Accepted Manuscript

Novel Efficient Deployment Schemes for Sensor Coverage in Mobile

Wireless Sensor Networks

Wei Fang, Xinhong Song, Xiaojun Wu, Jun Sun, Mengqi Hu

PII: S1566-2535(16)30254-8
DOI: 10.1016/j.inffus.2017.08.001
Reference: INFFUS 888

To appear in: Information Fusion

Received date: 27 December 2016

Revised date: 12 May 2017
Accepted date: 3 August 2017

Please cite this article as: Wei Fang, Xinhong Song, Xiaojun Wu, Jun Sun, Mengqi Hu, Novel Efficient
Deployment Schemes for Sensor Coverage in Mobile Wireless Sensor Networks, Information Fusion
(2017), doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2017.08.001

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service
to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and
all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights
• The Voronoi blindzone polygon is studied for finding
coverage holes efficiently.
• Two schemes are proposed based on Voronoi blindzone
polygon and local operators.
• Latest metrics are used to evaluate the performance of
proposed deployment schemes.
• The proposed two deployment schemes show effective-
ness by the simulation results.

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2 JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 0, NO. 0, MAY 2017
Novel Efficient Deployment Schemes for Sensor
Coverage in Mobile Wireless Sensor Networks
Wei Fang, Member, IEEE, Xinhong Song, Xiaojun Wu, Jun Sun, Mengqi Hu
Abstract—In the study of improving the efficiency of mobile
wireless sensor networks(MWSNs), an important issue is to
maximize the sensor coverage in a given sensing field by proper
deployment of sensors. In this paper, two novel sensor deployment
schemes are proposed to address the coverage issue in MWSNs.
The first scheme is blind-zone centroid-based scheme (BCBS) and
the second one is disturbed centroid-based scheme (DCBS). The
main ideas both in BCBS and DCBS are the proposed schemes
to find the target locations for sensors to heal the coverage
holes efficiently. The definition of Voronoi blind-zone polygon
is given for introducing the proposed two schemes. In order to
clearly illustrating the effect of Voronoi blind-zone polygon, three
possible cases of it are studied in detail. In BCBS, Voronoi blind-
zone polygon of each sensor is firstly determined by considering
the positions with its neighbors. And then the centroid of the
Voronoi blind-zone polygon is regarded as the target location
of each sensor if the coverage can increase. In DCBS, sensors
find coverage holes according to the centroid-based scheme at
US
AN
first in each round. They then move to the target locations
under the local perturbation and local reconstruction operators.
These two operators are designed by studying two forms of local
convergence. Under the guideline of testbed-based multi-metric
quality measurement of sensor deployment schemes, simulation
M
results are sufficiently presented to demonstrate the effectiveness
of the proposed two deployment schemes.
Index Terms—Coverage, centroid, mobile wireless sensor net-
works, Voronoi diagram, sensor deployment.
ED
I. I NTRODUCTION
Wireless sensor networks (WSNs) are composed of a set of
PT
distributed tiny low-power sensors that can sense or monitor
physical or environmental conditions. Over the past decades,
WSNs have been used in a wide range of applications,
including target tracking and detection [1] [2] [3], disaster
CE
intervention [4], environmental monitoring [5] [6] [7], health
monitoring [8] [9], and so on. The problems in WSNs, such
as deployment [10], data collection [11], network routing
[12], energy consumption [13], have arisen and been studied.
AC
However, deployment of sensors is a fundamental aspect in
WSNs as it greatly influences the performance of network,
which includes the coverage, connectivity, uniformity, etc [10].
In many situations, WSNs work in unknown, hostile, remote
harsh field, toxic region or disaster area which makes it diffi-
cult or impossible for human to deploy the sensors. A possible
way is to use mobile sensors which can move autonomously,
W. Fang, X. Wu, J.Sun is with Department of Computer Science and
Technology, School of Internet of Things Engineering, Jiangnan University,
Wuxi, China, UK. Email: fangwei@jiangnan.edu.cn.
X. Song is with School of Internet of Things Engineering, Jiangnan
University
M. Hu is with the University of Illinois at Chicago, USA
Manuscript received -
but random deployment of mobile sensors at initial phase
can not guarantee the required coverage. Therefore, how to
T
design efficient deployment algorithms to move the sensors
for maximizing the sensor coverage is one of the fundamental
IP
design issues in mobile wireless sensor networks (MWSNs)
[14] and is the problem to be addressed in this paper. Extensive
research efforts have been conducted in the field of MWSNs
CR
to develop deployment algorithms for increasing the network
coverage [15]. Among the literature, virtual force based and
computational geometry based deployment approaches have
been studied as the main approaches [10].
In the virtual force based deployment algorithms, the sen-
sors are regarded as virtual particles subject to repulsive
or attractive virtual forces among them. The sensors move
according to the resultant forces on them when the distance
between sensors is less than a threshold. Originated from
the concept of potential field used in mobile robotic route
[16], Howard [17] et al. studied a potential field-based de-
ployment approach and proved the convergence property. In
[18], a deployment optimization strategy based on Target
Involved Virtual Force Algorithm (TIVFA) is proposed, where
the configuration of WSN can be adjusted dynamically for
improving coverage and detection probability. Kribi et al.
improved Virtual Force Algorithm (VFA) in [19] from four
aspects, which are coverage, connectivity, fault-tolerance and
energy [20]. A distributed deployment strategy based on VFA
is presented in [21]. In [22], VFA is worked with Delaunay
triangulation by considering the adjacent relationship among
sensors. In [23], a centroid-directed virtual force deployment
strategy is designed which incorporates the coverage hole
fixing ability with the spreading ability. The specific approach
to obtain the weights of virtual force on the sensors by the
centroid of Voronoi polygon is not given in [23] and relies on
numerous attempts. A distributed deployment algorithm based
on virtual forces for three dimensional sensing area is provided
in [24].
Voronoi diagram and Delaunay triangulation are two fa-
mous computational geometry structures with a wide range
of applications [25] and have been widely used for sensor
deployment problem [23]. Wang et al. successfully proposed
three deployment algorithms based on Voronoi diagram, which
are VEC, VOR, and Minimax, to discover coverage holes
[26]. However, the performance of VOR and Minimax are
greatly affected by initial position of sensors; VEC may suffer
performance decreasing with the increasing of the number of
sensors [27]. In [28], Centroid and Dual-Centroid schemes are
proposed by using Voronoi diagram and centroid to maximize
the sensing coverage. But the location of neighbours is not
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
SHELL et al.: BARE DEMO OF IEEETRAN.CLS FOR JOURNALS
consider in [28], the centroid of Voronoi polygon cannot
be guaranteed to be a good location to improve coverage.
An energy-efficient deployment algorithm based on Voronoi
diagram is presented in [29]. Boukerche and Fei presented a
deployment algorithm to detect coverage holes locally based
on the localized Voronoi diagram construction [30]. Based on
the distances of each sensor and the points inside its coordinate
Voronoi polygon from the edges or vertices of the polygon,
Mahboubi et al. proposed a set of distributed deployment
algorithms for efficient field coverage [27] [31]. In [32], a
secure Voronoi-based deployment algorithm is studied which
can guarantee termination and is tolerant of an attack at low
expense of performance. In order to find the shortest node
movement path to heal the coverage holes, a Delaunay-based
coordinate-free mechanism for full coverage is proposed in
[33], where local shortest paths for healing holes can be
found without knowing exact location of sensors. Sung and
Yang proposed a distributed greedy deployment approach for
improving the coverage of directional sensor networks [34].
For better trade-off between the coverage and the energy
consumption, an multi-objective immune algorithm using the
Voronoi diagram properties was proposed in MWSNs [35].
In this paper, to address the coverage problem in MWSNs,
we design two novel efficient centroid-based deployment
schemes for sensor coverage in MWSNs by the iterative pro-
US
AN
cedures. The first scheme is blind-zone centroid-based scheme
(BCBS). In BCBS, the candidate destination location of each
sensor is the centroid of Voronoi blind-zone polygon instead
of the centroid of Voronoi polygon. The Voronoi blind-zone
M
polygon is helped to find the coverage hole by considering
the coverage of neighbors to the related Voronoi polygon. The
second scheme is disturbed centroid-based scheme (DCBS)
with the proposed local perturbation and local reconstruction
ED
operators and is very effective to increase the coverage when
the sensors are stagnated. A distinguishing characteristic of
BCBS and DCBS that different from the deployment schemes
[26] [27] [28] is that there are no manual parameters need to
PT
be set. The performance of BCBS and DCBS are evaluated
using two sets of simulations and compared with four other
deployment algorithms in terms of coverage, moving distance,
deployment time, uniformity, and connectivity based on the
CE
simulation results.
