60 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,

Vol. 1, No. 3, December 2009

Performance Analysis of Diversity Schemes in Multi

hop Ad hoc Networks
Meenu Khurana1 and C. Rama Krishna2
1
Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Chitkara Institute of Engineering and Technology,
Chandigarh Patiala Highway, Rajpura, Punjab 140 401, India
meenu.khurana@chitkara.edu.in
2
Department of Computer Science & Engineering, National Institute of Technical Teachers’ Training & Research,
Sector 26, Chandigarh 160 026, India
rkc_97@yahoo.com

compared by carrying out extensive simulations using

Abstract: Transmit diversity in multiple input multiple output
(MIMO) systems is one of the best methods of overcoming the
detrimental effects of multipath fading in a wireless channel.
Increasing the transmit antennas improves network performance
but increases complexity in return. To reduce this complexity,
transmit antenna selection (TAS) technique is implemented.
In this paper we evaluated the performance of various diversity
schemes implementing quasi orthogonal space time block codes
(QSTBC) and TAS. In view of the increase in the usage of multi-
hop ad hoc networks in various applications, it becomes important
to enhance its performance. So we evaluated the performance of
multi-hop ad hoc networks by implementing these diversity
schemes to get the best possible scheme. The simulation results
obtained have been analyzed in terms of packet delivery ratio
(PDR), number of packets dropped and energy consumption (EC).
Keywords: diversity, MIMO, multipath fading, QSTBC, TAS,
multi-hop
1. Introduction
The nodes with multiple antennas offer significant diversity
advantage by exploiting both transmitter and receiver
diversity using various space-time coding schemes [1], [2].
One of the simplest and widely used transmit diversity
technique that implemented Orthogonal Space Time Block
Codes (OSTBCs) using two transmit antennas is Alamouti
Scheme [3]. It is proved that OSTBCs, which provides full
diversity and full transmission rate, is not possible for more
than two transmit antennas [2]. To overcome this limitation
QSTBCs, which achieve full rate at the cost of
orthogonality, are designed [4], [8]. TAS is a technique to
reduce complexity raised by adding more number of
antennas. In this method optimum number of antennas for
MIMO system is decided on the basis of trade off between
increased complexity and improved bit error rate (BER)
performance [5], [6].
In this paper we have proposed a diversity scheme for
multi-hop ad hoc network that gave better performance in
comparison to other schemes. The work is done in two parts,
GloMoSim network simulator.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2,
explains QSTBC and TAS terminologies. Section 3
represents simulation details and performance comparison
of different diversity schemes. Section 4 gives the
performance analysis of diversity schemes in ad hoc
networks. Finally, conclusions are presented in section 5.
2. QSTBC and TAS
An OSTBC is a linear space time block codes (STBC), for
which the code matrix S has the following unitary property:
N 2
SS H = ∑ sn I
(1)
n =1
(.)H in equation (1) denotes the Hermitian conjugate,
which is a complex conjugate of the symbol.
The orthogonality enables to achieve full transmit
diversity and simple, linear and optimal decoding at the
receiver side [2]. It allows the receiver by means of simple
Maximal Ratio Receive Combining (MRRC) to decouple the
signals transmitted from different antennas. Simple ML
decoding can be applied for OSTBCs, so that two symbols
which are coded together can be detected independently at
the receiver [3]. The main disadvantage of OSTBCs is a
code rate less than one symbol per time slot for a system
with more than two transmit antennas. The code rate may be
improved by using QSTBC, which can give full diversity by
signal constellation rotations, but require joint ML detection
of pairs of symbols. These codes achieve full data rate at the
expense of a slightly reduced diversity [4]. In QSTBC, the
columns of the transmission matrix are divided into groups,
columns within each group are not orthogonal to each other
but different groups are orthogonal to each other. The code
construction for QSTBC with NT = 2n , (NT ≥ 4) is done in
the following recursive way

( ) ( ) 
firstly the performance comparison of different diversity
 GNT {xj}j2=T1
N
schemes has been evaluated with BER and signal to noise N

GN ({x j } T ) = 
GN {xj } T
T N
(2)

