Sensor Deployment for Target Coverage in

Underwater Wireless Sensor Network

1,#
D.Arivudainambi, 2,#S.Balaji, 3,*T.S.Poorani
#
Department of Mathematics
*
Department of Information and Science Technology
CEG Campus, Anna University
Chennai, India
1
arivu@annauniv.edu, 2skbalaji28@gmail.com, 3pooranists@gmail.com

Abstract—Underwater wireless sensor network has fetched the
attention of many researchers from the past few years due to its wide
range of applications. To implement the UWSN in real-time, efficient
techniques of deployment, scheduling, routing, and communication
are required. But the research works in UWSN are relatively less
when compared to conventional Terrestrial WSN. Hence a
deterministic deployment strategy for deployment of sensors in a
three-dimensional underwater environment with the intention of
minimizing the energy consumption is proposed. The deployment of
sensors is modeled as an optimization problem with the objective of
maximizing the target coverage with a minimum number of sensors.
In order to address the target coverage problem, a nature-inspired
evolutionary algorithm called Cuckoo search algorithm is proposed to
find the optimal locations of the sensors. The efficiency of the
proposed algorithm is assessed in terms of coverage rate, by varying
the number of targets, sensing range and number of sensors for both
large-scale and small-scale networks and also compared with random
deployment.
Keywords - Cuckoo search: Deterministic deployment: Levy
Flight: Target Coverage: Underwater WSN.
I. INTRODUCTION
A Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) consists of spatially
distributed sensor nodes to monitor physical or
environmental conditions. Wireless sensor network based on
their environment can be categorized into Terrestrial,
Underground, Underwater WSNs. Among these various
WSNs, Underwater Wireless Sensor Network (UWSN) has
fetched the attention of many researchers from the past few
years. UWSN [1] also known as Underwater Acoustic Sensor
Networks (UW-ASN) are defined as the collection of a large
number of sensors that are deployed underwater and on the
surface water with the help of surface buoys, to perform the
collaborative monitoring and tracking tasks over the specified
or target area. It has a wide range of applications [2] of which
oceanographic data collection, environment and pollution
monitoring, ocean sampling, assisted navigation, disaster
prevention, tsunami, and seaquake warning, mine
reconnaissance and distributed tactical surveillance are few
among them.
Though there exists numerous efficient techniques to
implement conventional WSN, this cannot be applied to
UWSN. This is because there are quite a lot of differences
between underwater and terrestrial WSNs. Acoustic waves are
used in UWSN instead of radio or optical waves. This is
because radio waves can propagate in conductive seawater
only at extra low frequencies requiring high transmission
power and large antennae which ramps up the energy
consumption and cost of the sensor nodes to manifold. Though
this high attenuation does not occur in optical waves, they are
degraded by scattering and require high precision in pointing
theatrics narrow laser beams. Other new challenges are posed
due to the continuous passive mobility of the sensors which
occur due to the velocity of waves of the underwater
environment. This causes difficulty to ensure the connectivity,
coverage, and location of the sensor nodes at a time. In
addition to these, underwater sensor nodes are more liable to
failure [1], [3] due to the environmental constraints which
make the replacement and recharge of the sensor nodes more
difficult than the terrestrial sensor nodes.
Due to these major differences and new challenges posed by
UWSN, and also based on the fact that the problems of
deployment, coverage, and routing in UWSN are addressed in
a relatively less number of works when compared with the
Terrestrial WSN, framing new strategies and techniques to
deal with the problems of UWSN is indispensable. For any
kind of WSN, the foundation for an energy efficient and long
lasting WSN lies in the proper deployment of the sensor
nodes. In UWSNs, there are two types [2] of communication
architectures: In 2D UWSN the nodes are deployed on the
surface of ocean bed to monitor only the ocean bed while in
3D UWSN, the sensor nodes are anchored to the ocean bed
and allowed to float at required depth to monitor a certain
volume. Considering the deployment of sensor nodes is widely
divided into random and deterministic deployment. In random
deployment, nodes are randomly scattered on the water surface
from ships or planes. But random deployment fails to attain
the coverage and connectivity constraints. Deterministic
deployment [4] involves the placement of sensor nodes in pre-
determined locations based on some optimization algorithm.
