(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No.

2, 2010

Clustering in Mobile Ad hoc Networks: A Review
Meenu Chawla
Department of CSE MANIT, Bhopal, India chawlam@manit.ac.in meenu_chawla_manit@rediff.com

Jyoti Singhai
Department of ECE MANIT, Bhopal, India j_singhai@manit.ac.in

J L Rana
Department of CSE MANIT, Bhopal, India ranajl@manit.ac.in

Abstract—Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (MANETs) are future wireless networks consisting entirely of mobile nodes that communicate on-the-move without base stations. Nodes in these networks generate user and application traffic and carry out network control and routing functions. Dynamic and random topologies lead to rapidly changing connectivity and network partitions. This dynamic nature along with bandwidth and power constraints together pose new problems in network scalability, network control, especially in the design of higher level protocols such as routing, and in implementing applications with Quality of Service requirements. Hierarchical routing provides a means to tackle the above mentioned problems in large scale networks. Clustering is the process of building hierarchies among nodes in the network. In this approach an ad hoc network is partitioned into group of nodes called as clusters. This paper presents a review of the different clustering algorithms and the criterion on the basis of which each of them takes the clustering decisions. Keywords- Mobile Ad-hoc networks; clustering; selection. clusterhead

of optimally utilizing the critical parameters[6,7,8,9,10,14] of ad hoc networks. A review of the clustering and cluster head selection algorithms is being done in this paper. II. REVIEW OF CLUSTERING ALGORITHM

A. Lowest ID algorithm The Lowest-ID algorithm [3, 16] is the simplest clustering algorithm .In this algorithm every node in the network has a unique identifier (ID). Nodes periodically broadcast their ID in “hello messages”. Each node compares the IDs of its neighbors with its own ID, than a node having lowest ID decides to become a cluster head. The algorithm takes following steps: 1. Every node broadcast its own ID periodically in Hello message. 2. All nodes receive hello messages from their neighboring nodes and match their IDs then the node having lowest ID is elected as cluster head. 3. The node, which can hear broadcast from two cluster head, is than becomes gateway node. In this algorithm there is no limit to the member nodes that a cluster can have. No network related parameter is given any consideration in selection of clusterhead, and hence the performance of such networks is of random and unpredictable nature. B. Highest Degree Algorithm The Highest-Degree heuristic [3,4] takes into account the degree of a node, i.e. the number of its one-hop neighbors. Each node periodically broadcasts its degree value. A node with the highest value of degree in its neighborhood is selected as the cluster head and its neighbors join it as cluster members. The procedure is repeated with the remaining nodes until each node is assigned to a cluster. Any tie is broken by the lowest id criterion. This heuristic doesn‟t put any upper bound on the number of nodes in a cluster, consequently the cluster head becomes highly overloaded leading to performance degradation. As the network topology changes, this approach can result in a high turnover of cluster heads. This is because when the highest connectivity node drops even one link due to node movement, it may fail to be re-elected as a cluster head. These are two most popular criteria to partition mobile nodes. Both these algorithms do not provide any quantitative measure of cluster stability.



In hierarchical routing the nodes in the network are dynamically organized into partitions called clusters, and then the clusters are aggregated again into larger partitions called super clusters and so on. The nodes geographically close to each other form a cluster. Each cluster elects a leading node called the cluster head which acts as a coordinator for the cluster. The nodes connected to more than one cluster are called gateway nodes and act as relays between clusters. Dividing a network into clusters helps maintain a relatively stable network topology. Clustering makes network more manageable. Cluster size is controlled through the radio transmission power. Cluster based algorithms are among the most effective routing algorithms due to their scalability[1,2,26]. Clustering outperforms other routing algorithms in case of large networks. As all inter-cluster routing in such a scenario is through the cluster head, it is therefore more burdened than its members and tends to be a bottleneck in the system if not chosen appropriately. The objective of any clustering algorithm is to partition the network into several clusters which is the focus of current literature in this area. Several algorithms have been suggested for clustering and clusterhead selection. A number of clustering algorithms have been proposed, some very simple[3,4,5] and some with a view
Corresponding author: Meenu Chawla


