S.-S. Chiang et al.
: A Minimum Hop Routing Protocol for Home Security Systems Using Wireless Sensor Networks
A Minimum Hop Routing Protocol for Home Security Systems
Using Wireless Sensor Networks
Shao-Shan Chiang, Member, IEEE, Chih-Hung Huang, and Kuang-Chiung Chang
Abstract — A wireless sensor network is a data
communication system that consists of from several to
thousands of tiny wireless sensor nodes. These battery-
powered sensor nodes cooperate with each other to
accomplish data transmission. A variety of wireless sensor
networks have been developed for different applications in the
recent years. In this paper, a data routing protocol, which is
designed for a wireless home security network, is proposed.
Due to the lifetime of such a network depends entirely on the
lifetime of the battery power, the proposed routing protocol
chooses hop counts and battery power levels as metrics, in
order to conserve as much energy as possible in both
computations and data communications. In addition, when
some of the nodes fail or run out of battery, the routing
protocol could effectively adapt the change and find an
alternative path. The robustness and the energy efficiency of
the proposed routing protocol were tested, and the results
turned out to be successful.1
Index Terms —wireless sensor networks, routing protocols,
energy-efficient, home security systems.
I. INTRODUCTION
Recent advances in micro fabrications and wireless
communications technology have enabled the development of
low-cost, small-sized, low-power-consuming, multifunctional
sensor nodes, which are capable of communicating wirelessly
in short distances with each other. A wireless sensor network
could consist of from several to thousands of these tiny
wireless sensor nodes, which can be added and removed
conveniently to the network whenever it is necessary. It
achieves the goals of low-cost and flexibility of deployment.
Wireless sensor networks are being developed for a wide
range of civil and military applications, such as health care
[1], bridge monitoring [2], and home automation [3]. Home
security is one of the potential applications that the wireless
sensor network technologies could be applied, where
consumer electronics and wireless communication
technologies are merged. In most wireless home security
systems, many battery-powered sensors such as camera,
motion detector, glassbreak detector are distributed inside or
outside the house for detecting events. When a break-in is
detected, the sensor passes information directly to the base
station through a wireless channel. The radio transmission
1
S. S. Chiang and K. C. Chang are with the Department of Electrical
Engineering, Lunghwa University of Science and Technology, Taoyuan
33306, Taiwan. (e-mail: schiang@ieee.org).
C. H. Huang is with the Department of Information Management, Lunghwa
University of Science and Technology, Taoyuan 33306, Taiwan.
Contributed Paper
Manuscript received October 9, 2007 0098 3063/07/$20.00 © 2007 IEEE
1483
range of the sensor could be longer than 300 meters.
However, sending data at such high transmission power could
lead to excessive drain of power and high possibility of sensor
failures. Regarding to the wireless sensor networks interested
in this paper, on the other hand, sensor nodes use relatively
low transmission power to communicate with each other. As a
consequence, the lifetime of the sensor nodes is longer than
that of the sensors used in the traditional home security
networks.
In a wireless sensor network, a sensor node cooperates with
neighbor nodes to accomplish data transmission. This is so
called the multihop relay. When such a network is used in a
specific application, it usually scatters sensor nodes in a
specific area to collect data. By means of a multihop relay
scheme, the collected data is transmitted to a base station for
further analysis or for remote monitoring and controlling.
Therefore, a routing protocol is needed to guarantee the
message delivery. Even if there are node failures, a robust
routing protocol could dynamically adjust the transmission
path accordingly. There has been much research in the field of
network layer protocols for wireless sensor networks, such as
flooding [4]-[5], directed diffusion [6], sequential assignment
routing [7], gradient-based routing [8] to mention a few.
Classic flooding is an old technique that can also be used
for routing in sensor networks [4]-[5]. When a sensor node
detects an event, it broadcasts the message to other sensor
nodes within its radio transmission range, which is called one
hop. Again, all the receiving nodes broadcast the message to
all of their neighbor nodes within one hop, except the node
from which they receive the message. This process is
recursively performed until the message reaches the sink node,
which is a designated node directly linked to the base station
or until a maximum number of hops for the message is
reached. This routing method has several deficiencies such as
implosion, overlap, and resource blindness [5].