The rest of this paper is organised as follows. Section II
presents the problem formulation and performance metrics.
Section III introduces the preliminaries concerning the Voronoi
AC
diagram, Voronoi polygon and its centroid, the basic idea of
centroid-based deployment scheme, and ideal distribution of
sensors. In Section IV, two proposed deployment schemes
are described. Simulation results and concluding remarks are
drawn in Section V and Section VI, respectively.
II. P ROBLEM FORMULATION AND PERFORMANCE METRICS
A. Problem Formulation
We consider the coverage problem in the context of a two-
dimensional (2D) flat sensor field with length L and width
W. A set of mobile wireless sensors S = {s1 , s2 , · · · , sN }
are distributed in the 2D sensor field. The location of the
3
ith sensor is denoted as si = (xi , yi ). Boolean disk coverage
sensor model, which is the most widely used sensor coverage
model [36] [10] in the literature for its simplicity, is used in
this paper.
Definition 1. Any sensor who can communicate with the
sensor si through single hop or multiple hops is called the
communicable node of the sensor si .
Definition 2. A pair of communicable nodes whose Voronoi
polygons share an edge are the neighbors.
The following assumptions are taken into account for the
coverage problem in this paper [27], [28].
T
Assumption 1: There is no obstacle in the sensor field. The
IP
boundary of the sensor field is regarded as a wall-like obstacle.
Assumption 2: All sensors have the same sensing range Rs
and communication range Rc .
CR
Assumption 3: Each sensor knows its own location informa-
tion and the other communicable sensors’ location information
through connected communication routes.
The coverage problem studied in this paper can be stated
as: Given the 2D sensor filed and the set of sensors with the
sensing range Rs and communication range Rc , it is desired to
deploy the sensors by proper deployment algorithms in order
to maximize the sensor coverage or minimize the coverage
holes.
B. Commonly Used Performance Metrics
In this paper, we firstly select five commonly used perfor-
mance metrics [23], [27], [29], which are coverage rate, mov-
ing distance, deployment time, uniformity, and connectivity, to
compare the proposed algorithms with the other deployment
algorithms.
1) Coverage rate: Coverage rate (CR) is one of the most
important performance metrics for evaluating the deployment
algorithms in WSNs. In the boolean disk coverage sensor
model, CR can be defined as the ratio of the union of areas
covered by each sensor to the area of the 2D sensor field [23],
that is,
∪N Cri
CR(%) = i=1 , (1)
A
where Cri is the area covered by the sensor si and N is
the number of sensors, A is the area of the 2D sensor field.
From (1), it is clear that coverage rate is closely related to the
sensing range of each sensor.
2) Moving distance: The moving distance (MD) of a sensor
during the deployment represents the cumulative distance
traveled until it reaches its final location after the initial
deployment. In this paper, we consider the impact of network
connectivity on the moving distance. After the initial random
deployment, each sensor records its traveled cumulative dis-
tance, denoted as LTi , until the network is connected. And then
the sensors do not move until the deployment algorithms work
out their final locations. After that, the sensors move to their
final locations directly. The linear distance for the ith sensor
is denoted as LVi . Therefore, for the set of N sensors, the
average moving distance is calculated as,
PN
(LT + LVi )
M D = i=1 i . (2)
N
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
4 JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 0, NO. 0, MAY 2017
3) Deployment time: The deployment time used in this
paper is defined as the elapsed time until all the sensors move
to their final locations from the initial deployment. The value
of deployment time can be used to compare the computational
complexity of the deployment schemes.
4) Uniformity: Uniformity of deployment refers to uni-
formly distributed sensor nodes in the sensor field, which can
decrease interference between sensors and consequently con-
sume communication energy more efficiently. The network’s
lifetime can be increased with the uniformity of deployment
compared to the sensors with an irregular topology. Uniformity
(U) is defined as the the average local standard deviation of
the distances between sensors,
v sensor associated with that polygon, no other sensor can detect
N u ki ki
1 Xu t1
X 1 X
U= ( Di,z − Di,j )2 , (3)
N i=1 ki j=1 ki z=1
where Di,j is the distance between ith and jth sensors, ki
stands for the number of neighbors of the ith sensor. The
smaller value of U represents more uniformly distribution of
the sensors in the 2D sensor field.
5) Connectivity: Connectivity is also an important issue
to be considered during the deployment of sensors, which
influences data routing and information transferring. The net-
work is said to be connected when there is always a network
US
AN
connection between two sensors through single hop or multiple
communication hops [37]. However, the network is not always
connected even if the implicit assumption exists, such as high
sensor density or large communication range [38]. In this
M
paper, the connectivity is considered during the deployment
of the proposed algorithms.
ED
C. Testbed-Based Multi-Metric Quality Measurement (T-
MQM)
In [7], seven metrics, which are correlated with each other
PT
and called T-MQM, were proposed to effectively measure
the performance of sensor deployment schemes with high
precision. T-MQM is designed by concerning the quality
of coverage and connectivity and considering the interde-
CE
pendency among the metrics. Seven metrics in T-MQM are
summarised in Table I. The definitions used in Table I are
listed in Table II. All the seven correlated metrics will be
used to evaluate the proposed BCBS and DCBS and reported
AC
in Section V.
III. P RELIMINARIES
A. Voronoi diagram and The Partition of Voronoi Polygon
Given the set of sensors S and the sensor field mentioned
in Section II, the network is represented as a graph and
each node in the graph is regarded as a sensor. The Voronoi
diagram partitions the sensor field into N convex polygons.
Each polygon ci contains only one sensor si which is called
the generating node of polygon ci [27]. The Voronoi polygon,
or Voronoi region, ci , coordinated of its generating node si is
the set of all points in the sensor field whose distances to si
are not greater than their distance to the other nodes cj , where
j is the index different from i, that is [27],
ci = {x ∈ <2 |d(x, si ) ≤ d(x, sj ), j ∈ {1, · · · , N }, j 6= i}
(4)
where d(x, si ) is the Euclidean distance between the points x
and si . Another characteristic of Voronoi diagram is that the
edges of Voronoi polygon ci are the perpendicular bisectors
of the line segment between the node si and its Voronoi
neighbor nodes. This means any point on the Voronoi edges
has the same distance to its generating node and corresponding
neighbor node. From the characteristic of Voronoi diagram,
T
if any point in a Voronoi polygon cannot be detected by the
IP
it. That is, each sensor only needs to check the coverage of
its own Voronoi polygon and then the ‘coverage holes’ can
be found. Based on the Voronoi diagram, the sensor coverage
CR
problem is turned into the coverage problem of each Voronoi
polygon, which can reduce the complexity of the problem [28]
[30]. In this paper, we consider the influence of communication
range Rc to the partition of Voronoi polygon. Given a convex
sensor region, the condition of Rc ≥ 2Rs is both necessary
and sufficient which can guarantee that fully coverage of
the sensor field implies connectivity [39]. At the beginning
of a centroid-based deployment algorithm, the sensors are
distributed with random initial locations and the network is
not connected in general. The network is thus divided into
several subnetworks according to the connectivity. Therefore,
in this paper the Voronoi diagram is created independently for
the different subnetworks and the sensors in these subnetworks
are deployed respectively. When there is only one sensor or
two sensors in a subnetwork, the sensors must be in a big
converge hole and the Voronoi polygon can not be drawn for
the sensor. Under such situations, the sensors stay where they
are for saving energy and do not carry out the deployment
algorithm until the subnetwork consists at least three sensors.
B. Centroid and Centroid-Based Scheme
The centroid or geometric center of a polygon is the
arithmetic mean position of all the points in the shape. The
lines through the centroid can divide the polygon into two parts
with equal area. The equation for calculating the centroid of
a polygon can be found in [28].
Centroid-Based Scheme (CBS) [28] is an iterative deploy-
ment scheme based on Voronoi diagram. At the initial phase,
the sensors are deployed randomly in the sensor field. And
then the iterative procedure begins. At the beginning of each
iterative, each sensor constructs its local Voronoi polygon
regarding its neighbor’s and own location information. The
sensor field is then partitioned into several Voronoi polygons
and each sensor only needs to sense and detect in its local
Voronoi polygon. In the next phase, each sensor checks
whether all the vertices of its local Voronoi polygon are in
the sensor’s sensing range. If yes, the Voronoi polygon is
considered fully covered by the sensor and then the sensor
stays in its current location without any movement. Otherwise,
the sensor calculates the centroid of its local Voronoi polygon
and moves to the centroid as its next location if the local
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

