Submitted:
14 March 2025
Posted:
17 March 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
Introduction
- ▪
- Design an algorithm based on the load on the network using fuzzy logics and determine non congested road segments.
- ▪
- Improve the traffic congestion through route suggestions between neighbors RSU.
- ▪
- The proposed scheme requires the neighbor RSU to reply with congestion route index to gain the road segment status.
2. Related Works
3. Research Methodology
3.1. Load Aware Congestion Control Mechanism Using Fuzzy Logic
3.1.1. Stage 1: Initialization
3.1.2. Stage 2: Congestion State Representation
3.1.3. Stage 3: Fuzzy Logic Based Congestion Controller


3.1.4. Stage 4: Path Determination

- RSU gather road information from the vehicles on the road segment. Based on our assumption each road intersection deployed with special RSU to gather information and based on the information RSU calculates the CT value.
- RSU send request to neighbor RSU. The RSU forward its CT value with additional information. The RSU ID, Road Segment ID (RSid), and CT.
- 3.
- RSU receive an information from neighbors RSU and suggest route path discovery. After the RSU received reply from neighbor RSU about road segment information, it suggests the vehicle that have less congested road segment towards to vehicle destination.
- 4.
- Then the RSU Update current congestion status of the road segment
3.2. Experimental Setup
3.2.1. Simulation Tool

4. Result Analysis and Discussion
5. Conclusion
References
- Ragab, A.R. “A new classification for ad-hoc network,” Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol., vol. 14, no. 14, pp. 214–223, 2020. [CrossRef]
- Barskar, R. “Vehicular Ad hoc Networks and its Applications in Diversified Fields,” vol. 123, no. 10, pp. 7–11, 2015.
- Lingala, T.; Galipelli, A.; Thanneru, M. “Traffic Congestion Control through Vehicle-to-Vehicle and Vehicle to Infrastructure Communication,” vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 5081–5084, 2014.
- Stalin, J.; Rajesh, R.S. “Fuzzy Logic Based Secured Routing In Vanets Fuzzy Logic Based Secured Routing In Vanets,” vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 335–348, 2021.
- Singh, B.; Mishra, A.K. “Fuzzy Logic Control System and its Applications,” no. December, 2023.
- Series, C. “Fuzzy logic controller based priority model for VANET scheduling Fuzzy logic controller based priority model for VANET scheduling,” 2020. [CrossRef]
- Balaji, T.S.; Srinivasan, S.; Bharathi, S.P.; Ramesh, B. “Fuzzy-Based Secure Clustering with Routing Technique for VANETs,” 2022. [CrossRef]
- Zhang, W.L.; Yang, X.Y.; Song, Q.X.; Zhao, L. “V2V Routing in VANET Based on Fuzzy Logic and Reinforcement Learning,” 2021.
- Edve, K.; Rabe, N.T.; Arboleda, E.R.; Andilab, A.A.; Dellosa, R.M. “Fuzzy Logic Based Vehicular Congestion Estimation Monitoring System Using Image Processing and KNN Classifier,” no. August, 2019.
- B. S. Siddhartha, S. K. B. R, K. Arpitha, and S. N. Shwetha, “Routing Protocol using Fuzzy Logic for Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networks,” no. 2, pp. 4789–4794, 2019. [CrossRef]
- Mohamed, B. “An Efficient Greedy Traffic Aware Routing Scheme for Internet of Vehicles,” no. January, 2019. [CrossRef]
- Subramaniam, M.; Rambabu, C.; Chandrasekaran, G.; Kumar, N.S. “A Traffic Density-Based Congestion Control Method for VANETs,” Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput., vol. 2022, 2022. [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, M.J.; Iqbal, S.; Awan, K.M.; Sattar, K.; Khan, Z.A.; Sherazi, H.H.R. A Congestion Aware Route Suggestion Protocol for Traffic Management in Internet of Vehicles. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2020, 45, 2501–2511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, W.; Husnain, G.; Ahmed, S.; Aadil, F.; Lim, S. Received Signal Strength-Based Localization for Vehicle Distance Estimation in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs). J. Sensors 2023, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mittag, J.; Thomas, F. “HopsComparison.pdf,” no. formerly VII, pp. 69–78.
- Vinel, A.; Staehle, D.; Turlikov, A. “Study of beaconing for car-to-car communication in vehicular ad-hoc networks,” 2009.
- C. Science and S. Engineering, “Simulation of VANET Using NS-3 and SUMO,” vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 563–569, 2014.





| Rule No | BBR | Los | RSc | CT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | “Good” | “Good” | “Good” | CT ≥ 0.1 AND CT≤ 0.63 |
| 2 | “Good” | “Acceptable” | “Good” | CT > 0.63 AND CT≤ 2.4 |
| 3 | “Good” | “Poor” | “Acceptable” | CT ≥ 1.2 AND CT ≤ 2.06 |
| 4 | “Acceptable” | “Good” | “Acceptable” | CT ≥ 0.3 AND CT ≤ 0.83 |
| 5 | “Acceptable” | “Acceptable” | “Acceptable” | CT ≥ 0.63 AND CT < 1.5 |
| 6 | “Acceptable” | “Poor” | “Poor” | CT > 1.4 AND CT ≤ 2.26 |
| 7 | “Poor” | “Good” | “Good” | CT ≥ 0.3 AND CT ≤ 0.86 |
| 8 | “Poor” | “Acceptable” | “Acceptable” | CT ≥ 0.73 AND CT ≤ 1.63 |
| 9 | “Poor” | “Poor” | “Poor” | CT ≥ 1.5 AND CT ≤ 2.4 |
| Parameters | Value | Unit |
|---|---|---|
| Operating System | Ubuntu 16.04 LTS | - |
| Simulation Tool | NS3, SUMO | - |
| Area | 1 x 1 | Km2 |
| Speed of Vehicle | 50-150 | Km/h |
| Number of Lane | 2 | - |
| Number of Vehicles | 100 | - |
| Bandwidth | 75 | MHz |
| Message Size | Beaconing 3-12 | Mega byte |
| Mac Type | 802.11p | - |
| Transmission Rate | 5.850 – 5.925 | GHz |
| Routing Protocol | AODV | - |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).