International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Control Systems

ICICCS 2017

A survey on routing algorithms based on Connected

Dominating Sets in MANETS
D.S.John Deva Prasanna, AP(SG), CSE Dr.D.John Aravindhar, Associate Professor
Computer Science and Engineering Computer Science and Engineering
Hindustan University Hindustan University
Chennai,India Chennai,India
Johndp@hindustauniv.ac.in jaravindhar@hindustanuniv.ac.in

Dr.A.George Amalanathan, Professor & Head

Department of Mathematics
Periyar Maniammai University
Thanjavur, India
amalanathangeorge@gmail.com

Abstract— Abstract: Mobile Adhoc Networks (MANET) are
dynamic and volatile in nature. Discovering and maintaining
routes are challenging Conventional routing algorithms could not
be applied to these networks. A The concept of Connected
Dominating Sets (CDS) in graph theory has very constructive
role on routing in MANETs. In this paper we have given a
widespread survey of various CDS formation algorithms and
their performances evaluations are discussed.
Keywords—Connected Dominating Sets, MANETs
I. INTRODUCTION (HEADING 1)
Mobile Adhoc Networks is a type of wireless sensor network.
The entire network is comprised of wireless mobile nodes and
does not depend on any centralized infrastructure devices. The
mobility of the nodes causes the topology of the network to
change from time to time, making the routing finding process
a tedious one. The mobile nodes are expected to be handy and
have a limited processing capacity and battery power.
Considering the above facts it is obvious that conventional
route discover algorithms and routing information exchange
strategies cannot be followed.
The routing algorithms for MANETs are predominantly
reactive and (ie On Demand) and route discovery between the
sender and the receiver is done only when there is a need for
data exchange. Proactive route fining algorithms consumes the
power and considerable processing capacity in the route
finding process. Power constrained mobile nodes become
more susceptible for failure as they lose considerable amount
of battery power is route discovery process. When there are
frequent node failures the entire networks has to rebuild itself
by exchanging routing information.
MANETs works on the technique that every node in the
network receives data from its neighbor and forwards it to the
next neighbor. This process is repeated until the data reaches
the destination node. The nodes with multiple neighbors
receive multiple copies of same message. This creates a
problem of broadcast flooding in MANETs which is another
important factor for charge drain in the mobile nodes.
A. Solution using Connected Dominating Sets
A solution to the above problems is Connected Dominating
Sets concept in Graph Theory. The Connected dominating set
(CDS) is a subset of nodes in a graph such every node in the
graph is either a member of CDS or is an immediate neighbor
to a member node in CDS. This principle is helpful in forming
a virtual backbone among the nodes in the CDS.
The formation of back bone is advantageous to MANET in
way that messages are sent through the CDS nodes alone and
not to broadcasted to all the nodes in the network, the CDS
member nodes in turn sends the messages to their respective
neighbor. This technique avoids broadcast flooding caused in
MANET.
The routing related messages are also exchanged through CDS
member nodes and hence routing protocols works faster and
also minimizes the route related message exchanges. There are
a number of ways available to construct a CDS depending on
various requirements.
II. DEFINING CONNECTED DOMINATING SETS
A.Notations
G-Planar Graph
V- Set of vertices in the planar graph
E – Set of edges in the planar Graph
DS – Dominating Sets

