Preventing Link Failure and Increasing Network Life Time Using MEMHRP and S-MAC Protocol in MANETS

ISSN: 2395-0560
International Research Journal of Innovative Engineering

www.irjie.com
Volume1, Issue 3 of March 2015
Preventing Link Failure and Increasing Network Life

Time Using MEMHRP and S-MAC Protocol in MANETS
A.
ANJANEYULU1 , CH. SITA KUMARI2
Department Information Technology, Gayatri Vidya Parishad College of Engineering (Autonomous), Visahkhapatnam, 530048,
India (Student M.tech)
2
Department Information Technology, Gayatri Vidya Parishad College of Engineering (Autonomous), Visakhapatnam, 530048,
India (Sr.Assistant Professor)
Abstract:
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs) also called mesh networks, consist of a large number of mobile nodes that communicate with each other in the absence of any fixed infrastructure or centralized administration. The principle characteristics of MANET are the dynamic topology and the limited battery power of mobile nodes. The discharge of the battery
causes many problems such as the loss of the packets and the re-initialization of route discovery which leads to lot of
bandwidth consumption, increase in the delay and decrease in the throughput. Due to mobility of nodes probability of link
failure is high as nodes can move away from the active path and remains no longer accessible. In this paper we propose
new Minimum Energy Maximum Hop count based Routing Protocol (MEMHRP) for preventing link failure and in addition to increase the network life time by using power saving protocol (SMAC). The entire mechanism is based on AODV
reactive on-demand routing protocol.
Keywords: MANETS, AODV, MEMHRP, Power Saving Protocol (SMAC), Local Route Repair.
I.
Introduction
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETS) [1] are group of wireless mobile nodes connected with each other without any central access point. Each node operates not only as a node, but also as a router to forward the packets. The principle characteristics of MANET are the dynamic topology and the limited battery power of mobile nodes. The discharge of the battery
causes many problems initialization of route discovery which leads to lot of bandwidth consumption, increase in the delay
and decrease in the throughput. Due to mobility of nodes probability of link failure is high as nodes can move away from
the active path and remains no longer accessible.
Classification of Routing Protocols: MANET routing protocols are classified into three major categories: proactive, reactive and hybrid.
Proactive Routing: These types of protocols are called table driven protocols in which, the information of the route to all
the nodes is stored in routing table. Packets are transferred over the predefined route specified in the routing table. In this
scheme, the packet forwarding is done faster but the routing overhead is higher because all the routes have to be defined
before transferring the packets. Examples are Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) and Optimized Link State
Routing (OLSR).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2015 ,IRJIE-All Rights Reserved
Page -94
ISSN: 2395-0560

www.irjie.com
Reactive Routing: It is also called on demand routing. It is more efficient than proactive routing. The main idea behind
this type of routing is to find a route between a source and destination whenever that route is needed whereas in proactive
protocols we were maintaining all routes without regarding its state of use. Discovering the route on demand avoids the
cost of maintaining routes that are not being used and also controls the traffic of the network because it doesnt send excessive control messages. Examples are Ad-hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR).
Hybrid Routing: Hybrid protocols are the combinations of reactive and proactive protocols and takes advantages of these
two protocols and as a result, routes are found quickly in the routing zone. Example is ZRP (Zone Routing Protocol).
II. Survey on Power Aware Routing Protocol for MANET :

1.Minimum Total Transmission Power Routing (MTPR)[2]:In this protocol, the route selection mainly based on
trnsmision power of nodes.This protocol selects path from source to destinationwhich path having more hops than other
routing paths. First the source node broadcast the route request to all neighbours. After that which nodes has receive route
request msg then those nodes broadcast to their neighbours.This process continues until destination reaches.Once
desination reached it send route reply along with transmission power values of each node in
each path to source.Then
source calculate the total transmission power for each path from source to destination. After it selects path which path
having minimum total tranmission power among all routes from source to destination.Select the route with minimum total
transmission power among all routes.The main drawback of this protocl is,it does not reflect directly on the lifetime of
each host.
2. Minimum Battery Cost Routing (MBCR)[3]:This protocol mainly based on battery cost of nodes.Battery cost function
is the inverse of battery capacity.If battery capacity decreases then tha
value of cost function will increases. This protocl
selets path from source to destination based on battery battery cost function. If all nodes have similar battery capacity from
source to destination then it will select which path has minimum hop count.First find the total battery cost for each path
from source to destination. After that select the route from source to destination which path having minimum total cost
among all routes for data transmission.Finally data send via selected path from source to destination.
3. Min-Max Battery Cost Routing (MMBCR)[4]:It is also similar to minimum battery cost routing protcol but in this the
path is selected based on instead of summing the battery cost function of all node from source to destination, selects the
batterry cost which path having maximum cost for all the routes.Select amximum cost function for each path from source to
destination. After that, source select route with minimum cost function among all the routes. The main disdvantage of this
protocol is, there is no guarantee that minimum total transmission path will be selected and also it
consume more power
to transmit user traffic.

