Você está na página 1de 5

ISSN:2229-6093

Patel Bhoomika D et al, Int.J.Computer Technology & Applications,Vol 6 (5),847-851

Hierarchical routing protocols in wireless sensor network


Patel Bhoomika D. Patel Ashish D.
Department of computer engineering Department of computer engineering
SVM institute of technology SVM institute of technology
Bharuch 392-001, Gujarat, India Bharuch 392-001, Gujarat, India
bhoomico16@gmail.com ashishpatel.svmit@gmail.com

Abstract: Sensor is a small device for communication some networks have become a shortcomings. Ex, in a flooding
and computation by capturing information regarding mechanism given node have been broadcast data and control
temperature, humidity, pressure etc Wireless sensor packet that has been received to the relief of the nodes in the
network lies of single sensor or nodes that corporate to network. This process continues till the destination node is
execute certain task and these nodes use wireless reached, and this mechanism doesnt take into report energy
communication to enable their coactions. These sensor nodes constraint by WSNs.
have a limited transmission range; processing; storage The idea how to effectively path the collected data
capacity and energy resources like computation with limited between nodes are the primary topic in WSNs since of the low
efficiency. Due to these constraints, network lifetime plays powered sensor nodes. Supported on all routing technique and
vital role in the functionality of any wireless sensor network. features in WSNs, there are huge number of routing protocol
To increase a network lifetime of network, it is required to are existing. The balance of this paper is discussing some
analyze routing protocols because the transmission of routing protocol and Hierarchical Protocols are describe in
information from one node to another, consumes maximum detail, also analyze some proposed scheme of protocols.
resources. There are main seven categories: Location-based Section 2 shows routing challenges that routing protocols must
Protocols, Data-centric Protocols, Hierarchical Protocols, face in wireless sensor networks. Section 3 discusses the
Mobility-based Protocols, Multipath-based Protocols, hierarchical routing protocols. In section 4, analyze some
Heterogeneity-based Protocols, QoS-based protocols. Among proposed scheme are discuss and Section 5 concludes the
all these routing protocols, hierarchical routing protocols used survey.
in most of the recent WSNs. In this paper we study the recent
II. ROUTING CHALLENGES IN WIRELESS
hierarchical routing protocol for WSNs. The goal of this study
SENSOR NETWORKS[23]
is to analyze and compare the performance of different
hierarchical routing protocols for wireless sensor networks. Node deployment: It is depending on application have an
The study will help researchers and developers to use different effect on the routing protocol. The operations are two types:
routing algorithm in different scenarios. deterministic, in that sensor are physically placed data is
Keywords: wireless sensor network, hierarchical routing routed through pre-determined paths and randomized, in that
protocol. sensor node are dotted at random creating an infrastructure in
ad hoc way.
I. INTRODUCTION Data Reporting Model: It is depends on application have an
Wireless sensor network is most important technologies in effects are time critical. It has four categories: time driven,
recent years. In past years it has received big attention from event driven, query driven, and hybrid. Routing protocols are
both academic and industry in the world. A WSN typically lies highly work by data processing model to observe an energy
of a huge number of low-cost, low-power, and multifunctional consumption and route stability.
wireless sensor nodes, with sense, wireless communications Fault Tolerance: In WSNs some sensor nodes are blocked
and computation abilities [21]. WSN has a many application because of some internally damage or economical
like a monitoring, environment, military surveillance, and interference. That blocked node effect network so network not
industrial process control. In some WSN application, the work properly. If the many nodes fails than routing protocols
distribution of sensor node is acted in ad hoc style less certain offer new configuration links and routes to the data collection
planning and engineering. Once the sensor node has been BS.
distributed, it must be able to automatically create itself into a Scalability: If any hardware or protocols have been added
wireless communication network. relative capacity than effectiveness are increases than it must
Because of the strict energy constraints of huge be scalable.
number of thickly deployed sensor nodes, it needs a group of Power consumption: Requirement such as long life time of
network protocols to execute a variety of network control and sensor networks and restricted storage capacity of sensor
organization functions such as synchronization, node nodes has directed to search a new scope to alleviate power
localization, and network security [21]. When some routing Consumption. Means increase the network lifetime of
protocols are applied on WSN then energy-constrained of protocols.

