AN EFFICIENT CLUSTER BASED ROUTING
PROTOCOL WITH POWER BALANCING TECHNIQUE
FOR POWER HETEROGENEOUS MANET
Neenu Sam
P.G Student
Electronics and Communication Department
K.S.R College of Engineering
[email protected]
Abstract—Power heterogeneous networks
are common in MANETs. High power
nodes network can improve network
scalability,
connectivity, broadcasting
robustness of the MANETs. Due to the
presence
of
high
power
nodes
unidirectional links are formed which may
reduce network throughput. So in order to
reduce this issue a routing protocol which
avoids packet forwarding through high
power nodes is developed. Here a routingaware optimal clustering mechanism that
balances power consumption at different
cluster heads. For power balancing here
we are maximizing the coverage time of
the network. The coverage time of the
network is defined as the time until one of
the cluster head runs out of battery,
resulting in an incomplete coverage area.
Via simulations the effectiveness of this
cluster based routing protocol on
improving the performance of power
heterogeneous MANETs is demonstrated.
Index Terms—Cluster, mobile ad
hoc
networks
(MANETs),
power
heterogeneous, routing.
I. INTRODUCTION
IN RECENT years, there has been
growing research and analysis in
heterogeneous mobile ad hoc networks
Vijaykumar B
Assistant Professor
Electronics and Communication Department
K.S.R College of Engineering
[email protected]
(MANETs). These network consists of
devices with heterogeneous characteristics
in terms of transmission power [1], [2],
energy [3], capacity [4]. An example of
such network is the vehicular ad- hoc
networks (VANETs). These networks
consist
of
heterogeneous
wireless
equipment carried by human and
machines.
In
such
heterogeneous
networks, different devices are likely to
have different capacities and thus transmit
data with different power levels.
In
802.11-based
power
heterogeneous MANETs, mobile nodes
have different transmission power. On one
hand, the benefits of high-power nodes are
the increase in network coverage area and
the reduction in the transmission delay.
High power nodes also generally have
advantages in power, storage, computation
capability, and data transmission rate. As a
result, research efforts have been carried
out to explore these advantages, such as
backbone construction [5] and topology
control [6]. On the other hand, the
increased transmission range of high
power nodes leads to increased
interference, which will lead to the
reduction in the spatial utilization of
network channel resources [7], [8].
Because of different transmission power
and other factors like interference, barrier,
and noise asymmetric or unidirectional
links will exist in MANETs. Many
research results show that the performance
of routing protocol over unidirectional
links in multi-hop network is poor [9].
However, the existing routing protocols in
power heterogeneous MANETs will only
detect the unidirectional links and avoid
the transmissions based on asymmetric
links. These protocols will not consider the
benefits from high power nodes. Hence,
the problem is how to improve the
performance of routing in power
heterogeneous MANETs, which is the
focus of this paper.
Expectedly,
the
clustering
paradigm increases the burden on the CHs,
forcing them to deplete their batteries
much faster than in a non-clustered
network [10]. The additional energy
consumption is attributed to the
aggregation of intra-cluster traffic into a
single stream that is transmitted by the CH
and to the relaying of inter-cluster traffic
from other CHs. Such relaying is
sometimes desirable because of its powerconsumption advantage over direct (CHto-sink) communication. Given the high
density of nodes in common deployment
scenarios the traffic volume coming from a
CH can be orders of magnitude greater
than the traffic volume of an individual
node. Even though the CH may be
equipped with a more durable battery than
the individual nodes it serves, the large
difference in power consumption between
the two can lead to shorter lifetime for the
CH.
Once
the
CH
dies,
no
communications can take place between
the nodes in that cluster and the rest of the
network.
In this paper an efficient cluster
based routing protocol that balances power
consumption at cluster head is developed.
This routing protocol explicates the
benefits of high power nodes by avoiding
packet forwarding through high power
nodes. Hence the unidirectional links in
the networks are avoided and archives
maximum throughput. Routing aware
optimal clustering mechanism is used for
balancing the power consumption at the
cluster head. Simulation results show that
this cluster based routing protocol achieves
much better performance than other
existing protocols.
