A Survey on Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor
Networks
Mallanagouda Patil
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Wireless Information Systems Research Laboratory
Reva Institute of Technology and Management
Bangalore-560 064, India
Email: mallanagouda@revainstitution.org
Abstract—This paper presents a survey of state-of-the-art rout-
ing techniques in Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs). Compared
with traditional wireless networks, WSNs are characterized with
denser levels of node deployment, higher unreliability of sensor
nodes and severe power, computation and memory constraints.
Various design challenges such as energy efficiency, data delivery
models, quality of service, overheads etc., for routing protocols
in WSNs are highlighted. We addressed most of the proposed
routing methods along with scheme designs, benefits and result
analysis wherever possible. The routing protocols discussed are
classified into seven categories such as Data centric routing,
Hierarchical routing, Location based routing, Negotiation based
routing, Multipath based routing, Quality of Service (QoS)
routing and Mobility based routing. This paper also compares the
routing protocols against parameters such as power consumption,
scalability, mobility, optimal routing and data aggregation. The
paper concludes with possible open research issues in WSNs.
Keywords: WSNs, Energy Efficiency, QoS, Cluster;
I. I NTRODUCTION
With the popularity of laptops, cell phones, global posi-
tioning system (GPS) devices, radio frequency infrared devices
(RFID) and intelligent electronics, computing devices have be-
come cheaper, more mobile, distributed and pervasive in daily
life. Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) consists of large number
of small low-cost, low-power and multifunctional sensor nodes
where each node has a processing capability, multiple types of
memory, radio frequency (RF) transceiver and a power source.
In addition, the nodes accommodate sensors and actuators [1].
In many WSN applications, the deployment of sensor nodes
is performed in an adhoc fashion without careful preplanning
and engineering. After the initial deployment, sensor nodes
communicate wirelessly and self organize into an appropriate
network infrastructure often with multihop connections among
sensor nodes. Sensor nodes are typically battery-powered and
should operate without attendance for a relatively longer period
of time. In most cases, it is very difficult and even impossible
to change or recharge batteries for the sensor nodes. The design
of routing protocols in WSNs is challenging because of several
network constraints with an emphasis on energy effeciency.
A. Routing Challenges in Sensor Networks
Some of the routing challenges in WSN are as follows.
978-1-4673-4523-1/12/$31.00 ©2012 IEEE
Rajashekhar C. Biradar
Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering
Wireless Information Systems Research Laboratory
Reva Institute of Technology and Management
Bangalore-560 064, India
Email: raj.biradar@revainstitution.org
Energy Consumption : As sensor nodes in WSN have lim-
ited battery power, it becomes challenging to perform computa-
tion and transmission while optimizing energy consumption[1].
In fact the transmission of one bit of data consumes more
energy than processing the same bit of data. Sensor node life
time strongly depends on its battery life.
Node Deployment : Sensor nodes are usually densely
deployed in the field of interest depending on application
thus influencing the performance of a routing protocol. The
deployment can be either deterministic or self-organizing.
In deterministic case, the sensor nodes are manually placed
and sensed data is routed through determined paths. In self-
organizing systems, sensor nodes are scattered randomly cre-
ating a topology in an adhoc manner[2].
Data Delivery Models : Data delivery models can be time
driven, data driven, query driven and hybrid (combination of
delivery models) depending on the application of sensor nodes
and time criticality of data reporting. These data delivery mod-
els highly influence the design of routing protocols especially
with regard to reducing energy consumption[3],[4].
Node Capability : Depending on the application, a sensor
node can have different role or capability such as relaying,
sensing and aggregation since engaging all these functions on
the same node would drain the energy of that node more
quickly. Different capabilities of sensor nodes raise multi-
ple issues related to data routing and makes routing more
challenging[5],[6],[7].
Network Dynamics : Most of the network architectures
assume that sensor nodes are static but the mobility of base
stations and sensor nodes is necessary in some applications
[8]. Routing packets in such dynamic architectures becomes
challenging in addition to minimizing energy consumption and
bandwidth utilization.