http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2010

C. Least Cluster head Change Algorithm k-CONID [5] combines the two approaches Highest Degree and LowestID. Connectivity is considered as a primary and lower ID as a secondary criterion for selecting cluster heads. The algorithm considers at most k hop neighbours of a node for cluster head selection. At the beginning of the algorithm, a node starts a flooding process in which a clustering request is send to all other nodes. In the Highestdegree heuristic, node degree only measures connectivity for 1hop nieghbours. k-CONID generalizes connectivity for a khop neighborhood. Thus, when k = 1 connectivity is the same as node degree. Each node in the network is assigned a pair: dID = (d, ID). d is a node‟s connectivity and ID is the node‟s identifier. A node is selected as a cluster head if it has the highest connectivity. In case of equal connectivity, a node has cluster head priority if it has lowest ID. Every node broadcasts its clustering decision only after all its k-hop neighbors with higher value of (degree, id) pair have broadcast their clustering decision. Although each node determines one cluster, clusters may overlap. This means that a node can belong to all clusters whose cluster head is at most k-hops distance from the node. Nodes that belong to more than one cluster become gateway nodes. D. (α,t) Cluster Framework McDonald and Znati[6] have proposed a framework for dynamically organizing mobile nodes in a MANET into clusters which has been called the (α,t)-cluster framework. The approach is to maintain topology which allows for optimal routing in face of low mobility and efficient routing if node mobility is high. Here the focus is on mathematical characterization of the probability of link and path availability as a function of a random walk based mobility model [21]. In the ( α , t) approach it is attempted to provide an effective topology that adapts to node mobility. Path availability is a random process which is determined by the mobility of nodes that lie along a certain path. In the ( α , t) approach paths are evaluated by two system parameters, α and t. α establishes a lower bound on the probability that a given cluster path will remain available for a time t. α controls cluster stability while the role of t is to manage cluster size for a given level of stability. The actions taken by the clustering algorithm depend upon the information given by the routing and network-interface layer protocol. Each node in the network is given a node‟s cluster identifier number (CID) and makes use of a timer named α timer. This timer establishes the maximum time t for which a node guarantees that paths will be available to each cluster destination with probability = α. In the (α, t) algorithm, clusters which satisfy the (α, t) criteria are maintained. The (α, t) criteria is accomplished if the probabilistic bound α on the mutual availability of paths between nodes in a cluster exists over a specified interval of time t. Therefore, the algorithm applies prediction of node mobility as criteria for cluster organization. The (α, t) algorithm

characterizes the probability of link and path availability as a function of a random walk mobility model. The algorithm is designed to take appropriate actions upon topological changes. A topological change requires that nodes revaluate the (α, t) criteria. The documentation that supports this clustering approach presents the pseudo code for five important topological changes that determine the (α, t) cluster algorithm: Node activation, link activation, link failure, node deactivation and α timer expiration. It has been shown that the (,t)-cluster strategy has been effective in terms of adapting to node mobility, achieving node stability in face of mobility and protocol efficiency. E. MOBIC Basu et.al [10] proposed a variant of Lowest-ID algorithm, MOBIC, which is similar in execution to the Lowest-ID algorithm except that the mobility metric is used as a basis of cluster formation instead of ID. MOBIC uses a new mobility metric; Aggregate Local Mobility (ALM) to elect CH. ALM is computed as the ratio of received power levels of successive transmissions by transmitting periodic „hello‟ messages, between a pair of nodes. This gives a measure of relative mobility between neighbouring nodes. Each node then calculates aggregate local mobility metric M value by calculating the variance (with respect to zero) of the entire set of relative mobility samples of all its neighbours. The node with lowest value of M becomes clusterhead. The main drawback of this algorithm is that it uses signal strength as a measure of node mobility. However, because of noise, obstacles, variation in battery power, etc, weight based on variation in signal strength may not be accurate, so stability of a node can not be evaluated clearly. Although mobility is one of the most important factors that can affect the stability of a clusterhead, there are other equally critical parameters that need to be considered for stable clusterhead selection. Considering only a single parameter will not give desired stability in all types of scenarios. Also the algorithm here is just looking at the stability of the clusterhead alone, and not at the stability of the complete network. To ensure stability of the entire network, consideration for stability of gateway nodes is of importance


