Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems Vol. 9.

Sp– 6 / 2017

AN ENERGY AWARE FIRE FLY MULTIPATH DISTANCE VECTOR

PROTOCOL FOR EFFICIENT ROUTING
1
J Seetaram, [Link] Kumar
1
Associate Professor, ECE, Sree Chaitanya college of Engineering, Karimnagar, T.S, India
2
Professor, ECE, Department of ACE Engineering College, Ghatkesar, Hyderabad.
Email id: seeturadha08@[Link]

ABSTRACT
Mobile Adhoc Networks (MANETs) have no definite structure but rather they are
dynamic with numerous wireless mobile nodes that connect with one and other in the absence
of a centralized control system. A MANET has a dynamic structure made of mobile devices
that are interconnected through wireless links. Routing protocols play a major role in
transmitting information through the network and has two important categories namely
unipath and multipath. This work assesses the working of an on-demand multipath routing
protocol called as the Adhoc On-demand Multipath Distance Vector routing (AOMDV). This
work suggests energy aware Firefly Algorithm (FA) and it is regarded as the one among the
meta-heuristic method built to resolve optimization problems utilizing the simulation of
behavior of the fireflies. A number of research works have proven the high standard and the
accuracy of the outputs of the optimization methods solved by FA. Many of these
developments and applications are analysed and summarised in this work.

Keywords: Mobile Adhoc Network (MANET), unipath, multipath, Adhoc On-demand

Multipath Distance Vector routing (AOMDV),Firefly Algorithm (FA)

1. INTRODUCTION

An ad-hoc network is a group of wireless mobile nodes and forms a provisional

network. Such networks do not have centralized administration. In these type of networks, the
nodes may have to link to other hosts to transmit packets to the destined location. It is
because the transmission ranges of wireless networks are restricted. Besides operating as
hosts, every mobile node operates as router to forward packets to other mobile nodes in the
network that are not encompassed within the broadcast range. Every node take part in an ad-

JARDCS Special Issue On Trends and Future in Engineering 1197

Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems Vol. 9. Sp– 6 / 2017

hoc routing protocol that permits the node to identify multi hop paths to other nodes within
the network. This concept of MANET is known infrastructure less networking. It is called so
as routing among nodes is dynamically developed to build their own network on the fly [1].

The MANET is a group of self-governing mobile users, who correspond with each
other using slow wireless link. Due to the dynamic nature of nodes, there is a rapid variation
in network topology. These types of networks can operate independently or can be linked to
well- built internet. A few important features of MANETs are limited bandwidth, varied
capacity links; limited energy functions, limited physical security, dynamic network structure
as well as routing updates on regular basis [2].

By using the dynamic network structure of MANET, it is difficult to design a proper

routing for network. This is because the node mobility is high leading to repeated changes in
the network structure. So in order to establish routing a number of protocols are developed.
The process of forwarding data packets from one node to another within the network is called
as routing [3].

In MANET, the routing protocol can be termed as a convention or a norm that

monitors the flow of data packets in the network. It is also responsible to identify the suitable
path to transmit the packets to the desired destination. MANETs have dynamic network
topology. Due to this, there is no regular path between the nodes and so they have a identify
path by proclamation made by the nodes. It is necessary for the nodes in the network to pay
attention to the announcements transmitted neighbours. On the basis of the routing strategy,
there are three significant groups in MANET routing protocols and are as follows: (1)
Proactive or Table driven, (2) Reactive or On-demand as well as (3) Hybrid.

Proactive protocols depend upon routing tables which lists known destinations.
Consequently, there is reduced overhead control traffic generated by the proactive routing as
the packets are transmitted through known routes. To achieve this, the routing tables should
be regularly updated. Therefore, there is wastage of bandwidth as the memory is used and
regular transmission of update messages from the nodes to its neighbours. So, proactive
routing is not applicable for extremely dynamic networks as it is essential to regularly update
routing tables for every change in network topology. Subsequently, the overhead control
messages increase in number leading to poor network performance during heavy loads [4].

JARDCS Special Issue On Trends and Future in Engineering 1198

Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems Vol. 9. Sp– 6 / 2017

The other name for reactive routing protocol is demand routing protocol. This
protocol allows identifying routes as and when required. Route discovery is initiated by nodes
base on demand. The route cache is seen by the source node sees to identify the route from
the source to destination. Suppose, if route is unavailable then it sets off route discovery
process. Route discovery as well as maintenance is the two important components of on-
demand routing protocols. In reactive protocols, the routes are maintained due to the
acknowledgement mechanism of the protocol. The route discovery system permits reactive
protocols to add latency to the network. There is added latency due to each intermediate node
present in the route discovery procedure. As a result there is reduced overhead routing but the
network has increased latency. Therefore, such protocols are applicable to conditions which
demand low overhead routing [5, 6].