Further, in 3D communication architecture, the deployment
based on the node mobility can be classified into static
deployment, limited mobility deployment, and free mobility
deployment. In static deployment, the nodes cannot be moved
after deployment. Limited mobility deployment [5] allows
adjustment of the depth of the node. Free mobility deployment
nodes can move in all possible directions.
A sensor deployment technique focuses on ensuring
coverage and connectivity of a wireless sensor network.
Considering the coverage problem of the WSN, coverage is
broadly classified into area coverage, target coverage, and presented an underwater sensor deployment technique based
border coverage. Target coverage focuses on monitoring on the connected dominating set with the objectives of
certain specific points called targets, in the area considered. increasing the network coverage rate and ensuring the network
Target coverage is further divided into three types: In simple connectivity. Because nodes become easily invalid in the
coverage, at least one sensor monitors each target, in k- underwater environment, an optimization algorithm [14] for
coverage each target is monitored by at least k sensors and Q- node redeployment to reduce the invalidation of nodes and at
coverage is used when the importance of the targets varies the same time to ensure coverage is presented. Wolf search
where each target has to be monitored by a different number of algorithm is implemented to imitate the wolf’s mechanism of
sensors. Among the different types of target coverage, simple avoiding predators, considering obstacles as predators. Particle
coverage is addressed in this paper. swarm optimization inspired by fish schooling [15] is used to
According to the node energy consumption model [5], the maximize the network coverage with a minimum number of
energy consumed for sensing, processing, and receiving data is sensors. Vector and position parameters are assigned to every
negligible when compared with the energy consumed for particle, which are updated during each iteration to search for
moving and transmission of data. Considering this, static a global optimum solution. A deployment strategy [16] to
deployment technique using Cuckoo Search Algorithm (CSA) place the underwater sensor nodes and gateway nodes in a
is proposed, to achieve high target coverage rate at minimum two-dimensional communication architecture to monitor the
energy consumption during the deployment process, thereby coastline is proposed. However, queuing delay is ignored.
increasing the lifetime of the network considerably. Deployment strategy [17] to find the optimal location in a
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section II, the three-dimensional underwater environment is proposed, with
related works about deployment techniques. Section III, the the objective of minimizing the transmission loss for a given
description of the problem dealt in this paper followed by its frequency at a certain depth. Guaranteed full connectivity node
illustration. In Section IV, CSA and its implementation for deployment algorithm [4] is proposed for initial deployment of
target coverage problem are explained. Section V gives the sensors ensuring full network connectivity.
simulation results. In Section VI concludes the paper.
III. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
II. RELATED WORKS Consider a 3D underwater region of length, breadth, and
The existing algorithms for the node deployment problem height A (Area) encompassing a set of m targets
are of two types: random and deterministic deployment. As T = {T1 , T2 ,....., Tm } that are to be monitored by n sensors
mentioned earlier, deterministic deployment has fetched S = {S1 , S 2 ,....., S n } . It is possible to monitor a target T j by a
attention due to its monitoring capability. First, the existing
sensor Si , if and only if the target T j lies within the sensing
sensor deployment techniques in Terrestrial WSN are briefed
out followed by deployment techniques in UWSN. Vijayaraju range of the sensor Si . That is, if R is the sensing range of the
et al. [6] have proposed a deterministic deployment technique sensor S i , ( xi , yi , zi ) and ( x j , y j , z j ) are co-ordinates of Si
for target coverage problem with the objectives of finding
and Tj respectively, then
optimal sensor locations using hybrid algorithm. A Genetic
Algorithm (GA) with the objective of finding the optimal (x − xj ) + (y − yj ) + (z − zj ) ≤ R ,
2 2 2
dist ( Si , T j ) = i i i
(1)
sensor locations [7] and maximizing the number of disjoint
fo r 1 ≤ i ≤ n ,1 ≤ j ≤ m .
cover sets to address the target coverage problem is proposed.
