2015 44th International Conference on Parallel Processing
Joint Wireless Charging and Sensor Activity Management in Wireless
Rechargeable Sensor Networks
Yuan Gao, Cong Wang and Yuanyuan Yang
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA
Abstract—Recent studies show that the novel wireless charging
technology can extend the lifetime of Wireless Sensor Networks
(WSNs) towards perpetual operations. Recharging Vehicles (RVs)
can be applied in WSNs to recharge sensors conveniently via
wireless charging devices. Most of existing work focused only on
energy replenishment whereas ignored sensor activity management.
In this paper, we propose a new framework that can jointly schedule
sensor activity and recharging to save the traveling energy of RVs.
First, we propose two schemes to manage sensor activity: balanced
clustering and distributed sensor activation schemes. We further
introduce a new metric so that the energy demand in each cluster
can be managed. Then we formulate the recharging problem into
a Traveling Salesman Problem with Profits, which is NP-hard. For
the recharging route schedule, we first study the case of a single
RV by coordinating sensor activity and energy replenishment, and
then extend it to multiple RVs using two different schemes. The
first scheme focuses on reducing traveling distance of RVs by
confining their moving scopes and the second one improves the
overall system performance by giving RVs a global view over the
entire network. Finally, we validate the correctness and evaluate
the performance of the sensor activity management schemes along
with the recharging algorithms by extensive simulations. Our results
indicate that significant reduction on system cost can be achieved.
The sensor activity management schemes can save traveling energy
of RVs by 16% while maintaining a reliable detection on targets.
Compared with a simple greedy algorithm, the first and the second
recharging schemes can save 41% and 13% traveling distance of
RVs, and reduce nonfunctional nodes by 23% and 52%, respectively.
Index Terms—Wireless sensor network; wireless charging; sensor
activity management; clustering; target detection; recharge schedul-
ing.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Recently, Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) have found a
wide range of applications in environmental monitoring, security
management, disaster relief, combat field surveillance, and space
exploration [4]–[6]. With the revolutionary wireless charging
technology [1], sensor nodes can be recharged in distance
by mobile Recharging Vehicles (RVs) equipped with charging
devices [7]–[13]. Such networks are called Wireless Recharge-
able Sensor Networks (WRSNs). Compared with environmental
energy harvesting [2], [3], it is more reliable and the network
performance is no longer affected by the dynamics in ambient
energy sources.
With this advanced technology, a considerable amount of
work has been done recently [7]–[11] to study how to apply
this technology in WSNs. In [7], joint energy replenishment
and data collection is considered, where a set of representative
sensor nodes are selected for recharge and the data from the
neighborhood is simultaneously collected by RVs. A framework
for optimizing data communication in the network is established
based on the recharging nodes. In [8], the optimization frame-
work is extended to account for the time-varying recharge time.
A weighted sum algorithm for scheduling recharge routes of
multiple RVs is proposed in [9]. In [10], a recharge scheduling
problem that considers practical constraints from both recharge
capacity of RVs and node’s battery deadlines is studied.
0190-3918/15 $31.00 © 2015 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/ICPP.2015.88
Although the above work solves the energy replenishment
problem in WRSNs, they ignore an important factor that how
the sensor activity in the network is managed in accordance
with energy replenishment. Since sensors are usually densely
deployed, taking advantage of redundancies in sensing coverage
could provide further energy saving. For example, in a moni-
toring task to detect the presence of rare animals, sensors are
densely deployed to guarantee seamless coverage of the field.
Since each animal can be monitored by multiple sensors, some
redundant sensors can be switched off to save energy. How to
manage sensor activity along with recharge schedules of RVs to
save system cost is an interesting and challenging problem.
In this paper, we propose a new framework that consists
of comprehensive sensor activity management schemes and
recharge scheduling algorithms. We consider a group of targets
that move randomly in the field to be monitored continuously
by a number of sensor nodes. Based on the sensing coverage
and the location of targets, sensors are first divided into clusters.
Each cluster contains the nodes that monitor the same target.
A balanced clustering algorithm is proposed to organize sensors
into clusters of almost equal size around targets. The purpose
of balancing cluster size is to prolong the working time of all
clusters so the RVs can recharge sensors less frequently. Once the
clusters are formed, the sensing load will be distributed evenly to
each sensor, for example, in a round-robin manner. In this way,
we can reduce energy consumptions on sensors while keeping
targets covered. Moreover, we introduce a parameter (defined in
Section III) that can control when and how many sensors are
sending recharge requests, which can improve energy efficiency
of RVs greatly.
For recharge schedules, we first formulate the problem into
a mixed integer programming problem, which is proved to
be NP-hard. To tackle it, we first provide a simple greedy
algorithm as a baseline. The greedy algorithm dispatches RVs
to recharge sensors with the maximum recharge profit (defined
in Section IV) in each step. However, it may incur long traveling
distance for RVs. To overcome this problem, we further propose
a recharging algorithm for a single RV, and then extend it
to multiple RVs case by two different schemes. For the case
with a single RV, the algorithm first selects the node with
the maximum recharge profit as the final destination and then
iteratively inserts other nodes with less but comparable good
profits into the recharge route. In this way, the energy efficiency
of RV can be improved significantly. To extend the algorithm for
multiple RVs, we propose two different approaches. In the first
approach, we use the well-known K-means algorithm to partition
nodes into groups and each RV is responsible for its assigned
group of nodes. The second approach, in contrast, schedules the
recharging routes for all RVs based on the global information.
The main contribution of this paper can be summarized as
follows. First, we propose to jointly consider sensor activity
and energy replenishment in WRSNs and provide comprehen-
790
789
sive sensor activity management schemes to save the energy  

of sensors and reduce traveling distance of RVs. Second, we 

formulate the recharge scheduling problem into a mixed integer 
problem and propose recharge route scheduling algorithms to 
cooperate with the sensor activity management schemes. Finally,  