The exchange between proactive and reactive protocols is termed as Hybrid Routing
Protocol. Proactive protocol has minimal latency and huge overhead whereas it is other way
in reactive protocol. Hence a hybrid protocol is proposed to surmount the drawbacks of both
proactive as well as reactive routing protocols. By using hybrid routing protocol in a network,
there is less overhead issues and avoidance of latency as it utilizes route discovery
mechanism of reactive protocol as well as the table maintenance mechanism of proactive
protocol. Hence, hybrid protocol can be applied to large networks which have a huge number
of nodes. Such wide networks are split into set of zones in which reactive approach is used to
perform routing inside and proactive is used for the outside zone.

The below are the merits of an Ad-Hoc network [7]:

 These networks offer data accessibility and services without consider geographical
location.

 It is not dependant on centralized control system. Self-configuring network and even

nodes perform as routers. It is cheaper than wired network.

 Scalable— it can accommodate additional nodes.

 Higher flexibility.

 No centralized monitoring so, increase in robustness.

 Possible to set up the network anywhere anytime.

JARDCS Special Issue On Trends and Future in Engineering 1199

Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems Vol. 9. Sp– 6 / 2017

The Unipath Routing Protocols is appropriate for Ad Hoc Networks as these methods
use only a single path at a time to the destination even if a number of good paths are
available. Many of the routing protocols have unipath or operate on unipath mode. Open
Shortest Path First (OSPF) is the frequently utilized routing which works in a unipath mode.
Equal-cost multipath routing can be enabled or turned on in the approach. Every protocol
follows route discovery as well as maintenance. Route discovery is a procedure wherein the
source node initially identifies a route or several routes to transmit packets to a given
destination as and when required. In route maintenance the source forwards packets along the
route. There is a possibility for the routes to brake while transmitting packets as the nodes
tend to move away or go down. Such routes are rebuilt. The procedure of identifying route
breakage as well as rebuilding it is known route maintenance [8].

Several paths between the source and the destination may be identified by employing
multipath routing. With the help of these paths the dynamic and unpredictable nature of
MANETs can be compensated and QoS can be supported. Multipath based routing protocols
may determine node and link disjoint or non-disjoint routes. The other name for node disjoint
routes is totally disjoint routes. It does not have common nodes or links. The link disjoint
routes have common nodes but there is no common links. Non-disjoint routes may have both
common nodes as well links. In non-disjoint routes there are lower aggregate resources when
compared to disjoint routes. This is due to sharing of links and nodes in non-disjoint routes. It
is easy to discover non-disjoint routes as there are no limitation for the routes to be node or
link disjoint. This feature makes it highly beneficial. In QoS routing, the subset of path,
which satisfies the needs of QoS are only chosen [9].

The multipath routing protocols operate in the following steps:i) Route Discovery that
finds more than one path nodes disjoint, link disjoint or non-disjoint routes among source and
destination, ii) Traffic Allocation: on selecting the routes among source and destination, the
source node must choose a set of paths to the destination to send information to the
destination through the chosen paths and iii) Path Maintenance: the paths must be regenerated
once the initial path is discovered. This is to remove link or node failures, which might
happen due to time and node mobility [10].

The merits of multiple paths are load balance, fault-tolerance as well as higher
aggregate bandwidth. Balance of load may be attained dispersing the traffic along multiple
routes. This helps in removingobstruction as well as blockage. From the viewpoint of fault

JARDCS Special Issue On Trends and Future in Engineering 1200

Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems Vol. 9. Sp– 6 / 2017

tolerance perspective, multipath routing may offer route resilience. For instance, node S
transmits similar packets in all the three paths then D will receive the packet if there is no
failure in any of the three paths. Besides using multiple paths to send similar packets, it is
also used in providing fault tolerance during route failures [11].

In wireless network there is restricted bandwidth due to which single-path routing

cannot provide adequate bandwidth for connectivity. This can be overcome by using multiple
pathssimultaneously to route data, as the aggregate bandwidth of the paths can meet the
requisites for an application’s bandwidth. Further, increase in bandwidth leads to smaller end-
to-end delay. There are problems at the link layer in wired networks due to which multiple
paths cannot be used in ad hoc networks to attain increased bandwidth. It is essential to
consider radio interference as the nodes in the network correspond though the wireless
medium. The achievable throughput is restricted as there node transmissions interfere with
one and other. So it can be deduced that utilizing multipath routing in ad hoc networks of
high density provide improved throughput when compared to unipath routing.

The AODV Routing protocol facilitates mobile, self-initiating, multi-hop routing

among the available mobile nodes that wish to develop and maintain an adhoc network. The
protocol operates in the subsequent stages: route discovery as well as maintenance. The
protocol initiates route discovery in Ad-hoc routing whenever a route is essential for a
particular destination. Following this, a Route Request (RREQ) message is sent by the source
node to its neighbours. If those nodes do not possess any information regarding the
destination node then in that case it sends message to the nodes in its neighbourhood.
Conversely, if any neighbour node possesses information regarding destination node then the
node transmits route reply (RREP) message to the RREQ request message initiator [12].

