(IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 169

Vol. 2, No. 5, May 2010

Energy efficient wireless networks

1
Dr. Neeraj Tyagi, 2 Awadhesh Kumar,.3Ajit Kumar, 4 Er. Rati Agarwal
1
Associate Professor, Computer Science & Engg., Mnnit Allahabad (UP)
Email: neeraj@mnnit.ac.in
2
Research Scholar, Computer Science & Engg., Mnnit Allahabad (UP)

Email: awadheshkumar.knit@gmail.com
3
SR.Lecturer, Deptt. Of MCA. SRMSCET, Bareilly (UP)

Email: ajeetkumarsrms@gmail.com
4
Lecturer, Computer Science & Engg., SRMSWCET, Bareilly (UP)

Email: rati1234@gmail.com

Abstract: Several new network types have emerged over the
last couple of years. Many of these networks are being
connected together to provide mobile users with the capability of
staying always connected to the Internet which requires
seamless transitions from one network to another without
causing interruption to on-going connections. To maintain
connectivity during handoff, all the networks that are accessible
to the mobile station need to be known. The Architectural issues
in all-wireless networks are discussed in this regard. The paper
aims to propose different for the energy-efficient network that
enables fast discovery and selection of available access
networks. We suggest three energy efficient techniques for
MANET point of view.
Keywords: energy efficiency, Architecture of wireless
networks, Minimum energy transmission, energy- aware
protocol, power management, power control and topology
control.
1. Introduction
Wireless networking has witnessed an explosion of interest
from consumers in recent years for its applications in mobile
and personal communications. As wireless networks become
an integral component of the modern communication
infrastructure, energy efficiency will be an important design
consideration due to the limited battery life of mobile
terminals. Power conservation techniques are commonly
used in the hardware design of such systems. Since the
network interface is a significant consumer of power,
considerable research has been devoted to low-power design
of the entire network protocol stack of wireless networks in
an effort to enhance energy efficiency. This paper presents a
comprehensive summary of the various approaches and
techniques addressing energy efficient A wireless sensor
network is a network consisting of spatially distributed
autonomous devices using sensors to cooperatively monitor
physical or environmental conditions. As sensor networks
are large in scale, grouping techniques are required to tackle
their scalability issues. The limited energy reserves of the
autonomous devices require grouping techniques to be
energy-aware and strive to extend the life time of the
network. In this paper we propose an energy efficient group
communication technique that aims at reducing the energy
drain of the group leader nodes and the network as a whole.
Energy management remains a critical problem in wire- less
networks since battery technology cannot keep up with
rising communication expectations. Current approaches to
energy conservation reduce the energy consumption of the
wireless interface either for a given communication task or
during idling. However, a complete solution requires
minimizing the energy spent for both communication (i.e.,
for data and control overhead) and idling. This problem can
be expressed as an energy-efficient network design problem,
which is, not surprisingly, NP-hard.
Energy is a critical resource in the design of wireless
networks since wireless devices are usually powered by
batteries. Battery capacity is finite and the progress of
battery technology is very slow, with capacity expected to
make little improvement in the near future. Under these
conditions, many techniques for conserving power have
been proposed to increase battery life. In this dissertation we
consider many approaches for conserving the energy
consumed by a wireless network interface. One techniques
include the use of power saving mode, which allows a node
to power off its wireless network interface (or enter a doze
state) to reduce energy consumption. The other is to use a
technique that suitably varies transmission power to reduce
energy consumption.
2. Architectural Issues in Wireless Networks
The ad hoc wireless networks are quite different from the
cellular systems that have been developed in the commercial
domain. Cellular systems have fixed base stations, which
communicate among themselves using dedicated non-
wireless lines; thus, the only multicast problems that are
new in those systems involve tracking the mobile users.
However, in ad hoc wireless networks it is possible to
establish a wireless link between any pair of nodes, provided
that each has a transceiver available for this purpose and
170
that the signal-to-noise ratio at the receiving node is
sufficiently high. Thus, unlike the case of wired networks,
the set of network links and their capacities are not
determined a priori, but depend on factors such as distance
between nodes, transmitted power, error-control schemes,
other-user interference, and background noise. Thus, even