4. Conditional Max-Min Battery Capacity Routing (CMMBCR):This protocol uses battery capacity instead of using
cost function for route selction. In this,protocl route selection mainly based on battery capacity threshold ( Y ). First,to
find the minimum capacity ( Rj ) among all nodesfor each route.After that compare Rj >= Y ,it is true for some or all
routes between a source and destination.If above condition is true, it select path among all routes.If it is not true,then it
select the route i with the maximum battery capacity.
5.
Stable Path Routing Protocol(SPR)[5]:The goal of this protocol
is to find an optimal route from a source to a
destination. First, Source node broadcasts a RREQ (route request) packet to their neighbor nodes. When an intermediate
node receives any RREQ packet from their neighbors, then it calculate minimum remaining energy life time(ML) and
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page -96
ISSN: 2395-0560

www.irjie.com
then send to their neoghbors RREQ along with ML value. This process repeats until reaches destination.once destination
reached, then it selets path having minimum remaing energy life time value.After that destination gives RREP(route reply)
only selected path to source. After source receiving route reply message from destination,it simply send data via
selected
path to destination. The drawback of this protocol is, if any failures occur while transimitting data,the process of
re-initialization of route discovery is invoked.Due to this, lot of bandwidth consumptionand increase delay and then
overall decreases throughput.
6.
Power and Delay-aware Multi-path Routing Protocol(PDMRP)[6]:The main goal of this protocol is to select
multi-paths with the longest lifetime from source to destination for increse the network performance. In this protocol,we
need to compute the Cost(called C) of each path by using the following equation:
C=ML/NH
where NH represents the number of hops in that route.
First source node broadcasts a RREQ (route request) message to their neighbor nodes. When an intermediate node
receives any RREQ packet from their neighbors, then it calculate minimum remaining energy life time(ML) and then
send to their neighbors RREQ along with ML value.This process repeats until reaches destination. Once destinatin
reached,it send RREP packet to the source along with ML values.After that source node calculate cost for every route by
using above equation and then selects which route having highest.Finally source send data via selected path.The
disadvantage of this protocol is minimum energy routes will suffer with heavy load, because the number of hop count is
less in that route.And in MANETS topology changes dynamically every time. In existing system uses backup paths when
the link failures occur, but it is not useful in MANETS.
7. Min Energy Max Hop Count Based Routing Protocol(MEMHRP): In this paper we combine some advantages of
these existing routing protocols. Indeed, we propose a new routing protocol called Min Energy Max Hop Count Based
Routing Protocol(MEMHRP). This is a new protocol used for to balance the load on nodes. So we can send data efficiently
without any link failures throughout data transmission. It is similar to Power and Delay-aware Multi-path Routing
Protocol(PDMRP), which will be described with its limitations below. Our proposed protocol will select path which have
minimum residual energy and maximum hop count. And also in this used two existing mechanism are SMAC protocol for
to increase the life time of network and local route repair for reduce the delay and reduce the bandwidth consumption. To
evaluate the performance of our proposed protocol, we compare it with the PDMRP routing protocol. The remaining part of
this paper is organized as follows: In section III, we describe the PDMRP routing protocol as well as its limitations. In section IV, we present our proposed routing protocol. In section V, we present the performance evaluation results of our routing protocol. Finally, we conclude this paper in section VI.
III. Existing
System
Power and Delay-aware Multi-path Routing Protocol (PDMRP) is to select multi-paths with the longest lifetime in the
network without performance degradation in terms of delay time. To achieve this goal, we need first to compute the Cost
(called C) of each route by using the following equation:
C=ML/NH
Where ML is minimum remaining life time in that path Where NH is number of hops in that path.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page -97
ISSN: 2395-0560