IJCTA | Sept-Oct 2015 847


Available online@www.ijcta.com
ISSN:2229-6093

Patel Bhoomika D et al, Int.J.Computer Technology & Applications,Vol 6 (5),847-851

Data aggregation: Main aim of this is gather and aggregate LEACH-C: It is abbreviation of CENTRALIZED LEACH.
data as of different sources with the help of different functions LEACH has no information and knowledge about the number
like a suppression, min-max, average to get energy efficient of cluster head and the location cluster members. LEACH-C
and traffic optimization in routing protocol so that network improves the LEACH By BS is responsible for forming
lifetime is improved. clusters for each round by running centralized cluster
Connectivity: High node density in sensor networks prevents formation algorithm by getting remaining energy and position
them from being totally remote from each other. So, sensor of each sensor node.
nodes are expected to be extremely connected. This, yet may LEACH-B: It is abbreviation of BALANCED-LEACH.
not prevent the network topology to being variable and the LEACH does not consider the energy for the selection of CH.
network size from being decrease because of sensor node LEACH-B use decentralized algorithms for the CH by
failures. Possibly random distribution of nodes that is depends evaluating the energy need for the path between itself and
on connectivity. destination.
LEACH-MOBILE: It is support mobility, involves the
mobility of non -cluster head nodes and cluster head during
III. HIERARCHICAL PROTOCOLS the setup and steady state phase.
These protocols are energy efficient communications protocol LEACH-A: It is abbreviation of ADVANCED LEACH.
and that is utilize by the sensor to information their sensed LEACH protocol work in homogeneous network and does not
data to the base station (sink). Main goal of these protocols is support reliability. LEACH-A, a heterogeneous energy
to efficiency hold the energy consumption of sensor node with protocol and its purpose is energy saving and reliable data
relating them in multi-hop communication inside a specific transfer. It achieves the minimum nodes failure probability
cluster and through executing data aggregation and fusion and for extending the time interval before the death of the first
ready to reduce the number of transmitted message to the base node which can be referred to as stability period.
station (sink). V-LEACH: It is abbreviation of VERSION OF LEACH. In
Low-energy adaptive clustering hierarchy (LEACH): It is LEACH, cluster head has no sufficient energy to transmit data
very energy efficient routing protocol. In this protocol each or collected cluster member to the BS. To overcome this
WSNs are divided into cluster, and every cluster consists of a problem V LEACH is introduced. In V-LEACH, There is a
cluster head (CH) and number of cluster relationship, multiple vice-CH that takes the role of the CH when the CH dies.
cluster heads form the high-level network. In terms of Cluster nodes data will always reach the BS. There is not
operation, a HRP consists of two stages: In the first stage is necessary for electing a new CH when CH dies each time.
the set-up, when the sensor nodes are organized to form This will extend the overall network life time
hierarchical structural design either in a cluster based or chain-
based manner or, In the second stage is the steady state, when Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems
data are routed from sensor nodes to the BS. The hierarchical (PEGASIS): It is an extension of LEACH protocol, that kind
structural design of a cluster-based can be set up by using of a chain from sensor nodes so that each node transmits and
distributed algorithm or centralized algorithm [5]. LEACH is receives from a neighbor and only single node is selected from
totally distributed and no needs a global knowledge of that chain to transmit to the base station (sink) [21]. Data is
network. It reduces energy consumption by (a) insignificant gained and moves from node to node, combined and finally
the communication rate between sensors and their cluster send to the base station. That chain can be performed in
heads and (b) turning off non-head nodes as much as possible greedy style. PESASIS reject cluster formation and use only
[20]. LEACH utilize a one hop routing where every node can one node to transmit to the sink (base station) alternatively
transmit directly to the cluster-head and a sink because of this using more than one node. In PEGASIS routing protocol, the
reason LEACH is not capable for to distributed in large area. structure phase assumes that all the sensors have global
Itis closes in a finite number of iterations, but not surely about knowledge about the network like a mainly, the positions of
good CH deployment and guess uniform energy consumption the sensors and use a greedy approach. If a sensor fails or dies
for CHs. due to low battery power, then chain is structured utilizing the
There are some drawbacks of LEACH; so much research has similar greedy approach by bypassing the failed sensor [21].
been done to make LEACH perform better. Some of At every round, a particularly select sensor node from the
researches are: E-LEACH, TL-LEACH, M-LEACH, LEACH- chain will deliver the aggregate data to the BS, so reducing the
C and V-LEACH. per energy spending compared to LEACH.