when the physical locations of the nodes are fixed, many of
the factors that affect network topology are influenced by the
actions of the network nodes (either those directly
participating in a link, or those contributing to the
interference that affects a link). Furthermore, in ad hoc
networks no distinction can be made between uplink and
downlink traffic, thus greatly complicating the interference
environment. In this paper, we focus on wireless networks
in which the node locations are fixed, and the channel
conditions unchanging. The wireless channel is
distinguished by its broadcast nature; when unidirectional
antennas are used, every transmission by a node can be
received by all nodes that lie within its communication
range. Consequently, if the multicast group membership
includes multiple nodes in the immediate communication
vicinity of the transmitting node, a single transmission
suffices for reaching all these receivers. Hence, there is an
incentive to perform a multicast by using high transmitter
power. Of course, doing so results in interference with more
nodes than if reduced power were used. Thus, there is a
trade-off between the long “reach” of a single transmission
and the interference (and/or delay) it creates. Another
undesirable impact of the use of high transmitter power is
that it results in increased energy usage. Since the
propagation loss varies nonlinearly with distance (at
somewhere between the second and fourth power), in
unicast applications it is best (from the perspective of
transmission energy consumption) to transmit at the lowest
possible power level, even though doing so requires multiple
hops to reach the destination. However, in multicast
applications it is not prudent to draw such conclusions
because the use of higher power may permit simultaneous
connectivity to a sufficiently large number of nodes, so that
the total energy required to reach all members of the
multicast group may be actually reduced. Furthermore, even
for unicast applications, the use of lower power (and, hence,
multiple hops) necessitates the complex coordination of
more signals and, therefore, may actually result in higher
total energy expenditure.Figure1 shows an architecture of a
wireless networks.
Figure1. Architecture of a wireless network
2.1 Multicasting in wireless networks
To date, virtually all of the research and development work
on multicasting has centered on tethered, point-to-point
(typically high speed) networks and on methods of
bandwidth efficient maintenance of multicast group
(IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
Vol. 2, No. 5, May 2010
addresses and routing trees. There are two basic approaches
to multicast tree construction. The first is the use of Source-
Based Trees (SBT), which are rooted at the sender and
which are designed to minimize the number of
transmissions needed to reach all of the members of the
multicast group. The second is the use of Core-Based Trees
(CBT) [5], under which the same tree is used for all
communication within the multicast group. The Sparse
Mode of the Protocol Independent Multicasting (PIM)
protocol [7] can be used with either SBTs or CBTs, whereas
the PIM Dense Mode is based on the use of SBTs. As
pointed out earlier, the characteristics of the wireless
medium and the ad hoc network architecture may render
multicasting techniques developed for no wireless
applications inappropriate, or at least unable to provide
acceptable performance in some scenarios. There are
numerous and complex issues that must be addressed in
wireless multicasting.
3. Energy Efficient Techniques
In this section we are proposing three energy efficient
techniques for ad hoc network environment. The first
technique minimizes route request message. Second
technique optimizes the transmission power at each node
and third techniques increases network capacity by topology
control mechanism.
3.1. Techniques to Minimize Route Request
Let us consider a multi-hop homogeneous wireless network
in which nodes are randomly deployed over certain
geographical area. In this mobile ad hoc networking
environment each mobile node can access the internet
applications via one or more numbers of gateways. The
mobile nodes communicate with the gateways directly
(single hop) or through multi hop depending upon the
transmission range of the node as shown in the figure 2.
Besides the internet access nodes can also transmit data
among themselves. It is assume that the gateways are
stationary. The geographical area covered by gateway is
partitioned into different logical group with unique group
number assigned by the gateways. Groups are overlapping
and there are some nodes present in the overlapping area.
The partitioned is based upon the number of nodes resent in
it. Nodes are categorized into active node (AN) and common
node (CN). Nodes present in the overlapping area of groups
are called common nodes while nodes belonging to any
particular group called active node of that
group.
Figure2. Single Hop and Multihop Communication with
Gateways
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 171
Vol. 2, No. 5, May 2010

