See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/332824518

Multi-hop PSO based routing protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks with
Energy Harvesting

Conference Paper · March 2019

DOI: 10.1109/ICTAS.2019.8703638

CITATIONS READS

11 224

3 authors, including:

Marcel Ohanga Odhiambo

Vaal University of Technology
56 PUBLICATIONS   124 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

1. Integrated Image Capture and Motion Detection Home Security Systems. View project

Call for Chapters: Handbook of Research on Mitigating the Challenges of the Internet of Things View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marcel Ohanga Odhiambo on 16 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 2019 Conference on Information Communications Technology and Society (ICTAS)

Multi-hop PSO based routing protocol for Wireless Sensor

Networks with Energy Harvesting
Tlholiso W. Tukisi, Tebello N.D. Mathaba, Marcel Ohanga Odhiambo
Department of Process Control and Computer Systems,
Faculty of Engineering,
Vaal University of Technology
1tlholisot@vut.ac.za
2tebellom1@vut.ac.za
3marcelo@vut.ac.za

Abstract— In this paper, three energy efficient routing
strategies for a design of a Particle Swarm Optimization based
Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) routing algorithm are
presented. The first strategy maximizes the energy of the node
with the lowest energy (the worst performing node) in the WSN,
the second strategy maximizes the overall WSN energy and the
third strategy maximizes the energy of the worst performing node
while improving network latency. The best of these strategies is
further tested in a WSN with energy harvesting nodes. The
results are compared with a benchmark variant of the Low
energy adaptive clustering hierarchy (LEACH) protocol, called
the LEACH-Centralized Sleeping (CS). The results show that the
strategy that maximizes the overall network energy can improve
the network lifetime better. The results further show that the
energy harvesting aware routing protocol can extend the lifetime
of a WSN more than a protocol that is not energy harvesting
aware.
Index Terms—Wireless Sensor Networks, Energy harvesting,
PSO, Two-tier Clustering, LEACH-CS.
I. INTRODUCTION
carry when collecting, aggregating and sending data to the
Sink [2], [3]. Therefore, load balancing is very important when
designing a WSN routing protocol.
Regardless of how good the routing protocol can be, the
battery charge will eventually deplete, and sensor nodes will
stop functioning. One viable option is to incorporating energy
harvesting in WSN [4], [5], [6]. In this case, sensor nodes can
use rechargeable cells and be recharged from different sources
of renewable energy such as solar energy, wind energy or heat
from nature [6]. However, if the routing algorithm is not
energy harvesting aware, the energy harvested might not be
optimally utilized in the WSN.
In this paper, we compare three new energy efficient routing
strategies based on Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)
algorithm together with a benchmark LEACH-Centralized
Sleeping (CS) algorithm. These strategies take into
consideration the residual energy of alive nodes in the
network, the transmission distance to the Sink as well as
latency for every round of data transmission. In this way,
energy balancing across all sensor nodes can be achieved.

