International Journal of Computer Networking, Wireless and Mobile Communications (IJCNWMC) ISSN 2250-1568 Vol.

3, Issue 1, Mar 2013, 209-220 TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

EFFICIENCY ENHANCEMENT OF ENERGY AWARE AD HOC ROUTING PROTOCOLS

P.SATHYA PRIYA1, SEETHALAKSHMI.V2 & G.MOHAN KUMAR3
1 2

PG Scholar, Sri Shakthi Institute of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore, India

Associate professor, ECE, Sri Shakthi Institute of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore, India
3

Principal, Park College of Engineering and Technology, Kaniyur, Coimbatore, India

ABSTRACT
Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) is infra-structure less ad hoc environment. The nodes in the MANET have limited battery. Also nodes move away without giving any notice to its cooperative nodes, causing changes in network topology and thus, these changes may degrade the performance of a routing protocol. Hence the energy consumption and routing path lifetime are important issue in MANET. Existing energy efficient routing protocols like Minimum Total transmission Power Routing (MTPR),Minimum Battery Cost Routing (MBCR), Min-Max Battery Cost Routing (MMBCR),Conditional Max-Min Battery Capacity Routing (CMMBCR), Energy efficient routing for Ad hoc On-demand Multipath Distance Vector (ENERGY_AOMDV) are analysed and concluded that ENERGY_AOMDV performs better than other existing protocols discussed above. In this proposed work, an effort has been done to combine the factors of energy efficiency, link stability by creating new routing protocol SEESAR (Stable Energy Efficient and Secure Ad hoc Routing protocol) which outperforms the ENERGY_AOMDV protocol.

KEYWORDS: MTPR, MBCR, MMBCR, CMMBCR, ENERGY_AOMDV, SEESAR INTRODUCTION

MANET is a wireless infrastructure less network having mobile nodes. Communication between these nodes can be achieved using multi hop wireless links. Each node will act as a router and forward data packets to other nodes. Mobile adhoc networks are operating without any centralized base station. It uses multi hop relaying. Since the nodes are independent to move in any direction, there may be frequent link breakage. The advantage of MANET is its instant deployment[7]. Various protocols have been developed for adhoc networks such as Minimum Total transmission Power Routing (MTPR),Minimum Battery Cost Routing (MBCR), Min-Max Battery Cost Routing (MMBCR),Conditional Max-Min Battery Capacity Routing (CMMBCR), Energy efficient routing for Ad hoc On-demand Multipath Distance Vector (ENERGY_AOMDV). These protocols offer varying degrees of efficiency. This paper aims to find out an energy efficient routing protocol. It also aims to limit power consumption of nodes in the highly mobile network in order to increase the life time of the network. The main objective of this paper is to analyseon-demand routing protocol for ways it could be improved. This can be done by measuring energy with respect to network size and taking into consideration the remaining battery power. It also proposes further research into more efficient protocols or variants of existing protocols such as AOMDV.This paper also proposes a new routing algorithm based on link stability and energy efficiency so that the new algorithm provides better performance than MTPR, MBCR,MMBCR, CMMBCR and ENERGY_AOMDV.