978-1-5386-2745-7/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE 1206

 International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Control Systems
CDS – Connected Dominating Sets
Unit Disk Graph(UDG): Unit Disk Graph is a planar graph
in which every pair of node say ‘u’ and ‘v’ is connected by a
bidirectional edge and the Euclidean distance between ‘u’ and
’v’ is less than or equal to one.
u,v ϵ V such that Euclidean_distance(u,v)≤1
Dominating Sets: In a planar Graph G, the Dominating Set Vˡ
is a subset of vertices V in the graph G such that for every
edge (u,v) either u ϵ Vˡ or v ϵ Vˡ is true.
Connected Dominating Sets (CDS): A Connected
Dominating Set C is a subset of vertices V in the Graph G
such that C is a Dominating Set and the graph induced by C is
connected.
Minimum Connected Dominating Sets (MCDS) – The
minimum Connected Dominating Set M is a CDS of graph G
such that the cardinality of M is the least of all other CDSs of
the Graph G.
III. FINDING CDS FOR MANETS
In graph theory finding the minimum CDS that CDS with
minimum number of nodes is NP Hard [1][2]. However
adaptive algorithms are used for choosing nodes as CDS in
MANETs. There are two primary parameters which define the
effectiveness of the CDS in MANETs, they are lifetime and
node size [1].
Lifetime of CDS: The average time until when the computed
CDS is active, valid and connected. Any change happening in
the topology of the network will necessitate reconstruction of
CDS.
Node Count in the CDS: This denotes the number of nodes in
the CDS, lesser the node count more will be the efficiency of
CDS
A. A Generic Algorithm for finding the CDS in MANETs [8]
Input : Graph(V,E) - V is the vertex set and E is the edge set
in the graph
Output : CDS-Node-List
Auxiliary Variables and functions:
CDS-Node-List: Nodes that are members of the Connected
Dominating Sets.
Covered-Nodes-List: nodes that are not in the CDS-Node-
List but at one hop distance from any one of the nodes in
CDS-Node List.
neighbor(v) : function used to determine the one hop
neighbors of the node v
Initialization: Covered-Nodes-List=s
CDS-Node-List =ɸ
Begin Constructing- CDS
978-1-5386-2745-7/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE
ICICCS 2017
While Covered-Nodes-List< no of vertices in G
Select a node r from covered node list
If r is not in CDS-Node-List and satisfies the condition
//(eg :minimum velocity, maximum density etc)
CDS-Node-List =CDS-Node-List U r
for all nodes in neighbor(r) and nodes not in Covered-Nodes-
List
Covered-Nodes-List = Covered-Nodes-List U {u}
end for
end while
return CDS-Node-List
end Constructing- CDS
.
B. Maximum Density CDS :
Authors in [3] select the nodes which have maximum
number of nodes as its neighbor as members of CDS. This
technique ensures that the CDS has the minimum possible
number of nodes, as each of these CDS nodes cover
maximum number of covered nodes as their neighbor. In
this case the life time will decrease when the overall
distance between the nodes increases. The life also will
decrease drastically when the density of the network
increases. The node size of the CDS computed by this
algorithm is comparatively lesser but not the least. This
techique has an average node count of 13.2 and a life time
of 7.5 secs.
C. Minimum Velocity CDS:
Authors in [3] select the nodes which has the least
mobility over a period of time. This ensures that members
CDS nodes move less and topological changes in CDS are
minimal. Hence CDS once constructed need not be
reconstructed for a longer period of time resulting in
longer time than Maximum Density algorithm. The node
size of the CDS is also lesser than that of the Maximum
density. This technoque has an average node cound of 13.5
and the life time is 13.4.
D. Power Aware CDS:
Authors in [5] selects the nodes with highest residual
energy in the battery. Battery power is one of the
paramount parameter in deciding the lifetime of the nodes
hence considering the available battery power as the
selection criteria increases the life time of the CDS. The
node size of the CDS is comparatively larger than CDS
constructed through other techniques. This technique
makes routing protocol to perform better [4] and has an
time complexity of O(n). The node size and the life time of
the CDS constructed using this technique has high
dependency on two factors I) Bit rate ie. Amount of data
transmitted per second, II) mobility or velocity of the
nodes. When these parameters increase, the nodes tend to
spend more energy for data transmission as well as for
recomputation of CDS. This eventually decreases the life
1207
 International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Control Systems
ICICCS 2017

time of the CDS. The node count too is dependent on these Comparison of CDS Life Time of Various algorithms
two factors. The following assumptions were made for [3][4][8][7]
analyzing this technique [4]
Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Value
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Power for data transmission
(sending and Receiving) 1.033W

Maximum Speed 25

No of Nodes 50

Considering these conditions the average node size is 22

and life time is 30secs [4].

