Investigating effects of channel fading on routing protocols in wireless

913 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
913
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Investigating effects of channel fading on routing protocols in wireless

  1. 1. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 – 6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 4, Issue 4, May – June (2013), © IAEME 222 INVESTIGATING EFFECTS OF CHANNEL FADING ON ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS Namrata Atre1 , Anshul Shrotriya2 , Dr. Dhiiraj Nitnawwre3 M.E. Student1 , Asst. Professor2, 3 IET, DAVV University, Khandwa Road, Indore- 452017, (M.P.) India1, 3 Medicaps Institute of Technology and Management, Rau, Indore2 ABSTRACT Wireless Sensor Networks has emerged as an efficient concept in terms of Ad-hoc networking, signal processing, embedded systems and many more such applications. The main reason behind the idea is supposed to be the advancement in VLSI technology, need in electro-mechanical systems, nano technology and wide spread of wireless communication. But it is well known that sensors deployed within the WSNs are restricted in terms of battery lifetime, computational capability and bandwidth. One of the major parameters that play an important role is routing; thus routing protocols. So, in this paper we have concentrated mainly on different protocols - DSR, AODV, DYMO, ZRP that may be used in WSN topologies so as to find that ZRP is better in all the fading environment- Rayleigh, Ricean and fast Rayleigh on basis of few application layer parameters. Keywords: WSN, Fading environments, routing protocols, DSR, AODV, DYMO, ZRP. 1. INTRODUCTION Although sensor networks are widely used, secure and reliable wireless network according to today’s need, but they are application dependent. These networks are an intelligent set of spatially distributed miniature nodes, each employed with a sensor that simply examines physical quantities like temperature, pressure, humidity, etc and communicate them throughout the entire network. Their applications lies in very extreme and complicated environmental conditions, where keeping a constant check over nodes may not be possible manually. In such scenarios, their restrictive parameters like energy consumption of nodes, speed- algorithms, buffering capacity, etc. also gets affected. These parameters are INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (IJARET) ISSN 0976 - 6480 (Print) ISSN 0976 - 6499 (Online) Volume 4, Issue 4, May – June 2013, pp. 222-229 © IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijaret.asp Journal Impact Factor (2013): 5.8376 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com IJARET © I A E M E
  2. 2. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 – 6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 4, Issue 4, May – June (2013), © IAEME 223 routing dependent and routing depends on type of application being carried out. So, routing protocols play an important role. Thus we can sum up the need of studying different routing protocols as: • As the WSN are application dependent, so they use different routing strategy each time. Thus different routing protocols are used by a single network for different application. • Since WSN are non-infrastructure based networks and are deployed in extreme environmental conditions, where human approach becomes impossible. So, selecting connecting links between two nodes becomes highly random. Therefore, routing becomes crucial here and hence routing protocols need to be analyzed so as to reduce routing delay, cost and other QoS parameters. • WSN applications need to support critical infrastructures, security becomes an essential issue. The need for security in sensitive WSN application has lead to design secure multipath routing protocols. • Nowadays, WSNs are being used as multimedia networks also which would handle heavy traffic and data processing where cost of service has to be optimize. The route is decided depending upon various parameters like traffic, reliability, congestion, etc. Routing Challenges Depending on the application, different WSN architecture design would follow different routing scheme. Following are few challenges that have to be met for routing decision [2]: (i) Network Type: Either some or all nodes of networks may be stationary or mobile. Now routing packets to/from mobile nodes is much more challenging than that for static nodes. (ii) Network Deployment: Some networks may be self-organizing (nodes can form any topology, hence can create any routes) or deterministic (such networks are pre-organized manually and even the routes are fixed). Thus managing routing paths in self-organizing WSN is more difficult than in deterministic networks. (iii)Energy Consideration: Since each node in a WSN is battery operated therefore energy is limited. Now, if the routing paths are long, multi hop routes must be created so as to reduce energy consumption. But as number of hops in any routing path increases, so does the overhead of extra header information increase. (iv)Node Capabilities: Each node in a network has dedicated tasks to perform like relaying information, summing information or simply sensing the data. Now depending on these tasks each node would consume energy. Also here their buffering capacity is included. (v) Other Factors: Cost, fault tolerance, scalability, operating environment. Thus, a number of routing protocols have been introduced in WSN, but it is extremely necessary to draw a comparison among them, which would guide us on designing an efficient network. 2. ROUTING PROTOCOLS Routing is a process that is initiated when a request to transmit/receive a data, occurs. Then an appropriate routing path has to be decided from which the data would transmit or be received. This is mainly done by routing protocol depending upon the topology, architecture design, and application and a few challenges mentioned below. This is a network layer function. The transmitter node transmits packet that contains header information (destination address and routing path) to its nearest neighbors, which then forward it to entire network.
