GRAPH THEORETIC ROUTING ALGORITHM (GTRA) FOR MOBILE AD-HOC NETWORKS (MANET)

International journal on applications of graph theory in wireless ad hoc networks and sensor networks
(GRAPH-HOC) Vol.5, No.4, December 2013

GRAPH THEORETIC ROUTING ALGORITHM
(GTRA) FOR MOBILE AD-HOC NETWORKS
(MANET)
Kirtikumar K. Patel1,Dhadesugoor.R.Vaman2
Roy G. Perry College of Engineering,Prairie View A & M University,Prairie View, TX77446
1
– Doctoral Candidate; Electrical and Computer Engineering Department
2
– Texas A&M University System Regents Professor, Electrical and Computer
Engineering Department

Abstract
Battlefield theater applications require supporting large number of nodes. It can facilitate many multi-hop
paths between each source and destination pairs. For scalability, it is critical that for supporting network
centric applications with large set of nodes require hierarchical approach to designing networks. In this
research we consider using Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) with multiple clusters. Each cluster
supports a few nodes with a cluster head. The intra-cluster connectivity amongst the nodes within the
cluster is supported by multi-hop connectivity to ensure handling mobility in such a way that no service
disruption can occur. The inter-cluster connectivity is also achieved by multi-hop connectivity. However,
for inter-cluster communications, only cluster heads are connected. The selection of intra-cluster
communications and inter-cluster communications allow scalability of the network to support multiservices applications end-to-end with a desired Quality of Service (QoS). This paper proposes graph
theoretic approach to establish efficient connection between a source and a destination within each cluster
in intra-cluster network and between clusters in inter-cluster network. Graph theoretic approach
traditionally was applied networks where nodes are static or fixed. In this paper, we have applied the
graph theoretic routing to MANET where nodes are mobile. One of the important challenges in MANET is
to support an efficient routing algorithm for multi-hop communications across many nodes which are
dynamic in nature. However, dynamic behavior of the nodes requires greater understanding of the node
degree and mobility at each instance of time in order to maintain end-to-end QoS for multi-service
provisioning. This paper demonstrates graph theoretic approach produces an optimum multi-hop
connectivity path based on cumulative minimum degree that minimizes the contention and scheduling
delay end-to-end. It is applied to both intra-cluster communications as well as inter-cluster
communications. The performance shows that having a multi-hop connectivity for intra-cluster
communications is more power efficient compared to broadcast of information with maximum power
coverage. Each cluster performs similarly and the algorithm is also used for inter-cluster communications.
Our simulation results show that the proposed graph theoretic routing approach will reduce the overall
delay and improves the physical layer data frame transmission.

Keywords
Graph Theory, Dynamic Network, MANET, Routing algorithm, QoS assurance
DOI:10.5121/jgraphoc.2013.5401

1


1. INTRODUCTION
Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) [1] is often characterized as infrastructure-less as it does not
use towers or base stations. It can be defined as a system of autonomous mobile (Dynamic) nodes
that communicate over wireless links without any preinstalled infrastructure [2]. The network
deployment is easy. The network is both power and bandwidth constrained and yet it is expected
to provide multi-service provisioning with end-to-end Quality of Service (QoS) provisioning to
end users. MANET doesn’t have any dedicated routers to do routing (define a path for packet to
transmit from source to destination), Thus each node can work as a relay in the communication
path. Each node is able to send and receive data from other nodes in the network [3]. When a
node wants to send data to another node which is outside the coverage area (or in a different
cluster), then the source node will forward this data to an intermediate node. The intermediate
node will forward the data to the next hop or destination node. As long as the cumulative power
for multi-hop path is less than the broadcast power, it is feasible to achieve power efficiency [4].
This method also achieves overall throughput efficiency and end-to-end response time. However,
since the nodes move freely, maintaining continuous path connectivity imposes additional
complexity. MANETs rely on all participating nodes to share the task of routing and forwarding
peer traffic. Thus, it is very necessary to develop a routing algorithm which can be efficient in
terms of power and bandwidth usage as well as it can improve the overall efficiency of the
network to provide quality of service (QoS) assurance for the required application. QoS in
MANET is defined as the collective effect of service performance with constraints on delay,
jitter, system buffer, network bandwidth, number of hops, power at each node, node mobility in
MANET, and packet loss. Also, the performance efficiency achieved with a small set of nodes
must be scalable for large set of nodes. Furthermore, in MANET, fast and unpredictable topology
changes due to nodes mobility, and channel capacity vary due to environmental effects. Thus, it is
more prone to errors compared with that of wired networks. These factors reduce the overall
network throughput than equivalent wired network. Thus, supporting media applications such as
“video streaming” over MANET is challenging. As infrastructures need to be quickly deployable
in applications such as battlefield and homeland security theaters [5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. MANET
architectures are still attractive even if complexity to handle mobility is higher.
This paper is organized as follows. Section II described background research. Section III
describes the system model followed by simulation performance in section IV followed by
conclusion in Section V.