SHELL et al.: BARE DEMO OF IEEETRAN.CLS FOR JOURNALS 5

TABLE I
S EVEN CORRELATED METRICS IN T-MQM

Performance Metrics Formulations

Total Coverage Area (CaT ) CaT = CaT O + CaT N O
T TO T NO
Ca Ca +Ca
Effective Coverage Area (CaE ) CaE = 1
N Ca
= 2
N πRs
IO
Ca
Net Effective Coverage Area (CaN E ) CaN E = Ca1 − CaIO = πRs2 (1 − πRs2 )
CaIO
2
NE πRs (1− 2 ) IO
Ca πRs Ca
Net Effective Coverage Area Ratio (CaN ER ) CaN ER = Ca1 = 2
πRs
=1− πRs2
IO
Ca
Total Non-Overlapped Coverage Area (CaT N O ) CaT N O = N CaN E = N (πRs2 − CaIO ) = N πRs2 (1 − πRs2 )
IO
Ca
Total Overlapped Coverage Area (CaT O ) CaT O = CaT − CaT N O = CaT − {N πRs2 (1 − 2
πRs
)}
TO 2 IO

T
KCa N πRs N Ca
Quality of Connectivity (Qc ) Qc = E
Ca
= KN πRs2 {1 − CaT + CaT }

IP
TABLE II
D EFINITIONS USED IN TABLE I

CR
Definitions
CaT O The sum of the total overlapped coverage area in a sensing field.
CaT N O The sum of the total non-overlapped coverage area in a sensing field.
Ca1 The coverage area by an individual sensor.
CIO The overlapped coverage area within an individual sensor’s coverage area.
K The quality of connectivity conversion constant. K = 1 means ideal case.

coverage by the sensor can be increased. The total coverage

by all the sensors is much greater and the sensors is more
US
AN
evenly distributed by the iteratively procedure. The iterations
terminate when pre-defined maximum number of iteration
is reached or the total coverage can not be increased by
a certain amount. CBS is easy to be implemented without
any parameters and helps to increase the coverage. The main
M

characteristic of CBS is the approach to decide the new

location of a sensor based on the centroid of its local Voronoi
(a) E = 1 (b) E = 1
polygon.
ED

C. Ideal Distribution
PT

Consider the coverage problem stated in Section II, under

the ideal case in which node density is sufficiently high,
to fully cover the sensor field with minimal overlap (or the
minimal sensors), the three adjacent√sensors should form an
CE

equilateral triangle with side length 3Rs [39]. Based on this

result, we propose an approach to estimate the minimal sensors
NT for the coverage problem. In our approach, we consider
the X-direction and Y-direction of the sensor field respectively (c) E = 2
AC

and summarize the complex distribution cases on the margin Fig. 1. Three distribution cases on the margin
of the sensor field. Then three kinds of cases can be obtained
as shown in Fig. 1. The formulas to calculate the NT are given
by Eqs. (5) and (6), IV. T HE P ROPOSED S ENSOR D EPLOYMENT S CHEMES
l L m j W k A. Blind-zone CBS (BCBS)
NT = √ ·( · 2 + E), (5)
3Rs 3Rs Definition 3. An Voronoi blind-zone refers to the uncovered
 W
1, 0 ≤ rem( 1.5R ) ≤ Rs area if its coordinate sensor is removed.
E= W
s
, (6)
2, Rs < rem( 1.5Rs ) ≤ 1.5Rs
Definition 4. An Voronoi blind-zone polygon is the polygon
whose vertices are the interactions of its coordinate Voronoi
where rem(·) is the function to take the remaining. Three
blind-zone.
distribution cases shown in Fig. 1(a)∼(c) correspond to the
three cases of E in (6). There are three cases of the Voronoi blind-zone polygon
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
6 JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 0, NO. 0, MAY 2017
regarding the vertices’ position of the Voronoi polygon.
Case 1: The Voronoi polygon vertices are all covered by
its coordinate sensor and the Voronoi blind-zone may emerge
if the sensor is removed. If the Voronoi blind-zone exists, the
Voronoi blind-zone polygon can be constructed whose vertices
are the intersections between any two neighbors’ sensing disks.
For instance, consider the sensor O in Fig. 2(a), four vertices
of its Voronoi polygon, which are marked by four little circles,
are all covered and the black cross is the centroid of the
Voronoi polygon. The sensor O has four neighbors, which
are A, B, C, and D. The coverage area by these five sensors
is marked gray. As shown in Fig. 2 (b), the sensor O is
removed and the Voronoi blind-zone is emerged, which is
shown in white. And then the Voronoi blind-zone polygon
can be determined by connecting the intersections between
the sensing disks of A and B, B and C, C and D, and D and
A, which are marked by four white little circles. In Fig. 2(b),
the black triangle is the centroid of the Voronoi blind-zone
polygon.
US
AN
M
(a) (b)
Fig. 2. Voronoi blind-zone polygon: Case 1
ED
Case 2: The Voronoi polygon vertices are not fully covered
by its coordinate sensor and there must be a Voronoi blind-
zone when the sensor is removed. In this case, the vertices of
PT
the corresponding Voronoi blind-zone polygon are composed
of two parts. One part is the uncovered vertex (vertices) of
the Voronoi polygon when the sensor is removed. For the
remaining covered vertices of the Voronoi polygon, they are
CE
covered by the neighbors of the sensor. Then the other part
is the intersections between the sensing disks of those sensors
where the covered Voronoi vertices lie in.
Fig. 3 presents the second case of Voronoi blind-zone poly-
AC
gon. For the sensor O, only the vertex v1 of its corresponding
Voronoi polygon v1 v2 v3 v4 v5 is in its sensing range which can
be seen from Fig. 3(a). As shown in Fig.3(b), the sensor O is
removed, part area of its corresponding Voronoi polygon is still
covered by its neighbors A, B, C and D, while the remaining
area can not be covered by any sensor. Then the Voronoi blind-
zone arises. The vertex v5 is now covered by the sensors B
and C. There is an intersection v7 between the sensing disks
of B and C. Similarly, the vertex v4 is covered by the sensors
C and D and the intersection v6 is between the sensing disks
of C and D. Therefore, by the three uncovered vertices v1 ,
v2 , and v3 and two intersections v6 and v7 , the Voronoi blind-
zone polygon can be obtained by connecting these five points.
The centroid of the Voronoi blind-zone polygon is marked by a
black triangle and the black cross is the centroid of the Vonoroi
polygon v1 v2 v3 v4 v5 . From Fig. 3(b), it is more reasonable for
the sensor O to move to the centroid of the Voronoi blind-zone
polygon than the centroid of the Voronoi polygon.
T
IP
CR
(a) (b)
Fig. 3. Voronoi blind-zone polygon: Case 2
Case 3: All the vertices of an Voronoi polygon are not
covered by its coordinate sensor. Then the Voronoi blind-zone
polygon is equivalent to the Voronoi polygon.
As illustrated above, the centroid of Voronoi polygon is
sometimes unreasonable to be a candidate location for a
sensor to move in CBS. The reason is that there is overlap-
ping covered area by a sensor and its neighbors, while the
overlapping covered area is not taken into account in CBS.
Therefore, we propose to find the Voronoi blind-zone polygon
and take its centroid as the candidate location for a sensor to
move. The new deployment scheme is called BCBS which can
improve the coverage and the uniformity of the distribution.
The procedure of the BCBS is given by Algorithm 1.
B. Disturbed CBS (DCBS)
For the deployment strategies based on CBS, an important
step is to find a new location for each sensor according to
the Voronoi diagram. The new location replaces the sensor’s
current location if the coverage area w.r.t the new location in
the old Voronoi polygon increases. By the iterative procedure,
the total coverage can increase. These strategies can reduce
the complexity of the deployment problem. However, the
overlapping coverage area w.r.t. the sensor’s neighbor(s) is
not considered in these strategies, which may not ensure the
coverage for the sensor in its coordinate Voronoi polygon.
Another problem of these strategies is that just regarding the
coverage as the objective in each iteration limits the diffusion
among the sensors and leads to stagnate of sensors termed
as local convergence of the deployment algorithms. Here we
firstly show the cases of local convergence and then propose
the operators in DCBS, which are local reconstruction and
local perturbation.
1) Local convergence: Case 1: Fig. 4(a) shows an instance
that most of the sensors have found their location where their
coordinate Voronoi polygon can be maximally covered. In
Fig. 4(a), the sensor s13 is also covered by the sensing disk
of its neighbor s17 and it is clearly that these two sensing
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

