Design and implementation a new cluster based

[SYLWAN., 159(10)]. ISI Indexed - Oct 2015 108

Design and Implementation A new Cluster Based

Routing Protocol for Ad-hoc Network

Ghaidaa Muttasher Abdulsaheb1, Norrozila Sulaiman2, Osamah Ibrahem Khalaf3

. 1PHD Candidate at Faculty of Computer Systems & Software Engineering, University Malaysia Pah

ang,

Malaysia, University of Technology, 10066Al-Sina’a Street, Baghdad, Iraq1

2Faculty of Computer Systems & Software Engineering, University Malaysia Pahang.

3PHD Candidate at Faculty of Computer Systems & Software Engineering, University Malaysia

Pahang, Malaysia, Work at Faculty of Information Engineering, Al-Nahrain University, 10072 Al-Jadriyah,

Baghdad, Iraq2

{ gh961,Norrozila, usamah81818}@yahoo.com

Graphical abstract

Abstract

The mobile ad-hoc network has become one of

the most important networks because of its easy

construction, which does not require any pre-fixed

infrastructure. However, clustering is difficult to

apply in this type of network because of the

dynamic network topology, which complicates

cluster formation, maintenance, and route

discovery. Therefore, the current study suggests a

new cluster-based formation routing algorithm,

which is used in a new proposed routing protocol

namely, the new cluster routing protocol (NCRP),

which is proposed a new algorithm for cluster

formation, it also uses a new, modified algorithm to

calculate the scale of nodes. This scale selects a

cluster head according to many parameters, such

as the storage capacity, load distribution,

accumulative time, available power, number of

neighboring nodes, the movement of each node,

and the distance among nodes. Results confirm

that the proposed algorithm can reduce end-to-

end delay, the number of dropped packets, and

normalized control overhead. Furthermore, the

throughput and the packet delivery ratio are

increased, as reflected significantly in the routing

protocol.

Keywords: clustering, ad hoc, routing algorithms,

cluster-based routing protocols, K-algorithm.


1.0 INTRODUCTION

The mobile ad-hoc network consists of a number of

wireless mobile nodes that are self-organized and do

not require a constant structure. The movement of

the nodes enables them to generate multiple routes

[1]. Thus, accurate routes must be determined for

these nodes. A new algorithm must therefore be

developed to design a routing protocol that adapts

to network topology changes. The ad-hoc network

contains many kinds of routing protocols, namely,

reactive (on demand), proactive (table driven), and

hybrid routing protocols. In the reactive routing

protocol (AODV), a route is created only as needed.

In the proactive routing protocol (DSDV), the route is

prepared in advance, and the details are listed in a

specific table [2]. The hybrid routing protocol

combines the two previous types of routing protocols.

This type of routing protocol is used in clustering. A

cluster uses the DSDV to locate internal paths,

whereas the AODV is employed to determine routes

to other clusters [3].

2.0 RELATED WORK

Many studies have been conducted to increase the

performance of the routing protocol. Kun-Won et al.

[4] suggested a new and secure routing protocol for

sensor networks that combines the traditional routing

protocols with security routing protocols through

encryption and decryption methods in the design

process. The results of this study suggest that the new

protocol is more effective and it is recommended

over previous routing protocols than previous routing

protocols.

Rezaee et al. [5] established a new cluster-based

routing protocol for use in the ad-hoc network. It

depends on the cluster formation to increase the

packet delivery ratio (PDR) and to minimize end-to-

end delay. The cluster head (CH) can be modified if

the original node is damaged in the suggested

method. The new node is used to send data, thus

minimizing the probability of error.

Jason et al. [6] proposed a new cluster routing

protocol (CBRP) for a mobile ad-hoc network. It

applies a specific algorithm to select the gateway

node and limits this selection according to the weight

and energy of the nodes. The simulation results of this

study indicate that node selection significantly

reduces energy consumption and improves the

quality of the routing protocols.