Considering certain benchmark functions, CSA is found to From the position of the sensors and targets and the sensing
outperform [8] PSO and GA in achieving convergence at a range of the sensor, coverage matrix is defined to identify the
faster pace. In [9], the sensors are divided into set of disjoint sensors that monitor each target. The coverage matrix is
subset of sensor covers that ensures target coverage. represented as,
Maximum number of such sensor covers is obtained using § φ11 φ12 " φ1m ·
¨ ¸ ­0, dist ( Si , Tj ) > R
improved memetic algorithm and each cover is activated one φ φ " φ °
φ =¨
2m ¸
21 22
, whereφij = ® (2)
after the other to increase network’s lifetime. This work is ¨. ¸
. " . °̄1 , dist ( Si , Tj ) ≤ R
further improved [10] by employing adjustable sensing range. ¨¨ ¸¸
And it is still more extended to reduce the redundant target © φnj φnj " φnm ¹
coverage [11], by optimizing the sensing range. Virtual Force for 1 ≤ i ≤ n , 1 ≤ j ≤ m.
Algorithm (VFA) [12] is applied for the deployment of sensors The number of sensors covering each target is obtained by
to enhance the sensor field coverage for a given number of summing up the coverage matrix column-wise and is
sensors employing repulsive and attractive forces. VFA is a represented as
force-directed approach. But for NP-hard problems like n

deployment meta-heuristic algorithms like CSA gives better ω = {ω1 , ω 2 ,...., ω m } , where ω j = ¦φ
i =1
ij
(3)
results. Though there are a number of efficient deployment From this, the number of non-zero elements of ω gives the
techniques available in Terrestrial WSN, it can be applied only number of targets covered for a given set of sensor locations,
to monitor surfaces of underwater. which represents the fitness value for that set of sensor
A deployment technique [13] to maximize the QoC and area locations. Fitness function for a given set of sensor locations is
coverage in 3D terrains is presented. Cat swarm optimization given as,
algorithm along with wavelet transform is used. Jiang et al. [5]
 n ωj deployment of sensors does not address the target coverage
Fitness value = ¦ , for 1 ≤ j ≤ m,1 ≤ i ≤ n. (4) problem. Hence deterministic deployment where the pre-
i =1 m
determined locations can be obtained by different strategies is
The ultimate aim of distributing the sensors in an
utilized. But bearing in mind the limited battery power of
underwater region is to ensure the coverage of every target by
sensor nodes, the static deployment which is a one-time
at least one sensor. This results in a target coverage problem
deployment is utilized in this paper. To determine the optimal
for which the solution arrives on maximizing the fitness
sensor locations, CSA that gives global optimal solution is
function. To accomplish this a static deployment technique is
proposed.
applied with the knowledge of the predetermined location of
the sensor nodes. The optimal sensor node locations are
IV. IMPLEMENTATION OF CUCKOO SEARCH IN
evaluated by improvement of the random location iteratively
SENSOR DEPLOYMENT
by applying CSA. The final solution set is represented as nest
Nl = {C1 , C2 ,....., Cn } where each Ci represents the encoded form of
CSA is a globally optimizing evolutionary algorithm based
on the unique breeding behavior [18] of the cuckoo and the
the coordinates of the sensor Si that maximize the coverage
pattern which birds use to search their food called Levy's
rate of the selected region. Thus, the target coverage problem flight. Their flight pattern exhibits a series of straight Àight
can be solved and the required solution set can be obtained by paths punctuated by a sudden 90o turn, leading to a Levy-
maximization of Equation(4). Àight. This behavior avoids them from being stuck in one
A. Illustration direction and enables to search in other possible directions
globally. And also, the optimizing capability of cuckoo search
Consider a 3D network of length, breadth, and height 100 algorithm [8] is tested with four benchmark functions and 10-
units. It is randomly distributed with 12 targets which are to be dimensional rastrigin function and also compared with other
monitored by 5 sensors. The sensors considered here are evolutionary algorithms.
