When there are numerous paths to the target, choosing the optimum path with the least
latency, the fewest packet losses, and the highest throughput becomes critical. Greedy
protocols use distance as a parameter to find the optimum path, whereas direction-based
Greedy protocols look for available relay nodes in the direction of the destination node.
All paths to the target are examined for a specified time step, such as τ0. However, the
 collision prevention. As a result, routing performance becomes equally essential in addi-
tion to the importance of node collision detection. Delivering timely and reliable WMs is
crucial for implementing collision-prevention procedures. Once a source node is willing
to send a WM, and there is only one path to the destination, following that path becomes
unavoidable. When there are numerous paths to the target, choosing the optimum path
Sensors 2022, 22, 6839 with the least latency, the fewest packet losses, and the highest throughput becomes crit- 6 of 23
ical. Greedy protocols use distance as a parameter to find the optimum path, whereas
direction-based Greedy protocols look for available relay nodes in the direction of the
destination node. All paths to the target are examined for a specified time step, such as τ0.
node’s mobility is very high; they regularly enter and exit each other’s communication
However, the node’s mobility is very high; they regularly enter and exit each other’s com-
ranges, resulting in continual topological changes in bi-direction circumstances. Due to this
munication ranges, resulting in continual topological changes in bi-direction circum-
dynamic nature, two scenarios may arise during message delivery.
stances. Due to this dynamic nature, two scenarios may arise during message delivery.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. An
Anoverview
overviewofof
the OPRP.
the OPRP.

Firstly, paths
Firstly, pathstotothe
thetarget
targetmay encounter
may outages,
encounter causing
outages, all communications
causing trans- trans-
all communications
mitted on these paths to be lost. Second, because the path specified at τ 0 does not always
mitted on these paths to be lost. Second, because the path specified at τ0 does not always
stay intact, it may go through a path reconstruction phase at τ1, τ2, …, τn until a message
stay intact, it may go through a path reconstruction phase at τ1 , τ2 , . . . , τn until a message
is successfully delivered.
is successfully delivered.
This might be increasing or decreasing the length of a path. As a result, the rate of
This
packet might
drops andbe increasing
delays increase,orreducing
decreasing the lengthofofthe
the throughput a path.
Greedy As a result,
and the rate of
direction-
packet drops and delays increase, reducing the throughput of the
based Greedy protocols. Therefore, in complement to a distance parameter, we recom- Greedy and direction-
based Greedy protocols. Therefore, in complement to a
mend using the following parameters for the optimum path selection: distance parameter, we recommend
using
• thedirection
The following parameters
of node for the
movement: here,optimum
we apply path selection:
Equation (1) to find the direction of
• The direction
a node’s of node movement: here, we apply Equation (1) to find the direction of a
movement.
• The source
node’s and destination nodes’ relative positions.
movement.
• The source and destination nodes’ relative positions.
• The list of notations used in this research can also be found in Table 2. In this regard, the
proposed protocol includes two phases: the cluster formation phase and the optimal
path discovery phase. The subsections below go over all of these phases in detail.

Table 2. List of notations.

Notation Description
>> A packet transmitted from left to right node
Ack Hello packet received response acknowledgment
Of Optimal forwarder
x Set of speed for nodes
CNP Current position of a node
D Destination node
δ Final distance between NGi and D
∆ Distance between NGi and D
Sensors 2022, 22, 6839 7 of 23

Table 2. Cont.

Notation Description
Ep End-to-end delay for packet
Er End-to-end delay ratio
η Euclidean distance
κ Hamming distance
n A member node
N Set of all nodes
NG Neighboring table for a node
NID Node identity
Pl Packet dropped
Pr Packet loses rate
Pt Total packet transmitted across the network
Rp Total received packet
S Source node
τ Timestamp for the last received ACK
Tr Network throughput
γ The direction of the node

3.2. Cluster Formation Phase

The following assumptions are taken into account by OPRP:
• Each node starts in a safe state, with no probability of crashing.
• Each node has the on-board unit (OBU) for communication and a Global Positioning
System (GPS) for positioning.
• Each node can determine its direction, speed, location, and deceleration or acceleration.
• Each node may calculate its maximum average radio range based on its surroundings,
which can be utilized to connect and communicate with the other nodes.
Ordinary vehicles (OV) and CHs are the two types of nodes that the suggested OPRP
applies to. A CH is in charge of the cluster and keeps a record of all nodes that make up
the cluster. An OV represents a non-CH member node. A CH constructs a list of each of
its member nodes, which includes current location, current speed, node-id, expected state,
and acceleration/deceleration. The following are possible states for a node:
• The node moves forward from a standstill to enter the highway. In this circumstance,
it will either join an established cluster or establish its cluster.
• The node maintains the same direction and speed on the highway. In this situation, it
continues to move with the same cluster. During the travels, its speed may alter as it
accelerates or decelerates with time, resulting in a change in its cluster.
• While moving with the highway, a node may reverse its heading and begin moving in
the opposite direction. This will result in a cluster change for this particular node.
This subsection of the suggested OPRP describes cluster creation, including how nodes
can find their neighbors and enter or depart a cluster. The k-medoids algorithm is possibly
a better option for clustering based on the benefits stated in the previous section. The
simple k-medoids approach, on the other hand, is insufficient for clustering bi-directional
road traffic. The direction parameter is considered to accommodate bi-directional road
traffic. To that end, in the suggested OPRP, we present a variation to the fundamental
k-medoids algorithm and employ the modified form for clustering. The rest of this section
explains the various phases required in clustering in a bi-directional environment using the
revised k-medoids algorithm.
Sensors 2022, 22, 6839 8 of 23

3.2.1. Neighbor Discovery

We offer Algorithm 1, which takes Ack and N as inputs and finds neighbors, where
N = n1 , n2 , . . . , nx denotes a set of all nodes, and Ack denotes an acknowledgment received
in response to a transmitted Hello packet. Here, n denotes a single member node, and x
represents the number of nodes on the path. The algorithm discovers neighbor nodes and
creates a neighboring table (NG), which is a list of all of a node’s neighbors. Neighbors are
nodes connected directly to one another or within one hop. Each node broadcasts Hello
packets at regular intervals to discover its neighbors.

Algorithm 1: Neighbor Discovery.

Input: Ack, N
Output: NG
1. Begin:
2. Flush NGs
3. i←0
4. S broadcast Hello packets
5. Repeat:
6. for Ack received from node ni
7. S updates the NGs
8. NGs (i, 1)←NIDni
9. NGs (i, 2)←CNPni
10. NGs (i, 3)←τ ni
11. incrementi
12. until: All the received Acks are processed or each cluster
13. Return NG
[Link]

When S obtains an Ack from another node in reply to its broadcasted Hello packet,
it adds this node to its NG. In NG, information about nearby nodes is maintained in the
form of current node position (CNP), node identity (NID), and the time stamp (τ) of the
last correctly received Ack. Here, τ is used to determine the freshness of the received Ack
packet and to remove any older information. For node localization, we suppose every
node is fitted with a Global Positioning System (GPS). Algorithm 1 produces NG as a result.
The algorithm’s complexity is on average Θ(n). The output of the algorithm is NG for the
neighbors at each time period.

