Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract: Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) is consisting of independent sensors, communicating with each other to monitor the
environment. Sensor nodes are usually attached to microcontroller and are powered by battery. The resource constrained nature of
WSN implies various challenges in its design and operations, which degrades its performance. However, the major fact that sensor
nodes run out of energy quickly, has been an issue. Many routing, power management, and data dissemination protocols have been
specifically designed for WSNs, where energy consumption is an essential design issue, which preserves longevity of the network.
Out of these, clustering algorithms have gained more importance, in increasing the life time of the WSN, because of their approach
in cluster head selection and data aggregation.This paper elaborately compares essential routing protocols using NS2 tool for several
chosen scenarios. The paper is concluded by mentioning valuable observations made from analysis of results about several
imperative protocols.
Keywords: Wireless Sensor Network, Proactive Routing, Reactive Routing, Cluster Head, Energy Consumption, NS2.
WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORK PROTOCOLS Clustering protocol, the clusters are chosen a-priori and
fixed. Static Clustering includes scheduled data
transmissions from the cluster members to the cluster-
FLAT ROUTING
HIERARCHICAL
ROUTING
LOCATION BASED
ROUTING
head and data aggregation at this cluster-head [6].
However, the limitation of Static Clustering routing
AODV LEACH GAF
technique is energy consumption due to fixed cluster head
LEACH-C
DSDV GEAR
node in every round. To overcome this issue, Low Energy
FLOODING TEEN Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy (LEACH) was proposed
DIRECT TRANSMISSION APTEEN [7]. It is a protocol based on clustering hierarchy
MTE PEGASIS architecture. In the LEACH algorithm, the nodes are self-
SPIN STAT - CLUS organized into different clusters, with electing Cluster
DIRECTED DIFFUSION Header (CH) nodes respectively.
Fig. 1 Classification of Routing Protocols of WSN
than a threshold T (i), the node becomes a cluster CH for because of threshold condition and also additional
the current round. overheads due to CH changes and calculations leading to
energy inefficiency for dynamic clustering in large
The threshold is set as: networks [7].
i : If i G ALL NODES BASE STATION
0
CLUSTER FORMED
T (n
NODE (i) CHOOSES A RANDOM
NUMBER BETWEEN 0 AND 1 network. The flow chart of centralized LEACH is shown
NODE (i) IS NON- CH
in figure 5. During the set-up phase, each node sends to
RAND(i) < T(i)
NO NODE.WAITS FOR
INFORMATION FROM the sink its remaining energy and location. The sink then
CHs AND THEN
CHOOSES NEAREST
ONE TO JOIN IN
runs a centralized cluster formation algorithm to
YES
determine the clusters for that round. However, this
NODE (i) IS CH NODE IN THE
CURRENT ROUND,
BROADCAST ITS STATUS
protocol requires location information for all sensors in
the network (normally provided by GPS)[8].
NODE (i) FINISHES THE SET-UP
OF CLUSTER, Disadvantage of centralized clustering routing technique
ENTER IN STEADY STATE AND
TRANSFERS THE DATA is that cluster sizes are not uniform, which is resulting into
r = r+1
formation of some very big clusters and very small
YES
r < 1/P
clusters in the network. Since there is no limitation on the
number of members in the cluster, this result in uneven
NO
distribution of traffic in the network, leading to higher
r=0
distance). Thus, to transmit a k-bit message a distance d The major simulation parameters are shown in Table 1.
using our radio model, the radio expends, We have performed this experiment on ns-2 tool [9]
(codes are omitted here). During experiments, we
ETX (k, d) =EELEC (k) + EFS * k * d2 for d<d0, considered performance metrics such like as Throughput,
ETX (k, d) = EELEC (k) + EAMP * k * d4 for d>d0.
Routing Overhead, Network Life Time, and Number of
and to receive this message, the radio expends: alive Nodes and Energy Consumption, as shown in [10]
[11].