Data Aggregation : Since sensor nodes generate redundant
data, cluster heads or base stations may receive similar packets
from multiple nodes and these packets need to be aggregated
before being forwarded to the base station. Signal processing
methods can also be used for data aggregation[9].
Other routing challenges in WSNs are scalability, coverage
area[10], transmission media[11], fault tolerance and QoS[12].
86 ICON 2012
 II. TAXONOMY OF ROUTING P ROTOCOLS
We present taxonomy of routing potocols for WSNs based
on various classification criteria such as data centric, hier-
archical, location based, negotiation based, multipath based,
quality of service and mobility based as shown in figure
1. The objective of taxonomy is twofold: (1) to provide a
framework Wireless Sensor Network in which routing and
data dissemination protocols for WSNs can be examined and
compared; and (2) to gain new insights into the routing and
data dissemination protocols and thereby suggest avenues for
future research.
Data Centric − Directed Diffusion and Rumor Routing
Hierachical − LEACH, TEEN and APTEEN
Location Based − GAF and GEAR
Negotiation − SPIN
MultiPath − Disjoint Path Routing
QOS Based − Sequential Assignment Routing
Mobility − Joint Mobility and Routing
Fig. 1. Taxonomy of Routing Protocols in WSN
A. Data Centric Routing
Lack of global identification along with random deployment
of sensor nodes makes it hard to select a specific set of sensor
nodes to be queried. Since data is usually transmitted with
significant redundancy. This is very inefficient in terms of
energy consumption, routing protocols that are able to select
a set of sensor nodes and utilize data aggregation during the
relaying of data have been considered. This consideration has
led to data-centric routing, a new communication paradigm
where attribute based naming is necessary to specify the
properties of data[13].
Directed Diffusion : Being an important data-centric routing
protocol in sensor networks, Directed Diffusion [14] suggests
the use of attribute-value pairs for the desired data and queries
sensors in an on demand basis.
Proposed Scheme : In Directed Diffusion, if a sensor wants
to receive data, it sends interests for named data. When data is
sent by a source sensor, the data can be cached or transformed
by intermediate sensor, which in turn may initiate interests
based on the data that were previously cached. In addition,
the data sent by the source sensor may be aggregated by
intermediate sensors before being forwarded to destination.
87
More importantly, interests, data dissemination and data ag-
gregation occur in directed diffusion in a localized manner
via exchanging messages between neighboring nodes. Directed
Diffusion has several key elements: data naming, interests,
gradients, data propagation and reinforcement. The sink peri-
odically broadcasts an interest for each active task specifying
a low data rate. To ensure reliable interest transmission, an
interest has a time-stamp that allows the sink to refresh the
interest by resending it with a monotonically increasing time-
stamp value. When a sensor receives an interest, it may resend
it to some subset of its neighbors or even rebroadcast it to all
of its neighbors (in case it does not have information about
the sensors that satisfy the interest). This allows interests to
be diffused throughout the network. A response to the interest
is also named. A sensor will consult its interest cache to decide
to which neighbors it has to unicast this event description
using the highest data rate over all its outgoing gradients.
Upon receiving a data message, a sensor may drop it if it
does not find a matching interest in its cache. Otherwise, it
checks the data cache, which contains the data messages seen
recently, corresponding to the matching interest entry. As a
result, this data message can be cached and resent to the
neighbors, if it is not already in the data cache. Otherwise,
this data message is simply dropped. If the data rate specified
in all gradients is higher than that of incoming events, the
receiving sensor will simply send the received data message to
the corresponding neighbors. Otherwise, the receiving sensor
may down convert to the specified data rate for the neighbors
with a lower requested data rate. Figure 2 summarizes the steps
in Directed Diffusion.
Fig. 2. Directed Diffusion Protocol Description (a) Interest propagation (b)
Initial gradients setup (c) Data delivery reinforced.