  3. 3. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 – 6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 4, Issue 4, May – June (2013), © IAEME 224 With this, a response is generated by the receiver nodes to indicate the receiving of the packet each time. This is how network topology is understood. Network topology of sensor network can be a simple star or a multi hop mesh network. Routing is done as per the selected protocol and the target is to communicate the packet from source to destination with minimum resources and minimum time, i.e. shortest path has to be identified. Once the topology of the network is resolved, shortest path is identified with the help of information stored within the intermediate nodes. The route is decided depending upon various parameters like traffic, reliability, congestion, etc. In generic sense, routing protocols can be classified as follows: Routing Protocols Mode of Operation Node Participation Sinking capability Network Structure Proactive, Reactive, Hybrid Direct, Flat, Clustering Unicast, Multicast Hierarchical, Data Centric, Location Based Table 1: Routing Protocol Classification Proactive/Static Routing Protocol: Routing takes place on the basis of predefined path, where the network designer manually decides which of the next nearest node will be taken by each node. Reactive/Dynamic Routing Protocol: Predefine routes need not be defined; rather this decision is taken dynamically depending upon other network issues. Hybrid Routing Protocol: This is a mixed technique where depending upon the need and application, either static route or dynamic route is taken. Direct Routing Protocol: Any node can transmit data to any other node directly. Flat Routing Protocol: A node can transmit data to any other only when it finds the link free. Clustering-Routing Protocol: Entire network is divided into small clusters. Each cluster has a cluster head and any transmitting node sends data to the cluster head. Now, these cluster heads communicate with each other. Unicast Routing Protocol: Here any node can transmit data to only one of any other node within the network. Multicast Routing Protocol: Any node that wishes to transmit data can transmit data to a group of nodes instead of to a single node. Hierarchical Routing Protocol: High energy nodes will perform high energy consuming tasks- data forwarding and processing, while low energy nodes will perform only monitoring work. Data Centric Routing Protocol: These are query based protocols, where any node can transmit data only when it is required by any other node, as request. It is similar to on- demand routing. Location Based Routing Protocol: Such protocols requires some kind of location sensing of the transmitting and receiving nodes so as to make shortest path decision (GPS system). Protocols used in WSN In this study, we have included comparison for following types of protocols that are available in QualNet: [3]
  4. 4. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 – 6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 4, Issue 4, May – June (2013), © IAEME 225 DSR (Dynamic Static Routing Protocol) Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) is an on-demand routing protocol that is specifically designed for use in multi-hop wireless ad hoc mobile networks. DSR builds routes only on- demand by flooding Route Request packets, if a sender wishes to send data to a destination with no known route. AODV (Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector Routing Protocol) AODV protocol is specially used for mobile ad hoc networks. It provides a quick adaptation to dynamic link condition, link fault, low processing and memory usage overhead. It enables dynamic, self-starting, multi hop routing between participating mobile nodes wishing to establish and maintain an ad hoc network. AODV allows mobile nodes to obtain routes quickly for new destinations, and does not require nodes to maintain routes to destinations that are not in active communication. AODV allows mobile nodes to respond to link breakages and changes in network topology in a timely manner. It uses sequence numbers to prevent routing loops. DYMO (Dynamic MANET On-demand Routing Protocol) The Dynamic MANET On-demand (DYMO) routing protocol is a unicast reactive routing protocol which is intended for use by mobile nodes in wireless multi hop networks. Here, a Routing Message (Control Packet) is generated only when the node receives a data packet and it does not have any routing information. The basic operation of DYMO protocol is route discovery and route management. ZRP (Zone Routing