Ijrim Paper

IJRIM Volume 4, Issue 8 (August 2014) (ISSN 2231-4334)
IMPACT FACTOR 3.783

International Journal of Research in IT & Management
http://www.euroasiapub.org 26

ANALYSIS OF NETWORK PERFORMANCE BY VARYING BS
LOCATION IN HETEROGENEOUS WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS
Garima Narang*
Amanpreet Kaur**
Gaurav Bathla***

ABSTRACT
The past few years have witnessed increased interest in the potential use of wireless sensor
networks (WSNs) in applications such as disaster management, combat field reconnaissance,
border protection and security surveillance. Sensors in these applications are expected to be
remotely deployed in large numbers and to operate autonomously in unattended environments.
To support scalability, nodes are often grouped into disjoint and mostly non-overlapping
clusters. In this paper, we present a routing scheme based on the clustering of nodes for a
heterogeneous environment such that nodes are having different energy levels but each node is
capable of transmitting data to BS.
Keywords: Heterogeneity, WSN, Routing, clustering.

*Assistant Professor (CSE Deptt.), Chandigarh University, Gharuan, India
**M. Tech Scholar (CSE, YIET Gadholi), CSE,kurukshetra university
***Assistant Professor (CSE),CSE Deptt.YIET, Gadholi,India
IMPACT FACTOR 3.783

INTRODUCTION
Inexpensive sensors capable of significant computation and wireless communications are
becoming available [1, 3]. A web of sensor nodes can be deployed to collect useful information
from the field, for example, in harsh physical environments [11]. These sensor nodes collect
audio, seismic, and other types of data and collaborate to perform a high level task in the
network. Sensor nodes are severely constrained by the amount of battery power available,
limiting the lifetime and quality of the network. Since wireless communications consume
significant amounts of battery power, sensor nodes should spend as little energy as possible
receiving and transmitting data [4, 9, 10]. It is necessary for communication protocols to
maximize nodes' lifetimes [8], reduce bandwidth consumption by using local collaboration
among the nodes, and tolerate node failures [12]. Figure 1 shows a 100-node sensor network in a
play field of size 50 m x 50 m.

Figure 1. Uniform placement of nodes in the network along with two level node heterogeneity
A typical application in a sensor web is gathering of sensed data at a distant base station (BS)
[2]. Each sensor node has power control and the ability to transmit data to any other sensor node
or directly to the BS [5,6]. In this paper, our model sensor network has the following properties:
The BS is fixed at a far distance from the sensor nodes, rest we will compare results by varying
its location.
IMPACT FACTOR 3.783

The sensor nodes are heterogeneous in terms of energy and energy constrained.
The energy cost for transmitting a packet depends on the distance between nodes.
In each round of this data-gathering application, all data from all nodes need to be collected and
transmitted to the BS via cluster heads, where the end-user can access the data. A simple
approach to accomplish this task is for each node to transmit its data directly to the BS. Since the
BS is located far away, the cost to transmit to the BS from any node is high and nodes will die
very quickly. Therefore, an improved approach is to use as few transmissions as possible to the
BS and minimize the amount of data that must be transmitted to the BS.
In sensor networks, data fusion helps to reduce the amount of data transmitted between sensor
nodes and the BS. Data fusion combines one or more data packets from different sensor
measurements to produce a single packet as described in [2]. The LEACH protocol presented in
[2] is an elegant solution to this data collection problem, where a small number of clusters are
formed in a self-organized manner. A designated node in each cluster collects and fuses data
from nodes m its cluster and transmits the result to the BS. LEACH uses randomization to rotate
the cluster heads and achieves a factor of 8 improvement compared to the direct approach, before
the first node dies. Further improvements can be obtained if each node communicates only with
close neighbors like in PEGASIS, and only one designated node sends the combined data to the
BS in each round. In this paper we present an improved protocol in which each node senses &
transmits data to their respective CH which in turn transmits data to BS.
All nodes keep on transmitting data to CHs so energy of CHs becomes bottleneck of network
lifetime. So we had taken cluster head of higher energy such that they will survive to the end of
the network life.
BACKGROUND
The earliest and simple approach was direct transmission in which each sensor node will sense &
transmit its data to BS individually. Since base station is located far away from sensor nodes
resulting higher transmission cost. Because of this high cost transmission the energy of nodes
drain off faster and thus having short system lifetime.
In order to solve the problem, clustering based protocols were proposed where a cluster is a
group of sensor nodes, with a head node managing all other member nodes. The heads are
IMPACT FACTOR 3.783