This procedure is taken as the basis to record a path among the intermediate nodes. As
this path discovers the route, it is known as reverse path. Every node transmits RREQ
message to every neighbour, such that a single node is a recipient of multiple copies of the
original RREQ message. On creating a RREQ message, a unique id is designated. Likewise,
on receiving the RREQ the node ensures for the id as well the address of the initiator.
Suppose, the request was previously processed then it ignores the message. The node that
possesses the information regarding the path to the destination transmits RREP message to
neighbour node, which had sent the RREQ message. A similar procedure is followed by the
neighbour. It is possible as a result of reverse path. Later, the RREP message traverses

JARDCS Special Issue On Trends and Future in Engineering 1201

Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems Vol. 9. Sp– 6 / 2017

backward utilizing reverse path. If the RREP message arrives at the initiator, the route is
enabled for the initiator to transmit data packets.

The merits of AODV are: The AODV procedure is generally a flat routing protocol
thereby do not require any inner organizational technique to tackle the routing procedure. In
AODV the routes are created based on demand while the destination sequence numbers are
applied for finding the recent route to the destination. There is a low connection setup delay.
There are no loops in AODV protocols and also it avoids counting to infinity problem. The
AODV Disadvantages are: It may lead to heavy control overhead and there is unwanted
utilization of bandwidth[13].

Conversely, AOMDV is a multi-path routing protocol. ADOV is extended to

AOMDV such that it provides two important services such as route discovery as well as
maintenance. AOMDV Route Discovery and Maintenance: Source node transmits RREQ
to its neighbouring nodes where this procedure is repeated until the destination receives the
message. In case of RREP, the node builds a reverse path to the source. Every RREQ has a
corresponding RREP that reaches a node and states an alternate path to source or destination.
In case of link breakage, the RERR packets are transmitted until the source node is reached.
Later, all the unreachable entries from the routing table are eliminated by the source node and
the smallest backup paths are used [14, 15].

It is important to have Loop Free Paths and the essential conditions for Loop freedom
are-

 Sequence number rule: A node having multiple paths should maintain similar
destination sequence number.

 Route advertisement rule: A route shorter than the previously advertised route must
not be advertised.

 Route acceptance rule: A route longer than the previously advertised route must not
be accepted.

Route Update Rules: Every node holds a variant namely ‘advertised hop count’ for
every destination in order to maintain multi- paths without any loops. During the time of first
advertisement, the value of the variant is defined as the length of the ‘longest’ obtainable path
up to the destination. The alternate path to the destination is denoted by the received duplicate

JARDCS Special Issue On Trends and Future in Engineering 1202

Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems Vol. 9. Sp– 6 / 2017

route advertisement (like RREQ, RREP). Re-initialization of next hop count and list takes
place after accepting route advertisement. By accepting paths with less hop count, it is
possible to achieve loop freedom. Subsequently, route_list replaces next hop, which denotes
multiple next hops corresponding to their hop counts. The advertised_hopcount field is
revised by node i for a destination d every time a route advertisement is transmitted to d.

advertised _ hopcountid : max k {hopcount k |

(nexthopk , hopcountk )  route _ listid }

The duplicate copies of RREQ are not abandoned in AOMDV but instead every
packet is verified whether or not it offers a node-disjoint path to the source. For instance, in
node-disjoint paths, the available RREQs must reach through several neighbours of the
source. It can be validated with the first hop field in the RREQ packet as well as the first
hop_list for the RREQ packets at the node.

Computation of Disjoint Paths: Unlike the source, there is a different method at the
destination where the determined paths are link-disjoint. The link disjoint property can be
maintained by having paths with distinctive next and last hops. Using this it is possible to
identify whether the two paths via downstream neighbours are link disjoint.

This study suggests to extend the well-known AOMDV and energy aware FA that
reduces energy consumption through the route. Section 2 gives related work in literature;
Section 3 discusses methodology. Section 4 gives the outputs and discussion and section 5
concludes the paper.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Zhou et al., [16] suggested AOMDV on the basis of Node State (NS- AOMDV). The
state of the node improves the performance of AOMDV in choosing the main path. In route
discovery procedure, the routing update rule evaluates the node weight of every path as well
as arranges the path weight in descending order in route list. It also selects the path that
possesses the greatest path weight for transmitting information. In addition, NS-AOMDV
utilizes the technology of RREQ packet delay forwarding as well as energy threshold to
simplify network traffic, to restrict the RREQ broadcast storm as well shun low energy nodes
from establishing the path. From the outputs it is clear that NS-AOMDV can largely

JARDCS Special Issue On Trends and Future in Engineering 1203

Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems Vol. 9. Sp– 6 / 2017

influence the packet delivery rate in the network, improve through put as well normalize
overhead routing in condition such as dynamic network topology and huge loads.

Allalili et al., [17] proposed a modern technique for load balance. It is based on left
over energy of nodes and is used to disperse the traffic consistently among the nodes of the
network. This method exploits the multipath routing protocol AOMDV that characterizes
link-disjoint paths among the source as well as the destination in each route discovery.
Additionally, there is Energy metric for Load Balancing (ELB-AOMDV).A comparison was
carried out between the performance of ELB-AOMDV and LBAOMDV.

