Performance evaluation of vertical handover in Internet of Vehicles
Publié en ligne: 28 juin 2021
Pages: 1 - 16
Reçu: 16 janv. 2021
© 2021 Shaik Mazhar Hussain et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Figure 1:
Workflow procedure of ANDSF (Ndashimye et al., 2020).Figure 2:
Proposed system model.Figure 3:
Workflow of dynamic Q-learning.![](https://sciendo-parsed.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/6471fafd215d2f6c89db7677/j_ijssis-2021-012_unfig_001.jpg?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20240808T032344Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=18000&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA6AP2G7AKP25APDM2%2F20240808%2Feu-central-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=b36927a6f7ca42a3841d1160016a4f4e0d7a84479f391272cf1426d66888a584)
Figure 4:
Fuzzy-convolutional neural network.![](https://sciendo-parsed.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/6471fafd215d2f6c89db7677/j_ijssis-2021-012_unfig_002.jpg?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20240808T032344Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=18000&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA6AP2G7AKP25APDM2%2F20240808%2Feu-central-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=76b5d9f9e62e2fca3dcfce734aaf762918aeeef8d16853be0ce2e7beb7e7da29)
Figure 5:
Comparison of mean handover (Ndashimye et al., 2020; Sheng et al., 2018).Figure 6:
Comparison of HO failure (Ndashimye et al., 2020; Sheng et al., 2018).Figure 7:
Comparison of throughput (Ndashimye et al., 2020; Sheng et al., 2018).Figure 8:
Comparison of end-to-end delay (Ndashimye et al., 2020; Sheng et al., 2018).Figure 9:
Comparison on packet loss (Ndashimye et al., 2020; Sheng et al., 2018).Comparison of HO efficiency.
Method | Average number of HO | Better efficiency | Average HOFR | Better efficiency |
---|
Conventional | 5.51 | 55% | 0.133 | 90% |
TOPSIS | 2.15 | 20% | 0.041 | 40% |
ANDSF-HO | 3.57 | 30% | 0.069 | 60% |
V2I-MoLoHA | 3.03 | 25% | 0.029 | 20% |
Proposed | 1.30 | – | 0.01 | – |
Fuzzy rules.
| Input | |
---|
Rule number | Sr | Distance | VD | Data type | LoS | Output |
---|
R1 | H | H | H | H | H | H |
R2 | H | H | H | H | L | H |
R3 | H | H | H | L | H | M |
R4 | H | H | H | L | L | M |
R5 | H | H | L | H | H | H |
R6 | H | H | L | H | L | M |
R7 | H | H | L | L | H | L |
R8 | H | H | L | L | L | M |
R9 | H | L | H | H | H | H |
R10 | H | L | H | H | L | L |
R11 | H | L | H | L | H | L |
R12 | H | L | H | L | L | L |
R13 | H | L | L | H | H | H |
R14 | H | L | L | H | L | M |
R15 | H | L | L | L | H | L |
R16 | H | L | L | L | L | M |
R17 | L | H | H | H | H | H |
R18 | L | H | H | H | L | L |
R19 | L | H | H | L | H | H |
R20 | L | H | H | L | L | M |
R21 | L | H | L | H | H | H |
R22 | L | H | L | H | L | H |
R23 | L | H | L | L | H | L |
R24 | L | H | L | L | L | L |
R25 | L | L | H | H | H | H |
R26 | L | L | H | H | L | M |
R27 | L | L | H | L | H | L |
R28 | L | L | H | L | L | L |
R29 | L | L | L | H | H | M |
R30 | L | L | L | H | L | M |
R31 | L | L | L | L | H | L |
R32 | L | L | L | L | L | L |
Simulation specifications.
Parameter | Range/Value |
---|
Simulation area | 2,500 m × 2,500 m |
Number of vehicles | 100 |
Number of 5G mmWave BSs | 2 |
Number of 4G LTE BSs | 2 |
Vehicle mobility type | Linear mobility |
Vehicle speed | 10-40 m/s |
Transmission range |
DSRC | 300 m (Max) |
mmWave | ~500 m |
LTE | 100 km (Max) |
Transmission rate | 3-5 packets per second |
Packet size | 512 bytes |
Simulation time | 1,000 sec |
Comparison of throughput and delay.
Method | Mean (kbps) | Better efficiency | Average delay (ms) | Better efficiency |
---|
Conventional | 13.7 | 46% | 39 | 21% |
TOPSIS | 35.96 | 23% | 30 | 12% |
ANDSF-HO | 25 | 34% | 37 | 19% |
V2I-MoLoHA | 31.89 | 27% | 34 | 16% |
Proposed | 58.89 | – | 18 | – |
Comparison of packet loss.
Method | Packet loss (%) | Better efficiency |
---|
Conventional | 48 | 21% |
TOPSIS | 32.4 | 12% |
ANDSF-HO | 24 | 19% |
V2I-MoLoHA | 18.8 | 16% |
Proposed | 12 | – |