responsible for coordinating member nodes, gathering data within the clusters, aggregating data
and forwarding the aggregated data to the base station.
LEACH [13] is a cluster-based, distributed, autonomous protocol. The algorithm randomly
chooses a portion of the sensor nodes as cluster heads, and lets the remaining sensor nodes
choose their nearest heads to join. The cluster members data is transmitted to the head, where
the data is aggregated and further forwarded to the base station. The LEACH algorithm reduces
the number of nodes that directly communicate with the base station. It also reduces the size of
data being transmitted to the base station. Thus, LEACH greatly saves communication energy.
Since the protocol randomly chooses cluster heads in each round, the energy consumption is
theoretically evenly distributed among all sensor nodes.
TEEN [14] adopts a similar clustering mechanism as LEACH does. It sets two thresholds, a soft
threshold and a hard threshold, during the data collecting stage, to further reduce communication
traffic.
In the PEGASIS protocol [15], a cluster is a chain based on geographical location. The
PEGASIS protocol constructs all sensor nodes into a chain with the shortest length. Sensor nodes
only communicate with their adjacent nodes so that they can send data at the lowest power level.
In each round, the system randomly chooses a sensor node as the cluster head to communicate
with the base station. Therefore, communication traffic is reduced.
The PEDAP protocol [16] further extended the PEGASIS protocol. In the PEDAP protocol, all
sensor nodes are constructed into a minimum spanning tree. PEDAP assumes that the base
station knows the location information of all sensor nodes, and the base station can predict the
remaining energy of any node based on some energy dissipation model. After certain rounds, the
base station removes dead sensor nodes and re-computes routing information for the network. In
the setup stage, all sensor nodes only need to receive the routing information broadcasted by the
base station. Thus, the PEDAP consumes less energy than the LEACH and PEGASIS protocols
in the setup stage.
The Multi-tier Trace-back Protocol (MTP) [17] is an extension to the PEGASIS and PEDAP
protocols. Under the MTP protocol, each sensor node calculates its distance to the base station
by evaluating the signal strength from the base station. Then, the sensor nodes are partitioned
into several tiers based on their distances to the base station. Data is forwarded to adjacent tier
nodes that are closer to the base station, which is similar to the PEDAP protocol. Eventually, the
IMPACT FACTOR 3.783

MTP protocol chooses a node that is closest to the base station to communicate with the base
station, using a mechanism similar to the PEGASIS.
MSMTP [18] which was an extension to the PEDAP and MTP protocols, in this all nodes of the
network will transmit the sensed information or aggregated data to their neighbor which are
connected in MST structure by multi hop communication. Whole network is divided into three
tiers as. A node of tier1 having highest energy will transmit networks fused data to base station,
and similarly a node of highest energy from lowest possible tier id is selected to transmit data to
base station & in this way load is evenly distributed to all nodes of the sensor network. This will
improve the overall system lifetime.
RADIO MODEL
We use the same radio model as discussed in [13] which is the first order radio model. In this
model, a radio dissipates E
elec
= 50 nJ/bit to run the transmitter or receiver circuitry and Eamp =
100 pJ/bit/m2 for the transmitter amplifier. The radios have power control and can expend the
minimum required energy to reach the intended recipients. The radios can be turned off to avoid
receiving unintended transmissions. The equations used to calculate transmission costs and
receiving costs for a k-bit message and a distance d are shown below:
Transmitting
E
tr
(k,d) = E
elec
(k) +E
amp
(k,d)
= kE
elec
+kE
amp
d
2

Receiving
ERx(k) = ERx-elec(k)
E
Rx
(k) = E
elec
*k
Receiving is also a high cost operation, therefore, the number of receives and transmissions
should be minimal. LEACH and PEGASIS use the same constants (Eelec, Eamp, and k) for
calculating energy costs; therefore the PEGASIS achieves its energy savings by minimizing d
and the number of transmissions and receives for each node, and MSMTP protocol achieves
even better results than that of LEACH and PEGASIS. In our simulations, we used a packet
length k of 2000 bits. With these radio parameters, the energy spent in the amplifier part equals
the energy spent in the electronics part, and therefore, the cost to transmit a packet will be twice
the cost to receive. It is assumed that the radio channel is symmetric so that the energy required
IMPACT FACTOR 3.783

