International Journals of Advanced Research in
Computer Science and Software Engineering
ISSN: 2277-128X (Volume-7, Issue-6)
Research Article
June
2017
Comparative Analysis of AODV and BELLMANN Routing
Protocols for Various Battery Models on the Basis of
Different Performance Metrics
Sanjay Kumar Maurya, Seema Rahul
A.P. Department of ECE, GCRG Group of Institutions, Lucknow,
Uttar Pradesh, India
Abstract: Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) is collection of multi-hop wireless mobile nodes that communicate with
each other without centralized control or established infrastructure. The wireless links in this network are highly
error prone and can go down frequently due to mobility of nodes, interference and less infrastructure. The AODV,
BELLMAN protocols are compared for battery models DURACELL AA (MX 1500), PANASONIC AA, PANASONIC
AAA, DURACELL MN 2400, DURACELL MX2400 standard using Qualnet as a Simulation tool. Hence
performance of the protocols with various battery models counts and helps to make a right selection. Mobile Ad-hoc
Network (MANET) is accumulation of multi-hop wireless mobile nodes that speak with each other without unified
control or set up infrastructure. The wireless connections in this system are highly error prone and can go down much
of the time because of mobility of node, interference and less infrastructure. The AODV, BELLMAN protocols are
thought about for various battery models DURACELL AA (MX 1500), DURACELL MN 2400, DURACELL MX2400,
PANASONIC AA, PANASONIC AAA, standard utilizing Qualnet as a Simulation tool. Thus execution of the
protocols for different battery models counts and makes a correct choice.
Keywords: MANET, QUALNET, AODV, BELLMAN
I. INTRODUCTION
“Wireless networking is a technology that enables two or more computers to communicate using standard network
protocols, but without network cabling” [1]. Also, now there exist network protocols that are created only with the end
goal of Wireless systems. We can order wireless network in essentially taking after two classifications.
1) A Network with an existing infrastructure: is a network where exists a wireless access point or earlier wireless
hardware support for each node to connect to networks. Here nodes do not participate in any kind of transit services.
They communicate to access points to send& receive packets from other nodes. In this kind of network different access
point can follow different0wireless protocol like 802.11 b or 802.11g and still can communicate with each other. There
exist several wireless products based on this kind of technology.
2) Ad-hoc network is a system where there is no presence of wireless infrastructure for networking, Instead each and
every node communicates with each other utilizing their sole transmitter-receiver. In this sort of system every node
participates willfully in transit packet that travels to and from various nodes. Each and every node takes after same
routing algorithm to route various packets. Therefore this sort of system have constrained homogenous feature. There are
very few wireless products that take after this proposed technology.
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS
A. Types of routing protocol
1) Proactive routing protocol: It is a protocol that maintains information continuously. Typically, each node is having a
table containing information on how to reach another node and the algorithm tries to keep the above mentioned table upto-date. Any change in the network topology is propagated through the network.
2) Reactive (on demand) routing protocols: On demand routing protocols uses two different operations to discover route
and maintenance operation of the route. In this type of protocols routing information is acquired only on-demand. This is
the operation of route discovery. Maintenance of route is the process of responding to any change occurred in topology
that happen after a route has initially been created.
3) Hybrid routing protocols: New generations of protocols are Hybrid protocols, which is both Proactive and Reactive in
nature. Most hybrid protocols proposed are zone based (means that the network is divided or seen as a number of zones
by each node). Normally, Hybrid routing protocols for mobile ad-hoc networks exploit hierarchical network
architectures.
III. THE PROTOCOLS STUDIED
A. AODV
The Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV) routing protocol employs an on-demand mechanism for route
discovery and maintenance using a hop-count routing metric coupled with sequence numbers and periodic beacons [2].