In this paper, we present an energy-efficient, reliable and
robust routing algorithm for wireless sensor networks. Our
approach is to flood a special setup packet to establish a local
routing table for every node in the network before data
transmission actually takes place. The routing table consists of
parent, sibling, and child nodes, together with their
identification numbers and energy levels, within one hop
distance. Based on the routing table, each sensor node can
determine the best next-hop node, which has the highest
energy level, to relay the message.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II is a
brief literature review on this topic. Section III describes the
system model of the proposed routing scheme in details. The
1484
system implementations and experimental results are
discussed in Section IV. Some conclusions are given in
Section V.
II. RELATED WORK
An important issue on wireless sensor networks is to find
an optimal routing path to transmit the collected data from a
source node to the sink. Because wireless sensor networks are
different from one to another, the optimal path could be
defined in different ways. For example, energy dissipation,
radio coverage range, and number of nodes used are all
possible factors, or called metrics, to consider. When deciding
an optimal path, these metrics can be taken into account
separately or in any combinations. As the number of the
sensor nodes increases, a management scheme to choose from
those metrics becomes more important.
Fig. 1. Routing metrics of the paths.
Assuming a data packet is to be transmitted from source
node A to destination node F as shown in Fig. 1, where Lxy
denotes the cost from node x to node y, and Px denotes the
available power of node x. There are three possible paths {A–
B–F}, {A–B–D–F}, and {A–C–E–F}. By summing the costs
and counting the hops along each route, the total cost of {A–
B–F} is 10 with two hops, the total cost of {A–B–D–F} is 14
with three hops, and the total cost of {A–C–E–F} is 10 with
three hops. Consequently, the optimal path from node A to
node F will be different depending on the metric chosen. By
choosing the minimum hop counts as the only metric, the
route {A–B–F} is the optimal one with only two hops. On the
other hand, by choosing the total cost as the metric, both {A–
B–F} and {A–C–E–F} are optimal with a cost of 10 each.
Lastly, if we choose the maximum available power as the
metric, {A–C–E–F} would be the optimal path because the
total available power along this path is maximal.
Energy efficiency is one of the most important metrics in
the routing design for wireless sensor networks because the
battery power of each sensor node is limited. There are two
IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, Vol. 53, No. 4, NOVEMBER 2007
strategies to reduce the energy dissipation for the networks.
One is to control the variable-range transmission power of the
sensor nodes [9]. The other is to develop energy-efficient
routing protocols based on common-range transmission, i.e.,
nodes broadcast using the same transmission power level
without any power control [4]-[8].
The directed data dissemination paradigm is proposed in [6],
where the sink node sends out an interest, which is a task
description, to all sensors by a diffusion or a flooding
mechanism. Each receiving node then stores the interest in its
cache if no matching entry exists in the cache already. The
interest entry contains a timestamp and several gradient fields.
The timestamp marks the time when the last matching interest
was received, and the gradient, up to one per neighbor,
indicates the neighbor node from which the interest was
received. As the interest diffuses throughout the entire sensor
network, the gradients from the source back to the sink node
are set up. Then, any data matching the interest is sent back
toward the sink node through paths that the gradients describe.
The sequential assignment routing (SAR) algorithm creates
multiple trees, or multiple paths from each node to the sink
node, in a wireless sensor network, where the root of each tree
is a one-hop neighbor from the sink node [7]. Each tree grows
from every root node by successively branching to neighbors
with higher hop distances while avoiding nodes with very low
quality of service (QoS) and energy resources. At the end of
this tree-building procedure, most nodes belong to multiple
trees. This allows a sensor node to choose a tree to relay its
data back to the sink node. There are two parameters, energy
resources and additive QoS, associated with each path back to
the sink node. The SAR algorithm selects the path based on
the two parameters of each path. As a result, each sensor node
would select the most energy-efficient path to route the data
back to the sink node.