SHELL et al.: BARE DEMO OF IEEETRAN.CLS FOR JOURNALS 7

Algorithm 1 Procedure of BCBS

1: Notations: 12
5
2: S = {s1 , s2 , · · · , sN } : N sensors 3
3: V = {v1 , v2 , · · · , vN } : Voronoi polygon set of N sensors
7
27 2 2
4: Zi = {zi1 , zi2 , · · · : n neighbors of the sensor si
, zin } 18 18
5: Ki = {si } ∪ Zi = {si , zi1 , zi2 , · · · , zin }
6: VKi = {vi , vzi1 , vzi2 , · · · , vzin , } : Voronoi polygon set of 22 22
the sensors in the set Ki 20
13
25 25
7: Main Procedure: 17 17
8: Randomly deploy N sensors in the 2D sensor field;
(a) (b)
9: repeat

T
10: Construct the Voronoi polygons for all the N sensors; Fig. 4. Local convergence: Case 1 (a) and Local reconstruction (b)
11: for i = 1 to N do

IP
12: Consider the sensor si and then determine the sets
Zi , Ki , and VKi ; operator on the sensors regardless of whether the coverage
13: if All the vertices of vi are covered by si then is increased after the movement of the sensor. When the

CR
14: // Voronoi blind-zone polygon: Case 1 distance between a sensor and any of its neighbors is less
15: if The Voronoi blind-zone doesn’t exist then than the sensing range Rs , the Voronoi polygons should
16: Move si to the centroid Ci of vi ; be locally reconstructed where the sensor is assumed to be
17: else {The Voronoi blind-zone exists} removed and only its neighbors are considered. If any vertex
18:
19:
20:
21:
Call SubProcedure;
end if
else {The vertices of vi are not fully covered by si }
// Voronoi blind-zone polygon: Case 2 & 3
US of the new locally reconstructed Voronoi polygons, which is
in the original Voronoi polygon, can not be covered by the
neighbors, the vertex must be the most difficult to be covered
by the neighbors [40]. Therefore, the sensor can move to the
AN
22: Call SubProcedure; location of such vertices in order not to be covered by its
23: end if neighbors. Taken the sensor s13 in Fig. 4(a) as an example,
24: end for its neighbors are s2 , s18 , s22 , s17 , and s25 . As the distance
25: until termination criterion is met. between s13 and s17 is less than Rs , s13 should carry out the
local reconstruction. For the local reconstruction of s13 , s13
M

26: SubProcedure:
27: Calculate the centroid Ci of the Voronoi blind-zone poly- is removed and only its neighbors are taken into account to
gon; reconstruct the local Voronoi polygons as shown in Fig. 4(b).
28: Calculate the coverage Qicen and Qicur of si to vi if si is The reconstructed Voronoi polygons are plotted by black dash
ED

at Ci and its current location [36]; lines. The origin Voronoi polygon of s13 is plotted by black
29: if Qicen ≥ Qicur then bold lines and used to discover the uncovered vertices. From
30: Move si to (cxi , cyi ); Fig. 4(b), it can be found that three Voronoi vertices (denoted
31: else {Qicen < Qicur } by black triangles) can not be covered by any sensors and then
PT

32: si stays without movement; the next location of s13 is randomly chosen from the location
33: end if of these three vertices. By the local reconstruction on s13 , it
is helpful for s2 moving to the coverage holes.
3) Local convergence: Case 2: In Fig. 5, the biggest cover-
CE

disks have large overlapping area, which wastes the sensing
ability of the sensors. Similar situations can be found on the
sensors s17 and s22 . As these sensors have fully covered their
coordinate Voronoi polygons, they can hardly move to the new
AC
age hole, which is shown in white in the left bottom corner, is
located in the Voronoi polygons of the sensors s21 and s25 . The
minimum circumscribed circles and the maximum inscribed
circles for the Voronoi polygons of s21 and s25 are plotted in

location through evaluating the coverage. At the same time,
the sensing disks of the other sensors have been used too much
and therefore there is not enough sensing ability to cover the
holes. Such situation will be frequently happened during the
later iterations. In this paper, we regard the situation as the
first case of local convergence.
2) Local reconstruction for solving local convergence of
case 1: From the illustration for local convergence of case
1, a main reason leads to the local convergence is that two
sensors are too close to each other. It is very easy to calculate
the distance between two sensors, but the difficulty is how
to move the sensors and help to increase the coverage with
a minimum cost. Here we propose the local reconstruction
the figure with red lines, and their centers are marked as stars
and crosses respectively. The centroid of these two Voronoi
polygons are marked as triangles in the figure. If the sensors
s21 and s25 move to the center of the minimum circumscribed
circle or the maximum inscribed circle or the centroid of the
Voronoi polygon, the biggest uncovered area can be covered
more but new coverage holes will be generated. Then the
sensors s21 and s25 may not move to these locations w.r.t.
the coverage. Here we term this situation as the second case
of local convergence. In such case, if the sensors move to
the farthest location of the coverage hole directly regardless
of the coverage, the coverage will decrease but it will benefit
the movement of all the sensors in order to avoid the local
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

8 JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 0, NO. 0, MAY 2017

Algorithm 2 Procedure of DCBS

1: Notations:
2: S, V, and Zi share the same meaning as those in Algorithm
1
3: Procedure:
4: Randomly deploy N sensors in the 2D sensor field;
5: repeat
6: Construct the Voronoi polygons for all the N sensors;
7: for i = 1 to N do
8: Consider the sensor si and determine Zi ;
9: Calculate the centroid Ci of vi and the coverage Qicen
Fig. 5. Local convergence: Case 2
of si to vi if si is at Ci [36];

T
10: Calculate the coverage Qicur of si to vi if si is at its
convergence. current location [36];

IP
4) Local perturbation for solving local convergence: In 11: if Qicen ≥ Qicur then
this paper, we propose the local perturbation operator on the 12: Move si to Ci ;
13: else {Qicen < Qicur }

CR
sensors to move them. Under the local perturbation operator,
if a sensor detects the existence of the uncovered vertices 14: si stays without movement;
of the Voronoi polygon, the sensor will move to the farthest 15: end if
uncovered Voronoi vertex and stop when the farthest uncov- 16: // Local perturbation begins
ered Voronoi vertex can be covered by the sensor. Another 17: if All the vertices of vi have been covered by si then
possibility in local perturbation is that all the Voronoi vertices
are already covered, then a sensor will move away from
the farthest Voronoi vertex and stop when the farthest vertex
can be covered by the sensor. Fig. 6 shows two operational
US 18:

19:
Move si away from the farthest Voronoi vertex and
stop when the farthest Voronoi vertex reaches the
sensing range of si ;
else {Any vertex of vi has not been covered by si }
AN
example of these two situations where O0 is the new location 20: Move si to the farthest uncovered Voronoi vertex
of the sensor O after the local perturbation operator. The and stop when the farthest uncovered Voronoi
movement of the sensor smoothes the differences of the vertex can be covered by the sensor;
distance between the sensor and the Voronoi vertices. 21: end if
M

22: // Local reconstruction begins

23: if The distance between si and any of its neighbors
in Zi is less than Rs then
24: Reconstruct the Voronoi polygons for the sensors
ED

in Zi after removing si ;
25: Move si to one of the uncovered Voronoi vertices
which are located in vi ;
26: end if
PT

27: end for

28: until termination criterion is met.
(a) (b)
CE

Fig. 6. Snapshots of the movement of the sensor with uncovered and fully
covered Voronoi vertices under local perturbation operation
According to the description of local convergence and the
proposed local perturbation operator, the procedure of the
AC
initialization. Therefore these three sensors only stay where
they are and need not partition the Voronoi polygons until
they communicate at least two other sensors. The sensors 1,
5, and 14 form an independent area and partition the Voronoi

DCBS is given by Algorithm 2. polygons by themselves as they cannot communicate with

Fig. 7(a)-(c) shows the three snapshots of deployment proce-
dure of DCBS with 30 sensors in a 50m×50m 2D sensor field.
The sensing range Rs and communication range Rc of a sensor
is 6m and 12m respectively. The maximum step stepmax for
every move of a sensor is half of the communication range Rc
[26]. The sensors, which can communicate with each other,
are connected with green lines. From the initial round to the
fourth round, the coverage increases from 69.97% to 89.15%.
After 200 rounds, the final coverage reaches 99.35% and the
sensors are distributed more uniformly. As shown in Fig. 7(a),
the sensor 27 cannot communicate with any other sensors and
the sensors 20 and 29 only communicate with one sensor after
the other sensors. The same situation can be found among
the sensors 8, 9, 21, and 26. The sensors move according
to the deployment procedure of DCBS in each round before
all the 30 sensors are fully connected. Once all the sensors
are connected, the sensors will stay at their current location
and move to the final location directly until the deployment
procedure terminates.
C. Computational complexity of BCBS and DCBS
From the description of BCBS, the computational burden of
BCBS mainly comes from calculating the centroid of Voronoi
blind-zone polygon and Voronoi polygon. To develop the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

SHELL et al.: BARE DEMO OF IEEETRAN.CLS FOR JOURNALS 9

27 29
29 27 29 27
20 20
20

14
14

14 1 5 1

5 5
1
9
9 26
9
26 26
21 8
8 21 8
21

T
(a) Initial Round (69.97%) (b) Round 4 (89.15%) (c) Final Round (99.35%)

IP
Fig. 7. Snapshots of the movement of sensors with Voronoi polygons, sensing circles and connections using DCBS

CR
maximum inscribed circle and the minimum circumscribed TABLE III
circle form the main items of the computational complexity of PARAMETER SETTINGS FOR E XAMPLE 1
DCBS. Suppose the number of edges and vertices of a Voronoi Rc Minimal Maximum Rc Minimal Maximum
polygon to be m and k respectively, then the complexity of increment round increment round
Case 1 1% 30 Case 3 0.1% 100

US
BCBS and DCBS is O(m3 ) and max{O(k 3 ), O(m4 )} [27]. 12m 12m
Case 2 20m 1% 30 Case 4 20m 0.1% 100

V. P ERFORMANCE EVALUATION
In this section, we evaluate and compare the performance Fig. 8 gives the average coverage at each round using six
AN
of BCBS and DCBS with four other deployment algorithms, algorithms under four parameter settings. As shown in the
which are CBS [28], VOR [26], Minimax [26] and VEDGE figure, DCBS shows the best coverage performance followed
[27]. Both examples are conducted in the 2D sensor field by BCBS in all four cases. It can be observed from the
measuring 50m × 50m. The sensing range Rs of a sensor is figure that the coverage curve by DCBS is not as smooth as
6m. Then according to (5)-(6), the minimal number of sensors
M

those by the other five schemes as local reconstruction and

to fully cover the 50m × 50m 2D sensor field is 30 under local perturbation operators in DCBS are executed without
the ideal distribution. The maximum step stepmax for every measuring the coverage. With the deployment procedure of
movement of a sensor is set to half of the communication DCBS goes on, the convergence curve ranges smaller and
ED

range Rc . smaller. In terms of the termination condition, the coverage

under the second termination condition is always better than
A. Example 1 that under the first termination condition for all algorithms.
In the first example, the number of sensors is 30, which are This is not surprise as the sensors need more rounds to
PT

randomly deployed in the sensor field at the beginning. Two
kinds of communication range (Rc = 12m and Rc = 20m) are
considered individually to compare the performance change
on the schemes. One termination condition for all the six
CE
stop under the second termination condition and then higher
coverage can be reached. From Figs. 8(a) ∼ (b), the coverage
is approaching convergence after about 10 rounds using BCBS,
CBS, VEDGE, Minimax, and VOR, but the coverage by

deployment strategies is when no sensor’s coverage in its
Voronoi polygon increases by more than 1% in its next move
and the maximum round is 30. This termination condition is
suitable for the situations that the sensors are not necessary
AC
DCBS keeps on increasing until the final round. In Case 3
and 4, the coverage by DCBS also continues to increase until
the end while the coverage by other five schemes is tending
towards stable after about 20 rounds. From Figs. 8(a) ∼ (d), we

to cover the smaller coverage holes in order to save energy
and reduce the deployment time. For another termination
condition, the deployment algorithm stops when no sensor’s
coverage in its Voronoi polygon increases by more than 0.1%
in its next move and the maximum round is 100. Therefore
there are four cases w.r.t. the communication ranges and
termination conditions, which are listed in Table III. Each
simulation case runs 100 times with different initial locations
of sensors. The initial sensor deployment in six deployment
algorithms are the same for fair comparison. The deployment
algorithms are compared in terms of coverage, deployment
time, moving distance, connected round, stopping round, and
uniformity.
can see that the coverage increases very quickly by BCBS with
good performance during the first several rounds. It should be
noted that, in the same simulation case, the average stopping
rounds for each algorithm is quite different. For convenience of
comparing the average coverage from the figures, we plot the
curves of the average coverage for six algorithm in each case
from the initialization to the maximum number of iteration.
Table IV shows the average values and standard deviations
of stopping rounds, uniformity at the final round, connected
rounds when the network is conneted, deployment time, and
moving distance by using six algorithms after 100 individual
runs in four cases. We also record the number of disconnected
times after 100 random simulations in Table IV. From the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

10 JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 0, NO. 0, MAY 2017

1 1

0.95 0.95

Coverage(%)
Coverage(%) 0.9 0.9

0.85 VOR 0.85 VOR

Minimax Minimax
0.8 VEDGE 0.8 VEDGE
CBS CBS
0.75 BCBS 0.75 BCBS
DCBS DCBS
0.7 0.7

T
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Round Round

IP
(a) Case 1 (b) Case 2

1 1

CR
0.95 0.95

0.9 0.9
Coverage(%)
Coverage(%)

0.85 0.85

0.8

0.75
VOR
Minimax
VEDGE
CBS
BCBS
US 0.8

0.75
VOR
Minimax
VEDGE
CBS
BCBS
AN
DCBS DCBS
0.7 0.7
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Round Round

(c) Case 3 (d) Case 4

Fig. 8. The average coverage at each round using six schemes with four parameter settings
M

TABLE IV
T HE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS BASED ON COMMONLY USED METRICS BY USING SIX ALGORITHMS IN FOUR CASES
ED

VOR Minimax VEDGE CBS BCBS DCBS

The average stopping rounds by standard deviations
Case 1 6.42 ± 1.68 9.69 ± 2.89 8.45 ± 2.32 9.34 ± 2.31 9.82 ± 2.48 29.17 ± 3.09
Case 2 6.03 ± 1.55 9.38 ± 2.53 8.43 ± 2.74 9.46 ± 3.01 9.82 ± 2.91 29.07 ± 3.08
Case 3
PT

