International Conference on Computer & Communication Technologies 2K14
March 28-29, 2014|Hyderabad, INDIA
Performance Evaluation and Analysis of MAC Protocols for Wireless
Sensor Networks Using Different Traffic Generators
B.Meenakshi
IT.MGIT
Hyderabad, India
India3005@gmail.com
Abstract—Wireless Sensor Networks have tremendous
applications in various domains like battlefield, agriculture,
domestic, habitat monitoring, soil monitoring, etc. Despite of
their promises the energy constraint is a major bottleneck in
Wireless Sensor Networks. MAC layer is one of the means
to conserve the limited energy. S-MAC and IEEE 802.11 are
the major protocols used in Wireless Sensor Networks
among others. This paper analyzes and evaluates the
performance of these two protocols in terms of Energy-
Consumption, Packet-Delivery-Ratio, and Average End-to-
End Delay using FTP and Constant-Bit-rate traffics.
Keywords- IEEE 802.11; NS-2; S-MAC; S-MAC with
Periodic Sleep; TCP; UDP
I. INTRODUCTION
Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) is a collection of sensor
nodes which are capable of sensing some physical
attribute, processing and communicating the result to
other nodes in the network. A sensor node consists of a
transceiver for receiving and transmitting a signal,
Analog-to-Digital converter to convert the Analog signal
to Digital, a processor to process the signal, and a battery
for power-supply to all these components. Since battery is
exhaustible source of energy, network life time of a node
is limited. MAC layer is a potential means to conserve
the limited energy. The purpose of MAC is to avoid
collisions, to control the status of radio transceiver, etc.
Section II gives an overview of related work in the
area of MAC protocols for WSN. IEEE 802.11, S-MAC
with periodic sleep and S-MAC without periodic sleep are
discussed in Section III. Traffic generators are explained
in Section IV. Section V shows experimentation. Results
are evaluated and analyzed in Section VI. Conclusions
are drawn in Section VII.
II. RELATED WORK
Wei Ye et al. [3] Proposed S-MAC (Sensor Medium
Access Control Protocol) for WSN. S-MAC reduces
energy-consumption and support self-configuration. It
enables low-duty-cycle operation in multi-hop network.
To reduce control overhead and enabling traffic-adaptive
wakeup, nodes in S-MAC follow virtual clusters based on
common sleep schedules. S-MAC uses in-channel
signaling to avoid overhearing and unnecessary traffic. S-
MAC avoids the problems in IEEE 802.11 like idle
listening, overhearing, and collision avoidance by
adopting the techniques periodic sleeping and adaptive
listening. The experimentation was carried out using the
sensor nodes, popularly known as UCB mote. It is
Int. Journal of Advances in Computer, Electrical & Electronics Engg, Volume 3 , Issue 1; Spl. Issue of IC3T 2014 @ISSN: 2248-9584
O.B.V.Ramanaiah
CSE.JNTUH College of Engineering
Hyderabad, India
obvramanaiah@gmail.com
concluded that S-MAC achieves significant energy-
savings compared to IEEE 802.11
IlkerDemirkol et al. [4] outlined the factors that are
crucial for the design of good MAC protocols for WSN.
The factors considered by them are scalability and energy-
wastage. They explained briefly about each MAC
protocols such as S-MAC, Wise MAC, TRAMA, SIFT,
DMAC, T-MAC, and DSMAC by listing their advantages
and disadvantages. Open research issues in MAC
protocols for WSN were also discussed in that paper
Pawel Piotr Czapski [5] presented a survey on MAC
Protocols for applications of wireless sensor networks. He
presented two categories of MAC protocols such as
Contention-based and TDMA based. This paper explained
S-MAC, P-MAC, U-MAC of contention- based protocols
and μ-MAC, DEE-MAC of TDMA based protocols by
stating their advantages and disadvantages.
Rajesh yadav et al. [6] carried out survey of MAC
protocols for wireless sensor networks. They outlined the
good attributes for the design of a good MAC protocol.
The authors discussed different MAC protocols by
emphasizing their strengths and weaknesses. This paper
also indicates future research directions in wireless sensor
networks
Bhoopendra Kumar et al. [8] performed comparative
analysis of MAC Protocols such as S-MAC with periodic
sleep and S-MAC without periodic sleep for WSN in
terms of throughput, Average End-to-End Delay, Energy-
consumption. They analyzed the parameters Energy-
Consumption, Average-End-to-End Delay and
Throughput using CBR traffic. They concluded that S-
MAC has highest energy consumptions than IEEE 802.11
and S-MAC without periodic sleep. They also found that
IEEE 802.11 has less throughput and Average End-to-End
Delay than the other two protocols. They observed that S-
MAC is suitable for protocols when traffic is intermittent.
III. CLASSIFICATION OF MAC PROTOCOLS FOR
WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS
The MAC Protocols for wireless sensor networks are
divided into two categories:
1. Contention-based: The Contention based
protocols are used to avoid the hidden terminal
problem. But the problems with these are idle
listening, collision avoidance, and overhearing.
IEEE 802.11, S-MAC are examples of this
category
2. Reservation–based: TDMA protocols are based
on reservation and scheduling. They have less