I n the recent past years, wireless sensor networks have

gained more attention due to enormous advantages they
bring to various application domains such as medical,
agriculture, military and industry. However, energy
consumption in Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) remains a
key challenge during their operation. Traditionally, sensor
nodes in WSNs are powered by non-chargeable batteries, as a
result, when that battery charge depletes, the node stops
functioning.
Energy in WSN nodes is consumed mainly during
transmission and reception of data. Most of the research
literature, like Low energy adaptive clustering hierarchy
(LEACH) in [1], adopt an energy model where the
transmission energy (𝐸) is mainly dominated by the overall
distance between the transmitter and receiver (d), i.e.𝐸 ∝ 𝑑 𝜆 ,
where λ is the path loss exponent and 2 ≤ λ ≤ 4 [2]. This means
that the minimization of transmission distance between nodes
involved in the routing path can reduce the energy
consumption.
Although LEACH and other single-hop routing protocols
still use cluster-based architecture, also known as hierarchical
or two-tier network, there is no inter-cluster communication in
the network because cluster heads (CHs) directly
communicate with the Sink [3]. As a result, this process
requires high range of transmission power in the network
which lead to a significant amount of energy consumption.
Moreover, in many WSNs, CHs are selected from normal
sensor nodes which die quickly from the extra workload they
ISBN 978-1-5386-7365-2/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
The three routing algorithms are executed in two stages.
During the first stage, the WSN is organized into a two tier
architecture by adopting a dynamic clustering algorithm from
LEACH-CS [7]. The second stage routes data by solving an
optimization problem using PSO by implementing each
strategy’s energy cost function as the optimization’s objective
function. When the results are compared with the LEACH-CS
protocol, it is clear that the use of relaying nodes at the upper
tier hierarchy of two-tiered WSN can extend the lifetime of the
network. The results also show that the strategy that maximize
the overall network energy improves the network lifetime
better. Lastly, we assess the impact of incorporating energy
harvesting in the most energy efficient strategy. The results
obtained show that the energy harvesting aware routing
protocol can extend lifetime of WSN than the protocol that is
not.
The outline of the paper is organized as follows. Section II
presents the related literature on routing protocols, energy
harvesting WSNs and PSO overview. Section III presents the
network system model. The analysis and discussion of the
results obtained via MATLAB simulation are provided in
Section IV. Finally, we conclude our finding in Section V.
II. RELATED WORK
In WSN, clustering and routing mechanisms/techniques have
been studied extensively to improve the performance and
prolong lifetime of the network. The core of this mechanisms
is based on energy optimization during the routing processes.
In this section, we present a brief overview of energy efficient
routing protocols, energy harvesting and optimization tools
with an example of PSO.
A. Energy efficient routing approaches
In their survey on energy efficiency in wireless sensor
network, Rault et al, [8], highlighted that energy efficient
routing involve clustering architectures, energy as routing
metric approaches, multi-path routing and multi-hop routing,
relay node placement and sink mobility. In a multi-hop
routing, it is important to emphasize on the energy as a metric
as illustrated by [2], [9], [10], [11], because it can greatly
improve energy balancing in the network. Furthermore,
placement of relay nodes also play a major role as it minimizes
energy consumption and improves link quality by minimizing
the distance between the source node and the next hop [2].
B. Heuristics based Routing protocols
Low energy adaptive clustering hierarchy (LEACH) [1] is
one of the most popular distributed cluster-based routing
protocol in WSN that has been proven to be an effective
approach to prolong the network lifetime. More routing
protocols were developed to improve on the performance of
LEACH in the following research; [7], [12], [13], [14] and
[15]. In LEACH-CS [7], authors implement a sleeping mode
for a percentage of the nodes in the network depending on the
data sent at a certain time. They also select CHs based on the