to transmit a message from node i to node j is the same as energy required to transmit a message
from node j to node i for a given signal to noise ratio.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
In this work, our main consideration is wireless sensor networks where the sensors are uniformly
distributed over an area of interest. The locations of sensors are fixed and the base station knows
them all a priori. The sensors are in direct communication range of each other and can transmit to
and receive from the base station. The nodes periodically sense the environment and have always
data to send in each round of communication. The nodes fuse or aggregate the data they receive
from the others with their own data, and produce only one packet regardless of how many
packets they receive.
The problem is to find a routing scheme to deliver data packets collected from sensor nodes to
the base station via cluster heads such that it maximizes the lifetime of the sensor network under
the system model given above. However, the definition of the lifetime is not clear unless the kind
of service the sensor network provides is given. In applications where the time that all the nodes
operate together is important, since the quality of the system will be dramatically decreased after
first node death lifetime is defined as the number of rounds until the first sensor is drained of its
energy. In another case, where the nodes are densely deployed, the quality of the system is not
affected until a significant amount of nodes die, since adjacent nodes record identical or related
data. In this case, the lifetime of the network is the time elapsed until half of the nodes or some
specified portion of the nodes die. In general, the time in rounds where the last node depletes all
of its energy defines the lifetime of the overall sensor network. Taking these different possible
requirements under consideration, our work gives timings of all deaths for proposed and leaves
the decision which one to choose to system designers.
PROTOCOL DESCRIPTION
Energy efficiency is the major aspect that needs to be taken care of while developing any
protocol for the WSNs. LEACH network was divided into 5% (of total nodes) clusters and each
cluster has one head which transmit fused data to BS. Cluster head node which was farthest from
BS consumes more energy. In proposed work whole network area is uniformly divided into 4
equal clusters and only one node per cluster is selected as a head (center node of cluster) which
will send fused data to BS for increasing network lifetime.
IMPACT FACTOR 3.783

Sensor nodes are highly constrained in terms of power and their batteries are generally neither
replaceable nor rechargeable. Proposed network assumed to be of square shape is divided into
four equal sized squares being divided horizontally and vertically. The network is shown in fig.1

METHODOLOGY
The following steps are proposed to achieve the above mentioned objectives:
Distribute nodes in the network area uniformly.
Distribute energy in network area keeping track of their location which is used to assign cluster-
id to each node. Each node in the network area is provided the same energy irrespective of the
clusters to which they belong to.
Select Head node from each clusters on basis of location, being the center node of respective
cluster. Head node has more energy as compared to rest node in their respective clusters.
Distribute whole Network in two levels on basis of distance from BS. Head nodes of Level near
to BS is provided less energy as compared to Head nodes of Level far from BS
In particular cluster, nodes transmit data to Head node.
Now each Head node transmit data to BS and deduct energy of Head node, if energy of node is
below dead energy then discard that node from network area.
Repeat the procedure to transmit data to BS by incrementing initial energy of the nodes of
network and simultaneously changing locations of BS corresponding to different initial energies
The result is then compared w.r.t. to different Initial energies and BSs locations.
RESULTS
Performance evaluation methodology firstly explained performance metrics and based on these
metrics some experimental results are shown for different initial energy of nodes in the network.
The results are then compared with previous values of proposed models and are simulated in
C++.
The relationship between the network lifetime and the distance of the base station located at
different locations viz. (25, 25), (25, 150), (25, 250) is shown in table 1 below. Proposed work is
based on active participation of all nodes & assigning higher energy to cluster head nodes which
are used to transmit data to Bs. Proposed work achieved better results than previous protocols.
Major advantage of proposed protocol is increased network stable life time i.e. the time when all
IMPACT FACTOR 3.783

nodes of the system are alive also the overall life of proposed solut ion is better than existing
protocols.
However by varying the location of BS effects the actual lifetime of the system because when BS
is within the network cluster head nodes have to transmit data to nearby location & if BS is much
further then high energy is required by the CHs. Rest all nodes have to transmit data to their
respective CHs so it doesnt affect lifetime of the network on non cluster head nodes
counterpart. Table 4.2 simulates the results by varying the location of BS with appropriate
energy levels of CH nodes which are described as:
Energy of CHs (23, 28, 73, 78) when BS is at location (25, 25) = 25.2, 25.2, 25.2, 25.2
Energy of CHs (23, 28, 73, 78) when BS is at location (25, 150) =68, 68, 54, 54
Energy of CHs (23, 28, 73, 78) when BS is at location (25, 250) =154, 154, 128, 128

