Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Volume: 2 Issue: 5
ISSN: 2321-8169
1357 1362
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________*****__________________________________________________
I. INTRODUCTION
1357
IJRITCC | May 2014, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org
_______________________________________________________________________________________
ISSN: 2321-8169
1357 1362
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
group. All the members within the group follow a logical group
centre which determines the group motion behaviour. The main
purpose of logical group centre is to guide group of nodes
continuously calculating group motion vector GM to define
behaviour, speed, and direction of mobile node.
Manhattans Grid Mobility (MGM) - It is also called as
Urban Area model. It forms a number of horizontal and vertical
streets like grid called maps [11]. Each mobile node can be
allowed to move along the grid of horizontal and vertical
streets on the map. At intersection of horizontal and vertical
street mobile node can turn left, right or go straight. Probability
of moving straight is 0.5, Probability of turning left is 0.5, and
Probability of turning right is 0.5.
Ax(t )
i 1
dist (nx , ni )
nl
(1)
| Ax (t ) Ax (t t ) |
(2)
T
n
Mi
(3)
mob
n
i 1
Mx t 0
T t
_______________________________________________________________________________________
ISSN: 2321-8169
1357 1362
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Where Dist (nx, ny): The distance between node x and node y.
n :- The nodes number.
Ax (t):- The average relative mobility of node x regarding all
other nodes, during the simulation time.
T:- Simulation time
At: Time period used in computation.
Mob: - Mobility for entire scenario
i :- index
Unit for Mobility Factor is m/s. Mobility factor gives average
speed of distance change between nodes. Figure4 shows a basic
example of how mobility factor will reflect actual movement.
Standing still
0.0
Parallel Movements
Relative Movement
0.0
>0.0
Fig.5 Example of Mobility
PERFOMANCE METRICS
_______________________________________________________________________________________
ISSN: 2321-8169
1357 1362
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
defined as the average number of messages successfully
delivered per unit time [9][10]. The performance of Mobility
models in terms of throughput with respect to protocols is
examined for the tcp traffic. The simulation results are shown
in figure 7 and figure 8.
The performance of throughput for Random walk and
Manhattan Grid are better as compared to Random Waypoint
and Reference Point Group Mobility model in case of AODV
protocol. Gauss Markov experiences highest throughput.
2) End to End Delay: Delay represents average time duration
of a packet transmitting in a network from source to destination
[7]. End to end delay represents the time required for a packet
to be transmitted from source to destination in a network. In
short it is the delay between sending and receiving of packets.
The performance of Mobility models in terms of End to end
delay with respect to protocols is shown in figure 9 and figure
10. AODV, DSDV, AOMDV with Random walk and Random
Waypoint require less time to deliver packets as compared to
Reference Point Group Mobility model in case DSR which
shows highest delay.
This can be calculated as below--
IMPLEMENTATION CHART
Area Initialization
Value
NS2.34,NAM 1.13
Wireless Channel
AODV,DSDV,DSR,AOMDV
100ms
25
1.5 m/s
TwoRayGround
Mac/802.11
Omni Antenna
500 * 500
Phy /WirelessPhy
TCP
Node Initialization
Model Selection
Random
Waypoint
Random
Walk
Random
Direction
SIMUATION PARAMETERS
RAM
OS
1GB
UBUNTU 10.04
Comparison of parameters
_______________________________________________________________________________________
ISSN: 2321-8169
1357 1362
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
400
RW
300
Rwak
200
RPGM
0
AODV
DSDV
DSR
AOMDV
Routing Protocols
800
700
600
500
400
300
MG
200
GM
100
0
AODV
DSDV
Rwak
RPGM
DSDV
DSR
DSR
AOMDV
Routing Protocols
RW
AODV
AOMDV
Routing Protocols
Throughput
500
100
Throughput
600
SIMULATION RESULTS
540
535
530
525
520
515
510
505
500
495
490
700
540
530
520
510
500
490
480
VIII.
800
99.5
99
98.5
RW
98
Rwak
97.5
RPGM
97
AODV
DSDV
DSR
AOMDV
Routing Protocols
MG
GM
Routing Protocols
1361
IJRITCC | May 2014, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org
_______________________________________________________________________________________
ISSN: 2321-8169
1357 1362
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
[6]
99
98.8
98.6
98.4
98.2
98
97.8
97.6
[7]
MG
GM
Routing Protocols
[8]
[9]
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
REFERENCES
Tracy Camp et al, A Survey of Mobility Models for Ad
hoc Network Research Wireless comm. and Mobile
Computing: special issue on Mobile Ad hoc Networking:
Research trends and applications, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 483502, 2002.
Georgios
Rodolakis
Analytical
Models
and
Performance Evaluation in Massive Networks, Thesis
presented to full fill the requirements for the degree of
Doctor in Computer Science of Ecole Polytechinque.
Fan Bai and Ahmed Helmy, A survey of Mobility
Models in wireless Adhoc Network University of
Southern California, USA.
Thomas D.Dyer and Rajendra V. Boppana A
Comparision of TCP Performance Over Three Routing
Protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, ACM
Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking &
Computing (Mobihoc), October 2001
Djamel DJenouri et al Ad-hoc Networks Routing
protocols & Mobility The International Arab Journal of
Information Technology, vol 3, No.2, April 2006.
1362
IJRITCC | May 2014, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org
_______________________________________________________________________________________