Table of Contents

A Smart Vehicle Connectivity Clustering Scheme......................................................................................2

Study Background...................................................................................................................................2

Introduction.............................................................................................................................................2

Different Models To Solve Problem........................................................................................................2

System Model......................................................................................................................................2

Vehicle Connectivity Model................................................................................................................3

Explanation of the proposed solution......................................................................................................4

Connectivity-Based Clustering Schemes.......................................................................................4

Assessment of Connectivity Based Clustering.........................................................................................4

Implementation and Future Work............................................................................................................5

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................6
 INNOVATIVE INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS

A Smart Vehicle Connectivity Clustering Scheme

Study Background
Routing systems for advanced ad hoc vehicle networks must be reliable, scalable, and stable to function
properly (VANETs). VANETs have incoherence and a dynamic structure, and cluster-based routing is an
efficient solution for dealing with this incoherence and dynamic structure. For cluster development and
head selection, we propose a new metric that takes into account the presence of connectors (CHs). The
density and transmission range of the proposed clustering connectivity, as well as the number of nodes,
all have an impact on the link's connectivity and performance. We also used a heuristic approach based on
spectral clusters to determine the optimal number of spectral clusters to form to maximize the number of
spectral clusters. Finally, a CH vehicle is selected based on its ability to travel independently from the rest
of the fleet. When an optimal number of cluster selections is used, a strongly connected route selection is
used, and route request messages (RRMs) in the route request messages are included, the simulation
results demonstrate that the proposed clustering scheme performs well (RRMs). The use of connection-
based optimization in spectral clustering as a result of this is a valuable addition to current routing
systems for advanced networks, particularly in the case of spectral clustering.
Introduction
Information and communications technology (IT) for transportation (ITS) represents a significant
advancement in city-smart transportation. It consists of a variety of different types of communications
between vehicles and other devices. Smart vehicles serve as the nodes in a vehicle ad hoc network
(VANET), which is a subset of the mobile ad hoc network (MANET) concept. VANETs are integrated
into vehicles through the use of onboard wireless networks (OBUs), allowing them to communicate with
one another, referred to as communication between vehicles (V2V), and/or with stationary roadside
devices (RSUs), referred to as communication between vehicles and infrastructure (V2I)[1]. VANET is
one of the most significant technological breakthroughs in modern transportation systems, as it
contributes to the improvement of the performance and safety of modern transportation systems by,
among other things, reducing traffic jams, preventing traffic accidents, and providing congestion
information to vehicles in the vicinity. The VANET is considered to be one of the most significant
technological breakthroughs in recent history. Users can obtain real-time vehicle information, traffic, and
weather updates through the use of VANET applications, which are accessible through an Internet
connection. Internet gaming and file sharing are among the entertainment options available, as are local
passenger ad hoc networks, which are available on-demand and can be created on the fly. High mobility,
predictable and restricted mobility patterns, rapid topological variation, and continuous battery charging
are among the characteristics that distinguish VANETs from MANETs. VANETs are also distinguished
from MANETs by several distinguishing characteristics. As previously stated, the characteristics listed
above demonstrate that energy consumption in VANETs is not a significant concern[2].
Different Models To Solve Problem
System Model
Pretend you're in the following situation: An N-number of vehicles is randomly distributed across a
single, multilane highway in this highly dynamic VANET. The use of intelligent onboard systems should
be standard equipment in all vehicles (OBUs). The onboard units (OBUs) of each vehicle are equipped
with radio equipment, such as the global positioning system (GPS), which is used to track the location of
the vehicle and communicate with the vehicle's crew. Aside from that, as illustrated in Figure 1, RSUs
with equal distances between them are installed along the entire length of the highway. Vehicle
connectivity and vehicle-to-everything communication are two of the most important functions of the
RSU, and their coverage must be expanded as a result. [3] The normal distribution[3] and the poison
distribution[11] are followed by the rate at which the vehicle travels and the amount of time it takes to
arrive, respectively. Both the time elapsed between vehicles' arrivals and the distance between them are
exponentially distributed (11). When evaluating the performance of a highly dynamic network, the two
fundamental metrics that can be used are connectivity[3] and reliability[11]. A vehicle's speed can be
represented mathematically by the probability density function (pdf) given by the following equation:

where u and sigma represent the mean and standard deviation of vehicle speed, respectively.

Figure 1. An overview of the suggested connectivity-based clustering scheme.