our extensive simulations demonstrate that the proposed algo- 


rithms can improve energy efficiency of RVs significantly and

reveal possible trade-offs between energy saving and network

performance. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first
work that jointly considers wireless charging and sensor activity
management.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II
describes the network model. Section III introduces the sen-
sor activity management schemes. Section IV studies the joint
recharge scheduling and sensor activity problem and proposes
the recharge routes scheduling algorithms. Section V validates
the correctness and evaluates the performance of the proposed
framework. Finally, Section VI concludes this paper.
II. P RELIMINARIES
In this section, we elaborate our system model, along with
some basic assumptions and important definitions. Various prac-
tical applications of our model can be found in [14], and
some typical examples include detecting leakage of harmful
chemicals and monitoring natural phenomenons (such as seismic
or volcanic activities).
A. System Description
We consider a network with N sensors uniformly randomly
distributed over a square field with side length L. To model a
series of events such as natural phenomenons, we assume that
M targets appear randomly at any location in the field and stay
for a duration defined as target period before appearing again at
new locations. A base station is located at the center of the field
to collect sensing data from sensors. It also provides the power
source to recharge RV’s battery and performs basic computations
such as calculating node traffic, lifetime, RV’s recharge routes,
etc. We apply m RVs to recharge sensors which consume em per
meter while moving at a constant speed vr . RVs replenish their
own batteries at the base station when the batteries are nearly
depleted. Long range radio modules can be launched on the RVs
to facilitate communications with the base station.
All sensors have the same sensing range of ds . A target
can be monitored by multiple sensors as long as it lies in
their sensing ranges. However, due to physical limits from the
sensing detector, a sensor can only monitor one target at a time
which consumes es energy per unit time. The sensing data is
generated at a constant rate of λ packets per unit time and
transmitted to the base station in multi-hops. Sensors have the
same communication range of dc and consume et and er energy
while transmitting and receiving, respectively. All sensors have
capacity Ec and recharge threshold Eth . If a sensor’s energy falls
below the recharge threshold, it will send out a recharge request
to the base station. The base station also maintains a recharge
node list to store recharge requests. Then a recharge schedule
is calculated based on the updated recharge node list and the
recharge sequences would be disseminated to RVs. The recharge
time is modeled according to [15]. Sensors monitoring the same
target are organized into a cluster. To coordinate sensor activity
790
791
 


Fig. 1. Network architecture.
with energy replenishment, we adjust sensor’s duty cycle by a
load balance algorithm and make sensors in a cluster request
recharge at the same time. In this way, an RV can make one
move to recharge several nodes thereby avoiding long distance
movement back and forth in the field. The network architecture
is shown in Fig. 1.
B. Random Sensor Deployment
In this paper, a random sensor deployment is adopted to
cover the sensing field. Although deterministic placement can
minimize the number of sensors to provide full coverage [16]–
[18], our choice of random deployment incurs much less labor
cost. In the deterministic placement, a node is deployed at a fixed
geographical location which requires accurate survey of sensing
and communication coverage. Finding out the exact location
to place each sensor node also incurs very high human labor
cost. Second, in many applications, deploying nodes manually
in remote or hazardous areas is infeasible. On the other hand,
due to low manufacturing cost of sensor nodes, we can disperse
a large number of low cost sensor nodes from an airplane
or artillery [19]. To estimate the minimal number of sensors
required to provide full coverage,√we can use results from [20].
3 3Sa
N= , (1)
2π 2 r2
where Sa is the area of the sensing field (Sa = L2 ), r is the
sensing range of sensors, and N is the minimum number of
sensors required to provide full coverage.
III. S ENSOR ACTIVITY M ANAGEMENT
In this section, we describe how sensors should manage their
activities so that energy saving on the RVs can be achieved.
These activities include how to organize sensors into clusters
regarding dynamic target locations and how to cooperate with
each other to monitor the targets while maximizing the recharge
efficiency from the RVs.
A. Balanced Cluster Formation
The first step is to adaptively organize sensors into clusters
based on locations of targets. A cluster consists of sensors that
cover the same target. One of the objectives in cluster formation
is to balance the number of sensors in each cluster. That is, every
target will be covered by almost the same number of sensors.
If the cluster sizes are unbalanced, smaller clusters will deplete
their energy much faster, thus they will send energy requests
 Algorithm 1 Balanced Clustering Algorithm

  
 Input: Positions of all sensors and targets.


Output: Balanced sensor clusters C.
1: Phase 1:
 2: Initialize A = ∅, and |U| = M , value of zeros, where M is the
number of targets.
3: for i = 1, 2, . . . , M do




 4: P(i) = ∅.
5: C(i) = ∅.
6: end for
7: for i = 1, 2, . . . , M do

 8: for j = 1, 2, . . . , M do
9: if sensor j can detect target i then
10: Update P(i) = P(i) ∪ j.
Fig. 2. Organization of sensors after cluster formation. 11: end if
earlier and more frequently. This will increase the frequency of 12: end for
13: end for
recharge for smaller clusters and result in higher energy cost on 14: Update A = ∪M i=1 P(i).
RVs. Fig. 2 shows the organization of sensors after a balanced 15: Phase 2:
cluster formation is completed. 16: for i = 1, 2, . . . , |A| do
The clustering algorithm can be described as follows. After 17: [I] = sort(U, ‘ascending  ).
sensors are deployed, they report their locations to the base 18: for j = 1, 2, . . . , |I| do
19: Check if A(i) ∈ P(I(j)).
station as a preprocessing step. Then the base station assigns an 20: if YES then
identification (ID) number to each sensor. These IDs are used to 21: Update C(I(j)) = C(I(j)) ∪ A(i).
identify locations of different sensors. 22: Update U(I(j)) = U(I(j)) + 1.
Once a target is detected by a sensor, it is reported to 23: Break the inner loop, and continue from the outer loop.
24: end if
base station with its location. The base station conducts cluster 25: end for
formation in two phases. In phase one, the base station creates 26: end for
a set A to store sensors that can detect at least one target. The 27: return C.
load of a sensor is defined as the number of targets it can detect.
B. Energy Request Management
A is sorted in an increasing order according to sensors’ load. In
this way, we can give a higher priority to sensors with less load As an integrated part of managing sensor’s activity, when to
as they have fewer choices to join clusters. For each target, it request recharge in each cluster determines the energy efficiency
also creates a set P to store sensors that can detect that target. of the network. In this subsection, we leverage the exact time
A set U is initialized to keep track of the number of sensors to request energy recharge in order to achieve energy saving
in each cluster. In phase two, sensors will be assigned evenly on the RVs. In previous works [7]–[10], [12], [13], sensors
to cover each target. The base station begins the process by will request for energy replenishment once their battery energy
assigning sensors in the sorted set A to the targets one after falls below the threshold. Although such treatment of recharge
another. When the algorithm picks a sensor i ∈ A that is not requests is reasonable, we will show that network performance
assigned, it will check each target set P, and assign sensor i can be further improved by properly managing recharge requests.
to the first set P which contains it. If sensor i is assigned to Since the size of clusters is much smaller than the field size1 ,
target j’s P set, it will monitor target j until the target changes the energy cost on RVs due to intra-cluster movement is usually
location. The checking order of set P is in an ascending size much lower than the energy cost to travel through the entire
order of set U. In this way, we can fill clusters with smaller size field. Thus, if energy demand within a cluster can be adjusted,
first and balance the number of sensors in each cluster. an RV can make one move into the cluster and fulfill all energy
After a sensor is added into a cluster i, the counter U is requests rather than coming back and forth into the cluster at
updated and the algorithm proceeds to consider the next sensor different times. To adjust the energy demand within a cluster,
until all the sensors in A have been assigned. Then the algorithm effective management of when and how many sensors should
outputs a set of clusters C with similar size. After the clusters request energy replenishment is needed.
are generated, sensors will store a list of IDs of other cluster We leverage the time to request recharge by a metric called
members. The pseudocode for the balanced clustering algorithm Energy Request Percentage. It is defined as the maximum
is shown in Algorithm 1. allowable percentage of sensors in a cluster that have battery
The computation complexity of the algorithm can be analyzed energy fallen below the recharge threshold without sending any
as follows. In phase one, it takes O(M N ) time to build set recharge request. Once this percentage is reached, sensors in
P for all targets, where M is the number of targets and N is the cluster will be allowed to send out their energy requests. By
the number of sensors. In phase two, every time the algorithm adjusting this value, we can manage when and how many sensors
proceeds a new node in A, it needs to sort U in an ascending are being added to the recharge node list. A higher energy request
order, and loop the P set for every element in U to check the percentage indicates that sensors will postpone their requests
possibility of assignment. Hence the time complexity for phase until the percentage is reached so that higher energy demand for
two is O(|A| · M log M ). Therefore, the total time complexity the cluster is achieved. Each time an RV is scheduled to recharge
of the clustering algorithm is O(M N + |A| · M log M ), which 1 The diameter of a cluster is at most twice of the sensing range, which is
is bounded by O(M N log M ). about 8-16 m. The sensing field usually extends to several hundreds of meters.