MobDhop: A distributed clustering algorithm called MobDhop[9] has been reported which partitions an ad hoc network into d-hop clusters based on a mobility metric. The objective of forming d-hop clusters is to make the cluster diameter more flexible. MobDhop is based on mobility metric and the diameter of a cluster is adaptable with respect to node mobility. This clustering algorithm assumes that each node can measure its received signal strength. In this manner, a node can determine the closeness of its neighbors. Strong received signal strength implies closeness between two nodes. The MobDhop algorithm requires the calculation of five terms: the estimated distance between nodes, the relative mobility between nodes, the variation of estimated distance over time, the local stability, and the estimated mean distance. A node calculates its


http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2010

estimated distance to a neighbor based on the measured received signal strength from that neighbor. Relative mobility corresponds to the difference of the estimated distance of one node with respect to another, at two successive time moments. This parameter indicates if two nodes move away from each other or if they become closer. The variation of estimated distances between two nodes is computed instead of calculating physical distance between two nodes. This is because physical distance between two nodes is not a precise measure of closeness. For instance, if a node runs out of energy it will transmit packets at low power acting as a distanced node from its physically close neighbor. The variation of estimated distance and the relative mobility between nodes are used to calculate the local stability. Local stability is computed in order to select some nodes as cluster heads. A node may become a cluster head if it is found to be the most stable node among its neighborhood. Thus, the cluster head will be the node with the lowest value of local stability among its neighbors. MobDhop is executed in three stages as follows:  Discovery stage: At the initialization of the network, two hop clusters are to be formed in this stage. For this the nodes exchange hello messages periodically which includes the local stability value of the node(initialized ti infinity). After a discovery period in which nodes acquire complete knowledge of their neighbour nodes, each node computes its local stability value and broadcasts it for information to its neighbours. Node with lowest value of local stability becomes cluster head and its local stability value is the group stability (GS). If a node can hear messages from a node that belongs to a different cluster, it becomes a gateway node. If not, it becomes a cluster member. Merging stage: The two-hop clusters established in the discovery stage are expanded by a merging process. A merging process can be initiated by a nonclustered node that requests to join its neighbouring clusters or when two neighbouring gateways request to merge their clusters. The merging is allowed only if the two merging criterion as stated are fulfilled. First condition ensures that the variation of estimated distance between two merging nodes should be less than or equal to the minimum value of group stability of the two clusters. Second condition states that the mean distance between two gateways should be less than or equal to the higher value of estimated mean distance of the two clusters. This is to ensure that the distance characteristics of the clusters are met. Cluster maintenance stage: A cluster maintenance stage is invoked when topology changes occur due to either arrival of a new node or a node leaving the network. When a node switches on it will begin the merging process as described in order to join a cluster. When a node which is a clusterhead switches its immediate neighbours begin the discovery process as described so that a new cluster head can be selected. During the period when the nodes are without a clusterhead

(clusterhead election period) the two hop neighbour nodes initiate a merging process and join other clusterheads if the merging criterion is met. This algorithm also suffers from the same drawback as MOBIC. The algorithm here is just looking at the stability of the clusterhead alone, and not at the stability of the complete network. To ensure stability of the entire network, consideration for stability of gateway nodes is of equal importance. If gateway nodes are highly mobile then intercluster routes will break frequently leading to frequent rerouting causing high routing overhead. Also only the mobility criterion is taken into account for determining the stability of the network. Other parameter such as remaining battery power of the node is an important parameter which affects the stability of the network and should be considered. G. DMAC The Distributed and Mobility-Adaptive Clustering (DMAC) [7] algorithm provides a generalized solution for clustering framework. Nodes are assigned weights based on nodes‟ mobility-related parameters. The weights express how suitable a node is for the role of cluster head given its own current status. The bigger a node‟s weight, the more suitable it is for the role of cluster head. This implies that, when due to the mobility of the nodes two or more cluster heads become neighbors, those with the smaller weights have to resign and affiliate with the now bigger neighboring cluster head. DMAC overcomes a major drawback found in most clustering algorithms. A common assumption that is presented in most algorithms is that during the set up time nodes do not move while they are being grouped into clusters. Normally, clustering algorithms partition the network into clusters and only after this step has been accomplished, the non mobility assumption is released. Afterwards, the algorithm tries to maintain the cluster topology as nodes move. In real ad hoc situations this assumption can not be made due to the constant mobility of nodes. Therefore one important feature of DMAC is that nodes can move, even during the clustering set up. During the algorithm execution it is assumed that each node has a weight (a real number = 0) and an ID (node‟s unique identifier) associated to it. The weight of a node represents node mobility parameters. A node chooses its own role (cluster head or ordinary node) based on the knowledge of its current one hop neighbors. A node becomes a cluster head if it has the highest weight among its one-hop neighbours; otherwise it joins a neighbouring cluster head. During execution of this algorithm, every node has knowledge of its ID, its weight as well as its neighbors ID and its neighbor‟s weight. DMAC is a message driven algorithm (except during the initial procedure). Two types of messages are used: If a node joins a cluster it sends out a Join message and if it becomes a cluster head it sends a CH message. A node decides its own role once all its neighbors with bigger weights have decided their roles. DMAC executes five procedures at each node: an init routine, a link failure procedure, a new link procedure, a procedure depending upon the reception of a CH message and a procedure depending upon the reception of a Join message.