The rest of this paper is organized
as follows. In Section II, review the related
work is added. In Section III, the proposed
cluster based routing technique using
power balancing technique is discussed. In
Section IV, the performance of this cluster
based routing via extensive simulations is
evaluated and in section V we conclude
our discussion.
II. RELATED WORK
Several routing protocols have been
developed in the networking community to
address various scenarios. To study the
taxonomy of ad hoc routing protocols and
to survey the representative protocols [11][13] in different categories many research
works has been done in this field. For
example, Boukerche et al. [12] gave a
comprehensive summary of the routing
protocols for MANETs. Unfortunately,
most of the existing protocols are limited
to homogenous networks and will not
perform
effectively
in
power
heterogeneous networks.
There are some routing protocols for
heterogeneous MANETs. Loose virtual
cluster based routing protocol for
heterogeneous MANET (LRPH) [14] is
one of the most recent routing protocols
which eliminates unidirectional links and
avoids packet forwarding through high
power nodes. By using LRPH it is possible
to achieve the benefits from high power
nodes. Multiclass (MC) [15] is another
routing protocol for heterogeneous
network. This is a position-aided routing
protocol. In MC the entire routing area is
divided into cells and a high power node in
each cell as the backbone node (B-node).
Then, a new medium access control
(MAC) protocol called hybrid MAC
(HMAC) is designed to cooperate with the
routing layer. Based on the cell structure
and HMAC, MC achieves better
performance. But the fixed cell makes MC
to work well only in a network with high
density of high-power nodes. In [16], a
cross-layer approach is presented that
simultaneously extends the MAC and
network layers to reduce the problems
caused by link asymmetry and exploits the
advantages of heterogeneous MANETs.
Different from the existing routing on
power heterogeneous MANETs, our
proposed approach does not rely on
geographic information and can be
deployed on general 802.11-based mobile
devices. It uses a routing aware optimal
clustering mechanism for the power
balancing in the cluster heads.
III. CLUSTER BASED ROUTING
WITH POWER BALANCING
TECHNIQUE
To improve the network performance
we propose cluster based routing protocol
with power balancing technique for power
heterogeneous MANET. This protocol
mainly consists of two functions. First is
the creation of a cluster which will reduce
the network lifetime and increases the
efficiency of the network. Second one is
the route discovery procedure. This will
create route from source to destination by
avoiding high power nodes in the network
hence eliminate the unidirectional links in
the network. In the following, we list the
network model and definitions.
A. System Model and Assumptions
There are two types of nodes in the
networks: B-nodes and general nodes (Gnodes). B-nodes refer to the nodes with
high power and a large transmission range.
G-nodes refer to the nodes with low power
and a small transmission range. The
numbers of B-nodes and G-nodes are
denoted as NB and NG, respectively.
There are three type of G-node in the
network.
Definition 1–Gisolated: They are
defined as G-nodes that are not covered by
any B-node.
Definition 2–Gmember: They are
defined as G-nodes whose bidirectional
neighbours (BNs) are covered by its
cluster head.
Definition 3–Ggateway: They are
defined as G-nodes whose BNs are not
covered by its cluster head.
B. Network Model
We consider a circular area A of
radius R. The sink is located at the centre,
as shown in Figure 1. The circular
geometry, albeit too idealistic, serves as a
basis for understanding the intrinsic tradeoffs involved in a joint clustering and
routing framework. The nodes are
uniformly distributed across A with
density ρ. Data captured and generated by
all sensors need to be delivered to the sink.
Due to energy considerations, only those
nodes within the area {(x, y)/ x2 + y2 ≤ r02},
where r0 < R, can communicate directly
with the sink; all other nodes are organized
into clusters and they communicate their
data through their respective CHs. Without
loss of generality, we assume that each CH
is located at the centre of its cluster.
The procedure for cluster formation
consists of two steps: the deployment of
CHs and the assignment of nodes to CHs.