Hoolimath et al., [18] presented a routing protocol based on the termite activity in
nature, called Optimized-Termite (Opt-Termite). The idea of stigmergy for self-organization
is used to decrease the control packet overhead. The main objective of Opt-Termite is to
balance load for optimization. Opt-Termite is used to choose a route having fewer numbersof
mobile nodes with regard to traffic to reach the destination. The routing information at every
node is subjected to movement of packets while the routing table gets updated accordingly.
Multiple paths can be used. Every packet is routed arbitrarily without any dependence. Opt-
Termite is executed in ns-2 and a comparison was made among the performance of the
proposed method and conventional routing protocol AODV. The results show that Opt-
Termite has better performance.

Shaukat& Rajan [19,34] presented an optimization, which utilizes altered Genetic

Algorithm (GA). It is a division of evolutionary computation and is determined near-optimal
multicast trees. It is done to convince several QoS constraints like bandwidth, delay as well
packet loss. This change utilizes Firefly effect to decrease the convergence time as well as
premature convergence of the GA. From the experimental outputs it is clear that the
suggested protocol can possibly find a set of near-optimal multicast trees in computationally
practicable time within a few iterations. It operates at high speed when compared to other
optimization methods that are suggested in literature. Further, the algorithm is scalable as
well as displays a linear increase in computing overhead with larger group size.

Sharma et al., [20] suggested a method that can contemplate on conservation of

energy, shortest path as well as load balancing. This routing method considers the shortest
path as well as energy conservation in multipath way along with multipath routing (E-
AOMDV) based on the suggested energy. The selection criteria for the energy factor are the
product of the energy factors of all the nodes that exist in several paths. The energy status is
JARDCS Special Issue On Trends and Future in Engineering 1204
Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems Vol. 9. Sp– 6 / 2017

given by the energy factor with which the performance of AOMDV along with energy based
AOMDV (E-AOMDV) can be calculated. Though E-AOMDV has restricted lifespan, it has
enhanced routing when compared to AOMDV excluding the energy factor. The improved
performance of the suggested method can be deduced from the performance matrices. It is
noted that it has good performance within its restricted lifetime.

Mallapur& Patil [21] suggested and developed a route stability that has its basis on
demand multipath routing protocol for MANETs. It is known as Stable Backbone based
Multipath Routing Protocol (SBMRP). It improves the link quality and used in selecting
stable paths among the nodes. This method works to select the candidate nodes as well as to
construct routing backbone for the selected stable paths established from the sources to the
destination node. In order to verify the suggested method, simulations were carried out
utilizing Network Simulator 2 (NS-2). The outputs illustrate that the SBMRP performs better
when compared to other available routing protocols by considerably minimising route
discovery. It is also improves packet delivery ratio and constructs backbone paths between
source and destinations to extend the lifetime of nodes.

Mehta & Gupta [22] introduced the execution evaluation of routing protocol DSDV as
well as AOMDV in the perspective of sensor networks by assuming that static nodes are
acquainted. NS-2 is used to simulate the algorithm. The outputs put forth the distinguished
routing performance of the algorithm under different conditions and pool its performance
with AOMDV in the discourse addressed. Further this work, analyses DSDV as well as
AOMDV algorithm when utilized for MANETs.

Kukreja et al., [23] extended Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) protocol known as
Energy Efficient Secure Dynamic Source Routing (EESDSR). This algorithm is inspired by
the distributed trust model that is effective as well power aware in enhancing the security of
DSR protocol. This method can spot out the nodes that exhibit malicious behaviours such as
gray-hole, malicious topology change behavior, dropping data packets as well as dropping
control packets. Monitoring system can be applied to MANETs since it concentrates on
power saving and has distributed nature that can be adapted to dynamic network topology.
NS-2 is employed to examine the proposed routing protocol. The EESDSR protocol was
subjected to many simulations and to prove it has better performance than other standard
DSR protocol.

JARDCS Special Issue On Trends and Future in Engineering 1205

Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems Vol. 9. Sp– 6 / 2017

Gulati& Kumar [24] presented a Stable Energy efficient QoS based Congestion and
Delay aware Routing (SEQCDR) Protocol for a valuable QoS support. The method utilizes
several parameters of signal strength, queue length, drain rate as well as delay to improve the
system performance. The protocol offers efficient load balance at the node and identifies a
stable path among the source and destination by enduring the delay requirement. The
experimental output reveals that the suggested SEQCDR protocol can perform better than
AODV with regard to packet delivery ratio, throughput, routing overhead and average end to
end delay.

Yang & Sun [25] introduced an AODV Multipath Routing Protocol with Path
Selection Entropy (AODVM-PSE).The standard multipath extension on AODV (AODVM)
was weighed against AODVM-PSE and it is found that AODVM-PSE can assign the
development of several paths to the destination node as well as makes it algorithmically
simple. Consequently it improves the performance of packet delivery, average end-to-end
delay as well as control packets ratio acquired at intermediate nodes. The experimental results
show that the functional advantages of the suggested AODVM-PSE against AODVM in most
movement scenarios.