omnidirectional, underwater sensors with a sensing range of A population consisting of many candidate solutions that
30. The sensors are randomly deployed as shown in Fig. 1. are randomly generated is initialized first. Then these
The coordinates of the randomly deployed sensors are randomly generated solutions are improved generation after
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 generation until it reaches the maximum number of
(5)
§ x · § 88 56 66 35 59 · generations. Improvement of the initial solution is done by
¨ ¸ ¨ ¸
¨ y ¸ = ¨ 65 6 18 67 73 ¸ performing Levy flight on a population, abandoning worst
¨ z ¸ ¨ 85 90 19 99 56 ¸
© ¹ © ¹ solutions and retaining quality solutions. Levy Àight to
The randomly generated coordinates of the targets are generate a new solution xi ( t +1) for a cuckoo (solution) i is
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12
§ x · § 7 99 52 14 31 47 31 97 8 55 6 67 ·
performed as follows,
¨ ¸ ¨ ¸ xi ( t +1) = xit + α ⊕ Levy ( λ ) , (7)
¨ y ¸ = ¨87 86 18 4 30 65 39 89 80 20 95 40¸
¨ z ¸ ¨ 94 79 40 94 34 3 98 99 4 18 76 8 ¸
© ¹ © ¹ where α > 0 is the step size.Levy Àights essentially provide a
The coverage matrix is generated for the randomly deployed random walk while their random steps are drawn from a Levy
sensors is shown in Fig.1. distribution for large steps
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 Levy ∼ u = t − λ , (1 < λ ≤ 3), (8)
S1 ª 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0º (6) which has an infinite variance with an infinite mean.
S2 « 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 »»
«
φ = S3 « 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1» A. Representation
« »
S4 « 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0»
S5 «¬ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 »¼
The initial population consists of a set of a fixed number of
populations; each population is represented in the form of a
From the coverage matrix, the number of sensors covering
matrix with k rows and n columns, where k and n are number
each target is evaluated as ω = {0 ,1,1, 0 , 0, 0 ,1,1, 0 ,1, 0 ,1} and the
of nests and number of sensors respectively. Each nest has co-
fitness value is evaluated to 6 . ordinates for n sensors in encoded form, that is if the
dimension of the region to be monitored is 100 × 100 × 100 and
(28, 67, 45) is the co-ordinate of any sensor it is represented as
286745. The general form of the population representation is:
pop1 = {N1 , N 2 , N3 .....Nk }, where Nl = {C1 , C2 ,....Cn }, for 1 ≤ l ≤ k.
Each coordinate Ci represents the encoded form of the
coordinates of a sensor Si , for 1 ≤ i ≤ n and Ci belongs to nest
Nl .

B. Generation of initial population

Fig. 1 Randomly deployed sensors
Because of the random deployment of sensors, most of the
targets are left uncovered. Hence it is evident that random
The parameters required to generate the initial population
are population size, area, number of sensors, and nest size. Let
the population size be 20, volume 100 ×100 ×100 , number of
sensors 5 and nest size 8 . The population matrix pop1 among
the 20 populations is represented as
p o p1 = { N 1 , N 2 , N 3 , N 4 , N 5 , N 6 , N 7 , N 8 } where, § § πβ · ·
ª º ¨ γ (1 + β ) sin ¨ 2 ¸ ¸
N1 = [156676,430475,928540,809466,966818 ] , ησ » × ε t , where σ = © © ¹¹
α = «0.1× 1 ,
N2 = [718344,47039,283277,59680,10041 9 ] , « » i 1

¬« ηβ ¼» § §1+ β · ·
β −1 β (12)
N3 = [ 4 9 2 8 5 0 ,4 5 6 8 9 6 ,6 5 6 6 3 5 ,7 1 1 7 5 9 ,7 6 1 2 2 3 ] , ¨ γ ¨ 2 ¸ β ( 2) 2 ¸
© © ¹ ¹
N4 = [8 8 6 5 8 5, 5 6 6 9 0, 6 6 1 8 1 9, 3 5 6 7 9 9 , 5 9 7 3 5 6 ] ,
3
N5 = [3 5 3 6 2 9 ,2 0 8 4 7 6 ,2 6 5 9 7 6 ,6 2 5 5 3 9 ,4 8 9 2 5 7 ] , β = and η ∈ ( 0,100 ) .