Benefits/Demerits of the Scheme : All communication is
neighbor-to-neighbor and on demand with no need for node
addressing mechanism. Caching is a big advantage in terms of
energy efficiency and delay. Applications that require contin-
uous data delivery to the sink will not work efficiently with
such a query-driven on demand data model.
B. Hierarchical Routing
In hierarchical architecture, sensor nodes are organized into
clusters, where a node with lower energy can be used to
perform the sensing task and send the sensed data to its cluster
head at short distance, while a node with higher energy can
be selected as a cluster head to aggregate the data from its
members and forward it to the sink [15]. This process can not
only reduce the energy consumption, but also balance traffic
load and improve the scalability[16].
Threshold Sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network Proto-
col (TEEN ) : A sensing application can be designed in a way
where the sensors either sense and transmit data periodically to
the sink (proactive) or react immediately to any sudden change
in the value of sensed attribute (reactive). For time-critical ap-
plications, a reactive network is more suitable than a proactive
network. In order to trade-off between energy efficiency, data
accuracy and response time dynamically, a communication
protocol, named as TEEN has been proposed[17].
Proposed Scheme : TEEN is a clustering protocol that
targets a reactive network and enables cluster heads to impose
constraint on when the sensor nodes should report their sensed
data. Each cluster head broadcasts to its members a value,
called hard threshold (HT), for the sensed attribute beyond
which a sensor should turn its transmitter on to report its sensed
data to cluster head. Cluster head also broadcasts another value,
called soft threshold (ST), which indicates a small change
in the value of the sensed attribute, making sensor turn on
its transmitter and send data to the cluster head. TEEN is
a hierarchical protocol designed to be responsive to sudden
changes in the sensed attributes such as temperature. TEEN
pursues a hierarchical approach along with the use of a data-
centric mechanism. The Adaptive Threshold sensitive Energy
Efficient sensor Network protocol (APTEEN) is an extension
to TEEN and targets both reactive and proactive networks[18].
Result Analysis : Experimental results have shown that
TEEN and APTEEN outperform LEACH (Low Energy Adap-
tive Clustering Hierarchy). APTEENs performance is between
LEACH and TEEN in terms of energy dissipation and network
lifetime. TEEN gives the best performance since it decreases
the number of transmissions.
Benefits/Demerits of the Scheme : Both hard and soft
threshold values can be adjusted in order control the number
of transmissions. However, TEEN is not a good choice for
periodic data reporting applications. The main drawbacks of
TEEN and APTEEN are the overhead and complexity of
forming clusters in multiple levels, implementing threshold-
based functions and dealing with attribute-based naming of
queries.
C. Location Based Routing
In most cases, location information is needed to calculate
the distance between two particular nodes so that energy
consumption can be estimated. Geographic Adaptive Fidelity
(GAF) protocol [19] is a location based protocol although
proposed for Mobile Adhoc Networks (MANETs), it favors
energy conservation and thus can be used for WSNs.
Geographic Adaptive Fidelity (GAF) : If the region to be
sensed is known, using the location of sensors, query can
be diffused only to that region thus reducing the number
88
of transmissions significantly. It is possible to locate nodes
through satellites or GPS (Global Positioning System) on the
basis of the signal strength passed between neighbor nodes.
The common approach for energy saving is to use sleep modes
in nodes expecting no activity in a period of time. This is the
main idea behind GAF.
Proposed Scheme : The design of GAF is motivated by an
energy model that focuses on energy consumption due to the
reception and transmission of packets as well as idle time[19].
GAF is based on the mechanism of turning off unnecessary
sensors while keeping a constant level of routing fidelity. GAF
divides sensor field into grid squares and every sensor uses its
location information to associate itself with a particular grid.
Size of grid square is chosen in a way such that sensors within
the same grid are equivalent with regard to routing and that
sensors in adjacent grids can communicate with each other.
Equivalent sensors can coordinate with each other to determine
an energyefficient schedule of their activities, which specifies
when and for how long the sensors stay awake or sleep. As
shown in figure 3 the state transition diagram of GAF has three
states, namely discovery, active and sleeping.