It is assumed that overlapping area of the different group farthest node while latter is the power required to reach the
contains enough number of common nodes (CN) as inter- nearest node. The objective of power control here is to
group communication will takes place through them. When minimize the power consumption of a node. It is assumes
any active node wants to send route request (RREQ) that there may exist some intermediate power level between
message it append its group number in the packet and Pmax and Pmin. Let P(uv) be the power needed to support
broadcast the message. Message will forwarded by the other communication from node u to v, we called
node if they belonging to the same group otherwise message it symmetric if P(uv) = P(vu). The power requirement is
will be dropped. When a CN prepares the RREQ message it called Euclidean if it depends upon Euclidean distance ||uv||.
add one group number from the group it belonging It can be calculated as P(uv)= c+ ||uv|| β where c is a positive
depending upon the share index (SI) calculation. SI is constant real number, and β € [2,5], depends upon
calculated by the CN for the all groups it belongs to and transmission environments. max (u) and Pmin(u) are the
appends the group number to the RREQ based on maximum and minimum power level of node u. When P(uv)
maximization value of SI. The SI is calculated as ≥ Pmin(u) and P(uv) ≤ Pmax(u) then communication
between u and v is possible otherwise it is not possible.
When some intermediate energy efficient path exists
between node u and v via intermediate node w then node u
will transmit with P(uw) rather than P(uv). In the figure 3, if
(1)
P(uv) ≤ [P(uw)+P(wv)] and [P(ux)+P(xv)] then
Where SI =1; when each group contains equal number of
communication from u to v will take place through P(uv)
source node and SI = <1; for other case
otherwise communication will through intermediate node w
Here G is the number of group of the common node and gi
or x by the help of P(uw) or P(ux) respectively.
is the numbers of node present in ith group. The SI
calculations are done for load balancing purpose. When SI
value is one, it indicates groups contain equal number of
nodes. If it is less than one, then groups don’t contain equal
number of nodes. In that case common node will join to that
group which will maximize the SI. The objective of
proposed technique is to reduce the number of route request
by putting restriction on intergroup communication. The
node of one group will not forward the RREQ message to
other group. Only common node will support inter-group
communication to reduce the number of RREQ. The
algorithms for SI calculations and sending procedure are Figure3. Power control technique through intermediate node
given below.