3.2.2. Node Joining a Cluster

When different nodes come in, a highway becomes crowded with clusters. The
highway’s first node forms its cluster and deputizes itself as a CH. The CH is re-selected for
every cluster when the number of nodes within cluster grows, as explained in Section 3.2.3.
A candidate node, a node that wants to join the cluster, sends out a Hello message. The
OVs ignore this communication, but all CHs in the vicinity acknowledge it.
The number of acknowledgments a candidate node receives is the number of available
clusters (k) for the k-medoids algorithm. The distance betwixt this candidate node and
every CH is calculated when the position information is shared. The nearest CH is found,
so this applicant node joins that cluster to which it belongs. Suppose a candidate node
cannot find a cluster—i.e., it receives no acknowledgment in reply to a Hello message. The
candidate node builds its cluster and deputizes itself as the CH.
The main k-medoids algorithm [20] uses Manhattan distance for clustering. In con-
trast, the modified k-medoids algorithm presented in this paper for OPRP employs two
metrics, Euclidean distance, and Hamming distance, to create clusters. The first metric,
Euclidean distance, calculates the distance between a candidate node and all of the CHs
nearby. Hence, q
η ( x, y) = ( x1 − x2 )2 + ( y1 − y2 )2 , (1)
 Sensors 2022, 22, 6839 9 of 23

where η denotes the Euclidean distance calculated between the CHs and applicant node
with coordinates (x1 , y1 ) and (x2 , y2 ), respectively.
The Hamming distance function, which includes the bi-directional aspect of a road
traffic flow, is the next metric computed after the Euclidean distance. The nodes on the
highway can move in opposite directions because the bi-directional heterogeneous traffic
allows it. Hamming distance function calculates in light of the difference in travel directions
between an applicant node and a CH. The result is 1 if a candidate node and the CH have
the same direction and 0 if they have the opposite direction [33]; i.e.,
(
1 i f = same
κ= (2)
0 i f = opposite,

here, the Hamming distance is denoted by κ, and the direction is represented by regardless
of the node type (i.e., OV or CH).
It is essential to rely on the two metrics described above when connecting nodes
to a cluster. Assume, for instance, that Node A is located 3 m from C2: CH and 4 m
from C3: CH in Figure 3. This node will connect to C2 using simply the distance factor.
This should not occur, since Node A and the members of C2 are traveling in opposing
directions, and Node A joining C2 would destabilize the cluster rather than serve a proper
function. OPRP suggests Equation (3) to solve this problem, which determines the ultimate
distance by adding the directional components and relative components. By applying
this criterion, the distance between Node A and C2: CH increases to infinity while the
distance between Node A and C3: CH stays at 4 m. As a result, Node A will join C3. As a
result, by associating the node with the cluster in the same direction, a node equation used
in a modified k-medoids algorithm for OPRP favorably and efficiently contributes to the
definition of stable clusters. Hence,
EER REVIEW δ=
η
(3) 10 of 2
κ
where δ stands for the relative distance between two adjacent nodes.

C1 C2
CH
CH

B A
CH C3
CH
CH

Figure 3. Cluster formation in bi-directional.

Figure 3. Cluster formation in bi-directional.

The distance with all neighboring CHs is calculated by Equation (3) because OPRP
The distance considers
with alltheneighboring CHs
attachment of the is calculated
candidate by Equation
node to the cluster (3) because
upon the shortest distance OPR
considers the attachment of the candidate
from the appropriate node
CH. Additionally, to the
Equation cluster
(4) locates upon
a CH the
with the shortest
smallest distancedistanc

from the appropriate CH. Additionally, Equation (4) locates a CH with the smallest dis
tance and links the node to the relevant cluster, converting that candidate node’s positio
to that of the member node. Thus,
Sensors 2022, 22, 6839 10 of 23

and links the node to the relevant cluster, converting that candidate node’s position to that
of the member node. Thus,
CHmin = Min[δ(Si , CHi )], (4)
where CHmin is the minimum distance CH, Si represents the ith candidate node, and CHi
is the ith cluster in the sample space.
Using our modified k-medoids technique, Algorithm 2 outlines how a node might
join a specific cluster. The inputs for this algorithm are k, M, and S. k is the number of
the clusters obtained in response to a Hello message, M is the set of CHs, and S is the
set of applicant nodes. The algorithm’s output consists of k clusters created or modified
by adding N nodes, where N stands for the collection of member nodes in the cluster.
The algorithm’s complexity is on average Θ(n). The output of the algorithm is K clusters
each time.

Algorithm 2: Candidate Node Joining a Cluster.

Input: K, M, S
Output: K cluster with N nodes
1. Begin:
2. repeat:
3. if K 6= 0 then
4. for each member of M do
5. Compute η i using (1)
6. Compute κ i using (2)
7. Compute δi using (3)
8. Ti ⇐ δi
9. CHmin ⇐ Min [T] using (4)
10. CHmin ← Si
11. Nmin ← Si
12. endfor
13. else
14. K⇐K+1
15. CHi ← Si
16. Mi ← CHi
17. endif
[Link]: All the members of S are clustered
[Link]

3.2.3. Cluster Head Selection

The CH node in our suggested approach is the one that is the closest to every other
node in the cluster. It is reducing the number of hops lowers communication latency. As
seen in Figure 2, the CH selection procedure continues to iterate until the clusters merge.
This convergence is best attained if no modification is seen after two iterations [20]. When
a first potential node enters a highway and forms its own cluster, as was covered in the
previous subsection, the CH is chosen. The modified k-medoids algorithm determines the
median of each cluster when the clusters are filled with nodes. Therefore, this median,
also known as the medoid, computed using Equation (5), is elected as the new CH for a
cluster [33]. Thus, h
 n+1 th
i
if nodes = odd
Mc =  2  (5)
 n + 1 th if nodes = even
2

where Mc represents the set of CHs and n is the number of nodes in a cluster.
The suggested k-medoids approach in Algorithm 3 provides phases for choosing a
CH in a particular cluster. K and N are the inputs for Algorithm 3. This algorithm’s output
includes Mc. The algorithm’s complexity is on average Θ(n). The algorithm’s outcome is
an Mc set of the cluster heads each time.
Sensors 2022, 22, 6839 11 of 23

Algorithm 3: Cluster Head Selection.