2. BACKGROUND
A routing protocol is needed to deliver packet from a source to destination based on distance and
power availability of the nodes in the network. It selects a path for each source and destination
pair based on the system constraints which are extracted from the application needs. International
Engineering Task Force (IETF) MANET WG is developing a routing specification [1] which
enables scalability to support large number of nodes (hundreds). There are many routing
algorithms have been developed by researchers [10, 11, 12 13 14 15, 16]. They tend to have both
advantages and limitations that prohibit them to be useful for deployment in a scalable MANET.

2


These routing protocols can be divided in three main sections.
(1) Proactive Routing protocols [17-31]
(2) Reactive Routing Protocols [32-38]
(3) Hybrid routing protocols [39]
Each protocol is explained briefly as follows.
•

Proactive Routing Protocols

Proactive routing protocols are table driven protocols; it is not based on flooding network. Routes
are setup based on continuous control traffic and maintain all the routes all the time. It maintains
the routes to destinations even if they are not needed. Proactive methods maintain routes to all
nodes, including nodes to which no packets are sent. Such methods react to topology changes,
even if no traffic is affected by the changes. In order to maintain correct route information, a node
must periodically send control messages.
•

Reactive Routing Protocols

Reactive routing protocols can dramatically reduce routing overhead because they do not need to
search for and maintain the routes on which there is no data traffic. It does not take initiative for
finding routes. This property is very appealing in the resource-limited environment. The routes
can be established on demand by flooding network with request packets to whole network.
•

Hybrid Routing Protocols

These types of protocols combines the advantages of proactive and of reactive routing. The
routing is initially established with some proactively prospected routes and then serves the
demand from additionally activated nodes through reactive flooding. The choice for one or the
other method requires predetermination for typical cases.
In this paper, we concentrated on proactive routing algorithms. Fisheye Routing Scheme (FSR)
[17] is a table-driven routing protocol which requires exchanging link information with neighbors
to perform routing but in the case, the neighbor is absent, then it’s hard to develop routing in such
a scenario. Exchange link information with neighbors increase the memory usage and it increase
the overload on MANET network. Optimized Link State routing (OLSR) [18, 19] scheme, each
node periodically produce the HELLO message for the neighbors and find the 2-hop connection
to destination. This can be applicable for only in dense network environment where it is easy find
2-hop connection to destination. It can not be scalable and it uses much more overhead in routing
for MANET. Also it increases traffic at each MPR (Multi-point Relays). Topology broadcast
based on reverse path forwarding (TBRPF) [20, 21] and Better Approach to Mobile Ad Hoc
Network (BATMAN) [22] routing algorithm update neighbor discovery and update their
information if they are up or down and send packets to that node to forward if those nodes are in
UP position. But this routing scheme requires periodic information from neighbor nodes which
increase usage of bandwidth and memory in the network. Destination Sequenced Distance Vector
Routing (DSDV) [23] routing algorithm generates table for next hop, number of hops with their
install time and it uses the sequence number generated by destination. The least sequence number
3


route will be selected for routing but this algorithm requires updating its routing tables very
frequently. This update process requires bandwidth and power usage even if network is idle.
Therefore it is not feasible routing scheme for highly dynamic network. Hierarchical State routing
(HSR) [24] is defined based on hierarchy of the network and each node forward their packets via
cluster head but this algorithm will increase load on CH and delayed forwarding application in
case of highly traffic network. Cluster Gateway Routing protocol (CGSR) [25] develops the
routing path using the gateways between two clusters where the hierarchy is maintained by CH.
In case of absence of gateway or it moves out of the network, the routing can not be implemented
in MANET. Wireless routing protocol (WRP) [26] maintains four tables simultaneously and
updates neighbor information by broadcasting the HELLO packets to get information about nodes
in the network. Therefore maintaining four tables simultaneously increases management overhead
in MANET network. Global State Routing (GSR) [27] is based on exchange information between
intermediate nodes using their localized information which requires updating this information and
increasing delay in finding neighbor every time thus it’s not feasible for sparse network where
nodes are away from each other. This periodical update increases the bandwidth and power usage
in the network which reduces the efficiency of the MANET. In addition, Source Tree Adaptive
Routing (STAR) [28] is based on links from source to destination and it does not require any
periodical update for all nodes in the network which will reduce the routing overhead but this
can’t be applicable for dynamic network. In Distance Routing Effect Algorithm for Mobility
(DREAM), [29] each node must have knowledge of geographical co-ordinates of other nodes in
the network which implement the necessity of GPS in the network. In addition, Meghanathan et
al. concentrated on developing graph theory based routing algorithm but they did not consider
collision and contention at each node due to its degree [30, 31]. Reactive routing protocols [3238] use flooding technique to find the new route if an existing route breaks and thus it will direct
to more packet loss in deciding the on-demand routing algorithm. It uses more network overhead
in finding the new route and ad-hoc networks have very limited resources therefore it is not
adequate idea to use more resources to find new route even if there is no guarantee that new
selected route will be more effective than previous one. These existing routing algorithms are
either scalable or power and bandwidth efficient. In wireless communication, link quality is
proportional to the transmission power and therefore, for long distance communication we need
multi-hop connectivity to save power at each intermediate node. Many researchers provide their
multi-hop connectivity based on shortest path and minimum power. Most of researchers
considered only the power constraint in developing routing scheme but no one considered the
congestion at each node due to receiving packets from different nodes to forward to related
destination. As per author’s knowledge, there is no research proposed to date, which is scalable,
power and bandwidth efficient to provide QoS assurance for multi-service application based on
traffic consideration at each node. In this paper, a novel idea of graph theoretic routing approach
is presented, which is efficient in terms of power dissipation, bandwidth usage, and QoS
guarantee. In addition, presented idea is also scalable and it can works for large number of nodes
to provide video streaming in dynamic network. The proposed scheme considers congestion at
each node to develop a routing path from source to destination node and this newly developed
routing algorithm will reduces the scheduling time at each node by selecting the least congested
node first in routing path, consequently this reduces the overall delay and accomplish the targeted
QoS for the application. In addition, it is proactive routing and it saves bandwidth and power at
each intermediate node consequently to increase efficiency of the MANET.

