## 4 Methodology
### TMR Routing Protocol
In Figure 19, PLR for different protocols performs similarly as throughput versus mobility speed. At 40 m/s (144 km/h) speed, TMR loses just about 13% out of the sent packets, which are still within the accepted range compared to other protocols. The stability of the selected route in terms of packet loss is vital, particularly with link failure caused by node mobility and this is achieved in the TMR algorithm. Additionally, AOMDV delivers about 65% of its data loads to the destination end when mobility speed increases to 40 m/s which is the result of topological inconsistency. At the same mobility speed, AOMDV's PLR is about 14% higher than TMR. Energy consumption is a metric impacted by PLR. As the nodes' mobility speed increases, the PLR enlarges, resulting in more data retransmissions. This, in turn, would consume more energy as shown in Figure 20.

Figure 17: Comparison of FF-AOMDV, EGSR, QMR, and proposed protocol TMR for energy consumption with number of nodes. Figures 21 and 22 show the routing overhead for different protocols. These protocols seek to find alternate routes in the case of having link failure or faulty nodes to reduce end-to-end delay and increase packet delivery rate. FF-AOMDV routes are calculated based on less energy, so it will be updating its routes quite often, and this, in turn, increases the number of overhead packets. TMR has the least routing overhead among those multipath protocols. RSU sends RREQ to all nodes in its range, and once the RREP is received, routes are determined based on the minimum RTT. Therefore, the control packets are limited, and hence the routing overhead is relatively low. Figure 19: Comparison of FF-AOMDV, EGSR, QMR, and proposed protocol TMR for PLR with mobility speed. Figure 18: Comparison of AOMDV, FF-AOMDV, EGSR, QMR, and proposed protocol TMR for throughput with mobility speed. ### Results of Scenario 2

In the following simulation, the sender and receiver OBUs are located in different road segments; therefore, there is no pair of sender and receivers whose road segments are the same. An exemplification of the given scenario is provided in Figure 23. Simulator selected sender and receiver nodes randomly. ISR algorithm was designed to work appropriately for the given scenario; therefore, we compare QMR and ISR with TMR in this scenario. Figure 15.0 Comparison of FF-AOMDV, EGSR, QMR, and proposed protocol TMR for routing overhead with mobility speed. Figure 15.1 Comparison of FF-AOMDV, EGSR, QMR, and proposed protocol TMR for energy consumption with mobility speed. #### 5.3.1 Assessment of the Simulation Results Based on Simulation Time

The performance of all the protocols drops in terms of throughput as simulation time goes ahead in Figure 15.2 TMR shows the highest performance as a result of selecting the efficient route based on the minimum RTT in the TMR algorithm and avoiding links with high traffic congestion; this leads to such promising performance. According to Table 5, TMR improves throughput by 15.4 and 6.4 percent compared to QMR and ISR, respectively. Similarly, TMR's PLR is the lowest in Figure 25, proving its novel performance. The threshold mechanism of TMR in Algorithm 3 selects routes whose RTTs are lower than the average RTT value. Hence, lengthy routes are dropped and therefore, the possibility of having link failure is reduced. Figure 15.3 Scenario 2: data communications in multiple road segments. Figure 15.4 Comparison of FF-AOMDV, EGSR, QMR, and proposed protocol TMR for routing overhead with mobility speed. Figure 15.5 Comparison of ECSR, ISR, and proposed protocol TMR for throughput with simulation time.