Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Networks
Mallanagouda Patil
Rajashekhar C. Biradar
Energy Consumption : As sensor nodes in WSN have limited battery power, it becomes challenging to perform computation 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 eld of interest depending on application
thus inuencing 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 selforganizing systems, sensor nodes are scattered randomly creating 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 models highly inuence 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 multiple 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].
AbstractThis paper presents a survey of state-of-the-art routing 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 efciency, 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, benets and result
analysis wherever possible. The routing protocols discussed are
classied 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.
86
ICON 2012
More importantly, interests, data dissemination and data aggregation 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 periodically 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 timestamp 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 nd 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 specied
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 specied data rate for the neighbors
with a lower requested data rate. Figure 2 summarizes the steps
in Directed Diffusion.
Negotiation SPIN
Fig. 1.
87
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 trafc
load and improve the scalability[16].
Threshold Sensitive Energy Efcient Sensor Network Protocol (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 applications, a reactive network is more suitable than a proactive
network. In order to trade-off between energy efciency, 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 datacentric mechanism. The Adaptive Threshold sensitive Energy
Efcient 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 Adaptive 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.
Benets/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 thresholdbased functions and dealing with attribute-based naming of
queries.
Sleeping
Recieve msg
Active
After Td
After Ta
Discovery
Fig. 3.
88
89
Benets/Demerits of the Scheme : Although many performance aspects of WSNs may benet from mobility, the lifetime
issue seems to have attracted the majority of attention and
contributions. The trafc load within a WSN is highly unbalanced among nodes that have different distances from the sink.
Whereas no routing strategy may alleviate such an imbalance,
actively moving certain network entities may further balance
the load and hence improve the lifetime. However the mobility
in WSN leads to an added complexity compared to static WSN.
GEAR
GAF
SPIN
Maximum
Limited
Limited
Maximum
Limited
Good
Good
Limited
Limited
Limited
Location Awareness NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Optimal Routing
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Mobility
Limited
Limited
Possible
NO
Limited
MultiPath
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
Data Aggregation
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
Scalability
Fixed Sink
SAR
Health
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
Environment
Monitoring
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
Military
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
Commercial
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
Fig. 4.
90
[17] A. Manjeshwar and D.P.Agarwal, TEEN: a routing protocol for enhanced efciency in wireless sensor networks, in 1st International Workshop 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.
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.
R EFERENCES
[1] W. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, H. Balakrishnan, Energy-efcient
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 models,Mobile Computing and Communications Review 6(2) (2002) 28-36.
[4] W. Heinzelman, Application specic 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 delaysensitive 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-efcient MAC protocol for wireless sensor networks, in Proceedings of 2006 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC 06),Las Vegas,NV,Apr.2006,pp. 1154-1159.
[14] C. Intanagonwiwat et al., Directed diffusion for wireless sensor networking, 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