( ) ( ) 
ratio (SNR) as metrics. Finally, we evaluated the 2 2 j= T +1
N 2
j=1
performance of these schemes i.e. single input single output
GNT {xj }NTNT ΘNT
NT
T
(SISO), multiple input single output (MISO) and TAS, in ad −GN {xj }j=
2 Θ
1 NT
 2 j= 2 +1
T
2
hoc networks. The performance of these schemes is
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 61
Vol. 1, No. 3, December 2009

criteria, the “best” four transmit antennas are selected by

{xj }Nj=T1 = x1, x2......xNT

finding the four highest euclidian norm values of the
where and the diagonal columns of channel matrix. The symbols encoded by
NT NT
applying QSTBC are transmitted through selected transmit
[ 2
, 2
] matrix Θ N T is given by antennas. Signal transmission follows the mathematical
expression given by equation (1). The results are obtained by
Θ NT = diag({(−1) j −1}Nj=T1 ) averaging 10,000 different channel realizations.

Using equation (2), QSTBCs for four transmit antennas

can be represented as,

 s1 s2 s3 s4 
 * s3* 
s = − s2* s1* − s4*
 (3)
− s3 − s4* s1* s2* 
 
 s4 − s3 − s2 s1 

The conventional multiple-antenna system requires the

number of radio-frequency (RF) chains equal to the total
number of antennas [7], which presents a hardware Figure 1. BER vs. SNR for SISO, MISO and MIMO
challenge in terms of complexity and cost. TAS system (NT, systems
N; NR) implies that subset of N antennas is selected out of
total of NT antennas that reduces the complexity. Instead of
NT number of RF chains, N chains will suffice. TAS requires
the feedback link to find the best subset of antennas. The
criterion for selection of active antennas is based on signal
to noise ratio (SNR).