E-LEACH: It is abbreviation of ENERGY-LEACH and it is Hybrid, Energy-Efficient Distributed Clustering (HEED):


improves the cluster head selection procedure of LEACH HEED widens the LEACH protocol with balance energy and
protocol. Primarily all nodes have the same probability to be node degree as a metric for cluster selection to achieve power
CH, but in next round of iteration, the node with high residual balancing. It executes in multi-hop networks, using an
energy will be chosen as CH rather than those with less adaptive transmission power in the inter-clustering
energy. This protocol provides life span of network and communication. HEED was planned with four primary aims
energy saving compared to LEACH protocol. that are (i) prolonging network lifetime by spreading energy

IJCTA | Sept-Oct 2015 848


Available online@www.ijcta.com
ISSN:2229-6093

Patel Bhoomika D et al, Int.J.Computer Technology & Applications,Vol 6 (5),847-851

consumption, (ii) ending the clustering process within a stable This protocol is not capable for sensing application where
number of iterations, (iii) insignificant control overhead, and periodic reports are required so the user may not get any data
(iv) producing well-distributed CHs and compact clusters [21]. at all if the thresholds are not reached.
In this protocol, the existing algorithm randomly chooses CHs
to a combination of two clustering arguments. The first Adaptive Periodic Threshold Sensitive Energy Efficient
argument is their balance energy of each sensor node that is Sensor Network Protocol (APTEEN): This protocol is an
used to probabilistically choose and first set of CHs and the advance to TEEN to overcome its drawback and goal at
second argument is the intra-cluster communication cost as a getting periodic collection and responding to time-critical
function of cluster density or node degree and that is used for events. So APTEEN is a hybrid type protocol that permit the
breaking ties. This protocol improve network lifetime compare sensor send to their sensed data randomly and response to any
to LEACH clustering as LEACH particularly select CHs, quick change in the value of the sensed assign by reporting the
which effect in result faster death of some nodes. The last CHs similar values to their CHs. Its architecture is same as TEEN,
selected in HEED are well distributed crossways the network that is uses the concept of concept hierarchical clustering for
and the communication cost is reduced [21]. energy efficient communication between source sensors and
the sink [21]. APTEEN supports three different query types
Threshold Sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network namely (i) historical query, to study past data values, (ii) one-
Protocol (TEEN): It is a hierarchical clustering protocol that time query, to take a snapshot view of the network; and (iii)
is groups sensors into clusters with every node conduct by a persistent queries, to examine an event for a period of time.
CH. Each sensor inside a cluster reports their sensed data to APTEEN guarantees lower energy dissipation and a larger
their CH. The CHs sends collective data to higher level CH till number of sensors animate [22].
the data reaches to the sink. Hence, TEEN is closer nodes
from clusters and this process goes on the next level till the BS
is reached. TEEN is useful for applications where the users
can control a trade-off between energy efficiency, data
accuracy, and response time dynamically [21].

