PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF

MOBILITY MODELS IN MOBILE AD HOC

NETWORK (MANET)
Martin Appiah
ICT Department
Vaal University of Technology
Vanderbijlpark, South Africa
[email protected]

Communications and mutual agreement between

ABSTRACT - Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) consists nodes is very crucial to the overall performance of
of a group of mobile or wireless nodes that are situated MANET [1] [2] [7] [8].
randomly and dynamically which causes the continuous
change between nodes. When considering a mobility model The aim of a mobility model is to portray the
and protocol to deploy in any given situation, factors such as
the mobility of nodes, the network size and packet size
movement pattern of mobile nodes in MANET under
should be carefully considered because mobility models can different network scenarios. In reality, nodes can move
highly affect the performance of MANET and its routing in any direction and at any speed. During movement,
protocol. This paper compared the performance of two mobile nodes can pause at regular intervals or may not
different mobility models (i.e. Random Waypoint and stop at all. It is important to consider the movement
Manet_Down_Left) in MANET. These models were patterns of the mobility models when analysing the
configured with Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) performance of MANET. In Random WayPoint
protocol. The simulated results indicated that Random (RWP), mobile nodes normally wait for a period of
WayPoint configured with OLSR performed better in all time (pause time) before it moves to its destination at
scenarios where the pause time and speed were varied (i.e.
5s and 5-10m/s respectively; and 15s and 25-30m/s
a given speed. Mobile nodes in RWP normally travel
respectively). near the centre of the simulation area. However, in
Manet_Down_Left, mobile nodes keep on moving in
Keywords – Manet, Mobility Models, Routing Protocols, the same direction until they get to the border of the
Pause Time, Average Delay, Average Throughput simulation area. In MANET simulations, mobility
models are usually used to determine the performance
of MANET [9] [12] [17].

I. INTRODUCTION The aim of the paper is to compare the performance of

two different mobility models (i.e. Random Waypoint
MANET is a group of mobile nodes that wirelessly and Manet_Down_Left) in MANET configured with
communicate together. This means that mobile nodes Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) Protocol,
are able to communicate and share information which is a proactive routing protocol. The objective of
without the need of any central device. this paper is to compare two mobility models and
determine their performance in MANET.
Due to the fact that nodes are mostly in motion, the
network topology (i.e. the physical connectivity of This paper is arranged as follows: section II:
communication in a network) changes regularly [16] methodology, section III: results, section IV:
[18] [19]. conclusion and section V: future work.

Routing protocols ensures the communication

between active nodes. The route(s) that packets need

to follow from the source node to the destination node

is discovered by the routing protocol.

978-1-5386-3831-6/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE

 II. METHODOLOGY Traffic / Data Type FTP; E-mail
Data Rate 24 Mbps
OPNET is used as the simulation environment because
of its ability to offer a complete modelling Simulation Time 3600 seconds
environment for unique design, simulation and
analysis of the performance of any network [3] [4]. It
also has the capability to model or modify MANET
mobility models and routing protocols [5] [6] [13] [22]
[23]. TABLE 2: OLSR PARAMETERS

