Analysis of Cluster Ring Controller/Area Networks for Enhanced Transmission and Fault-Tolerance in Vehicle Networks

  • Po-Cheich ChiuEmail author
  • Yar-Sun Hsu
  • Ching-Te Chiu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mobility book series (LNMOB)


The Controller Area Network (CAN) [1][2] is widely adopted in vehicle networks due to the simple communication protocol. However, with the increasing node number in vehicle network, insufficient bandwidth and faulty nodes or links, become two important problems in a single CAN bus. We propose a cluster ring topology [3][4] for CAN bus to tackle both the bandwidth and fault tolerance problems. By applying the cluster ring topology, the extra bandwidth can also be used to fault tolerance for link or node fails. In addition, we estimate the injection rate versus schedulable messages in the three cluster ring topologies. The throughput models under different link or node faults for the three cluster ring topologies are also analyzed. Then we provide simulation results to verify the developed theoretical models.


CAN bus In-vehicle network real-time system 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bosch, Can specification version 2.0. Robert Bosch GmbH, Postfach30 02 40 D-70442, Stuttgart (1991)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Natale, M.D.: Understanding and using the controllerarea network. Handout of a lecture at U.C. (October 2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liu, W.-C.: Cluster-Based CAN with Enhanced TransmissionCapability for Vehicle Networks. In: International Conference on Connected Vehicles and Expo, pp. 43–48 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, J., Jone, W., Wang, J., Lu, H.-I., Chen, T.: Segmented bus designfor low-power systems. IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems 7(1), 25–29 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tindell, K., Hansson, H., Wellings, A.: Analysing real-time communications: controller area network (can). In: Proceedings of the Real-Time Systems Symposium 1994, pp. 259–263 (December 1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davis, R., Burns, A., Bril, R., Lukkien, J.: Controller area network (can) schedulability analysis: Refuted, revisited and revised. Real-Time Systems 35, 239–272 (2007),, doi:10.1007/s11241-007-9012-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bril, R.J., et al.: Message response time analysis for ideal Controller Area Network (CAN) refuted. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Real-Time Networks (RTN (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aysan, H., Dobrin, R., Punnekkat, S.: Fault Tolerant Scheduling on Controller Area Network (CAN). In: 13th IEEE International Symposium on Real-Time Distributed Computing, pp. 226–232 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Seceleanu, T., Stancescu, S.: Arbitration for the segmented bus architecture. In: Proceedings of the 2004 International Semiconductor Conference, CAS 2004, vol. 2, pp. 487–490 (October 2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical EngineeringNational Tsing Hua UniversityHsinchuTaiwan R.O.C.
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science Institute of Communications EngineeringNational Tsing Hua UniversityHsinchuTaiwan R.O.C.

Personalised recommendations