Algorithm ROUTE REQUEST Algorithm POWER CONTROL

Input: (1) Multihop wireless network N
Step1: Calculation SI
Output: power levels p for each node for communicating
to other node
begin
1. for each (u, v) do
(2) 2. calculate Pmin(u) and Pmax(u) /* for node u */
Step2: Procedure SENDING (node) 3. calculate P(uv) by Euclidean distance
4. if P(uw) + P(wv) ≤ P(uv) /* u finds any energy efficient
1. if (node == CN) path to v via w */
2. Calculate SI 5. then transmit with P(uw) for v
3. RREQ = RREQ || gn /* append the group number (gn) 6. else transmit with P(uv) for v
depending upon the max.value of SI */ 7. end if
4. Broadcast (RREQ) End
5. else if ( node == AN)
6. RREQ = RREQ || gn /* RREQ containing group number 3.3. Topology Control Technique to Increase Network
of AN */ Capacity
7. Broadcast(RREQ)
8. end if Topology control can be defined as the techniques by which
9. end if network device takes their own decision regarding their
transmission range, in order to satisfy some network
3.2 Power Control Technique constraints. A network topology can be modeled as a graph
G=(V,E), where V represents the set of nodes and E
In this technique we choose an environment where, nodes represents the set of edges. Cover (vi,vj) means node vj is
are deployed randomly in a two dimensional area. It is within transmission range of vi . Initially all nodes are
assumed that each node has at least two power levels such as transmitting with maximum power Pmax. Depending upon
Pmax and Pmin. Former is the power required to reaches the Pmax value node u, (u€V) has a direct communication
172 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
set known as DCS (u). P(uv) denotes the minimum power
required for node u to communicate directly to node v. By
applying topology control we have to get sub graph G'= (V,
E') of G, in G' the node has shorter and fewer numbers of
edges as compare to G. The objective of topology control
here is to remove the energy-inefficient link from the
network. Initially all the node in the network will calculate
their DCS depending upon their maximum transmission
power.
Each node will maintain a node information table
containing information like neighbor_id (NI),
direct_communication_cost(DCC),and
energy_efficient_cost (EEC). Each node has a unique NI.
DCC represents the minimum transmission power required
for a specific neighbor node. DCC of node u to neighbor
node v is represented as DCC(uv) which is same as P(uv)
as described earlier. EEC is initially same as DCC but when
any energy efficient path is obtained through alternate path
ECC is updated. Each node periodically updates their node
information table and broadcast the information to other
node. After a specific time each node will calculate their
DCS by removing energy-inefficient link (if any).
\
Algorithm LINK REMOVAL
Input: (1) Multihop wireless network G=(V,E),
(2) Maximum transmission power
Output: G'= (V, E') , G' has shorter and fewer numbers of
edges as compare to G
Begin
1. Each node broadcast a ―hello" message with its node
information table.
2. If a node u receives the ―hello" message from its
neighbor
3. If u has a power efficient path to node v via k /* k is a
node in alternate path */
4. update (v, P(uv), P(uk) + P(kv) ) into u’s node
information table.
/* energy_efficient_cost =( P(uk) + P(kv )) ≤ P(uv) */
5. Else Insert (v, P(uv), P(uv ) into u’s node information
table./*asenergy_efficient_cost =
direct_communication_cost*/
6. End if.
7. End if.
End
4. Simulation Results
In order to evaluate our power control approach simulation
area of 500mt×500mt were taken. We consider scenario1
with six numbers of nodes and scenario2 with five numbers
of nodes. Nodes are randomly deployed and are in
transmission ranges of each other. In the first scenario
different nodes are placed in different position as shown in
the figure 3. In scenario 1, it is assumed that one hop
communication between sources to destination exists.
It means that source to destination path exist through only
one intermediate node other than direct path. In scenario 2
multi hop communication has been taken into consideration.
In both scenarios node is taken as the source and node 2 is
Vol. 2, No. 5, May 2010
the destination, it is founds that five alternate paths exists in
scenarios 1 and sixteen in scenarios 2. The energy
consumption of each path is measured and it is found that
path through node3 is least. In the scenario 2 five nodes are
placed as shown in the right hand side figure 4. From the
simulation results we measure the energy consumption of all
paths. In both scenarios energy efficient path is the through
node3 although the position of the node3 is different. It is
also observed that in single hop count when the angle of the
intermediate node is more than ninety degree the alternate
path through intermediate node is always energy efficient.
In the first scenario the direct path consumes energy
proportional to 3.200000e+001. and the path through node3
consumes energy proportional to 1.600000e+001.In the
second diagram direct path consume the energy same as first
scenario but the energy efficient path through node3
consumes less which is measured and found proportional to
18. From the both scenario we shows that energy
consumption in intermediate path is better in comparison to
direct path in most of the time.
Figure 4. Energy efficient path through intermediate node
5. Energy Analysis of Routing Protocols
There have been several network routing protocols proposed
for wireless networks that can be examined in the context
of wireless sensor networks. We examine two such
protocols, namely direct communication with the base
station and minimum-energy multi-hop routing using our
sensor network and radio models.
(3)
(4)
In addition, we discuss a conventional clustering approach
to routing and the drawbacks of using such an approach
when the nodes are all energy-constrained using a direct
communication protocol, each sensor sends its data directly
to the base station. If the base station is far away from the
nodes, direct communication will require a large amount of
transmit power from each node (since in Equation 1 is
d
large). This will quickly drain the battery of the nodes and
reduce the system lifetime. However, the only receptions in
this protocol occur at the base station, so if either the base
station is close to the nodes, or the energy required to
receive data is large, this may be an acceptable (and possibly
optimal) method of communication. The second
conventional approach we consider is a “minimum-energy”
routing protocol. There are several power-aware routing