Protocol) Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) is a hybrid protocol that divides the network into overlapping zones/virtual clusters and runs independent protocols within and between the zones. For intra zone routing, ZRP uses IARP. For inter zone routing, ZRP uses IERP. A third protocol, Border cast Resolution Protocol (BRP), is used to optimize the routing process between perimeter nodes. IARP (Intra zone Routing Protocol)- It is a proactive routing protocol used inside a zone; IERP (Inter zone Routing Protocol)- It is an on-demand routing protocol and is used to discover a route to remote nodes outside of the zone of the node; BRP (Border cast Resolution Protocol)- It is used to efficiently flood broadcast packets throughout the network. Actually, it is not a full-featured routing protocol. These four routing protocols are analyzed on basis of different application layer parameters for different fading models and comparison is done with the help of line graphs in the following section. 3. SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT This section gives the details of the simulation environment used to simulate the results and description of parameters set. Simulation environment used here is QualNet® Developer 5.0.2. Here, initially a scenario is created that consists of 5 nodes, out of which one is the PAN coordinator (Full Function Device) while the other four are transmitters (Reduced Function Devices). Now, we have applied different fading models and different routing protocols simultaneously in this scenario. These conditions are applied repeatedly for the same network but gradually increasing the number of nodes from 5-10-25-50-100. Following results are drawn on the basis of the above simulation of the scenario.
  5. 5. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 – 6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 4, Issue 4, May – June (2013), © IAEME 226 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 5 15 25 50 100 Jitter Number of Nodes Fast Rayleigh DSR AODV DYMO ZRP 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This section studies the results in form for few parameters like: Jitter, Average end to end delay and Throughput to find out which protocol is efficient for different fading models. Jitter Jitter is a performance measure in a network. It is defined as the variability in the latency for a network. Jitter causes packets to arrive at their destination with different timing and possibly in a different order than they were sent, with some arriving faster and some slower than they should. Ideally value of jitter should be as small as possible. Jitter is different for networks having different number of nodes and for both the Rayleigh/ Ricean and Fast Rayleigh Fading model. For both the fading models, ZRP protocol is best suited in case of jitter. Figure 2: Jitter for different protocols in Rayleigh/ Ricean fading Figure 3: Jitter for different protocols in Fast Rayleigh fading Total Packets Received DSR protocol shows a maximum value of packets received at the FFD in Rayleigh/ Ricean fading followed by ZRP with 24 packets transmitted from each node for the entire range of the increasing number of nodes. Fig.17. Total Packets Received for different protocols in Rayleigh/ Ricean fading 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 5 15 25 50 100 Jitter Number of Nodes Rayleigh/Ricean DSR AODV DYMO ZRP 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 5 15 25 50 100 TotalPacketsReceived Number of Nodes Rayleigh/Ricean DSR AODV DYMO ZRP
  6. 6. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 – 6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 4, Issue 4, May – June (2013), © IAEME 227 Fig.18. Total Packets Received for different protocols in Fast Rayleigh fading Also for fast Rayleigh fading, DSR shows highest number of packets received but here ZRP has minimum value with AODV slightly less than DSR. Average End to End Delay End-to-end delay refers to the time taken for a packet to be transmitted across a network from source to destination. It should be least for any network. Figure 4: Delay for different protocols in Rayleigh/ Ricean fading Figure 5: Delay for different protocols in Fast Rayleigh fading 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 5 15 25 50 100 TotalPacketsReceived Number of Nodes Fast Rayleigh DSR AODV DYMO ZRP 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 5 15 25 50 100 EndtoEndDelay(sec) Number of Nodes Rayleigh/Ricean DSR AODV DYMO ZRP 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 5 15 25 50 100 EndtoEndDelay(sec) Number of Nodes Fast Rayleigh DSR AODV DYMO ZRP