residual energy where nodes with high remaining energy have
high chance of becoming CHs. This approach corrects one of
the major limitation of LEACH and improves energy
balancing in the network. However, most LEACH based
protocol have a common drawback of encouraging single hop
communication which can be expensive if the distance from
the cluster head (CH) and the sink is large [16].
C. Metaheuristics based multi-hop routing protocols
Due to the nature of multi-hop routing process in WSNs,
which are characterized by determining a set of intermediate
nodes to be selected to form a data forwarding path between
the source and the destination [17], metaheuristics
optimization approaches are well recommended because of
their ability to test every possible solution towards finding the
optional path from the source node to the Sink. Among many
metaheuristics algorithms, PSO has attracted more attention to
researchers focused on WSN lifetime maximization through
enhanced routing protocols, e.g. [9], [11], [2], [18], [19].
According to [20] and [21], PSO has many advantages over
other alternative optimization techniques like Genetic
Algorithms (GA) which include ease of implementation on the
hardware or software, high quality solutions because of its
ability to escape from local optima and quick convenience.
D. Energy Harvesting in WSNs
While sensor nodes in LEACH have a high chance of
becoming CHs because the network is homogeneous, in EH-
WSN proposed by [4], network homogeneity is invalid.
Therefore, the authors in [4] introduced an Energy Potential
Function (EP-Function) to measure a nodes’ capability of
energy harvesting. EP-Function extend the traditional protocol
LEACH to Energy Potential LEACH which is suitable for
energy harvesting WSNs.
In [6], a routing protocol named energy harvesting routing
which takes energy harvesting into account is designed to
improve energy efficiency. In their design, they introduce
hybrid routing metric which combines residual energy and
energy harvesting rate. To efficiently select the next hop, they
present the Time-slot based Information-updating (TI)
Mechanism to update the routing table periodically without
extra overhead.
The authors in [5], propose a solution for energy limitation
of WSN by introducing an Energy Neutral Clustering (ENC)
protocol. This protocol group the sensor nodes in the network
into several clusters with the goal of providing a perpetual
network operation. ENC routing employs a novel CH Group
mechanism that allows a cluster to use multiple CHs to share
heavy load traffic load and reducing the frequency of cluster
re-formation. ENC routing protocol also prevents cluster
failures by ensuring a network wide energy neutral operation.
In this paper, we design a routing protocols using PSO
algorithm to balance energy usage between EH-nodes and O-
nodes in a two-tied WSN. Our analysis deals with an ordinary
WSN and then a later section of the paper deals with analysis
of a homogeneous WSN with energy harvesting nodes, similar
to those in [5] and [6].
III. OVERVIEW OF PSO AND SYSTEM MODEL
A. Overview of PSO
PSO is a swarm intelligence based optimization method. It was
inspired by social behavior of bird flocking or fish schooling
and on how they can explore and exploit the multi-dimensional
search space for food and shelter [18], [21]. PSO has
demonstrated success in solving complex non-linear
optimization problems. It generally optimizes a cost function
using a candidate particle population in the search-space while
conforming to formulae for velocity and position of the
particle [22]. It accomplishes best results using a series of
iterations attempting to enhance a candidate solution’s cost
function value [23]. In each iteration, velocity of each particle
is updated using the current velocity of the particle and the
previous local best and global best position [22]. Finally, the
swarm will meet the optimal positions.
In this paper, we adopt PSO’s intuitive formulation presented
in [24]:
𝑣𝑙𝑚+1 = 𝜑 𝑚 𝑣𝑙𝑚 + 𝛼1 [𝛾1,𝑙 (𝑃𝑙 − 𝑥𝑙𝑚 )] + 𝛼2 [𝛾2,𝑙 (𝐺𝑙 − 𝑥𝑙𝑚 )] (1)
𝑥𝑙 (𝑚 + 1) = 𝑣𝑙 (𝑚 + 1) + 𝑥𝑙 (𝑚) (2)
The vectors 𝑥𝑙𝑚 and 𝑣𝑙𝑚 are the current position and velocity
of the l-th particle in the m-th generation. The swarm consists
of N particles, i.e., l = {1,...,N}. 𝑃𝑙 is the personal best position
of each individual and 𝐺𝑙 is the global best position observed
among all particles up to the current generation. The
Algorithm 1. PSO algorithm
1: for each particle do
2: initialize particle
3: end for