www.irjie.com
In this algorithm, first sender broadcast the RREQ message to neighbor nodes. Which node has receive RREQ message
from source node or their neighbor node then that nodes are calculates their residual energy. This process continues until
reach the destination node. After receiving different RREQ messages from different paths, the destination node send RREP
messages to all requested paths. Source node receives different RREP messages form destination node then it calculates the
cost of each path. Source node select the path depends upon on cost value, it selects highest cost path as primary path and
second highest path as secondary path and etc. Finally source send data via selected primary path. Suppose if any link failures occur it come back to source and take secondary path for transferring data from source to destination. The main drawback of existing system is it uses backup paths for data transfer if in case of link failures , why because in mobile ad hoc
networks each node has mobility nature due to this mobility the topology changes dynamically every time. Another drawback is, in existing system select paths based on cost value and in that path contain only minimum hop count paths due this
the entire load applied on that node , so that in this case nodes consumes more energy to send data form source node to destination node.
3.1 Flowchart for Existing System
Problem in Existing System:
Minimum energy routes will suffer with heavy load, because the number of hop count is less in that route.
Energy consumption is more in existing routing protocol because all nodes are active throughout entire
transmission of data.
Backup paths are not suitable for every time in MANETS because of node mobility.
IV. Proposed System:

In this propose system we propose new routing protocol is Min Energy Max Hop count based Routing Protocol
(MEMHRP) to balance the load on nodes and also used two existing mechanisms are local route repair and sensor media
access protocol (SMAC). Local route repair mechanism for avoiding the routing overheads in MANETS and SMAC protocol is used for to increase the network life time.
MEMHRP:
The working of Min Energy Max Hop count based Routing Protocol is based on AODV (Ad-Hoc On-demand Distance
Vector) reactive routing protocol. The working of MMEHRP is similar to existing system, the existing system select path
based on cost value but whereas MMEHRP select path based upon minimum reaming energy and maximum hop count.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page -98
ISSN: 2395-0560

www.irjie.com
In this algorithm, first sender broadcast the RREQ message to neighbor nodes. Which node has receive RREQ message from source node or their neighbor node then those nodes are calculates their residual energy. This process continues
until reach the destination node. After receiving different RREQ messages from different paths, the destination node send
RREP messages to all requested paths. Source node receives different RREP messages form destination node then it select
the which path have minimum residual energy and maximum hop count. Finally source send data via selected path.
Local Route Repair:

On demand routing protocol discovers the route only when it is needed. Once a route is established, the node uses it until
the destination is reached or the route expires. Due to node mobility, node move away from the path thus link breaks. When
a link breaks, there are two possibilities either the data transfer is stopped permanently or link is repaired for further data
transfer. Link repair is of two types as in [7], one is source repair and the other is local repair. In source repair, route is repaired by path maintenance [8] method, when the link is broken, an error message is sent to notify the source node. Then
the source can reinitiate the route discovery process again if the route is still needed. In this mechanism, the network is
flooded with routing messages. Source repair works fine for small network but in large networks it induces more routing
overhead. In local repair [9], when the link breaks, the node upstream to that link can repair the link, by initiating a route
discovery process. As intermediate node may be closer to the destination than the source node, so the route discovery must
be fast with less routing overhead.
Sensor Media Access Protocol (SMAC):

SMAC [10] protocol is a medium access control (MAC) protocol designed for wireless sensor networks. Wireless sensor
networks use battery-operated computing and sensing devices, so reducing energy consumption is the primary goal in
SMAC protocol. SMAC uses a few novel techniques to reduce energy consumption and support self-configuration. It enables low-duty-cycle operation in a multi-hop network. Nodes form virtual clusters based on common sleep schedules to
reduce control overhead and enable traffic-adaptive wakeup. SMAC uses in-channel signaling to avoid overhearing unnecessary traffic. Finally, SMAC applies message passing to reduce contention latency for applications that require in-network
data processing. The primary mechanisms SMAC adopts as follows:
4.1 Flowchart for Local Route Repair mechanism
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page -99
ISSN: 2395-0560