Sleeping
Recieve msg
from high rank nodes
Recieve Discovery msg
from high rank nodes
Active
After Ts
After Td
After Ta
Discovery
Fig. 3. State Transition Diagram for GAF
GAF maintains only one node called an active node with
its radio turned on per grid square and this active node is
responsible for relaying traffic on behalf of its grid square.
This responsibility is rotated among all the nodes. Whenever
a node changes state to discovery or active state, it sends a
broadcast message containing node ID, grid ID and the value of
ranking function. If a node in discovery or active state receives
a message from a node in the same grid and a higher value of
the grid function, it is allowed to change its state to sleep and
turn its radio transceiver off for time Ts. Usually the ranking
function selects nodes with ”longest expected life time” as
the active nodes. In sleeping state, sensor turns off its radio
for energy savings. In the discovery state, a sensor exchanges
discovery messages to learn about other sensors in the same
grid. Even in the active state, a sensor periodically broadcasts
its discovery message to inform equivalent sensors about its
state. GAF aims to maximize the network lifetime by reaching
a state where each grid has only one active sensor based on
sensor ranking rules.
Benefits/Demerits of the Scheme : The amount of energy
saved by using GAF protocol is considerable due to large
number of sleeping nodes. The drawback is that the GAF uses
extra hardware for finding the location of sensor nodes.
D. Negotiation Based Routing
These protocols use high level data descriptors called meta-
data in order to avoid redundant data transmissions through
negotiation. Communication decisions are also taken based on
the resources available.
SPIN (Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation) :
For applications like intruder detection, disseminating individ-
ual sensor observations to all sensors in a network should
be performed as energy efficient as possible. In light of
this,a family of adaptive protocols named SPIN has been
proposed. The SPIN protocols were designed to overcome the
problems of flooding. The SPIN protocols are resource aware
and resource adaptive. They can make informed decisions for
efficient use of their own resources[20].
Proposed Scheme : SPIN protocols are based on two
key mechanisms: Negotiation and Resource Adaptation. SPIN
enables the sensors to negotiate with each other by using meta-
data before any data transfer to avoid redundant information in
the network. Each sensor is aware of its resource consumption
with the help of its own resource manager that is probed by the
application before any data processing or transmission. This
helps the sensors monitor and adapt to any change in their
own energy resources. There are three messages defined in
SPIN to exchange data between the nodes. These are: ADV
message to allow a sensor to advertise a particular meta-data,
REQ message to request the specific data and DATA message
that carries the actual data.
Benefits/Demerits of the Scheme : Advantage of SPIN
protocol is that each node only knows its single-hop neighbors
thus localizing the topological changes in the network. The
drawback is that the data advertisement mechanism cannot
guarantee the delivery of data if the nodes that are interested
in the data are far away and the nodes between source and
destination are not interested in that data. Meta-data introduce
additional costs for storage, retrieval and management.
E. Multipath Based Routing
These protocols use multiple paths instead of single path
to enhance network performance by providing fault tolerance.
These alternate paths are kept alive by sending periodic mes-
sages.
Disjoint Path Routing : In multipath routing, each source
sensor node finds the first k shortest paths to the sink and
divides its load evenly among these paths. Multipath protocols
help find a small number of alternate paths that have no
sensor in common with each other and with the primary path.
These protocols are said to be sensor-disjoint multipath routing
protocols[21].
89
Proposed Scheme : In sensor-disjoint path routing, the
primary path is best available whereas the alternative paths
are less desirable as they have longer latency. Being disjoint
makes those alternate paths independent of the primary path.
Thus, if a failure occurs on the primary path, it remains local
and does not affect any of those alternate paths. The sink
sends out a primary-path reinforcement to its best neighbor.
This reinforcement process repeats until the construction of
the primary path is done. After that, the sink iterates the same
operation for its next most preferred neighbor by sending out to
it an alternate-path reinforcement. If each sensor accepts only
the first reinforcement, those alternate paths are guaranteed to
be disjoint with each other and with the primary path.