http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2010

When a cluster head receives a Join message from an ordinary node, it checks if the sending node is joining its own cluster or a different one. On the other hand, if an ordinary node receives a Join message from its cluster head, it means that this cluster head is giving up his role. Upon the reception of a CH message a node checks if it will affiliate or not to the sending cluster head. The adaptation feature of the clustering algorithm is made possible by letting each node react to the failure of a link with another node or to the presence of a new link. Upon link failure between a cluster head and one of his node members, the membership of the node to the cluster is removed, and this node must determine its new role. A new link between two nodes means that a node has detected the presence of a new neighbour. In this case, the node must determine if this new node has a larger weight than its own cluster head in order to join it. If the node is a cluster head itself then it will give up its role if the new cluster head has a higher weight. Although DMAC provides a generalized framework for clustering nodes, it does not specify clearly weight metric method. H. A Weighted Clustering Algorithm (WCA) Although DMAC provides a generalized framework for clustering nodes, it does not specify clearly weight metric method. A distributed clustering algorithm based on weight values has been proposed by M. Chatterjee et.el.[8][24]. The weighted clustering algorithm (WCA) selects clusterheads, according to the number of nodes it can handle, mobility, transmission power and battery power. To avoid communications overhead, this algorithm is not periodic and the clusterhead election procedure is only invoked based on node mobility and when the current dominant set is incapable to cover all the nodes. To ensure that clusterheads will not be over-loaded a pre-defined threshold is established in order to specify the number of nodes each clusterhead can ideally support. This parameter corresponds to d. WCA selects the clusterheads according to the weight value of each node. The weight associated to a node v is defined as: The node with the minimum weight is selected as a clusterhead. The weighting factors are chosen so that w1 + w2 + w3 + w4 = 1. Mv is the measure of mobility. A node with less mobility is always a better choice for a clusterhead. Here mobility is taken by computing the running average speed of every node during a specified time T. Δ v is the degree difference that depicts the deviation of the actual degree of a node to the proposed ideal degree. Dv is defined as the sum of distances from a given node to all its neighbours and is used to depict energy consumption parameter since more power is needed for larger distance communications. The parameter P v is the total time the node has served as a clusterhead. Pv is used to give a measure of how much battery power has been consumed. Power consumption in a clusterhead is higher than in an ordinary node as is has extra responsibilities. The total weight here is calculated such that it gives a deviation value from the ideal conditions hence the node with minimum weight is elected as cluster head. An attempt to optimize WCA by using entropy [10] has been made.