Vehicle Connectivity Model
When two vehicles are within transmission range of one another, they are referred to as being "connected
to the road" in the context of this discussion. It is critical to have a stable and tightly connected network to
ensure that real-time data is delivered with high levels of quality of service (QoS). The GSF, which
measures vehicle densities on a specific road segment in units such as H/km or S/m, as well as the impact
of relative speed on the inter-vehicle spacing, according to the findings of [11], is required for vehicle
connectivity to be achieved. A normal relative speed distribution and an exponential distribution of inter-
vehicle spacing, both of which are normal, are used to define the generalized speed function (GSF) (11).
According to the GSF's definition, it is as follows:

Where

in which Vmin and Vmax denote the vehicle's lowest and highest speeds achieved, respectively. In
addition, the letter s represents the distance between the two vehicles on the road. The variables speed v
and inter-vehicle spaces are related to one another indirectly and proportionally, respectively. As defined
by the GSF definition, the probability of N-vehicle connectivity at time t can be calculated in the
following manner:

The speed, density, and range of transmission of vehicles and vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication
on a free flow highway are all influenced by the vehicle connectivity on a free flow highway, as shown by
Equation (1). (4).
Explanation of the proposed solution
Connectivity-Based Clustering Schemes
When it comes to reassurance routing, the VANET's dynamic and uniform structure poses a significant
challenge due to its uniform structure. Researchers have used a variety of parameters from the literature
[7, 23] to design reliable routing algorithms for optimal data transmission. To design a cluster-based route
system, we consider vehicle connectivity as one of the metrics to be considered as well. The performance
of linear routing suffers significantly as a result of the large number of iterative messages that are sent in
an ultra-dense network. Cluster formation is a good method of dividing a large network into manageable
groups because it divides the network into manageable groups. Concerning this section, we will refer to
graph G (E, V, C) as a representation of VANET. The edges, the number of vehicles on the network, and
connectivity are all represented by the letters E, V, and C respectively. It is possible to display the
topology of a vehicle in graph form using the programs listed below:

If there are no connections between two vehicles, in this case, we add zero to the total. The adjacent
matrix Adj, which represents the degree to which vehicles are interconnected, can be calculated in the
following way:

where c represents the link connectivity of two vehicles.

Assessment of Connectivity Based Clustering
Where the overall value of the proposed protocol and the average packet loss values specified above were
evaluated in conjunction with RRMs, it was determined whether or not it was effective or ineffective. In
this paper, we examine the comparison of the overheads for the proposed connectivity clusters[1] and the
overall reliability cluster[3] overheads and the Triple Cluster Routing Protocol (TCRP)[1] and their
protocols. The group metric was converted to the connectivity link in the previous version of this article,
which was converted back to the cluster metric during the time-compared regression process. This was
wrong. It was conducted on a congested highway with a constant stream of vehicles that provided an ideal
environment for this experiment. Due to the large number of RRMs required to find a route in a highly
congested network, it has proved extremely difficult to find a strongly connected router to an exact
destination. Due to the fact that the proposed connectivity clustering, like the previous reliability clusters,
divides the network into an optimum number of clusters, the number of control messages is significantly
lower than TCRP, as shown in Figure 3 and is significantly improved compared with TCRP. Figure 3:
Proposed clustering of connectivity and previous reliabilities Diagram showing the proposed clustered
connectivity compared to previous reliability clusters (see Figure 3). The RRMs are also extremely small
in their physical dimensions, as the reliability-based clustering and the connectivity-based clustering
methods both employ a heuristic approach in order to determine the optimal number of clusters.
However, when compared to a system based on reliability and connectivity, the TCRP significantly
increases the number of RRMs because it creates a fixed number of clusters (in this case, three clusters).
Also shown in Figure 2 is that the number of clusters in our proposed connectivity-based clustering
scheme is marginally higher than that in the reliability-based clustering scheme; as a result, the scale of
the RRMs is marginally smaller in Figure 3 than in Figure 2. Our proposed clustering system enables the
consolidation of multiple clusters into a single cluster by bringing together vehicles that are highly
connected. It is more difficult to discover intra-cluster roads when there are fewer clusters, as a result of
the smaller number of clusters. The proposed FAP also summarises the accessibility information of each
cluster in inter-cluster discovery, resulting in a significant reduction in the number of RMMs used in the
process. Shortly put, the proposed scheme has less overhead when it comes to locating a specific
destination because of the greater number of clusters.

Figure 3. “Comparison of our suggested connectivity-based clustering overhead/ route request

messages (RRMs) with the previous reliability-based clustering [3] and triple cluster-based routing
protocol (TCRP)” [1].