4: while target fitness or maximum epoch is not attained do
5: for each particle do
6: calculate fitness
7: if current fitness value better than (pbest) then
8: pbest=current fitness
9: end for
10: set gbest to the best one among all pbest
11: for each particle do
12: update velocity using (1)
13: update position using (2)
14: end for
15: end while
parameters 𝛾1,2 ∈ [0,1] are uniformly distributed random
values and 𝛼1,2 are acceleration constants. The parameter 𝜑 is
the particle inertia which gives rise to a certain momentum of
the particles. The original PSO algorithm is shown Algorithm
1. Our algorithm uses priority coding to encode routes like in
[21]. The routing tree is built from the encoded particle in a
branch growth process. Each branch is a route from the cluster
head to the Sink.
Figure 1: A sensor node energy consumption components.
B. System Model
1) WSN model
For our model, a two-tier WSN is considered. The network
consists of N sensor nodes, k cluster heads and one Sink. A
stationary deployment of sensor nodes and the Sink is
assumed. A sensor node’s energy consuming components
include sensing module, processing module and transceiver
module as shown in Figure 1. Each sensor node is identified
by a unique ID and the Sink is given the ID of 0. The CH
connect nodes closer to it and each sensor node connect to only
one CH. In the case of an energy harvesting network, we also
assume that all nodes have energy harvesting features to
provide random amounts of additional energy to the nodes.
The lower tier is made up of cluster members (CM) while the
upper tier is made up of cluster heads (CH) and relay nodes
(RN). CMs can also be relay nodes. Energy is consumed by
both CH & CM for sensing, receiving and transmitting data.
2) Energy consumption model
Multiple models for energy consumption and link quality exist
– i.e. Euclidian Distance Factor (EDF) energy model used in
LEACH [1], Receiver Signal Strength Index (RSSI) energy
and link quality model [21] and power transmission control
(PTC) energy model [25], [26].
In this paper we adopt a simplified EDF energy model similar
to that applied in [5], for receiving and transmission energy as
shown in (3) and (4), respectively.
𝐸𝑅𝑥(𝑖) = 𝜀𝑟𝑥 ∙ 𝑏𝑡𝑖 (3)
2
𝜀𝑡𝑥 ∙ 𝑏𝑡𝑖 + 𝑏𝑡𝑖 ∙ 𝜀ℎ𝑜𝑝 ∙ 𝑑𝑖.𝑗 𝑖𝑓 𝑑 < 𝜆
𝐸𝑇𝑥(𝑖,𝑗) = { 4 (4)
𝜀𝑡𝑥 ∙ 𝑏𝑡𝑖 + 𝑏𝑡𝑖 ∙ 𝜀ℎ𝑜𝑝 ∙ 𝑑𝑖.𝑗 𝑖𝑓 𝑑 ≥ 𝜆
where constant 𝜀𝑟𝑥 and 𝜀𝑡𝑥 are the amounts of energy
consumed by the sensor node electronics to receive and
transmit message packets, respectively. 𝜀ℎ𝑜𝑝 is the
transmitting amplifier coefficient, 𝑏𝑡𝑖 is the number of bits in
the message packet and 𝑑𝑖,𝑗 is the Euclidian distance between
node i and j while λ is the cross over distance. When d is
smaller than λ, the path loss can be treated as Fris free space
2 12:
loss with 𝑑𝑖.𝑗 power attenuation. When d is larger than λ, the
path loss model can be approximated as a two ray multi-path
4
propagation model with 𝑑𝑖.𝑗 power attenuation.
Due to different task requirements, the Cluster Member
(CM) and the Cluster Head (CH) consume energy in different
ways. For sensors that are selected to be the CM, energy will
be spent on information sensing and data packet transmission.
Thus, based on (5), the total amount of energy consumed by a
CM to sense and transmit bits in the message packet is
estimated by;
𝐸𝐶𝑀(𝑖) = 𝜀𝑠𝑥 + 𝐸𝑇𝑥(𝑖,𝑗) (5)
where 𝜀𝑠𝑥 is the amount of energy consumed to sense
information and 𝐸𝑇𝑥(𝑖,𝑗) is given by (4).
A CH will consume energy to receive data packets sent
from the CMs. It also consumes energy to send the combined
data packets to the Sink. Thus, for a cluster k, if it has 𝑁𝑘 CMs,
the total amount of energy consumed by the CH to handle
(sense, receive and then transmit) information sent by the CMs
is estimated as follows;
𝐸𝐶𝐻(𝑖) = 𝜀𝑠𝑋 + 𝐸𝑅𝑥(𝑖) ∙ 𝑁𝑘 + 𝐸𝑇𝑥(𝑖,𝑗) ∙ (𝑁𝑘 + 1) (6)
The energy consumed for relaying traffic messages is given
by:
𝐸𝑅(𝑖) = 𝐸𝑅𝑥(𝑖) ∙ 𝑁𝑅 + 𝐸𝑇𝑥(𝑖,𝑗) ∙ 𝑁𝑅 ) (7)
where 𝑁𝑅 is the number of nodes whose traffic is being
relayed. For each node in the network, the energy used per
messaging round is calculated using (8). When the node is not
a relay node, 𝑁𝑅 = 0 and hence 𝐸𝑅𝑥(𝑖) = 0 as well.
𝐸𝐶𝑀(𝑖) + 𝐸𝑅(𝑖) ; 𝑖 ≡ 𝐶𝑀
𝐸𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑𝑖 = { (8)
𝐸𝐶𝐻(𝑖) + 𝐸𝑅(𝑖) ; 𝑖 ≡ 𝐶𝐻
It is also important to compute the remaining energy after a
messaging round by using the formula below:
𝐸𝑁𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑖 = 𝐸𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖 − 𝐸𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑𝑖 (9)