Table1 Comparison of network lifetime at different times by varying position of BS
Location of Bs---> 25,25 25,150 25,250
Node No. Round
1 6744 6744 6744
20 7677 7677 7677
50 8049 8049 8049
100 9441 9475 9489

CONCLUSION & FUTURE SCOPE
In this paper a routing strategy is proposed in which we analyze the network lifetime based on
varying the location of BS. Basically we are trying to increase network lifetime by minimizing
time delay & as depicted in table 1 we had a good achievement in networks stable lifetime.
For future work one can think on Reliability which can be added to proposed work by storing the
data transmitted by CH to another node because in this work if CH node died before transmitting
data to BS all cluster data will be lost. But in future we can stop this limitation by storing data at
any one node as back up before transmitting to BS.
REFERENCES
IMPACT FACTOR 3.783

[1] D. Estrin, R Govindan, J. Heidemann, and Satish Kumar. Next Century Challenges: Scalablc
Coordination in Sensor Networks. In Proceedings of Mobicom ' 99, 1999.
[2] W. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, and H. Balakrishnan. Energy-Efficient Communication
Protocol for Wireless Microsensor Networks. In Proceedings of the Hawaii Conference
system Sciences, Jan. 2000.
[3] J. Kulik, W. Rabmer, and H. Balakrishnan. Adaptive Protocols for Infamation Dissemination
in Wireless Sensor Networks. In Proceedings of Mobicom' 99, 1999.
[4] W. Mangione-Smith and P.S. Ghang. A Low Power Medium Access Control Protocol for
Portable Multi- Media Systems. In Proceedings 3rd lntl. Workshop on Mobile Multimedia
Communications. F'rinceton, NJ, Sept. 25-27, 1996.
[5] R. Pichna and Q. Wang. Power Control. In The Mobile Communications Handbook. CRC
Press, 1996, pp. 370-380.
[6] R Ramanathan and R Hain. Topology Control of Multihop Wireless Networks Using
Transmit Power Adjustment. In Proceedings Infocom 2000,2000.
[8] S. Sin& M. Woo and C.S. Raghavendra. Power-Aware Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks.
In Proceedings ACMlEEE Mobicom'98,1998.
[9] K. M. Sivalingam, M. B. Srivastava and P. Agrawal. Low Power Link and Access Protocols
for Wireless Multimedia Networks. In Proceedings IEEE Vehicular TechnoloXy
Conference VTC'97, May 1997.
[10] M. Stemm, P. Gauthier, D. Harada and R Katz. Reducing Power Consumption of Network
Interfaces in Hand-Held Devices. In Proceedings 3rd Intl. Workshop on Mobile Multimedia
Communications, Sept. 25-27, 1996, Princeton, NJ.
[11] Tbe WINS Project. httu://www.ianet.ucla.edu/Wn\TS.
[12]M. Zorzi and R. R. Rao. Energy Management in Wireless Communications. In Proceedings
6
th
LIVLAB Workshop on Third Generation Wireless Information Nenvorkr, March 1997.
[13] W. R. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, and H. Balakrishnan, Energyefficient
communication protocol for wireless microsensor networks, in 33rd Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences,2000, pp. 3005 3014.
[14] A. Manjeshwar, DP. Grawal, TEEN: A protocol for enhanced efficiency in wireless sensor
networks, In: Proceedings of the 15th Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium. San
Francisco: IEEE Computer Society, 2001. 2009_2015.
IMPACT FACTOR 3.783

[15] S. Lindsey and C. S. Raghavendra, Pegasis: Power-efficient gathering in sensor
information systems, in IEEE Aerospace Conference, March 2002, 924-955.
[16] HO. Tan, Power efficient data gathering and aggregation in wireless sensor networks,
SIGMOD Record, 2003, 32(4): 66 -71
[17] Xin Liu, Quanyu Wang and Xuliang Jin, An Energy-efficient Routing Protocol for
Wireless Sensor Networks, Proceedings of the 7
th
World Congress on Intelligent Control
and Automation June 25 - 27, 2008, Chongqing, China, page 1728-1733.
[18] Gaurav Bathla and Gulista Khan, Energy- efficient Routing Protocol for Homogeneous
Wireless Sensor Networks, International Journal on Cloud Computing: Services and
Architecture (IJCCSA), Vol. 1, No. 1, May 2011.

Ijrim Paper

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Ijrim Paper

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

IJRIM Volume 4, Issue 8 (August 2014) (ISSN 2231-4334)

IMPACT FACTOR 3.783

Você também pode gostar