## 4 Methodology
### TMR Routing Protocol
In this case, other protocols provide multipath routes, so alternative routes are available. AOMDV selects the shortest route based on less hop count, while FF-AOMDV concentrates more on the path with the highest residual energy rather than the path with less time to reach the destination node as TMR does. TSR performance is poor in comparison with other protocols because it is a single-path protocol, so whenever the link fails, they follow the same route discovery procedure to find a route. Table 2 represents the corresponding value for Figure 5. It also shows how the TMR's throughput improved in comparison with other protocols. In Figure 6, TMR has a better PLR compared to other protocols. TMR can deliver more data successfully to the destination vehicle, so according to Equation (2), PLR improves. TMR uses the threshold mechanism shown in Algorithm 3, where the optimum routes have less RTT than the average RTT. This, in turn, reduces the PLR. EGSR and QMR protocols also consider the time factor in their route selection mechanisms, and that is why their performance is close to TMR. Other protocols do not consider this time factor, so data packets likely take a long time to be delivered, and PLR enlarges. Additionally, multipath protocols, including TMR, behave better than TSR, particularly when a link failure occurs. TSR has to re-compute the shortest path once there is a link failure, and this, in turn, would increase the processing time that flares up the PLR. TSR as a single route protocol performs poorly in comparison to the other protocols. Therefore, we eliminate it from other figures to provide more precise results. Similarly, AOMDV has low performance so we remove it from other figures. Figure 5: Comparison of AOMDV, FF-AOMDV, EGSR, QMR, and proposed protocol TMR and TSR throughput with simulation time. #### 5.2.2 Assessment of the Simulation Results Based on Pause Time

Pause time refers to the period in which the vehicle remains stationary. In the following simulation results with pause time, we considered the duration of the red light at the traffic signal as the pause time. In Figure 7, with having a longer pause time, the end-to-end delay decreases. The reasoning behind this incident is that the number of link failures, which is the result of the topological change, has been reduced. With fewer link failure incidents, the time that the sender should be engaged in processing ICMP error messages is shorter. QMR prefers to forward the data packet through the neighbor nodes having mobility speed lower than average speed; therefore, with longer pause time, the performance is improved. Figure 8 shows that with increasing the pause time, the energy consumption is reduced in all protocols. This is owing to having less chance of a link failure, and the route discovery phase is not often needed. With increasing the pause times, all protocols would send a lower amount of data, and this reduces the needed energy. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Time** & **TSR** & **AOMDV** & **FF-AOMDV** & **EGSR** & **QMR** & **TMR** \\ \hline
10 & 3.03 & 3.98 & 4.36 & 4.56 & 4.61 & 4.69 \\
20 & 2.26 & 2.71 & 3.85 & 4.22 & 4.25 & 4.33 \\
30 & 1.87 & 2.27 & 3.65 & 3.95 & 4.05 & 4.15 \\
40 & 1.62 & 2.18 & 3.15 & 3.64 & 3.72 & 3.84 \\
50 & 1.3 & 1.58 & 2.95 & 3.26 & 3.32 & 3.63 \\
60 & 1.02 & 1.22 & 2.84 & 2.95 & 3.08 & 3.33 \\
70 & 0.8 & 0.97 & 2.65 & 2.84 & 2.93 & 3.03 \\
80 & 0.71 & 0.86 & 2.54 & 2.68 & 2.75 & 2.89 \\
90 & 0.67 & 0.81 & 2.48 & 2.59 & 2.64 & 2.71 \\
100 & 0.6 & 0.73 & 2.44 & 2.48 & 2.55 & 2.62 \\ Sum & 13.88 & 17.31 & 30.91 & 33.17 & 33.9 & 35.22 \\ Gain (\%) & 153.74 & 103.46 & 13.94 & 6.18 & 3.89 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Simulation time vs. throughput of Figure 5.

Figure 6: Comparison of AOMDV, FF-AOMDV, EGSR, QMR, and proposed protocol TMR and TSR for PLR with simulation time.