Benefits/Demerits of the Scheme : Although maintaining
alternate paths introduces some overhead and consumes more
energy, multipath routing is an effective technique to improve
robustness in the face of path failures caused by frequent
topological changes. More specifically, multipath routing helps
recover from sensor and link failures and provide necessary
resilience to the network at the cost of excessive redundancy
and traffic generation.
F. QoS Based Routing
In addition to minimizing energy consumption, it is essen-
tial to consider QoS requirements in terms of delay, reliability
and fault tolerance for routing in WSNs. Both fault tolerance
and reliability require the deployment of more than necessary
sensors so that the network can continue to function properly
and deliver accurate sensed data to the sink despite some sensor
failures [22]. Sequential Assignment Routing (SAR) is one of
the first routing protocols for WSNs that introduces the notion
of QoS in the routing decisions.
Sequential Assignment Routing (SAR) : Routing decision in
SAR depends on three factors: energy resources, QoS on each
path and the priority level of each packet. To avoid single route
failure, a multi-path approach and localized path restoration
schemes are used.
Proposed Scheme : To create multiple paths from a source
node, a tree rooted at the source node to the destination nodes
is built covering each node. SAR is table-driven multipath
protocol that aims to achieve energy efficiency and fault toler-
ance. SAR calculates a weighted QoS metric as the product of
additive QoS metric and weight coefficient associated with the
priority level of the packet. The objective of SAR algorithm is
to minimize the average weighted QoS metric throughout the
lifetime of the network. As a preventive measure, a periodic
re-computation of paths is triggered by the base-station to
account for any changes in the topology. Failure recovery is
done by enforcing routing table consistency between upstream
and downstream nodes on each path.
Benefits/Demerits of the Scheme : Simulation results show
that SAR offers less power consumption than the minimum-
energy metric algorithm that does not consider the packet prior-
ity. Although, SAR ensures fault-tolerance and easy recovery,
the protocol suffers from the overhead of maintaining the tables
and states at each node especially when the number of nodes Benefits/Demerits of the Scheme : Although many perfor-
is huge. mance aspects of WSNs may benefit from mobility, the lifetime
issue seems to have attracted the majority of attention and
G. Mobility Based Routing contributions. The traffic load within a WSN is highly unbal-
anced among nodes that have different distances from the sink.
Some sensor applications require mobile nodes to accom- Whereas no routing strategy may alleviate such an imbalance,
plish a sensing task. Mobility brings new challenges to routing actively moving certain network entities may further balance
and data dissemination in WSNs and increases the complexity the load and hence improve the lifetime. However the mobility
of implementation. in WSN leads to an added complexity compared to static WSN.
Joint Mobility and Routing Protocol : A network with a
III. C OMPARISON OF P ROTOCOLS
static sink suffers from a severe problem, called energy sink-
hole problem where the sensors located around the static sink The figure 4 shows the similarities between the protocols
are heavily used for forwarding data to sink. As a result, those based on the classification criteria used in the taxonomy.
heavily loaded sensors close to the sink deplete their battery
Directed LEACH GAF SAR GEAR
power more quickly, thus disconnecting from the network. Diffusion
SPIN
This problem exists even when the static sink is located at
Energy Consumption Limited Maximum Limited Limited Maximum Limited
its optimum position corresponding to the center of the sensor
field. To address this problem, a mobile sink for gathering Scalability Limited Good Good Limited Limited Limited
sensed data from source sensors has been suggested[23].