Because of the symmetric nature of the
area A and the uniform distribution of
nodes, the formation of clusters is also
symmetric, i.e., any two clusters with the
same distance from their centres to the
sink should have the same coverage. Such
clusters are said to be of the same type.
Suppose there are K types of clusters in the
network. We consider the following
clustering approach: sensors whose
distances to the sink fall in (ri−1, ri] are
organized into clusters of the ith type,
where 1 ≤ i ≤ K and r0 < r1 < . . . < rK = R.
As a result, the clusters of the ith type
cover the ith ring, defined by the area{ (x,
y)/ r2 i−1 < x2 + y2 ≤ r2 i }. This clustering
approach can be easily realized in practice,
e.g., by using pilot signals that are
broadcasted by the sink. Accordingly, the
CHs of the ith ring are placed evenly along
the circle {(x, y)/ x2 + y2 = d2i} with equal
space between consecutive CHs, where {di
= ri−1+ri2 }. We assume that the initial
battery energy at all CH is same. A node
located in the ith ring is assigned to the
nearest CH in the same ring. In the
analysis, we assume that a sufficiently
large number of CHs are placed in each
ring such that the area covered by each CH
can be approximated by a small circle, as
shown in Figure 1. In the simulations
section, we show that this assumption has
a negligible impact on network
performance. Remark: Although our
model assumes a circular sensing area and
a two-tier network structure, the analysis
adequately
captures
the
intrinsic
interaction between inter and intra-cluster
Figure 1: Network topology with 3 rings
(k=3)
traffic. The analysis can be extended to
handle a non-circular region by covering it
with a series of circles, similar to the
approach used in cellular networks (in
cellular networks, the region is
approximately covered by hexagons). A
multi-layered organization of sensors, such
as the “spine” hierarchy can also be
accommodated
in
our
analytical
framework.
C. Traffic Model
Each node generates data at a rate λ
(in bits/second). The data are transmitted
from the source node to its CH, which then
forwards the data to the sink, directly or
through other CHs. We assume that each
sensor
has
sufficient
power
to
communicate directly with its CH.
Furthermore, we assume that the CH
depletes its energy at a much faster rate
than the nodes it serves. This assumption
is justified by the low data rate and duty
cycle of commonly used nodes.
Accordingly, we focus our attention on
energy depletion at CHs. From a strategic
point of view, a CH is more critical to the
coverage of the network than individual
sensors.
D. Shortest-Distance Relay
In this model, packets are relayed
through the closest CH of the adjacent
ring. More specifically, a CH in the ith
ring receives traffic originating from its
own cluster as well as traffic relayed from
CHs in the (i + 1)th ring, and forwards the
combined traffic to the closest CH in the (i
− 1)th ring. Traffic relaying continues hopby-hop until the sink is reached. For this
scenario, we consider a routing-aware
clustering mechanism that balances power
consumption at different CHs. Clearly, the
radius profile of the clusters, {1/2 (r1 − r0),
..., 1/2 (rK − rK−1), is critical to power
consumption at different CHs. For
example, reducing 1/2 (ri − ri−1) results in
smaller clusters in the ith ring, which leads
to less local traffic from these clusters,
shorter
transmission
distances
to
subsequent CHs in the (i − 1)th ring, and a
higher number of CHs in the ith ring.
Because of the symmetry in the topology
and traffic load, the traffic from the CHs in
the (i + 1)th ring will be evenly shared
among an increased number of CHs in the
ith ring, so the volume of the relayed
traffic carried by individual CHs in the ith
ring will decrease. All of these factors
contribute to reduced power consumption
at the CHs in the ith ring. On the other
hand, the reduction in the area of the ith
ring must be compensated for by other
clusters (e.g., the clusters in the jth ring),
because of the fixed number of rings in the
system. In an analogous manner, power
consumption at CHs in ring j will increase.
Therefore, by deliberately adjusting the
cluster size in different rings, a more
balanced power consumption at different
CHs, and hence an increase in the
coverage time, is achieved.
