Energy efficient protocol in wsn WITH ACO


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Energy efficient protocol in wsn WITH ACO

  1. 1. ENERGY EFFICIENT ROUTING PROTOCOL IN WSN*Neelam Chauhan * Pearmjeet Singh*M Tech (Final Year CSE) at BRCM, Behal, Bhiwani * M Tech (Microelectronics & VLSI Design)* Lecturer, ECE Department, Govt Polytechnic,Loharu, Bhiwani,Haryana, India *chauhan.paramjeet@gmail.comAbstract: In Nowadays the popularity of Wireless wireless channels to form intelligent distributed sensorSensor Networks have increased tremendously, due to the system.vast potential of the sensor networks to connect thephysical world with the virtual world. Since these devices A wireless sensor node has very limited energy supply thatrely on battery power and may be placed in hostile is usually supplied with battery, and it is almost infeasibleenvironments replacing them becomes a tedious task. Thus, for a sensor terminal to recharge or replace the batteryimproving the energy of these networks becomes power after deployment in distant or urgent issue hazardousimportant. environments. Therefore, in order to prolong the wholeThe paper provides an energy efficient protocol for sensor network lifetime, energy efficiency, especially powerdata management. The protocol employs replicated data saving on each sensor node, becomes an in WSNsinks to achieve(1) Resiliency to data sinks failure. 11 Background Knowledge(2) Efficiency in storing and retrieving sensor data.A simple address assignment scheme is introduced that 2.1 Energy Efficient Communication Protocolpartitions the sensor field into cells, where each cellcontains one data sink and all sensors that are closest to this An Energy Efficient Protocol for storing and retrievingdata sink. It is shown that this scheme is scalable and sensor data. With some new features this protocol alsoresilient against data sink and sensor node failures. provides fault tolerance in the presence of data sink andFurthermore, the scheme has a reasonably low message sensor failures. As a result, this protocol can maximize thecomplexity and high energy efficiency. overall life of the sensor network. Now what is the role of sensor node in wireless sensorKeywords: WSN Routing ,WSN Protocol , De Bruijn network?Digraphs ,Energy Efficient Communication Protocol, Sensors are usually very simple units that are equippedFLOC. with a sensing functionality. One can expect that wireless sensors become smaller, cheaper, and more powerful. 1 Introduction Sensors can even carry out simple computations and communicate with each other. However, a wireless sensorAs a revolution of information sensing and collecting, node has limited resources since it typically runs on batterywireless sensor network is an emerging distributed sensing power and usually has a very small memory space. Thus,technology that has a wide range of applications such as sensing devices must operate under severe resourceremote environment monitoring, military sensing, and constraints and one of the foremost goals is to minimize theintelligence information gathering and so on.. energy consumption. Therefore, there is a need for an energy-efficient communication scheme to store and retrieve a vast amount of sensor data. But in many applications, the sensing devices are placed outdoors, resulting in a vulnerability to various noises and errors. . 2.2 Problem Definition 1) What kind of data storage and retrieval structure in a wireless sensor network is energy-efficient? 2) How can we make the wireless sensing system faultFigure.1: Framework of a Wireless Sensor Network tolerant, when sensor nodes and data sinks may fail? 3) How can we achieve scalability in wireless sensor data management so that the sensor system can be easilyThe wireless sensor networks are composed of a large expanded by deploying new sensors and even adding newnumber of inexpensive and small sensor nodes (called as data sink?collectors) as well as an information collection center(called as base station, sink), which are connected via
  2. 2. As an effort to answer these questions, a protocol based on . . . ,sn}. The data sinks are sensor-oblivious, which meansideas inspired by de Bruijn digraphs and Voronoi diagrams. that a sensor can store and retrieve data to and from anyDe Bruijn Digraphs:-The basics of de Bruijn digraphs [2] data sink. It is assume that the t data sinks are reasonablylet h and k is integer’s ≥ 2. The de Bruijn digraph B(h, k) regularly deployed over the sensor field.has vertex set V = {0, 1, . . . , h − 1}k, and there is an edgefrom vertex a = (a1, . . . , ak) to vertex b = (b1, . . . , bk) if The following assumptions about the cost for an interactionand only if ai = bi+1 for all i in the range 1 ≤ i ≤ k − 1.. between a data sink and a sensor.Thus every vertex has an out-degree of h, and the diameter The cost (energy consumption) of storing and retrievingof B (h, k) is equal to k. data is the same at every data