The authors in [8] proposed a variant of directed diffusion,
called gradient-based routing (GBR). The key idea in GBR is
to memorize the number of hops when an interest is diffused
through the whole network. As such, each node can calculate
a parameter called the height of the node, which is the
minimum number of hops to reach the base station. The
difference between the heights of a node and its neighbor is
considered as the gradient on that link. Then the data packet is
forwarded to a link with the largest gradient. To avoid
overusing a particular node, when the node’s energy drops
below a certain threshold, it increases its height so that other
sensors are discouraged from sending data to that node. Note
that when broadcasts are transmitted at the same power level,
a minimum hop routing is equivalent to a minimum energy
routing [5].
III. SYSTEM MODEL
Our system model consists of a base station, a sink node,
and a number of wireless sensor nodes, as shown in Fig. 2.
The base station can be located in any convenient place in the
house. The sink node is a specially designed sensor node that
S.-S. Chiang et al.: A Minimum Hop Routing Protocol for Home Security Systems Using Wireless Sensor Networks 1485

has more memory than other sensor nodes and is connected to
the base station through a wired or wireless link. The sensor
nodes are distributed in the house and yards so that the radio
coverage of any sensor node covers at least one other node.
While in the network communications, the sink node takes
commands from the base station and floods them to other
sensor nodes wirelessly. On the other hand, the sink node also
collects data from other nodes and delivers them to the base
station. All the sensor nodes are battery-powered except the
sink node, because the sink node is the most frequently used
node in this sensor network. When deployed, the transmission
power of each sensor node is regulated so that its radio
coverage is fixed, despite the decline of battery power, until
the battery is exhausted. It is required that every sensor node
can monitor its own battery power level and has its own
identification number (ID) and location information, such as
front door, garden, and so on.
packet to all sensor nodes within its one-hop distance. We
define the setup packet as “Setup.ID.hop.energylevel”, where
the “Setup” indicates it is a setup packet and should be
flooded throughout the entire network, “ID” is the ID number
of the sending node, “hop” represents the hop count, which is
the number of hops between the sending node and the sink
node, and “energylevel”, as the name says itself, is the battery
energy level of the sending node. For the setup packet
broadcasted by the sink node, the “hop” value is set to 0 and
the “energylevel” value is set to a very large value.
After receiving the setup packet, all the receiving nodes
within one hop from the sink node increase the hop count by
1, as shown in Fig. 3(a), and mark the sink node as their
parent node by recording the hop count, ID number and
energy level on the routing table. Then, each node with hop
count l, called a relaying node, in turn broadcast a newly
constructed setup packet, as also shown in Fig. 3(b). The new
setup packet has the same format as that was sent by the sink
node, but with the relaying node’s ID number and energy
level, and the hop count is now set to 1. This broadcasting
process repeats hop-by-hop until all the nodes in the network
have been notified.

Fig. 2. The system model.

There are two phases in wireless sensor network

communications, the routing table establishment phase and the
(a)
data routing phase. The flooding technique [4]-[5] is used to
establish a local routing table for each sensor node in the hop 2
hop 1 hop 2
routing table establishment phase. In this phase, it is required
hop 2
that all the sensor nodes turn their transceivers on to exchange hop 1 G hop 1
information until their routing tables are established. The hop 2
routing table will be used and remain unchanged in the data Sink hop 2
H
B
routing phase until any node failure occurs or a new node is hop 1
added on. Once the routing table is built, the data packets can C
hop 1
only be received and processed by the designated node listed A hop 1 hop 2
hop 2
in the routing table of the sending node. At this data routing D
phase, the energy consumption is very low. F
hop 2 hop 2
In the following, the algorithms to establish and to update E

the routing tables are described, followed by the algorithms to

route data and command packets.
A. The Establishment of Routing Tables
In the sensor network initialization, the base station notifies
the sink node to start a routing table establishment process for
the entire network. Then, the sink node broadcasts a setup
(b)
Fig. 3. (a) The setup packet sent from the sink node; (b) The setup packet
is flooded one more hop away.