10.01 ± 2.72 20.71 ± 5.11 20.58 ± 6.05 28.91 ± 21.98 20.69 ± 6.08 99.79 ± 2.10
Case 4 9.49 ± 2.66 21.26 ± 7.07 20.9 ± 5.80 30.03 ± 22.31 21.28 ± 7.10 99.75 ± 1.77
The average uniformity by standard deviations
Case 1 1.97 ± 0.23 1.83 ± 0.22 1.72 ± 0.19 1.62 ± 0.17 1.50 ± 0.15 1.40 ± 0.14
Case 2 2.03 ± 0.24 1.85 ± 0.21 1.74 ± 0.20 1.62 ± 0.15 1.50 ± 0.15 1.39 ± 0.14
CE

Case 3 1.82 ± 0.24 1.54 ± 0.21 1.44 ± 0.18 1.32 ± 0.13 1.24 ± 0.12 1.18 ± 0.10
Case 4 1.88 ± 0.23 1.55 ± 0.21 1.45 ± 0.14 1.32 ± 0.12 1.24 ± 0.12 1.23 ± 0.11
The average connected rounds by standard deviations
Case 1 4.33 ± 1.42 3.42 ± 1.28 3.20 ± 1.09 3.14 ± 0.96 2.35 ± 0.90 2.40 ± 0.92
Case 2 1.01 ± 0.10 1.01 ± 0.10 1.01 ± 0.10 1.01 ± 0.10 1.02 ± 0.20 1.01 ± 0.10
Case 3 4.20 ± 2.50 4.05 ± 1.39 3.36 ± 1.41 2.40 ± 1.17 2.34 ± 0.89 2.37 ± 1.03
AC

Case 4 1.01 ± 0.10 1.01 ± 0.10 1.01 ± 0.10 1.01 ± 0.10 1.02 ± 0.20 1.01 ± 0.10
Number of disconnected times
Case 1 7 3 3 3 0 0
Case 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Case 3 6 4 3 0 0 0
Case 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
The average deployment time(sec) by standard deviations
Case 1 45.92 ± 34.84 54.53 ± 32.50 62.21 ± 44.00 42.28 ± 32.50 52.15 ± 23.56 63.57 ± 34.21
Case 2 12.45 ± 3.64 17.37 ± 5.61 16.16 ± 6.46 15.08 ± 5.55 14.46 ± 4.33 27.75 ± 6.41
Case 3 49.85 ± 39.00 66.00 ± 43.77 72.05 ± 47.46 57.71 ± 43.93 53.41 ± 21.87 112.25 ± 50.25
Case 4 16.60 ± 5.96 31.98 ± 11.14 28.66 ± 12.32 28.82 ± 8.66 28.19 ± 10.56 81.50 ± 14.54
The average moving distance by standard deviations
Case 1 5.67 ± 1.23 4.21 ± 1.74 4.24 ± 1.77 4.49 ± 1.95 4.88 ± 1.82 5.39 ± 1.15
Case 2 2.63 ± 1.20 3.21 ± 1.26 3.27 ± 1.18 3.39 ± 1.08 3.87 ± 1.30 6.18 ± 1.82
Case 3 4.43 ± 1.82 5.52 ± 2.23 5.43 ± 2.20 5.65 ± 2.10 5.88 ± 1.79 5.61 ± 1.15
Case 4 2.97 ± 1.21 4.10 ± 1.50 4.14 ± 1.32 4.38 ± 1.36 4.80 ± 1.54 6.60 ± 2.08
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

SHELL et al.: BARE DEMO OF IEEETRAN.CLS FOR JOURNALS 11

TABLE V
T HE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS BASED ON THE METRICS IN T-MQM BY USING SIX ALGORITHMS IN FOUR CASES

VOR Minimax VEDGE CBS BCBS DCBS

Effective Coverage Area
Case 1 0.6626 0.6822 0.6890 0.6962 0.7040 0.7194
Case 2 0.6548 0.6785 0.6855 0.6937 0.7027 0.7198
Case 3 0.6728 0.7017 0.7063 0.7161 0.7206 0.7297
Case 4 0.6647 0.6999 0.7063 0.7153 0.7206 0.7279
Net Effective Coverage Area
Case 1 50.5071 52.9972 54.0528 54.5398 56.8470 60.9832
Case 2 49.6586 52.5742 53.5824 54.4204 56.5113 60.8061
Case 3 51.8329 56.5542 57.4658 57.5779 59.3326 62.1753
Case 4 50.9417 56.3303 57.1011 57.4659 59.3066 62.0856
Net Effective Coverage Area Ratio

T
Case 1 0.4466 0.4686 0.4779 0.4822 0.5026 0.5392
Case 2 0.4391 0.4649 0.4738 0.4812 0.4997 0.5376
Case 3 0.4583 0.5000 0.5081 0.5091 0.5246 0.5498

IP
Case 4 0.4504 0.4981 0.5049 0.5081 0.5244 0.5490
Total Non-Overlapped Coverage Area
Case 1 1515.2117 1589.9163 1621.5837 1636.1942 1705.4104 1829.4965

CR
Case 2 1489.7577 1577.2271 1607.4715 1632.6125 1695.3382 1824.1829
Case 3 1554.9862 1696.6245 1723.9750 1727.3380 1779.9767 1865.2601
Case 4 1528.2514 1689.9089 1713.0318 1723.9781 1779.1971 1862.5687
Total Overlapped Coverage Area
Case 1 758.3410 724.6743 716.0194 725.9712 683.3402 611.3861
Case 2 732.0718 724.9060 718.5209 721.0445 688.9759 617.9741
Case
Case

Case
Case
3
4

1
2
727.8491
727.1488

1144.5184
1117.9350
684.0549
684.6915

1062.2881
1068.3779
US
672.5230
683.4662
702.3384
702.9817
Quality of Connectivity
1039.2682
1048.1049
1042.7561
1039.4235
665.1266
665.8082

970.5989
980.4246
610.6715
607.1763

849.8500
858.5594
AN
Case 3 1081.7836 974.9081 952.1463 980.7800 922.9555 836.8404
Case 4 1093.8891 978.3135 967.6395 982.7771 923.9383 834.1349

table, it is obviously that DCBS requires the most rounds to average deployment time in all simulations, the coverage by
M

stop and VOR needs the least in all four cases. Therefore, from
Fig. 8 and Table IV, we know that DCBS can keep increasing
the coverage from initialization to finalization, while for the
other five algorithms they generally stop in a few rounds. From
ED
VOR is the worst among all six algorithms.
From the average moving distance listed in Table IV, the
sensors deployed by VOR travel the shortest path in cases 2,
3, and 4. For Minimax, VEDGE, CBS, and BCBS, they have

Fig. 8(a) and (b), we can find that the average coverage in
case 1 is slightly higher than that in case 2 as the sensors
have smaller communication range in case 1, which leads to
more movements in the deployment. The same situation can
PT
similar performance in terms of the average moving distance
in four cases.
In order to further evaluate and compare the coverage and
connectivity among the algorithms, the metrics in T-MQM are

be found from Figs. 8(c) and (d).
Regarding the average uniformity, the results shown in Table
IV quite agree with the coverage by the six algorithms. The
sensors deployed by DCBS are distributed the most evenly
CE
also taken into account in this experiment. Table V lists the
values of seven metrics in T-MQM by using six algorithms
after 100 individual runs in four cases. It should be noted
that the metrics of total coverage area and coverage rate share

with the highest coverage than that by the other algorithms.
As the average connected rounds is concerned, among the
six algorithms in case 1 and case 3, the sensors deployed by
BCBS can connect with the least rounds and DCBS is the
AC
the same meaning. Therefore the values of total coverage
area are not given in the Table. According to the meaning
of the other six metrics, bigger values of effective coverage
area, net effective coverage area, net effective coverage area