2
N6 = [8 1 3 1 7 ,6 5 7 8 0 ,5 4 4 7 3 2 ,7 8 0 2 5 3 ,9 4 3 4 1 7 ] ,
By the aforementioned procedure, levy flight is performed
N7 = [ 6 1 4 6 8 3 ,2 7 0 9 5 4 ,6 6 2 4 0 0 ,6 9 9 2 0 8 ,7 5 1 6 4 5 ] , on a random population. For simplicity, consider only the nest
N 8 = [118744,970992,14019,782627,828115] . N 4 of pop1 at generation t . After performing levy flight nest
In a similar way, remaining 19 populations are initialized N 4t is transformed to
randomly constituting the initial population set. Each
population has 8 (Nest size) different candidate solutions N4 = [829979,572421,226918,232575,108489] . The fitness value
(t +1)

consisting the encoded coordinates of the 5 (Number of for the new solution is calculated as 12using (1),(2),(3)and (4)
sensors) sensors. Initially, the sensor coordinates are randomly .Thus, we could see a significant increase in the fitness value
initialized to any number between (0, A) . Let X i , Yi , Z i be the by using Levy flight. This fitness value is compared with the
fitness value of the randomly selected nest from the initial
randomly generated coordinates of the sensor and Ci be its population. If the fitness value of the cuckoo obtained by levy
encoded form for 1 ≤ i ≤ n . The randomly generated co- flight is greater than the randomly selected nest, the
ordinates ( X i , Yi , Z i ) of sensor S i are encoded and decoded in coordinates of the new cuckoo replace the nest. The network
the following way diagram of the improved solution is shown in Fig. 2. In a
(9) similar manner, Levy flight is performed for all the nests in a
Ci = ( X i × A2 ) + (Yi × A) + Zi
population.
X =
Ci
,Y =
Ci
mod A, and Z = C mod A
(10)
i
A2
i
A
i i
E. Abandoning worst nests
From the initial population a fraction pa of worst nests, that
C. Fitness function
is nests having least fitness values are abandoned and new
A fitness function is used to evaluate the fitness value for a nests are built by levy flight using (11) and (12), to
nest (solution), a population. Consider the network mentioned compensate for the abandoned nests. Depending on the value
in Section IV-B and III-A as an example. The fitness value of of pa the number of nests to be abandoned is decided. In this
a nest N 4 is calculated from the coverage matrix evaluated
way, the worst solutions are removed and quality solutions are
in(6), which is plotted based on the distance between the retained.
sensors and targets as given in (1) and (2). From (3) the
number of sensors monitoring each target is calculated as
ω = {0,1,1, 0, 0, 0,1,1, 0,1, 0,1} . From ω the fitness value of the nest
is evaluated to 6, using(4). The maximum of the fitness values
of the nest gives the fitness value of the population.
D. Cuckoo selection by Levy flight
A cuckoo is randomly selected from the initial population
set that is a random population (solution) from 20 populations
is selected and levy flight of those coordinates is performed.