As also shown in Fig. 3(b), the setup packets, either sent by
the sink node or any of the relaying nodes, may be received by
1486
any other sensor nodes within one hop. On the other hand,
every sensor node may receive more than one setup packets
from its neighbor nodes. The following scenario describes a
general procedure to follow while a sensor node receives a
setup packet.
y If the receiving node does not have a hop count set, it
increases the hop count value in the first received packet
by 1 and sets the value as its hop count, and then in turn
broadcast a new setup packet. It also records the all the
sending nodes whose hop counts are one less than its own
as parent nodes. As shown in Fig. 3(b), nodes D, and F
record node A as their parent node, and node E records
both node A and B as its parent nodes.
y If the receiving node has been set a smaller hop count
than that in the packet received, it marks the sending node
as its child node by recording the ID number and energy
level shown in the packet. As shown in Fig. 3(b), the sink
node records nodes A, B, C, and G as its child nodes.
y If the receiving node has the same hop count as that in the
packet received, it marks the sending node as a sibling node.
In Fig. 3(b), both nodes B and C record node A as a sibling
node, and nodes A, C and G record node B as a sibling node.
Flooding the setup packet in this way may cause several
problems such as collision and incorrect setting of the hop
count. If several nodes broadcast the packets at the same time,
they will collide to each other. To prevent collisions, all nodes
receiving the setup packet for first time have to wait for a
fixed time plus a random time, like the back-off algorithm
used in Ethernet, before relaying the setup packets. The
duration of the fixed time depends on the hop count value in
the received packet: the larger the value is the longer the fixed
time is chosen. The design of the fixed time may lengthen the
time needed to establish the routing tables. However, it can
prevent a receiving sensor node from setting its hop count to a
higher value than it should be. In other words, once a
receiving node has set its hop count, it is impossible to receive
any setup packet that has smaller hop count value. To further
reduce the amount of setup packets flooded in the entire
network, every sensor node only relays the setup packet once.
To conserve the battery power in the data routing phase,
every node goes into sleep and wake-up cycles following a
predefined time schedule, called frame. A node can only send
(or receive) data when it is awake. Therefore, determining
time slots in which sensor nodes can communicate with each
other is critical. To ensure the data packet delivery, which is
the main goal of the home security systems, we use a simple
rule to assign time slots to all nodes according to their hop
count values. Since any sensor node communicates mostly
with its parent and child nodes, therefore, the node as well as
its parent and child nodes, should avoid sending packets
simultaneously. In the wake-up period of a predefined frame,
we assign all sensor nodes that have the same hop count value
the same time slots. For example, all nodes with hop count 2
are assigned the same time slot, such as slot N, which is
different from that for nodes with hop count 1 and 3.
IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, Vol. 53, No. 4, NOVEMBER 2007
However, in order to fully utilize the available time slots, the
same time slot can be reassigned to nodes whose hop count
values are three or more hops away. Follow up the previous
example, it is fine to reassign time slot N to all nodes with hop
count 5, since no radio interference will occur. Due to lack of
precise time synchronization of the network, to prevent sensor
nodes from missing the assigned communication time, the
duration of a time slot is set a longer value. By using a
handshake protocol, although the other sibling nodes with the
same time slots may receive the same data packets as well,
they would just drop them silently without any extra
processing and transmission power consumptions.
A routing table consists of three rows. All the parent, sibling
and child nodes, together with their ID numbers, energy levels
and time slots, are put at the bottom, middle and upper row,
respectively. The correctness of routing table can be easily
verified when the routing table establishment phase is completed.
The hop count values of all the parent, sibling and child nodes
should be three consecutive numbers. If it is not true, this sensor
node resets the current routing table and acts as a newly added
node to establish its routing table (see Section III. B).
B. Deletion and Addition of Sensor Nodes
When the battery power of a sensor node is going to fall
below a predetermined level, it sends an alert packet to all the
sensor nodes listed in its routing table. In this situation, each
receiving node simply deletes the dying-out node from the
routing table. As time goes by, sensor nodes will gradually be
energy-exhausted and be deleted from the routing tables one
after another. Once the number of deleted nodes increases so
that the sensor network becomes disconnected, new sensor
nodes must be added into the network in order to maintain the
connectivity of the network.