3. Performance Comparison of Different

Diversity Schemes
The scheme with no diversity (1 x 1) is compared with
Alamouti scheme for (2 x 1) and further with the extension
to (2 x 2) scheme. All these matrix dimensions represent
number of transmit and receive antennas in the form (NT x Figure 2. BER vs. SNR plot for QSTBC and OSTBC with
NR). The implementation of diversity schemes is done using 4 transmit antennas
MATLAB.
To compare the performance of diversity schemes
implementing QSTBC or OSTBC, four transmit antennas
are considered. The reason for considering four antennas is
the availability of rate one QSTBC for four antennas as
specified in (3). The quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK)
modulation scheme is used for transmission. The channel
considered is Rayleigh fading channel with additive white
gaussian noise (AWGN). We have considered one receive
antenna. ML decision metric is used in both the schemes.
The receiver in OSTBC scheme decodes the symbols one by
one while the decoding for the rate one quasi-orthogonal
code is done for pairs of symbols [9]. Figure 3. BER vs. SNR of QSTBC with and without TAS
TAS (8,4;1) scheme is considered for performance
comparison with scheme implementing (8x1) QSTBC. The As shown in Figure 1, the performance of transmit
simulation result is presented for independently identical antennas diversity scheme employing two transmit and
distributed (i.i.d.) channels. Four channels which had higher single receive antenna is better than no diversity scheme.
SNR as compared to others were selected out of 8 antennas. Further the performance can be enhanced by using two
The channels are modeled as Rayleigh fading channels and receive antennas instead of one. It is observed from Figure 2
channel coefficients as complex zero mean Gaussian that at low SNR the performance of QSTBC is better than
random variables with unit variance. The perfect channel that of the OSTBC, but is poor at high SNR. This is due to
knowledge at the receiver and partial channel knowledge at the fact that the slope of the BER-SNR curve depends on the
the transmitter is assumed [10]. Based on SNR selection diversity. Although rate one QSTBC code starts from a
62 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
better point in the BER-SNR plane but a code with full
diversity benefits more from increasing the SNR. The
performance comparison of multiple input single output
(MISO) transmission schemes using QSTBC with TAS and
without TAS is represented in Figure 3. The scheme
implementing QSTBC on 8 transmit antennas is compared
with TAS where 4 antennas are selected out of eight. As per
the simulation results represented in Figure 3, the
performance of TAS scheme is better than without TAS.
The reason for better performance of TAS scheme can be
the closed loop approach that allows to assign the transmit
power onto the antennas with the least path attenuations
(i.e. highest path gain).
4. Performance Evaluation of Diversity Scheme
in Multi-Hop Ad Hoc Networks
The diversity schemes discussed in the previous section and
implemented on ad hoc networks are SISO, MISO with two
transmit and one receive antenna and TAS ( 8,4;1).
Extensive simulations for the proposed schemes have
been carried out using GloMoSim, which is designed using
a layered approach similar to the OSI seven layer network
architecture [12]. The main configuration parameters for
setting up a scenario are defined in CONFIG.IN file. We
considered 75 mobile nodes placed randomly within 1500 x
1500 m2 area that follows random waypoint mobility model
(RWMM). In this model, node randomly selects a
destination from the physical terrain, and moves with a
speed uniformly chosen between a minimum and maximum
speed. After the node reaches its destination, it stays there
for a specified pause time, which is considered to be zero in
our study to find performance in a worst case scenario. The
packet reception model is based on BER. This parameter
looks up BER values in the SNR-BER file. These BER files
for each of the schemes are obtained through simulations. A
summary of the salient simulation parameters is provided in
Table I.
Table I: Salient Simulation Parameters
PARAMETER VALUE
MOBILITY MODEL RANDOM-WAYPOINT
MOBILITY-WP-PAUSE 0 seconds
MOBILITY-WP-MIN-SPEED 1 m/sec
MOBILITY-WP-MAX-SPEED 39 m/sec
RADIO-TYPE RADIO-ACCNOISE
RADIO-FREQUENCY 2.4 GHz
RADIO-RX-SENSITIVITY -91.0 dB
RADIO-RX-THRESHOLD -81.0 dB
DATA RATE 2 Mbps
MAC PROTOCOL 802.11 DCF
ROUTING PROTOCOL AODV
Vol. 1, No. 3, December 2009
Traffic model is constant bit rate (CBR) with each source
generating 4 packets/second. The data rate considered is 2
Mbps while the size of each data packet is 512 bytes.
Randomly chosen source destination pairs are used for
simulation. For example, 15 source destination pairs (SDPs)
among 75 nodes specifies that there are 15 source and 15
destination nodes. Hence, out of total of 75 nodes, 30 nodes
are engaged in data transfer, however all the 75 nodes will
help in routing or forwarding, etc. The time specified for the
simulation is 30 minutes. Five runs with different seed
values have been conducted. The data collected is then
averaged over these runs. The performance metrics chosen
for study are defined as:
Packet delivery ratio (PDR): The ratio of data packets
delivered to the destinations and data packets originated by
the CBR sources.
Packets Dropped: This parameter gives the total number of
packets dropped due to unavailability of routing path.
Energy Consumption (EC): It is the sum of energy
consumed by each node in successful and unsuccessful