protocols discussed in the literature [6, 9, 10, 1]. In these
protocols, nodes route data destined ultimately for the base
station through intermediate nodes. Thus nodes act as
routers for other nodes’ data in addition to sensing the
environment. These protocols differ in the way the routes
are chosen. Some of these protocols [6, 10, 1], only consider
the energy of the transmitter and neglect the energy
dissipation of the receivers in determining the routes. In this
case, the intermediate nodes are chosen such that the
transmit amplifier energy is minimized; thus node A would
transmit to node C through node B if and only if:
However, for this minimum-transmission-energy (MTE)
routing protocol, rather than just one (high-energy) transmit
of the data, each data message must go through (low n
energy) transmits and receives. Depending on the relative
n
costs of the transmit amplifier and the radio electronics, the
total energy expended in the system might actually be
greater using MTE routing than direct transmission to the
base station. To illustrate this point, consider the linear
network shown in Figure 4, where the distance between the
nodes is r.
Figure 5. Simple linear network.
If we consider the energy expended transmitting a single -
bit message from a node located a distance from the base
nr
station using the direct communication approach and
Equations 1 and 2, we have:
In MTE routing, each node sends a message to the closest
node on the way to the base station. Thus the node located a
distance from the base station would require transmits a
nr n
distance and receives.
r n 1
Therefore, direct communication requires less energy than
MTE routing if:
Using Equations 1 - 6 and the random 100-node network
shown in Figure 3, we simulated transmission of data from
every node to the base station (located 100 m from the
(IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 173
Vol. 2, No. 5, May 2010
closest sensor node, at (x=0, y=-100)) using MATLAB.
Figure 5 shows the total energy expended in the system as
the network diameter increases from 10 m 10 m to 100 m
_ _
100 m and the energy expended in the radio electronics
increases from 10 nJ/bit to 100 nJ/bit, for the scenario where
each node has a 2000-bit data packet to send to the base
station. This shows that, as predicted by our analysis above,
when transmission energy is on the same order as receive
energy, which occurs when transmission distance is short
and/or the radio electronics energy is high, direct
transmission is more energy-efficient on a global scale than
MTE routing. Thus the most energy-efficient protocol to use
depends on the network topology and radio parameters of
the system.
Figure 6. 100node random network.
It is clear that in MTE routing, the nodes closest to the base
station will be used to route a large number of data messages
to the base station. Thus these nodes will die out quickly,
causing the energy required to get the remaining data to the
base station to increase and more nodes to die. This will
create a cascading effect that will shorten system lifetime. In
addition, as nodes close to the base station die, that area of
the environment is no longer being monitored. To prove this
point, we ran simulations using the random 100-node
k
network shown in Figure 4 and had each sensor send a
2000-bit data packet to the base station during each time
step or “round” of the simulation. After the energy
dissipated in a given node reached a set threshold, that node
was considered dead for the remainder of the simulation.
Figure 5 shows the number of sensors that remain alive after
each round for direct transmission and MTE routing with
each node initially given 0.5 J of energy.
Figure 7. Sensors that remain alive (circles) and those that
are dead (dots) after 180 rounds with 0.5 J/node for (a)
direct transmission and (b) MTE routing.
This plot shows that nodes die out quicker using MTE
routing than direct transmission. Figure 6 shows that nodes
closest to the base station are the ones to die out first for
MTE routing, whereas nodes furthest from the base station
174
are the ones to die out first for direct transmission. This is as
expected, since the nodes close to the base station are the
ones most used as “routers” for other sensors’ data in MTE
routing, and the nodes furthest from the base station have
the largest transmit energy in direct communication. A final
conventional protocol for wireless networks is clustering,
where nodes are organized into clusters that communicate
with a local base station, and these local base stations
transmit the data to the global base station, where it is
accessed by the end-user. This greatly reduces the distance
nodes need to transmit their data, as typically the local base
station is close to all the nodes in the cluster.
Thus, clustering appears to be an energy-efficient
communication protocol. However, the local base station is
assumed to be a high-energy node; if the base station is an
energy-constrained node, it would die quickly, as it is being
heavily utilized. Thus, conventional clustering would
perform poorly for our model of micro sensor networks. The
Near Term Digital Radio (NTDR) project [7, 9], an army-
sponsored program, employs an adaptive clustering