1) Optimization of WCA using Genetic Algorithm: In [11], genetic algorithms have been used for enhancing the performance of clustering algorithms in mobile ad hoc networks. The clustering problem is mapped to individual chromosomes as input to the genetic algorithmic technique. The authors have particularly optimized the popular WCA algorithm. In the genetic algorithm used each chromosome contains information about the cluster heads and the members thereof, as obtained from the original WCA. The genetic algorithm then uses this information to obtain the best solution (chromosome) defined by the fitness function. The proposed technique is such that each cluster head handles the maximum possible number of mobile nodes in its cluster in order to facilitate the optimal operation of the medium access control (MAC) protocol. Consequently, it results in the minimum number of clusters and hence cluster heads. Simulation results exhibit improved performance of the optimized WCA than the original WCA. 2) Optimization of WCA using Simulated Annealing: In [12], simulated annealing algorithm has been applied to clustering algorithms used in ad hoc networks. Determining the optimal dominant set is a NP-hard problem. A good polynomial time approximation algorithm may be used to obtain a near optimal dominant set for cluster based topology. Simulated annealing is a probabilistic search technique that has been used to solve a large number of combinatorial optimization problems in engineering and science. In [27] Kirkpatrick et. al, has applied simulated annealing to two problems: the physical design of computers and traveling salesperson problem, both of which are NP problems. He says that any new combinatorial optimization problem can be solved easily using simulated annealing by specifying four main factors of the algorithm: a concise description of a configuration of the system; a random generator of "moves" or rearrangements of the elements in a configuration; a quantitative objective function containing the trade-offs that have to be made; and an annealing schedule of the temperatures and length of times for which the system is to be evolved. The initial solution given by original WCA has been mapped to simulated annealing algorithm in order to find the best possible solution from a set of all possible set of dominant sets. If a node is neither a cluster head nor a member of any cluster and its degree is less than a threshold value than the node is added in the random dominant ser. The objective function is chosen to be the sum of weights of nodes in the dominant set. The fitness value is computed in order to obtain the best solution by comparing each solution to the current best. This algorithm eventually finds the best solution without getting stuck in local minima by following the simulated annealing algorithm. Hence simulated annealing optimizes the performance of WCA such that each cluster head handles the maximum possible number of nodes in its cluster, resulting in minimum number of cluster heads and clusters. The simulation results show that fewer cluster heads are obtained by applying simulated annealing to WCA than the results of the original WCA.


http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2010


Efficient Management Algorithm for Clustering (EMAC) EMAC [20] is another distributed clustering algorithm where the node weight is calculated using factors like the node degree, remaining battery power, transmission power, and node mobility for the cluster heads‟ election. The algorithm uses transmission range of node Pi instead of the sum of distance used in WCA in order to elect the node which can cover the largest range, thus, minimizing the number of clusters generated. In addition, the author argues that remaining battery power is a better measure than the cumulative time during which the node acts as a CH that is used in WCA, because it allows to extend the lifetime of nodes by relinquish the role as a CH in case of insufficient battery power. The algorithm also limits the number of nodes inside a cluster. By restricting the number of nodes catered by a cluster head helps in proper MAC functioning. The algorithm is based on the clusters‟ capacity and it uses the link lifetime instead of the node mobility for the maintenance procedure. The reason behind this is due to the fact that the node mobility metric does not affect the election of a CH as much as the link stability metric does. EMAC implements different mechanisms for arrival of new nodes, cluster head nodes, member nodes, merging of clusters, reelection of cluster heads.

In [17] nodes are considered data objects characterized by certain attributes and the membership of the nodes to the clusters is treated in a fuzzy way. Similarly in [22] fuzzy logic has been used to predict the link lifetime of a link connecting two nodes by taking distance and relative speed as input. The authors have introduced a new factor called δ-degree which is the number of links with lifetime greater than a particular predefined threshold. III.
Average Number of Clusterhead Changes (per second)


1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0


0 25 50 75 10 12 15 17 20 22 25 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 Transmission Range (m)


Entropy Based Clustering algorithm In [13], the authors have used entropy as a measure of local and mutual information available to every node. Three node parameters: mobility, energy, and degree have been used for the selection of cluster head. The method first calculates the entropy for the three node parameters. These three entropies are then combined through a simple linear model to find the total entropy of a node. The node with the lowest entropy is selected as a cluster head. The nodes gather information about their mutual mobility, energy, and degree through the exchange of beacon messages. K. A Fuzzy-Based Hierarchical Energy Efficient Routing Protocol (FEER) In [14] a fuzzy based hierarchical energy efficient routing scheme has been proposed for large scale adhoc networks that aim to prolong network‟s lifetime. A fuzzy logic controller has been developed that combines three node parameters residual energy, traffic and mobility to determine the node weight which denotes its suitability for acting as a cluster head. The FEER protocol has been divided into four parts: (i) Election of cluster heads, (ii) Association of nodes with elected cluster heads, (iii) A network recovery approach to ensure fault tolerant backbone, (iv) Energy efficient routing between nodes. FEER has been compared with the dominating set energy efficient approach [23] and it showed improved performance by prolonging the network lifetime. In the paper, the authors have effectively depicted the use of fuzzy logic for node weight calculation. Similarly many fuzzy based cluster head selection [18] have been proposed for wireless sensor networks.

