Wireless Netw (2016) 22:335–350
DOI 10.1007/s11276-015-1025-x
A review on energy efficient protocols in wireless sensor networks
Sarika Yadav1 • Rama Shankar Yadav1
Published online: 6 August 2015
 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract In past decade, wireless sensor networks have
gained attention by researchers, manufacturers as well as
the users for remotely monitoring tasks and effective data
gathering in diverse environment. The wireless sensor
nodes are tiny battery powered devices having limited
lifetime, hence for longevity and reliability, the foremost
concern is minimizing energy consumption and maximiz-
ing network lifetime while designing protocols and appli-
cations. In this paper, we review the main design issues
based on the model of wireless sensor networks: structure-
free and structured for data collection and aggregation
where role of clustering and routing is discussed for energy
conservation and enhancing network lifetime. These design
strategies are the foundation of any networking protocol
from the energy saving point of view. A comprehensive
tabular overview of different approaches under structure-
free and structured wireless sensor networks for data col-
lection and aggregation, clustering and routing is presented
with key issues.
Keywords WSN
Data aggregation
Network lifetime

Cluster head
Base station
Network connectivity and
coverage
& Sarika Yadav
sarikayash18@gmail.com
Rama Shankar Yadav
rsy@mnnit.ac.in
1 magnetic RPM sensors, magnetometers, wind speed sensors,
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Motilal
Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad 211004,
India
1 Introduction
On 2nd August 2007, unexpectedly a highway bridge col-
lapsed into fast flowing Mississippi River in Minnesota, nine
people were killed in the event. The potential causes behind
the accident were wear and tear, weather conditions and load
on the bridge as determined by National Transportation
Safety Board, Minnesota [1]. In another incident, on 2nd July
2013, fire broke down in the forests of California where 19
firefighters succumbed to death due to choking and high rise
in temperature [2]. These incidents can be taken care off if
ample information such as weather forecasting, temperature,
high density smoke zone, load conditions are provided and
necessary actions have been taken in time. With recent
advances in Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS)
technology, wireless communications and digital electronics
have facilitated the development of low-cost, low-power
multi-functional, small-size wireless sensor nodes proficient
in observing the changes in physical environment, process-
ing the sensed data, taking decisions and performing
appropriate actions. Wireless sensor networks are used as an
integral part of systems such as health monitoring, battle-
field surveillance, missile target tracking, natural disasters
like floods, earthquake, fire-break down, thunder storm etc.
[3]. In a wireless sensor network, a sensor node can be made-
up by a small size battery, storage, a mote (processor/radio
board) and depending on its function, sensor/data acquisition
board that supports the detection and measurement of envi-
ronmental changes [4]. Wireless sensor boards offered in the
market have a variety of applications such as light sensors,
barometric pressure sensors, accelerometers, humidity sen-
sors, temperature sensors, GPS modules, acoustic sensors,
moisture sensors, solar radiation sensors, temperature sen-
sors, seismic sensors and rainfall meters [4]. These sensor
123
336
nodes perform three basic tasks: (1) sampling of a physical
quantity for the specified surrounding environment, (2)
processing and storing (if required) of the sensed data, and
(3) transferring the sensed data to a data collection point
called base station or sink node all the way through wireless
communication [3]. These sensor nodes can communicate
with a gateway unit (base station) that is proficient in com-
municating with other computers by means of additional
networks, such as a LAN, WLAN, WPAN and the Internet.
The base stations are fixed nodes and are connected to other
nodes forming the infrastructure for wireless sensor network.
At the base station, a snapshot of the adjoining region is
obtained by assembling the received sampling values for the
corresponding locations. The sensor nodes communicate
with each other and the base station through radios and the
base station to exchange data with applications to accom-
plish their assigned operation. Due to their unconventional
behavior, wireless sensor networks stand for a number of
unique technical problems during data processing, commu-
nication and sensor management bare to various challenges
in network detection, network control, mutual information
processing/exchange, bandwidth bottleneck and energy
availability as well as consumption constraints [5] due to the
following factors [6] as a part of wireless sensor network:
• Ad hoc deployment The regions which have no
infrastructure at all, for example in a forest, the sensor
nodes have to identify their connectivity being
deployed by tossing from an aeroplane where these
nodes are either densely accumulated or not connected
at all.
• Self organization In most cases, after deployment,