4


3. SYSTEM MODEL
Our proposed graph theoretic routing approach is intended for application to distributed mobile
ad hoc network (MANET) in which whole network can be divided in number of clusters. Each
cluster has a defined cluster head which is elected during initialization of each cluster. Cluster
head is expected to be vehicle mounted (air or ground). The cluster heads of different cluster
heads uses a higher point (and therefore longer reach) inter-cluster backbone network, while
radios or nodes communicate with the cluster head with low power intra-cluster communications
network. The inter-cluster network operates on a higher bandwidth. Both inter-cluster and intracluster network are mobile where any node and any cluster can move. Each cluster head keeps
track of all the nodes within its own cluster and has knowledge of location of its nodes, therefore
geography of the cluster. The MANET architecture allows independent management of intracluster routing and inter-cluster routing. The graph theoretic based routing is identical for both
intra-cluster and inter-cluster path connectivity. In the intra-cluster routing within each cluster,
the routes are established from a given source node to a destination node and between a source
node and the cluster head when the destination node is in a different cluster. When nodes are in
different clusters, the intra-cluster connectivity is used between the source node and its local
cluster head. The cluster head establishes a path between itself and a destination cluster over
inter-cluster network while the designation cluster head connects to the destination node within
its cluster. While the routing algorithm is identical, path connectivity decisions are independent.
The route selection is based on maintaining a low contention using a cumulative minimum degree
path end-to-end. In this paper, we focus on intra-cluster routing and path connectivity since the
procedure is identical for both intra-cluster and inter-cluster network architecture. We develop a
model that selects minimum cumulative degree path between the source and a destination (cluster
head), we also showed the theoretical performance of in terms of end-to-end throughput and
delay as well as simulation of the network that verifies the performance results.
We assume that the background Position, Location and Tracking (PL&T) algorithm that
determines the locations of all mobile nodes continuously and the Cluster Head (CH) keeps track
of all the PL&Ts of nodes within each cluster [40,41]. Periodically, CH broadcasts the snapshots
of all nodes and their PL&T within the cluster. This is the initial step of the algorithm.
Furthermore, the following steps are used for route discovery and connectivity:
Step 1: Each Node desiring to set up a routing path to a destination Node uses the snap shot at an
instance of time to identify all possible multi-hop paths.
Step 2: Each node computes the degree of the nodes that are deemed to be in the multi-hop path
connection.
Step 3: Based on the degree of each node (which is defined as the number of path connections
established through that node for all sources), it selects the path that has the cumulative minimum
degree. That is the path that will be used for packet transfers from the source.
The same is done by all source nodes. This algorithm achieves minimum contention due to
minimum degree and also minimum scheduling time for onward packet traffic. In case of tie,
when two nodes will have same contention then our proposed algorithm will select the minimum
number of hops as an efficient routing path.

5


The functions within the management reference plane are critical to the design of graph theoretic
routing. The background process for continuous monitoring of node PL&T in the Cluster Head is
accomplished by the integrated zone and P&T triangulation with dynamic references. It uses both
physical layer and the IP layer. The cross layer route management is accomplished in the network
management plane. The time stamping for the IP packets are done at the physical layer for
measurement of range between the target node and the reference node, while the packets
delivered for measuring the PL&T are IP layer packets. Zone finding at the “current instance of
time” uses a predictive trajectory algorithm based on knowing three good PL&T previous
locations of the node and their instances of times.
Once the zone is realized, the references that have good PL&Ts are used for determining the
target node locations. These references are selected using the zone and maintaining proper
geometry such that no angle is less than 30 degrees or greater than 150 degrees in the triangular
formation of the references for two dimensional PL&T operation [40, 41]. If the angles violate
these rules, the accuracy of prediction of PL&T is compromised. Thus, the zone finding must
come first and then triangulation. Once the target nodes’ PL&T is identified, the desired reference
node will send the information to the Cluster Head (CH).