Table: 1
Hierarchical Protocols

parameter LEACH PAGSIS HEED TEEN APTEEN

Energy efficiency Very high Very high Good Good Good


Data Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
aggregation
Network Lifetime Very good Very good Good Good Good
Scalability No No Yes No No
Type of network Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed
Hope count Single hope Single hope multi hope Single hope Single hope
pros No require any Transmission Fully Decrees energy Demonstrates number
global distance are distributed, low transmission of flexibilities, count
information, reduce, power level computation, time interval and
powerful and threshold value for
simple, energy consumption.
cons Not capable for a Require global Suffer from Not suite when Complexity of cluster
large networks information of overhead so that user gets data on can occurs at different
nodes each iteration consistent basis, level
huge number of data must be
packets are disappeared.
broadcasts.

IJCTA | Sept-Oct 2015 849


Available online@www.ijcta.com
ISSN:2229-6093

Patel Bhoomika D et al, Int.J.Computer Technology & Applications,Vol 6 (5),847-851

IV. RELATED WORK


performance of classical EMHR for the total number of packet
received by BS and time of First Node Die (FND) and second method
The rising attention in wireless sensor networks and the take a suitable decision of next hop CH selection than classical
repeated appearance of new architectural techniques EMHR.
motivated. Some existing efforts for surveying the Ali et al.[15] survey For choosing the optimum number of cluster in
characteristics and applications in such a technical area. There Deterministic Distributed nodes in WSNs in order to maximize its
is no any communication, wireless links are defective, and lifetime. HRP is used on some Deterministic Distributions like a
sensor node may be fail in this situation routing protocol face uniform, circular, hexagonal and star distribution, to show how to
energy saving needs. That survey is a good introductory for choose the optimal number of clusters. Network lifetime is using
readers attracted in the wide area. Some routing protocols of clustering for all the examined distributions.
Jan et al. [16] Improve the life time of LEACH protocol for
WSNs are discussed; this survey and taxonomy does not mean
efficiently using the limited energy available in sensor nodes. Main
it must be given a complete scope of protocols. Our survey is approach is improves life time and to make better of data being
relatively showed and can give out for those have the interest delivered at the base station in sensor network. For this sensor
for the routing protocol in WSNs. Many routing algorithms network data delivered at the BS is not important but the quality of
were executed for wireless networks in general. In recent past the data most important.
year, many researchers have to introduce many different Pandya et al. [17] implement MODLEACH (Modified LEACH)
protocols and may method for it. In which some protocols and utilizes three transmission power levels that is reduces energy
method are describe below: consumption in network and also it uses different cluster head
election algorithm in which node have remaining energy greater than
Diwakar et al. [7] described EEHCRP(Energy-Efficient Hierarchical threshold it remain as cluster head for second round. And this
Clustering Routing Protocol), a protocol for WSNs. EEHCRP protocol introduces two techniques to robust network life time and
reduces the number of alive nodes and the energy consumption to throughput, and three types of communication can happen in cluster
expand the network lifetime. In this what are the mathematical based network: Intra Cluster Communication, Inter Cluster
formula are used that are for choosing the cluster head are provided. Communication, Cluster Head to Base Station Communication.