Rashed et al. [7] presented a new two-layer

hierarchical routing protocol that is the modified form

of the low energy adaptive clustering hierarchy

(LEACH) protocol. The main concept behind this

design is the use of the number of CHs and the

number of sensors to aggregate the cluster

information obtained from the receiving node. The

simulation results of this study show that the new

routing protocol consumes reduced amounts of

energy and limits the time delay in data transfer.

Pandi et al. [8] proposed a new cluster ad-hoc

routing protocol that depends on multiple sources

and multicast features to enhance the performance

of the proposed protocol. The original weighted

cluster algorithm was simply modified for this purpose.

The simulation results suggest that the new routing

protocol generates a high PDR; however, the

maximum number of the normalized control

overhead is excessive.

Dongfeng et al. [9] designed an efficient cluster-

based routing protocol for sensor networks. The main

principle behind this approach is reflected in CH

selection; each node can elect itself as a CH. The

simulation results confirm that this new routing

protocol is better than the LEACH and CROSS routing

protocols in terms of energy consumption and end-

to-end delay.

3.0 CLUSTERING

Clustering is one of the most familiar mechanisms. It

gathers numerous nodes into many sets called

clusters to reduce loads in connections and to

eliminate power consumption in large networks. In

the clustering structure, each cluster has one node

that is regarded as the CH. This node manages the

selection of an appropriate path for any node in a

particular cluster. In addition, this node possesses

complete information about all of the nodes in the

cluster. This information is stored in a member table.

The other node that is used to connect clusters is

known as the gateway. The remaining nodes in the

network are labelled as ordinary nodes [10], as shown

in Figure. 1.

Figure.1. Clustering structure

4.0 THE POROPOSED CLUSTERE

MAINTENANCE ALGORITHM

The maintenance stage of a cluster must be initiated

to ensure the correct delivery of the sending packets,

especially given the ad-hoc network that is

characterized by a frequently changing topology.

This dynamism is a result of the mobility of its nodes.

The maintenance stage can be summarized into the

following visualizations:

1- Link failures

2- Node movement

3- CH movement

4- Node that must be a CH


5- Node shutdown

1- Link failure: In the proposed algorithm, cluster

link failures can be categorized into two types. As

displayed in Figure.2, the first type affects the cluster

structure. For example, two nodes m and n that are

related to one cluster send a message to inform the

CH when the link between them is damaged. The CH

then updates its link table. If these two nodes are

under its control and are within its range, it requests

only these nodes to update their link information. If

the nodes are out of its range, the CH asks them to

construct a new, separate cluster and to determine a

new CH the proposed CH selection algorithm. The

node with the greatest scale value declares itself as a

CH.

The second type of link failure does not influence the

cluster structure between two clusters. As exhibited in

Figure. 3, the two nodes merely inform the CH

regarding the failure through a message. They also

update their link information.

Figure2. Link failure within the same Cluster

Figure3.Link failure between cluster1 and

cluster2

2- Node movement: In the proposed algorithm,

node movement is treated as follows, When a node

travels from one cluster to another, it sends a

message to all of the nodes in the new cluster. This

message contains important information of regarding

the node, including its ID, message type, location,

and scale. The current CH checks the maximum

permitted number of nodes. If the cluster has not

reached the maximum number of members, then the

CH sends a positive acknowledgement to the new

node. The new node responds with an append

message to declare its entrance into the new cluster.

The CH updates its member table and sends this

message to all available nodes in its cluster. If the

cluster has reached the maximum permitted number

of members, then the CH sends a negative

acknowledgement to the new node. The new node

must then search for a new CH.

3- CH movement: If the CH moves away from

the node or if it suddenly shuts down in the proposed

algorithm, a member notifies it because each node

periodically sends a message to prove its existence. If

the CH does not reply to this message, then the CH is

unavailable. Hence, all of its members identify the

closest CH. They send an append message to this

new CH to request to be a member of its cluster. If

the CH responds with a positive acknowledgement,

then the nodes becomes its members. The CH then

sends an update message to all of its nodes, and vice

versa.