Input: K, N
Output: M
1. Begin:
2. repeat:
3. if N = 1 then
4. CHi ← Ni
5. Mi ← CHi
6. else if N > 2 then
7. CHi ← median (N) using (5)
8. Mi ← CHi
9. endif
[Link]: CH is selected for K clusters
[Link]

3.2.4. Node Leaving a Cluster

The OPRP offers a planned method for member nodes to leave a cluster. This results
from a member node changing its path or accelerating or decelerating. The nodes most
likely to leave a cluster are edge nodes, which are found close to their boundaries. Even
when the node is not an edge node, it transforms into one shortly before leaving. Every
member node in OPRP maintains a threshold, ε, to keep itself connected to a specific cluster.
When a node wants to leave its cluster, this threshold is evaluated concerning an immediate
neighbor node. Once this threshold is reached, the member node communicates a leaving
message to its CH, indicating that it is willing to leave the cluster. The CH announces its
departure and deletes any entries related to that node from its list. OPRP suggests updating
ε as follows for a node that wants to leave its cluster:

e = µ × ∆, (6)

where ∆ represents a fading component and µ is the node’s transmission range that con-
tributes to the definition of ε for a node in terms of µ. As soon as a leaving node reaches the
fading area, also known as µ − ε, which is located around the boundaries of a given node’s
communication range, the leaving node begins to leave the associated cluster. Depending
on the circumstances, the departing node may join another cluster or form its own cluster.
Algorithm 4 offers instructions for removing a node from a specific cluster, utilizing
our improved k-medoids algorithm. If the departing node is a CH, it specifies the CH
re-election criteria. In that algorithm, Nr stands for the randomly chosen node, which is
chosen as a temporary CH upon an existing CH’s departure from its cluster. This method
takes the inputs K and N, and its output is a notification of Ni’s departure. The algorithm’s
complexity is on average Θ(n). The algorithm’s output is the Ni node leaving a notification
each time.

Algorithm 4: Node Leaving.

Input: K, N
Output: Leaving notification of Ni
1. Begin:
2. repeat:
3. if K 6= ϕ then
4. if η(Ni , Ni+1 ) > ε or η(Ni , Ni −1 ) > ε then
5. if Ni ≡ CHi then
6. CHi ← Ni
7. perform CH selection
8. else
Sensors 2022, 22, 6839 12 of 23

Algorithm 4: Cont.

9. CHi → Ni
10. endif
11. endif
12. endif
[Link]
[Link]

3.2.5. CH Re-Selection
It is also feasible that the leaving node is the CH when considering the earlier standard
for node exit from a cluster. In this scenario, the CH temporarily hands over to Nr , a node
selected at random, gathering data on all of the member nodes and conducting CH election
similarly to Section 3.2.3.

4. Optimal Path Discovery Phase

In this phase, we try to find an optimal path to disseminate the warning message. In
this regard, we present two algorithms.

4.1. Warning Message Dissemination

We suggest Algorithm 5, which outlines the methods for transmitting warning mes-
sages. The algorithm accepts three inputs: S, D, and τ, where S stands for the source node,
D for the destination node, and τ for the time step. There are two scenarios where S aims to
send a warning message to D: either D is near one hop or farther away than one hop from
S. The message is immediately disseminated in the first scenario. Nevertheless, suppose D
is more than one hop away. In that case, S uses the assistance of intermediate relay nodes
to communicate to D. The result of Algorithm 5 is whether or not a warning message was
successfully transmitted. The algorithm’s complexity is on average Θ(n). The algorithm’s
output is the failure or success in disseminating a WM each time.

Algorithm 5: Warning Message Dissemination.

Input: D S, and τ
Output: Failure or Success in the dissemination of a WM
1. Begin:
2. Build NGs for S
3. loop
4. if D ∈ NGs then
5. S>>D
6. exit
7. else
8. identify Of
9. S>>Of
10. S ← Of
11. Build NG for newly deputed S at τ i
12. endif
13. endloop
[Link]

4.2. Optimal Path Discovery

Paths for disseminating warning messages alter at each time step in bi-directional
road traffic due to regular topological changes. A direction-based approach that considers
the source and destination nodes’ relative positions might be more effective. To achieve
this, we suggest Algorithm 6, which takes D, S, and NG as inputs. The algorithm uses the
Sensors 2022, 22, 6839 13 of 23

relative locations of S and D and their moving directions in addition to a distance parameter
to determine the optimum path for warning messages to reach a specific destination node.
The choice of the Of that is the optimal path towards the D is Algorithm 60 s output. The
algorithm’s complexity is on average Θ(n). The algorithm’s output is Of the optimal path
towards the destination node each time. Five different scenarios are considered to examine
the importance of the extra parameters added by OPRP for enhancing routing performance.
The following subsections provide more information on these circumstances, which cover
every individual scenario concerning the location of the source and destination nodes on
the bi-directional highway.

Algorithm 6: Optimal Path Discovery.

Input: D S, and NGs
Output: Of the optimal path towards the destination node
1. Begin:
2. for i = 0 to NGs -1
3. ∆i ←(NGs , D)
4. Hi ←(NGs , S)
5. if H(S,D) = 1 then
6. if S = Rear and D = Front node then
7. δi ← ∆i /Hi
8. else
9. δ i ← ∆ i Hi
10. endif
11. else
12. if S and D move toward each other then
13. δi ←∆i /Hi
14. else
15. δ i ← ∆ i Hi
16. endif
17. endif
18. endfor
[Link] ←Min (δ)
20. return Of
[Link]

4.2.1. Scenario 1
In this scenario, we consider a case revealed in Figure 4 with the source and destination
nodes specified as follows:
• Source node C1: A is the rear node.
• Destination node C3: G is the front node.
• Source and destination nodes are moving in the same direction.
Assume there are two paths to reach from the source node C1: A to the destination
node C3:G scenario mentioned above. The first path is the other side of a road to the source
node, i.e., C1:A >> CH >> C4: CH >> C5: CH >> C6: CH >>C3: CH >> G, and the second
path is C1: A >> CH >> C2: CH >> C3: CH >> G. Suppose cluster C4: CH is closer to
the target than C2: CH, cluster C4: CH will be given preference for packet forwarding
under the traditional greedy routing method, choosing the first path out of the available
possibilities. Similarly, to this, direction-based techniques that choose a hop close to the
source’s transmission range boundary in the direction of the destination will favor using
the same node for the subsequent hop. In VANETs, these priority-based protocols cannot
offer superior results when nodes move in various directions.
The number of hops on a path is influenced by the direction of nodes. It is not a
sensible choice to choose a path with fewer hops on a given time step without considering
the locations and the directions of nodes on the path because the number of hops on a path
continues to be proportional to the delay in communication of WM. For instance, if we use
 18. end for
19. Of←Min (δ)
20. return Of
21. end
Sensors 2022, 22, 6839 14 of 23
4.2.1. Scenario 1
In this scenario, we consider a case revealed in Figure 4 with the source and destina-
the
tion previously given paths
nodes specified to Node C3: G as an example, the first path, upon safe delivery
as follows:
of• theSource
WM, isnode >>ACH
C1: AC1: C4: CH
>> rear
is the >> C5: CH >> C6: CH >> C2: CH >> C4: CH >> G.
node.
By
• theDestination node C3: G is the frontCH,
time a packet is received on C6: the target Node C3: CH has moved out of its
node.
transmission
• range because the C6: CH is traveling
Source and destination nodes are moving in the in the
sameopposite direction.
direction.