3. METHODOLOGY

In MANETs it is important to effectively utilize the node-energy. If a node is lost due

to exhausted energy than it leads to partition of network and failure of communication in an
ad-hoc network. In wireless MANETs there is restricted energy due to which there are
problems in developing energy aware routing protocols. The significant aim of these methods
is to minimize energy utilization of mobile node and to improve the lifespan of the network.
Therefore, a modern routing protocol is proposed that is inspired by the reactive and
multipath routing. It considers the broadcast power of nodes as well the residual energy as
energy parameters to improve the network lifespan and to minimise energy utilization of
mobile nodes [26].

Transmission Power Control: Whenever a node receives accepts a packet from a

neighbour, the channel attenuation can be calculated as difference between the transmitted
power Powertxmaxand the received power Powerrx. The ideal transmission power is assessed as
below:

JARDCS Special Issue On Trends and Future in Engineering 1206

Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems Vol. 9. Sp– 6 / 2017

Powertx  Powertx max  Powerrx  S r  Secth

Here Sr represents the minimal power level needed for exact packet reception while
Secth gives the power incorporated to overcome the issue of unbalanced connectionscaused
by channel fluctuations.

The optimal path can be identified by calculating the value of P as given below:

P  max j min i ( RE / Powertx )

The optimum route can be evaluated by utilizing P value as given above. From the
available paths, the path with maximum P value is chosen as the optimal route to transmit the
data packets. In the above equation, RE is the Residual Energy on the route while Powertx is
the transmission power.

Residual Energy Calculation: Ever node has a remaining energy after transmitting
the packets. This energy is given by RE and is determined by the formula given below.

RE  EI  Ec (t )

Here EI represents initial energy of a node while EC(t) is energy utilized by a node
after time t. Total Energy Consumption (TEC) of all nodes is given by the below equation.

TEc  N * Initial Energy - RE

Here N denotes the quantity of nodes utilized in the network.

3.1 Proposed Firefly Algorithm (FA)

 Yang in 2008 built FA, which is one among the modern swarm intelligence technique.
This is a type of stochastic, nature-inspired, meta-heuristic protocol used to solve the
toughest optimization problems along with NP-hard problems. The protocol is
stochastic i.e. it makes use of randomization by searching for a set of solutions. The
algorithm derives its inspiration from the flashing lights of fire-flies in nature. The
term heuristic denotes `to find' or `to discover solutions by trial and error'. It is not
certain that optimal solution can be determined within a short period of time [27].

 Lastly, meta-heuristic signifies 'higher level' in which the search procedure followed
in the protocols is subjective to the exchange among randomization as well as local

JARDCS Special Issue On Trends and Future in Engineering 1207

Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems Vol. 9. Sp– 6 / 2017

search. In the firefly protocol, the `lower level' (heuristic) focuses on the generation of
fresh solutions in a given search space and hence the suitable solution is selected for
survival. Conversely, the search procedure is enabled by randomization to get away
from getting trapped in local optima. The candidate solution is enhanced by local
search till the changes are noticeable i.e., the solution is placed in local optimum.

 Every meta-heuristic search procedure is dependent on the balance between two

important elements namely exploration as well exploitation [28]. The two terms are
perfectly defined and are influenced by the control metrics of the algorithm. With
reference to natural bee colony, the activities of exploration and exploitation are still
to be illustrated. In meta-heuristic algorithms [29], the term exploration signifies the
procedure of identifying the discrete solutions within the search space, whereas
exploitation denotes concentrating the search procedure within the locality of suitable
solutions thereby exploiting the data that was found thus far.

 It is to be noted that FA is population-based. The population-based protocols have the

below merits than single-point search algorithms [30]:

 Using crossover it is possible to combine the building blocks from various solutions.

 Likewise even search depends on crossover. It signifies that if both the parents have
similar same value for the variant then even the offspring will have same value as the
parents for that variant.

 The disturbance within landscape can be ignored using low-pass filter.

 It hedges against bad luck in the primary positions or decisions that it takes.

 The algorithm has an opportunity to ascertain good parameter values to equalize

exploration and exploitation through parameter tuning.

The optimization problems and especially the NP hard problems can be resolved
utilizing the efficient nature inspired protocols. This work offers an innovative method for
dimensionality reduction based on FA. FA takes inspiration from the biochemical as well as
social characteristics of real fireflies. Real fireflies generate a brief and periodic flash, which
is used to attract their mating partners as well as acts as a protective warning mechanism. FA
devises this flashing behaviour with the objective function of the problem to be optimized.