4- Node that must be a CH: If a node needs to

be a CH, then its scale must be checked according

to the proposed algorithm. If its scale is greater than

that of the current CH and if the working period of

the current CH is long, then the node declares itself

as an ordinary node. Otherwise, it behaves as an

ordinary node.

5- Node shutdown: If no node sends a message

to CH after a specific time, then the message is either

out of the current cluster range or the node has shut

down. Therefore, the CH deletes all of the information

on this node and updates its member table. It then

sends this information to all other nodes on its list.

5.0 THE POROPOSED CLUSTERE ROUTING

ALGORITHM

In this proposed algorithm, routes are discovered

based on the location information available through

the global positioning system (GPS). In contrast to

other algorithms that rely on source routing

information, the burden of management is lighter

when GPS information is used. This reduced burden

reflects positively on the performance of the entire

network. In our study, two stages of cluster routing are

considered. The first is intra cluster routing, which is

defined as routing within the same cluster. The

second is inter cluster routing, which corresponds to

routing between two clusters.

A- Intra cluster routing discovery: According to

the proposed algorithm, all nodes know the locations

of all other nodes in the same cluster. the algorithm

for intra cluster routing operates as follows: if any

node needs to send data to another node, it must

first check its neighbor table. If it locates the

destination node in this table, then the sender node

sends the data directly without needing to send a

route request to the CH, as illustrated in Figure4-a .

Otherwise, it must send a route request to the CH to

specify the exact destination route. The CH considers

many parameters to select the most suitable route, as

indicated in Figure. 4-b.

The selected route must be characterized by

the following properties:


1- The majority of the nodes in the selected route

should be as stable as possible to enhance the

stability of the route and to limit link failure. This

condition can be achieved by calculating the

mobility using the following formula:

MOV = …….(1)

given that D = D2 - D1,

where m1, n1 and m2, n2 are the coordinates of

each node at times D2 and D1.

2- The selected route must contain the nodes that

are at a minimum distance from the sender. The

minimum distance between N1 [which has the

coordinates (x1, y1)], and N2 [which has the

coordinates (x2, y2)] can be calculated using the

following formula:

D= │ │ …………(2)

3- The majority of the nodes in the selected route

must have a large Storage Capacity (SC) to shorten

the required processing time.

Figure 4. a- if the destination information available in the

sender neighbor table

b- if the destination information does not available in the

sender neighbor table

B- Inter cluster routing discovery: If any cluster

intends to send data to other clusters, then it must

send a RREQ to the CH. The CH checks the cluster

adjusting table and then sends this request to the

gateway node in its cluster to connect to the other

cluster. The RREP is derived from the receiver node

and contains the CH for the sender, the CH for the

receiver, and the location of the receiver node. If

another gateway is available for the route, it is

mentioned in the response. The proposed algorithm

generates two scenarios: In the first scenario

(presented in Figure 5), the CH forwards the RREQ

sent by the sender node to its gateway. The gateway

then forwards the RREQ to the gateway of the

second cluster. Finally, the RREQ is forwarded to the

destination node. When the destination node

receives this request, it sends RREP to the sender. This

RREP contains information regarding its location. In

summary, the sender sends the data to the gateway

of its cluster. The gateway of this first cluster then

forwards the data to the gateway of the second

cluster. Finally, the data are sent to the specific

destination node. The second scenario (shown in

Figure 6) occurs if the gateway cannot deliver the

data to the destination node because the receiver

node is within the cluster but is out of its range. The

sender node sends another RREQ to the CH, and the

CH applies the aforementioned intra cluster

procedure to select a suitable route by which to send

data to the destination node. The destination node is

within the same cluster area; thus, this process limits

the amount of errors and shortens the time spent

searching for routes.