Fig. 4. Sensor node addition procedure.
When a new sensor node appears in the network, it has to
establish its own routing table and updates routing tables of
the sensor nodes within its one hop distance. The new sensor
node broadcasts an add packet in the format
“Add.ID.energylevel”, where the “Add” indicates it is an add
packet and should be answered, to notify the sensor nodes
S.-S. Chiang et al.: A Minimum Hop Routing Protocol for Home Security Systems Using Wireless Sensor Networks
within one hop, as node N shown in Fig. 4. Every receiving
node replies a packet with its hop count, energy level and ID
number destined to the new sensor node after a random time
delay. Waiting for a predefined time interval to ensure that all
receiving sensor nodes have responded, the new sensor node
generates its routing table according to the following criteria:
y The new sensor node marks the responding nodes tied with
the least hop count as parent nodes, increases the least hop
count by 1 and then set the value as its hop count;
y If there are responding nodes with the same hop count as
its own, it marks them as sibling nodes;
y If there are responding nodes with a larger hop count than
its own, it marks them as child nodes.
In Fig. 4, for example, node N sets its hop count as 2 and
marks the nodes with hop count 1 as its parent nodes, the
nodes with hop count 2 as its sibling nodes, and the nodes
with hop count 3 as its child nodes. The correctness of the
routing table created by this addition procedure also needs to
be checked. If it is correct, the new sensor node broadcasts an
update packet in the format “Update.ID.hop.energylevel”,
which includes its hop count, energy level and ID number, to
all sensor nodes listed in the routing table. The receiving
sensor nodes append the new sensor node into their routing
tables according to its hop count.
C. The Data Routing Scheme
Having shown methods for establishing a local routing table
for each sensor node in the home security network, we now
focus on developing a data routing scheme, based on the routing
tables, to ensure the data transmission. When a sensor node
detects an event, the data collected must be sent back to the sink
node and then to the base station by the relay scheme. Since
processing and transmitting data packets both consume energy,
the purpose of the proposed data routing scheme is not only to
find a path to the sink node, but also to conserve as much
battery energy as possible. Besides, to avoid overuse of certain
nodes in data packet delivery process to extend the lifetime of
the wireless sensor network has to be taken into account as well.
The proposed routing algorithm searches an optimal path to
the sink node by choosing the hop count and the energy level
as the metrics. When several optimal paths exist, the sensor
nodes that have the most energy should be chosen as the next
recipient to relay data packets. Every data packet has a field,
which is filled with the designated recipient’s ID before
sending. All nodes other than the designated recipient would
ignore the packet when receiving it. Beside the designated
recipient, the data packet also contains the energy level, ID
number, event description, and location information of the
sending node. In addition to process and relay the data packet,
the designated recipient must acknowledge the reception with
its energy level to prevent the loss of the data packet. The
algorithm to select the next relay node in an energy-based
manner is described as follows:
y When a sensor node detects an event or receives a data
packet, it forwards the data packet to a parent node that
1487
has the highest energy level among the parent nodes in its
routing table.
y Otherwise, if there is no parent node available, the sensor
node forwards the data packets to a sibling node, which
has the highest energy level among the sibling nodes in its
routing table.
y Otherwise, if there is no sibling node available, the sensor
node returns the data packet to its predecessor, i.e. the
node where the packet came from. In this case, the
predecessor removes the dead route by deleting the
former designated node from the routing table and tries to
find an alternative path.
y If a sensor node deletes a parent node from its routing table,
it sends an alert packet to all the remaining sibling and
parent nodes in the routing table. Each receiving node
simply deletes the node from its routing table. This node
failure notification can prevent other nodes from sending
data to the dead node, and thus conserve the battery power.
D. The Command Routing Scheme
There are two types of commands in the proposed home
security network: one is to all sensor nodes, namely,
CommALL, and the other is to a designated node. The
algorithm to deliver CommALL from the sink node is similar
to that of the routing table establishment expect the packet is
relayed according to the communication timeslots of each
node defined. The delivery of this command stops when the
relaying node has no child nodes. To reduce the amount of
information flooded in the network, when a relaying node
receives the same command from different parent nodes, it
only relays the command once.