sink. The cost of sending and receiving data to and from a data sink can be computed by the hop count in the routing path to the data sink times a fixed cost per hop. Each sensor tries to minimize the cost of storing and retrieving data by communicating with the nearest data sink, where the distance from a sensor to a data sink is measured in terms of hop counts. It follows that the sensor network is partitioned into cells such that the sensors in the same cell communicate with the same data sink. Figure 2 : Illustrate the digraph B (2, 2). The nodes on the border of two or more cells “border nodes”. It assumes that unique identifiers (ID) are given to data sinks. It also assumes that every sensor node has aThus every vertex has an out-degree of h, and the diameter unique identifier, such as a MAC address . There is noof B (h, k) is equal to k. One possible routing scheme in a functional difference among data sinks, that is, they all actde Bruijn digraph works as follows. Suppose that the as final data storage and gateway to the outside networks.destination address is b = (b1. . . bk) and the source address Data can be sent to any of the data sinks as long as the datais a = (a1, . . . , aℓ, b1, . . . , bk−ℓ), where (b1, . . . , bk−ℓ) is sink is alive.the longest prefix of b at the tail of a. Then the routing canbe done by left-shifting the source address ℓ times,inserting one digit of the destination address in each step, It also assume that the wireless sensor nodes as well as thestarting from digit bk−ℓ+1. data sinks are stationary, i.e. not mobile. It also assume that the data sink servers know the total number n of sensorIt is noted that it is not possible to use de Bruijn routing in a nodes, and that only a subset of the sensors are within one-sensor network, since the de Bruijn digraph cannot, in hop range from the data sinks (if all the sensors are within ageneral, be embedded into the available communication radio range from the data sinks, then there is no need fortopology of the sensor network. However, we can retain routing). The wireless signal (message) that a sensor nodemuch of the routing principle for the communication of sends is broadcast within the radio range, that is, everysensor nodes to data sinks. node within the radio range of a sensor node ith will hearIt is well-known that de Bruijn networks can provide the messages broadcast by ith. Delivering a messageefficient routing among large number of nodes. In this requires more processing power than receiving a message.routing scheme imitates certain aspects de Bruijn routing, Therefore, in the design of the energy efficient protocol, itbut is simpler, more flexible, and dynamically tries to minimize the redundant delivery of messagesreconfigurable. In this scheme, the address of a sensor node without compromising the fault-tolerance in dataalready indicates the length of the path to the closest data transmission.sink. 111 WSN Protocol 2.3 System Model and Assumption 3.1 The ProtocolThe communication architecture uses a hybrid model that In this section, the description of protocol for energy-effectively utilizes a variation of the peer-to-peer efficient, fault-tolerant data storage and retrieval, withoutcommunication paradigm among the sensors, and a relying on any geographic or physical location informationvariation of the client server paradigm between the sensors of the sensors as well as the servers. The new protocol usesand the data sinks. The wireless sensors act as clients in the the five types of messages:networked sensor system and the data sinks act as servers. 1) The initialization message (init) is used in theThe data sinks process the return feedback control data to initialization step to assign hop-count based addresses.the sensor nodes. 2) The toSink message is used to send a message from a sensor node to the data sink to perform a data storageLet W (t, n) denote a wireless sensor network with t operation.replicated data sinks D = {d1. . . dt}, and n sensors S = {s1,
  3. 3. 3) The fromSink message is used to broadcast a messagefrom the data sink server to every sensor node. Thismessage carries the ID of the sending data sink. This typeof message is used when the server proactively retrievesdata from the sensors or when it needs to broadcast controlmessages to the sensors.4) The peer message is used to communicate among thepeer sensors.5) The node Fail message is used to inform nodes about afailed node. This type of message is used by successors of afailed node to negotiate new routing paths. Figure 1 : Sensor Network with three Data SinksFirst, the description about how the initial setup isperformed, where one or more de Bruijn-style addresses are Figure 1 shows a sensor network with three data sinks (thatassigned to each sensor node. Then I illustrate how are depicted by black circles) and several sensor nodes (thatmessage routing is performed. Finally, The explanation are depicted by white circles). If two nodes are withinabout how resilience against node failures is achieved radio-range of each other, then there is an edge between these nodes.3.2 Initialization of WSNThe data sink servers start the initialization step by adynamic address assignment procedure. The t data sinkservers have addresses 1. . . t. Suppose that the data sinkserver i has h sensors within its one-hop radio range. Thedata sink server i assigns the h sensor nodes the addresses(i, 0), (i, 1). . . (i, h − 1). When a sensor node s with h′ one-hop neighbors receives an address a = (a1, a2. . . aℓ) froman one-hop neighbor j, then it takes one of the followingactions:If s does not have a valid address, then s takes a as itsaddress. And it assigns each one-hop neighbor, except j, anaddress in the range of (a1, a2, . . . , aℓ, 0), . . . , (a1, a2, . . ., aℓ, h′ − 2). • If s already has a valid address of length ℓ, Figure 2 : Result after Address Assignmentthen it keeps a as an alias address. Notice that all aliases ofa sensor node have the same length. Sensor network after address assignment. Some nodes haveIf s has a valid address of length ℓ′ > ℓ, then it deletes all its several address aliases that lead to different routes in toaddress aliases and keeps a as a new address. And it once Sink messagesagain assigns each one-hop neighbor, except j, an addressin the range of (a1, a2. . . aℓ, 0), . . . , (a1, a2, . . . , aℓ, h′−2).In this way, every sensor node that is reachable from a datasink will receive at least one address. The number ofaddress aliases of a sensor node does not exceed thenumber of its one hop neighbors. A sensor node informs itsone-hop neighbors about its address aliases.This simple address assignment scheme has someremarkable properties:If a sensor node has an address alias (a1, a2. . . aℓ), thenthere is a path of ℓ−1 hops to the data Sink a1, and there isno shorter path to a1. This assignment scheme realizes the Figure 3 : illustrates the subdivision into different cells.partitioning into cells. If a node has only address aliasesthat start with a1, then it is within the cell of a1. Induced partition of the network. All nodes that have an address alias beginning with the same digit belong to theThe border nodes are characterized by the fact that they same cell. Border nodes belonging to two different cells arehave address aliases that start with different digits. The shaded grey.main features of the address assignment. Each cell contains a data sink and all sensor nodes that are closer to this data sink than to any other in terms of hop- count. If a sensor node has the same distance from more than one data sink, then it belongs to the cell of each of those data sinks; such nodes are called border nodes.
  4. 4. The nodes 120, 230, 310 are examples of such border Example 3: Suppose that node 130 wants to send a peernodes. If a sensor node s has address (a1, a2, . . . , aℓ−1, message to node 210 in the sensor network given in Figureaℓ), then there exists a node p with address (a1, a2, . . . , 3.6(c). Then the message is routed through 130 → 13 → 1,aℓ−1).p a predecessor of s, and s a successor of p. The and then forwarded to data sink 2, and the final hops are 2associates of s are all one-hop neighbors of s that are → 21 → 210.neither predecessor nor successors. A straightforward routing rule for peer messages could use3.3 Routing a sequence of predecessors until the node with the longest common prefix of a and b is reached, from which b can beAfter the addresses have been assigned to the nodes, reached through successors. Our peer message routing rulerouting is performed. The most common type of message is improves upon this rule by taking shortcuts whenevera to Sink message from a sensor node to a data sink, which Information about one-hop neighbors reveals such ais typically routed through predecessors. Occasionally, a possibility, as was shown in Example 1. Unlike to Sinkdata sink may send from Sink messages to the sensor routing, it should be noted that peer routing is notnodes, which are forwarded through successors. A peer necessarily optimal; this is the price one has to pay for themessage is routed through any combination of very limited memory usage. In view of the fact that peerpredecessors, associates, and successors. messages are rare and typically local, this does not appear to be a significant disadvantage.A to Sink message is routed by randomly selecting onepredecessor; this is done by right-shifting one randomly The energy efficient protocol makes typically multipleselected address alias. Then the same process is repeated paths available while routing from sensor node to a datauntil the data sink is reached. For instance, one possible sink; unlike many other routing protocols for sensorpath from the address (a1, . . . , aℓ) is through the networks, such as directed diffusion, ours will alwayspredecessors (a1, . . . , aℓ−1), (a1, . . . , aℓ−2), . . . , (a1, a2) ensure that the selected route is optimal, so that loadto the data sink a1. balancing does not come at the cost of energy efficient. A from Sink message is broadcast by sending the messagefrom the data sink to its successors, and each sensor nodereceiving such a message forwards it to all its successors. IV Related Work and ComparisonSuppose that a peer message is sent from a node withaddress a = (a1. . . aℓ) to a node with address b = (b1, . . . ,bk). The node a or any node receiving the messageforwards it to the one-hop neighbor that has an address The work is related to two intertwined themes in wirelessalias with the longest common prefix with b; if several one- sensor networks: routing and data aggregation. Numeroushop neighbors qualify, then the one with the shortest architectures and protocols have been proposed to solveaddress alias is chosen. If a data sink 6= b1 receives such a both problems at the same time.message, then it will forward it to the data sink b1. Initial Flooding of Message:-An initial flooding of messages in the sensor field to establish the routing paths.The design of the protocol ensures that the routing of the to This step is somewhat similar to directed diffusion ,aSink messages is optimal; in a typical sensor network mechanism that uses limited flooding of queries towardsapplication the to Sink messages are by far the most events and sets up reverse gradients for the best path. Onefrequent ones, since they are used to communicate the fundamental difference is that directed diffusion issensor data. designed for the single data sink scenario, whereas the energy efficient routing protocol can serve multiple dataExample 1: Suppose that the node 131=310 in the sensor given in Figure 3 wants to send a to Sink message GPSR: is an efficient routing scheme that relies on theto a data sink. If it chooses its alias 131, then the resulting localized nodes and restricts flooding to a geographicalroute will be 131 → 13 → 1. If it chooses its address alias region . One drawback of this approach, however, is its310, then the resulting route will be 310 → 31 → 3. Peer assumption that the locations of the sensor nodes aremessages can be used, for example, by a sensor to check known to all nodes in the network. Where new change inwhether its sensor readings are reasonable. Although such the protocol such that knowledge of locations is notmessages are rare or not used at all in typical sensor applications, we remark that routing between any SHORT: is a self-healing, path- and energy-aware routingtwo nodes is possible. An example shows the above framework shows a good performance with the reducedrouting rule. energy costs .In a path-aware scheme, shorter paths are found by connecting non-adjacent nodes on a path that areExample 2: Consider the sensor network given in Figure 3 within communication range of each other. In an energy-Suppose that node 110 wants to send peer message to node aware scheme, a routing path is switched when the energy210. Since both neighbors of 110 have an empty common of the nodes on the path is running low. By letting theprefix with 210, the message is forwarded to 11, the shorter neighboring nodes of a route, together with the on-routeaddress alias. Among the neighbors of 11, the node nodes, monitor the route, up-to-date information of local200 have the longest common prefix with 210, so it is topology and link quality can be exploited. The workrouted there, and node 200 routes the message to 210. resembles their approach regarding self-healing and energy-efficiency. In new case, the routing of messages to a
  5. 5. data sink is optimal, and the advantage of shortcuts in peer the introduction of alternate paths with neighbor nodemessage routing, though without introducing much (sensor node, data sink) according to the location also.overhead. The most common application in sensor networks is theFLOC: (Clustering service) called FLOC, which can delivery of sensor data. The protocol ensures that suchachieve efficient and scalable control in large-scale ad hoc messages from the sensor nodes are always routed in anwireless sensor networks. To achieve high energy optimal way to the closest data sink using the least possibleefficiency and resiliency, role-based hierarchical self- number of hops.organized networks are explored in Depending on their The overhead of keeping routing tables to accommodate theconnectivity and sensing capability, sensor nodes are memory constraints of sensor nodes is totally avoided. Aassigned the role of data collection and data dissemination. node simply needs to keep the address aliases of itself andBased on certain metrics, the network is partitioned into of its one-hop neighbors. Furthermore, this protocol doessensing zones, in which the sensor nodes collaborate to not require any location information. The reasonably lowachieve a sensing objective. message complexity of our scheme can extend the batteryIn the energy efficient protocol, this approach relies only on life of each node, maximizing the overall life of the sensorlocal information. However, as a hierarchy-based network.architecture, this approach is vulnerable to failures,especially when particular roles are prone to become pointsof failure. The systematic rotation of roles among the nodescan resolve this problem. A periodically repeated roleassignment scheme is proposed in for Bluetooth-based VI Referencessensor networks.ACQUIRE : is an active query forwarding mechanism in 1 Andrea Kulakov, Georgi Stojanov and Dancoa sensor network. A query packet is forwarded through the Davcev,”Sound and video processing in wireless sensornetwork that follows a random or guided path. At each step, networks” Faculty of Electrical Engineering Universitya node, upon receiving a query, performs an update to “Sts Cyril and Methodius”,IEEE, April 2006.gather data from all of its neighbors within a look-ahead of 2 Anwitaman Datta, Sarunas Girdzijauskas, Karl Aberer,”d steps. As this query progresses through the network, it is On de Bruijn routing in distributed hash tables: There andgradually resolved into smaller components until it is back again,” IEEE, EPFL 2003.completely solved and is returned back to the querying 3 Brad Krap, H.T.Kung, “GPSR: Greedy Perimeternode. This approach works at its best for one-shot, non- Stateless Routing for Wireless Networks”, Proc, of the 6thaggregate, complex queries for replicated data. Annual Int.Conf.on Mobile Mobile Computing andTAG: is a high-level abstraction of a declarative interface Networking (MobiCom), pp.243-245, August 2000.for data collection and aggregation in wireless sensor 4 Chao Gui and Prasant Mohapatra, “A Self –Healing andnetworks of TinyOS motes .It realizes a distributed query Optimizing Routing Techniques for Ad-Hocaggregation scheme that is sensitive to resource constraints Networks”Proc of the 4th ACM Int.Symp on Mobile Adand can cope with lossy communication of wireless sensor Hoc Networking and Computing (MobiHoc), IEEE,networks. pp.279-290, June2003. 5 C.Intanagonwiwat, R.Govindan and D.Estrin “DirectedSo, finally it is noticed that a mobile agent based systems, Diffusion: A Scalable and Robust Communicationwhere agents exchange data with nearby sensors or access Paradigm for Sensor Networks”, Proc. of the 6th Annualpoints that they encounter as they pass by. The advantage Int.Conf.on Mobile Computing and Networkingof such an approach is that fewer infrastructures are (MobiCom), pp56-67, of IEEE, August2000.required and on the other methods there is no overhead 6 DaiZhi-feng, li-Yuan-Xiang, He-gnoliang, Jong Ya-la,caused by packet routing. When the density of mobile Shen Xian-Jun, “Uncertain Data Management for Wirelessagents is sufficiently high, the system is more robust than a Sensor Network Using Rough Set Theory” of IEEE Junefixed network. The primary drawback of such a system is 2006.that the latency is high, so it is not suitable for all 7 Danco Davcev, Andrea Kulakov, and Stojancoapplications. Unexpected failures such as loss of mobile Gancev,”Experiments in Data Management for Wirelessagents or limitations on mobility can compromise the fault- sensor Network” of IEEE, September 2008.tolerance of such a system. 8 F.L.Lewis “Wireless Sensor Network” Associated director for Research Head, Advance Controls, sensors & V Conclusion MEMS Group of Automation & Robotics Research Institution the University of Texas,,During the conduct of study done as a part of paper, on Feb efficient communication protocol for data storage 9 Haiying Shen, Ting Li “Data Management of Wirelessand retrieval in a wireless sensor network is vulnerable. Sensor Network” of IEEE, May 2009. 10 Hyunyonng Lee, Andreas Klappenecker andEnergy Efficient protocol employs replicated data sinks to Kyoungsook Lee, LAN Lin,”Energy Efficient Dataimprove fault tolerance in the face of data sink failures. The Management for Wireless Sensor Network with Data Sinkachievement of resiliency against sensor node and data sink Failure” of IEEE, June 2005.failures through a dynamic Re-assignment of addresses and 11 Li Qun Zhuang, Jing Bing Zhang, Dan Hong Zhang and Yi Zhi Zhao,” Data Management for Wireless Sensor
  6. 6. Networks: Research Issues and Challenges of IEEE June2005.12 Mudasser Iqbal, Hock Beng Lim, Wenqiang Wang,Yuxia Yao “A Service-Oriented Model for Semantics-based Data Management in Wireless Sensor Networks” ofIEEE Intelligent Systems center,Nanyang TechnologicalUniversity,Singapore, Feb 2009.13 Qian Wang, Kui Ren, and Cong Wang and WenjingLou,” Efficient Fine-grained Data Access Control inWireless Sensor Networks”, of IEEE,PID:901523.pdf Feb2009.14 Qian Wang, Kui Ren ,Yanchao Zhang and WenjingLou,” Dependable and Secure Sensor Data Storage withDynamic Integrity Assurance” of IEEE May 2009.15 M.Handy,J.Blumenthal and D.Timmermann,”Energy-Efficient Data Collection for Bluetooth-Based SensorNetworks”EUROMICRO Symposium on Digital SystemDesign,pp.566-573,2004.