approach, similar to our work discussed here. In this work,
cluster-heads change as nodes move in order to keep the
network fully connected. However, the NTDR protocol is
designed for long-range communication, on the order of 10s
of kilometers, and consumes large amounts of power, on the
order of 10s of Watts. Therefore, this protocol also does not
fit our model of sensor networks.
6. Approaches
In this section we discuss several of the multicasting
algorithms we have studied; full descriptions are available
in [10]. In this paper we define the notion of the cost
associated with the support of a multicast tree to be the
power required to reach all destination nodes; thus, it is the
sum of the powers at all transmitting nodes. This is a metric
that is used as the basis of some of our algorithms. However,
performance is always judged by the “yardstick” metric, the
multicast efficiency, and the blocking probability. Each
transmission by a node is characterized by its transmitter
power level, as well as a designation of which (possibly
several) of the nodes receiving this transmission are to
forward it toward which of the ultimate destination nodes.
In all cases, we use greedy algorithms, which attempt to
optimize performance on a “local” (call-by-call) basis.
When the number of transceivers at each node (T) is finite,
it may not be possible to establish minimum-energy trees
(even on a local basis) because of the lack of resources
(transceivers) at one or more nodes. In this case, the greedy
algorithms discussed here are applied to the subset of nodes
that have non-zero residual capacity.
6.1. A unicast-based multicast algorithm
A straightforward approach is the use of multicast trees that
consist of the superposition of the best unicast paths to each
individual destination (see, e.g., [2]). It is assumed that an
underlying unicast algorithm (such as the Bellman–Ford or
Dijkstra algorithm) provides “minimum-distance” paths
from each node to every destination. However, the
minimization of unicast costs does not necessarily minimize
the cost of the multicast tree, as illustrated in figure 5,
which shows a source and two destinations. Figure 5(a)
(IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
Vol. 2, No. 5, May 2010
shows the best unicast paths that reach the two destinations,
and figure 5(b) shows the best multicast tree. The use of the
best unicast paths fails to discover the path that reaches a
neighbor of both destinations over a common path, thereby
resulting in lower overall cost. Also, the use of the best
unicast paths fails to incorporate the “multicast advantage,”
which was discussed in section 3. Therefore, the trees
obtained based on unicast information are not expected to
provide optimal multicast performance. Nevertheless, they
do perform reasonably well, and with considerably reduced
complexity as compared to the calculation of
truly optimal multicast trees. Summarizing the above, we
have:
ALGORITHM 1 (Least unicast cost). A minimum-cost
path to each reachable destination is established. The
multicast tree consists of the superposition of the unicast
paths. Paths to all reachable destinations are established,
regardless of the cost required to do so. This algorithm is
scalable.
Figure 9. Unicast-based vs multicast-based trees: (a) best unicast paths,(b) best
multicast tree.
6.2. Algorithms based on pruning MSTs
One approach we have taken in the development of
heuristics for multicasting is the pruning of broadcast
spanning trees. To obtain the multicast tree, the broadcast
tree is pruned by eliminating all transmissions that are not
needed to reach the members of the multicast group. We
noted earlier that, for the case of wired networks, the
determination of minimum-cost broadcast (spanning) trees
is considerably easier than the determination of minimum
cost multicast trees. Nevertheless, the determination of
minimum-cost broadcast trees for wireless networks remains
a difficult problem for which no scalable solutions appear to
be available at this time. In small network examples we
have determined minimum-energy spanning trees by using
the recursive technique of section .3; in moderate to large
networks it is necessary to use heuristics. In this subsection
we discuss the main features of three algorithms that are
based on the technique of pruning.
ALGORITHM 2 (Pruned link-based MST). This algorithm
is based on the use of the standard MST formulation in
which a link cost is associated with each pair of nodes (i.e.,
the power to sustain the link); thus, the “wireless multicast
advantage” is ignored in the construction of the MST. Since
the MST problem is of polynomial complexity, this
algorithm is scalable. To obtain the multicast tree, the MST
is pruned by eliminating all transmissions that are not
needed to reach the members of the multicast group. Once
the MST is constructed in this manner, the evaluation of its
cost (i.e., the total power needed to sustain the broadcast
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 175
tree) does take into consideration the wireless multicast
advantage.
ALGORITHM 3 (Pruned node-based MST). This
algorithm requires the determination of the minimum-
energy spanning tree that is rooted at the Source node.
Unlike algorithm 2, the wireless multicast advantage is