Sending a command to a designated node may use same
mechanism as that in CommALL. However, this mechanism
requires the participation of all the nodes in the network,
which may unnecessarily consume battery power.
Alternatively, the sink node builds a global routing table
showing the entire tree structure of the network. The global
routing table can be established by using the CommALL
command to ask every sensor node to forward its routing table
to the sink node. According to the global routing table, the
sink node could find a path to the destination and fill the path
into the command packet. Due to the global routing table
building process is energy and time consuming, it is not
necessarily updated every time the sink node sends a
command. The node failure detection mechanism in the data
routing algorithm could detect dead routes and return the
message to the sink node for updating the global routing table.
IV. IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS
The design of the sensor node has been implemented in our
laboratory by using off-the-shelf components. The sensor
node mainly consists of a sensing unit, an 8-bit
microprocessor with a 10-bit build-in analog-to-digital
converter, an external flash memory, a power management
unit, and a 2.4 GHz RF transceiver module (IEEE 802.15.4
1488
compliant) for short-range transmission. For long-range
transmission to the base station, the sink node equips with an
additional 27 MHz RF transceiver. A photograph of the
prototype of the sink node is shown in Fig. 5, where the sensing
unit is not shown. The sensing unit includes a passive infrared
motion detector, which has a built-in amplifier, and a noise
filter. The filtered output signal is fed into the microprocessor.
When an event is detected, the microprocessor transmits this
information through the short distance RF transceiver to another
sensor node. The sensor node is powered by a 6 V battery. The
power management unit regulates the battery voltage to 3.3 V
for the microprocessor and the RF transceiver and to 5.0 V for
the sensing unit, respectively. This unit also includes a battery
power lever monitor. The sensor node was tested. With respect
to the power consumption, the current measuring at power input
terminals, excluding the sensing unit, in different conditions is
shown in Table I. From a pure energy/bit standpoint, the sensor
node consumes 353 nJ for transmitting a bit and 360 nJ for
receiving a bit, for the raw data rate of 250 Kb/sec.
Fig. 5. Prototype of the sink node.
TABLE I
EXPERIMENT RESULTS OF CURRENT CONSUMPTION
CPU TX RX I (mA)
green sleep sleep 2.5
active sleep active 15.0
active active sleep 14.7
Next, we compare the energy-efficient performance of the
proposed method with the classic flooding scheme using the
same data listed in Table I. Experiments were carried out
using random network topologies. In each network topology,
sensor nodes are randomly scattered in a fixed 50×50 m2
deployed area, and the sink node is located at the lower left
IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, Vol. 53, No. 4, NOVEMBER 2007
corner. The number of sensor nodes changes from 50 to 100
with increments of 10. Each sensor node has a maximum
transmission range of 10 m and a detection range of 5 m. The
maximum hop count is set 8. Before data delivery, the routing
table has been set up at each sensor node. The energy
dissipated in the routing table establishment process is not
included in the total energy consumption, because the
proposed scheme uses a technique similar to the classic
flooding method to establish the routing table. At the time
between the end of the routing table establishment and
beginning of the data delivery, for each test, a 10% of the
sensor nodes are randomly selected as failure nodes, in order
to test the robustness of the proposed algorithm. To make a
fair comparison, in each test, each scheme uses exactly the
same network topologies where 20 nodes were randomly
selected as source nodes. Each source node sends one data
packet to the sink node, using the two different schemes. The
sizes of the data packet, handshaking packet and acknowledge
packet, are 1, 0.5 and 0.5 Kbit, including header, respectively.
Thus, the energy dissipated in relaying one data packet of a
sensor node is 1.7825 mJ. With 20 successful deliveries of the
data packet, the average energy consumption per data packet
delivery for the proposed algorithm is shown in Fig. 6.
Fig. 6. Energy consumptions of the proposed method (real line) and the
classic flooding method (dotted line).
IX. CONCLUSION
We have presented an energy-efficient routing scheme for
the wireless sensor network used in home security systems.