  7. 7. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 – 6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 4, Issue 4, May – June (2013), © IAEME 228 In case of Rayleigh fading, all the three protocols- AODV, DYMO and ZRP has less end to end delay, whereas in fast Rayleigh fading, ZRP is least. But in all, ZRP shows least delay in both the cases. Throughput (bit per sec or data packet per sec) Throughput or network throughput is the average rate of successful message delivery over a communication channel. The system throughput is the sum of the data rates that are delivered to all terminals in a network. It should be as high as possible. In Rayleigh fading environment, although DSR and AODV has increasing throughput, but then it gradually reduces as number of nodes increase above 50 nodes. Again, ZRP has very low throughput whereas DYMO is initially constant with minimum values and gradually increases as number of nodes increases. Thus, DYMO is better in Rayleigh fading. Again, in fast Rayleigh fading environment, only ZRP has a fixed change rate and it increases on increasing number of nodes. Figure 6: Throughput for different protocols in Rayleigh/ Ricean fading Figure 7: Throughput for different protocols in Fast Rayleigh fading 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 5 15 25 50 100 Throughput(bits/sec) Number of Nodes Rayleigh/Ricean DSR AODV DYMO ZRP 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 5 15 25 50 100 Throughput(bits/sec) Number of Nodes Fast Rayleigh DSR AODV DYMO ZRP
  8. 8. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 – 6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 4, Issue 4, May – June (2013), © IAEME 229 5. CONCLUSION Based upon the simulation, above results can be summed up as follows: • ZRP protocol shows least jitter in case of Rayleigh/ Ricean as well as fast Rayleigh fading environments. • In Rayleigh fading AODV, DYMO and ZRP are all optimum but ZRP with hold minimum end to end delay. Again, for fast Rayleigh ZRP is best suited. • For maximum throughput in Rayleigh faded networks, DYMO protocol should be preferred, whereas in fast Rayleigh, ZRP shows better results. Thus, it is concluded that one cannot accurately say any protocol to be the best for any environment because each scenario is designed for some specific purpose and they have to operate under different conditions. Each protocol will give different result in different environments for the same network as number of as WSNs are application specific. REFERENCES 1. Luis Javier GarcíaVillalba, Ana Lucila Sandoval Orozco, Alicia Triviño Cabrera, CláudiaJacyBarenco Abbas "Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Networks", Sensors 2009, 9, 8399-8421; doi: 10.3390/s91108399. 2. Gaurav Sharma “Routing Protocols in WSN”, Computer Science and Engineering Department, Thapar University, Patiala, May, 2009. 3. Qualnet5.0.2 Documentation- Wireless Model Library. 4. Jamal N. Al-Karaki, Ahmed E. Kamal, “Routing Techniques in Wireless Sensor Networks: A survey”, Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering. 5. K. Sohrabi, "Protocols for self-organization of a wireless sensor network,” IEEE Personal Communications, Vol. 7, No. 5, pp. 16-27, October 2000. 6. I. F. Akyildiz et al., “Wireless sensor networks: a survey”, Computer Networks, Vol. 38, pp. 393- 422, March 2002. 7. Kemal Akkaya, Mohamed Younis, “A Survey on Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks”, Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Ad Hoc Networks, Volume 3, Issue 3, May 2005, Pages 325-349. 8. Principles of Mobile Communication, Gordon L. Stuber, Second Edition. 9. Neeraj Tiwari, Rahul Anshumali and Prabal Pratap Singh, “Wireless Sensor Networks: Limitation, Layerwise Security Threats, Intruder Detection”, International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering &Technology (IJECET), Volume 3, Issue 2, 2012, pp. 22 - 31, ISSN Print: 0976- 6464, ISSN Online: 0976 –6472. 10. R.Rajasree and Dr.G.Kalivarathan, “A Review on Routing Protocols and Non Uniformity with Wireless Sensor Networks”, International Journal of Computer Engineering & Technology (IJCET), Volume 3, Issue 3, 2012, pp. 348 - 354, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6367, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6375. 11. Poonam Thakur and M.Vijaya Raju, “Survey on Routing Techniques for Manets and Wireless Sensor Networks: A Comparison”, International Journal of Computer Engineering & Technology (IJCET), Volume 4, Issue 1, 2013, pp. 275 - 283, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6367, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6375.

×