3.1. Route Discovery
To perform route discovery for packet transmission from source node to destination, following
steps will be performed at source node.
•
•
•
•

•
•

•

Source node will calculate the distance and degree of each node in the cluster based on
received snapshot from the cluster head.
It will calculate the cost for each route based on scheduling time and contention time.
Based on the available data, it will determine intermediate nodes and create the matrix (i.e.
Primary Matrix and secondary matrix) for less traffic route (i.e. less contention time + less
scheduling time), such that the delay can be reduced in packet transfers.
After setting up matrices, source node will send packets to an intermediate node and this
intermediate node checks the destination bits of the received packets, if that packet is for it
then it will extract the data, else it will forward the received packet towards next intermediate
node and eventually to the CH if the packet is deemed to be delivered to a destination in
another cluster.
If more than one source node is connected to the intermediate node, each of these sources will
attempt to send the packet to the same intermediate node where there can be a collision.
Collision resolution algorithm allows one successful packet from a source to enter the
intermediate node. Therefore, there is a collision resolution time. In addition, the packet
scheduling time adds to the end-to-end delay at each intermediate node. The routing
algorithm that has both collision and scheduling is described in later sections. Therefore, in
our proposed routing scheme, each node can route packet to next available node with less
amount of power, thus power can be saved at each intermediate node.
Now cluster head will determine the destination address and decide the route based on it for
inter cluster communication. If the destination is outside of the cluster then CH will route that
received packet to cluster head of the next cluster in the direction of destination based on
minimum node cluster and using this approach, packet is transmitted with security to
6


destination without losing any information. We also have secondary route in addition to
primary route to provide preemptive solution to packet transfer.

3.2. Route Maintenance
Cluster Head will periodically broadcast the snapshots and each node can have different degrees
at each instance they move. Thus each source node can check the congestion at other nodes based
on next received snapshot from the CH to maintain QoS for desired application. If that congestion
increases more at the intermediate node in the predefined path, then switch the existing route to
the secondary path. After switching to secondary path, the source node will update the next
available less congestion path. Thus secondary matrix becomes primary matrix and new
secondary matrix will be generated by the source. In this fashion switching can increase the
packet transmission reliability before the existing route breaks or more congested. Furthermore,
in this proposed scheme, new routing path is available in hand before existing route breaks to
maintain the QoS for the multi-media application. Therefore, this routing scheme is called
preemptive routing. Additionally, this is based on table-drive routing scheme and called proactive
routing algorithm.

3.3. Node Architecture
The Architecture design of each node has two node consists of two sections:
• Receive Section
(The node can receive packets from other nodes, but not transmit)
• Transmit Section
(The node can transmit packets to other nodes, but not receive)
The default mode for the node is set to “receive mode”. This implies that the antenna will be
receiving and not transmitting the information. In the receive mode, the node will receive packets
from other nodes which are logically connected. If more than one packet is arriving, the node
experiences collision and it is detected within a small amount of time. However, the collision
duration is set to a value where the entire packet reception is completed. The node will then
resolve the collision and allow one of the collided packets to be transmitted by the designated
node. At this stage, the node will go to transmit mode and the initial fields specify the node ID
that is allowed to transport the packet and the nodes that sent packets, but collided will have to
wait for a random amount of time exceeding the transmissions of two packets and the next
reception of the desired node packet. When the node switches from receive mode to transmit
mode, the collision resolution information is sent initially along with the transmission of its own
packet and the packet that that was received in the previous cycle when it was in receive mode.
Then it goes into receive mode for reception of packets. This process is followed by each node in
the cluster as they make their own decision on selecting the multi-hop paths. A complete cycle in
the node consists of one transmission mode and one receive mode where one or two packets are
transmitted during transmission mode and one packet is received in the receive mode. Each node
can have its source provide a packet for transmission.

7


Figure. 1 Flow Chart describing the scheduling algorithm

3.4. Nodes In Transmit Mode Or In Receive Mode Along The Multi-Hop Path
In MANET, since we assume that each node has only one antenna, the node can either receive or
transmit a packet and not both. We set the default of each node such that it is in “receive mode”.
When a node has a packet to be transmitted, it goes into “transmit mode” and executes
transmission of a packet and it cannot receive any packet at that instance of time. In a multi-hop
path, the adjacent intermediate node is set to “receive mode” for it to receive the packet from a
source node. When more than one node is sending a packet, the intermediate node experiences a
collision. It executes a collision resolution algorithm to select one source node to send a packet.
The other source nodes wait for a random amount of time before retrying to send their packets.

3.5. Packet Scheduling
After receiving the packet, the intermediate node changes its mode from “receive mode” to
“transmit mode” to schedule a transmission of a packet. The node at an instance of time may have
a packet from its user and a packet from a neighboring node. It has to schedule a packet to be sent
onwards to the next adjacent node selected in the path. It either finds that the packet is destined
to its user or to the next adjacent node and decides transmission accordingly. The design
encompasses transmitting the packet that was received first from the neighbor and then transmit
its own packet if it has a packet ready to be sent. Once this is accomplished, the switches the
antenna and RF from “transmit mode” to “receive mode”. By using multi-hop connectivity, each
node can route packet to next available node with less amount of power, thus power can be saved
at each intermediate node.