JARDCS Special Issue On Trends and Future in Engineering 1208

Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems Vol. 9. Sp– 6 / 2017

Threebasic rules are used to formulate FA (3) the fireflies are unisex by nature such that they
attract each other not considering their sex. (2) Attractiveness is proportional to brightness
and it decreases as distance increases between two flies. Therefore, the fly with less
brightness moves toward the brighter one. If it doesn’t find a brighter fly it moves in arbitrary
motion. (3) The landscape of the objective function is used to determine the brightness of a
firefly [31]. The basic FA algorithm consists of:

Objective function f ( x ), x  ( x1 ,........., x4 )T

Generate initial population of fireflies xi (i  1, 2,....., n )
Light int ensity I i at xi is det er min ed by f ( xi )
Define light absorption coefficient 
While(t  MaxGeneration)
for i  1: n all n fireflies
for j  1: i all n fireflies
if ( Ij  Ii), Move firefly i towards j in d - dim ension;
endif
Attractiveness var ies with dis tan ce r via exp[- r ]
Evaluate new solution and update light int ensity
end for j
end for i
Rank the fireflies and find the current best
end while
Post process results and visualization

xi , i=1,2,........,n
The fundamental FA assumes the existence of n fireflies that are
primarily located at random locations in the space while intensity i of each firefly is related to
the objective function.

f ( x ), i.e. I   f ( x )

The firefly with highest flash intensity attracts the other firefly i.e. Ii>Ij, j=1,2…n, j≠i.
Attractiveness or the brightness of firefly differ with the distance among firefly i and firefly j
rij  d ( xi , x j )
i.e. .Further ,the light intensity I reduces with the distance from its source and it
is even absorbed in the air. So, the fireflies are only seen for a limited distance.

JARDCS Special Issue On Trends and Future in Engineering 1209

Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems Vol. 9. Sp– 6 / 2017

The light intensity also termed as attractiveness is inversely related to the specific
distance r from the light source. Therefore, light as well as attractiveness decrease with
increase in distance [32].

2
I (r )  I 0 e  r
Where,
I=light intensity,
I0
=light intensity at initial or original light intensity,
 =the light absorption coefficient

r=distance between firefly i and j

Attractiveness is proportional to light intensity as witnessed by another firefly, thus

attractiveness is β

2
   0e  r
Where,
 0 =Attractiveness at r is 0

The distance between two fireflies may be defined through Cartesian distance


d
rij | xi  x j | k 1
( xi ,k  x j ,k )2

Firefly i gets attracted to the most attractive firefly j, the measure is given by

  rij2
xi  0e ( xtj  xit )   i , xit 1  xi

xi
In equation, the initial term represents attraction. It is the restriction when the value tends

to zero or infinity. If  approaches zero (   0 , the attractiveness as well as brightness

become invariable
   0 . Otherwise it can be stated as, random position of a firefly that

eases the process of completing the global search. If  tending to infinity or too large (   
then there is decrease in attractiveness and brightness. So the fire-flies move arbitrarily. FA
can be implemented in these two asymptotic behaviours. The second term represents

randomization, as is the randomize parameter. The

 i may be substituted by ran -1/2 ,where

ran is a random number ranging between 0 to 1.

JARDCS Special Issue On Trends and Future in Engineering 1210

Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems Vol. 9. Sp– 6 / 2017

The flow chart of FA is given in figure 1 [33]:

START

Initial location of fire flies

Insert variable x into load flow

Run load flow

Objective function Evaluation

Ranking fire flies by their light intensity

Finding current best solution

Move all fire flies to better locations

No
Iteration
maximum?

Yes

Run load flow program for final

result of optimal generation

Print results

END

Figure 1: Flowchart of Firefly Algorithm (FA)

JARDCS Special Issue On Trends and Future in Engineering 1211

Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems Vol. 9. Sp– 6 / 2017

Merits of FA: The factors responsible for FA to be wide-spread and efficient are given
below:

 It is obvious that local attraction is stronger when compared to long distance

attraction. So FA segregates its population into subgroups.

 FA ignores historical individual best as well as explicit global best. Due to this, the
setbacks of premature convergence can be reduced. Further, it avoids velocities and so
the issues related to velocities in Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) gets removed
automatically.

 FA is mobile and can possibly monitor the parameter .

Therefore, it is obvious that FA is the most effective in terms of parameter control,

local search ability, robustness as well as removal of premature convergence.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The proposed FA-AOMDV is simulated to evaluate packet delivery ratio, average end
to end delay and average number of hops to sink. The performance of FA-AOMDV is
compared with AOMDV. Simulation is conducted using varying number of nodes
(25,50,75,and 100) and network size is 1200 sq m. The transmission range of node is 250 m
and the traffic type is constant bit rate. Tables 1 and Figures 2 to 4 in this study explains
result value and graph respectively for packet delivery ratio, average end to end delay and
Average Number of hops to sink.