energy-consumption compared to Contention
Page | 343
 International Conference on Computer & Communication Technologies 2K14
based Protocols. Bluetooth is an example of
TDMA based protocol
A. IEEE 802.11 Distributed Coordination Function
IEEE 802.11(DCF) is widely used contention-based
protocol in wireless sensor networks. The DCF is a
random channel-access scheme where every station
begins its transmission based on its sensing of the channel
state. It maintains two states idle and busy. DCF utilizes
CSMA/CA Mechanism for channel access and
acknowledgements for reliability. In CSMA/CA if a
station wishes to transmit a frame, it senses the medium.
If the channel is found idle for more than a DIFS (DCF
Inter-Frame Space) period, then a frame can be
transmitted otherwise it has to defer. If multiple stations
contend for the channel, collisions occur. To avoid such
collisions DCF employs random Backoff algorithm. In
this each station has to wait for an extra period called
random backoff time to access the Channel. The length of
backoff period is determined by the following equation
Backoff Time= random () * 1 Slot Time. [2]
It also utilizes virtual carrier sensing mechanism. In
virtual carrier sensing each station maintains Network
Allocation Vector (NAV) which holds Non-Zero value
.Whenever it performs transmission it decreases the NAV.
At the end of transmission the NAV becomes zero
indicating that channel is idle. Then the station can
transmit, if its physical carrier sensing allows. RTS
(Request-to-Send) and CTS (Clear-to -send) frames are
exchanged between source and destination during data
transmission intervals. This is optional in virtual carrier
sensing
B. S-MAC Protocol
Sensor MAC is Contention –based Protocol. The
problems with conventional MAC are idle listening,
overhearing, and collisions
Idle Listening: Nodes try to listen the packets
that are yet to be sent
Over hearing : Nodes try to listen the packets that
are sent to the neighboring nodes
Collision: if two nodes try to send the packets at
the same time, Collision occurs. Besides there is
possibility of re-transmission of collided packets
The above three reasons are major sources for energy-
wastage in conventional protocols
They are avoided in Sensor MAC using two techniques:
Periodic Sleeping and Adaptive Listening
Periodic Sleeping:-
Node must first listen to their neighboring nodes before
starting their own listen and sleep schedules .There are
two options for the Sensor Node
1. If the sensor node listens the schedule of any of
the neighboring node ,then it becomes follower
2. If the sensor node doesn’t listen to any schedule
from the neighboring nodes then it frames its
own schedule and becomes Synchronizer. It
broadcasts its own schedule
If the nodes don’t aware of each other, Periodic
Neighboring node discovery solves the problem
Advantages
Int. Journal of Advances in Computer, Electrical & Electronics Engg, Volume 3 , Issue 1; Spl. Issue of IC3T 2014 @ISSN: 2248-9584
March 28-29, 2014|Hyderabad, INDIA
Due to Periodic Sleeping there is Reduction in Energy
Consumption
Disadvantages
Due to periodic sleeping increase in latency occurs
Adaptive Listening:-
Adaptive Listening reduces the delay caused by Periodic
Sleeping. In this technique, if the node overhears its
neighbor’s transmission, it wakes up at the end of
transmission for a short period of time. if the sensor node
is the next hop node, its neighbor is able to pass the data
immediately. If it does not receive any it goes back to
sleep
Frame
Listen Listen
sleep sleep
For SYNC For RTS For CTS
Figure 1. Low duty cycle operation of S-MAC [8]
Figure 1. shows the Low duty cycle operation of S-MAC
C. S-MAC witout periodic sleeping
In this mode the parameter Sync flag will be kept Zero.
All the nodes work without periodic sleep and runs in
fully Active mode. But node goes to sleep when it
overhears its neighbors transmission .so overhearing is
also avoided in this mode. [14]
IV. TRAFFIC GENERATORS
A. Constant Bit Rate:
The bandwidth requirement is fixed in CBR traffic. In this
type of flow, the average data rate and peak data rate are
same. It is used in applications supporting constant-bit-
rate traffic like video conferencing, telephony, and any
type of on-demand service such as interactive voice and
video.
B. File Transfer Protocol (FTP)
In FTP traffic generator, payload is created based on the
bandwidth of the connection. The entire bandwidth is used
for transmission. [13]
V. EXPERIMENTATION
The performance of MAC protocols ; viz, IEEE802.11
DCF , S-MAC in two modes such as S-MAC with and
without periodic sleep is studied in terms of packet-
Delivery-Ratio, average-end-to-end Delay and energy-
consumption using different traffics like FTP and CBR
traffic. The study is carried out using popular NS-2
simulator [9].
Page | 344
 International Conference on Computer & Communication Technologies 2K14
March 28-29, 2014|Hyderabad, INDIA
A. Experiment Setup B. Comparison of Packet Delivery Ratio for S-MAC with
The topology considered here is Linear Topology Periodic sleep using FTP and CBR Traffics
consisting of 10 static nodes with a distance of 20m
among them. The Figure 2. Shows the topology Packet Delivery Ratio of S-MAC with
considered for Simulation