791
792
the cluster, it would be able to recharge more sensors, hence

reduce the recharging times for the cluster, and save traveling

cost on the RVs.
We now analyze how much energy saving such energy request
management can bring. Denote the number of sensors in a cluster
as nc (nc ≥ 1), the distance from the base station to that cluster
as dist, and the energy request percentage as K(0 ≤ K ≤ 1).

For the scheme previously used in [7]–[10] in which sensors

will request energy replenishment as long as their energy drops

below threshold, the traveling energy for an RV to recharge
this cluster is 2nc · dist · em in the worst case, where em
is the traveling energy consumption rate of the RV. However,
with our energy request management, the traveling energy is
2nc / max(nc K, 1) · dist · em . Ascan be seen, by adjusting
K values, the traveling energy of an RV can be managed. When
K = 1, the energy cost of an RV is only 1/nc of the former,


indicating that a considerable amount of energy on RVs can be
saved by energy request management.
Note that reducing the moving cost on RVs by postponing
energy request time might have an impact on network perfor-
mance. A larger K will keep more sensors staying in low energy

status and prone to deplete their battery energy. Hence, the metric

cannot be increased indefinitely. The trade-off between network

performance and energy saving will be examined via simulations.
C. Sensor Activation Scheme
To take full advantage of the overlaps in sensing coverage,
we adjust the sensing activities of sensors to balance energy
consumption in each cluster. The algorithm activates sensors
to monitor targets in a distributed round-robin fashion. Recall
that during cluster formation, each node has stored IDs of other
members in the cluster. The sensor activation scheme begins
with the sensor having the lowest ID to monitor the target for a
time slot. Then the node sends out a notification packet to the
next sensor in the cluster. If there is no acknowledge for the
notification packet, it indicates that the next sensor might have
depleted its battery energy. In this case, the node will send out a
new notification packet to the next available node. The process
continues until the target changes its location.
Intuitively, compared with activating sensors all the time,
which is used in [7]–[10], adopting the round-robin activation
scheme will reduce the energy consumption rate of sensors in the
cluster by nc times, and thus decrease the recharging times for
RVs. Besides, the round-robin activation manner can balance the
sensing load evenly among all sensors in the cluster, thus achieve
high energy efficiency, which can further reduce the traveling
energy of RVs.
An example illustrating the advantage of our joint approach
is given in Fig. 3. As shown in Fig. 3(a), without sensor
activity management, sensors will send energy requests when
their energy falls below the recharge threshold. A possible case
in the example is that sensors 1 to 3 will send requests first, and
followed by sensors 4 to 6 and 7 to 9. In this case, an RV needs
to travel 3 rounds to recharge all the nodes. In contrast, with the
proposed sensor activity management shown in Fig. 3(b), sensors
will send a combined recharge request as a cluster and an RV
only needs one round to recharge all the sensors. Therefore, a
great amount of moving energy on the RV is saved.
However, the round-robin activation scheme brings a potential
issue to the network. Since at any moment there is only one
792
793
 
 
!
" 

 
 

 

# 

(a) Energy replenishment without sensor activity management.
 



 

 