© www.ijarcsse.com, All Rights Reserved
Page | 661
Maurya et al., International Journals of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering
ISSN: 2277-128X (Volume-7, Issue-6)
The procedure happens in two stages; Route Discovery and Route Maintenance. Route Discovery includes request and
replypackets. At the point when a source nodeis communicating with a destination node whose route is not known, it
broadcasts a packet in the network called Route Request (RREQ) packet. Each and every RREQ contains a unique ID,
source and destination IP addresses, hop count, and also succession numbers, control flags, route life-span. At the point
when the RREQ achieves the destination node a Route Reply (RREP) packet is created and unicast back to the originator
of the RREQ. Like the RREQ, the RREP contains the source and destination IP addresses, destination sequence number,
hop count, control flags, and route lifetime. Each intermediatenode of the network that gets the RREP increases the hop
count and builds up a forward route to the wellspring of the packet, and transmits the packet by means of the invert route.
Route maintenance is moderately straightforward. Nodes can utilize either link layer feedback or intermittent Hello
messages. Failure to receive the link layer feedback or three consecutive Hello messages from a neighbor is taken as an
indication that the link to the neighbor in question is down. In case a link break is detected for the next hop of an active
route, a Route Error (RERR) packet is sent to its active neighbors that were using the particular route. This informs the
neighbor nodes to re-acquire a new route to the destination using the route discovery process. When using AODV in a
network with multi-radio nodes, each RREQ is broadcast on all interfaces. Intermediate nodes with one or more
interfaces operating on a shared channel, receive the RREQ and create a reverse route that points towards the source
node. If the RREQ is a duplicate, it is simply dropped. The first received RREQ received by the destination or any
intermediary node is selected and all other RREQs are discarded. The RREP is generated in response to the selected
RREQ, and is sent back to the source node on the existing reverse route. Both the single and multi-radio variants of
AODV utilize the hop-count routing metric which, although simple to implement, portrays aa number of shortcomings
when applied directly to hybrid WMNs.
B. BELLMAN
The algorithm known as Bellman-Ford was originally developed by Bellman [Bel58] and by Ford and Fulkerson [FF62].
It is typically described in pseudo code. [3] Bellman-Ford is used for single source shortest path along with Dijkstra
Algorithm. It is a Dynamic Programming based algorithm and it work for negative weight edges. Also distributed variant
of the Bellman–Ford algorithm is used in distance-vector routing protocols. Routers use the Bellman- Ford distancevector routing algorithm to exchange the routing information for the current status of the network and also to identify the
route for packets to get their destinations. This algorithm basically merges all the routing information provided by the
different routers into lookup tables maintained at nodes. It is a well defined protocol and used on many popular networks.
It provides reasonable performance for small or medium sized networks, but for larger networks this algorithm is slow
while calculating updates to the network topology. In some cases, looping occurs, in which a packet goes through the
same node more than once. In general, most DVR (distance-vector routing) algorithms are not suitable for larger
networks that have thousands of nodes, or if the network configuration changes often. In the latter case, the routing
algorithm must be able to dynamically update the routing tables quickly to accommodate changes [4]. It is used as an
algorithm by distance vector routing protocols such as RIP, BGP, ISO, IDRP, and NOVELL IPX. Routers that use this
algorithm will maintain the distance tables, which tell the distances and shortest path to sending packets to each node in
the network [5].
This protocols and algorithms currently use in the IPv4 Internet. If that protocol is used in those system of networks
which have several hundreds of networks and if there is any loop formed then Bellman-ford take much time to resolve
that loop so this protocol is not suitable for larger networks.
IV. BATTERY MODELS
The zinc/manganese dioxide/potassium hydroxide cells, which are commonly called alkaline [6] or alkalinemanganese
dioxide cells, having a higher energy output compared to zinc-carbon (Leclanche) cells. Other significant advantages are
longer shelf life, superior low temperature performance and better leakage resistance. In comparison to zinc-carbon cell,
the alkaline cell delivers about ten times the ampere-hour capacity at high and continuous drain conditions; with its
performance at low temperatures it is also being superior to other conventional aqueous electrolyte primary cells. It’s
much effective, secure seal provides excellent resistance for leakage and corrosion.The use of an alkaline electrolyte,
electrolytic ally prepared manganese dioxide, and a more reactive zinc powder contributes to a higher initial cost than
zinccarbon cells. However, due to the longer service life, the alkaline cell is actually more cost-effective based upon costper-hour usage, particularly with high drains and continuous discharge. The high-grade, energy-rich materials composing
the anode and cathode, in conjunction with the more conductive alkaline electrolyte, produce more energy than could be
stored in standard zinc carbon cell sizes. The product information and test data included in this section represent
DURACELL's newest alkaline battery products.