210

P. Sathya Priya, Seethalakshmi. V & G. Mohan Kumar

OVERVIEW OF EXISTING ROUTING PROTOCOLS

There are lot of energy efficient routing protocols. Some of them are listed below MTPR This protocol is dependent on interference, noise, distance between hosts, and desired BER.This will select route with more hops than otherrouting algorithms (power d^n). This approach will significantlyincreases end-to-end delay. On the downside, this approach will in most cases tend to select routes with more hopsthan others. This is realizable due to the fact that transmission power is inversely proportional to distance. Thus, more energy may be wasted network-wide since a larger number of nodes are now involved in routing as all nodes that are neighboursto the intermediate nodes will also be affected, unless they were in sleep mode and also if the selected routes are via specific host, the battery of this host will be exhausted quickly[8]. Algorithm MBCR Minimum battery cost routing (MBCR) utilizes the sum of the inverse of the battery capacity for all intermediate nodes as themetric upon which the route is picked. Algorithm Find the total battery cost for each route from source to destination Select the route for transmission which having minimum total cost among all routes. If all nodes have similar battery capacity, it will select shorter hop route. It prevents hosts from being overused, increasing lifetime. However, since it is the summation that must be minimal, some hosts may be overused because a route containing nodes with little remaining battery capacity may still be selected[9]. MMBCR Min-max battery cost routing (MMBCR) treats nodes more fairly from the standpoint oftheir remaining battery capacity. Smaller remaining battery capacity nodes are avoided and ones with larger battery capacityare favoured when choosing a route[3]. Algorithm For each route, select battery cost function which having maximum value among all nodes in the route. Now select the route with minimum battery cost among all routes. In this algorithm,instead of summing the battery cost function of all nodes of the individual routes, select the battery cost which is maximum among all nodes of route[2]. CMMBCR The combined protocol iscalled conditional max-min battery capacity routing (CMMBCR).Both goals (maximize lifetime of each node and use the battery fairly) cannot beachieved simultaneously by any of previousprotocols like Calculate the total transmission power for all routes between source and destination. Select the route with minimum total transmission power among all routes.

Efficiency Enhancement of Energy Aware Ad Hoc Routing Protocols

211

MTPR,MBCR, MMBCR. In this algorithm battery capacity is used instead of cost function as a route selection metrics and uses a battery capacity threshold ( Y ) for selecting the route[9]. Algorithm For each route j find the minimum capacity ( Rj ) among all nodes in that route If Rj>= Y is true for some or all routes between asource and destination.Apply Minimum Total Transmission Power Routing(MTPR) scheme to select path among all routes whichsatisfying above condition.3. ElseSelect the route i with the maximum battery capacity.

ENERGY_AOMDV The concept of ENERGY_AOMDV is to find the node residual energy of each route in the process of selecting path, select the path with minimum node residual energy and sort all the routes based on the descending order of node residual energy[4]. Once a new route with greater nodal residual energy is emerging, it is again selected to forward rest of the data packets. It can improve the individual nodes battery power utilization and hence prolong the whole networks lifetime. Algorithm Find the node residual energy of each route in the route discovery phase. Find the path with minimum node residual energy. Sort out all the routes based on the descending value of node residual energy Select the optimal route with maximal node residual energy to forward the data packets[5].

PROBLEM DEFINITION
The main limitation of MANET is the availability of battery, since nodes are typically battery-limited. Power consumption is governed by link connectivity and overheads required to maintain connectivity in addition to running onboard electronics. Early death of MANET nodes due to energy depletion may cause several problems such as link failure, network partition and communication interruption. Therefore it is required to limit the power consumption of mobile nodes, prolong the life time of battery and to maintain the stable energy efficient network.

PROPOSED ALGORITHM (SEESAR)

One challenge in creating a routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks is to design a single protocol that can adapt to the wide variety of conditions in highly mobile environment that can be present in any ad hoc network over time. Another challenge for routing is that mobility of nodes causes the next-hop node to be disconnected as nodes move in and out of transmission range. The main aim of proposed routing is to increase the life time of network with low overhead while achieving many desired features of routing protocol of MANET. It selects the optimal paths using power aware metric and optimizes the power consumption, overhead and bandwidth. It supports reliability by providing node-disjoint paths and it provides the link stability (increasing mean life time of the nodes) by distributing the burden of routing and congestion control. Algorithm Optimalnode disjoint multi path is selected based on node residual energy while sending route request from source to destination by the destination.

212

P. Sathya Priya, Seethalakshmi. V & G. Mohan Kumar

RREP in sent only through that optimum path Path lifetime is calculated for all optimal multipath selected in step2 while sending route reply from destination to source.