3.6. Power Calculation of Routing Path
Power required to transmit from the source to destination is calculated based on the distance
between them. For a transmission from source node k to destination node j, separated by a
distance Rkj, The transmitter power at k is modeled to as equation shown below.
8


P = Rαkj

(1)

Where α is the channel loss exponent (typically between 2 and 4, depending on the channel
medium) [42]. In this research, we assume the value of α = 3. Since the channel can experience
interference, choosing a value of ALPHA of 3 may not be exact as it may be increased, but when
there is no interference, the value may go down, therefore, we believe it is reasonable to assume
an average value of α = 3.

3.7. Theoretical Modelling of A Node
We assume that the packet sizes are fixed and therefore the service rate at each node to transmit a
packet is fixed. Since more than one node sends packet to an intermediate node and each packet
arrival is memory less and has no correlation, the packet arrival rate can be assumed to be
“Poisson”. We also assume that there is only one antenna that can go either in transmit mode or in
receive mode. Therefore, the node behaviour can be modelled using M/D/1 queuing [43].
However, since we are using RF transmission at each node with only one antenna, the
conventional M/D/1 model has to be modified for MANET operation. The modified M/D/1
model with packet contention and packet scheduling is shown in Fig.2. In this model, we assume
the following:
•
•
•

Arrival rate is Poisson due to memory-less property
Service rate is deterministic since packets are of equal size so for this case and we transmit
both the packet received from the neighbour and the packet from its own source from each
node before relinquishing the transmit mode.
Each node is considered to have only one antenna which is a single server.

Figure. 2 Modified M/D/1 Queuing Model for a MANET Node

9


4. SIMULATION PERFORMANCE
4.1. Route Selection Based On Proposed Algorithm
We used MATLAB to simulate MANET architecture where nodes are randomly distributed
within an area of 200 x 200 square meters area and set each node to randomly move. Fig.3 shows
the random distribution of nodes in the whole network.
Table. 1 SIMULATION PARAMETERS

Parameter

Values
200*200 meters
50
Random
Random

Area
Number of Nodes
Node Placement Strategy
Mobility
100

35

29
42

90

70

31
13

38

10

21

60
50

50
25

30

43

14
8
2

40

44

18

12
37

9

34

41
19

80

40

15
46

39
45

30
36
27
33 49

3

32

22
23

17
24
48

5

4

10
0

20
28

7

20

0

1 11

6

10

26
47
20

16
30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure. 3 Node distribution in Cluster

Source and destination nodes keep changing in the overall operation of MANET. Figure 4
illustrates a scenario where node 5 is the source node and node 12 is the destination node. Also,
node 12 is in the third circle from node 5 therefore, node 5 needs to select an intermediate node
from the middle circle. During the initial conditions, node 5 sends its packets via node 18 because
node 18 has lower degree compared to other nodes in the vicinity. Therefore, the path from node
5 to node 12 goes through node 18. Fig 4 shows the direct path with blue line as well as multi-hop
path via node 18 via black line (for source node 5 to destination node 12). It also shows that by
using a node with the least degree as the intermediate node, the path is able to maintain bounded
time for scheduling the packets and forwarding the incoming packet to its final destination. It
should be noted that the direct path from node 5 to node 12 would require more power for
transmission compared to that of the multi-hop connected path (5-18-12). The intent of using
minimum power multi-hop path would increase the network life time. Calculation of the required
transmit power is shown in Table 2. Figure 5 shows that node 18 moves from its original place
10


causing disruption of the path connectivity. In this case, the proposed algorithm reroutes the
packet exchange with the next available path available prior to the disruption of the path
connectivity and therefore, the probability of information loss is significantly reduced.
In this case, the source node 5 selects node 8 as the intermediate node which has lesser degree
and source node 5 will send packet to destination node 12 via node 8. Thus, it possible to show
that packet transmission can be achieved without service interruption while maintaining
minimum transmission power (section 3.6).
Table. 2 POWER REQUIRED FOR TRANSMISSION ATSOURCE NODE

Source
Node
5
5
18
5
8
200

Destination
Node
12
18
12
8
12

15

180

32

Node location in Y axis

160

Node Location in Different Clusters at initialization
24
39
5
10
17
11
29
9

46
140 14

27

50

38
37 48

120

40 6
4

8

22

36
28

80 42
3

60

25
26

31

40

19

13
41

20

40

49

1

35
20
245
60
80
100
120
140
160
Node location in X axis

21
0

34
33

30

16

20

7

23

43

44
12

47

18

100

0

Required
Power
(mw)
443.755
207.961
237.029
141.359
325.442

180

200

Figure. 4 Node position at the time of MANET Initialization

11

24
Node Location in Different Clusters after movement
5

200
180

27

14

Node location in Y axis

160

46

39

47

11 40

32 9
15
48

140

8

6

4
37

120

12

42
60

26

40
44

20

18

7
23

25

3

80

21

16

31

30

43

20

40

60

22

34

36

19

45
20

0

17

28

38

100

0

29

10
50

2
80
100
120
140
Node location in X 41
axis

33

1
160

180
49

1335
200

Figure. 5 Node position of all nodes after Movement for the Same Source - Destination pair via different
intermediate node.