transmissions, reception, overhearing and idle listening.
This value is normalized over the total number of packets
delivered. This parameter is significant in a way that some
or all of the nodes in a network may rely on batteries or
other exhaustible means for their energy [11]. For these
nodes, the most important system design optimization
criteria may be energy conservation.
Figure 4 shows the PDR for different number of SDPs for
different diversity schemes. It is observed that PDR
increases as we increase diversity. For each value of SDP,
PDR is better for scheme with two antennas as compared to
scheme with no diversity. Further performance of TAS in
terms of PDR is best among all three schemes presented
here. For each of these schemes PDR decreases with
increase in number of SDPs. The transmissions from more
number of sources may increase packet collisions.
Figure 4. Packet delivery ratio vs. No. of SDPs
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 63
Figure 5. Normalized energy consumption (in
mWhr) vs. No. of SDPs
Figure 5 presents the energy consumption for each of
these schemes. The total energy consumption by the nodes
is normalized over the total number of packets delivered. It
is observed that energy consumption per packet delivered is
less in TAS as compared to MISO scheme, which in turn is
less than SISO scheme. For all practical purposes we
require nodes which consume less power, as they rely on
batteries.
Figure 6. Packets dropped due to unavailability of routing
path
The number of packets dropped is least in case of TAS,
which further increases with increase in SDPs, as is evident
from Figure 6. This result again favours the application of
MIMO systems in ad hoc networks.
5. Conclusion
The simulation results for different type of coding scheme
i.e. QSTBC and OSTBC shows that the rate one QSTBC
code starts from a better point in the BER-SNR plane but
OSTBC because of full diversity benefits more from
increasing SNR. Practically for the SNR value range
obtained in the real transmission scenario, the performance
of QSTBC is better. TAS helps in increasing the potential
performance of a system with minimal added hardware
complexity as compared to simple diversity schemes.
Diversity of the TAS system is same as the system with no
antenna selection. The QSTBC with TAS outperforms no
antenna selection scheme. We have compared the
performance of SISO, MISO and TAS schemes in multi-hop
ad hoc networks. The diversity gain offered by MIMO
antennas due to reduced BER on a communication link for a
given SNR value, is translated to a better performance at the
higher layers. We observed improvement in performance in
Vol. 1, No. 3, December 2009
terms of PDR, normalized EC in TAS scheme as compared
to other two schemes. Further, we found that there is a
substantial decrease in number of packets dropped due to
unavailability of routing path. Overall, it is observed that
TAS in multi-hop ad hoc networks has shown considerable
improvement in performance as compared to other two
schemes. It can further be concluded from this result that the
congestion in network is less when transmit diversity
schemes are applied.
References
[1] J. Paulraj, D. Gore, R. U. Naba and H. B¨olcskei,” An Overview of
MIMO communications - A Key to Gigabit Wireless”, Proceedings of
the IEEE, vol. 92, issue 2, pp. 198-218, 2004.
[2] V. Tarokh, H. Jafarkhani, and A.R. Calderbank.
“Space-time block codes from orthogonal designs”,
IEEE Trans. on Information Theory, vol. 45, issue 5,
pp. 1456-1467, 1999.
[3] “A simple transmitter diversity scheme for wireless
communications”, EEE Journal on Selected Areas in
Communications, vol. 16, pp. 1451 -1458, 1998.
[4] H. Jafarkhani. “A quasi-orthogonal space-time block
code”, IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol.
49, issue 1, pp. 1-4, 2001.
[5] L. Zheng & D.N.C. Tse. “Diversity and multiplexing:
A fundamental tradeoff in multiple antenna
channels”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
vol. 49, issue 5, pp. 1073-1096, 2003.
[6] F. Molisch & M. Z. Win. “MIMO systems with
antenna selection”, IEEE Microwave Magazine, vol. 5,
issue 1, pp. 46-56, 2004.
[7] Gorokhov, D.A. Gore & A.J. Paulraj. “Receive
antenna selection for MIMO spatial multiplexing:
theory and algorithms”, IEEE Transactions on Signal
processing, vol. 51, issue 11, pp. 2796-2807, 2003.
[8] H. Boche and E. Jorswieck. “Universal Approach for
Performance Optimization in Multiuser MIMO
Systems”, European Trans. on Telecommunications,
vol. 18, issue 3, pp. 217-233, 2007.
[9] E. Jorswieck and H. Boche. “Outage Probability in
Multiple Antenna Systems”, European Trans. On
Telecommunications, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 287-304,
2007.
[10] T. Gucluoglu and E. Panayirci. “Performance of
Transmit and Receive Antenna Selection in the
Presence of Channel Estimation Errors”, IEEE
Communication Letters, vol. 12, issue 5, pp. 371-373,
2008.
[11] Ramakrishna, Saswat Chakrabarti, and Debashish
Datta. “Impact of contention resolution algorithms on
the performance of IEEE 802.11 DCF based MAC
protocol in a mobile ad hoc network”. In Proceedings
of National conference on Communications (NCC-
2005), pp. 78-81, IIT, Kharagpur, India, 2005.
[12] L. Bajaj, et.al. “Glomosim: A Scalable Network
Simulation Environment”, MILCOM, 1999.
[13] C. Ramakrishna, s. Chakrabarti, and D. Datta. “Mobile
Ad Hoc Networking: Overview, Applications and
Challenges”. In Proceedings of the National
Conferenece on Intelligent Systems and Networks (ISN-
2004), Jagadhri, Haryana, India, 2004.