E. Predicted Link expiration time based CDS:

Authors in [8] predicts the expected link expiration time
and the link with the largest estimated lifetime is included
for constructing CDS. The nodes connected through the Comparison of Node Count of. Various Algorithms
particular link are then added to the CDS. In this technique [3][4][8][7]
the life time of the constructed CDS is higher than other
algorithms, here the life time of CDS is proportional to the
lowest predicted link life time. The node size of the CDS
constructed by this technique is average and not least. By
having moderate increase in node count the life time of the
CDS constructed using this technique is increased to a
decent level. The average node count of the CDS is 22 and
the life time 19 secs [8].
F. Strategic node based CDS:
Authors in [7] choose nodes of strategic importance are
chosen to be the member of Connected Dominating Set.
The term strategic importance can be anything like
minimum velocity or maximum residual battery power.
The technique provides a way for combining more than
one of the above mentioned techniques in constructing the
CDS. For example the nodes having both maximum
density and minimum velocity properties can be chosen for
constructing the CDS. This technique is highly adaptive
and can be applied and pruned to the various topological IV Conclusion
requirements. When applied to the standard simulation The various algorithm used for constructing Connected
assumptions and applying the strategic maximum density Dominating Sets formulated by various authors is surveyed
and minimum velocity technique yields the node count of here in this paper. The paramount parameters to measure
32 and a life time of 31[7]. the effectiveness of the CDS are CDS life time and Node
size is considered for evaluating the various algorithms.
Results and comparison
Every algorithm is advantageous for specific type of
The results of every technique mentioned here are MANETs, with respect to their topological changes. For
extracted for a standard network size of 50 nodes and for example minimum velocity CDS construction can be
Random Waypoint network model. Though authors have applied when the nodes have high mobility and max
verified their respective algorithms for various conditions residual batter power based CDS can be applied when the
and values standard size observations has been extracted lifetime of the CDS nodes are predominant. The strategic
for comparison purpose. node based CDS algorithm has an upper hand as two or
more parameters can be combined in choosing the nodes
for CDS. In future, options of proactive partial

978-1-5386-2745-7/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE 1208

 International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Control Systems
reconstruction of CDS by estimating the average lifetime
of the CDS can be considered.
References
[1] B. N. Clark, C. J. Colbourn, andD. Johnson, “Unit disk graphs,”
Discrete Mathematics, vol. 86, no. 1–3, pp. 165–177, 1990.
[2] Garey, M. R., & Johnson, D. S. (1979). Computers and Intractability: A
guide to the theory of NP-completeness New York: W. H. Freeman &
Co.
[3] Natarajan Meghanathan & Ilin S. Dasari A Generic Algorithm to
determine Connected Dominating Sets for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks and
performance under different mobility models, Computer Science &
Information Technology (CS & IT), 2015
[4] Zifen Yang,1 Deqian Fu,1,2 Lihua Han,1 and Seong Tae Jhang3
Improved Route Discovery Based on Constructing Connected
Dominating Set in MANET, International Journal of Distributed Sensor
Networks, April 2015.
[5] J. Wu, F. Dai, M. Gao, and I. Stojmenovic, “On calculating power-aware
connected dominating sets for efficient routing in ad hoc wireless
networks,” Journal of Communications and Networks, vol. 4, no. 1, pp.
59–70, 2002.
[6] R. Yu, X. Wang, Y. Liu, and S. K. Das, “Energy-efficient dominating
tree construction in wireless ad hoc and sensor networks,” in Distributed
978-1-5386-2745-7/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE
ICICCS 2017
Computing and Networking, pp. 558–569, Springer, Berlin, Germany,
2008
[7] Ceronmani Sharmila Victor and George Amalanathan,
“CONSTRUCTION OF STRATEGIC CONNECTED DOMINATING
SET FOR MOBILE AD HOC NETWORKS” Journal of Computer
Science 2014
[8] Meghanathan, N., 2012b. A node stability index-based connected
dominating set algorithm for mobile ad hoc networks. Netw.
Communication., 2012.
[9] Meghanathan N 2012a. Application of Graph Theory Algorithms in
mobile Ad Hoc networks ,mobile computing technique in Emerging
Market Syst.Applic.Serv.,1:98-125,DOI : 10:4018/978-1-4666-00800-5
ch004.
[10] Meghanathan, N., 2010 Use of minimum node velocity based stable
connected dominating sets for mobile ad hoc networks. Comput. Appli.
Special MANETs 1: 89-96. DOI: 10.5120/1016-52
[11] Meghanathan, N. and M. Terrell, 2012. An algorithm to
determine stable connected dominating sets for mobile ad hoc
networks using strong neighborhoods.Int. J. Combinat. Optim.
Problems Inform., 1: 79-92.
[12] Fly, P. and N. Meghanathan, 2010. Predicted link expiration
time based connected dominating sets for mobile ad hoc
networks. Comput. Sci. Eng., 0:2096-2103.
1209