The use of alkaline electrolyte, electrolytically developed manganese dioxide, and highly reactive zinc powder
distributed to a higher initial price compared to zinc-carbon cells. However, the alkaline cell is muchcost effective
depending upon cost-per-hour (CPH) usage, especially with high drains and uninterrupted discharge and referable to the
longer service life. The high- rate and rich in energysubstantial are composingits cathode and anode, in colligation with
much conductive alkaline electrolyte which yields more energy than could be storage in zinc carbon cell sizes.The
product test data and information are including in this division symbolizes DURACELL's most newfangled alkaline
battery products.
© www.ijarcsse.com, All Rights Reserved
Page | 662
Maurya et al., International Journals of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering
ISSN: 2277-128X (Volume-7, Issue-6)
TABLE I DURACELL AA (MX 1500)
Nominal Voltage
1.5 V
Operating Voltage
1.6 - 0.75V
Impedance:
81 m-ohm @ 1kHz
Typical Weight:
24 gm (0.8 oz.)
Typical Volume:
8.4 cm 3 (0.5 in.3)
StorageTemperatureRange
-20oC to 35oC
Operating TemperatureRange
-20oC to 54oC
Terminals:
Flat
ANSI
15A
IEC
LR6
Nominal Voltage
Operating Voltage
Impedance:
Typical Weight:
Typical Volume:
StorageTemperatureRange
Operating TemperatureRange
Terminals:
ANSI
IEC
TABLE II PANASONIC AA
1.5 V
1.6 - 0.75V
136 m-ohm @ 1kHz
0.80gm (23.0oz.)
3.8 cm3 (0.2 in.3)
-20oC to 35oC
-20oC to 54oC
Flat
24A
LR03
TABLE III PANASONIC AAA
Nominal Voltage
1.5V
Operating Voltage
1.6 - 0.75V
Impedance:
136 m-ohm @ 1kHz
Typical Weight:
11.0 grams (0.38 oz.)
Typical Volume:
3.8cm3(0.2 in.3)
StorageTemperatureRange
-20oC to 35oC
Operating TemperatureRange
-20°C to 54°C (-4°F to 130°F)
Terminals:
Cap and base
ANSI
24A
IEC
LR03
TABLE IV DURACELL MN 2400
Nominal Voltage
1.5V
Operating Voltage
1.6 - 0.75V
Impedance:
250 m-ohm @1kHz
Typical Weight:
11.0 grams (0.39 oz.)
Typical Volume:
3.5cm3(0.21 in.3)
StorageTemperatureRange
-20oC to 35oC
Operating TemperatureRange
-20°C to 54°C (-4°F to 130°F)
Terminals:
Flat
ANSI
24A
IEC
LR03
Nominal Voltage
Operating Voltage
Impedance:
Typical Weight:
© www.ijarcsse.com, All Rights Reserved
TABLE V DURACELL MX2400
1.5V
1.6 - 0.75V
114 m-ohm @ 1kHz
11 gm (0.4 oz.)
Page | 663
Maurya et al., International Journals of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering
ISSN: 2277-128X (Volume-7, Issue-6)
Typical Volume:
3.5 cm 3 (0.2 in.3)
StorageTemperatureRange
-20oC to 35oC
Operating TemperatureRange
-20oC to 54oC
Terminals:
Flat
ANSI
24A
IEC
LR03
V. SIMULATION ENVIRONMENTS
The adopted methodology for the results of this work (specifically comparative routing analyses) is based on simulations
near to the real time packages before any actual implementation. This is accomplished by simulating the scenario with
the help of simulation tool Qualnet [7].QualNet is a comprehensive suite of tools for modeling large wired and wireless
networks. It uses simulation and emulation to predict the behavior and performance of networks to improve their design,
operation and management. QualNet enables users to design new protocol models, Optimize new and existing models,
Design large wired and wireless networks using pre-configured or userdesigned models, Analyze the performance of
networks and perform what-if analysis to optimize them. QualNet is the preferable simulator for simplicity of the
operation. Along these lines, we discovered QualNet be the best decision to execute our scenarios as we needn't bother
with each element conceivable.