4.2. Throughput and Delay Computation
We considered the following parameter values for packet size and Packet Transmission time in
order to compute the throughput and delay:
Packet Size = 1500 Bytes
Pt = 6 ms
We varied the offered traffic from 10 to 1000 packets/sec over channel of 2 Mbit/s. We
normalized the parameters with packet transmission rate. Figure 6 shows the normalized
throughput vs. the normalized offered traffic. We can see that when the packet generation rate is
higher than the packet transmission rate, the node is not capable of forwarding the incoming
packets continuously, thereby reducing the throughput. Also, when the packet generation rate is
smaller than the packet transmission rate, the packets are delivered continuously, thereby
increasing the throughput. Figure 6 illustrates the normalized throughput vs. the normalized
offered traffic for different values of the degree of connectivity of each node.

12

Normalized Throughput Vs Offered Traffic

0.16

Degree =
Degree =
Degree =
Degree =
Degree =
Degree =
Degree =

0.14

Normalized Throughput

0.12
0.1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0

0

0.2

0.4

0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Normalized Offered Traffic

1.4

1.6

1.8

Figure. 6 Normalized Throughput Vs Normalized Offered traffic with various degrees at each node.

In general, we can write the following equations for the model:

Normalized service rate is assumed to be 2, since we assume that both the neighboring node
packet as well its own source packet are delivered when the node is set to be in “transmission
mode”.

The above parameters are also normalized with the packet transmission rate as we develop the
theoretical results. In conventional networks, when the utilization factor which is the ratio of the
13


arrival rate and the service rate is less than 1, the node does not experience packet losses. On the
other hand, when the ratio exceeds 1, packet losses will occur. In the case of MANET
architecture, each node will have one packet selected for transmission from its neighbors and one
packet from its source is also transmitted each time the node goes into “transmit” mode.
For the proposed multi-hop connectivity, we can write the following set of equations:

Figure 7 shows the computed throughput at each node for different values of degrees. It is seen
that as the degree of the node increases, the throughput decreases since the contention resolution
time increases for packets from multiple sources. Figure 8 shows the delay due to contention
resolution and scheduling time at each node. It can be observed that when the node has a higher
degree, the overall delay increases, which includes the contention resolution time, packet
scheduling time and packet transmission time.

14

-3

1.6

Throughput at Each Node

x 10

1.4

Throughput at Each Node

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0

5

10

15

20

25
Node

30

35

40

45

50

Figure. 7 Throughput at Each node for a Snapshot
Delay at Each node based on Degree

0.7

Contention Resolution Time
Scheduling Time
Total Delay

0.6

0.5

Delay

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0

5

10

15

20

25
Node

30

35

40

45

50

Figure. 8 Delay at Each node based on its degree

5. CONCLUSION
We developed graph theoretic based routing algorithm for cluster based MANET that works
independently in intra-cluster and inter-cluster network. It is efficient due to the fact that the
contention resolution time is the only random parameter and therefore computational complexity
is significantly reduced which is directly related to processing power in each radio. The proposed
graph theoretic routing algorithm achieves lower packet error rate (PER) and higher throughput
with using less power at each intermediate node for the transmitted packets. The fact that the
PL&T of nodes is known to each node, it is able to establish an alternate path which will facilitate
preemptive switching to an alternate path if any node in the primary path moves beyond the
coverage area, thus making it efficient. In this paper, we showed both the theoretical and
15


simulation performance. We modify the basic M/D/1 queuing model to allow contention
resolution based on the degree of the node as a suitable application for MANET architecture.
Also, the service rate is averaged due to scheduling since at any instance of time, if an external
packet is scheduled, there is a potential that its own source packet may also needed to be
transmitted. In our simulation, we considered that there is always a source packet along with an
external packet.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research work is supported in part by the National Science Foundation NSF 0931679. The
views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be
interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the National
Science Foundation or the U. S. Government.

REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]

[6]

[7]
[8]
[9]

[10]
[11]

[12]

[13]
[14]