sensor networks have no human interference and the
sensor nodes themselves are responsible for reconfig-
uration in case of any change in their location either
due to strong wind, thunder storm or floods. This
requires that sensor nodes be familiar with their
geographic position (either absolute or with respect to
some coordinate system) and time-synchronized with
each other.
• Limited resources The wireless sensor nodes are
equipped with limited energy capacity source which
must be efficiently utilized for processing and
communication.
• Resource dynamics The resources - energy, bandwidth,
and the processing power of wireless sensor network
change dynamically; hence the network system should
operate autonomously as addition of more sensor nodes
or failing of sensor nodes take place.
Several key factors should be taken into consideration
while designing a wireless sensor network and its protocols
as described in Table 1. Wireless sensor networks were
123
Wireless Netw (2016) 22:335–350
deployed with a primary objective of replacing wired net-
works in the area where either deployment of wired net-
work was complicated due to geographic locations or
costly in terms of its utilization and random requirements.
The major concern in a wireless sensor network is to
extend the network lifetime in addition to its robustness as
compared to traditional wired networks where the center of
attention is to maximize channel throughput with minimum
node exploitation.
While the base station in wireless sensor networks can
have continuous power supply, a sensor node has limited
resources, for e.g. limited processing capability, limited
memory, limited battery backup and unpredictable har-
vesting capabilities which determines its own longevity
and whole network lifetime also. A sensor node’s lifetime
is restricted by backup available at a time, amount of
computation as well as communication it carries out
depending on the distance with communicating node.
Once power backup exhaust below threshold, it is treated
as dead node and is disconnected. Therefore, energy con-
servation techniques present a major research challenge for
wireless sensor networks and a number of research papers
proposed solutions to one or more of the above problems.
As available in research literature, Fig. 1 shows the
percentage of energy consumption by various activities
performed by a sensor node during its active time. From
the Fig. 1, it is noticeable that more than 50 % of energy is
spent during communication activity by a sensor node. For
communication we have to focus on maximum coverage
area where network connectivity should be maintained
within the deployed wireless sensor network. In this paper,
our review focuses on the suggested energy efficient
solutions as wireless sensor nodes have only a small and
finite source of energy with the most energy consuming
parts—sensors, microcontroller and radio module. Sec-
tion 2 deals with issues related to design requirements of
energy efficient schemes for data collection and aggrega-
tion, clustering and routing. In Sect. 3, we present review
of related work for data collection and aggregation for
structure-free wireless sensor networks. In Sect. 4, we
discuss related work for data collection and aggregation for
structured wireless sensor networks along with need and
issues associated with clustering and routing through
review of literature in Sects. 5 and 6. In Sect. 7, future
directions for research in wireless sensor networks having
perspective of these issues is discussed.
1.1 Design requirements for wireless sensor
networks
Data collection and aggregation is regular compilation of
sensed data from multiple sensor nodes to be transmitted to
Wireless Netw (2016) 22:335–350 337

Table 1 Key factors [7] in wireless sensor network

Key factors Description

Network Sensor nodes are connected with each other and base station via wireless links to share information. It is preferred as node
connectivity failures may cause the network topology and network size to change and loss of information
Area coverage Region where the sensor nodes are deployed for monitoring and data collection. It needs maximum coverage by sensor
node/base station transmission range
Node deployment Strategy to deterministically place the sensor nodes in order to meet the desired performance goals such as coverage of
monitored region
Fault tolerance Ability of sensor nodes to provide functionality even when few sensor nodes may fail and stop the data transmission due to
power shortage, physical damage or environment interferences and restrain the purpose of the network
Network lifetime Minimum time at which maximum numbers of sensor nodes are dead
Data aggregation Guiding principle to combine the sensed data from numerous sensor nodes with elimination of redundancy and provide
collective information to the base station
Clustering Course of action to group sensor nodes having similar role with an assigned cluster head in a densely deployed large-scale
wireless sensor network
Routing The process of determining a network path for a packet from source node to its destination
Network Changes in the topology of wireless sensor network due to sensor node failure or its mobility. It makes periodic monitoring
dynamics difficult as path stability, bandwidth, energy estimation are required