Figure5. first scenario of the inter cluster discovery algorithm

Figure 6. Second scenario of the inter cluster discovery

algorithm

6.0SIMULATION PARAMETERS AND SETTING

6.1 Network size and mobility simulation

The current study designs a new and robust

cluster-based routing protocol. It is characterized by a

performance that is better than that of other routing

protocols. This new routing protocol is known as NCRP

and is simulated by NS2, which is installed on a Linux-

based system. The network area measures 1500 m ×

1500 m in this simulation, and the number of nodes is

100. The NCRP is evaluated according to different

quality of service (QoS) parameters, such as end-to-

end delay, throughput, PDR, normalized control

overhead (NCO), and number of dropped packets.

NCRP is comparatively analyzed with three other ad-

hoc routing protocols, namely, CBRP, AODV, and

DSDV. In this simulation, all nodes transition from one

location to a destination location at a random

movement and speed. The simulation period is 150

seconds.

6.2 Traffic pattern

The continuous bit rate (CBR) is used as a

traffic pattern. The source and destination nodes are

randomly distributed in a specific area of the


network. The packet size of the CBR is 512 bytes, and

this package is transferred in one second. The model

parameters are displayed in Table .1

Table 1. Simulation Parameters

Value Simulation Parameters

NCRP, CBPR,

AODV and DSDV

Routing Protocol Type

150 Simulation Time (sec)

100 Number of Nodes

1500 × 1500 Simulation Area (m)

CBR Traffic pattern

512 CBR packet size(byte)

Two-ray ground Radio Propagation Model

802.11 Mac Type

512 Packet Size (bytes)

NS2 Simulator

8.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

NCRP performance is evaluated based on

the effect the effect of mobility on the performance

of the proposed routing protocols. The results of the

scenario are as the following:

A- End-to-end delay: As shown in Figure. 7, end-

to-end delay increased linearly as the mobility

(speed) of the nodes increased in all routing

protocols. The main reason for this increment is the

reconstruction time of the cluster. When the nodes

move quickly, they require additional time to join with

another cluster. The proposed NCRP displays minimal

delay because its structure depends on enabled GPS

locations. Moreover, its route selection strategy relies

on the minimum SC. In addition, the other parameters

reduce the delay time. CBRP and DSDV also exhibit a

shorter delay than AODV does. The reason for these

differences is that the first two protocols are

dependent on periodical updates to determine their

routes, whereas the reactive protocol discovers

routes on demand.

Figure7. End-to-end delay for NBRP,CBRP, AODV and DSDV

versus speed

B- Throughput: As depicted in Figure

8., the throughputs of all routing protocols decrease

as node mobility increases. The main reason for this

decrement is that the increment in speed increases

the distance between the nodes. Thus, the number of

the packets received in the destination node is

minimized. Throughput value is maximized when

NCRP is utilized, followed by the use of CBRP, DSDV,

and AODV. The main reason for the high throughput

value of NCRP is because of its accurate

determination of the locations of each node, which

simplifies the route maintenance procedure.

Figure8. Throughput for NBRP, CBRP, AODV and DSDV versus

speed

C- PDR: As shown in Figure 9 and NCRP performs well

in this respect; its PDR is 100% when mobility (<= 6

m/second). However, this ratio decreases to 98% as

mobility reaches 14 m/second, as depicted in Fig. 3.

The PDR of NCRP is the highest, followed by those of

DSDV, AODV, and CBRP; the maximum PDR of NCRP

is attributed to its minimal number of link failures

Figure.9 PDR for NBRP, CBRP, AODV and DSDV versus speed

D- NCO: As indicated in Figure 10, NCO

increases with node speed. The proposed NCRP

reports a low NCO value, followed by CPRB, DSDV,

and AODV. The main reason for this result is the

capability of NCRP to reduce the number of control

packets that are used in the source, as with the other

cluster protocols. As a result, the need to periodically

send control packets is reduced, as is network

overhead.