Two mobility models and one routing protocol, OLSR

(OLSR) are used in analysing the same network sizes,
Parameters Values
varying speeds, pause time and traffic loads. The
network standard used was 802.11g and all the nodes Willingness Default
are mobile. Different scenarios are used in order to Hello Interval (sec) 2.0
compare the performance of two different mobility 5.0
models in MANET. Explanation of the network TC Interval (sec)
scenarios can be seen in Table 3 and Table 4.
Neighbour Hold Time 6.0
In this paper, speed and pause time were the (sec)
parameters that changed in each scenario. The OPNET Topology Hold Time 15.0
simulation was carried out in an area of 500m x 500m
and all the scenarios have an equal node size of 500
mobile nodes. The objects available in the simulation
environment are mobile nodes, mobility, application Four scenarios are configured using OLSR protocol.
and profile. For the configuration of node speeds, The mobility configuration object is used for the
Random Waypoint model with Vector trajectory and configuration of mobility model, node’s speed and
Manet_Down_Left are used. The node speeds of 5 -10 pause time.
m/s and 25-30 meter per second (m/s) are also used.
The used pause time is 5 and 15 seconds. File Transfer TABLE 3: NETWORK SCENARIOS A
Protocol (FTP) and Electronic mail (E-mail) are the
data types that generate traffic. The data rate that NETWORK SCENARIOS
Media Access Control (MAC) uses to transmit data
frames through the physical layer is 24 Mbps. Each
scenario was simulated six times (to get more Scenario Description
consistent and accurate results) [20] in a 3600 seconds 1: Random WayPoint • This network
simulation time. The general simulation parameters OLSR has 500 nodes
and the parameters for the chosen routing protocol are • It implements
shown in Tables 1 and 2. the OLSR
protocol
TABLE 1: GENERAL SIMULATION PARAMETERS
• Mobility speed
is 5-10
Parameters Value
meters/second
Number of Nodes 500 • Pause time is 5
seconds
Network Area 500 x 500 square
2: • This network
meters
Manet_Down_Left has 500 nodes
Mobility Models Random WayPoint;
OLSR • It implements
Manet_Down_Left
the OLSR
Routing Protocol Optimized Link State
protocol
Routing
• Mobility speed
Speed 5 -10 meters/second
is 5-10
(m/s); 25-30 m/s;
meters/second
Pause Time 5 seconds (s); 15s;
• Pause time is 5
seconds
 III. RESULTS
TABLE 4: NETWORK SCENARIO B
The simulation results are grouped into two categories,
NETWORK SCENARIOS these are: Manet_Down_Left (MDL) OLSR versus
Random WayPoint (RWP) OLSR; and
Manet_Down_Left (MDL) OLSR 2 versus Random
Scenario Description
WayPoint (RWP) OLSR 2. The MDL OLSR versus
3:Random • This network has RWP OLSR presents the simulation results obtained
500 nodes from scenarios 1 and 2 in Table 3. The MDL OLSR 2
WayPoint OLSR 2
• It implements the versus RWP OLSR 2 presents the simulation results
OLSR protocol attained from scenarios 3 and 4 in Table 4.
• Mobility speed is
25- Manet_Down_Left (MDL) OLSR versus Random
30meters/second WayPoint (RWP) OLSR
• Pause time is 15
seconds
4: • This network has
500 nodes
Manet_Down_Left
• It implements the
OLSR 2 OLSR protocol
• Mobility speed is
25-
30meters/second
• Pause time is 15
seconds

Throughput and end to end delay are the performance FIGURE 1: AVERAGE THROUGHPUT FOR MDL OLSR &
RWP OLSR
metrics used to measure the performance of MANET.
Throughput is the average rate of data packets
Figure 1 shows that, the average throughput of
received successfully over a communication path and
Random WayPoint OLSR performed better in
is measured in bits per second (bits/sec) [7].
delivering 589581.0 bits/sec of data compared to
Mathematically, Throughput (S) can be represented as
Manet_Down_Left OLSR which delivered 403592.0
in equation (1):
bits/sec of data. This means that Random WayPoint
OLSR had an average throughput of 59% as against
S=Number_deliveredpacket*Packet_size*8/Total_ 41% average throughput of Manet_Down_Left OLSR.
simulationtime....... (1) The percentage value for RWP OLSR was calculated
as follows:
Delay (end-end) is defined as the time taken to pass
through from a source to a destination node and is Average throughput of RWP OLSR ÷sum (RWP
measured in seconds (s). These delays are caused by OLSR, MDL OLSR average values) ×100
processing, queuing, transmission and propagation
[7]. Mathematically, Delay (D) can be represented as
= 589581.0 ÷ (589581.0 + 403592.0) × 100
in equation (2):
= (589581.0 / 993173) x 100
Dend-end=N [D trans+D prop+D proc] = 59.3% ~ 59%
....................................... (2)
This same formula was used to calculate the average
where D end-end = End –End Delay, D trans =
percentages for all values in all scenarios.
Transmission Delay, D prop = Propagation Delay, D proc
= Processing Delay and N = Number of Nodes

Equations 1 and 2 will be implemented in Microsoft

Excel to generate the correct results.
 Manet_Down_Left OLSR 2 versus Random
WayPoint OLSR 2