Table 1: Summary of results

Number of nodes AOMDV FF-AOMDV

Packet Delivery Ratio
25 0.83 0.9167
50 0.8041 0.8474
75 0.7924 0.8523
100 0.7456 0.813
Average End to End Delay in second
25 0.001464 0.001
50 0.001714 0.0012
75 0.001971 0.0014
100 0.002107 0.0014

JARDCS Special Issue On Trends and Future in Engineering 1212

Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems Vol. 9. Sp– 6 / 2017

Average Number of hops to sink

25 4.29 3.81
50 5.89 4.8
75 6.71 4.92
100 7.04 5.14

1
PACKET DELIVERY RATIO

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
25 50 75 100
NUMBER OF NODES

AOMDV FF-AOMDV

Figure 2: Packet Delivery Ratio

From the table 1 and figure 2, it can be observed that the FF-AOMDV method
increased Packet Delivery Ratio by 9.92%, 5.24%, 7.28% and 8.64% when compared with
AOMDV method with 25, 50, 75 and 100 number of nodes.

0.0025
AVERAGE END TO END DELAY

0.002

0.0015
IN SECOND

0.001

0.0005

0
25 50 75 100
NUMBER OF NODES

AOMDV FF-AOMDV

Figure 3: Average End to End Delay in second

JARDCS Special Issue On Trends and Future in Engineering 1213

Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems Vol. 9. Sp– 6 / 2017

From the table 1 and figure 3, it can be observed that the FF-AOMDV method
decreased Average End to End Delay in second by 37.66%, 35.27%, 33.87% and 40.31%
when compared with AOMDV method with 25, 50, 75 and 100 number of nodes.

8
7
AVERAGE NUMBER OF

6
HOPS TO SINK

5
4
3
2
1
0
25 50 75 100
NUMBER OF NODES

AOMDV FF-AOMDV

Figure 4: Average Number of hops to sink

From the table 1 and figure 4, it can be observed that the FF-AOMDV method
reduced Average Number of hops to sink by 11.85%, 20.39%, 30.78% and 31.19% when
compared with AOMDV method with 25, 50, 75 and 100 number of nodes.

5. CONCLUSION

A routing protocol should identify routes among nodes to help communication in

MANET. When developing routing protocol it is necessary to consider energy efficiency as it
is a major problem in MANETs. This work suggests a new algorithm FA that belongs to the
swarm intelligence family. Besides this, since FA can be used in various types of problems, it
shows the eagerness in the author to use this algorithm. The research works show that this
protocol is proficient than the previously introduced swarm intelligence. Though the
proficiency of FA is proven, it is necessary to modify the algorithm to enhance local search
and global search such that an optimum solution is acquired rather than a premature solution.

FA is appropriate for high dimensional as well as non-linear problems. The drawback

of the algorithm is that as a single meta-heuristic it is difficult to attain an optimal solution
within a prescribed time. So, by changing into meta-heuristic, the drawbacks of single
metaheuristic algorithm can be solved. Experiments are carried out using various nodes and
JARDCS Special Issue On Trends and Future in Engineering 1214
Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems Vol. 9. Sp– 6 / 2017

the performance of FA-AOMDV is compared against AOMDV. From the output, it is clear
that FA-AOMDV improves packet delivery ratio as well as minimises end to end delay.

REFERENCES

1. Rajaram, A., &Palaniswami, D. S. (2010). Malicious node detection system for

mobile ad hoc networks. International Journal of Computer Science and Information
Technologies, 1(2), 77-85.
2. Gupta, A. K., Sadawarti, H., & Verma, A. K. (2011). Review of various routing
protocols for MANETs. International Journal of Information and Electronics
Engineering, 1(3), 251-259.
3. Sharma, S. K., Kumar, R., Gangwar, A., &Pakhre, K. (2014). Routing Protocols and
Security Issues in MANET: A Survey. International Journal of Emerging Technology
and Advanced Engineering, Volume 4, Issue 4.
4. Hinds, A., Ngulube, M., Zhu, S., & Al-Aqrabi, H. (2013). A review of routing
protocols for mobile ad-hoc networks (manet). International Journal of Information
and Education Technology, 3(1).
5. Guirguis, S. K., &Saaid, O. S. (2012). Evaluating the performance of secure routing
protocols in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks. International Journal of Advanced Research in
Computer and Communication Engineering Vol. 1, Issue 9.
6. Dhenakaran, D. S., & Parvathavarthini, A. (2013). An Overview of Routing Protocols
in Mobile Ad-Hoc Network. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer
Science and Software Engineering, 3(2).
7. Aarti, D. S. (2013). Tyagi,“Study Of Manet: Characteristics, Challenges, Application
And Security Attacks”. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer
Science and Software Engineering, 3(5), 252-257.
8. Banu, M. B., &Periyasamy, P. (2013). A Survey of Unipath Routing Protocols for
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks. International Journal of Information Technology and
Computer Science (IJITCS), 6(1), 57.
9. Qin, F., & Liu, Y. (2009). Multipath Routing forMobile Ad Hoc Network. In
International Symposium on Information Processing.
10. Kaur, N., & Singh, T. (2015). A Review on Different Routing Protocols inMANETS.
International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies (IJCSIT),
Vol. 6 (1) , 2015, 101-104

