Routing Techniques in Wireless Sensor

Networks: A Survey
J. Al-Karaki, A. E. Kamal

A Survey on Routing Protocols for

Wireless Sensor Networks
K. Akkaya, M. Younis

Based on materials from Fei Hu and Kang

MANET-Inspired WSN Application: Military

From UMASS
MANET-Inspired WSN Application:
Environmental

From UMASS
 MANET-Inspired WSN Application: Future
Health

Circulatory Net
General Properties (1)
 Mainly for Information Collection
 Single Owner
 Up to Hundreds of Thousands of Nodes
 Disposable Nodes
 Cheap Nodes
 Security Concerns
General Properties (2)
 Bounded Directed Stream (from/to Sink)
 Somewhat Limited Computation Capability

 Limited Communication Capability

 Limited Power Resources
 Node may not have Unique ID
 Common case - Stationary Nodes
General Architecture (1)
Sensor Network Node Main Components

 Sensor Unit
 ADC – Analog Digital Converter
 CPU – Central Processing Unit
 Power Unit
 Communication Unit
General Architecture (2)
General Requirements (1)
 Varying Network Size
 Inexpensive Nodes Equipment
 Long Lifetime (Power) 
Load-Balancing
 Self-Organization
 Re-tasking and Querying Capability
General Requirements (2)
 Sensible Data Aggregation
 Consolidation of Redundant Data
 Application Awareness

 Tradeoff
Communication for Computation
 Possible Mobility
 Some WSN Routing challenges and
design issues
Node deployment
Manual deployment
Sensors are manually deployed
Data is routed through predetermined path
Random deployment
Optimal clustering is necessary to allow
connectivity & energy-efficiency
Multi-hop routing
 Some WSN Routing challenges and
design issues (contd)
Fault tolerance
Some sensors may fail due to lack of power,
physical damage, or environmental
interference
Adjust transmission power, change sensing
rate, reroute packets through regions with
more power
 Some WSN Routing challenges and
design issues (contd)
Network dynamics
Mobile nodes
Mobile events, e.g., target tracking
If WSN is to sense a fixed event,
networks can work in a reactive manner
 A lot of applications require periodic reporting
 Some WSN Routing challenges and
design issues (contd)
Connectivity
High density  high connectivity
Some sensors may die after consuming
their battery power
Connectivity depends on possibly random
deployment
Routing challenges and design issues
(contd)
Data routing methods
Application-specific
Time-driven: Periodic monitoring
Event-driven: Respond to sudden changes
Query-driven: Respond to queries
Hybrid
Routing challenges and design issues
(contd)
Transmission media
Wireless channel
Limited bandwidth: 1 – 100Kbps
Using MAC (Link Layer)
Contention-free, e.g., TDMA (Time Division
Multiple Access) or CDMA (Code Division
Multiple Access)
Contention-based, e.g., CSMA (Carrier Sense
Multiple Access), MACA (Multiple Access with
Collision Avoidance), or 802.11
 Putting all together: Motivation

 Properties of Sensor Networks

Data centric
No central authority
Resource constrained
Nodes are tied to physical locations
Nodes may not know the topology
Nodes are generally stationary
 How can we get data from the sensors? Using Conventional
Routing Protocols? Using MANET Routing Protocols? No and Yes!
No: We need WSN Routing Protocols; Yes: WSN Routing
protocols based on the conventional and MANET ones.
 WSN Routing Protocols
for CSE4PND

Reactive
Proactive

Clustered/ Flat/Data-C Clustered/

Flat/Data Hierarchical
Hierarchical entric
-Centric

SPIN LEACH Directed TEEN

Diffusio
n

18
 Routing Protocols in WSNs

I. Flat
II. Hierarchical
III. Location-based (excluded for
CSE4PND)
IV. QoS-based (excluded for CSE4PND)
I. Flat routing
 Flat routing by conventional
Flooding, but …
 Too much waste
 Implosion & Overlap
 Use in a limited scope, if
necessary
 That is, unsuitable for most
WSNs
 Flat routing by data-centric
routing
 No globally unique ID
 Naming based on data
attributes
 That is, individual nodes are
unimportant
 Egs: SPIN, Directed
Diffusion, ...
 Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

SPIN
n Data centric and proactive (getting ready
Protocol Highlights

all paths to named data)

n Network-wide broadcast Limited by
negotiation and using local communication
n Flooding problems solved:
Implosion – same data from many neighbors
Detection of overlapping regions
Excessive resources consumption (Blindness)
n Needs only localized information
 Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

SPIN
Broadcast - limited scale –
Main Drawbacks

n
every node handles O(n) messages
n Data is updated throughout network –
unnecessary in many cases
n Network (power) lifetime - good
n High degree nodes = High power needs
 Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

SPIN
Main Procedures

 Data is described by meta-data ADV msg.

 Source node (say Node A) has data  sends ADV to
neighbors
 If neighbor does not have data  sends REQ
 Node A responds by sending the DATA
 This process continues around the network
 Nodes may aggregate their data to ADV
 In a lossy network ADV or REQ may be repeated
periodically, if they are not answered respectively
 SPIN (Sensor Protocols for Information via
Negotiation) - next few slides for illustrations
 Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

SPIN
Node with data
Illustrations

ADV

Node with data advertises to all its neighbors

 Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

SPIN
Node with data
Illustrations

REQ

Neighbor requests for data and it is sent

 Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

SPIN
DATA Node with data
Illustrations

Node with data advertises to all its neighbors

 Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

SPIN
Node with data
Illustrations

ADV

Receiving node sends ADV to neighbors

 Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

SPIN
Node with data
Illustrations

Already
has data
(or dead)
REQ

Receiving neighbors requests for data.

 Sensor Protocol for Information via Negotiation

SPIN
Node with data
Illustrations

DATA

Receiving node sends ADV to neighbors

 SPIN

 Pros
Each node only needs to know its one-hop
neighbors
Significantly reduce energy consumption compared
to flooding
 Cons
Data advertisement cannot guarantee the delivery
of data
If the node interested in the data are far from the
source, data will not be delivered
Not good for applications requiring reliable data delivery,
e.g., intrusion detection
 Directed Diffusion: Main Features
 data centric and reactive (Sink looking for named
data; constructing a path to named data when
required)

 Request (on-demand) driven

Sinks place requests as interests
(requests/queries/RREQ)
Sources (Named data) satisfying the interest can
be found
Intermediate nodes route data toward sinks
 Localized repair and reinforcement
 Multi-path delivery for multiple sources, sinks, and
queries
 Directed Diffusion (DD)
DD: a Snapshot
A query for named data (interest) is
Main Procedures


broadcast by a node (sink)
 Query reaches relevant sensor sources
 This sets up exploratory gradients (forward
paths)
 Once data is available in a Source
it is sent Back via Reinforced Path
 Failing Links / nodes are being gradually
bypassed
 Directed Diffusion: Motivating Example

Sensor nodes are monitoring animals

Users are interested in receiving data
for all 4-legged creatures seen in a
rectangle
Users specify the data rate
 Directed Diffusion: Interest and Event
Naming (Forward Path)
 Query/interest (from Sink):
1. Type=four-legged animal
2. Interval=20ms (event data rate)
3. Duration=10 seconds (time to cache)
4. Rectangle =[-100, 100, 200, 400]
 Reply (from Source or from an intermediate sensor
node with previously cached data – forward path) :
1. Type=four-legged animal
2. Instance = elephant
3. Location = [125, 220]
4. Intensity = 0.6
5. Confidence (probability) = 0.85
6. Timestamp = 01:20:40
 Attribute-Value pairs, no advanced naming
scheme
 Directed Diffusion: Interest/Request
Propagation
 Flood interest/request
 Constrained or Directional flooding based on location is possible
 Directional propagation based on previously cached data
 Interest = Request/Query
 Gradient = forward path
Gradient
Source Interest

Sink
 Directed Diffusion: Data Propagation

Multipath routing
Consider each gradient’s link quality
Select the preferred path/route
(reinforcement) for forwarding data.
Gradient
Source Data
forward
path

Sink
 Directed Diffusion: Reinforcement

 Reinforce one of the neighbor after receiving initial

data.
 Neighbor who consistently performs better than others
 Neighbor from whom most events received
 Reinforcement = preferred path for the Sink-Source (to-
and-forth) link.

Source Data -
Reinforcement
Request-
Reinforcement

Sink
 Directed Diffusion: Negative
Reinforcement (path maintenance)
 Explicitly degrade the path by re-sending interest with lower
data rate.
 Time out: Without periodic reinforcement, a gradient will be
torn down

Gradient
Source Data
Reinforcement

Sink
Directed Diffusion: Summary of the
protocol
 Directed Diffusion

DD – Another Example CLASS_KEY IS INTEREST_CLASS

LONGITUDE_KEY GE 10
LONGITUDE_KEY LE 50
LATITUDE_KEY GE 100
Illustrations

LATITUDE_KEY LE 120
SENSOR EQ MOVEMENT
Source INTENSITY GE 0.6
CONFIDENCE GE 0.7
INTERVAL IS 10
EXPIRE_TIME IS 100

Sink
 Directed Diffusion

DD: another Example (contd)

FilterAttrVec
CLASS_KEY EQ DATA_CLASS
Illustrations

SENSOR EQ MOVEMENT
INTENSITY GE 0.7
Source 3. addFilter (FilAttrVec, FilterCallback)

1. subscribe (InterestAttrVec, Callback) 2. subscribe (AttrVec, ApplCallback)

InterestAttrVec
CLASS_KEY EQ INTEREST_CLASS
LONGITUDE_KEY IS 35
LATITUDE_KEY IS 110
SENSOR IS MOVEMENT
Sink
 Directed Diffusion
1. Interests Setting up
DD (contd) gradients (Path
Discovery)
Illustrations

Source

Sink

Interest = Query/Request
Gradient = Forward path
 Directed Diffusion
DD (cont)
2. Sending data
…(Data Forward)
Illustrations

Source
4. h = publish (SensedAttrVec)
5. send (h, SensedAttrVec)

SensedAttrVec Sink
CLASS_KEY IS DATA_CLASS
LONGITUDE_KEY IS 35
LATITUDE_KEY IS 110
SENSOR IS MOVEMENT
INTENSITY IS 0.8
CONFIDENCE IS 0.7
Low rate event
 Directed Diffusion
DD (cont)
Illustrations

Source m1 6. FilterCallback.recv (Message m1)

a
m1 m2 m2
CLASS_KEY IS DATA_CLASS
b LONGITUDE_KEY IS 35
m2 LATITUDE_KEY IS 110
SENSOR IS MOVEMENT
INTENSITY IS 0.8
CONFIDENCE IS 0.8

7. sendMessage (Message new)

Low rate event

 Directed Diffusion
DD (contd)
Illustrations

Source 8. ApplCallback.recv (NRAttrVec)

Sink

Low rate event

 Directed Diffusion
DD (contd) … and Reinforcing the
best path
Illustrations

CLASS_KEY IS INTEREST_CLASS
LONGITUDE_KEY GE 10
LONGITUDE_KEY LE 50
LATITUDE_KEY GE 100
Source LATITUDE_KEY LE 120
SENSOR EQ MOVEMENT
INTENSITY GE 0.6
CONFIDENCE GE 0.7
INTERVAL IS 1
EXPIRE_TIME IS 90

Sink

Low rate event Reinforcement = Increased interest

 Directed Diffusion
DD: Node failure
Illustrations

Source

Sink

Recovering
from node failure
Low rate event
Reinforcement
High rate event
 Directed Diffusion

DD: Path recovery from a node failure

Illustrations

Source

Sink

Stable path
Low rate event
High rate event
 Directed Diffusion
DD: Broken link
Illustrations

Source

Sink
Recovering
from link failure
Low rate event
Reinforcement
High rate event
 Directed Diffusion
DD: Path Recovery from a broken
link
Illustrations

Source

Sink
Stable path

Low rate event

High rate event (Reinforcement)
 Directed Diffusion: Pros & Cons
 Different from SPIN in terms of on-demand data querying
mechanism
 Sink floods interests only if necessary
 A lot of energy savings
 In SPIN, sensors advertise the availability of data
 Pros
 Data centric: All communications are neighbor to neighbor with no
need for a node addressing mechanism
 Each node can do aggregation & caching
 Cons
 On-demand, query-driven: Inappropriate for applications requiring
continuous data delivery, e.g., environmental monitoring
 Attribute-based naming scheme is application dependent
 For each application it should be defined a priori
 Extra processing overhead at sensor nodes
II. Hierarchical Routing
 Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy
LEACH
Illustrations
 Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy
LEACH (Multi-level /hierarchical clustering)
Illustrations
 Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy
LEACH
Proactive, Self-Organizing – Adaptive
Protocol Highlights

Clustering
Cluster-Heads elect themselves –
by “Random Round-Robin” or
Power-Based Probability
 Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy
LEACH: Routing
 Works in Rounds (cluster periods): each round/cluster
Main Procedures

period (h = 0, 1, 2, … ) with
Set-Up (Shorter h) and Steady-State (Longer h)
 Set-Up Phase - subdivided:
h = 0: Advertisement (I am a Cluster-Head)
h = 1: Cluster Set-Up (I am in your Cluster)
h =2: Schedule Creation (This is your slot)
 Steady-State Phase:
h = 3, …: Data Transmission using TDMA (Time
Division Multiple Access)
 Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy
LEACH
Every node uses the same channel
Main Procedures

Different clusters use different CDMA

(Code Division Multiple Access) codes
Code chosen in random
 Data signal + random code = Transmitted signal at
various speeds -> spread spectrum
Cluster-Heads communicate with Sink
Can be extended to Hierarchical/Multi-
Layer Clustering
 LEACH

Pros
Distributed, no global knowledge required
Energy saving due to aggregation by CHs
Shortcomings
LEACH assumes all nodes can transmit with enough power
to reach BS if necessary (e.g., elected as CHs)
Each node should support both TDMA & CDMA
 LEACH (summary)

 Cluster-based protocol
 Each node randomly decides to become a cluster head (CH)
 CH chooses the code to be used in its cluster
 CH broadcasts Adv; Each node decides to which cluster it
belongs based on the received signal strength of Adv
 Nodes can sleep when it’s not their turn to transmit
 CH compresses data received from the nodes in the cluster and
sends the aggregated data to BS (Base Station/ Sink)
 CH is rotated randomly
Threshold sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor
Network (TEEN)

TEEN: Hierarchical clustering – single

level or multi-level
 Threshold sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network

TEEN: Routing Snapshot

n One cluster period (h = 0, 1, 2, …) consisting of Phase I

Main Procedures

and Phase II.

n Phase I: TEEN sets up clusters and Cluster Heads as in
LEACH
n Phase II: A node transmitting data (see next slide)
 Threshold sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network

TEEN: Routing Snapshot

n Phase II: A node transmits data in a timeslot h, only if :

Main Procedures

its sensed data is greater than a Hard Threshold

(HT) (ie data in the range of interest set by Sink) –
sent by Cluster Head; and
its sensed data differs from last transmitted value (
variable SV ) by more than a Soft Threshold (ST) (ie
the amount of change must be = or > ST set by Sink)
– sent by CH
n After transmission SV is updated/assigned with the
value of the currently transmitted data
 Cluster Heads need to listen constantly
 Cluster Heads are rotated randomly in each cluster
 TEEN (in perspective)

 Reactive, event-driven protocol for time-critical

applications
 A node senses the environment continuously, but turns radio
on and xmit only if the sensor value changes drastically
 No periodic xmission
Don’t wait until the next period to xmit critical data
Save energy if data is not critical
 CH sends its members a hard & a soft threshold
 Hard threshold: A member only sends data to CH only if data
values are in the range of interest
 Soft threshold: A member only sends data if its value
changes by at least the soft threshold
 Every node in a cluster takes turns to become the CH for a
time interval called cluster period
 Hierarchical clustering
 TEEN (pros & cons)
 Good for time-critical applications
 Energy saving
Less energy than proactive approaches
Soft threshold can be adapted
Hard threshold could also be adapted depending on
applications
 Inappropriate for periodic monitoring, e.g.,
habitat monitoring
 Ambiguity between packet loss and
unimportant data (indicating no drastic
change)
 TEEN (pros & cons) - contd

 Compared to LEACH, TEEN consumes less energy

 Network lifetime: TEEN ≥ LEACH
 Drawbacks of TEEN
 Overhead & complexity of forming clusters in multiple levels
and implementing threshold-based functions
 Comparison between SPIN, Directed
Diffusion, LEACH & TEEN
SPIN DD LEACH TEEN

Optimal No Yes No No
Route
Network Good Good V Good Excellent
Lifetime