Let the co-ordinates of any nest of randomly selected
population before levy flight be Fig. 2 Sensor deployment after Levy flight
N4 = [886585, 56690, 661819, 356799, 597356 ] ,
of pop1 which is expanded as given in (5) using (10).Levy V. SIMULATION
flight is performed for the co-ordinates of each sensor. Let ε i
t
The simulation of the proposed algorithm is performed
be the current coordinate of a sensor S i . Since levy flight is a using MATLAB software working on a Windows10 operating
system with Intel Core Processor having 4GB RAM and
Markov chain and its next location depends only on the
2.3GHz speed. Several parameters of the CSA are initialized
current location, it is transformed to the following notation
as follows: number of generations is fixed to 50, population
ε q ( t +1) = ε qt + α ⊕ Levy (λ ) , (11)
size p is equal to 20, nest size k is equal to 8, and fraction pa
where α > 0 is the step size, ε qt and ε q(t +1) represents the is equal to 0.4. The length, breadth, and height of the volume
population pop q at generation t and ( t + 1) respectively, considered are fixed to 100 units. Initially, the targets are
randomly deployed inside the volume considered. Since the
for 1 ≤ q ≤ p. The step size is calculated as follows
target positions of the existing deterministic algorithms is not
known, the CSA is compared against Random Algorithm (RA)
over fixed target positions. To overcome the simulation
randomness, the results are obtained by averages of 30
simulations. TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF NUMBER OF TARGETS COVERED FOR LARGE-
The comparison of the relationship between target coverage
SCALE NETWORK
rate and number of sensors for RA and CSA is shown in Fig. Number RA CSA
3. The number of sensors is varied in the range of 10 to 100 in of Min Avg SD Max Min Avg SD Max
steps of 5, with a sensing range 30. In Fig. 3(a) and Fig. 3(b) Targets (%) (%)
number of sensors is varied when the number of targets is 10 7 89.33 0.96 10 10 100 0 10
fixed to 40 and 100 respectively. As shown in Fig. 3(a), for 20 16 91.83 1.22 20 20 100 0 20
identically deployed targets, CSA has obtained higher target 30 23 91.22 1.58 30 30 100 0 30
coverage rate when compared to RA.A similar kind of result is 40 34 93.75 1.70 40 40 100 0 40
observed in the network with densely deployed targets. When 50 39 91.87 2.43 49 50 100 0 50
CSA is used approximately deployment of 30 sensors has
60 45 88.94 3.13 59 59 99.94 0.17 60
achieved the maximum coverage rate of 1 in both cases. But in
70 61 93.28 2.45 69 66 99.90 0.24 70
RA the coverage rate of 1 is achieved only when the number
80 68 90.87 3.25 80 76 99.37 0.71 80
of sensors is increased to 70 or 75. The efficiency of the CSA
is because of the search pattern (Levy flight), which looks for 90 75 92.41 3.19 88 87 99.25 0.83 90
the optimal location irrespective of the size of the network. 100 81 91.90 3.75 99 98 99.43 0.61 100

The comparison of results for the target coverage problem by

varying number of targets for RA and CSA is displayed in
Table 1 and Table 2 respectively. The number of sensors is
fixed to 30 and 35 for Table 1 and 2 respectively. The
minimum (Min) and maximum (Max) number of targets
covered, the average percentage of target coverage (Avg (%))
and standard deviation (SD) are mentioned. As shown in Table
1 for the same number of targets, the CSA has gained a
significant increase in the percentage of target coverage. The
percentage of coverage of the targets is sustained around 100,
even for a large number of targets. This is because of its global
(a)
optimization property which avoids the algorithm in getting
stuck in local optimal solutions. We could also infer that with
a sensing range of 30 and number of sensors 30, it is possible
to cover any number of targets up to 100. In Table 2 due to
increase in the number of sensors the CSA has achieved an
increase in average (%) when compared to the previous result.
However, RA has not attained full coverage in any case of
target variation despite increasing the number of sensors.
The comparative result for the target coverage problem by
varying the sensing range for random deployment and
deterministic deployment utilizing CSA is shown in Fig. 4.