Packet Delivery Ratio

periodic sleep

1.1
1
0.9 FTP
0 5 10 15
CBR
No of Nodes

Figure 3. No of Nodes vs. Packet Delivery Ratio for S-MAC with

periodic sleep

Figure 2. Linear Topology with 10 static nodes C. Comparison of Packet Delivery Ratio for S-MAC
without periodic sleep using FTP and CBR Traffics
TABLE I. SIMULATION PARAMETERS
Packet Delivery Ratio of S-MAC without
Parameter Value

Packet Delivery Ratio

periodic sleep
Simulation Time 50s,40s
Antenna Omni-directional 1.05
Routing protocol AODV 1
Initial energy 1000J 0.95 CBR
Duty cycle 40% 0 5 10 15 FTP
Initial energy 1000J
No of nodes 10 No of Nodes
Sleep power 0.001J
Idle power 1.0J Figure 4. No of Nodes vs. Packet Delivery Ratio for S-MAC
Transition power 0.2 without periodic sleeping
Transition time 0.005 D. Comparison of Packet Delivery Ratio for IEEE 802.11
Packet size 40 using FTP and CBR Traffics
Simulation area 500*500
Traffic type CBR,FTP Packet Delivery Ratio of IEEE 802.11
Packet Delivery Ratio

VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSISON 1.0005

1
A. Performance Metrics 0.9995
0.999 CBR
Packet Delivery Ratio: The ratio of no of 0.9985
packets received by no of packets sent FTP
0 5 10 15
Average End-to-End Delay: The end-to-end
delay is averaged over all Surviving data Packets No of Nodes
from the Source to Destination. [11]
Average Energy–Consumption: It is the Figure 5 No of Nodes vs. Packet Delivery Ratio for IEEE 802.11
average energy Utilized by all nodes in Observation: From Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5 it is
transmitting, receiving and forward observed from experimentation results that CBR traffic
operations.[11] outperforms FTP in terms of packet Delivery Ratio for
S-MAC with periodic sleep, S-MAC without periodic
sleep and IEEE 802.11

Int. Journal of Advances in Computer, Electrical & Electronics Engg, Volume 3 , Issue 1; Spl. Issue of IC3T 2014 @ISSN: 2248-9584
Page | 345
 International Conference on Computer & Communication Technologies 2K14
March 28-29, 2014|Hyderabad, INDIA
E. Comparision of Average End-to-End Delay for S-MAC H. Comparison of Energy-Consumption for S-MAC with
with periodic sleeping using CBR and FRP traffics periodic sleep using FTP and CBR Traffics

Energy-Consumption of S-MAC
Average End-to-End

Average End-to-End Delay for S-MAC with

Energy-Consumption
periodic sleep withperiodic sleep
Delay

4000 40
2000 20
0 CBR FTP
0
0 5 10 15 FTP 0 5 10 15 CBR
No of Nodes No of nodes

Figure 6 No of Nodes vs. Average End-toEnd Delay for S-MAC

with periodic sleep
Figure 9. No of Nodes vs. Energy-Consumption
F. Comparison of Average End-to-End Delay for S-MAC
without periodic sleep using FTP and CBR Traffics I. comparision of Energy-Consumption for S-MAC
without periodic sleep using FTP and CBR Traffics
Average End-to-

Average End-to-End Delay for S-MAC

Energy-Consumption of S-MAC without
End Delay

without periodic sleep

Energy-Consumption
periodic sleep
5000
20
0 FTP 10
0 5 10 15 CBR FTP
0
No of Nodes 0 5 10 15 CBR

No of Nodes
Figure 7. No of Nodes vs. Average End-to-End Delay for S-MAC
without periodic sleep
Figure 10. No of Nodes vs. Energy-Consumption
G. Comparison of Average End-to-End Delay for IEEE
802.11 using FTP and CBR Traffics Observation: From Figure 9 and Figure 10 it is observed
from experimentation results that FTP traffic outperforms
than CBR Traffic for S-MAC with and without periodic
Average End-to-End

Average End-to-End Delay for IEEE sleep.