Sort out all optimal multipath based on path life time Select one optimal path with maximumpath life time as primary path to forward the data packet and other are kept as secondary, ternary path etc[10].

Multipath Node-Disjoint Model Two paths are said be node-disjoint if and only if there is no common intermediate node between them and source and destination nodes are common to both. RREQ is sent through node disjoint multipath. Cost of the Path The cost of node is equal to value of battery cost function, which in turn inversely propositional to residual energy of the node.The first cost is chosen as maximum cost of any intermediate node on the path Pj, it is denoted by ,C1(Pj)= max{ fi(eit) } niPj(4.1) The second cost is sum of cost of all intermediate nodes on the path Pj , it is denoted by k C2(Pj)= = fi(eit) (4.2) i=1 Optimal Path Selection Let M be the set of node disjoint multipath that were found during route discovery from source s to destination d at time t, then a feasible path is given by Pf= min (C1(Pj)) PjM (4.3) Where Min is a function that selects least cost. Let F be the set of all feasible paths based equation 5. An optimal path is the feasible path with least total cost, it denoted by Po= min (C2(Pj)) PjF(4.4) Path Stability Model Since a route consists of multiple links in series, it is said to be broken if any single link among its links is broken, and thus, lifetime of the route becomes the minimum lifetime of all links in this route. A link is formed by two adjacent mobile nodes, which have limited battery energy and can roam freely, and it is broken if any of the two nodes is not alive due to exhaustion of energy or if the nodes move out of each others communication range. Route P is said to be broken if any one of the following cases occurs. First, any one of the nodes in the route dies because of limited battery energy. Second, any one of the connections is broken because the corresponding two adjacent nodes move out of each others communication range [7]. Thus, the lifetime of route P is expressed as the minimum value of the lifetime of both nodes and connections involved in route P. Thus, the lifetime Tp of route P can be expressed as Tp = min (TNi, TCi )( 4.5)

Efficiency Enhancement of Energy Aware Ad Hoc Routing Protocols

213

Node Life Time Node lifetime can be evaluated based on its current residual energy and its past activity. The term REi represents the current residual energy of node i, and dri is the rate of energy depletion. REi can simply be obtained online from a battery management instrument, and evi is the statistical value that is obtained from recent history. Every T node i reads the instantaneous residual energy value REi0 , REi2T , REi3T , .REi (n-1)T, REinT. and the corresponding estimated energy drain rate dri is obtained as dri n =(REi (n-1)T - REinT) / T+(1- ) dri n-1 ( 4.6) wheredrin is the estimated energy drain rate in the nth period, and drin1 is the estimated energy drain rate in the previous (n 1)th period. denotes the coefficient that reflects the relation between drin and drin1, and it is a constant value with a range of [0, 1]. [7] At time t, we can obtain the estimated node lifetime as follows: TNi = REinT/ dri n ( 4.7) Connection Life Time The connection time TCi depends on the relative motion between Ni and Ni1, the definition of link stability is provided in what follows: Definition 1: A link between two nodes i and j with transmission range R is established at time instant t1 when the distance between both nodes is d(i,j) < R. Definition 2: A link between two nodes i and j with transmission range R is broken at instant time t when the distance between both nodes verify the condition d(i,j) > R. Definition 3: A link age a or connection lifetime between two nodes i and j is the duration a(i, j)= TCi = t t1. Path Life Time The intermediate nodes updates the PLT value in the common header of the RREP packet with a local Min(NLT or LLT) value, if Min(NLT or LLT) < PLT, before forwarding this RREP packet. When the RREP packet reaches the source node, the PLT becomes the minimum value of the estimated lifetime of all nodes and links through the route from the source node to the destination node. In the data forwarding period, a source node tends to select the path with the longest lifetime from multiple paths as a source route for data forwarding [7].