Figure10. NCO for NBRP, CBRP, AODV and DSDV versus

speed

E- Number of dropped packets: As indicated in Figure

11, the number of dropped packets increases with

node speed in all routing protocols. This number is

minimal in NCRP and increases slightly with node

speed. The difference between the number of

dropped packets in the NCRP and those in other

routing protocols ranges between 7 packets to 21

packets. This range is considered very large in this

respect, and it can significantly affect the

performance of the routing protocol. As mentioned

previously, the NCRP registered the least number of

dropped packets, followed by CBRP and DSDV.

AODV reported the largest number.

Figure11. Number of dropped packets for NBRP, CBRP,

AODV and DSDV versus speed

9. CONCLUSIONS This paper proposed a NCRP that follows special

criteria with respect to maintenance, and route

discovery. In this routing protocol, the routing and

maintenance procedures depend on many factors

that enhance the stability of the cluster and the life

time of the entire network and that reduce power

consumption. This paper also presented a new

maintenance method that can recover errors

according to type. This method relies on location

information to select the appropriate route for each

node. The simulation results show that this new

protocol can significantly limit end-to-end delay, the

number of dropped packets, and normalized control

overhead. It also increases the throughput and the

PDR, thereby significantly improving the performance

of the routing protocol.

REFERENCES [1] Sangeetha T.,Venkatesh K. K, Rajesh M., Manikandan S. K.,

.2013.QoS Aware Routing Protocol to Improve Packet

Transmission in Shadow-Fading Environment for Mobile Ad Hoc

Networks", Journal of Scientific Research.5(2):611-617.

[2] Norrozila S., Osamah I. K., Ghaidaa M. A., Muamer N. M., and

Ayoob A. A.2014.Effect of Using Different QoS Parameters in

Performance of AODV, DSR, DSDV and OLSR Routing Protocols in

MANET. Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on Advances in Computing and

Information Technology ( ACIT). Thailand.265-271.

[3] Y-Y. Su, S-F. Hwang, and Chyi-Ren Dow.2008.An Efficient

Cluster-Based Routing Algorithm in Ad Hoc Networks with

Unidirectional Links. Journal of Information Science And

Engineering.75(3):1409-1428.

[4]Kun-Won J., Woo-sik J., Dong-kyu S. and Moon-Seog

J.(2006).Design of Secure Clustering Routing Protocol using SNEP

and μ TESLA on Sensor Network Communication", . International

Journal of Computer Science and Network Security,6(9), pp.171-

176.

[5] M. Rezaee, M. Yaghmaee.2009.Cluster based Routing

Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks. research gate.5(7):1-6.

[6] Jason L. Cooka, Jose Emmanuel, Ramirez-

Marquez.2009.Optimal design of cluster-based ad-hoc networks

using probabilistic solution discovery. Elsevier Reliability

Engineering & System Safety.8(9):218-227.

[7] M. G. Rashed, M. Hasnat Kabir, M. Sajjadur Rahim, and Sk.

Enayet Ullah.2011."CBHRP": Cluster based hierarchical routing

protocol for wireless sensor network.Computer Science &

Engineering An International Journal (CSEIJ).1(3):1-11.

[8] R. Pandi Selvam and V.Palanisamy.2012.An Optimized Cluster

Based Approach for Multi-Source Multicast Routing Protocol in

Mobile Ad Hoc Networks with Differential Evolution. Proceedings

of the International Conference on pattern Recognition,

Informatics and Medical Engineering.115-120.

[9] Dongfeng Xie, Qi Sun, Qianwei Zhou, Yunzhou Qiu, and

Xiaobing Yuan.2013. An Efficient Clustering Protocol for Wireless

Sensor Networks Based on Localized Game Theoretical

Approach", Hindawi Publishing Corporation International Journal

of Distributed Sensor Networks, 2013(10):1-11.

[10]Damianos G., Grammati P., Charalampos K.,

BasilisM.2006.Clustering of Mobile Ad Hoc Networks: An Adaptive

Broadcast Period Approach.IEEE International Conference on

Communications:4034-4036.

Internet

Design and implementation a new cluster based