802.11
I. Comparison of Energy-Consumption for IEEE 802.11
100
Delay

using FTP and CBR Traffics

50
0 FTP
Energy-Consumption of IEEE 802.11
Energy-Consumption

0 5 10 15 CBR
3
No of Nodes 2
1
FTP
Figure 8. No of Nodes vs. Average End-to-End Delay 0
Observation: From Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 it is CBR
0 5 10 15
observed from experimentation results that CBR traffic
outperforms than FTP traffic in terms of Average End-to- No of Nodes
End Delay for S-MAC with periodic sleep, S-MAC
without periodic sleep and IEEE 802.11
Figure 11. No of Nodes vs. Energy-Consumption

Observation: From Figure 11 it is observed from

experimentation results that when no of nodes are less,
FTP traffic outperforms CBR Traffic and when no of
nodes increases CBR Traffic outperforms FTP traffic for
IEEE 802.11
Int. Journal of Advances in Computer, Electrical & Electronics Engg, Volume 3 , Issue 1; Spl. Issue of IC3T 2014 @ISSN: 2248-9584
Page | 346
 International Conference on Computer & Communication Technologies 2K14
March 28-29, 2014|Hyderabad, INDIA
VII. CONCLUSION Analysis of UDP/CBR and TCP/FTP Traffic under AODV
Routing
S-MAC and IEEE 802.11 are the widely used MAC Protocol in MANET”, International Journal of Computer
protocols in Wireless Sensor Networks. In this paper Applications
performance analysis of S-MAC and IEEE 802.11 has Volume 56– No.15, October 2012
been done in terms of packet delivery ratio, Average End-
to-End Delay and Energy-Consumption using CBR and
FTP traffics. The simulation results show that CBR traffic
outperforms FTP traffic for all these MAC variations in
terms of packet delivery ratio and Average End-to-End
Delay; while FTP traffic outperforms CBR traffic in
Energy-consumption. So we suggest using CBR traffic for
applications where latency and packet delivery ratio are
constraints and FTP traffic where energy is a constraint.
The future scope of this research is to analyze the
throughput, jitter, reliability for these MAC protocols.

REFERENCES
[1] Nadeem, T.;Ashok Agarwala “Performance of IEEE 802.11 based
wireless sensor networks in noisy environments,’’24th International
conference on performance, computing,, and
communications,2005,pp.
417-476
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_ecoordination_function
[3] Wei Ye,John Heidemann, and Deborah Estrin,” Medium Access
Control with coordinated , Active Sleeeping for Wireless sensor
networks ,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking,
VOL.12,No.3,
June 2004
[4] I.Demirkol,C.Erosy, and F.Alagoz,”MAC protocols for wireless
sensor
Networks: a survey,”IEEE communications Magazine, 2006,
vol.44,
Iss.4, pp.115-121
[5] Pawel Piotr Czapski, “A Survey: MAC Protocols For
Applications of
Wireless Sensor Networks”, TENCON 2006 , 2006,p.1-4
[6] Rajesh Yadav, Shirshu Varma, N. Malaviya,” A Survey of MAC
Protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks”,Uibcc Journal.,
Vol.4,pp.827-
833,August 2009
[7] Kumar, B., Yadav, R.K., Challa, R.K. , ”Comprehensive
Performance
Analysis of MAC Protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks “ ,
International Conference on Computer and Communication
(ICCCT),
2010, pp 342- 347, September 2010
[8] C,M,Cordeiro. ,D,P, Agrawal , “Adhoc and Sensor Networks:
Theory
and Applications “ ,World Scientific Publishing co.pvt.Ltd,
2006
[9] The Network Simulator-ns-2.<http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns>,
2008
[10] Waltenegus Dargic , Christian Polleabauer, “Fundamentals of
Wireless Sensor Networks “ ,Wiley, 2010
[11] S.P.V.SubbaRao, Dr.S. Venkata Chalam , Dr.D.Sreenivasa Rao,”
Design of Dynamic MAC Protocol for Wireless Multimedia
Networks “, International Journal of Wireless & Mobile
Networks
vol. 4, No. 1, February 2012
[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_sensor_network
[13] Megha Rastogi, Kamal Kant Ahirwar, Abhay Bansal,” Traffic
Generator Based Performance Evaluation of Proactive and
Reactive
Protocols of Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks” International Journal of
Scientific & Technology Research Volume 1, Issue4, MAY 2012
[14] Feng Chen, "Simulation of Wireless Sensor Nodes Using S-
MAC,"
Master's Thesis, Department of Computer Science 7, University
of
Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany September 2005.
[15] Ritika Sharma, Kamlesh Gupta, “Comparison based Performance

Int. Journal of Advances in Computer, Electrical & Electronics Engg, Volume 3 , Issue 1; Spl. Issue of IC3T 2014 @ISSN: 2248-9584
Page | 347