Figure 1. CH Changes: Lowest ID vs. MOBIC

Basu et.el [10] observed as in fig 1 that for moderate to high transmission ranges > 100 m, MOBIC outperforms the Lowest-ID clustering algorithm. At transmission ranges more than 125 m, the reduction in the rate of clusterhead changes is by about 0.1/sec. and for transmission range = 250 m, MOBIC yields a gain of close to 33% over Lowest-ID clustering. This can be attributed to the fact that in MOBIC the node with lowest relative mobility among all nodes get selected as clusterhead and hence have higher probability of being stable. The probability that they will change clusterheads frequently is lower as compared to the clusterheads in the Lowest-ID case. M.Chatterjee et.el [8] made the observation as in fig.2 that the average number of clusterheads decreases with the increase in the transmission range.

Figure 2. Average number of clusters, max_disp = 5


http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2010

Figure 3. Reaffiliations per unit time, max_disp = 5

Fig. 3 [8] shows the reaffiliations per unit time. For low transmission range, the clusters formed are either 1 or 2 node clusters which is evident from figure 2.Hence there is minimum scope of reaffiliations (fig. 3). The number of reaffiliations increases as the transmission range increases, hence increasing the cluster size and reaches a peak when transmission range is between 25 and 30.Further increase in transmission range decrease in the reaffiliations since the nodes, in spite of their random motion, tend to stay inside the large area covered by the clusterhead. Fig.4 [8] shows that number of dominant set updates is higher for smaller transmission range, as the transmission range increases, the number of dominant set updates decreases. This is due to the fact that at low transmission ranges the degree difference parameter of clusterhead has high value. The weight given to this factor is 70% resulting in a higher value of total node weight for each node. This results in frequent changes in dominant set. As the transmission range increases the value of degree difference parameter of clusterhead also decreases resulting in less number of dominant set updates.

Fig.5 [8] shows the relative performance of the HighestDegree, Lowest-ID, Node-Weight heuristics and WCA in terms of the number of reaffiliations per unit time vs. transmission range where N = 30. The number of reaffiliations for WCA is at most half the number obtained from the Lowest-ID. The main reason is that the frequency of invoking the clustering algorithm is lower in WCA, as clustering is based on a weighing factor that results in determining stable clusters hence lesser reaffiliations. This also results in a longer duration of stability of the topology. WCA performs marginally better than the Node-Weight heuristics. WCA provides flexibility of adjusting the weighing factors according to the system needs by suitably adjusting weighing factors according to system needs. A study of stability of the ad hoc network in terms of number of formed clusters and number of transition on each CH for different transmission ranges and network densities has been discussed for EMAC. It can be seen from Fig. 6 [20] that for small transmission ranges, and low node density the number of clusters is relatively high as most of nodes form single or two node clusters. Number of clusters decreases with increase in transmission range as more nodes come in each others ranges and form larger clusters. Similarly, when the transmission range begins to be larger, mobile nodes tend to remain in the range of their neighbors and the number of transitions decreases. In figure 6, when the transmission range is very small, most of nodes form one node cluster which only consists of itself. EMAC algorithm is designed so as to attempt merging of small clusters whenever possible. This causes clusterheads to switch their status to non-clustered state in order to merge with their neighbors (if any) causing the high rate of transitions in disconnected networks.