http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/manet/charter/
K. Srinivas and A. A. Chari, “Cross layer congestion control in MANETs and current state of art,”
International Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 28-35, September 2011
Ad Hoc Networking, edited by C. E. Perkins, Addison Wesley, 2001.
R. Wattenhofer, L. Li, P. Bahl, and Y. Wang. Distributed topology control for power efficient
operation in multihop wireless ad hoc networks. In IEEE INFOCOM 2001, April 2001.
Dow, C.R.; Lin, P.J.; Chen, S.C.; Lin, J.H.; Hwang, S.F.; , "A study of recent research trends and
experimental guidelines in mobile ad-hoc network," Advanced Information Networking and
Applications, 2005. AINA 2005. 19th International Conference on , vol.1, no., pp. 72- 77 vol.1, 28-30
March 2005
G. Aggelou, R. Tafazolli, RDMAR: a bandwidth-efficient routing protocol for mobile ad hoc
networks, in: ACM International Workshop on Wireless Mobile Multimedia (WoWMoM), 1999, pp.
26–33.
C-Y. Chong, S.P. Kumar Sensor networks: evolution, opportunities, and challenges Proceedings of
the IEEE, 91 (8) (2003), pp. 1247–1256
Oh, S.Y.; Lau, D.; Gerla, M.; , "Content Centric Networking in tactical and emergency MANETs,"
Wireless Days (WD), 2010 IFIP , vol., no., pp.1-5, 20-22 Oct. 2010
D. R. Vaman, “Complexities of ad hoc wireless network architectures and their dual use capabilities
for Multi-service QoS assured applications”, Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Enabling
Technologies for Smart Appliances, Vol. 1 Key Session ETMA, January 12-14, 2005, Hyderabad,
India (Invited Paper)
Abolhasan, M., Wysocki, T., & Dutkiewicz, E. (2004). A review of routing protocols for mobile ad
hoc networks. Ad hoc networks, 2(1), 1-22.
S. R. Das, R. Castaneda and J. Yan, “Simulation Based Performance Evaluation of Mobile, Ad Hoc
Network Routing Protocols,” ACM/Baltzer Mobile Networks and Applications (MONET) Journal,
July 2000, pages 179-189.
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 ACM/IEEE
MOBICOM’98, Dallas, TX, Oct. 1998, pp. 85-97.
M. Royer and C.-K. Toh, ”A Review of Current Routing Protocols for Ad-Hoc Mobile Wireless
Networks”, IEEE Personal Communications Magazine, April 1999, pp. 46-55.
Iwata, C.-C. Chiang, G. Pei, M. Gerla, and T.-W. Chen, ”Scalable Routing Strategies for Ad-hoc
Wireless Networks,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, Aug. 1999, pp. 1369-1379.
16

[15] S.-J. Lee, C.-K. Toh, and M. Gerla, ”Performance Evaluation of Table- Driven and On-Demand Ad
Hoc Routing Protocols,” in Proceedings of IEEE PIMRC’99, Osaka, Japan, Sep. 1999, pp. 297-301.
[16] Bellman-Ford: R.E. Bellman, Dynamic Programming, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ,
1957.
[17] G. Pei, M. Gerla, and T.-W. Chen,”Fisheye State Routing: A Routing Scheme for Ad Hoc Wireless
Networks,” in Proceedings of ICC 2000, New Orleans, LA, Jun. 2000
[18] P. Jacquet, P. Muhlethaler, A. Qayyum, A. Laouiti, L. Viennot and T. Clausen, ”Optimized Link State
Routing Protocol,” draft-ietf-manet-olsr- 05.txt, Internet Draft, IETF MANET Working Group, Nov.
2000.
[19] T. Clausen and P. Jacquet. Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR). IETF, October 2003.
RFC 3626.
[20] R. G. Ogier, F. L. Templin, B. Bellur and M. G. Lewis, “Topology Broadcast based on Reverse-Path
Forwarding (TBRPF),” draft-ietf-manettbrpf 05.txt, INTERNET-DRAFT, MANET Working Group,
Mar. 2002.
[21] B. Bellur, R.G. Ogier, F.L Templin, Topology broadcast based on reverse-path forwarding routing
protocol (tbrpf), in: Internet Draft, draft-ietf-manet-tbrpf-06.txt, work in progress, 2003.
[22] Neumann, C. Aichele, M. Lindner, and S. Wunderlich, Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc
Networking (B.A.T.M.A.N.), Internet-Draft, pages 1-24, 2008. Network Working Group.
[23] E. Perkins and P. Bhagwat, “Highly dynamic destination sequenced distance-vector routing (DSDV)
for mobile computers“, Computer Communications Review, pp. 234-244, Oct.1994.
[24] K.K. Kasera, R. Ramanathan, A location management protocol for hierarchically organised multihop
mobile wireless networks, in: Proceedings of the IEEE ICUPC_97, San Diego, CA, October 1997, pp.
158–162.
[25] C.-C. Chiang, Routing in clustered multihop mobile wireless networks with fading channel, in:
Proceedings of IEEE SICON, April 1997, pp. 197–211.
[26] G. Pei, M. Gerla, X. Hong, and C. -C. Chiang, ”A Wireless Hierarchical Routing Protocol with Group
Mobility,” in Proceedings of IEEE WCNC’99, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 1999.
[27] T.-W. Chen, M. Gerla, Global state routing: a new routing scheme for ad-hoc wireless networks, in:
Proceedings of the IEEE ICC, 1998.
[28] J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, C. Marcelo Spohn, Source-tree routing in wireless networks, in: Proceedings
of the Seventh Annual International Conference on Network Protocols Toronto, Canada, October
1999, p. 273
[29]S. Basagni, I. Chlamtac, V. R. Syrotiuk, and B. A. Woodward, ”A distance routing effect algorithm for
mobility (DREAM),” in ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking
(Mobicom98), 1998,pages 76 - 84.
[30] M. A. Rajan, M. G. Chandra, L. C. Reddy and P. Hiremath, “Concepts of Graph Theory Relevant to
Ad-hoc Networks”. International Journal of Computers, Communications & Control, Vol. 3,
No.Suppl, pp. 465-469, 2008.
[31] Meghanathan, Natarajan, “Applications of Graph Theory Algorithms in Mobile Ad hoc Networks”.
[32] E. Perkins and E. M. Royer, “Ad-hoc on-demand distance vector routing,” in Proc. IEEE Workshop
on Mobile Comp. Sys.and Apps., Feb. 1999, pp. 90-100.
[33] B. Johnson and D. A. Maltz, “Dynamic source routing in ad hoc wireless networks,” in Mobile
Computing, 1996, pp. 153-181.
[34] C.-K. Toh, “Associativity-Based Routing For Ad Hoc Mobile Networks,” Wireless Personal
Communications Journal, Special Issue on Mobile Networking and Computing Systems, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, vol. 4, no. 2, Mar. 1997, pp. 103-139.
[35] Park V. and S. Corson, 2001. Temporary-ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA). Internet Draft, draftietf-manettora-spec-04.txt.
[36] Y. Ko and N. H. Vaidya, “Location-aided routing (LAR) in mobile ad hoc networks,” Wireless
Networks, 6(4), July 2000, pp. 307-321.