[Link]
Figure Disseminationofofwarning
warningmessages
messageswith
withdifferent
differentscenarios.
scenarios.

In order to get out of this predicament, Node C6: CH needs more intermediate relay
nodes to enable the successful transmission of WMs. There are two options in such
a situation:
• Cluster C6: CH does not find any forwarder further to reach the destination Node C3:G.
• Cluster C6: CH finds a forwarder C2: CH and goes into a path reconstruction process.
The case becomes exceedingly severe if no alternative forwarder is available because
C6:CH, which moves in the opposite direction from the destination node, carries the packets
with it, causing a message drop. Whenever a forwarder is still accessible in the second
scenario, a path reconstruction procedure that adds additional nodes to the already specific
path is started. On a newly built path, cluster C6: CH travels through additional cluster C2:
CH to reach the destination cluster C3: CH >> G.
However, there is no change in the number of hops for the second path chosen by
OPRP because all nodes travel in the same direction as the destination node. This shows
clearly that the placement of intermediate relay nodes along a path significantly affects the
prompt and accurate transmission of warning messages. When the source node is in the
back and the destination node is in front, while both are going in the same direction, it
is possible to grant such direction-based priority to routes if the ultimate distance for the
following hop with the destination node is

∆
δi = (7)
H ( NGsi S)

where δi denotes the final distance of NGSi (i.e., the next hop to which the WM can be
transmitted) from the destination node, ∆ is the Euclidean distance between NGSi and the
destination node, and H (.) is the Hamming distance function.
The node with the lowest distance is calculated using Equation (7). That node will
be favored as an Of over the other nodes. In our suggested protocol, if H (S, D) = 1, S
Sensors 2022, 22, 6839 15 of 23

stays behind D. Reducing the number of hops and delays during the transmission of WMs
accomplishes our direction-based priority assignment process in the definition of the Of
node. Reducing the number of hops and delays during the transmission of WMs completes
our direction-based priority assignment process for the Of node. Reducing packet dropouts
also increases the transmission dependability of these warning messages. Our suggested
protocol is reliable because of this minimal delay and packet loss feature.

4.2.2. Scenario 2
In this scenario, we take into consideration Figure 4 with the source and destination
nodes specified as follows:
• Source node C3: G is the front node.
• Destination node C1: A is the rear node.
• Source and destination nodes are moving in the same direction.
Assume that there are two paths to reach the target Node C1: A in this scenario. The
first path is the other side of a road to the source node, i.e., C3: G >> CH >> C6: CH >> C5:
CH >> C4: CH >> C1: CH >> A, and the second path on the same side of the road is C3:G
>> CH >> C2: CH >> C1: CH >> A. Here, the existing greedy protocols may send the WM
to Node C2: CH rather than Node C6: CH. However, our suggested OPRP prefers Node
C6: CH as the next hop. On successful message delivery, the ultimate path is C3: G >> CH
>> C6: CH >> C1: CH >> A, since Node C6: CH travels in the opposite direction to the
target node. This is due to the fact that by the time a WM is received by Node C6: CH, the
destination node C1: CH >> A has entered its communication range, causing the message to
be forwarded to Node C1: CH >> A immediately rather than using the originally intended
path. We suggest Equation (8) for the selection of Of in this case, where H (S, D) = 1, and
the source node stays in front of a destination node.

δi = ∆ H (S, NGsi ) (8)

where δi , ∆, S, NGSi , and H(.), as described in Equation (1).

4.2.3. Scenario 3
In this instance, we take into consideration the scenario shown in Figure 4 with the
following requirements for the source and destination nodes:
• Source node C1: A is the rear node.
• Destination node C6: S is the front node.
• Source and destination nodes travel in opposite directions, toward each other.
This scenario is similar to Scenario 1 in terms of the positions of the source and
destination nodes. However, the situation changes entirely because the two nodes are
located on opposing sides of the road and going in opposite directions. The direction
component is still essential in addition to the distance between nodes. Assume initially that
there are two paths to go to the destination node C6:S in the scenario shown in Figure 4.
The first path is C1: A >> CH >> C2: CH >> C3: CH >> C6: CH >> S, and the second path
includes C1: A >> CH >> C4: CH >> C5: CH >> C6: CH >> S. The current greedy and
direction-based algorithms will choose Node C4: CH as Of. based on fewer distances than
Node C2: CH. However, in our suggested OPRP, Equation (7) is employed to establish
the priority between nodes in NGS when H (S, D) = 0 and the nodes are moving near one
another. Therefore, Node C2: CH is preferred by OPRP as the Of. Hence, the final path
becomes C1: A >> CH >> C2: CH >> C6: CH >> S, as the destination Node C6: S and the
source Node C1: A are traveling towards each other by the time WM reaches the C2: CH
communication range.

4.2.4. Scenario 4
In this instance, we take into consideration a scenario shown in Figure 4 with the
following requirements for the source and destination nodes:
Sensors 2022, 22, 6839 16 of 23

• Source node C3: G is the front node.

• Destination node C4: K is the rear node.
• Source and destination nodes travel in opposite directions, away from each other.
Regarding where the destination and source nodes are located on the road, this
scenario is similar to Scenario 3. However, the issue is still difficult to handle because, in
this scenario, the source and destination nodes’ directions are opposite. Here, assume that
there are two possible paths to reach the destination node C4: K from Node C3: G—CH >>
C6: CH >> C5: CH >> C4: CH >> K and C3: G >> CH >> C3: CH >> C1: CH >> C4: CH >>
S. Again, the traditional greedy protocols will choose Node C2: CH as Of , but as the nodes
move, the chosen path will result in more hops than the other path. This is due to the fact
that the destination node has left the communication range of the warning message by the
time it reaches Node C1: CH. Therefore, a path reconstruction occurs, and the packets are
routed on the new path. The situation is more complicated when Node C cannot find a
node to forward the message. As a result, our suggested protocol prioritizes Node C6: CH
by employing Equation (8). When H (S, D) = 0 and the destination and source move apart,
the WM is transmitted through the second feasible path.

4.2.5. Scenario 5
In this instance, we take into consideration the scenario shown in Figure 4 with the
following requirements for the source and destination nodes:
• Source node C6: S is the rear node.
• Destination node C1: A is the front node.
• Source and destination nodes travel in opposite directions, toward each other.
This scenario is similar to Scenario 3 in terms of the positions of the source and
destination nodes. However, the situation changes entirely because the two nodes are
located on opposite sides of the road and travel in opposite directions, toward each other.
The directional component is still essential in addition to the distance between nodes.
Assume initially that there are two paths to go to the destination node C1: A in the scenario
shown in Figure 4. The first path is C6: S >> CH >> C3: CH >> C2: CH >> C1: CH >>
A, and the second, C6: S >> CH >> C5: CH >> C4: CH >> C1: CH >> A. The traditional
greedy protocol selects the first path as Of . However, in our suggested OPRP, Equation (7)
is employed to establish the priority between nodes in NGS when H (S, D) = 0 and the nodes
are moving near one another. Therefore, Node C5:CH is preferred by OPRP as the Of.