To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of these routing protocols in a Mobile Ad-Hoc network, we performed
extensive simulations in QualNet5.0.2 each simulation is carried out under a constant mobility. The simulation
parameters are listed in Table
S.No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
TABLE VI SIMULATION PARAMETERS
Parameter
Remark
Antenna model
Omnidirectional
Terrain Size
1500X1500
No of nodes
60
Radio Type
802.11b radio
Battery Charge Monitoring Interval
30min
Data Rate
2mbps
Mobility Model
Random way point
Pause Time
10sec
Speed of vehicle
min-2m/s, max-10m/s
Position granularity
1500
Battery model
Residual life Estimator
A. Designing of Scenario
The Qualnet Simulator used, has a scalable network library and gives accurate and efficient execution [8].The scenario is
designed in such a way that it undertakes the real traffic conditions. We have chosen 60 fast moving vehicles in the
region of 1500X1500 m2 with the random way point mobility model. There is also well defined path for some of the
vehicles. It shows wireless node connectivity of few vehicles using CBR application. The area for simulation is Hilly
area with altitude of 1500 meters. Battery model are DURACELL AA (MX 1500), PANASONIC AA, PANASONIC
AAA, DURACELL MN 2400, DURACELL MX2400.The simulation is performed with different node mobility speed
and CBR (Constant bit rate) traffic flow. CBR traffic flows with 512 bytes are applied. Simulations made here are in
different speed utilization with IEEE 802.11 that is medium access control (MAC), having data rate 2mbps. The network
protocol here applied is Internet Protocol version four (IPv4). By this proposed topology the failure of node can be easily
detected and it gives the way for the accuracy in their performance.
B. Performance Metrics
1)Throughput: It is one of the dimensional parameters of the network which gives the fraction ofthechannelcapacity used
for useful transmission selects a destination at thebeginning of the simulation i.e., information whether or not data
packets correctlydelivered to the destinations. Higher value of throughput is preferred to obtain better performance.
2) Average End to End delay
The average end-to-end delay of the data packets is the time interval between the generation of datapacket and its arrival
at the destination [9]. Average end to end delay should be as low as possible for the better performance.
3) Packet Delivery Sent
It is the ratio of the number of data packets received by the CBR sink at the final destinations tothe number of data
packets originated by the “application layer” at the CBR sources.
4) Average Jitter
Average Jitter is the variation (difference) of the inter-arrival times between the two successive packets received.
© www.ijarcsse.com, All Rights Reserved
Page | 664
Maurya et al., International Journals of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering
ISSN: 2277-128X (Volume-7, Issue-6)
5) Throughput (bit/s)
The average rate of successful message delivery over a communication channel is known as throughput. It is measured in
bits per second (bit/s or bps), and sometimes in packets per second or packets per time slot.
VI. RESULTS
The comparison chart of AODV and BELLMANN routing protocols on the basis of different battery models which are
used in mobile ad-hoc networks are given below for different performance metrics. At the end we will conclude that
which protocol is better than other on the basis of following comparison.