Location Awareness NO NO NO NO NO NO
Proposed Scheme : In Joint Mobility and Routing Protocol,
the sensors surrounding the sink change over time, giving the Optimal Routing YES NO NO NO NO NO
chance to all sensors in the network to act as data relays to Mobility Limited Fixed Sink Limited Possible NO Limited
the mobile sink and thus balancing the load. In particular,
MultiPath YES NO NO YES NO NO
the optimum mobility strategy of the sink is a symmetric
strategy in which the trajectory of the sink is the periphery Data Aggregation YES YES NO NO
NO YES
of the network. This result was shown by comparing mobility
trajectories on concentric circles of different radii and it was Health NO YES NO NO YES NO
proved that the maximum average load of data routing is Environment
YES NO NO NO
Monitoring YES NO
achieved at the network center. Therefore, the trajectory with
a radius equal to the radius of the sensor eld maximizes Military NO NO YES NO NO NO
the distance from the sink to the center of the network that Commercial NO NO NO NO YES NO
represents the hot spot. Regardless of the shape of a sensor
eld, it is always true that the sensors located on the network Fig. 4. Comparison of Routing Protocols in WSNs
periphery are almost not used for forwarding sensed data to
the sink on behalf of other sensors and thus have a longer
lifetime than all other sensors in the network. Therefore, an IV. C ONCLUSION AND O PEN I SSUES
efcient routing strategy should exploit the available energy In recent years, routing in WSN has gained tremendous
of those sensors close to the border of the network in order attention leading to unique challenges and design issues when
to balance the data dissemination load on all the sensors. compared to routing in traditional wired networks. In this
Based on the sink mobility strategy and the routing strategy paper, we have discussed recent research activities on routing
discussed earlier, an energy-efficient heuristic for joint routing in WSNs and classified the approaches to routing in seven main
and mobility is to have the sink moving on a circle of radius categories. In case of Data centric routing, naming rules such
Rm ¡ R, where R stands for the radius of the sensor eld, while as attribute-value pairs will not work for complex queries that
data routing depends on the location of the source sensors.Note are application dependent. The building of standard efficient
that the sensor field is divided into two regions: the inner circle naming schemes is one of the open issues for future research
and the annulus between the periphery of the network and in this category. In case of Hierarchical routing, the nodes are
the trajectory of the sink represented by a circle. The sensors grouped together to form clusters. Cluster heads are respon-
within the inner circle use the shortest path routing to transmit sible for data aggregation and relay of messages to the sink.
their sensed data to the sink, whereas the sensors in the annulus The design issues for such protocols are how to form clusters
send their data to the sink using two steps. First, a sensor and select cluster heads so that energy consumption in the
uses round routing around the center of the network O until communication of redundant messages as well as aggregation
the segment OB is reached, where B is the current position is reduced. The factors affecting cluster formation and cluster
of the mobile sink. Then, the data is sent to the sink using head communication are open future research issues in this
a shortest path. This joint heuristic leads to lower network category. In case of Location based routing protocols, energy
load by reducing the distance between the mobile sink and the efficient and intelligent utilization of location information is
sensors that follow the shortest path. an open research issue. QoS based routing has its own quality

90
requirements when it comes to real time applications like target
tracking in battle fields. Handling the QoS requirements in
energy efficient way is one of the open research issues in
QoS based routing. Many of the current routing protocols in
WSN assume that nodes and sink are static. However, there
are situations like battle field environments where sinks as
well as the sensor nodes need to be mobile. New routing
algorithms are required to accommodate mobility and dynamic
topology changes in energy constrained environment of WSNs.
Another possible future research area for routing protocols is
the integration of internet with WSNs so that the data sensed
in one part of the world can be sent to the server located in
another part of the world for further analysis.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Authors would like to thank Visvesvaraya Technological
University (VTU), Karnataka, INDIA, for sponsoring the
part of the project under VTU Research Scheme, grant no.
VTU/Aca/2011-12/A-9/753, Dated: 5th May 2012.
[17] A. Manjeshwar and D.P.Agarwal, ”TEEN: a routing protocol for en-
hanced efficiency in wireless sensor networks,” in 1st International Work-
shop on Parallel and Distributed Computing Issues in Wireless Networks
and Mobile Computing,April 2001.
[18] A. Manjeshwar and D.P.Agarwal, ”APTEEN: A hybrid protocol for
ecient routing and comprehensive information retrieval in wireless sensor
networks,” Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium., Proceedings
International, IPDPS 2002, pp. 195-202.