5. Performance Evaluation
The effectiveness of our suggested OPRP procedure is assessed in this section concern-
ing DABFS [8] and ID-LAR [7]. We employed the Mobility Model Generator for Vehicular
Networks (MOVE) [35], Simulation of Urban Mobility (SUMO) [36], and ns-2.35 to assess
performance in a realistic vehicular environment. Route information, intersections, and
node positions were produced by SUMO and MOVE and used by ns-2.35. Unless otherwise
stated, all simulations were based on Scenarios 1 to 5, depicted in Figure 4 in Section 4. The
performance evaluation parameters for the protocols mentioned above are listed in Table 3.
Nodes with omni-directional antennas are dispersed at random. The nodes were moving
bi-directional at varying rates belonging to a set, χ, with lower and upper bounds of 0 m/s
and 42 m/s, respectively. The acceleration or deceleration that nodes achieved was in the
range of 1 to 6 m/s2 . In addition, Table 4 shows the number of nodes on the highway was
categorized as sparse, medium, or dense. This classification adjusts the node density by
actual traffic [37].
Sensors 2022, 22, 6839 17 of 23

Table 3. List of parameters.

Parameter Values
Simulation area 5000 m2
Traffic type Bi-directional highway traffic
Number of Nodes 0–500
Speed of nodes χ 0 m/s–42 m/s
Acceleration/Deceleration attained by nodes 1 m/s2 –6 m/s2
Transmission range of nodes 150 m
Hello packet interval 1s
Simulation time 300 s

Sensors 2022, 22, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 24

Table 4. Categorization of nodes for density.

Network Type Number of Nodes per 2500 m2

Table 4. Categorization of nodes for density.
Sparse 001<=N<=200
Network
Medium Type Number of201<=N<=400
Nodes per 2500 m2
Sparse
Dense 001<=N<=200
401<=N<=500
Medium 201<=N<=400
Dense 401<=N<=500
Throughput (Tr), packet loss rate (Pr), and end-to-end delay (Er), which are frequently
used metrics in state-of-the-art
Throughput (Tr), packetto analyze
loss VANET
rate (Pr), and routing protocols
end-to-end for efficient
delay (Er), which aredistribution
fre-
of WMs
quently used metrics in state-of-the-art to analyze VANET routing protocols for efficientevalu-
with minimal latencies and few packet losses, were among the efficiency
ation measuresof[38,39].
distribution WMs with Figures 5–7latencies
minimal illustrate the
and fewsimulation results
packet losses, werefor eachthe
among metric.
effi- The
Figure 7a–e
ciency in each figure
evaluation measures correspond to the5–7
[38,39]. Figures fiveillustrate
differentthe
scenarios presented
simulation in each
results for Scenarios
metric. The
1 through 5 ofFigure
Section7a–e
[Link] each figure correspond to the five different scenarios presented
in Scenarios 1 through 5 of Section 4.2.
0.9 ID-LAR 0.9
ID-LAR
0.8 DABFS
0.8 DABFS
Average packet loss ratio

OPRP OPRP
0.7
Average packet loss

0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
50 150 250 350 450 550 50 150 250 350 450 550
Density of nodes per 2500 m2 Density of nodes per 2500 m2

(a) (b)
0.9 0.9
ID-LAR ID-LAR
0.8 DABFS 0.8 DABFS
Average packet loss ratio

OPRP OPRP
Average packet loss ratio

0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
50 150 250 350 450 550
50 150 250 350 450 550
Density of node per 2500m2 Density of nodes per 2500m2

(c) (d)

Figure 5. Cont.
Sensors 2022,
Sensors
Sensors 22, 6839
2022,
2022, 22,
22, x FOR PEERREVIEW
FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of1824
19 of 24 of 23

0.9
0.9 ID-LAR
ID-LAR
0.8 DABFS
DABFS
0.8 OPRP

ratio
OPRP

lossratio
0.7
0.7

packetloss
0.6
0.6

packet
0.5
0.5
0.4
Average
0.4
Average

0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.15 0 150 250 350 450 550
50 1 5 0 Density 2of5nodes
0 350 2
per 2500m 450 550
Density of nodes per 2500m2
(e)
(e)
Figure 5. Average packet loss rate during the dissemination of WM. (a) Scenario 1: H (S, D) = 1, S is
Figure 5. Average packet loss rate during the dissemination of WM. (a) Scenario 1: H (S, D) = 1, S is
rear
Figureand 5.
D Average
is front node. (b)loss
packet Scenario 2: H (S,the
rate during D) =dissemination
1, S is front and of D
[Link].(a)
(c)Scenario
Scenario1:3:H
H (S,
(S, D)
D) == 1, S is
rear S and
0,rearand
andDDDis isfront
are frontnode.
moving (b)
(b)Scenario
toward
node. 2:2:HH
each other.
Scenario (S,
(d) D)
D) == 1,
Scenario
(S, SS is
1, 4: H front
is and
(S, D)and
front D
= 0, D rear.D(c)
S and
rear. (c)
areScenario
moving3:
Scenario 3: HH(S,
away (S,D)D)== 0,
Sfrom
and D are
each moving
other.(e) toward
Scenario 5:each
H(S, other.
D) = 0, S(d)
andScenario
D are 4:
movingH (S, D)
toward = 0,
eachS
0, S and D are moving toward each other. (d) Scenario 4: H (S, D) = 0, S and D are moving away and D
other. are moving away from
each
from other.(e) Scenario
each other.(e) 5: H(S,5:D)
Scenario = 0,D)S=and
H(S, 0, SD areDmoving
and are movingtoward eacheach
toward other.
other.
35 35
ID-LAR ID-LAR
(ms) (ms)

DABFS
Average end-to-end delay (ms)

35
30 DABFS 30 35
ID-LAR
OPRP OPRP ID-LAR
DABFS
Average end-to-end delay (ms)
delaydelay

DABFS
30
25 25 30 OPRP
OPRP
end-to-end

25
20 20 25
end-to-end

15
20 15 20

10
Average

15 10 15

105 5 10
Average

50 0 5
50 150 250 350 450 550 50 150 250 350 450 550
0 Density of nodes per 2500m2 0 Density of nodes per 2500m2
50 150 250 350 450 550 50 150
(a) (b)2 5 0 350 450 550
Density of nodes per 2500m2 Density of nodes per 2500m2
35 ID-LAR
35
ID-LAR
Average end-to-end delay (ms)
delay (ms)

(a) DABFS (b) DABFS

30 30
OPRP OPRP
35 ID-LAR
35
25 25 ID-LAR
Average end-to-end delay (ms)
delay (ms)

DABFS DABFS
30 30
end-to-end

20 OPRP 20 OPRP
25 25
15 15
end-to-end

20 20
10 10
Average Average

155 5 15
100 0 10
5 50 150 250 350 450 550
5 50 150 250 350 450 550
Density of nodes per 2500m2
Density of nodes per 2500m2
0 0
(c) (d)
50 150 250 350 450 550 50 150 250 350 450 550
Density of nodes per 2500m2 Density of nodes per 2500m2

(c) (d)

Figure 6. Cont.
Sensors 2022,
Sensors
Sensors 22,22,
2022,
2022, 6839
22,x xFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 2020ofof19 of 23
2424

3535
ID-LAR
ID-LAR

Average end-to-end delay (ms)

Average end-to-end delay (ms)
3030 DABFS
DABFS
OPRP
OPRP
2525

2020

1515

1010

55

00
5 50 0 1 15 50 0 2 25 50 0 3 35 50 0 4 45 50 0 5 5 50 0
Density 22
Densityofofnodes
nodesper
per2500m
2500m

(e)
(e)
Figure
[Link]-to-end
End-to-enddelay
delayduring
duringthethedissemination
disseminationofofWM. WM.(a) (a)Scenario
Scenario1:1:HH(S, (S,D)
D)==1,1,SSisisrear
rear
Figure
and 6. End-to-end delay during the dissemination of WM. (a) node. 1: H (S, D) = 1, D)
ScenarioScenario S is rear
andDDfront
frontnode.
node.(b)
(b)Scenario
Scenario2:2:HH(S,
(S,D)
D)==1,1,SSisisfont
fontand
andDDisisrear rear node.(c)(c) Scenario3:3:HH(S,(S, D)==
0,0,SSD
and front
and
and node.
DDare (b) Scenario
aremoving
moving toward2:
toward H (S,
each
each D) =(d)
other.
other. (d)SScenario
1, is font and
Scenario 4:4:HHD(S,
is D)
(S,rear
D)==node. (c)DScenario
0,0,SSand
and Dare 3: H away
aremoving
moving (S, D) = 0,
away
Sfrom
and D
fromeach are moving
eachother.
other.(e) toward
(e)Scenarioeach other.
Scenario5:5:HH(S,
(S,D) (d) Scenario
D)==0,0,SSand 4:
andDDare H (S,
aremovingD) = 0,
movingtoward S and
towardeachD are moving
eachother away
otherininopposite
opposite from
directions.
directions.
each other. (e) Scenario 5: H (S, D) = 0, S and D are moving toward each other in opposite directions.

11 11

0.9
0.9 0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8 0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7 0.7
0.7
Throughput
Throughput
Throughput
Throughput

0.6
0.6 0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5 0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4 0.4
0.4
ID-LAR
ID-LAR ID-LAR
ID-LAR
0.3
0.3 0.3
0.3
DABFS
DABFS DABFS
DABFS
0.2
0.2 0.2
0.2
OPRP
OPRP OPRP
OPRP
0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1
5 50 0 1 15 50 0 2 25 50 0 3 35 50 0 4 45 50 0 5 5 50 0 5 50 0 1 15 50 0 2 25 50 0 3 35 50 0 4 45 50 0 5 5 50 0
Density 22
Densityofofnodes
nodesper
per2500m2500m Density
Densityofofnodes
nodesper
per2500m 22
2500m

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
11 11
0.9
0.9 0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8 0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7 0.7
0.7
Throughput
Throughput

Throughput
Throughput

0.6
0.6 0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5 0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4 0.4
0.4
ID-LAR
ID-LAR ID-LAR
ID-LAR
0.3
0.3 0.3
0.3
DABFS
DABFS DABFS
DABFS
0.2
0.2 0.2
0.2 OPRP
OPRP
OPRP
OPRP
0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1
5 50 0 1 15 50 0 2 25 50 0 3 35 50 0 4 45 50 0 5 5 50 0 5 50 0 1 15 50 0 2 25 50 0 3 35 50 0 4 45 50 0 5 5 50 0
Density 22 22
Densityofofnodes
nodesper
per2500m
2500m Density
Densityofofnodes
nodesper
per2500m
2500m

(c)
(c) (d)
(d)

Figure 7. Cont.
Sensors 22,x6839
2022,22,
Sensors 2022, FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 2420 of 23

1
0.9
0.8
0.7

Throughput
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3 ID-LAR
DABFS
0.2
OPRP
0.1
50 150 250 350 450 550
Density of nodes per 2500m2

(e)
Figure 7. Throughput during the dissemination of WM. (a) Scenario 1: H (S, D) = 1, S is rear, and D
Figure 7. Throughput during the dissemination of WM. (a) Scenario 1: H (S, D) = 1, S is rear, and D is
is front. (b) Scenario 2: H (S, D) = 1, S is front, and D is rear. (c) Scenario 3: H (S, D) = 0, S and D are
front. toward
moving (b) Scenario 2: H (S,
each other. (d)D) = 1, S is
Scenario 4: front, and
H (S, D) DSisand
= 0, rear.
D (c)
areScenario 3: H (S,
moving away fromD)each
= 0, other.
S and D are
(e)moving
Scenariotoward
5: H (S,each
D) = other. (d)DScenario
0, S and are moving 4: H (S, D)each
toward = 0, other
S andinDopposite
are moving away from each other.
directions.
(e) Scenario 5: H (S, D) = 0, S and D are moving toward each other in opposite directions.
5.1. Packet Loss Rate
5.1. Packet Loss Rate
This parameter is the ratio of dropped packets, which may be calculated as follows:
This parameter is the ratio of dropped packets, which may be calculated as follows:
Σ 𝑃
𝑃 = Σ pl P, (9)
𝑃i=1 l i
Pr = , (9)
where Pr denotes the packet loss rate, Pli is a dropped
Pt packet, and Pt is the total number
ofwhere
packetsPrdelivered
denotes theacross the network.
packet loss rate, Pli is a dropped packet, and Pt is the total number of
Due to the repeated network changes, the path choice during WM transmission re-
packets delivered across the network.
mains Due
crucial.
to the repeated network changes
In VANETs, topological changes,are frequently
the caused
path choice by fastWM
during nodes trav-
transmission
eling in various directions. The nodes continuously move, enter, and exit
remains crucial. In VANETs, topological changes are frequently caused by fast nodeseach other’s
communication [Link].
traveling in various As a result,
Thepaths
nodesarecontinuously
frequently dropped and new
move, enter, andones gener-other’s
exit each
ated, potentially leading to network partitions. As a greater number of nodes enhances
communication ranges. As a result, paths are frequently dropped and new ones generated,
network connectivity and lowers packet drops, the probability of such network partition-
potentially leading to network partitions. As a greater number of nodes enhances network
ing seems higher in scatter networks than in dense networks. The packet loss ratio de-
connectivity and lowers packet drops, the probability of such network partitioning seems
creases as the density increases because nodes are closer. Hence, the proposed protocol
higher in scatter networks than in dense networks. The packet loss ratio decreases as the
with clustering and the compared protocols without clustering becomes more intimate in
density increases because nodes are closer. Hence, the proposed protocol with clustering
the results. The three protocols’ results illustrated in Figure 5a–e reveal such behavior.
and the compared protocols without clustering becomes more intimate in the results. The
three
5.2. protocols’
End-to-End results illustrated in Figure 5a–e reveal such behavior.
Delay
[Link]-to-end
End-to-Enddelays
Delay can be computed as:
End-to-end delays can be computedΣ as: 𝐸
𝐸 = , (10)
𝑅R p
Σi=1 Edi
where the terms Er and Edi and Rp stand = the
Er for ,
end-to-end delay ratio, the individual (10)
Rp
packet delay, and the total number of packets received. Due to the increased number of
hops in DABFS
where the termsandErID-LAR,
and Ediasand
a result of the for
Rp stand paththe
reconstruction
end-to-end process, as detailed
delay ratio, in
the individual
Section 4.2.1, the total number of send and receive operations also increases. The
packet delay, and the total number of packets received. Due to the increased number ofefficiency
ofhops
both in
DABFS
DABFS and ID-LAR
and is negatively
ID-LAR, as a resultimpacted by the
of the path growing number
reconstruction of transmit-
process, as detailed in
ting and receive operations because they are time-consuming. However, by choosing
Section 4.2.1, the total number of send and receive operations also increases. The efficiency the
next hops traveling in the target node’s direction, OPRP reduces this latency. The end-to-
of both DABFS and ID-LAR is negatively impacted by the growing number of transmitting
end delay decreases as the density increases because nodes are closer. Hence, the pro-
and receive operations because they are time-consuming. However, by choosing the next
posed protocol with clustering and the compared protocols without clustering become
hops traveling in the target node’s direction, OPRP reduces this latency. The end-to-end
clearer in the results. Figure 6a–e reveals Scenario 5.
delay decreases as the density increases because nodes are closer. Hence, the proposed
protocol with clustering and the compared protocols without clustering become clearer in
the results. Figure 6a–e reveals Scenario 5.
Sensors 2022, 22, 6839 21 of 23

5.3. Throughput
This parameter, which can be calculated, refers to the proportion of packets received
on the destination nodes of all packages sent by the source nodes.
Rp
Σ i =1 R p i
Tr = , (11)
Pt

where Tr refers to the network throughput gain, Pt refers to the total number of packets
sent by the source node, and R pi denotes a specific packet received by a target node.
As it counts the number of packets successfully delivered to target nodes, throughput
is a crucial metric for performance evaluation. End-to-end delays and packet losses impact
the throughput of the network. Figure 7a,b show improved throughput of OPRP compared
to DABFS and ID-LAR due to our original direction-based path selection. Additionally,
OPRP follows the same pattern under challenging circumstances where the source and
destination are on the opposite sides of the road by significantly improving throughput, as
demonstrated in Figure 7c,d. Additionally, as shown in Figure 7e, OPRP outperformed the
other protocols, improving throughput restoration state packet forwarding.
Moreover, the packet loss ratio and end-to-end delay decrease as the density increases
because nodes are closer. As a result, the throughput increases. Therefore, the proposed pro-
tocol with clustering and the compared protocols without clustering are clearly illustrated
in the results.

6. Conclusions and Future Work

Dissemination of WMs is the primary method used in vehicular accident avoidance.
Collisions between vehicles may result from delays or packet drops while disseminating
WMs. In order to address the complex nature of bi-directional highway settings and offer
effective path selection, we have developed an optimal path routing protocol (OPRP) that
considers two metrics in addition to the distance metric. A node’s movement direction is
included in the first parameter based on Hamming distance, and the source and destination
nodes’ relative locations are included in the second parameter. We showed the importance
of these variables in determining the next hop in bi-directional road traffic. This work has
shown that the mentioned parameters can route WMs to increase throughput, decrease
packet loss and delay, and accommodate topological changes in the transmission process.
OPRP significantly outperforms other leading VANET routing protocols, according to
simulation results. Extension of OPRP without clustering for the urban scenario with
GPS-less localization will be part of our future study. Determining how channel conditions
affect the transmission of WMs and secure communication can also be considered in future
work. An SDN-based warning message dissemination using machine learning and deep
learning can also be considered in future work.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.A.S.; data curation, M.A.S.; formal analysis, G.A.;
investigation, F.Z.K. and I.U.K.; methodology, M.A.S. and N.A.; project administration, F.Z.K. and
G.A.; resources, S.S.A. and J.A.; software, Z.H.A.; supervision, F.Z.K., G.A. and Z.H.A.; writing—
review and editing, M.A.S., G.A. and J.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This project is funded by SAUDI ARAMCO Cybersecurity Chair.
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank SAUDI ARAMCO Cybersecurity Chair for funding
this project.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sensors 2022, 22, 6839 22 of 23