(b) The sensing range is varied in the range of 10 to 70 in steps of
Fig. 3 Coverage rate for varying number of sensors (a) sparsely 5. In Fig. 4(a) comparative result when number of sensors is
deployed targets, (b) densely deployed targets 25 and number of targets is 40 is shown. The outcome when
number of sensors is augmented to 60 and number of targets is
TABLE I. fixed to 40 is depicted in Fig. 4(b). The result obtained when
COMPARISON OF NUMBER OF TARGETS COVERED FOR SMALL- the number of targets is increased to 100 and number of
SCALE NETWORK sensors is equal to 30 is shown in Fig. 4(c). In Fig. 4(a) with
Number RA CSA the increase in the sensing range, there is a significant increase
of
Targets
Min Avg SD Max Min Avg SD Max in the coverage ratio till 30 units, at which it attains full
(%) (%) coverage. While with the increase in number of sensors the
10 4 87.33 1.18 10 10 100 0 10
coverage rate increases till 25 and full coverage is attained at
20 15 87.33 1.33 20 20 100 0 20
25 itself in Fig. 4(b). And with the increase in number of
30 23 86.66 1.63 30 30 100 0 30 targets, there is increase in coverage rate is till 35 and attains
40 28 88.25 2.53 39 39 99.91 0.17 40 full coverage rate only in 35 as shown in Fig. 4(c). With this,
50 39 88.13 2.47 48 49 99.33 0.47 50 we could infer that the sensing range required increases with
60 47 88.39 3.11 59 57 98.61 0.89 60 increase in the number of targets and decreases with the
70 52 86.90 4.34 69 66 97.28 1.07 70 increase in number of sensors. From the results of CSA, it is
80 64 88.17 2.89 75 76 97.50 1.12 80 observed that the coverage ratio of 0.9-1.0 is achieved when
90 73 88.15 3.14 87 85 96.96 1.20 90 the sensing range lies between 25-35. This also agrees with the
100 75 89.10 5.36 98 95 97.40 1.47 100 previously observed result (i.e., with a sensing range of 30 and
number of sensors 30, it is possible to cover any number of
targets up to 100). While in RA, a coverage rate of 0.9-1 is
achieved only when the sensing range lies between 35-40,
which is greater than sensing range required for CSA.
The simulation result obtained by varying different
parameters has proved that the proposed algorithm performs
better than the random deployment in each case. Another
notable aspect of the result is that each of them is obtained in
just 50 iterations or less. This is because cuckoo search
algorithm achieves convergence at fewer iterations. This leads
to a significant decrease in the computational time.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 4 Coverage ratio for varying sensing range (a) Sparsely deployed
targets and sensors, (b) Densely deployed sensors, (c) Densely
deployed targets
VI. CONCLUSION
Sensor deployment is the fundamental problem for any
WSN and so efficient deployment strategies and techniques
with respect to the environment characteristics and application
requirements must be proposed. In this scope of paper, target
coverage problem with respect to UWSN characteristics such
as 3D environment, limited node energy is addressed. The
performance of the deterministic deployment is much better
than the random deployment. Hence, to find optimal node
locations for deterministic deployment a novel evolutionary
algorithm called cuckoo search algorithm is presented. The
performance of the proposed algorithm is statistically
compared with the results of random deployment. First, the
sensors are randomly deployed in the region of targets. Then
cuckoo search algorithm is applied on the random locations
iteratively which finally results in optional sensor locations.
The performance of the proposed algorithm is assessed in
terms of coverage ratio and coverage percentage. The result of
the proposed algorithm is obtained for varying number of
sensors, targets and sensing range for both small-scale and
large-scale network. The former results are compared with the
results of random deployment and it is found that CSA
outperforms random deployment. Furthermore, the proposed
algorithm has achieved full coverage under most of the
simulation criteria. Thus, the proposed algorithm has solved
the target coverage problem in 3D underwater environment
and has also outperformed the random deployment.
REFERENCES
[1] E. Cayirci, HakanTezcan, Yasar Dogan, VedatCoskun, “Wireless sensor
networks for underwater surveillance systems”, Ad Hoc Networks vol. 4,
pp. 431–446, 2006.
[2] Dario Pompili, Tomaso Melodia, Ian.F.Akyildiz, “Deployment Analysis
in Underwater Acoustic Wireless Sensor Networks”, First ACM
International Workshop on Underwater Networks, pp. 48-55, 2006.