ERX(k) = EELEC * k
12
SIMULATION PARAMETER
ROUTING PACKETS
10
Topology Fixed
8
Number of Nodes 100 or (varied when required) DSDV
AODV
6
Area 100 * 100
4
Antenna Omni-directional
2
MAC Protocol IEEE 802.11
0
Propagation Model Two Ray Ground, Friss Model 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
NUMBER OF NODES
Energy Model Radio (a)
Maximum Simulation Time 3600
Base Station Energy Maximum
Base Station Location (50,175) - (varied when required) THROUGHPUT(bps) vs. NUMBER OF NODES
9000
Number of Cluster 5 or (varied when required) 8000
6000
-12 2
EFRISS 9.6716 X 10 J/bit/m 5000
3000 DSDV
Round Time 20 secs AODV
2000
EELEC 50nJ/bit 1000
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
NUMBER OF NODES
(b)
algorithms. 3
2.5
ENERGY CONSUMPTION (J) vs. NUMBER OF NODES STATIC
60 MTE
2
DISTRIBUTED
CENTRALIZED
ENERGY CONSUMPTION (J)
50 1.5
40 1
30 0.5
LEACH
20 AODV 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
ENERGY CONSUMPTION (J)
10
Fig. 10 Number of data received at BS vs. Energy consumption
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
NUMBER OF NODES In addition the Centralized Clustering algorithm ensures
Fig. 8 Energy consumption vs. number of nodes that there are k =5 clusters during each round of operation
as shown in figure 11. Whereas in Distributed Clustering
A. Nodes Begin with Equal Energy
algorithm some rounds have as little as 1 cluster and some
For the first set of experiments in which each node rounds have as many as 10 clusters due to probabilistic
begins with same 2J of energy and an unlimited amount of model. Therefore, Centralized routing algorithm, which
data to send to the BS. Since all nodes begin with equal always ensures 5 clusters, should perform better than
energy in these simulations, each node uses the Distributed Clustering.
probabilities in equations to determine its CH status at the
beginning of each round and each round lasts for 20
seconds. 10
CLUSTER HEAD NODE VARIATION vs. TIME (s)
CLUSTER HEAD NODE VARIATION
4 9
x 10 NUMBER OF DATA RECEIVED AT BS vs. TIME
3.5
NUMBER OF DATA RECEIVED AT BS
8
3
7
STATIC
2.5 MTE 6
DISTRIBUTED
2 CENTRALIZED 5
1.5 4
DISTRIBUTED
3 CENTRALIZED
1
2
0.5 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
TIME (s)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Fig. 11 Cluster head node variation vs. Time
TIME (s)
Fig. 9 Number of data received at BS vs. Time
B. Nodes Begin with Unequal Energy figure 13 the number of nodes that are alive over time and
To see how well Distributed Clustering scheme can the number of nodes that are alive per data received at the
utilize any high-energy nodes that are in network, we ran BS. This analysis reveals that nodes in Distributed
simulations. During simulations we have fixed the number Clustering algorithm die after delivering only a small
of sensor nodes up to 100 in network, amongst them 90 amount of data to the BS. Whereas nodes in STATIC and
nodes were having initial energy of 2 J and 10 sensor Centralized routing take advantage of higher nodes, those
nodes were having initial energy 200 J. Figure 12(a) and remained alive and deliver 50 % more amount of data for
12 (b) show that Centralized Clustering approach is an the same number of node death.
order of magnitude more energy-efficient than Distributed
and STATIC routing. STATIC routing gives better C. Varying the BS Location
performance than Distributed Clustering due to fixed
The results presented in the previous section show that
cluster with fixed cluster-head having higher energy (200
Centralized Clustering routing is more energy efficient
J).
than other algorithms. Centralized algorithm is not just a
x 10
5
NUMBER OF DATA (bits) RECEIVED AT BS Vs. TIME(s)
function of simulation parameter, but it is also a function
2.5
of BS location.
NUMBER OF DATA (bits) RECEIVED AT BS
X: 1600
2 Y: 1.836e+005
BASE STATION LOCATION (m) Vs. DATA PER UNIT ENERGY
400
1.5 CENTRALIZED
350 DISTRIBUTED
MTE
DATA PER UNIT ENERGY
X: 1600
1 Y: 1.274e+005 300 STATIC
250 X: 100
STATIC X: 150
0.5 Y: 208
DISTRIBUTED Y: 198
CENTRALIZED 200 X: 200
0 Y: 145
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 150 X: 150
TIME (s)
Y: 97 X: 200
5
x 10 NUMBER OF DATA (bits) RECEIVED AT BS Vs. ENERGY CONSUMPTION (Joules) 100 Y: 77
2.5
NUMBER OF DATA (bits) RECEIVED AT BS
X: 600 50
Y: 1.943e+005
2
0
50 100 150 200
BASE STATION LOCATION (m)
1.5 Fig. 14 Base station locations vs. Data per unit energy
X: 595
Y: 1.387e+005
1 Figure 14 shows the amount of data per unit energy that
STATIC
each of the protocols delivers to the BS as the location of
0.5 DISTRIBUTED the BS varies from (x=50, y=50) to (x=50, y=200). From
CENTRALIZED this plot, we see that when the BS is in the centres of the
0 network (y=50), Centralized Algorithm delivers 7 times
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
(a) ENERGY CONSUMPTION (Joules) the amount of data per unit energy whereas Distributed
(b) algorithm delivers 4 times the amount of data per unit
Fig. 12 (a) Number of data received at BS vs. Time. (b) Number of data energy as MTE routing. As the BS moves further away
received at BS vs. Energy Consumption. from the network, the Centralized routing algorithm
performs better than other routing by at least a factor of 7
NUMBER OF DATA (bits) RECEIVED AT BS Vs. NUMBER OF ALIVE NODES
100 times. MTE routing performs significantly better when the
90
STATIC
BS is located within the network.