17

[37] J. Raju, J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, A new approach to on demand loop-free multipath routing, in:
Proceedings of the 8th Annual IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications and
Networks (ICCCN), Boston, MA, October 1999, pp. 522–527.
[38] MALEKI, M., DANTU, K., AND PEDRAM, M. 2003. Lifetime prediction routing in mobile ad hoc
networks. In Wireless Communication and Networking Conference. New Orleans, LA. USA
[39] Z.J. Haas and M.R. Pearlman, ”The Performance of Query Control Schemes for the Zone Routing
Protocol,” ACM/IEEE Transactions on Networking, vol. 9, no. 4, August 2001, pp. 427-438.
[40] D.R. Vaman, N. Shakhakarmi, “Integrated Key based Strict Friendliness Verification of Neighbors in
MANET, IEEE International Conference On Security Science and Technology, Jan 22, ICSST 2011.
[41] N. Shakhakarmi, D. R. Vaman, “Distributed Position Localization and Tracking (DPLT) of Malicious
Nodes in Cluster Based Mobile Ad hoc Networks (MANET)”, WSEAS Transactions in
Communications, ISSN: 1109-2742, Issue 11, Volume 9, November 2010.
[42] Marks, R.J.; Das, A.K.; El-Sharkawi, M.; Arabshahi, P.; Gray, A., "Minimum power broadcast trees
for wireless networks: optimizing using the viability lemma," Circuits and Systems, 2002. ISCAS
2002. IEEE International Symposium on , vol.1, no., pp.I-273,I-276 vol.1, 2002
[43] Kleinrock, Leonard (1975). Queuing Systems Volume 1: Theory.

Authors
Kirtikumar K. Patel received the B.S. degree in Electronics and Communication Engineering from
Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University, India, and M.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from Lamar
University, United States of America in 2006 and 2008, respectively. He is currently working towards his
PhD. degree in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the Prairie View A&M
University, a member of the Texas A&M University System. His current research interests include mobile
ad hoc network, routing algorithms, graph theory applications and contention resolution algorithms.
Dhadesugoor R. Vaman is Texas Instrument Endowed Chair Professor and Founding Director of ARO
Center for Battlefield Communications (CeBCom) Research, ECE Department, Prairie View A&M
University (PVAMU). He has more than 38 years of research experience in telecommunications and
networking area. Currently, he has been working on the control based mobile ad hoc and sensor networks
with emphasis on achieving bandwidth efficiency using KV transform coding; integrated power control,
scheduling and routing in cluster based network architecture; QoS assurance for multi-service applications;
and efficient network management. Prior to joining PVAMU, Dr. Vaman was the CEO of Megaxess (now
restructured as MXC) which developed a business ISP product to offer differentiated QoS assured multiservices with dynamic bandwidth management and successfully deployed in several ISPs. Prior to being a
CEO, Dr. Vaman was a Professor of EECS and founding Director of Advanced Telecommunications
Institute, Stevens Institute of Technology (1984-1998); Member, Technology Staff in COMSAT (Currently
Lockheed Martin) Laboratories (1981-84) and Network Analysis Corporation (CONTEL)(1979-81);
Research Associate in Communications Laboratory, The City College of New York (1974-79); and
Systems Engineer in Space Applications Center (Indian Space Research Organization) (1971-1974). He
was also the Chairman of IEEE 802.9 ISLAN Standards Committee and made numerous technical
contributions and produced 4 standards. Dr. Vaman has published over 200 papers in journals and
conferences; widely lectured nationally and internationally; has been a key note speaker in many IEEE and
other conferences, and industry forums. He has received numerous awards and patents, and many of his
innovations have been successfully transferred to industry for developing commercial products.

18

GRAPH THEORETIC ROUTING ALGORITHM (GTRA) FOR MOBILE AD-HOC NETWORKS (MANET)

Related slideshows

More Related Content

GRAPH THEORETIC ROUTING ALGORITHM (GTRA) FOR MOBILE AD-HOC NETWORKS (MANET)