densely deployed large-scale wireless sensor network. The

Fig. 1 Energy consumption by various activities of a wireless sensor
node [8]
the base station for processing ultimately. Since the wire-
less sensor nodes are distance and energy-constrained; it is
inefficient for all the wireless sensor nodes to transmit the
data directly to the base station. Moreover, if multiple
wireless sensor nodes are sensing same event, the data will
be redundant and massive. Hence, we need such techniques
to combine redundant data into valuable information at the
wireless sensor nodes which can reduce the total number of
packets transmitted to the base station as estimated
reduction in energy consumption and bandwidth. Cluster-
ing algorithms play a crucial role in achieving the targeted
design goals for data collection and aggregation with
maximum area coverage. Clustering is the course of action
to group sensor nodes with an assigned cluster head in a
energy limitation on sensor nodes result in a limited net-
work lifetime, hence this fact must be considered as
appropriate clustering can reduce the overall energy uti-
lization in a network and improve the network lifetime.
Moreover, when a sensor node drains out energy, it is
not able to receive or transmit packets anymore, thus gets
disconnected from the network and lost its coverage area
also. When data is aggregated, relaying of data from the
sensor nodes to the base station should be done by means
of energy-efficient route detection so that the network
lifetime is maximized. It implies that for increased network
lifetime, wireless sensor network must have following
design consideration:
• Maximum Area Coverage
• Maximum Connectivity
• Minimum Energy Consumption
Table 2 represents the various issues concerning the
three major activities performed by wireless sensor
networks.
2 Data collection and aggregation
Wireless sensor networks are mainly utilized for data col-
lection and aggregation. Data collection is defined as the
organized integration of sensed data from multiple sensors
transmitted ultimately to the base station for processing.
However, data generated from neighboring sensor nodes is
persistently redundant and highly interrelated. In such
scenarios, sensor nodes can transmit data to a local col-
lector or assigned head which combines data from all the

123
338 Wireless Netw (2016) 22:335–350

Table 2 Design requirements for energy efficient schemes in WSN more practical environment where sensor nodes may move
Requirement type Design constraints
or fail unexpectedly, there is too much necessary con-
struction and maintenance overhead associated with
Data collection and 1. Restriction on redundant data structured mechanism that cannot be reimbursed with the
aggregation 2. Low computational overhead advantage from structured data aggregation. On the con-
3. Minimum memory storage trary, structure free approaches do not disburse energy for
Clustering 1. Maximum supported coverage constructing any structure. In this section, we present a
area review of data aggregation protocols in wireless sensor
2. Distribution of sensor nodes networks for both structured as well as structure free sce-
3. Connection density on cluster narios with evaluation of key features and short comings.
head
4. Fresh node addition
Routing 1. Shortest path
3 Data aggregation protocols for structure-free
2. Network connectivity
wireless sensor networks
3. Maximum supported size
4. Low communication overhead In structure-free networks, each sensor node deployed in a
specific region has similar responsibility and holds out
almost same kind of battery. In such networks, data
sensor nodes that reside in its connectivity and transmits aggregation is done by data centric routing where the base
the concise packet to the base station consequentially station regularly broadcast a query message to the sensor
reducing the total number of packet transmission thus, nodes. Such structure-free networks are generally deployed
conserving bandwidth and energy. This can be accom- for crisis management as they are meant for short duration
plished by data aggregation. Data aggregation [9] can be varying from few hours to few days. Structure-free
defined as the guiding principle to combine the sensed data approaches do not pay out energy on establishing any
from numerous sensor nodes with elimination of redun- structure and provide solutions with benefits of reduced
dancy and provide collective information to the base sta- average delay, reduced maintenance overhead and
tion. In the literature, data aggregation protocols could be improved robustness when incurring sensor node failures.
categorized into two groups: structure-free and structured Such structure-free protocols have major role in providing
[10] as shown in Fig. 2. For efficient data aggregation, fault-tolerance to energy-constrained time-critical applica-
structured approaches employ either tree-based or a cluster tions and simultaneously, tend to manage aggregation such
based structure at the network initialization phase. Such as the incident information during a crisis, for e.g. fire
structured protocols are well suited to a stable environment evolution, safe zones discovery, gas diffusion, natural
where sensor nodes function continually. Nevertheless, in a disaster, etc., along with tracking and orientation of rescue