[19] Y. Xu, J. Heidemann and D.Estrin, Geography-informed energy
conservation for adhoc routing, Proceedings ACM/IEEE MobiCom,
Rome,Italy,July 2001,pp.70-84.
[20] J. Kulik et al., Negotiation-based protocols for disseminating information
in wireless sensor networks, Wireless Networks, 8(2/3) (2002) 169-185.
[21] D. Ganesan et al., ”Highly-resilient, energy-efcient multipath routing
in wireless sensor networks, Mobile Computing and Communications
Review, 5(4) (2001) 10-24.
[22] J. Zhu et al., Adaptive localized QoS-constrained data aggre-gation and
processing in distributed sensor networks,IEEE Transactions on Parallel
and Distributed Systems, 17(9) (2006) 923-933.
[23] J. Luo and J. P. Hubaux, Joint mobility and routing for lifetime
elongation in wireless sensor networks, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM05,
vol.3, Miami, FL, Mar. 2005, pp. 1735-1746.

R EFERENCES
[1] W. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, H. Balakrishnan, ”Energy-efficient
communication protocol for wireless sensor networks”, in: Proceeding of
the Hawaii International Conference System Sciences, Hawaii, January
2000
[2] K. Sohrabi et al., ”Protocols for self-organization of a wireless sensor
network”,IEEE Personal Communications 7(5) (2000)16-27.
[3] S. Tilak et al., ”A taxonomy of wireless micro sensor network mod-
els”,Mobile Computing and Communications Review 6(2) (2002) 28-36.
[4] W. Heinzelman, ”Application specific protocol architectures for wireless
networks”, PhD Thesis, MIT, 2000.
[5] L. Subramanian, R. H. Katz, ”An architecture for building self congurable
systems ”, in: Proceedings of IEEE/ACM Workshop on Mobile Ad Hoc
Networking and Computing, Boston, MA, August 2000.
[6] M. Younis et al., ”Energy-aware routing in cluster-based sensor networks”,
in: Proceedings of the 10th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on
Modeling,Analysis and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication
Systems (MASCOTS2002), Fort Worth, TX, October 2002.
[7] K. Akkaya et al., ”An energy-aware QoS routing protocol for wireless
sensor networks”, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Mobile and
Wireless Networks (MWN 2003), Providence, RI, May 2003
[8] F. Ye, et al., ”Two-tier data dissemination model for large-scale wireless
sensor networks”, proceedings of ACM/IEEE MOBICOM, 2002.
[9] I. Akyildiz et al., A survey on sensor net-works, IEEE Communications
Magazine, 40(8) (2002) 102-114.
[10] D. Pompili et al., Routing algorithms for delay-insensitive and delay-
sensitive applications in underwater sensor networks, Proceedings ACM
MobiCom06, Los Angeles, CA, Sept. 2006, pp. 298-309.
[11] http://www.ieee802.org/15/
[12] A. Woo and D. Culler, A transmission control scheme for media access
in sensor networks, in Proceedings of 2001 ACM/IEEE International
Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom01), Rome,
Italy, July 2001, pp. 221-235.
[13] Q. Ren and Q. Liang, A contention-based energy-efficient MAC pro-
tocol for wireless sensor networks, in Proceedings of 2006 IEEE Wire-
less Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC 06),Las Ve-
gas,NV,Apr.2006,pp. 1154-1159.
[14] C. Intanagonwiwat et al., Directed diffusion for wireless sensor network-
ing, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 11(1) (2003) 2-16.
[15] R. Rajagopalan and P.Varshney, Data-aggregation techniques in sensor
networks:A survey,IEEE Communications and Surveys and Tutorials, 8(4)
(2006) 48-63.
[16] A. A. Abbasi and M.Younis, A survey on clustering algorithms for
wireless sensor networks,Computer Communications, 30(14-15) (2007)
2826-2841.

91