Figure 4. Dominant set updates, max_disp = 5

Figure 6. Transmission range vs. Avg. Number of Clusters

Figure 5. Comparison of reaffiliations, N = 30.


http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2010
Mean Clustet Size (number- of- nodes)

5 4.5

α = 0.4 α = 0.2




0 5 10 15 20 25

Mean Mobile Node Speed (kph)

Figure 7. Number of Nodes vs. Avg. Number of Clusters

Figure 9. Effect of Mobility on Mean Cluster Size


Probabibility Node in a cluster

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 t = 1 min t = 5 min

Figure 8. Number of Nodes vs. Avg. Transition Number on each CH

In figure 7 [20], it can be seen that that the performance difference is small between WCA and EMAC with respect to the average number of clusters. This is because both algorithms are variations of a local weight based clustering technique that forms one-hop clusters. As shown in figure 8, EMAC gives better performance in terms of stability as compared to WCA when the node density in the network is high. The CH of WCA algorithm relinquishes its position when another node having lower weight joins the cluster. In EMAC, the CH has to verify the suitability of a new election even if a new node having lower weight has joined the cluster. The (α ,t) clustering algorithm results Fig.9 [6] show that the mean cluster size decreases with increase in node mobility as desirable by the ( α ,t) criterion.

Mean Mobile Node Speed (kph)

Figure 10. Effect of Mobility on Mean Cluster Size Effect of mobility on the Probability that a node is clustered with varying values of t

It is observed from fig.10,11 clustered even at high rates of according to ( α ,t) criterion only cluster that have the probability of specified duration.

[6] that the nodes remain mobility. This is because those nodes form a part of remaining connected for the


http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2010
Mean Clustet Size (number- of- nodes)
1 0.9 0.8 α = 0.4 0.7 α = 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.4 0 5 10 15 20 25

Mean Mobile Node Speed (kph)

Figure 11. Effect of mobility on the Probability that a node is clustered with varying values of t

Figure 13. Average number of clusterhead changes versus transmission range.

80 60 LCC HD δ-DCA


40 20 0 2 4 6

It is observed that for all clustering algorithms the number of clusters decrease with increase in transmission range, as more nodes are within range of other nodes for longer periods of time. Therefore, less number of clusters, which are larger in size, are formed, and mobility causes lesser number of nodes which are at the border to move in and out of range of each other. This results in decrease in the number of clusterhead changes.



Speed (m/s)

Figure 12. Effect of mobility on Clusterhead Survival Time

Fig.12 shows Clusterhead Survival Time (CST) of -DCA algorithm [22] is higher than LCC and the cluster of HD algorithm. The entropy based scheme [13] also results in forming more stable clustering topology as compared to HD and LID as can be seen from fig.13

It can be concluded from the different comparison graphs that the algorithms that are considering the different attributes in the network such as node mobility, degree of clusterhead, distance between nodes, node battery power etc. result in selecting more stable clusterheads with lesser reaffiliations and increased network lifetime. For networks with highly mobile nodes, mobility should be the critical parameter and for network with high traffic energy could be a critical parameter for clusterhead selection. Highly mobile nodes lead to more volatile clusters and should not be used as critical nodes. It can be concluded that the importance to the different parameters should be according to the network environment. Soft computing techniques can be applied to achieve clustering using existing algorithms or new algorithms and these techniques can lead to improved results. REFERENCES
[1] [2] M. Gerla and J.T.C. Tsai, “Multicluster, mobile, multimedia radio network,Wireless Networks” 1(3) (1995) 255–265. C.-H.R. Lin and M. Gerla, “A distributed control scheme in multi-hop packet radio networks for voice/data traffic support”, in: Proceedings of IEEE GLOBECOM (1995) pp. 1238–1242. A. Ephremides, J.E. Wieselthier, D.J. Baker. “A design concept for reliable mobile radio networks with frequency hoping signaling”. Proc. IEEE 75. 1987. pp. 56-73. A. Parekh. “Selecting routers in ad hoc wireless networks”. Proceedings of the SBT/IEEE International Telecommunications Symposium. 1994.