TABLE VII AVERAGE JITTER
Battery Models
AODV
DURACELL AA (MX 1500)
0.0258168
PANASONIC AA
0
PANASONIC AAA
0.00710052
DURACELL MN 2400
0.0261693
DURACELL MX2400
0.12112
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
BELLMANN
0.0071354
0.00399254
0.00522522
0.00185138
0.0071354
AODV
BELLMANN
Fig. 1 Graph for average jitter
TABLE VIII TOTAL BYTES RECEIVED
Battery Models
AODV
DURACELL AA (MX 1500)
11264
PANASONIC AA
512
PANASONIC AAA
12288
DURACELL MN 2400
10752
DURACELL MX2400
6656
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
BELLMANN
9728
10752
7680
8192
9728
AODV
BELLMANN
Fig. 2 Graph for total bytes received
© www.ijarcsse.com, All Rights Reserved
Page | 665
Maurya et al., International Journals of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering
ISSN: 2277-128X (Volume-7, Issue-6)
TABLE IX TOTAL PACKET RECEIVED
Battery Models
AODV
BELLMANN
DURACELL AA (MX 1500)
22
19
PANASONIC AA
1
21
PANASONIC AAA
24
15
DURACELL MN 2400
21
16
DURACELL MX2400
13
19
25
20
15
10
5
0
AODV
BELLMANN
Fig. 3 Graph for total packets received
TABLE X AVERAGE END-TO-END DELAY(S)
Battery Models
AODV
BELLMANN
DURACELL AA (MX 1500)
0.0850508
0.0552528
PANASONIC AA
0.408064
0.0354893
PANASONIC AAA
0.0346142
0.0272528
DURACELL MN 2400
0.0497354
0.0268469
DURACELL MX2400
0.276117
0.0552528
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
AODV
BELLMANN
Fig. 4 Graph for average end to end delay
TABLE XI THROUGHPUT (BIT/S)
Battery Models
AODV
DURACELL AA (MX 1500)
4081
PANASONIC AA
220
PANASONIC AAA
4292
DURACELL MN 2400
3763
DURACELL MX2400
4584
© www.ijarcsse.com, All Rights Reserved
BELLMANN
3699
3906
3085
2848
3699
Page | 666
Maurya et al., International Journals of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering
ISSN: 2277-128X (Volume-7, Issue-6)
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
AODV
BELLMANN
Fig. 5 Graph for throughput
The above two routing protocols AODV & BELLMANN are compared for different battery models available in
MANET. As the total bytes received, total packets received and throughput calculated above is better for BELLMANN.
And the average end to end delay is also lower than the AODV. AODV is better than BELLMANN if we are only
concerned to the average jitter, as average jitter is higher in case of AODV.But if we are concerned with overall behavior
than the above comparative analysis concludes that the average performance of BELLMANN routing protocol is better
than AODV.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We are thankful to the Prof (Dr.) Sandip Vijay, Associate Professor, Department of Electronics and Communication
ICFAI University, Dehradun, India for providing research facilities and being the constant source of inspiration.
REFERENCES
[1]
S.K. Maurya, S. Rahul, Y. Rajvanshi, and S.Vijay, “Comparative Study of DYMO and Bellman Ad hoc Routing
Protocol for various Battery models in MANET using Qualnet” Conference on Advances in Communication and
Control Systems 2013 (CAC2S 2013), p. 103-109
[2]
J. Broch, D. A. Maltz, D. B. Johnson, Y. C. Hu, and J. Jetcheva. “A Performance Comparison of Multi-hop
Wireless Ad hoc Network Routing Protocols” In Proceedings of the 4th Annual International Conference on
Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom), ACM Press,1998, p. 85–97
[3]
Philip J. Taylor “Specification of policy languages for network routing protocols in the Bellman-Ford family”,
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory King’s College, Sept 2011
[4]
Bellman-Ford Distance-Vector Routing Algorithm (Linktionary term), 10/2012 www.linktionary.com/b/
bellman .html
[5]
A. Boomarani, V.R.Sarma, Dhulipala , and RM. Chandrasekaran ,“Throughput and Delay Comparison of
MANET Routing Protocols” International journal of Open Problems Compt. Math., Vol. 2, No. 3, September
2009
[6]
R. K. Singh, A. Asthana “Evaluation of Proactive, Reactive and Hybrid Ad hoc Routing Protocol for Panasonic
AAA Battery model In VANET using Qualnet” VSRDIJCSIT, Vol. 1 (8), 2011, p. 601-607
[7]
M. Sharma, G. Singh “Evaluation of Proactive, Reactive and Hybrid Ad hoc Routing Protocol for various
Battery models in VANET using Qualnet” International Journal of Smart Sensors and Ad Hoc Networks
(IJSSAN) (Print) Volume 1, Issue-2, 2011
[8]
Rajesh Yadav, “A Survey of MAC Protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks”,UbiCC journal, Vol-4, No 3,
August 15, 2009
© www.ijarcsse.com, All Rights Reserved
Page | 667