Where 𝐸𝑁𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑖 is the remaining energy after a round, 𝐸𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖 is
the previous round energy of a node in the network, 𝐸𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑𝑖 is
the energy consumed by the i-th node.
C. Energy Efficient Protocols
In this paper, we compare three energy efficient routing
strategies based on (PSO) algorithm. The three strategies are
individually implemented as fitness functions of the PSO
algorithm in Algorithm 2. The optimal route is therefore
obtained from the global best particle, 𝐺𝑙 . The simulation
Algorithm 2. Simulation Algorithm
1: Load WSN and energy parameters
2: while the stopping condition has not been met do
3: Establish network clusters
4: Find the optimal route using Algorithm 1
5: Decode the routing particle into a routing tree
6: Run messaging round using the new routing tree
7: if minimum network energy is less than zero then
8: The stopping condition has been reached
9: end if
10: if maximum number of rounds is reached then
11: The stopping condition has been reached
end if
13: Display results
algorithm for these energy efficient routing strategies is
presented below:
i. Maximizes the minimum energy in the network –this strategy
discourages the use of the weakest node in the network to save
its energy and therefore extend the network’s lifetime. This
leaves the nodes with low energy unused until their energy is
higher relative to all other nodes in the network while
sacrificing nodes with the highest energy. As a result, energy
consumption is equally balanced across the network which
extend network lifetime under a definition of first node dead
(FND). The strategy fitness function is given by (10).
𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡1 = max {min(𝐸𝑁𝑒𝑥𝑡 )} (10)
𝑙 𝑖 𝑖
Where 𝑙 is the particle index.
ii. Maximize the overall average network energy – this strategy
computes different routes and select the routes that result with
the lowest average energy consumption. In this way, the
strategy attempts to balance the energy used by all nodes in the
network:
1 of these protocols in terms of energy efficiency and lifetime.
𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡2 = max {𝑁 ∑𝑁
𝑖=1 𝐸𝑁𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑖 } (11)
𝑙 For energy efficiency, we consider average node energy to
Where N is the number of nodes in the network.
iii. Maximize the minimum energy while improving network
latency– Besides being energy-efficient, this strategy also
attempts to improve network latency by reducing the number
of hops from the CH to the sink. In this way, data from the CM
takes the shortest route to the sink. This strategy is represented
as follows:
𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡3 = max {𝑤 ∙ min(𝐸𝑁𝑒𝑥𝑡 )} + (1 − 𝑤) ∙ 𝑁(𝑄), 0 ≤ 𝑤 ≤ 1 (12)
𝑙 𝑖 𝑖
residual energy. Furthermore, CHs are allocated an equal
number of member nodes per messaging round. Member
nodes are subsequently associated to CHs closest to them.
B. Network lifetime simulations
In this section, the performance of the proposed routing
protocols is investigated. The simulation was carried out in
MATLAB platform. The routing Algorithm 2 incorporates the
PSO to execute the cost functions discussed in Section III.C.
The PSO parameters used are as follows: φ = 0.1, 𝛼1 = 0.25,
𝛼2 = 3, N = 60 and number of generation is 60.
A random WSN was created with a Sink, CMs and CHs. We
assume that all the sensors have the same hardware capabilities
and initial energy 𝐸𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 of 20 J. The energy consumption
model uses the following parameters adapted from [5] for
simulation settings; 𝜀𝑆𝑥 = 100 nJ / bit, 𝜀𝑅𝑥 = 100 nJ / bit, 𝜀𝑇𝑥 =
50 nJ / bit, 𝜀ℎ𝑜𝑝 = 100 pJ / bit / m2. The network is executed
until the last node dies with sensor nodes generating messages
that have a payload of 6400 bits per messaging round. In this
way, we obtain results allowing us to assess the performance
determine how effective the routing strategy is. For network
lifetime, we consider three common definitions of network
lifetimes as defined by [27]. That is, first node dies (FND), half
nodes die (HND) and last node dies (LND)
C. Results and analysis
Figure 2 shows the results of average node energy per
messaging round when comparing the three strategies and
LEACH-CS in terms of energy efficiency. 𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡2 out performs