http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2010
[5] G. Chen, F. Nocetti, J. Gonzalez, and I. Stojmenovic, “Connectivity based k-hop clustering in wireless networks”. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Vol. 7. 2002. pp. 188.3. B. McDonald and T. E Znati, “A mobility-based framework for adaptive clustering in wireless ad hoc networks”, IEEE JSAC, Vol. 17, No. 8, August 1999. S. Basagni. “Distributed clustering for ad hoc networks”. Proc. ISPAN‟99 Int. Symp. On Parallel Architectures, Algorithms, and Networks. 1999. pp. 310-315. M. Chatterjee, S. K. Das, D. Turgut. “WCA: A weighted clustering algorithm for mobile ad hoc networks”. Cluster Computing. Vol. 5. 2002. pp. 193-204. I. Er and W. Seah. “Mobility-based d-hop clustering algorithm for mobile ad hoc networks”. IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference. Vol. 4. 2004. pp. 2359-2364. P. Basu, N. Khan, T. D. C. Little. “A mobility based metric for clustering in mobile ad hoc networks”. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems. 2001. pp. 413. D. Turgut, S.K. Das, R. Elmasri, B. Turgut. “Optimizing clustering algorithm in mobile ad hoc networks using genetic algorithmic approach”. Global Telecommunications Conference, IEEE. Vol. 1. 2002. pp. 62-66. D. Turgut, B. Turgut, R. Elmasri, T. V. Le. “Optimizing clustering algorithm in mobile ad hoc networks using simulated annealing”. Wireless Communications and Networking, IEEE. Vol. 3. 2003. pp.1492-1497. K. Robinson, D. Turgut, M. Chatterjee. “An entropy-based clustering in mobile ad hoc networks”. Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control (ICNSC). 2006. pp. 15. El-Hajj, W.; Kountanis, D.; Al-Fuqaha, A.; Guizani, M. “A fuzzy-based hierarchical energy efficient routing protocol for large scale mobile ad hoc networks (FEER).” IEEE International Conference on Volume 8, Issue , June 2006 Page(s):3585 – 3590. C.-C. Chiang, H.-K. Wu, W. Liu, and M. Gerla. “Routing in clustered multihop, mobile wireless networks with fading channel.” , IEEE Singapore International Conference on Networks (SICON), pages 197211, Apr. 1997. M. Gerla and J. T.-C. Tsai, “Multicluster, mobile, multimedia radio network,” ACM-Baltzer J. Wireless Networks journal 95,, vol. 1, no. 3,oct 1995, pp. 255–265. [17] Jörg Habetha and Bernhard Walke, “Fuzzy rule-based mobility and load management for self-organizing wireless networks” International Journal of Wireless Information Networks, Vol. 9, No. 2, April 2002 (© 2002) Indranil Gupta Denis Riordan Srinivas Sampalli, “Cluster-head eection using fuzzy logic for wireless sensor networks”, Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Communication Networks and Services Research Conference (CNSR‟05) IEEE 2005. Nagaraju Uppu, B.V.S.S. Subhramanyam and Ramamurthy Garimella, “An Energy efficient technique to polong network lifetime of adhoc sensor networks(ETPNL)” , IETE Technical Review Vol.25, Issue 4, Jul-Aug 2008, pp. 154-160. Zouhair El-Bazzal, Michel Kadoch, Basile L. Agba, François Gagnon and Maria Bennani, “An efficient management algorithm for clustering in mobile ad hoc network”, in Proceedings of the ACM international workshop on Performance monitoring, measurement, and evaluation of heterogeneous wireless and wired networks, 2006, pp. 5 - 31 . A. B. McDonald, T. F. Znati. “Design and simulation of a distributed dynamic clustering algorithm for multimode routing in wireless ad hoc networks”. SIMULATION. Vol. 78. 2002. pp. 408-422. ZHAO Chun-xiao, WANG Guang-xing, “Fuzzy control-based clustering strategy in MANET”, Proceedings of the 5th World Congress 2004. J. Wu et al., “On calculating power-aware connected dominating sets for efficient routing in ad hoc wireless networks,” J. Commun. And Networks, vol. 4, no. 1, Mar. 2002, pp. 59–70. M. Chatterjee, S.K. Das and D. Turgut, “An on-demand weighted clustering algorithm (WCA) for ad hoc networks”, in: Proceedings of IEEE GLOBECOM 2000, San Francisco, November 2000, pp. 1697– 1701. S. Basagni, I. Chlamtac and A. Farago, “A generalized clustering algorithm for peer-to-peer networks”, in: Proceedings of Workshop on Algorithmic Aspects of Communication (satellite workshop of ICALP), July 1997. C.-H.R. Lin and M. Gerla, “A distributed architecture for multimedia in dynamic wireless networks”, in: Proceedings of IEEE GLOBECOM (1995) pp. 1468–1472. S. Kirkpatrick , C.D. Gelatt Jr. , and M.P. Vecchi, “Optimization by Simulated Annealing” , Science 220, 1983, pp. 671 – 680.























http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful