PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 16, 2026Scientific Reports4 citationsOpen Access

Modeling and simulation of VANET routing protocols under realistic mobility patterns

View Full Paper
SSSania SharmaSKSatveer KourHSHimali Sarangal

Key Points

  • To systematically evaluate the performance of routing protocols in VANETs using various mobility models.
  • Evaluated five routing protocols: AODV, DSR, DSDV, OLSR, and GRP.
  • Used fourteen mobility models including IDM, CFM, and LWR.
  • Simulated performance using SUMO, NS-3, and Veins framework.
  • AODV with CFM model achieved 93% Packet Delivery Ratio.
  • End-to-End Delay was reported at 79.4 ms.
  • Detailed performance across eight key metrics such as Throughput and Energy Consumption.

Abstract

Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs), a subclass of Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs), rely on efficient routing protocols to maintain reliable communication in highly dynamic and decentralized environments. While numerous routing strategies have been proposed, their performance varies significantly with the choice of underlying mobility models that simulate real vehicular movement. This study presents a two-phase evaluation of five widely used routing protocols—Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV), Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR), and Geographic Routing Protocol (GRP)—across fourteen realistic mobility models, including the Intelligent Driver Model (IDM), Car-Following Model (CFM), and Lighthill–Whitham–Richards (LWR) model. Simulations are executed using Simulation of Urban Mobility (SUMO), Network Simulator 3 (NS-3), and the Veins framework. The performance is assessed using eight key metrics: Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR), End-to-End Delay (E2ED), Throughput, Jitter, Energy Consumption, Packet Loss Ratio (PLR), Normalized Routing Load (NRL), and Link Breakage Rate (LBR). Among the evaluated protocol–mobility combinations, AODV paired with the CFM model demonstrated comparatively favorable performance under the considered simulation configuration: 93% PDR, 79.4 ms E2ED, 332 kbps throughput, 3.4 ms jitter, 3.48 J energy consumption, 7% PLR, 0.3 NRL, and 5 link breakages per simulation. This study provides a systematic and unified comparative evaluation of five widely used routing protocols across fourteen simulation-based vehicular mobility models. The findings provide scenario-specific comparative insights for simulation-based VANET performance evaluation and offer practical, simulation-based guidance for selecting suitable protocol–mobility model combinations under the evaluated experimental conditions.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Sharma et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69926a620d0ce0adc99769d3https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-36039-7
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Optimized Performance Analysis of VANET Routing Strategies Using Machine Learning2025
  2. 2AODV, DSDV, and DSR Protocols of Routing: A Comparative Study in VANETs Using Network Simulator-22024 · 4 citations
  3. 3Performance Analysis of Routing Protocols for Urban VANET Based on SUMO and NS2.352024
  4. 4Investigation Performance Analysis and Evaluation of VANET Routing Protocol on Urban Scenario Simulation: A Case Study of Melaka2024 · 2 citations
  5. 5Extended Comparison and Performance Analysis for Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks Routing Protocols Based on Different Traffic Load Patterns and Performance Metrics2024 · 2 citations