FIGURE 2: AVERAGE DELAY FOR MDL OLSR & RWP OLSR

Figure 2 shows the results of average delay. It could FIGURE 3: AVERAGE THROUGHPUT FOR MDL OLSR 2 &
be seen from the graph that Manet_Down_Left OLSR RWP OLSR 2
recorded an average delay of 0.039 seconds whiles
Random WayPoint OLSR had a lower average delay In Figure 3, a higher average throughput of 89% was
of 0.034 seconds. In terms of percentage, MDL OLSR obtained by Random WayPoint OLSR 2. It delivered
obtained a high average delay of 53% whereas RWP 394130.0 bits/sec of data. Manet_Down_Left OLSR 2
OLSR had 47%. on the other hand, acquired average throughput of 11%
by delivering 50455.9 bits/sec of data.
Analysis and Discussion of Results

This analysis and discussion is based on the results

obtained from Figures 1 and 2, which was, MDL
OLSR versus RWP OLSR. The pause time and speed
for this scenario were 5s and 5-10m/s respectively.
Throughput and Delay were the performance
parameters used.

In terms of throughput, RWP OLSR delivered 59% of

total data as against MDL OLSR which delivered
41%. In delay, MDL OLSR had 53% delay. RWP
OLSR on the hand had 47% delay.
FIGURE 4: AVERAGE DELAY FOR MDL OLSR 2 & RWP
The above analysis shows that, in the environment OLSR 2
where the pause time and speed were 5s and 5-10m/s
respectively, RWP OLSR performed better than MDL Figure 4 shows that, Random WayPoint OLSR 2 had
OLSR by having 59% of throughput and lower delay a lower average delay of 0.024 seconds. A higher
of 47%. average delay of 0.033 seconds was recorded in
Manet_Down_Left OLSR 2. The average delay
The reason for the great performance of RWP OLSR difference between the two models in percentage was
was that RWP has the advantage of less hop counts for 42% and 58% respectively.
data packets and its realistic movement pattern of
nodes can also provide higher performance metrics Analysis and Discussion of Results
than MDL. Moreover, the good performance of OLSR
protocol increases RWP’s performance. With OLSR This analysis and discussion is based on the results
capability of sensing neighbouring nodes before achieved from Figures 3 and 4, which was, MDL
sending messages, it reduces packet drops. This great OLSR 2 versus RWP OLSR 2. The pause time and
feature would provide good results when combined speed for this scenario were 15s and 25-30m/s
with the RWP. Even though MDL was also designed respectively. In throughput, RWP OLSR 2 delivered
with OLSR, its movement pattern prevented OLSR 89% of total data as against MDL OLSR 2 which
protocol from maximizing MANET’s performance. delivered 11%. In delay, RWP OLSR 2 had an average
For this reason, the choice of a protocol for a specific delay 42%. RWP OLSR 2 on the hand, had 58% delay.
mobility model should be considered in a network
design [10] [11] [21].
The above analysis indicates that, even when the pause 18% 6%
time and mobility speed were increased to 15s and 25- RWP 589581. 0.034 /
30m/s respectively, RWP OLSR 2 outperformed MDL OLSR 0 / 59% 47%
OLSR 2 in throughput and delay by providing 89% of
throughput and lower delay of 42%.
Manet_Down_Left (MDL) OLSR 2 versus
The great performance of RWP is the fact that it allows Random WayPoint (RWP) OLSR 2
varied speeds and stationary nodes for a moment. It
could be seen that the average throughput for RWP
OLSR 2 was 89% as against 11% for MDL OLSR 2. MDL 50455.9 0.033 /
This means that RWP OLSR 2 performs better when OLSR / 11% 58%
pause time and speed are increased. OLSR protocol 2 78% 16%
has fewer topological changes and this in turn
increases performance. With OLSR capability of using
only Multi Point Relay (MPR) selected nodes to RWP 394130. 0.024 /
transmit control messages to other nodes, overhead is OLSR 0 / 89% 42%
reduced. The capabilities of RWP and OLSR when
2
designed together increased MANET’s performance.
MDL is known for taking long routes, that is borders
of the simulation area and this causes reduced network
performance in terms of delay and throughput.
Likewise, in real life, when a person takes a long route,
he or she would easily get tired and arrive late at his or IV. CONCLUSION
her destination no matter how strong the person is.
That is the reason why MDL was also designed with In view of the simulated results shown above, it could
OLSR but still was outperformed by RWP OLSR 2. In be concluded that, RWP would perform better on
conclusion, the results showed that MANET’s MANET when used with OLSR in an environment
performance was improved when designed with RWP where the pause time is 5s or 15s and mobility speed
OLSR 2. [10] [11] [21]. is 5-10m/s or 25-30m/s. RWP OLSR 2 had better
performance than MDL OLSR 2 by providing 89% of
Table 5 shows a summary of the performance results throughput and lower delay of 42%. The simulation
of the two mobility models and the routing protocol results prove that RWP configured with OLSR had the
discussed. best performance across all scenarios.

TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE RESULTS V. FUTURE WORK

In future, different mobility models, different routing

Manet_Down_Left (MDL) OLSR versus protocols, different speed and pause time can be
Random WayPoint (RWP) OLSR simulated to determine the performance of MANET.
Future categories may include the following:
Manet_Down_Left DSR versus Manet_Down_Left
Scena Average Average Avera Avera OLSR; Random WayPoint DSR versus Random
rios Throug Throug ge ge WayPoint OLSR and Manet_Down_Left DSR versus
hput hput % Delay Delay Random WayPoint OLSR.
(bits/sec differen (secon %
) ce ds) differe REFERENCES
nce
[1] Corson S. and Macker, J. (1999), “Mobile Ad hoc
Networking (MANET): Routing Protocol
Performance Issues and Evaluation Considerations”,
MDL 403592. 0.039 /
RFC: 2501, January 1999. Available through:
OLSR 0 / 41% 53%
IEEE/IET Electronic Library. Accessed on 29 July
2016

[2] Soujanya, B. and Sitamahalakshmi, T. (2011),

“Study of Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad-Hoc
Networks”, presented at International Journal of [11] Ariyakhajorn J., Wannawilai P. and
Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST), 2011, Sathitwiriyawong C. (2006). A Comparative Study of
Vol. 3, No. 4. Available through: IEEE/IET Electronic Random Waypoint and Gauss-Markov Mobility
Library. Accessed on 17 August 2016. Models in the Performance Evaluation of MANET.
ISCIT 2006. Available through: IEEE/IET Electronic
[3] Garrido, P. P., Manuel, P. M. and Carlos, T. C. Library. Accessed on 9 September 2016.
(2008), "NS-2 vs. OPNET: a comparative study of the
IEEE 802.11e technology on MANET environments," [12] Prabhakaran, P. and Sankar, R. (2011) “Impact of
presented at the 1st international conference on Realistic Mobility Models on Wireless Networks
Simulation Tools and Techniques for Performance”. Available through: IEEE/IET
Communications, Networks and Systems & Electronic Library. Accessed on 3 September 2016.
Workshops, Marseille, France, 2008, pp. 1-10.
Available through: IEEE/IET Electronic Library. [13] Kurkowski, S., Camp, T. and Colagrosso, M.
Accessed on 16 August 2016. (2005), “MANET simulation scenarios: The
Incredibles”, ACM Mobile Computing and
[4] Hogie, L., Bouvry, P. and Guinand, F. (2006), "An Communications Review (MC2R), 9(4):50–61,
overview of manets simulation," Electronic Notes in October 2005. Available through: IEEE/IET
Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 150, no. 1, pp. 81- Electronic Library. Accessed on 3 September 2016
101, 2006. Available through: IEEE/IET Electronic
Library. Accessed on 16 August 2016. [14] Davies, V. (2000), “Evaluating Mobility Models
Within an Ad Hoc Network”, Colorado School of
[5] OPNET Modeler (2012), Available through: Mines，2000. Available through: IEEE/IET
http://www.opnet.com. Accessed on 17 August 2016.
Electronic Library. Accessed on 3 September 2016
[6] Chang, X. (2010) "Network simulations with
[15] Camp, T., Boleng, J., Davies, V. (2002), “A
OPNET," presented at Simulation Conference
Survey of Mobility Models for Ad Hoc Network
Proceedings, 2010 Winter, 2010, pp. 307-314.
Research”, Wireless Communication & Mobile
Available through: IEEE/IET Electronic Library.
Accessed on 30 July 2016. Computing (WCMC)：Special issue on Mobile Ad
Hoc Networking：research. Trends and Applications
[7] Tie-yuan, L., Liang, C. and Tian-long, G. (2009),
“Analyzing the Impact of Entity Mobility Models on ，2002，2(5) ： 483-502. Available through:
the Performance of Routing Protocols in the IEEE/IET Electronic Library. Accessed on 6
MANET”, in Genetic and Evolutionary Computing, September 2016
2009. WGEC '09. 3rd International Conference, [E-
Journal], pp. 56-59. Available through: IEEE/IET [16] Lenders, V., Wagner, J. and May, M. (2006),
Electronic Library. Accessed on 16 August 2016. “Analyzing the Impact of Mobility in Ad Hoc
Networks”, In ACM REALMAN, Florence, Italy,
[8] Hong, X., Gerla, M., Pei, G. and Chiang, C.-C. May 2006. Available through: IEEE/IET Electronic
(2010), “A group mobility model for ad hoc wireless Library. Accessed on 6 September 2016
networks”, in ACM/IEEE MSWiM, [E-Journal].
Available through: IEEE/IET Electronic Library. [17] Madsen, T.K., Fitzek, F.H.P. and Prasad, R.
Accessed on 3 September 2016 (2004), “Impact of different mobility models on
connectivity probability of a wireless ad hoc network”,
[9] Davies, V. (2000), "Evaluating Mobility Models in Wireless Ad-Hoc Networks, 2004 International
with Ad Hoc Network," Master's Thesis, Colorado Workshop, [E-Journal], pp. 120-124. Available
School of Mines, 2000. Available through: IEEE/IET through: IEEE/IET Electronic Library. Accessed on 5
Electronic Library. Accessed on 9 September 2016. September 2016.