DISTRIBUTED
80 CENTRALIZED
70
60
there is no long-distance hop across which nodes need to
send data. This saves a large amount of energy. Since
50
MTE routing has more data to send to the BS the above
40
saves a large amount of energy. However Centralized is
30
still able to perform at least seven times better than MTE
20
routing, even for the case when the BS is far away from
10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
the network
NUMBER OF DATA (bits) RECEIVED AT BS 5
x 10
.
Fig. 13 Number of data received at BS vs. Number of alive nodes D. Network with Cluster-Head Variation
It can be seen from the figure 15 that as the CHs increases
Nodes in Distributed Clustering dies earlier since the beyond the 5% of the total nodes, the data received at sink
routes do not take any advantage of high energy nodes and as well as Network lifetime would decrease.
whereas Centralized Clustering takes. This can be seen in
x 10
4
NUMBER OF DATA (bits) RECEIVED AT BS VS. TIME(s) NUMBER OF ALIVE NODES Vs. TIME (s)
2 100
1.8
NUMBER OF DATA (bits) RECEIVED AT BS
0.8 40 X: 90
Y: 48
0.6
0.4 20
CENTRALIZED (CH = 5) X: 320
CENTRALIZED (CH = 10) X: 140 X: 220 Y: 4
0.2
Y: 18 Y: 0
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
TIME (s) TIME (s)
(a) (a)
x 10
4
NUMBER OF DATA (bits) RECEIVED AT BS Vs. ENERGY CONSUMPTION(Joule) Fig. 16 Number of Alive nodes vs. Time.
2
(b)
We found out that Hierarchical routing protocols
Fig. 15 (a) Number of data received at BS vs. Time. (b) Number of data
offer a better solution to energy efficiency usage in a
received at BS vs. Energy Consumption. WSN when compared to other technique such as AODV,
DSDV, MTE and non hierarchical technique.
It can be clearly seen that the network having 5% CH Numbers of the CH in % also effect the routing
received the more amount of data compared to the other. of LEACH in network. The 5 % CH of the total nodes of
The number of CH is a key factor that affects the the network is appreciated for the better result and greater
performance of routing protocols. If the number of CH is network life for the network.
less, the meaning of layering would be lost. In contrast The simulation results suggest that the LEACH-
with increase in the number of CH more energy is C protocol can effectively solve the problems such as the
consumed, as the communication distance between CH to uncertainty of the number of the CH, lack of consideration
BS is higher than common node to CH that needs more of the energy state of the nodes in the construction stage
energy. Thus, for the efficient performance of the network of dynamic cluster.
for the particular application, the CHs are 5% of the total
nodes would be appreciated. It can be seen from the figure In the foreseeable future, the factors in hierarchical
16 that as the CHs increase beyond the 5% of the total routing protocol which affect the cluster building,
nodes than the network lifetime would be decrease. The communication of CHs and data fusion of clusters will be
line with the CH 5 % of the total nodes of the network one of the research directions which can be more helpful
represents the longer the lifetime of the network. The to enhance a network lifetime of the WSN.
network would be alive near about 350 sec (simulation
time as the network lifetime.) In comparison, the network REFERENCES
having 10% cluster head of the total nodes of the network 1] Shio Kumar Singh 1, M P Singh 2, and D K Singh, routing protocols
would be alive only for 150 sec (simulation time as in wireless sensor networks a survey, International Journal of
network lifetime.). The network lifetime improved by 2.5 Computer Science & Engineering Survey (IJCSES), vol.1, November 2010
2] K. Akkaya and M. Younis, "a survey of routing protocols in wireless
times (approximately) than the network having 10% of the
sensor networks, in the Elsevier Ad Hoc Network Journal, Vol. 3/3 pp.
CHs. Thus, to prolong the network lifetime of the network, 325-349, 2005
the CH should be 5% of the networks total nodes. 3] Ziboundra Aliouat, Saud harous, an efficient clustering protocol
increasing wireless sensor networks lifetime, Innovations in
Information Technology (IIT),IEEE International Conference on
Communication, Networking & Broadcasting , pp 194-199. 2012
BIOGRAPHY