The platform use for simulation is MATLAB. Gheorghe et al [18] shows By using simple genetic algorithm (SGA)
Pal et al. [8] Improve LEACH protocol with the help of chain among some objectives can be combined together and the optimization done
the sensor nodes and all the cluster as talk about in PEGASIS but in some case it slow focused and difficult for best fitness
protocol. With the help of this modified protocol each sensor nodes function. To overcome this drawback multi-objective genetic
take out the cluster head sends detect data to its nearest node, not the algorithm (MOGA) for the execution for a central BS and the results
cluster head. There is two modifications done in LEACH one is the send to the network nodes. It is determines the problem handle as
cluster head selection, and the other is forming chain among the multi-objective with non-commensurable objectives. NS-2 is used for
sensor nodes for each cluster. the testing.
Bansal et al. [9] does Comparison of two routing protocol LEACH Mollanejad et al. [19] describe EHPR (novel Energy aware
and PEGASIS. The evaluation is done on basis of different argument Hierarchical Routing Protocol) for widen sensor network lifetime.
like a total energy consumed, overheads, and sensors lifetime. In This protocol has two phases: In first phase cluster head is selected
LEACH, limited data processing occurs at specified nodes called and constructed cluster with the help of new parameter. And second
cluster-heads and lastly aggregated data is transmitted to the sink phase spanning routing tree constructed on cluster heads for sending
node. While in PEGASIS, there is no data aggregation occurs. aggregated data to the base station.
Sensoria simulator is used for simulation.
Singh et al. [10] Survey on cluster based routing protocols in wireless
sensor networks and the merits and demerits of clustering method. V. CONCLUSIONS
These protocols are introduces in three broad categories: block In wireless sensor network routing are expanding lots of
cluster based, grid cluster based, chain cluster based. From the basis attention in now a days. In this paper we analyzed the
of performance it is shown that protocols are useful to improvement hierarchical routing protocols that are: LEACH, PAGESIS,
of wireless sensor network. HEED, TEEN, APTEEN. Also compare protocols in different
Pathak et al. [11] Evolution of two routing protocol APTEEN and
parameters and its pros and cons are discuss. LEACH is the
EX-APTEEN to improve performance of WSNs. APTEEN can be
used only its next neighbouring node back so its the drawback of most energy efficient than the other. In term of scalable only
APTEEN, to overcome this drawback improve the EX-APTEEN. It HEED is there and it is only using multi-hope count.
has a two phase: transfer phase and cluster setup phase. For
comparison used the Ns-2.35 simulator.
Quynh et al. [12] shows EL-LEACH (Energy and Load balance REFERENCES:
LEACH) for get the energy efficiency and load balance. LEACH has
the drawback that dead nodes are more and it is also not applicable 1. Akkaya, Kemal, and Mohamed Younis. "A survey on
where network deployed in larger regions so it take the more energy.
routing protocols for wireless sensor networks." Ad
To overcome this drawback improves an EL-LEACH. From the
result it is prove the this protocol is better than the LEACH in hoc networks 3.3 (2005): 325-349.
parameter better energy efficiency, load balance, network lifetime. 2. Patil, Mallanagouda, and Rajashekhar C. Biradar. "A
AMRI et al. [14] describes EMHR-FL used Fuzzy Logic Inference survey on routing protocols in wireless sensor
System for the selection of next hop CH by taking in to some related networks." Networks (ICON), 2012 18th IEEE
parameter like a level of CHs in battery, distance between CHs and International Conference on. IEEE, 2012.
node density of CHs. Two method is improve: First method improve