[10] Johnson, D. and Maltz, D. (1996), "Dynamic [18] Bhatt, M., Chokshi, R., Desai, S.,
Source Routing in Ad Hoc Wireless Network," In T. Panichpapiboon, S., Wisitpongphan, N. and Tonguz,
Imielinski and H. Korth, Editors, Mobile Computing, O.K. (2003), “Impact of mobility on the performance
Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 153-181, 1996. of ad hoc wireless networks”, in Vehicular
Available through: IEEE/IET Electronic Library. Technology Conference, 2003. VTC 2003-Fall. 2003
Accessed on 9 September 2016. IEEE 58th, [E-Journal], pp. 3025-3029. Available
through: IEEE/IET Electronic Library. Accessed on 5
September 2016

[19] Li, X., Agrawal, D.P. and Zeng, Q-A. (2004),

“Impact of mobility on the performance of mobile ad
hoc networks”, in Wireless Telecommunications
Symposium, 2004, [E-Journal] pp. 154-160. Available
through: IEEE/IET Electronic Library. Accessed on 5
September 2016

[20] Balci, O. (2011), "Principles and techniques of

simulation validation, verification, and testing,"
presented at Simulation Conference Proceedings,
2011. Winter, 2011, pp. 147-154. Available through:
IEEE/IET Electronic Library. Accessed on 6
September 2016.

[21] Boukerche, A. (2004), "Performance evaluation

of routing protocols for ad hoc wireless networks,"
Mobile Networks and Applications, vol. 9, no. 4, pp.
333-342, 2004. Available through: IEEE/IET
Electronic Library. Accessed on 3 September 2016.

[22] Sarkar, N. I. and Halim, S. A. (2008), "Simulation

of computer networks: simulators, methodologies and
recommendations," presented at the 5th International
Conference on Information Technology and
Application (ICITA'08), Cairns, Australia, 2008, pp.
420-425. Available through: IEEE/IET Electronic
Library. Accessed on 3 September 2016.

[23] Cavin, D., Sasson, Y. and Schiper, A. (2002) "On

the accuracy of MANET simulators," presented at the
second ACM international workshop on Principles of
mobile computing, Toulouse, France, 2002, pp. 38-43.
Available through: IEEE/IET Electronic Library.
Accessed on 6 September 2016.