References
1. Ghazi, M.U.; Khattak, M.A.K.; Shabir, B.; Malik, A.W.; Ramzan, M.S.J.I.A. Emergency message dissemination in vehicular
networks: A review. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 38606–38621. [CrossRef]
2. Cooper, D.C.; Franklin, M.; Ros, F.; Safaei, M.J.I.C.S. A comparative survey of VANET clustering techniques. IEEE Commun. Surv.
Tutor. 2016, 19, 657–681. [CrossRef]
3. Latif, S.; Mahfooz, S.; Jan, B.; Ahmad, N.; Farman, H.; Khan, M.; Javed, H. Multicriteria based next forwarder selection for data
dissemination in vehicular ad hoc networks using analytical network process. Math. Probl. Eng. 2017, 2017, 4671892. [CrossRef]
4. Cunha, F.; Villas, L.; Boukerche, A.; Maia, G.; Viana, A.; Mini, R.A.; Loureiro, A.A. Data communication in VANETs: Protocols,
applications and challenges. Ad Hoc Netw. 2016, 44, 90–103. [CrossRef]
5. Haider, S.; Abbas, G.; Abbas, Z.H.; Muhammad, F. LWE-CPPA: A scheme for secure delivery of warning messages in VANETs.
Int. J. Ad Hoc Ubiquitous Comput. 2020, 34, 170–185. [CrossRef]
6. Sun, Y.; Kuai, R.; Xiao, S.; Tang, W.; Li, X. VIMAC: Vehicular information medium access control protocol for high reliable and
low latency transmissions for vehicular ad hoc networks in smart city. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2020, 106, 55–66. [CrossRef]
7. Rana, K.K.; Tripathi, S.; Raw, R.S. Analytical analysis of improved directional location added routing protocol for VANETS. Wirel.
Pers. Commun. 2018, 98, 2403–2426. [CrossRef]
8. Haider, S.; Abbas, G.; Abbas, Z.H.; Baker, T. DABFS: A robust routing protocol for warning messages dissemination in VANETs.
Comput. Commun. 2019, 147, 21–34. [CrossRef]
9. Ullah, A.; Yaqoob, S.; Imran, M.; Ning, H. Emergency message dissemination schemes based on congestion avoidance in VANET
and vehicular FoG computing. IEEE Access 2018, 7, 1570–1585. [CrossRef]
10. Hafeez, K.A.; Zhao, L.; Mark, J.W.; Shen, X.; Niu, Z. Distributed multichannel and mobility-aware cluster-based MAC protocol
for vehicular ad hoc networks. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2013, 62, 3886–3902. [CrossRef]
11. Hafeez, K.A.; Zhao, L.; Liao, Z.; Ma, B.N.-W. A fuzzy-logic-based cluster head selection algorithm in VANETs. In Proceedings of
the 2012 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), Ottawa, ON, USA, 15 June 2012; pp. 203–207.
12. Hassanabadi, B.; Shea, C.; Zhang, L.; Valaee, S. Clustering in vehicular ad hoc networks using affinity propagation. Ad Hoc Netw.
2014, 13, 535–548. [CrossRef]
13. Benkerdagh, S.; Duvallet, C. Cluster-based emergency message dissemination strategy for VANET using V2V communication.
Int. J. Commun. Syst. 2019, 32, e3897. [CrossRef]
14. Shah, S.S.; Malik, A.W.; Rahman, A.U.; Iqbal, S.; Khan, S.U. Time barrier-based emergency message dissemination in vehicular
ad-hoc networks. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 16494–16503. [CrossRef]
15. Tonguz, O.K.; Wisitpongphan, N.; Bai, F. DV-CAST: A distributed vehicular broadcast protocol for vehicular ad hoc networks.
IEEE Wirel. Commun. 2010, 17, 47–57. [CrossRef]
16. Schwartz, R.S.; Barbosa, R.R.; Meratnia, N.; Heijenk, G.; Scholten, H. A directional data dissemination protocol for vehicular
environments. Comput. Commun. 2011, 34, 2057–2071. [CrossRef]
17. Chen, Y.S.; Lin, Y.W. A mobicast routing protocol with carry-and-forward in vehicular ad hoc networks. Int. J. Commun. Syst.
2014, 27, 1416–1440. [CrossRef]
18. Nguyen, T.D.; Le, T.-V.; Pham, H.-A. Novel store–carry–forward scheme for message dissemination in vehicular ad-hoc networks.
ICT Express 2017, 3, 193–198. [CrossRef]
19. Kamakshi, S.; Sriram Sriram, V.S. Plummeting broadcast storm problem in highways by clustering vehicles using dominating set
and set cover. Sensors 2019, 19, 2191. [CrossRef]
20. Xu, R.; Wunsch, D. Survey of clustering algorithms. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 2005, 16, 645–678. [CrossRef]
21. Hamida, E.B.; Javed, M.A. Channel-aware ECDSA signature verification of basic safety messages with k-means clustering in
VANETs. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 30th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications
(AINA), Crans-Montana, Switzerland, 23–25 March 2016; pp. 603–610.
22. Haider, S.; Abbas, G.; Abbas, Z.H.; Boudjit, S.; Halim, Z. P-DACCA: A probabilistic direction-aware cooperative collision
avoidance scheme for VANETs. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2020, 103, 1–17. [CrossRef]
23. Bylykbashi, K.; Liu, Y.; Elmazi, D.; Matsuo, K.; Ikeda, M.; Barolli, L. A Secure and Trustworthy Intelligent System for Clustering
in VANETs Using Fuzzy Logic. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and
Applications, Toronto, ON, Canada, 12–14 May 2019; pp. 156–165.
24. Ozera, K.; Bylykbashi, K.; Liu, Y.; Ikeda, M.; Barolli, L. Clustering in VANETs: A Fuzzy-Based System for Clustering of Vehicles.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Network-Based Information Systems, Victoria, BC, Canada, 5–7 September
2018; pp. 810–821.
25. Khan, Z.; Fan, P.; Fang, S.; Abbas, F. An unsupervised cluster-based VANET-oriented evolving graph (CVoEG) model and
associated reliable routing scheme. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2019, 20, 3844–3859. [CrossRef]
26. Sugumar, R.; Rengarajan, A.; Jayakumar, C. Trust based authentication technique for cluster based vehicular ad hoc networks
(VANET). Wirel. Netw. 2018, 24, 373–382. [CrossRef]
27. Fahad, M.; Aadil, F.; Khan, S.; Shah, P.A.; Muhammad, K.; Lloret, J.; Wang, H.; Lee, J.W.; Mehmood, I. Grey wolf optimization
based clustering algorithm for vehicular ad-hoc networks. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2018, 70, 853–870. [CrossRef]
28. Singh, S.K.; Kumar, P.; Singh, J.P. A survey on successors of LEACH protocol. IEEE Access 2017, 5, 4298–4328. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2022, 22, 6839 23 of 23

29. Zhou, Y.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, L.; Tang, B.; Liu, Y. LEACH-FIS: An Improved LEACH Based on Fuzzy Inference System in MWSNs.
In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/CIC International Conference on Communications in China (ICCC), Beijing, China, 16–18
August 2018; pp. 699–703.
30. Mamatha, T.; Aishwarya, P. An efficient cluster based routing protocol using hybrid FCM-Q LEACH for vehicular ad hoc
networks. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 2019, 14, 1604–1612.
31. Ullah, S.; Abbas, G.; Waqas, M.; Abbas, Z.H.; Tu, S.; Hameed, I.A. EEMDS: An effective emergency message dissemination scheme
for urban VANETs. Sensors 2021, 21, 1588. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Ullah, S.; Abbas, G.; Abbas, Z.H.; Waqas, M.; Ahmed, M. RBO-EM: Reduced broadcast overhead scheme for emergency message
dissemination in VANETs. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 175205–175219. [CrossRef]
33. Shah, M.-A.; Khan, F.-Z.; Abbas, G. A Robust Emergency Messages Routing Scheme for Urban VANETs. CMC-Comput. Mater.
Contin. 2022, 72, 2617–2632. [CrossRef]
34. Chakroun, R.; Abdellatif, S.; Villemur, T. LAMD: Location-based Alert Message Dissemination scheme for emerging infrastructure-
based vehicular networks. Internet Things 2022, 19, 100510. [CrossRef]
35. Karnadi, F.K.; Mo, Z.H.; Lan, K. Rapid generation of realistic mobility models for VANET. In Proceedings of the IEEE Wireless
Communications and Networking Conference, Hong Kong, China, 11–15 March 2007; pp. 2508–2513.
36. Krajzewicz, D.; Erdmann, J.; Behrisch, M.; Bieker, L. Recent development and applications of SUMO-Simulation of urban mobility.
Int. J. Adv. Syst. Meas. 2012, 5, 128–138.
37. Ferreira, M.; Conceição, H.; Fernandes, R.; Tonguz, O.K. Stereoscopic aerial photography: An alternative to model-based urban
mobility approaches. In Proceedings of the Sixth ACM International Workshop on VehiculAr InterNETworking, Beijing, China,
25 September 2009; pp. 53–62.
38. Silva, A.; Reza, N.; Oliveira, A. Improvement and performance evaluation of GPSR-based routing techniques for vehicular ad hoc
networks. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 21722–21733. [CrossRef]
39. Yang, X.; Li, M.; Qian, Z.; Di, T. Improvement of GPSR protocol in vehicular ad hoc network. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 39515–39524.
[CrossRef]