where 𝑤 is the multi-objective weighting parameter and
𝑁(𝑄) the total number of nodes used by the resulting routing
path. The value of w determines the importance of a one
objective over the other. If the multi-objective weighting
parameter (w), is equal to 1, then network latency is ignored.
However, if w is 0, the new route tree is solely based on
maximizing the network lifetime. If w is less than 1, the
protocol is partially focused on reducing network latency as
well reducing average network energy. This cost function is
similar to the one implemented in [21] for energy balancing in
the WSN.
𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡1 , 𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡3 and LEACH-CS when balancing average node
energy across the network. This is because 𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡2 maintains
the energy of nodes with higher energy high to keep the
network average energy high as it selects routing paths with
low average energy. 𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡1 , on the other hand, cannot maintain
average node energy since its objective is to balance average
network energy by keeping the minimum node energy as high
as possible throughout the network lifetime. Furthermore, the
network of 𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡1 suffer sudden death as shown in Figure 2
because all the node always has more or less the same energy
after every round, hence they all die simultaneously.

D. Energy Harvesting
From the above energy efficient routing strategies, we choose
the one that gives the highest network lifetime and incorporate
energy harvesting into it to further improve the network
lifetime. To make the newly constructed protocol energy
harvesting aware, the formula for 𝐸𝑁𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑖 is modified as
indicated in (13).
𝐸𝑁𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑖 = 𝐸𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖 − 𝐸𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑𝑖 + 𝐸𝑅𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑖 (13)

IV. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

A. Benchmark protocol
In this paper we use a variant of the original LEACH protocol
that implements centralized sleeping (CS), called LEACH-CS,
as a benchmark. We also adopted its clustering algorithm in
our proposed PSO routing algorithm. LEACH-CS, introduced
in [7], uses a clustering algorithm that dynamically selects a Figure 2: Comparison of average node energy per messaging round
predefined percentage of nodes as CHs based the highest
 Figure 3: Comparison of alive nodes per messaging round
Figure 4: Comparison of network lifetime (𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡2 +Energy harvesting
Average node energy)
The results further show that average node energy is
proportional to network lifetime as shown in Figure 2 and 3.
𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡1 strategy result in the WSN taking periods of 385
messaging rounds before the first nodes dies while 𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡2 takes
337 messaging rounds before FND as shown in Figure 3. It can
also be noted that 𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡2 performs better than other strategies
in terms of HND as it takes up to 1025 messaging rounds
before 50% of the nodes become dead. 𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡2 further gives the
best performance of almost 1178 messaging rounds before the
last node is dead. This performance is superior to that of the
benchmark LEACH-CS protocol that gives only 988
messaging rounds before the last node is dead.
𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡3 executes a similar routing process as 𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡1 , but also
reduces network latency. For example, when w=1,
𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡3 =𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡1 , and network latency is ignored. In this study, w
was set to 0.5, hence why the network last longer than 𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡1
in terms of FND, HND and LND.
Since 𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡2 proves to be the most energy efficient strategy,
it is enhanced to make it EH-aware by substituting (7) with
(11) into a new algorithm called 𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡2 +EH. A performance
comparison of 𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡2 +EH with LEACH-CS in an energy
harvesting WSN is shown in Figure 4 and 5 in terms of average
node energy and alive nodes per messaging round
Figure 5: Comparison of network lifetime with Energy Harvesting (Alive
nodes per round)
respectively. Since nodes are getting random amounts of
energy during the harvesting process for every messaging
round, 𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡2 +EH still maintain the average node energy well
until the average node energy reaches 20% of initial energy
after 800 messaging rounds as shown in Figure 4. However,
the network still survives until 1800 messaging rounds. It is
important to indicate that 𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡2 +EH extended network
lifetime until 50% of nodes die and eventually suffer a sudden
death as shown in Figure 5. In general, the results show that
energy harvesting can improve network lifetime by more than
50% when compared to non-energy harvesting network using
𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡2 .
V. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the strategy that maximizes the average network
energy can extend the lifetime of the WSN considerably as
opposed to maximizing minimum node energy when network
lifetime is defined by the last node dead. However, this is
achieved by sacrificing nodes with the least amount of energy.
Furthermore, this proposed protocol also adapts easily to
energy harvesting function since it considers nodes with the
high energy level for relaying massages traffic. Results show
that energy harvesting can double the network lifetime. More
work needs to be done to consider other factors such as link
quality, network coverage, traffic aggregation by CH, the route
cost and network convergence rate.
REFERENCES
[1] W. B. Heinzelman, A. P. Chandrakasan and H.
Balakrishnan, "An application-specific protocol
architecture for wireless microsensor networks," IEEE
Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 1, no. 4,
pp. 660-670, 2002.
[2] P. Kuila and P. K. Jana, "Energy efficient clustering and
routing algorithms for wireless sensor networks: Particle
Swarm Optimization approach," Engineering
 Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 33, pp. 127-
140, 2014.
[3] A. Braman and G. R. Umapathi, "A Comparative Study
on Advances in LEACH Routing Protocol for Wireless
Sensor Networks:A survey," International Journal of
Advanced Research in Computer and Communication
Engineering, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 5683-5690, 2014.
[4] M. Xiao, X. Zhang and Y. Dong, "An Effective Routing