Implementation and Future Work

For V2V and V2I communications, the VANET's highly dynamic and constantly changing structure
presents a significant barrier to successful implementation. When it comes to ensuring the reliability,
stability, and scalability of virtual private networks, clustering is a critical step to take. The formation of
clusters and the selection of CHs both have a significant impact on the performance of a routing system's
routing protocol. The proposed clustering criteria, i.e., connectivity linkage, take into account the relative
position and transmission range of the vehicle within a specific road sector when grouping vehicles
together. Connectivity is used as a metric in the proposed clustering-based on connectivity approach, and
it is used to determine how clusters are formed as well as how clusters of interest are selected (CHs). If
the proposed clustering metric is used in conjunction with other metrics, the results demonstrate that it
forms long-lasting vehicle groups and also significantly increases the probability of connectivity along a
selected route when combined with other metrics. It also contributes to the reduction of calculation costs
by reducing the excessive number of RRMs that are used in the computations. By using spectral
clustering, we can divide the evolving VANET into manageable network structure groups, which makes
network administration much easier. A consequence is that both RRMs and packet losses never reach
their maximum possible levels as a result of this. Aside from that, the CEG-Dijkstra and FAP algorithms
play a critical role in the discovery of a highly interconnected path, both within the cluster and across
multiple clusters. The former is triggered by the discovery of the target node/vehicle from within the
network, whereas the latter is triggered by an external discovery of the target node/vehicle This means
that the route discovery process does not result in a significant increase in computational costs as a result
of the discovery specifications for inter-and intra-cluster discovery, which are used. The proposed
connectivity-based clustering scheme is also expected to undergo extensive field testing and evaluation in
the coming months and years, with the results being compared with an array of other metrics.
 REFERENCES
1. Khan, Z.; Fan, P. A novel triple cluster based routing protocol (TCRP) for VANETs. In
Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 83rd Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring),Nanjing,
China, 15-18 May 2016; pp. 1-5.
2. Wahid, I.;Ikram, A.A.; Ahmad, M.; Ali, S.; Ali, A. State of the art routing protocols in VANETs:
A review. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2018, 130, 689-694. [CrossRef ]
3. Khan, Z.; Fan, P.; Fang, S.; Abbas, F. An Unsupervised Cluster-Based VANET-Orien ted Evolving
Graph (CVoEG) Model and Associated Reliable Routing Scheme. I EEE Trans. Intel/ . Transp.
Syst. 2019, 20, 3844-3859. [CrossRef ]
4. Khan, Z.; Fan, P. A multi-hop moving zone (MMZ) clustering scheme based on cellular-V2X .
China Commun. 2018, 15, 55-66. [CrossRef]
5. Eiza, M.H.; Ni, Q. An evolving graph-based reliable routing scheme for VANETs. I EEE Trans. Veh.
Technol. 2013, 62, 1493-1504. [CrossRef]
6. Khan,Z.; Fan, P.; Abbas, F.; Chen, H.; Fang, S. Two-level cluster based routing scheme for SC V2X
communication. IEEE Access
2019, 7, 16194-16205. [CrossRef]
7. Lin, D.; Kang, J.;Squicciarini,A.; Wu, Y.; Gurung, S.; Tonguz,0. MoZo: A moving zone based
routing protocol using pure V2V communica tion in VANETs. IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. 2016,
16, 1357-1370. [CrossRef]
8. Khan, Z.; Fang, S.;Koubaa, A.; Fan, P.;Abbas, F.; Farman, H. Street-centric routing scheme using
ant colony optimization-based clustering for bus-based vehicular ad-hoc network. Comput.
Electr. Eng. 2020, 86, 106736. [CrossRef ]
9. Abbas, F.; Liu, G.; Fan, P.; Khan, Z. An Efficient Cluster Based Resource Management Scheme
and Its Performance Analysis for V2X Networks. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 87071-87082. [CrossRef ]
10. Cooper, C.; Franklin, D.; Ros, M.; Safaei, F.;Abolhasan, M. A compara tive survey of VANET
clustering techniques. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2016, 19, 657-681. [CrossRef ]
11. Khan, Z.;Fan, P.;Fang, S. On the co1mectivity of vehicular ad hoc network under various mobility
scenarios. I EEE Access 2017, 5,22559-22565. [CrossRef ]
12. Liu, G.; Qi, N .; Chen, J.; Dong, C.; Huang, Z. Enhancing clustering stability in VANET: A
spectral clustering based approach.
China Commun. 2020, 17,140-151. [CrossRef ]
13. Naumov, V.; Gross, T.R. Connectivity-aware routing (CAR) in vehicular ad-hoc networks. In
Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM 2007-26th IEEE International Conference on Computer
Communications, Anchorage, AK, USA, 6-12 May 2007; pp. 1919-1927.
14. Viriyasitavat, W.;Tonguz, O.K.; Bai, F. UV-CAST: An urban vehicular broadcast protocol. IEEE
Commun. Mag. 2011, 49, 116-124. [CrossRef]
15. Tonguz, O.; Wisitpongphan, N .; Bai, F.; Mudalige, P.; Sadekar, V. Broadcasting in VANET. In
Proceed ings of the 2007 Mobile
Netw orking For Vehicular Environments, Anchorage, AK, USA, 11May 2007; pp. 7-12.
16. Peng, Y.; Abichar, Z.; Chang, J.M. Roadside-aided routing (RAR) in vehicular networks. In
Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Communications, Istanbul,
Turkey, 11-15June 2006; Volume 8, pp. 3602-3607.