(b) Energy replenishment with sensor activity management.
Fig. 3. Impact of managing activity on recharge routes.
working sensor, targets are more likely left unattended compared
with the case when all sensors are active. Thus, it is more
sensitive to the recharge scheduling. Besides, if K is large, it will
extend the recharge latency after a sensor has actually requested
for recharge. When the number of energy requests is large, the
RVs cannot resolve all the requests at once. In this situation,
sensors may deplete battery energy and not be able to cover the
targets. To prevent this problem, clusters with low energy will
be prioritized in the recharge routes so that reliable detection of
targets can be guaranteed.
IV. J OINT R ECHARGE S CHEDULING AND S ENSOR ACTIVITY
M ANAGEMENT
In this section, we study the Joint Recharge Scheduling
and Sensor Activity Management problem (JRSSAM). How to
schedule RVs to recharge directly affects the energy efficiency
of the network. As there is only one active sensor in a cluster to
monitor the target, meeting sensor’s battery deadline is particu-
larly important in guaranteeing coverage. This requires coordi-
nations between sensor activities and energy replenishment. For
each recharge, our objective is to maximize the amount of energy
replenished into the network while minimizing the moving
energy cost on RVs. We first formulate the optimization problem
into a mixed integer programming problem and then show that
it is NP-hard by reducing it from the well-known Traveling
Salesman Problem with Profits [22] and propose algorithms to
cope with it.
A. Problem Formulation TABLE I
N OTATIONS
Notation Definition
The JRSSAM problem can be formulated into the following
S Set of sensor nodes, |S| = N .
optimization problem. We denote the set of sensors by S =
{s1 , s2 , . . . , sN } and the set of targets by T = {t1 , t2 , . . . , tM }. T Set of targets, |T | = M .
A set of RVs H = {h1 , h2 , . . . , hm } traverse the field for energy H Set of RVs, |H| = m.
replenishment. The energy requests from sensors are stored in a R Recharge node list (nodes need recharge), |R| = n.
recharge node list R = {r1 , r2 , . . . , rn }. di Energy demand of sensor node i, i ∈ R.
The network can be represented by a graph G = (V, E), where Cr Energy capacity of RVs.
V represents the set of sensors and the base station (v0 ) and E Iij Binary variable, equals 1 if target j is covered by sensor
represents the paths among those sensors. Edge (i, j) is the path i; otherwise, it is 0, i ∈ S, j ∈ T .
between sensor i and sensor j, ∀i, j ∈ V. xa Binary variable, equals 1 if edge (i, j) is in the recharg-
ij
Energy demand di of sensor i is defined as the difference ing route of RV a; otherwise, it is 0, i, j ∈ R, a ∈ H.
between its full battery capacity and current energy. Binary yia Binary variable, equals 1 if sensor i is recharged by RV
a; otherwise, it is 0, i ∈ R, a ∈ H.
variable Iij represents whether or not sensor i detects target j.
If target j is detected by sensor i, Iij is 1; otherwise, it is 0. cij Traveling cost of path (i, j), which is proportional to
the length of path (i, j), i, j ∈ S.
For every pair of sensors i and j, binary variable xaij denotes
whether path (i, j) is selected for RV a. If the path is selected, yia ∈ {0, 1}, ∀i ∈ R, ∀a ∈ H (11)
xaij is 1; otherwise, it is 0. yia is a binary variable which equals Iij ∈ {0, 1}, ∀i ∈ S, ∀j ∈ T (12)
1 if sensor i is recharged by RV a; otherwise, it is 0. ui is the
2 ≤ ui ≤ n, ∀i ∈ R (13)
position of sensor i in the recharging path. cij is the traveling
cost of path (i, j), which is proportional to the distance between ui − uj + (n − m)xaij ≤ n − m − 1
sensors i and j. We denote the recharge capacity of each RV as ∀i, j ∈ R, i = j, ∀a ∈ H (14)
Cr . Table I summarizes the definitions of the notations.
In the above formulation, constraint (3) indicates that for every
Our goal is to maximize the energy recharged by RVs into RV, it must start its recharging tour from the base station and end
the network while minimizing their total traveling energy con- at the base station (node v0 ). Constraint (4) ensures that every
sumption, i.e., the total energy demand minus the total traveling node to be recharged by the RVs must have an incoming arc
energy from the RVs (recharge profit). and an outgoing arc. Constraint (5) restricts that every sensor
can only monitor at most one target. Constraint (6) guarantees
 n
m  m 
 n 
n every target will be monitored by at least one sensor. Constraint
Maximize : yia di − cij xaij (2) (7) ensures that the capacity of RV should not be violated.
a=1 i=1 a=1 i=1 j=1 Constraints (8) and (9) state that every sensor node can be
recharged by at most one RV and every RV will recharge at
least one sensor node during a recharging tour. Constraints (10)
Subject to to (12) specify that xaij , yia and Iij are all 0-1 valued. Constraints
(13) and (14) eliminate the subtour in the recharge routes, which
n
 n
 is formulated according to [21].
xa0j = xai0 = 1, ∀a ∈ H (3) A special case of the optimization problem is to allow RVs
j=1 i=1 to have infinite energy capacity so the problem is reduced
n n to the Traveling Salesman Problems (TSP) with Profits. TSP
xaik = xakj = yka , ∀k ∈ R, k = i, j, ∀a ∈ H (4) with Profits defines a group of salesmen who visit cities to
i=1 j=1 collect prizes. The objective is to maximize the total prize minus
M traveling cost. Since a special case of our problem reduces to

Iij ≤ 1, ∀i ∈ S (5) TSPs with Profits, which is known to be NP-hard [22], our
j=1
problem is NP-hard as well. Due to the nature of the problem,
N
seeking optimal solutions could be very difficult. To this end,
 we propose a heuristic algorithm to cope with it.
Iij > 0, ∀j ∈ T (6)
i=1 B. Greedy Algorithm
n n 
 n
di yia + cij xaij ≤ Cr , ∀a ∈ H (7) An intuitive approach to solving the problem is to maximize
i=1 i=1 j=1
the recharge profit at each step. To do that, the algorithm selects
m the node with the maximum recharge profit in each round.
yia ≤ 1, ∀i ∈ R (8) However, this simple greedy approach could be inefficient in
a=1 some cases. For example, in situations that the node with the
n maximum profit happens to be the farthest one from the RV’s
yia > 0, ∀a ∈ H (9) location, The RV must travel a long distance to recharge only
i=1 a single node. A great amount of energy is wasted due to
xaij ∈ {0, 1}, ∀i, j ∈ R, a ∈ H (10) the poor recharge schedule. To provide a baseline for further