www.irjie.com
A. Periodic Listen and Sleep

In many sensor network applications, nodes are idle for long time if no sensing event happens. Given the fact that the data
rate is very low during this period, it is not necessary to keep nodes listening all the time. SMAC reduces the listen time by
putting nodes into periodic sleep state. The basic scheme is that each node sleeps for some time, and then wakes up and
listens to see if any other node wants to talk to it. During sleeping, the node turns off its radio, and sets a timer to awake
itself later. All nodes are free to choose their own listen/sleep schedules. However, to reduce control overhead, it prefers
neighboring nodes to synchronize together. Nodes exchange their schedules by periodically broadcasting a SYNC packet to
their immediate neighbors.
B. Collision Avoidance
If multiple neighbors want to talk to a node at the same time, they will try to send when the node starts listening. In this
case, they need to contend for the medium. SMAC adopts virtual and physical carrier sense, and the RTS/CTS exchange for
the hidden terminal problem. All senders perform carrier sense before initiating a transmission. If a node fails to get the
medium, it goes to sleep and wakes up when the receiver is free and listening again. Broadcast packets are sent without
using RTS/CTS. Unicast packets follow the sequence of RTS/CTS/DATA/ACK between the sender and the receiver. After
the successful exchange of RTS and CTS, the two nodes will use their normal sleep time for data packet transmission. They
do not follow their sleep schedules until they finish the transmission.
C. Adaptive Listening
The scheme of periodic listen and sleep is able to significantly reduce the time spent on idle listening when traffic load is
light. However, when a sensing event indeed happens, it is desirable that the sensing data can be passed through the network without too much delay. SMAC proposes an important technique, called adaptive listen, to improve the latency
caused by the periodic sleep of each node in a multihop network. The basic idea is to let the node who overhears its neighbors transmissions (ideally only RTS or CTS) wake up for a short period of time at the end of the transmission. In this
way, if the node is the next-hop node, its neighbor is able to immediately pass the data to it instead of waiting for its scheduled listen time. If the node does not receive anything during the adaptive listening, it will go back to sleep until its next
scheduled listen time.
D. Overhearing Avoidance
SMAC tries to avoid overhearing by letting interfering nodes go to sleep after they hear an RTS or CTS packet. Since
DATA packets are normally much longer than control packets, the approach prevents neighboring nodes from overhearing
long DATA packets and following ACKs.
E. Message Passing
A message is the collection of meaningful, interrelated units of data. The receiver usually needs to obtain all the data units
before it can perform in-network data processing or aggregation. The disadvantages of transmission a long message as a
single packet is the high cost of re-transmitting the long packet if only a few bits have been corrupted in the first transmission. However, if we fragment the long message into many independent small packets, we have to pay the penalty of large
control overhead and longer delay. The reason is that the RTS and CTS packets are used in contention for each independent
packet. SMAC fragments the long message into many small fragments, and transmit them in a burst. Only one RTS and
one CTS are used. They reserve the medium for transmitting all the fragments. Every time a data fragment is transmitted,
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page -100
ISSN: 2395-0560

www.irjie.com
the sender waits for an ACK from the receiver. If it fails to receive the ACK, it will extend the reserved transmission time
for one more fragment, and re-transmit the current fragment immediately.
V.
Results and Analysis:
To evaluate our proposed routing protocol (MEMHRP), an extensive simulation study is performed using the NS-2 simulator [11]. We compare this proposed protocol with the PDMRP routing protocols. The simulation is carried out for 100
seconds and using a topology size of 1000 meter * 1000 meter. We use the two Ray ground as a model of propagation and
the Constant Bit Rate (CBR) as a traffic type.
In this section, we evaluate the performance of the different routing protocols using the following metrics:
Throughput: It represents the average number of bits received successfully by a destination node per second.
Loss rate: Represents the average number of lost bits per second.
Mean end-to-end delay: represents the average of the difference between the time of the packet delivery to the final destination and the generation time of this packet.
Local Route Repair:
Figure 5.1 represents the throughput versus time. We see that the throughput increases for the two routing protocols corresponding with time. We also note that our proposed protocol provides the highest throughput. This is because of Local
Route Repair mechanism in AODV routing protocol. Moreover, Local Route Repair mechanism reduces the delay and decrease the bandwidth consumption comparative to PDMRP routing protocol.
Fig 5.1. Xgraph for Time vs Throughput
MEMHRP:
Figure 5.2 represents the average hop count versus energy consumption. We see that the graph plots energy consumption
for the two routing protocols corresponding with average hop count. We also note that our proposed protocol MEMHRP
consumes less power than PDMRP. This is because of MMEHRP select path based upon minimum reaming energy and
maximum hop count. Moreover, our proposed routing protocol reduces the energy consumption and also prevent the link
failures in mobile ad hoc networks.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page -101
ISSN: 2395-0560