METHODOLOGY
In the existing system, different energy efficient routing protocols in MANETs are compared by many researchers. Some implemented overhead reduction and efficient energy management as in ENERGY_AOMDV in MANET. Some compared the performance of ENERGY_AOMDV and AOMDVbased on the node termination rate as well as the overall throughput of the network. Some researchers compared MTPR,MMBCR,MBCR&CMMBCR interms time and no. of nodes. These works provide detailed performance analysis on adhoc routing protocols but link stability was not addressed. It does not reflect the topological change and link stability.In the proposed system, various routing protocols such as MTPR, MBCR,MMBCR, CMMBCR and ENERGY_AOMDV are compared with respect to more metrics and a new routing algorithm is designed based on stability and energy consumption so that it consumes minimum energy compared to ENERGY_AOMDV. Protocol performances are tested in higher mobility situations. This work tries to optimize delay, bandwidth and overhead and reflects much better topological change. Routing protocols are analysed in terms of energy aware metrics.

214

P. Sathya Priya, Seethalakshmi. V & G. Mohan Kumar

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The Simulation is carried out in NS2 under LINUX platform. The aim of these simulations is to analyse the SEESAR protocol by comparing it with other protocols (MTPR, MBCR, MMBCR,CMMBCR and ENERGY_AOMDV) for its efficiency in terms of energy consumption, latency, packet delivery ratio, packet lost and throughput. A new protocol is designed based on ENERGY_AOMDV so that the new protocol had better performance than ENERGY_AOMDV in all the above parameters. The table1 shows the simulation environment in NS2.

Simulation Parameters o
Packet Delivery Ratio It is the ratio of the data packets delivered to the destinations to those generated by the sources. o o o Energy Consumption This is the ratio of the average energy consumed in each node to total energy. End to End Delay This is the ratio of the interval between the first and second packet to total packet delivery. Throughput The throughput metric measures how well the network can constantly provide data to the sink. Throughput is the number of packet arriving at the sink per ms. o Number of Packets Dropped This is the number of data packets that are not successfully sent to the destination during the transmission. In this study the time versus number of packets dropped have been calculated. Table 1: Simulation Environment Simulation Time Topology size Number of nodes Mac Type Radio Propagation Model Radio Propagation Range Pause time Max Speed Initial energy Transmit power Receive Power Traffic type CBR rate 100S 1000m x 1500m 50 MAC 802.11 Two ray model 250m 0s 4m/sec 24m/sec 100J 0.4W 0.3W CBR 512 bytes x 6 per sec

Simulation Results Figure 1 shows that the packet delivery ratio of networks using ENERGY_AOMDV is maximum compared to MTPR, MBCR, MMBCR and CMMBCR & Figure 2 shows that the packet delivery ratio of SEESAR is maximum compared to ENERGY_AOMDV. Figure 3 shows that the overhead of network using ENERGY_AOMDV is minimum compared to MTPR, MBCR, MMBCR and CMMBCR & Figure 4 shows that the overhead of SEESAR is minimum compared to ENERGY_AOMDV.

Efficiency Enhancement of Energy Aware Ad Hoc Routing Protocols d

215

Figure 5 shows that the energy consumption using ENERGY_AOMDV is minimum compared to MTPR, MBCR, e MMBCR and CMMBCR & Figure 6 shows that the energy consumption of SEESAR is maximum compared to ENERGY_AOMDV.

Figure 1: Comparison of Packet Delivery Ratio versus Time

Figure 2: Comparison of Packet Delivery Ratio versus No of Nodes

Figure 3: Comparison of Overhead versus Time ure

216

P. Sathya Priya, Seethalakshmi. V & G. Mohan Kumar

Figure 4: Comparison of Overhead versus No of Nodes

Figure 5: Comparison of Energy Consumption versus Time

Figure 6: Comparison of Energy Consumption versus No of Nodes

Efficiency Enhancement of Energy Aware Ad Hoc Routing Protocols d

217

Figure 7: Comparison of End-to-End Latency versus Time

Figure 8: Comparison of Latency versus No of Nodes :

Figure 9 Comparison of Throughput versus Time 9:

218

P. Sathya Priya, Seethalakshmi. V & G. Mohan Kumar

Figure 10: Comparison of Throughput versus No of Nodes Figure 7 shows that the latency using ENERGY_AOMDV is minimum compared to MTPR, MBCR, MMBCR and CMMBCR & Figure 8 shows that the latency of SEESAR is minimum compared to ENERGY_AOMDV. Figure 9 shows that the throughput using ENERGY_AOMDV is maximum compared to MTPR, MBCR, MMBCR and CMMBCR & Figure 10 shows that the throughput of SEESAR is maximum compared to ENERGY_AOMDV

CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, performances of different routing protocols in MANET such as MTPR, MBCR, MMBCR,CMMBCR and ENERGY_AOMDV in different network environments were evaluated. ENERGY_AOMDV is analysed as the best protocol compared to MTPR, MBCR, MMBCR and CMMBCR. Then the result will be compared with the performance of proposed protocol SEESAR. SEESAR shows better performance compared to MTPR, MBCR,MMBCR, CMMBCR and ENERGY_AOMDV protocols.

FUTURE WORK
This paper proposes further research into more energy efficient & stable protocols or variants of existing protocols and network topologies that can improve the performance of MANETs. Emphasis is on protocols that could be suitable for the implementation of scalable system in high mobility environments such as in manufacturing or product distribution industries. Also the evaluation of SEESAR protocol is planned to test in terms of four mobility models such as Random Way point Mobility (RWM), Reference Point Group Mobility (RPGM), Manhattan Grid Mobility (MGM), Random Direction, City Section, Manhattan mobility models and Gauss-Markov Mobility (GMM) in two different traffic patterns such as CBR and TCP.

REFERENCES
1. ArchanMisra, Suman Banerjee, MRPC: Maximizing Network Lifetime for Reliable Routing in Wireless Environments, IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC) 2002, March 2002. 2. C-K. Toh, Hiroshi Cobband DavidA.Scott ,-Performance Evaluation of Batterylife-Aware Routing Schemes for Wireless Ad Hoc Networks1-Mobile Multimedia & High Speed Networking Laboratory 2001IEEE.

Efficiency Enhancement of Energy Aware Ad Hoc Routing Protocols

219

3.

C.-K. Toh, Maximum Battery Life Routing to Support Ubiquitous Mobile Computing in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks, IEEE CommunicationsMagazine, June 2001.

4.

Jaya Jacob, V.Seethalakshmi, Efficiency Enhancement of Routing Protocol in Manet, An International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, Vol. 3, Issue 2,May 2012, ISSN: 2231-1963, pg 314-323.

5.

JayaJacob,V.Seethalakshmi, Performance Evaluation of Various Routing Protocols in MANET, 2011 Journal Anu Books,Research Cell: An International Journal of Engineering Sciences ISSN: 2229-6913 Issue Dec. 2011, Vol. 5.

6.

J. H. Chang and L. Tassiulas, Energy conserving routing in wireless ad hoc networks, IEEE Infocom 2000, March 2000.

7.

PravinGhosekar, GirishKatkar, Dr. PradipGhorpade, Mobile Ad HocNetworking: Imperatives and Challenges, IJCA Special Issue on Mobile Adhoc Networks, 2010.

8.

K. Scott and N. Bambos, Routing and

channel assignment for low power transmission in PCS, Proceedings

ofIEEE International Conference onUniversal Personal Communications (ICUPC 96), Cambridge, MA, September 29 - October 2, 1996. 9. S. Singh, M. Woo, and C. S. Raghavendra, Power-aware with Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,

Proceedings of Mobicom 1998,Dallas, TX, 1998. 10. Xin Ming Zhang, Feng Fu Zou, En BoWang, and Dan Keun SungExploring the Dynamic Nature of Mobile

Nodes for predicting route lifetime in mobile ad hoc networks , IEEE transactions on vehicular technology,vol.59,no.3, march 2010.