793
794
improvement, we present the greedy algorithm in Algorithm 2.
The node with the maximum recharge profit is defined as the
destination node for the RV.
Algorithm 2 Greedy Recharging Algorithm
Input: recharge node list R, sensors’ positions, a set of RVs’ current
nodes F, |F| = m, and energy demand of sensors D.
1: Initialize every RV’s f lag = 1, indicating every RV has enough
energy.
2: while R =  ∅ and ∃f lag = 1 do
3: for i = 1 to i = m do
4: Set hi ’s f lag = 0.
5: if recharge threshold of hi is not violated then
6: Set hi ’s f lag = 1.
7: Calculate distances from all nodes in R to Fi , and store
them in set W.
8: Choose the destination node, [dest] = max(D − em W),
here em is the traveling energy consumption rate of RV.
9: Send hi to recharge the dest node.
10: Update energy information of hi .
11: Update position information of hi .
12: Update R = R \ dest.
13: end if
14: end for
15: end while
Next, we further propose a joint recharge scheduling algorithm
that takes advantage of sensor activities to improve energy
efficiencies in the network. We first consider the case with
a single RV and then extend it to coordinate multiple RVs
using two different schemes. The first scheme aims to reduce
RV’s traveling distances by confining its moving scope. The
second scheme focuses on how to improve the overall system
performance by enabling RVs to access global information of
the network.
C. Joint Recharge Scheduling for a Single RV
First, we introduce the algorithm for a single RV. We will
extend it to multiple RVs in the next subsection. As discussed
above, in the greedy algorithm, RVs would spend a large amount
of energy on traveling. Thus, how to make use of that part
of energy can make a great difference in the network energy
efficiency. When an RV is heading to the destination node with
the maximum recharge profit, there could be other sensor nodes
near the traveling path that have lower but comparatively good
recharge profits. If the recharging path can also cover these
nodes, the overall energy efficiency can be improved signifi-
cantly. Based on this observation, we propose to insert nodes
iteratively between RV’s current location and the destination
node.
Specifically, after the destination node dest is decided, it is
added into the recharging sequence Q = [crt → dest], where
crt is RV’s current position. Each time the algorithm inserts
a node between crt and dest. With one more node inserted,
Q is elongated and one more possible position for the next
insertion is available. For example, in the second insertion,
we calculate the recharge profit for inserting each node in R
except dest into the only available location between crt and
dest, and pick the best candidate to perform the insertion. In
general, for inserting the j-th node in R between Q(i) and
Q(i + 1), the change in recharge profit p(i, j) is calculated as
p(i, j) = D(R(j)) − em Δd(i), where Δd(i) is the increased
794
795
moving distance after inserting R(j) between Q(i) and Q(i+1).
Positive p(i, j) means an insertion can improve RV’s energy
efficiency, while negative p(i, j) should be avoided. From all
the p(i, j) values, the algorithm selects the most positive one,
and inserts the corresponding node from R into the position in
Q that results in maximum profit. After the new node is inserted,
the RV checks its own energy level. If its battery is low, it returns
to the base station to replenish its own battery.
The above procedure is repeated until there are no more nodes
can be inserted or the recharge capacity of RV is violated. So
far, a recharging sequence Q is generated for a single RV. After
the RV finishes its current recharging sequence, the algorithm is
repeated until all the nodes in R are recharged. The pseudocode
of the algorithm is shown in Algorithm 3.
Algorithm 3 Calculating Recharging Sequence Algorithm
Input: recharge node list R, sensors’ positions, RV’s current node crt,
and energy demand of sensors D.
Output: A recharging sequence Q consisting of sensor nodes for an
RV.
1: Calculate distances from all nodes in R to crt, store them in W.
2: Choose the dest node with the best recharge profit, [dest] =
max(D − em W), here em is the traveling energy consumption
rate of RV.
3: Initialize recharging sequence as Q = [crt → dest].
4: Update RV’s information to reserve energy for the dest node.
5: Update R = R \ dest.
6: Label insert = 1, meaning one insertion has been performed.
7: while insert = 1 and R = ∅ and RV has enough energy for the
dest node do
8: Label insert = 0.
9: for every possible position s from crt to dest do
10: for every possible node n in the recharge node list R do
11: Calculate profit difference p(s, n) = D(R(n))−em Δd(s).
12: end for
13: end for
14: Select the maximum profit difference [s0 , n0 ] = max(p).
15: if p(s0 , n0 ) > 0 then
16: Update Q by inserting n0 at position s0 .
17: Update RV’s energy information.
18: Update R = R \ n0 .
19: Label insert = 1.
20: end if
21: end while
22: return Q.
In addition, there are some other important aspects to consider
while creating the recharging sequence. To guarantee a reliable
detection on targets, all energy demands from sensors inside a
cluster are replaced by an aggregated cluster energy demand.
Thus, the more energy demand from a cluster, the higher
probability it will be selected to recharge. Further, to prevent
RV from moving back and forth to the same cluster, which is
energy inefficient, the RV recharges all the nodes in the cluster
that are in the recharge node list R. The recharging tour inside
a cluster is guided by a canonical TSP algorithm, such as the
nearest neighbor algorithm with time complexity O(n2c ) [24],
where nc is the number of sensors in the cluster.
D. Joint Recharge Scheduling for Multiple RVs
In this subsection, we discuss how the algorithm can be
extended to multiple RVs and present two different schemes.
 1) Partition Nodes into Groups: In the first scheme, we and the destination node. The algorithm needs to iterate through
partition all sensors in the recharge node list into m groups, the remaining n − 1 nodes in the recharge node list and select
with the number of groups equal to the number of RVs. In this the best candidate. Thus, the time complexity of inserting the
way, each RV is only responsible for one sensor group. Within second node is O(n − 1).
each group, the RV can follow Algorithm 3 to perform recharge. Note that with one more node being inserted, one more
The partition restricts the RVs to move within their designated possible position for the next insertion is created, which means
areas and thus prevents them from traveling over long distance. that the number of iterations to test each node is also increased
Henceforth, we call this Partition-Scheme. by one after one insertion. Therefore, the total time complexity
In particular, we adopt the well-known K-means [23] method for building the entire recharging sequence is,
to perform the partition. Suppose there are n sensors in the n + 1 · (n − 1) + 2 · (n − 2) + · · · + (l − 1) · (n − l + 1)
recharge node list, and the number of RVs is m (m < n).
K-means method aims to partition the n sensors into m sets = 2n + 2n + · · · + (l − 1)n − (12 + 22 + · · · (l − 1)2 )
S = {S1 , S2 , . . . , Sm } so that the Within-Cluster Sum of (1 + l)ln (l − 1)l(2l − 1)
= −
Squares (WCSS) is minimized. In other words, its objective is  2 6
to find O(n) if l = O(n),
k  = (16)
argmin ||x − μi ||2 (15) O(n3 ) if l = O(n).
S i=1 x∈Si Then the total time complexity for recharging the complete
where μi is the mean value of sensor positions in Si by taking recharge node list is,

an average of their x, y coordinates and μi is used as the starting O(n · nl ) = O(n2 ) if l = O(n),
position for RV i. As we can see from the above equation, after (17)
O(n3 · nl ) = O(n3 ) if l = O(n).
applying the K-means method, each RV will be assigned with
a group of sensors that are geographically close to each other. Moreover, assume that the maximum number of nodes in clusters
Partition in this manner will further reduce the traveling energy is nc and there are M targets. Then the time complexity of
of RVs. recharging those clusters is O(M n2c ). Hence, the total complex-
2) Combined Scheduling: The second scheme is to schedule ity of the recharging algorithm for a single RV is,