Protocol for Energy Harvesting Wireless Sensor
Networks," in 2013 IEEE Wireless Communications and
Networking Conference (WCNC): NETWORKS, 2013.
[5] S. Peng, T. Wang and C. P. Low, "Energy neutral
Clastering for energy harvesting wireless senoror
networks," Ad Hock Networks, vol. 28, pp. 1-16, 2015.
[6] Y. Cao, X.-Y. Liu, L. Kong, M.-Y. Wu and M. K. Khan,
"EHR: Routing Protocol for Energy Harvesting Wireless
Sensor Networks," in 2016 IEEE 22nd International
Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 2016.
[7] A. A. Hady, S. M. Abd El-kader and H. S. Eissa,
"Intelligent Sleeping Mechanism for wireless sensor
networks," Egyptian Informatics Journal, vol. 14, no. 2,
pp. 109-115, 2013.
[8] T. Rault, A. Bouabdallah and Y. Challal, "Energy
Efficiency in wireless sensor networks: A top-down
surver," Computer Network, vol. 64, pp. 104-122, 2015.
[9] R. S. Elhabyan and M. C. Yagoub, "PSO-HC: Particle
Swarm Optimization Protocol for Hierarchical
Clustering in Wireless Sensor Networks," in 10th IEEE
International Conference on Collaborative Computing:
Networking, Applications and Worksharing
(CollaborateCom 2014), Miami, FL, USA, 2014.
[10] A. Adamou Abba Ari, B. Omer Yenke, N. Labrauoi and
I. Damakoa, "A power efficient cluster-based routing
algorithm for wireless sensor networks: Haneybees
swarm intelligent based aproach," Journal of Networks
and Comuter Applications, vol. 69, pp. 77-97, 2016.
[11] S. Kaur and R. Mahajan, "Hybrid meta-heuristic
optimization based energy efficient protocol for wireless
sensor networks," Egyptian Informatics Journal, 2018.
[12] M. J. Usman, Z. Xing, H. Chiroma and T. Herawan,
"Modified Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy
Protocol for Efficient Energy Consumption in Wireless
Sensor Networks," 2014.
[13] M. O. Farooq, A. B. Dogar and G. A. Shah, "MR-
LEACH: Multi-hop Routing with Low Energy Adaptive
Clustering Hierarchy," in 2010 Fourth International
Conference on Sensor Technologies and Applications
(SENSORCOMM), Venice, Italy, 2010.
[14] F. Fanian, M. K. Rafsanjani and V. K. Bardsiri, "A
Survey of Advanced LEACH-based Protocols,"
International Journal of Energy, Information and
Communications, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1-16, 2016.
[15] R. P. Mahapatra and R. K. Yadav, "Descendant of
LEACH Based Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor
View publication stats
Networks," Procedia Computer Science, vol. 57, pp.
1005-1014, 2015.
[16] J. Roselin, p. Latha and S. Benitta, "Maximizing the
wireless sensor networks lifetime through energy
efficient connected coverage," Ad Hoc Networks, vol.
62, pp. 1-10, 2017.
[17] M. A. Zungeru, L.-M. Ang and K. P. Seng, "Classical
and swarm intelligence based routing protocols for
wireless sensor network: A survey and comparison,"
Journal of Network and Computer Applications, vol. 35,
pp. 1508-1536, 2012.
[18] M. Azharuddin and J. K. Prasanta, "Particle swarm
optimization for maximizing lifetime of wireless sensor
networks," Computer & Electrical Engineering, vol. 51,
pp. 26-42, 2016.
[19] R. Sudarmani and K. R. Shanker Kumar, "Particle
Swarm Optimization-Based Routing Protocol for
Clustered Heterogeneous Sensor Networks with Mobile
Sink," American Journal of Applied Sciences, vol. 10,
no. 3, pp. 259-269, 2013.
[20] W. Guo and W. Zhang, "A survey on intelligent routing
protocols in wireless sensor networks," Journal of
Network and Computer Applications, vol. 38, pp. 185-
201, 2014.
[21] R. S. Elhabyan and M. C. Yagoab, "Two-tier particle
swarm optimization protocol for clustering and routing
in wireless sensor network," Journal of Networks and
Computer Application, vol. 52, pp. 116-128, 2015.
[22] P. C. Srinivasa Rao, J. K. Prasanta and H. Banka, "A
particle swarm optimization based energy efficient
cluster head selection algorithm for wireless sensor
networks," The Journal of Mobile Communication,
Computation and Information, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1-16.
[23] R. RejinaParvin and C. Vasanthanayaki, "Particle
Swarm Optimization-Based Clustering by Preventing
Residual Nodes in Wireless Sensor Networks," IEEE
Sensors Journal, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 4264-4274, 2015.
[24] S. Ebbesen, P. Kiwitz and L. Guzzella, "A generic
Particle Swarm Optimization Matlab Function," in 2012
American Control conference, 2012.
[25] S. Lin, F. Miao, J. Zhang, G. Zhou, L. Gu, T. He, J. A.
Stankovic, S. Son and G. J. Pappas, "ATPC: Adaptive
transmission power control for wireless sensor
networks," ACM Trans. Sen., vol. 12, no. 1, 2016.
[26] S. Kurt, H. U. Yildiz, M. Yigit, B. Tavli and V. C.
Gungor, "Packet Size Optimization in Wireless Sensor
Networks for Smart Grid Applications," IEEE
TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS,,
vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 2392-2401, 2017.
[27] N. H. Mak and W. K. Seah, "How long is the lifetime of
a wireless sensor network?," in 2009 International
Conference on Advanced Information Networking and
Applications, Bradford, UK, 2009.