IJEAS0206034
IJEAS0206034
IJEAS0206034
95 www.ijeas.org
Simulation & Performance Evaluation of Optimal LEACH Subject to other Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
96 www.ijeas.org
International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences (IJEAS)
ISSN: 2394-3661, Volume-2, Issue-6, June 2015
SIMULATION RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE 100%
ANALYSIS
90%
In order to compare different protocols, it is important to 80%
have good models for all aspects of communication. In this 70%
simulation we have used network model and radio model for 60% OLEAC
computation of energy dissipation as discussed earlier. 50% H
Following Figures shows energy ,delay jitter, throughput 40%
,packet delivery ratio, related to the number of nodes for LEACH
routing protocols AODV ,LEACH and OLEACH 30%
Protocol. To eliminate the experimental error caused by 20%
AODV
Randomness, the experi- ment was repeated for 10 times and 10%
the average was taken as the final result. As seen from the 0%
graphs, the LEACH is more energy efficient than AODV and 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
O-LEACH is more efficient than LEACH.As O_LEACH
used optimal path for data forwarding so its required less
amount of energy as compared to other two protocol that is Fig(C) Pdf For Aodv , Leach And Oleach
clearly observed from graph(a).
Packet delivery fraction is calculated by extracting data
Time vs Energy graph from AODV.tcl file, LEACH.tcl file, O-LEACH.tcl file and
three curves one for AODV, one for LEACH, one for
500
O-LEACH are plotted by taking time event on X-axis and
450 %age of PDF on Y-axis as shown in figure for 1 , 2 , 3 ,4 ,
400 time event respectively from figure GRAPH(C). it is quite
clear that PDF for O-LEACH is better
350 Average delay is calculating by extracting data from
300 AODV.tcl , LEACH.tcl, O-LEACH.tcl file and three curves
one for AODV, one for LEACH, one for LEACH are plotted
250 by takingof time on X-axis and average delay on Y-axis as
200 shown in GRAPH(B) for event 1, 2, 3.5, 4.5 nodes
respectively. From figure, it is quite clear that the average
150 end-to-end delay has increased in case of AODV, due to
100 overhead increased. But it is less in LEACH but as time goes
on it also increases.But in case of O-LEACH end to end delay
50 decreases as time goes on
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 4 4.5 6 6.5 7 Throughput vs time
100%
Fig(a) energy consumption for 90%
AODV,LEACH,O-LEACH 80%
70%
TIME VS DELAY GRAPH 60%
4 50%
40%
3.5 OLEA
30%
3 CH
20%
2.5 10% LEAC
AODV 0% H
2
5
0
4
0.5
4.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
LEACH AODV
1.5 OLEACH
1
0.5 Fig(D) Throughput For Aodv ,Leach, O-Leach
Throughput is calculating by extracting data from
0 AODV.tcl , LEACH.tcl, O-LEACH.tcl file and three curves
0 1 2 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 one for AODV, one for LEACH, one for O-LEACH are
plotted by taking of time on X-axis and average throughput
on Y-axis as shown in GRAPH(d) for event 1, 2, 3.5, 4.5
Fig (B) End To End Delay For Aodv ,Leach,O-Leach
nodes respectively. It is quite clear that the throughput of
Packet Delivery Fraction Vs Time
O-LEACH is better as compared to AODV and LEACH
97 www.ijeas.org
Simulation & Performance Evaluation of Optimal LEACH Subject to other Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network
III. CONCLUSION
In this paper we have evaluated three protocol AODV,
LEACH, O-LEACH. These protocols have been tested on
NS2 simulator by using four fraction energy, end to end
delay, packet delivery ratio , throughput. According to
analysis we found that O-leach energy efficient than
LEACH protocol O-LEACH consume least energy. In our
protocol cluster formation has been decided by us. we
already known the position of node so less amount of
energy required for cluster formation.
In the foreseeable future, the factors in hierarchical
routing protocol which affect the cluster building,
communication of CHs and data fusion of clusters will be
one of the research directions which can be more helpful to
enhance a network lifetime of the WSN.
REFERENCES
98 www.ijeas.org