IJCTA | Sept-Oct 2015 850


Available online@www.ijcta.com
ISSN:2229-6093

Patel Bhoomika D et al, Int.J.Computer Technology & Applications,Vol 6 (5),847-851

3. Sharma, Suraj, and Sanjay Kumar Jena. "A survey on 16. Jan, Mian Ahmad, et al. "Enhancing lifetime and
secure hierarchical routing protocols in wireless quality of data in cluster-based hierarchical routing
sensor networks." Proceedings of the 2011 protocol for wireless sensor network." High
International Conference on Communication, Performance Computing and Communications &
Computing & Security. ACM, 2011. 2013 IEEE International Conference on Embedded
4. Xu, DaWei, and Jing Gao. "Comparison study to and Ubiquitous Computing (HPCC_EUC), 2013
hierarchical routing protocols in wireless sensor IEEE 10th International Conference on. IEEE, 2013.
networks." Procedia Environmental Sciences 10 17. Pandya, Nikunj K., et al. "Design and Simulation of
(2011): 595-600. Enhanced MODLEACH for Wireless Sensor
5. Manap, Zahariah, et al. "A review on hierarchical Network."
routing protocols for wireless sensor networks." 18. Huruiala, Petre-Cosmin, Andreea Urzica, and Laura
Wireless personal communications 72.2 (2013): Gheorghe. "Hierarchical routing protocol based on
1077-1104. evolutionary algorithms for wireless sensor
6. Singhal, Vishakha, and Shrutika Suri. "Comparative networks." Roedunet International Conference
Study of Hierarchical Routing Protocols in Wireless (RoEduNet), 2010 9th. IEEE, 2010.
Sensor Networks." (2014): 142-147. 19. Mollanejad, Amir, et al. "EHRP: Novel energy-aware
7. Meenakshi, Diwakar, and Sushil Kumar. "Energy hierarchical routing protocol in wireless sensor
Efficient Hierarchical Clustering Routing Protocol network." Ultra Modern Telecommunications and
for Wireless Sensor Networks." Advances in Control Systems and Workshops (ICUMT), 2010
Computer Science and Information Technology. International Congress on. IEEE, 2010.
Networks and Communications. Springer Berlin 20. Wang, Lan, and Yang Xiao. "A survey of energy-
Heidelberg, 2012. 409-420. efficient scheduling mechanisms in sensor networks."
8. Pal, Subhajit, Debnath Bhattacharyya, and Tai-hoon Mobile Networks and Applications 11.5 (2006): 723-
Kim. "Chain based hierarchical routing protocol for 740.
wireless sensor networks." Security-Enriched Urban 21. Singh, Shio Kumar, M. P. Singh, and D. K. Singh.
Computing and Smart Grid (2010): 482-492. "Routing protocols in wireless sensor networksA
9. Bansal, Parul, Poonam Kundu, and Prabhjot Kaur. survey." International Journal of Computer Science
"Comparison of LEACH and PEGASIS Hierarchical & Engineering Survey (IJCSES) Vol 1 (2010): 63-83.
Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Networks." Int. 22. Manjeshwar, Arati, and Dharma P. Agrawal.
J. of Recent Trends in Engineering & Technology 11 "APTEEN: A hybrid protocol for efficient routing
(2014). and comprehensive information retrieval in wireless
10. Singh, Santar Pal, and S. C. Sharma. "A Survey on sensor networks." ipdps. IEEE, 2002.
Cluster Based Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor 23. Rathi, Neha, Jyoti Saraswat, and Partha Pratim
Networks." Procedia Computer Science 45 (2015): Bhattacharya. "A review on routing protocols for
687-695. application in wireless sensor networks." arXiv
11. Pathak, Nikita, and Er Rupinder Kaur Gurm. preprint arXiv:1210.2940 (2012).
"COMPARISON OF APTEEN AND EX-APTEEN
ROUTING PROTOCOL OF CLUSTERING IN
WSN."
12. Quynh, Thu Ngo, Kieu-Ha Phung, and Hoan Vu
Quoc. "Improvement of energy consumption and load
balance for LEACH in Wireless Sensors Networks."
ICT Convergence (ICTC), 2012 International
Conference on. IEEE, 2012.
13. Rajeshwari, P., B. Shanthini, and Mini Prince.
"Hierarchical Energy Efficient Clustering Algorithm
for WSN." (2015).
14. Amri, Saber, Med Lassaad Kaddachi, and
Abdelbasset Trad. "Energy-Efficient Multi-hop
Hierarchical Routing Protocol using Fuzzy Logic
(EMHR-FL) for Wireless Sensor Networks."
Computer Applications and Information Systems
(WCCAIS), 2014 World Congress on. IEEE, 2014.
15. Ali, Najah Abu, and Omar Nasr. "WSN lifetime
prolongation for deterministic distributions using a
hierarchical routing protocol." AFRICON, 2013.
IEEE, 2013.

IJCTA | Sept-Oct 2015 851


Available online@www.ijcta.com