By using the proposed routing table establishment and data
routing scheme, sensor nodes with more energy level is
selected in data packet transmission relays. Since the battery
power of the network is utilized efficiently and evenly among
all the sensor nodes, the lifetime of the wireless home security
system could be extended to its optimum. When any data
packet transmission fails due to sensor node’s fault or battery
exhaustion, the proposed scheme would quickly adapt the
change by updating the routing tables and resending the
packet via a new optimal path. Therefore, the proposed system
is robust and reliable.
S.-S. Chiang et al.: A Minimum Hop Routing Protocol for Home Security Systems Using Wireless Sensor Networks
REFERENCES
[1] R.-G. Lee, C.-C. Lai, S.-S. Chiang, H.-S. Liu, C.-C. Chen, and G.-Y.
Hsieh, “Design and implementation of a mobile-care system over
wireless sensor network for home healthcare applications,” in Proc. of
the 28th IEEE EMBS Annual International Conference, New York, NY,
pp. 6004-6007, 2006.
[2] R.-G. Lee, K.-C. Chen, C.-C. Lai, S.-S. Chiang, H.-S. Liu, and M.-S.
Wei, “A backup routing with wireless sensor network for bridge
monitoring system,” Measurement, vol. 40, pp. 55-63, 2007.
[3] H. Oh, H. Bahn, and K. J. Chae, “An energy-efficient sensor routing
scheme for home automation networks,” IEEE Transactions on
Consumer Electronics, vol. 51, pp. 836-839, 2005.
[4] J. N. Al-Karaki and A. E. Kamal, “Routing techniques in wireless sensor
networks: A survey,” IEEE Wireless Communications, pp. 6-28, Dec.
2004.
[5] I. F. Akyildiz, S. Weilian, Y. Sankarasubramaniam, and E. Cayirci, “A
survey on sensor networks,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 40,
no. 8, pp. 102-114, 2002.
[6] C. Intanagonwiwat, R. Govindan, and D. Estrin, “ Directed diffusion: A
scalable and robust communication paradigm for sensor networks,” in
Proceedings of the ACM Mobi-Com, Boston, MA, pp. 56-67, 2000.
[7] K. Sohrabi, J. Gao, V. Ailawadhi, and G. Pottie, “Protocols for self-
organization of a wireless sensor network,” IEEE Personal
Communications, pp. 16-27, 2000.
[8] C. Schurgers and M. B. Srivastava, “Energy efficient routing in wireless
sensor networks,” in MILCOM Proc. Communications for Network-
Centric Operations: Creating the Information Force, McLean, VA, pp.
357-361, 2001.
[9] J. Gomez and A. T. Campbell, “A case for variable-range transmission
power control in wireless multihop networks,” in Proceedings of
Infocom, Hong Kong, pp. 1425-1436, 2004.
1489
Shao-Shan Chiang (S’98-M’01-) received the M.S. and
Ph.D. degrees, both in electrical engineering, from
University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC),
Baltimore, in 1999 and 2001 respectively. Since 2001, he
has been an Assistant Professor in the Department of
Electrical Engineering, Lunghwa University of Science
and Technology, Taoyuan, Taiwan. His research interests
include signal processing, pattern recognition, and communication.
Chih-Hung Huang received his B.S. degree in Chemical
Engineering from Tatung University, Taipei, Taiwan in
1980, and the M.S. degree in Computer Science from
Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Mass., USA in
1987. Since 1990, he has been with the Department of
Information Management, Lunghwa University of Science
and Technology, where he is currently a Lecturer. His current
interests include image processing and 3D on-line games.
Kuang-Chiung Chang received his B.S. and M.S.
degrees in electrical engineering from Tatung University,
Taipei, Taiwan in 1979 and 1987, respectively, and the
Ph. D. degree in electrical engineering from National
Taiwan University, Taipei, in 1993. Since 1987, he has
been with the Department of Electrical Engineering,
Lunghwa University of Science and Technology, where
he is currently a Professor. His current interests include digital imaging, neural
networks, and sensor networks.