E. Route Discovery Procedure
When a source node S wants to
send a data packet to destination node D, S
will first searches whether there is any
route to D exists in its route cache. If there
is a route, S will directly send the data
packet. Otherwise, S initiates the route
discovery procedure to find a route to D.
When a node obtains a complete source
route to D, it responds with a RREP packet
to S directly and tells S about the
discovered route. Here bidirectional links
will be used because the RREP packets are
sent by unicast scheme. However, there
exists unidirectional links between B-node
and G-node in the discovered path.
Consequently, those unidirectional links
must be repaired. In addition, by analysing
the fact that transmitting through B-nodes
can dramatically decreases the throughput
of a network, this scheme will try to avoid
B-nodes in the path by replacing B-nodes
with multi-hop G-nodes. The disadvantage
is that this scheme may increase route hops
and hence the increases delay of the route
discovery
procedure
but
network
throughput can be ultimately improved.
Fig. 2 shows an example to
illustrate how to process the RREP packet.
Assume that the route to destination D is S
→ · · ·→a → B1 → c → d · · ·→D, where
B1 → c is a unidirectional link. Therefore,
when c receives the RREP packet, it
replaces the route a → B1 → c in the
RREP packet with multi-hop G-nodes a →
m → n → c. Thus S receives a
bidirectional route to D with less number
of B-nodes as possible. A timer can also be
set to initiate a new round of route
discovery until the timer expires, and there
350
Throughput
300
250
200
150
LRPH
100
ECRPH
50
0
0
Maximun node speed (m/s)
Figure 2: Route Discovery Procedure
IV. SIMULATION RESULTS
The set of simulations are used to
evaluate the performance of existing
system (LRPH) and the proposed cluster
based routing with power balancing
techniques (ECRPH) under different
mobility by varying the node’s speed from
0 to 20 m/s. The simulations run on a
network with 35 G-nodes and 5 B-nodes in
an area of 1500 × 1500 m2. RG and RB are
200 and 600 m, respectively. All sources
transmit packets of 512 B at the rate of
four packets per second.
Figure 3: shows the throughput of
two schemes under different node
mobility. Several observations are done.
First, the throughput of two schemes
decreases as the node speed increases. This
can be explained as follows: A higher
mobility causes more broken links and
transmission
failures.
Second,
the
throughput of proposed technique is higher
than that of LRPH because life time of the
network is increased due to the power
balanced scheme.
Figure 3: Throughput Vs Maximum Node
Speed (m/s)
Energy Consumpyion Rate
is no response from the RREP packets. If
the route discovery fails for number of
times, data transmission will be cancelled.
5 10 15 20
0.02
0.015
0.01
LRPH
0.005
ECRPH
0
0 5 10 15 20
Maximum node speed (m/s)
Figure 4: Energy Consumption Rate Vs
Maximum node speed (m/s)
Figure 4: shows the ECRP of
LRPH and the proposed cluster based
routing with power balanced technique
(ECRPH) under different node mobility.
There are few observations. First, The
ECRP of two schemes increases as the
node speed grows because more energy
should be used for retransmission and
rerouting. The proposed system shows
reduced energy consumption rete then
energy consumption rate than LRPH.
Packet Delivery Ratio(%)
REFERENCES
96
95
94
93
92
91
90
89
88
87
[1]
Y. Huang, X. Yang, S. Yang, W. Yu,
and X. Fu, “A cross-layer approach
handling link asymmetry for wireless
mesh acces networks,” IEEE Trans.
Veh. Technol., vol. 60, no. 3, pp.
1045–1058, Mar. 2011.
[2]
V. Shah, E. Gelal, and P.
Krishnamurthy,
“ Handling asymmetry in power
heterogeneous ad hoc networks,” J.
Comput. Netw.—Int. J. Comput.
Telecommun. Netw., vol. 51, no. 10,
pp. 2594–2615, Jul. 2007.