second one. For case 2 and case 4, the average rounds are
almost the same for all six algorithms. From another point of
view, all the sensors can be connected using DCBS and BCBS
in all four cases, which can be seen from the the values of
the number of disconnected times. For case 2 and case 4,
there is no disconnected situation using any algorithm, which
is attributed to the big communication range of the sensors.
It can be found that DCBS takes the longest deployment
time in all four cases. This is inevitable for DCBS as it deploys
the sensors almost during the whole rounds which can be
seen from the average stopping rounds. Compared to Minimax,
VEDGE, and CBS, BCBS uses the shortest deployment time.
Although VOR shows the best performance in terms of the
ratio, and total non-overlapped coverage area reflect better
performance of the deployment schemes. It can be found from
Table V that DCBS obtained the biggest values in all the six
metrics and follows by BCBS. On the contrary, lower values
of total overlapped coverage area and quality of connectivity
means better performance of the deployment patterns. One can
also observed that DCBS and BCBS show better performance
compared to the other four algorithms.
B. Example 2
In the second example, the simulation cases are carried out
with more sensors than that in case 1 and two kinds of termi-
nation conditions are used. The parameter settings, including
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
12
the number of sensors, maximum round, and communication
range are listed in Table VI. Both simulation cases run 100
times with the sensors randomly deployed in the initial round
and the results are the average values with standard deviations.
TABLE VI
PARAMETER S ETTINGS FOR E XAMPLE 2
Rc Minimal Maximum Number of
increment round sensors
Case 5 12m 1% 30 31/32/33/34/35
Case 6 12m 0.1% 100 31/32/33/34/35
Fig. 9 shows comparisons of the average coverage and
standard deviations with different number of sensors by six
algorithms in two simulation cases. As can be seen from the
figure, DCBS and BCBS get better coverage performance with
less standard deviation than CBS, VEDGE, Mnimax, and VOR
irrespectively the number of sensors and the threshold of the
termination conditions. When the number of sensors increases,
the tendency of the coverage for all the compared algorithms
also increases in two simulation cases.
In Fig. 10, the average number of stopping rounds with
standard deviations of six algorithms for different number
of sensors is shown. From the figure, it is clear that for
US the sensing range. In such case, only the sensor’s neigh-
AN
DCBS the number of stopping rounds decreases sharply as the
number of sensors increases from 31 to 35 in both cases. And
among VOR, Minimax, VEDGE, CBS, and BCBS, there is not
much difference on the number of stopping rounds when the
number of sensors changes. However, the number of stopping
M
rounds varies considerably for CBS in case 6 when the number
of sensors is different. VOR is the quickest algorithm to
terminate the deployment procedure in all scenarios as the
ED
sensor densities are not high that it is ineffective to move the
sensors frequently [26].
Fig. 11 depicts the average uniformity with standard devia-
tion for different number of sensors using six algorithms. It can
be observed from the figure that the general trend of uniformity
PT
for the algorithms in two cases is increasing as the number of
sensors increases. This is due to the fact that for the 50m∗50m
2D sensor field in the simulation, 30 sensors with Rs = 12m
CE
can maximize sensor coverage under the ideal distribution and
result in the best uniformity. With more sensors than 30, the
uniformity gets worse.
Fig. 12 shows the average moving distance from the initial
AC
round to the stopping round for different number of sensors
using six algorithms. When the number of sensors increases,
it can be seen that the average moving distance deceases for
all six algorithms in two cases. This is because the sensors
can cover their coordinate Voronoi polygons with higher
probability when the number of sensor increases beyond a
certain amount. Therefore, the deployment procedure will stop
in a short period to meet the termination condition, which will
result in the decrease of moving distance.
VI. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, two novel deployment algorithms, BCBS and
DCBS, are proposed to address the problem of placing the
JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 0, NO. 0, MAY 2017
sensors to maximize the sensing coverage in a given sensing
field. The proposed two deployment algorithms are designed
based on the Voronoi diagram and the centroid of Voronoi
polygon. The main contribution of BCBS is the introduction of
the Voronoi blind-zone and the Voronoi blind-zone polygon.
A sensor’s Voronoi blind-zone is help to find the coverage
holes, which is de termined by considering the neighbors’
sensing range to its Voronoi polygon. For a sensor in BCBS,
the centroid of its Voronoi blind-zone polygon is the candidate
location instead of the centroid of Voronoi polygon. DCBS
is a combination of CBS and two local disturbed operators.
After each sensor deploys according to CBS, the sensor carries
T
out the local perturbation operator by checking whether all
the Voronoi vertices are inside its sensing range. If yes, the
IP
sensor moves away from the farthest Voronoi vertex, which
can reduce the variants of the distances between the sensor
and the Voronoi vertices; otherwise, the sensor is forced to
CR
move towards the farthest uncovered Voronoi vertex in order
to heal the coverage hole. The local reconstruction operator
for a sensor in DCBS works following local perturbation
operator if the distance to any of its neighbors is less than
bors need to reconstruct their Voronoi polygons followed by
checking whether their Voronoi vertices are covered. Once
the uncovered Voronoi vertices exist, the sensor selects one
vertex randomly as its new location. Compared with the other
four known algorithms based on commonly used performance
metrics and seven correlated performance metrics with high
precision, simulation results show that DCBS is quite good
at maximizing the coverage with the most evenly distribution.
BCBS can converge with higher coverage in a shorter time
and moderate in the deployment time, moving distance and
uniformity.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Thanks are due to anonymous referees for their con-
structive comments. This work was partially supported by
the National Natural Science foundation of China (Grant
Nos. 61673194, 61105128), the Natural Science Founda-
tion of Jiangsu Province, China (Grant No. BK20131106),
the Postdoctoral Science Foundation of China (Grant No.
2014M560390), the Fundamental Research Funds for the
Central Universities, China (Grant No. JUSRP51410B), Six
Talent Peaks Project of Jiangsu Province (Grant No. DZXX-
025).
R EFERENCES
[1] G. Y. Keung, L. Bo, Z. Qian, and Y. Hai-Dong, “The target tracking
in mobile sensor networks,” in 2011 IEEE Global Telecommunications
Conference (GLOBECOM 2011), 2011, pp. 1–5.
[2] K. Ramya, K. P. Kumar, and V. S. Rao, “A survey on target tracking
techniques in wireless sensor networks,” International Journal of Com-
puter Science and Engineering Survey, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 93–108, 2012.
[3] A. Abrardo, M. Martal, and G. Ferrari, “Information fusion for efficient
target detection in large-scale surveillance wireless sensor networks,”
Information Fusion, vol. 38, pp. 55–64, 2017. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1566253517300751
[4] I. Benkhelifa, N. Nouali-Taboudjemat, and S. Moussaoui, “Disaster man-
agement projects using wireless sensor networks: An overview,” in Ad-
vanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops (WAINA),
2014 28th International Conference on. IEEE, 2014, pp. 605–610.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

SHELL et al.: BARE DEMO OF IEEETRAN.CLS FOR JOURNALS 13

1 1

0.98 0.98
Average Coverage

Average Coverage
0.96 0.96

0.94 0.94

0.92 0.92

0.9 0.9

0.88 0.88
31 32 33 34 35 31 32 33 34 35
Number of sensors Number of sensors

T
(a) Case 5 (b) Case 6

Fig. 9. Average coverage by standard deviations for different number of sensors using six algorithms with two parameter settings

IP
30 100

CR
Average stoping round
Average stoping round

25 80

20 60

15

10

5
US
40

20

0
AN
31 32 33 34 35 31 32 33 34 35
Number of sensors Number of sensors

(a) Case 5 (b) Case 6

Fig. 10. Averge number of stopping rounds by standard deviations for different number of sensors using six algorithms with two parameter settings
M

2.2

1.8
2
Average uniformity

Average uniformity
ED

1.6
1.8

1.6 1.4
PT

1.4 1.2

1.2 1
31 32 33 34 35 31 32 33 34 35
Number of sensors Number of sensors
CE

(a) Case 5 (b) Case 6

Fig. 11. Average uniformity by standard deviations for different number of sensors using six algorithms with two parameter settings
AC