RVs throughout the entire recharge node list. Initially, we find the
O(n2 + M n2c ) if l = O(n),
recharging sequence for the first RV using Algorithm 3. Those T (l, n) = (18)
nodes that are in the recharging sequence of the first RV are O(n3 + M n2c ) if l = O(n).
removed from the recharge node list before finding recharge For the case with multiple RVs, there are two different schemes.
sequence for the second RV. This procedure is repeated for all For the Partition-Scheme, it first divides the sensors into m
other RVs. Whenever an RV finishes recharging all the nodes groups, so that every RV is in charge of one group. Each
in its sequence, the same algorithm is applied again on the group has an average size of n/m, so the time complexity for
remaining nodes until the recharge node list is exhausted. We recharging each group is T (l, n/m). For a total number of m
denote this scheme as Combined-Scheme. groups, the complexity of K-means method is O(nmk) [23],
Note that there is a fundamental difference between the where k is the number of iterations for the K-means algorithm
two schemes. In the Partition-Scheme, RV’s moving scope is to converge. The total time complexity for Partition-Scheme is
geographically confined and each RV is only responsible for the ⎧ n 2
⎪
⎪ O(m( m ) + M n2c + nmk)
nodes in a designated area. On the other hand, the Combined- ⎪
⎨ 2
Scheme forms the recharge sequence from a global view so the = O( nm + M n2c + nmk) if l = O(n),
n 3 2 (19)
RVs may potentially consume more energy, but it will bring some ⎪
⎪O(m( m ) +3 M nc + nmk)
⎪
⎩ n
performance benefits. The impacts on the network performance = O( m 2
2 + M nc + nmk) if l = O(n).
and cost are compared in the simulations.
For the Combined-Scheme, since each RV’s recharging se-
E. Complexity Analysis quence is scheduled based on the whole recharge node list,
the time complexity of scheduling all RVs is mT (l, n). The
We now analyze the time complexity of the proposed recharge
number of rounds to recharge the whole recharge node list is
scheduling algorithms. Suppose the length of the recharge node
n/(ml). Thus, the total time complexity of Combine-Scheme is
list is n, and the number of RVs is m. For the greedy algorithm,
(n/(ml))mT (l, n) = (n/l)T (l, n), which is
choosing the destination node costs O(n) time, since the algo- ⎧
rithm needs to iterate every node once to select the maximum ⎪
⎪ O(( nl )n2 + M n2c )
⎪
⎨
recharging profit. Scheduling all RVs costs O(mn) time. To = O(n3 + M n2c ) if l = O(n),
recharge all n nodes in the recharge node list, it takes a total n (20)
⎪O(( l )n3 + M n2c )
⎪
of O(mn(n/m)) = O(n2 ) time. ⎪
⎩
Next, let us analyze the algorithm complexity for a single RV = O(n3 + M n2c ) if l = O(n).
first. Assume the length of the recharging sequence is l (l ≤ n). From Eqs. (19) and (20), we can see that if the number of
Inserting the first destination node takes O(n) time since it needs iterations until convergence is not too large (say, k < n2 /m),
to calculate the recharge profit for each node iteratively, and the Partition-Scheme often has lower complexity, since the
selects the best among them. For the second insertion, there is Combined-Scheme needs to schedule recharging routes for all
only one available position, i.e., between RV’s current position the RVs globally at each time.

795
796
 TABLE II
PARAMETER S ETTINGS
Parameters Values
Number of sensors N 500
Number of target M 15
Number of RVs m 3
Side length of sensing field L 200m
Transmission range dc 12m
Sensing range ds 8m
Simulation time 120 days
Target period 3 hours
Threshold for sensors Eth 50% of Ec
Moving consumption rate for RVs em 5.6J/m
Traveling speed of RVs vr 1m/s
V. P ERFORMANCE E VALUATION
In this section, we present simulation results on the perfor-
mance of the proposed algorithm based on the system parameters
of real systems. In our simulation, there are a total of N = 500
sensors uniformly and randomly deployed over a square field
with the side length L = 200 m. A group of M = 15 targets
randomly appear in the field and stay for a period of 3 hours
before appear again at another random location. All sensors
are equipped with CC2480 communication modules [25] which
automatically enters low power mode (< 5μA) in idle period and
draws 27mA current while transmitting or receiving a packet.
It has a power supply range from 2.0V to 3.6V . Here we
take 3V , which is equivalent to two AAA Panasonic Ni-MH
batteries [15]. All sensors generate data packets at a constant rate
of λ = 15pkt/min with packet length of 20 bytes. The routing
path is calculated using Dijkstra’s shortest path algorithm. To
detect targets, sensors are equipped with Passive Infrared (PIR)
motion detector, which draw an average of 10mA current at 3V
when they are active, and an average of 170μA current when they
are idle [26]. The recharge thresholds for sensors are set to be
50% of their full energy capacity. The RVs consume 5.6J/m
while moving at a constant speed of 1m/s. The simulation
is evaluated over 120 days. Table II summarizes the system
parameters used in simulations.
A. Benefits of Sensor Activity Management
First, we evaluate the benefits brought by the proposed sensor
activity management. In particular, we compare the moving
energy cost of RVs in four cases. In the first case, all sensors in
clusters are working full time without Energy Request Control
(ERC). This case is denoted as “No ERC-Full time.” In the
second case, sensors in a cluster are activated in a Round Robin
(RR) manner without ERC, denoted as “No ERC-with RR.”
In the third case, all sensors in a cluster are activated at all
times with ERC. This case is denoted as “With ERC-Full time.”
Finally, in the fourth case, sensors are activated in a round robin
fashion with ERC, denoted as “With ERC-with RR.” Here, ERC
is achieved by setting the Energy Request Percentage (ERP) to
a value between 0 and 1, e.g., 0.6.
Fig. 4 shows the comparisons among the four cases. As we
can see, for all three recharge scheduling algorithms, the scheme
“With ERC-with RR” consumes the least traveling energy of
RVs, whereas the scheme “No ERC-Full time” consumes the
796
797
Evaluations on Sensor Activity Management
No ERC−Full time
4
Total Traveling Energy (MJ)
No ERC−With RR
With ERC−Full time
3 With ERC−With RR
2
1
0
Greedy Partition Combined
Fig. 4. Impact of sensor activity management on RV’s moving cost.
most, which validates our analysis that sensor activity manage-
ment can reduce energy consumption on RVs.
Compared with activating sensors in full time, the round robin
scheme also reduces the moving energy cost of RVs as seen
in the difference between “Full time” and “With RR.” This
is because that the round robin activation scheme can balance
sensor’s working load so that the energy consumption of sensors
is decreased and more traveling energy is saved for RVs. The
difference between “With ERC” and “No ERC” reveals that the
ERC can also bring significant improvement on energy efficiency
of RVs, since they can make one move into the cluster and
recharge more sensors. Note that the advantages of the sensor
activity management will become more evident if there are more
targets, as a larger percentage of sensors will benefit from it.
B. Trade-off between Energy Efficiency and Network Perfor-
mance
According to our analysis, there is a potential trade-off be-
tween energy efficiency and network performance. That is, with
a higher Energy Request Percentage (ERP), RVs can save more
traveling energy. On the other hand, higher ERP potentially
increases the risks of sensors to deplete battery due to late
recharge, which directly leads to missing targets. Here, we
demonstrate this trade-off in Fig. 5. Since our simulation shows
that the recharge scheduling algorithms have similar results, we
provide the result of the greedy algorithm as an example.
As we can see, RV’s traveling energy declines with a larger
ERP. By contrast, a larger ERP leads to higher target missing
rate because some nodes have depleted battery energy, since
a larger ERP value can effectively keep more nodes in a low
energy status before calling the next recharge. Therefore, finding
an appropriate ERP value is important in practice to achieve
a reasonable balance between energy efficiency and network
performance. The results in Fig. 5 indicate that when ERP is
higher than 0.6, the target missing rate jumps above zero and
target detection cannot be guaranteed all the time.
C. Evaluations on Recharging Schemes
In this subsection, we evaluate and compare the performance
of the proposed recharge scheduling algorithms.
As shown in Fig. 6(a), a larger ERP results in more sensor
nodes in a cluster to request recharge each time so that each
movement of the RV can replenish more sensors. In addition, the
RV also has less chance to return to the same cluster for energy
replenishment in future which leads to less traveling cost overall.
 Evaluations on Trade−off Traveling Energy of RVs vs. ERP Values
3.2 12
3.5
Traveling Energy
Partition−Scheme
Missing Rate 10
Combined−Scheme