JARDCS Special Issue On Trends and Future in Engineering 1215

Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems Vol. 9. Sp– 6 / 2017

11. Mueller, S., Tsang, R. P., &Ghosal, D. (2004). Multipath routing in mobile ad hoc
networks: Issues and challenges. In Performance tools and applications to networked
systems (pp. 209-234). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
12. Vanaja, K., &Umarani, D. R. (2011). An analysis of single path aodv vs multipath
aomdv on link break using ns-2. International Journal of Electronics and Computer
Science Engineering.
13. Kaur, H., Sahni, V., &Bala, M. (2013). A Survey of Reactive, Proactive and Hybrid
Routing Protocols in MANET: A Review. network, 10, 11.
14. Giri, A., Prithviraj, J., & Verma, A. (2012). Analysis of unipath and multipath routing
protocols in mobile Adhoc networks. Gyan Ganga Institute of Tech. India.
15. Kukreja, B., &Kambhra, S. (2014). Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols in
MANET. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security (IJCSNS),
14(8), 108.
16. Zhou, J., Xu, H., Qin, Z., Peng, Y., & Lei, C. (2013). Ad Hoc On-Demand Multipath
Distance Vector Routing Protocol Based on Node State. Communications and
Network, 5(03), 408.
17. Allalili, M. A., Maaza, Z. M., Kies, A., &Belbachir, R. DISTRIBUTED TRAFFIC
BY LOAD-BALANCING APPROACH FOR AOMDV IN AD-HOC NETWORKS.
18. Hoolimath, P. G., Kiran, M., & Reddy, G. (2012, July). Optimized Termite: A bio-
inspired routing algorithm for MANET's. In Signal Processing and Communications
(SPCOM), 2012 International Conference on (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
19. Shaukat, U., & Anwar, Z. (2014). A fast and scalable technique for constructing
multicast routing trees with optimized quality of service using a firefly based genetic
algorithm. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 1-27.
20. Sharma, B. P., Chugh, S., & Jain, V. (2014, April). Energy Efficient Load Balancing
Approach to Improve AOMDV Routing in MANET. In Communication Systems and
Network Technologies (CSNT), 2014 Fourth International Conference on (pp. 187-
192). IEEE.
21. Mallapur, S., & Patil, S. R. (2014, April). Route stability based on demand multipath
routing protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks. In Communications and Signal
Processing (ICCSP), 2014 International Conference on (pp. 1859-1863). IEEE.
22. Mehta, A., & Gupta, A. (2014, February). Retrospection and comparison of Dsdv and
Aomdv routing protocols in Manet using Ns-2. In Issues and Challenges in Intelligent

JARDCS Special Issue On Trends and Future in Engineering 1216

Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems Vol. 9. Sp– 6 / 2017

Computing Techniques (ICICT), 2014 International Conference on (pp. 325-329).

IEEE.
23. Kukreja, D., Dhurandher, S. K., & Reddy, B. V. R. (2015). Enhancing the Security of
Dynamic Source Routing Protocol Using Energy Aware and Distributed Trust
Mechanism in MANETs. In Intelligent Distributed Computing (pp. 83-94). Springer
International Publishing.
24. Gulati, M. K., & Kumar, K. (2015, April). Stable Energy efficient QoS based
Congestion and Delay aware Routing (SEQCDR) Protocol for MANETs. In
Communications and Signal Processing (ICCSP), 2015 International Conference on
(pp. 0505-0511). IEEE.
25. Yang, F., & Sun, B. (2011, April). Ad hoc on-demand distance vector multipath
routing protocol with path selection entropy. In Consumer Electronics,
Communications and Networks (CECNet), 2011 International Conference on (pp.
4715-4718). IEEE.
26. Aye, M. C., & Aung, A. M. (2014). ENERGY EFFICIENT MULTIPATH ROUTING
FOR MOBILE AD HOC NETWORKS. International Journal of Information
Technology, Modeling and Computing (IJITMC) Vol. 2, No.3.
27. Yang, X. S. (2008). Firefly Algorithm (chapter 8). Nature-inspired Metaheuristic
Algorithms, Luniver Press.
28. Crepinšek, M., Mernik, M., & Liu, S. H. (2011). Analysis of exploration and
exploitation in evolutionary algorithms by ancestry trees. International Journal of
Innovative Computing and Applications, 3(1), 11-19.
29. Tashkova, K., Šilc, J., Atanasova, N., &Džeroski, S. (2012). Parameter estimation in a
nonlinear dynamic model of an aquatic ecosystem with meta-heuristic optimization.
Ecological Modelling, 226, 36-61.
30. Prügel-Bennett, A. (2010). Benefits of a population: Five mechanisms that advantage
population-based algorithms. Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on,
14(4), 500-517.
31. Banati, H., & Bajaj, M. (2011). Fire fly based feature selection approach. IJCSI
International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 8(4).
32. Ali, N., Othman, M. A., Husain, M. N., & Misran, M. H. (2014). A REVIEW OF
FIREFLY ALGORITHM. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, VOL.
9, NO. 10.

JARDCS Special Issue On Trends and Future in Engineering 1217