7 6.5
Average moving distance

Average moving distance

6 6

5 5.5

5
4
4.5
3
4
2
3.5

1 3
31 32 33 34 35 31 32 33 34 35
Number of sensors Number of sensors

(a) Case 5 (b) Case 6

Fig. 12. Average moving distance by standard deviations for different number of sensors using different algorithms
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
14
[5] L. M. Oliveira and J. J. Rodrigues, “Wireless sensor networks: a survey
on environmental monitoring,” Journal of communications, vol. 6, no. 2,
pp. 143–151, 2011.
[6] M. F. Othman and K. Shazali, “Wireless sensor network applications:
A study in environment monitoring system,” Procedia Engineering,
vol. 41, pp. 1204–1210, 2012.
[7] O. Kaiwartya, A. H. Abdullah, Y. Cao, R. S. Raw, S. Kumar, D. K.
Lobiyal, I. F. Isnin, X. Liu, and R. R. Shah, “T-mqm: Testbed-based
multi-metric quality measurement of sensor deployment for precision
agriculture: A case study,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 16, no. 23, pp.
8649–8664, 2016.
[8] M. Z. A. Bhuiyan, W. Guojun, C. Jiannong, and W. Jie, “Deploying
wireless sensor networks with fault-tolerance for structural health mon-
itoring,” IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 382–395,
2015.
[9] R. Jafari, A. Encarnacao, A. Zahoory, F. Dabiri, H. Noshadi, and
M. Sarrafzadeh, “Wireless sensor networks for health monitoring,” in
The Second Annual International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous
Systems: Networking and Services, 2005, pp. 479–481.
[10] D. S. Deif and Y. Gadallah, “Classification of wireless sensor networks
deployment techniques,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials,
vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 834–855, 2014.
[11] Y. Miao, Z. Sun, N. Wang, Y. Cao, and H. Cruickshank, “Time efficient
data collection with mobile sink and vmimo technique in wireless sensor
networks,” IEEE Systems Journal, vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–9, 2016.
[12] Y. Cao, N. Wang, Z. Sun, and H. Cruickshank, “A reliable and
efficient encounter-based routing framework for delaydisruption tolerant
networks,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 4004–4018, 2015.
[13] K. Xiao, R. Wang, T. Fu, J. Li, and P. Deng, “Divide-and-conquer
architecture based collaborative sensing for target monitoring in
wireless sensor networks,” Information Fusion, vol. 36, pp. 162–171, US
2017. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S1566253516301816
AN
[14] M. R. Senouci, A. Mellouk, K. Asnoune, and F. Y. Bouhidel,
“Movement-assisted sensor deployment algorithms: A survey and tax-
onomy,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 17, no. 4, pp.
2493–2510, 2015.
[15] M. C. Akewar and N. V. Thakur, “A study of wireless mobile sensor
network deployment,” Internatioal Journal of Computer and Wireless
M
Communication, vol. 2, no. 4, 2012.
[16] O. Khatib, “Real-time obstacle avoidance for manipulators and mobile
robots,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 5, no. 1,
pp. 90–98, 1986.
[17] A. Howard, M. Matarić, and G. Sukhatme, “Mobile sensor network
ED
deployment using potential fields: A distributed, scalable solution to the
area coverage problem,” in Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems 5,
H. Asama, T. Arai, T. Fukuda, and T. Hasegawa, Eds. Springer Japan,
2002, pp. 299–308.
[18] S. Li, C. Xu, W. Pan, and Y. Pan, “Sensor deployment optimization for
PT
detecting maneuvering targets,” in 2005 8th International Conference on
Information Fusion, vol. 2. IEEE, 2005, pp. 1629–1635.
[19] Y. Zou and K. Chakrabarty, “Sensor deployment and target localization
based on virtual forces,” in Twenty-Second Annual Joint Conference of
the IEEE Computer and Communications, vol. 2. IEEE, 2003, pp.
CE
1293–1303.
[20] F. Kribi, P. Minet, and A. Laouiti, “Redeploying mobile wireless sensor
networks with virtual forces,” in 2009 2nd IFIP Wireless Days, 2009,
pp. 1–6.
[21] M. Garetto, M. Gribaudo, C. Chiasserini, and E. Leonardi, “A distributed
AC
sensor relocatlon scheme for environmental control,” in IEEE Interna-
tional Conference on Mobile Adhoc and Sensor Systems, 2007, pp. 1–10.
[22] X. Yu, W. Huang, J. Lan, and X. Qian, “A novel virtual force approach
for node deployment in wireless sensor network,” in 2012 IEEE 8th
JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 0, NO. 0, MAY 2017
International Conference on Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems
(DCOSS). IEEE, 2012, pp. 359–363.
[23] Y. H. Han, Y.-h. Kim, W. Kim, and Y.-S. Jeong, “An energy-efficient
self-deployment with the centroid-directed virtual force in mobile sensor
networks,” Simulation, vol. 88, no. 10, pp. 1152–1165, 2012.
[24] N. Boufares, I. Khoufi, P. Minet, L. Saidane, and Y. Ben Saied, “Three
dimensional mobile wireless sensor networks redeployment based on
virtual forces,” in 2015 International Wireless Communications and
Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC). IEEE, 2015, pp. 563–568.
[25] F. Aurenhammer, R. Klein, D.-T. Lee, and R. Klein, Voronoi diagrams
and Delaunay triangulations. World Scientific, 2013.
[26] G. Wang, G. Cao, and T. La Porta, “Movement-assisted sensor deploy-
ment,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 640–
652, 2006.
[27] H. Mahboubi, K. Moezzi, A. G. Aghdam, K. Sayrafian-Pour, and V. Mar-
T
bukh, “Distributed deployment algorithms for improved coverage in a
network of wireless mobile sensors,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial
IP
Informatics, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 163–174, 2014.
[28] H. J. Lee, Y. h. Kim, Y. H. Han, and C. Y. Park, “Centroid-based move-
ment assisted sensor deployment schemes in wireless sensor networks,”
in 2009 IEEE 70th Vehicular Technology Conference Fall (VTC 2009-
CR
Fall),. IEEE, 2009, pp. 1–5.
[29] N. Heo and P. K. Varshney, “Energy-efficient deployment of intelligent
mobile sensor networks,” IEEE Transactions on systems, Man and
Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 78–92,
2005.
[30] A. Boukerche and X. Fei, “A voronoi approach for coverage protocols
in wireless sensor networks,” in IEEE Global Telecommunications
Conference. IEEE, 2007, pp. 5190–5194.
[31] H. Mahboubi, M. Vaezi, and F. Labeau, “Mobile sensors deployment
subject to location estimation error,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular
Technology, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 668–678, 2017.
[32] N. Bartolini, G. Bongiovanni, T. La Porta, S. Silvestri, and F. Vincenti,
“Voronoi-based deployment of mobile sensors in the face of adversaries,”
in 2014 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC),
2014, pp. 532–537.
[33] C. Qiu and H. Shen, “A delaunay-based coordinate-free mechanism
for full coverage in wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Transactions on
Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 828–839, 2014.
[34] T.-W. Sung and C.-S. Yang, “Voronoi-based coverage improvement
approach for wireless directional sensor networks,” Journal of Network
and Computer Applications, vol. 39, pp. 202–213, 2014.
[35] M. Abo-Zahhad, N. Sabor, S. Sasaki, and S. M. Ahmed, “A centralized
immune-voronoi deployment algorithm for coverage maximization and
energy conservation in mobile wireless sensor networks,” Information
Fusion, vol. 30, pp. 36–51, 2016.
[36] B. Wang, “Coverage problems in sensor networks: A survey,” ACM
Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 43, no. 4, p. 32, 2011.
[37] K. Römer and F. Mattern, “The design space of wireless sensor net-
works,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 54–61, 2004.
[38] G. Tan, S. Jarvis, and A.-M. Kermarrec, “Connectivity-guaranteed and
obstacle-adaptive deployment schemes for mobile sensor networks,”
IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 836–848,
2009.
[39] H. Zhang and J. C. Hou, “Maintaining sensing coverage and connectivity
in large sensor networks,” Ad Hoc & Sensor Wireless Networks, vol. 1,
no. 1-2, pp. 89–124, 2005.
[40] G. Wang, G. Cao, P. Berman, and T. F. La Porta, “Bidding protocols for
deploying mobile sensors,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing,
vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 563–576, 2007.