taken into consideration in the determination of the power
needed to sustain the tree.
The recursive algorithm of section .3 can be used to
determine the MST. Thus, this method is not scalable. Once
the MST has been determined in this manner, it is pruned as
in algorithm 2.
ALGORITHM 4 (Pruned node-based spanning tree).
A heuristic is used to determine a suboptimal spanning
tree.10 Once the spanning tree has been determined in this
manner, it is pruned as in algorithm 2. Construction of the
spanning tree begins at the Source node. Its transmission
power is chosen to maximize the following
“n/p” metric:
At the next stage, each of the nodes that has been “covered”
(i.e., the Source node plus all nodes within its
communication range based on the calculation in the first
stage) evaluates the n/p metric for all possible sets of
neighbors (however, in computing this metric, only “new”
nodes, i.e., nodes not previously covered, are included in the
number of destinations). Note that it is possible to increase
the transmission power that was assigned to a node in an
earlier stage. This procedure is repeated until all nodes are
covered.
6.3. Additional algorithms with high complexity
The following algorithms require an exhaustive search, and
are thus not scalable. Nevertheless, they provide a useful
benchmark that permits us to evaluate the performance of
the other algorithms for small network examples.
ALGORITHM 5 (Least multicast cost). As in algorithm 1,
paths to all reachable destinations are established, regardless
of the cost required to do so. An exhaustive search of all
multicast trees that reach all reachable destinations is
performed. The tree with the lowest cost is chosen.
ALGORITHM 6 (Maximum local yardstick). The local
yardstick function yi is computed for each arriving multicast
request i. Multicast trees are formed to all subsets of
intended destinations. The tree that results in the maximum
value of yi is chosen. This tree does not necessarily include
all reachable destinations.
6.4 Energy efficient greedy scheme
The concept of neighbor classification based on node energy
level and their distances has been used in Energy Efficient
Greedy Scheme (EEGS) has been used to cater of the weak
node problem. Some neighbors may be more favorable to
Vol. 2, No. 5, May 2010
choose than the others, not only based on distance, but also
based on energy characteristics. It suggests that a neighbor
selection scheme should avoid the weak nodes. If the
geographic forwarding scheme purely
based on greedy forwarding attempts to minimize the
number of hops by maximizing the geographic distance
covered at each hop, it is likely to incur significant energy
expenditure due to retransmission on the weak nodes. On
the other hand, if the forwarding mechanism attempts to
maximize per hop reliability by forwarding only to close
neighbors with good nodes, it may cover only small
geographic distance at each hop. It would also result in
greater energy expenditure due to the need for more
transmission hops for each packet to reach the destination.
So in both cases energy is not being conserved to increase
the lifetime of the network. Therefore, the strategy used in
the proposed Energy Efficient Greedy Scheme (EEGS) first
calculates the average distance of all the neighbors of
transmitting node and checks their energy levels. Finally, it
selects the neighbor which is alive (i.e. having energy level
above than the set threshold) and having the maximum
energy plus whose distance is equal to or less than the
calculated average distance among its entire neighbors.
Hence, the proposed scheme uses Energy Efficient routing to
select the neighbor that has sufficient energy level and is
closest to the destination for forwarding the query.
7. Conclusion
In this paper we have argued that optimal techniques and
approaches for enhancing the communication and data
exchange between wireless networks. The schemes
discussed in the paper reduce the overall energy, while our
spreading approaches aim at distributing the traffic in a
more balanced way. We note that our basic ideas and
techniques should be able to enhance other routing protocols
as well.
Also In this paper, we reviewed some of the recent work
done in mobile ad hoc network considering energy as the
key issue. It is found that most of the study discusses the
energy issue at data link and network layer. We suggest
three energy efficient techniques for MANET point of view.
Route request minimization technique can be done by
implementing logical grouping; power control techniques
reduce the transmission power of a node while topology
control approach increases the network longevity by
satisfying network constraints. The simulation results
presented in section 4.0, suggests that multi-hop is ideal for
energy point of view but the limitation is the increase
chance of link failure.
References
[1] C.E.Perkins, "Ad Hoc Networking", Addison Wesley,
2001.
[2] IEEE 802.11 Working Group, "Wireless LAN Medium
Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY)
Specification",1999.
[3] D.Zhou and.T.H.Lai, " A scalable and adaptive clock
synchronization protocol for IEEE 802.11-based
multihop ad hoc networks," IEEE International
176 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
Vol. 2, No. 5, May 2010