www.irjie.com
Fig 5.2. Avg Hopcount vs Energy Consumption
SMAC:
Figure 5.3 represents the passive nodes (nodes are not in use) versus remaining energy. We see that the graph plots remaining energy for the two routing protocols corresponding with passive nodes. We also note that our proposed protocol
SMAC saves more power than PDMRP when nodes are not involved in data transmission. SMAC reduces the power consumption by changing the node states from sleep state to active and active to sleep state. Moreover, SMAC protocol is better than PDMRP.
Fig 5.3.Passive nodes (nodes are not in use) vs remaining energy
VI.
Conclusion:
The power is a major constraint in ad hoc networks since the nodes operate with limited battery life. Hence, the routing
protocols in this type of networks must be developed to consider power aware as a primary objective. Also, the support of
QoS requirements in terms of delay and bandwidth becomes a challenge due to the dynamic nature of ad hoc networks. In
this paper we proposed a new routing protocol for ad hoc networks. Our proposed protocol does not consider only the battery power as a major challenge, but it also aims to satisfy QoS requirements (delay and bandwidth).
The simulation results show that the proposed protocol significantly outperforms the PDMRP protocols in terms of
throughput, end-to-end delay and loss rate and energy consumption. Indeed, Local Route Repair provides the shortest
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page -102
ISSN: 2395-0560

www.irjie.com
end-to-end delay and reduce bandwidth consumption because when the link breaks, the node upstream to that link can repair the link, by initiating a route discovery process. As intermediate node may be closer to the destination than the source
node, so the route discovery must be fast with less routing overhead. Further, our proposed protocol MEMHRP performs
better in terms to balance the load and throughput, packet loss as it takes into account the battery life of nodes and hop
count. And SMAC protocol is used to save the energy of wireless mobile nodes. More investigations are still needed to
evaluate the performance of our routing protocol for interactive real time applications such as Voice over IP (VoIP).
References:
[1] G. Perkins, Ad Hoc Networking, New York: Addison Wesley, 2000.
[2] Divya sharma, Ashwini kush ,Power and mobility aware protocol for adhoc network, International Journal of Engineering and
Technology, Vol.3, No.2, April 2011.
[3] Singh, M. Woo and C.S. Raghavendra, "Power- Aware Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks", MobiCom '98 Proceedings of the 4th
annual ACM/IEEE International , Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking,1998.
[4] M Lotfi ,S Jabbehdari, A New Energy Efficient Routing Algorithm Based on a New Cost Function in Wireless Ad hoc Networks,
Journal of Computing, Volume 2, Issue 6, pp. 125-133, June 2010.
[5] P. K. Suri, M.K. Soni, P. Tomar, Stable Path Routing Protocol based on Power Awareness, International Journal of Scientific &
Engineering Research Volume 2, Issue 8, Auguest 2011.
[6] Salwa Othmen 1, Aymen Belghith 1, Faouzi Zarai1, Mohammad S. Obaidat2, Fellow of IEEE and Fellow of SCS and Lotfi
Kamoun1 Power and Delay-aware Multi-path Routing Protocol for Ad Hoc Networks International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 2, Issue 8, Auguest 2014.
[7] P. Priya Naidu and M. Chawla ,Extended Ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector Local Repair For MANET International Journal of
Wireless and Mobile Networks(IJWMN), vol. 4, No. 2, April 2012.
[8] C. E. Perkins and E. M. Royer, Ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector Routing. Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, 1999.
Proceedings. WMCSA '99. Second IEEE.
[9] C. Perkins, E. Belding-Royer and S. Das, Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing, IETF, RFC 3561, July 2003.
[10] Y. Wei, J. Heidemann, D. Estrin, Medium access control with coordinated adaptive sleeping for wireless sensor networks,
IEEE/ACM Tran. on Networking,2004, 12(3):493-506.
[11] Network Simulator, http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page -103

Preventing Link Failure and Increasing Network Life Time Using MEMHRP and S-MAC Protocol in MANETS

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Preventing Link Failure and Increasing Network Life Time Using MEMHRP and S-MAC Protocol in MANETS

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ISSN: 2395-0560

International Research Journal of Innovative Engineering