Traveling Energy (MJ)

Traveling Energy(MJ)
3 3 Greedy Algorithm

Missing Rate(%)
8

2.8 6 2.5

4
2.6 2
2

2.4 0
1.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
ERP Value ERP Value
(a) Traveling Energy of RVs.
Fig. 5. Evaluations on trade-off between energy efficiency and coverage ratio.
Average Coverage Ratio vs. ERP Values
It is worth noting that, among all the recharging schemes, the 98
Partition-Scheme saves the most traveling energy on RVs, 41%
96
more than greedy algorithm and 32% more than the Combined-

Coverage Ratio (%)

Scheme. This is because that the K-means algorithm can partition 94
the network into different areas efficiently and the movement of
each RV is confined in its designated area. 100

In Fig. 6(b) and 6(c), with ERP value becomes larger, more 98 Partition−Scheme
sensors stay in low energy status and energy replenishment is
Combined−Scheme
postponed. This may reduce the robustness of the network due to 96
Greedy Algorithm
energy depletion, link error and lost of target coverage. Note that
94
the Combined-Scheme has the least percentage of nonfunctional 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
sensor nodes, 52% less than the greedy scheme and 38% less ERP Value

than Partition-Scheme. This is because that in the Combined- (b) Average Coverage Ratio of Targets.
Scheme, RVs can acquire global knowledge over the entire Avg. Pct. of NS vs. ERP Values
5
recharge node list and have the privilege to insert nodes with
high recharge profit into the recharge sequence.
Nonfunctional Pct. (%)

4
To further evaluate the recharging schemes, we introduce a
new metric called recharging cost, which is defined as the ratio
3
of the total traveling distance of RVs to the average number of
operational sensors over the entire simulation time. Its physical 2
meaning can be interpreted as the average distance RVs have to
travel to maintain perpetual operation of each sensor. The results 1
Partition−Scheme
Combined−Scheme
of recharging cost are shown in Fig. 6(d). It can be seen that the
Greedy Algorithm
Partition-Scheme has much lower recharging cost, which is 32% 0
less than the Combined-Scheme and 41% less than the greedy 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
ERP Value
0.8 1

scheme on average. Note that a higher ERP value also reduces

(c) Average Percentage of Nonfunctional Sensors in
the recharging cost. This is due to that the benefits brought by Recharging Schemes.
energy saving outweigh the drawbacks for nonfunctional nodes. Recharging Cost vs. ERP Values
It also validates our choice to introduce ERP for improving RV’s
energy efficiency. Partition−Scheme
Recharging Cost (m/sensor)

1200 Combined−Scheme
D. Evaluations of Recharge Profit Greedy Algorithm
1000
Finally, we examine the recharge profit (defined by expression
(2) achieved by the recharging schemes. 800
As shown in Fig. 7(a), with a larger ERP value, there will
be fewer nodes added to the recharge node list which leads to
600
less energy recharged into the network. The Combined-Scheme
has the most energy recharged into the network, because it gives
400
RVs a wider range to select nodes for recharging. It is interesting 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
to see that with small ERP values (0 − 0.4), even the greedy ERP Value
scheme can put more energy into the network than the Partition- (d) Recharging Cost of Recharging Schemes.
Scheme. Since in the greedy scheme, the RVs are not constrained
Fig. 6. Performance comparisons between the recharging schemes.
by any particular group of sensors. When more energy requests
are received with a smaller ERP, RVs can select nodes with the
maximum profit. However, when ERP grows larger, the number

797
798
 Energy Recharged vs. ERP Values improvements over a simple greedy approach on both energy
112
efficiency and network performance.
Partition−Scheme
Energy Recharged (MJ)
110 Combined−Scheme VII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Greedy Algorithm The work in this paper was supported in part by the grant from
108 US National Science Foundation under grant number ECCS-
1307576.
106 R EFERENCES
[1] A. Kurs, A. Karalis, R. Moffatt, J. D. Joannopoulos, P. Fisher and
104 M. Soljacic, “Wireless Power Transfer via Strongly Coupled Magnetic
Resonances,” Science, vol. 317, pp. 83-86, 2007.
[2] M. Rahimi, H. Shah, G. S. Sukhatme, J. Heideman and D. Estrin, “Studying
102 the Feasibility of Energy Harvesting in a Mobile Sensor Network,” IEEE
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
ERP Value International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Sept. 2003.
[3] D. Niyato, E. Hossain, M. M. Rashid and V. K. Bhargava, “Wireless Sensor
(a) Total Energy Recharged of Three Recharging Schemes. Networks with Energy Harvesting Technologies: A Game-theoretic Ap-
Objective Score vs. ERP Values proach To Optimal Energy Management,” IEEE Wireless Communications,
vol. 14, no. 4, Aug. 2007.
110 [4] M. Ma and Y. Yang, “SenCar: An Energy-efficient Data Gathering Mecha-
Partition−Scheme nism for Large-scale Multihop Sensor Networks,” IEEE Trans. Parallel and
108 Combined−Scheme Distributed Systems, vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 1476-1488, 2007.
Objective Score (MJ)