Conference on Mobile Ad hoc and Sensor Systems
Conference, 2005 , Nov 2005.
[4] S.Singh and C.S.Raghavendra, "PAMAS power aware
multi-access protocol with signaling for ad hoc
networks," ACM Computer Communication Review,
vol. 28(3), pp.5-26, July 1998.
[5] L.M. Freeny, ―Energy efficient communication in ad
hoc networks," Mobile Ad Hoc Networking, Wiley-
IEEE press, pp.301-328, 200.
[6] E.S.Jung and N. H. Vaidya, "An energy efficient MAC
protocol for wireless LANs," IEEE INFOCOM, June
2002.
[7] [E.S.Jung and N.H.Vaidya, "A Power Control MAC
Protocol for Ad Hoc Networks," ACM Intl. Conf.
Mobile Computing and Networking (MOBICOM),
September 2002.
[8] B.Chen,K.Jamieson,H.Balakrishnan and R.Morris,
"Span:An energy efficient coordination algorithm for
topology maintenance in ad hoc wireless networks,"
ACM Wireless Networks Journal, vol. 8(5), pp. 81-9,
September 2002.
[9] P.K.Sahoo,J.P.Sheu and K.Y.Hsieh, ―Power control
based topology construction for the distributed
wireless sensor networks," Science Direct,Computer
Communications, vol. 30, pp. 277-2785, June 2007.
[10] R. Ramanathan, R. Rosales-Hain, Topology control of
multihop wireless networks using transmit power
adjustment, in:Proceedings of the 19th INFOCOM,
Tel Aviv, Israel, March 2000, pp. 0–13.
[11] Barrenechea, G.; Beferull-Lozano, B. & Vetterli,
M.(200). “Lattice Sensor Networks:Capacity Limits,
Optimal Routing and Robustness to Failures,”
Proceedings of thethird international symposium on
Information processing in sensor networks, pp. 186–
195,Berkeley, California, April 200.
of Computer Science & Engineering at Kamla Nehru Institute of
Technology, Sultanpur (Uttar Pradesh) as Lecturer in 2000 and
became Assistant Professor in 2007. His teaching and research
interests include Computer Networks, Wireless Networks and
Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks. He is pursuing PhD program in the
department of Computer Science & Engineering, MNNIT,
Allahabad (Uttar Pradesh) in the area of Mobile Ad-hoc Networks.
Ajeet Kumar Post graduated from Madan
Mohan Malaviya Engineering college,
Gorakhpur (U.P.) in Master of Computer
Application 2003. I pursuing our Master degree
(M.Tech.) in Software Engineering from
SRMS CET Bareilly affiliated to Uttar Pradesh
Technical University, Lucknow. I have joined
the department of Master of Computer
Application in SRMS CET Bareilly (Uttar
Pradesh) as Lecturer in 2003. His teaching and
research interests include Object Oriented System, Software
Engineering, Mobile Computing, Wireless Networks and Mobile
Ad-Hoc Networks.
Rati Agarwal received her B.Tech degree
from Uttar Pradesh Technical University
Lucknow. She is pursuing M.Tech from
Karnataka University. Presently, she is
working as a Lecturer (CS/IT Deptt) in
SRMSWCET, Bareilly. She has written a
book on “Soft Computing”. She has attended
a faculty development program based on
“Research methodologies” and has also
undergone a training in Infosys Campus
Connect Program held at S.R.M.S.C.E.T. Bareilly.

Authors Profile
Dr. Neeraj Tyagi has completed B.E. degree
in Computer Science & Engineering from
Motilal Nehru National Institute of
Technology, Allahabad (Uttar Pradesh) in
1987, his M.E. degree in Computer Science &
Engineering from MNNIT, Allahabad (Uttar
Pradesh) in 1997 and PhD degree in
Computer Science & Engineering from
MNNIT, Allahabad (Uttar Pradesh) in 2008.His teaching and
research interests including Computer Networks, Mobile Ad-Hoc
Networks, wireless Networks and Operating Systems. He joined
the department of Computer Science & Engineering in 1989 at
MNNIT, Allahabad and he has Also worked in Warman
International- Australia, G.E (Capital) - U.S.A, Electronic Data
Systems- U.S.A during 1999-2001. Presently he is working as
Associate Professor in the department of Computer Science &
Engineering, MNNIT, Allahabad(Uttar Pradesh), India.

Awadhesh Kumar graduated from Govind

Ballabh Pant Engineering college, Pauri
(Garhwal) in Computer Science &
Engineering in 1999. He obtained his Master
degree (M.Tech.) in Computer Science from
Uttar Pradesh Technical University,
Lucknow in 2006. He joined the department