LRPH
ECRPH
0
5 10 15 20
Maximum Node Speed (m/s)
Figure 5: Packet Delivery Ratio(%)Vs
Maximum Node Speed (m/s)
Figure 5: shows the packet delivery ratio
for the LRPH and proposed cluster based
routing with power balanced (ECRPH)
scheme. Normally the packet delivery ratio
increases as node speed increases due
more link breaks. Here for the proposed
scheme packet delivery ratio is higher than
the existing LRPH due to increased
throughput of our proposed power
balanced technique.
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper a cluster based routing
protocol with power balancing technique is
developed. This protocol will reduces the
power consumption at cluster head and
also increases the coverage time of the
network hence making the cluster head
active for more time. The clustering
scheme used here will eliminate
unidirectional links and hence provide
benefits from high-power nodes such as
transmission range, processing capability
and bandwidth. The routing schemes will
forward data packet by avoiding high
power nodes. Through extensive set of
simulations, the effectiveness of proposed
scheme over power heterogeneous
MANETs is demonstrated.
[3] W. Liu, C. Zhang, G. Yao, and Y.
Fang, “Delar: A device–energy–load
aware relaying framework for
heterogeneous mobile ad hoc
networks eous networks,” IEEE J.
Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 29, no. 8,
pp. 1572–1584, Sep. 2011.
[4]
P. Leonardi, E. Garetto, and M.
Giaccone,
“Capacity scaling in ad
hoc networks with heterogeneous
mobile nodes: The super-critical
regime,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw.,
vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 1522–1535, Oct.
2009.
[5]
J. Wu and F. Dai, “Virtual backbone
construction in MANETs using
adjustable
transmission
ranges,”IEEE
Trans.
Mobile
Comput., vol. 5,no. 9, pp. 1188–
1200, Sep. 2006.
[6]
A. A. Jeng and R.-H. Jan, “Adaptive
topology control for mobile ad hoc
networks,” IEEE Trans. Parallel
[7]
Distrib. Syst., vol. 22, no. 12, pp.
1953–1960, Dec. 2011.
survey,” IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag.,
vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 12–22, Jun. 2007.
X. Zhang, Q. Gao, J. Zhang, and G.
Wang, “Impact of transmit power on
throughput performance in wireless
ad hoc networks with variable rate
control,” Comput. Commun., vol.
31, no. 15, pp. 3638–3642, Sep.
2008.
[14] Peng Zhao, Xinyu Yang, Wei Yu,
and Xinwen Fu, “A Loose-VirtualClustering-Based Routing for Power
Heterogeneous manets” vol. 62, No.
5, June 2013
[8] J. Liu, X. Jiang, H. Nishiyama, and
N.Kato, “Exact throughput capacity
under power control in mobile ad
hoc networks,” in Proc. 31th IEEE
INFOCOM, Mar. 2012, pp. 1–9.
[9] M. K. Marina and S. R. Das, “Routing
performance in the presence of
unidirectional links in multihop
wireless networks,” in Proc. ACM
MobiHoc, Lausanne, Switzerland,
Jun. 2002, pp. 12–23.
[10] Tao Shu, Marwan Krunz, Sarma
Vrudhula,
“Power
Balanced
Coverage-Time Optimization for
Clustered
Wireless
Sensor
Networks” May 25–27, 2005
[11]
A. Boukerche, Algorithms and
Protocols for Wireless, Mobile Ad
Hoc Networks. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley,
Nov. 10, 2008.
[12]
A.
Boukerche,
“Performance
evaluation of routing protocols for
ad hoc wireless networks,” Mobile
Netw. Appl., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 333–
342, Aug. 2004.
[13] F. Li and Y. Wang, “Routing in
vehicular ad hoc networks: A
[15] X. Du, D. Wu, W. Liu, and Y. Fang,
“Multiclass routing and medium
access control for heterogeneous
mobile ad hoc networks,” IEEE
Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 55, no. 1,
pp. 270–277, Jan. 2006.
[16] S. Yang, X. Yang, and H. Yang, “A
cross-layer
framework
for
positionbased routing and medium
access control in heterogeneous
mobile
ad
hoc
networks,”
Telecommun. Syst., vol. 42, no. 1/2,
pp. 29–46, Oct. 2009.