Greedy Algorithm
106
104
102
100
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
ERP Value
(b) Recharge Profit Achieved by Three Recharging
Schemes.
Fig. 7. Evaluation of recharge profit.
of nodes that actively request for recharge is reduced. Thus,
the disadvantage of the greedy scheme is more evident and a
considerable amount of energy is wasted due to traveling.
Fig. 7(b) shows the recharge profit achieved by the recharging
schemes. We can see that the Combined-Scheme has the highest
profit. When ERP is small, due to less amount of energy being
recharged into the network, the Partition-Scheme has a lower
recharge profit than the greedy scheme. However, when ERP
goes up, it results in much lower traveling energy and higher
recharged energy into the network in the Partition-Scheme.
According to Eq. (2), the combined effect of these factors makes
it outperform the greedy scheme.
VI. C ONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we study joint management of sensor activities
and recharge scheduling in WRSNs. We introduce a load balanc-
ing sensor activation scheme and adjust the energy request time
in order to provide energy saving on the RVs. We formulate the
recharging scheduling problem as a mixed integer programming
problem, which is NP-hard. To coordinate with sensor activities,
we present an algorithm for a single RV first to achieve both
high energy efficiency and reliable detection on targets, and
then extend it to multiple RVs using two different schemes.
The first scheme partitions the sensors into groups for different
RVs to reduce their traveling distance, whereas the second
scheme allows the RVs to access all information about the
network. Finally, we demonstrate the advantages of our proposed
schemes by extensive simulations. The results show that by
managing sensor activities, more energy can be saved on RVs.
Further, the proposed recharging algorithms achieve significant
[5] M. Ma, Y. Yang and M. Zhao, “Tour Planning for Mobile Data-gathering
Mechanisms in Wireless Sensor Networks,” IEEE Trans. Vehicular Technol-
ogy, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 1472-1483, 2013.
[6] C. Ma, Z. Zhang and Y. Yang, “Battery-aware Scheduling in Wireless Mesh
Networks,” Mobile Networks and Applications, vol. 13, no. 1-2, pp. 228-241,
2008.
[7] M. Zhao, J. Li and Y. Yang, “A Framework of Joint Mobile Energy Replen-
ishment and Data Gathering in Wireless Rechargeable Sensor Networks,”
IEEE Trans. Mobile Computing, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 2689-2705, Dec. 2014.
[8] S. Guo, C. Wang and Y. Yang, “Joint Mobile Data Gathering and Energy
1 Provisioning in Wireless Rechargeable Sensor Networks,” IEEE Tras. Mobile
computing, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 2836-2852, Dec. 2014.
[9] C. Wang, J. Li, F. Ye and Y. Yang, “NETWRAP: An NDN Based Real-
Time Wireless Recharging Framework for Wireless Sensor Networks,” IEEE
Trans. Mobile CompSuting, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 1283-1297, June 2014.
[10] C. Wang, J. Li, F. Ye and Y. Yang, “Recharging Schedules for Wireless
Sensor Networks with Vehicle Movement Costs and Capacity Constraints,”
IEEE SECON, 2014.
[11] Y. Yang and C. Wang, Wireless Rechargeable Sensor Networks, Springer,
2015.
[12] L. He, L. Fu, L. Zheng, Y. Gu, P. Cheng, J. Chen and J. Pan, “ESync: An
Energy Synchronized Charging Protocol for Rechargeable Wireless Sensor
Networks,” ACM MobiHoc, 2014.
[13] S. He, J. Chen, F. Jiang, Yau, D.K.Y., G. Xing and Y. Sun, “Energy Provi-
sioning in Wireless Rechargeable Sensor Networks,” IEEE Transactions on
Mobile Computing, vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 1931-1942, Oct. 2013.
[14] I. F. Akyildiz, W. Su, Y. Sankarasubramaniam and E. Cayirci, “Wireless
Sensor Networks: A Survey,” Computer Networks, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 393-
422, Mar. 2002.
[15] Panasonic Ni-MH Batteries Technical Handbook,
“http://www2.renovaar.ee/userfiles/Panasonic Ni-MH Handbook.pdf.”
[16] K. Kar and S. Banerjee, “Node Placement for Connected Coverage in
Sensor Networks,” IEEE WiOpt, 2003.
[17] X. Bai, S. Kumar, D. Xuan, Z. Yun and T. H. Lai, “Deploying Wireless
Sensors to Achieve Both Coverage and Connectivity,” ACM MobiHoc, 2006.
[18] Y. Wang and Y. Tseng, “Distributed Deployment Schemes for Mobile
Wireless Sensor Networks to Ensure Multilevel Coverage,” IEEE Trans.
Parallel and Distributed Computing, Sept. 2008.
[19] D. Estrin, R. Govindan, J. Heidemann and S. Kumar, “Next Century
Challenges: Scalable Coordination in Sensor Networks,” ACM MobiCom,
1999.
[20] R. Williams, “The Geometrical Foundation of Natural Structure: A Source
Book of Design,” Dover Pub. Inc. New York, pp. 51-52, 1979.
[21] B. Gavish, “A Note on the Formulation of the m-salesman Traveling
Salesman Problem,” Management Science, 1976.
[22] D. Feillet, P. Dejax and M. Gendreau, “Traveling Salesman Problems with
Profits,” Transportation Science, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 188-205, May 2005.
[23] J. MacQueen, “Some Methods for Classification and Analysis of Multi-
variate Observations,” Proc. of 5th Berkeley Symposium on Math. Statistics
and Probability, pp. 281-297, 1967.
[24] T.H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, R. L. Rivest and C. Stein, “Introduction to
Algorithms,” MIT Press, 2001.
[25] Texas Instruments Technical Documents,
“http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/swrs074a/swrs074a.pdf.”
[26] ON Semiconductor, “http://www.onsemi.com/pub link/Collateral/NCS360
00-D.PDF.”

798
799