[3] Peng Jiang, Jun Liu, And Feng Wu, “Node Non-Uniform Deployment
Based on Clustering Algorithm for Underwater Sensor Networks”.
Sensors, vol. 15, pp. 29997–30010, 2015.
[4] Peng Jiang, Jun Liu, BinfengRuan, Lurong Jiang, Feng Wu, “A New
Node Deployment and Location Dispatch Algorithm for Underwater
Sensor Networks”, Sensors, vol. 16 (1), 82, 2016.
[5] Peng Jiang, Jun Liu, Feng Wu, Jianzhong Wang And AnkeXue, “Node
Deployment Algorithm for Underwater Sensor Networks Based on
Connected Dominating Set”, Sensors, vol. 16 (3), 388, 2016.
[6] P.Vijayaraju, B.Sripathy, D.Arivudainambi and S.Balaji, “Hybrid
Memetic Algorithm with Two Dimensional Discrete Haar Wavelet
Transform for Optimal Sensor Placement”, IEEE Sensors, vol. 17 (7),
pp. 2267 - 2278, 2017.
[7] ArounaNdamNjoya, Wahabou Abdou, Albert Dipanda, Emmanuel
Tonye, “Evolutionary-Based Wireless Sensor Deployment for Target
Coverage”, 11th International Conference on Signal-Image Technology
and Internet-Based Systems, pp. 739 – 745, 2015.
[8] RaminRajabioun, “Cuckoo Optimisation Algorithm”, Applied Soft
Computing vol. 11, pp. 5508–5518, 2011.
[9] D.Arivudainambi, S.Balaji, D.Rekha, “Improved Memetic Algorithm for
Energy Efficient Target Coverage in Wireless Sensor Networks”.
Eleventh IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing and
Control, 2014.
[10] D. Arivudainambi, G. Sreekanth, S. Balaji, “Energy Efficient Sensor
Scheduling for Target Coverage in Wireless Sensor Network”, Wireless
Communications, Networking and Applications, pp 693-705, 2015.
[11] D Arivudainambi, S Balaji, “Improved memetic algorithm for energy
efficient sensor scheduling with adjustable sensing range”, Wireless
Personal Communications, pp. 1737–1758, 2016.
[12] Yi Zou And Krishnendu Chakrabarty, “Sensor Deployment and Target
Localization Based on Virtual Forces”, IEEE INFOCOM, vol. 2, pp.
1293 – 1303, 2003.
[13] SamilTemel, NumanUnaldi, OkyayKaynak, “On Deployment of
Wireless Sensors On 3-D Terrains to Maximize Sensing Coverage by
Utilizing Cat Swarm Optimization with Wavelet Transform”. IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. 44 (1),
pp. 111 – 120, 2014.
[14] Peng Jiang, Yang Feng, Feng Wu, “Underwater Sensor Network
Redeployment Algorithm Based on Wolf Search”, Sensors, vol. 16 (10),
1754, 2016.
[15] NikithaKukunuru, Babu Rao Thella, Rajya Lakshmi Davuluri, “Sensor
Deployment Using Particle Swarm Optimization”, International Journal
of Engineering Science and Technology, vol. 2 (10), 5395-5401, 2010.
[16] Zhang Yingying, Li Xia, Fang Shiliang, “Deployment Analysis in Two-
Dimensional Underwater Acoustic Wireless Sensor Networks”, IEEE
International Conference on Signal Processing, Communications, and
Computing, pp. 1 – 5, 2011.
[17] Muhamad Felamban, BasemShihada, Kamran Jamshaid, “Optimal Node
Placement in Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks”, IEEE 27th
International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and
Applications, pp. 492 – 499, 2013.
[18] Xin-She Yang, Suash Deb. “Engineering Optimisation by Cuckoo
Search”, International Journal of Mathematical Modelling and
Numerical Optimisation, vol. 1 (4), pp. 330–343, 2010.