Fig. 2 Taxonomy of data aggregation protocols for energy conservation in wireless sensor network

123
Wireless Netw (2016) 22:335–350 339

persons and intrusion robots. In the rest of this subsection,
we describe these protocols and highlight their key fea-
tures, merits and demerits in Table 3.
3.1 Sensor protocol for information via negotiation
(SPIN) [11]
In this scheme, the sensor nodes that detect an event are
active participants and initiate the diffusion of data while
the base station responds to these participants. In SPIN,
each sensor node imparts two phases: negotiation and
resource adaptation. The sensor nodes need a descriptor to
concisely describe their sensed data for ideal data negoti-
ation. Whenever a sensor node (initiator) detects an event,
it advertises the data to the neighboring nodes in the
wireless sensor network using the metadata. If the neigh-
boring node is interested in such kind of data, it sends a
request to the initiator sensor node for data. To keep
account of energy usage by a sensor node, a resource
manager is associated with every sensor node. Before data
transmission, each node polls its resources such as battery
power. This allows sensor nodes to hold back on certain
tasks when its energy is low. Simulation shows SPIN gains
3.5 times less energy consumption and is able to distribute
60 % more data per unit energy as compared to flooding.
SPIN is compatible for environments where the forwarding
decisions are based on local neighborhood information as
in case of mobile sensor nodes.
3.2 Data-aware anycast and randomized waiting
(DAA 1 RW) [10]
Fan et al. proposed a structure-free event-driven reporting
scheme (DAA ? RW) for data aggregation in wireless
sensor networks. The sensor node that detects an event sends
an anycast RTS first to determine the next hop node to report
event data to the base station. The sensor node which
receives this RTS is a next hop candidate. Sensor nodes that
have same event data to transmit or are closer to base station
are assigned with a priority to respond CTS in order to
achieve better aggregation efficiency. Furthermore, to
reduce the total number of transmissions, a randomized
waiting scheme is set up so that each sensor node that has to
report event data can start its transmission after a random
waiting time. Feasible aggregation is prompted when a node
nearer to the base station prefers a longer waiting time.
3.3 Structure-free and energy- balanced data
aggregation (SFEBDA)
Chih-Min et al. [12] presented a technique SFEBDA for
wireless sensor networks consisting of two stages. In the first
stage, as an event occurs, some sensor nodes are selected as
primary aggregators (PA) and secondary aggregators (SA)
depending on their positions and regarded as a pair (PA/SA
pair) for the next step. For each PA/SA pair, the sensor node
closer to base station is designated as the aggregator and

Table 3 Analysis of structure-free data aggregation protocols

Protocol Selection of Aggregation Merits Demerits
Head

SPIN [11] Based on descriptors
DAA ? RW Aggregation based on
[10] event detection
SFEBDA Primary and secondary
[12] aggregator (PA/SA) pair
based on their location
MADA [13] Multi agent- structure free
EEDAA [14] Multi agent- structure free
Each sensor node requires the knowledge of its
single hop neighbors only
Topological changes are localized
Each node with same event data to report or is
closer to base station has higher priority and can
start its transmission
Avoids structure maintenance overhead
Efficient data gathering and balanced energy
consumption
Two-phase aggregation process
Dynamic aggregator selection
Mechanism
Co-operating agents eliminate the inter-sensor-
nodes redundancy and combine processed
information of a gathering session into one
message
Co-operating agents reduce redundancy
Aggregation head is selected depending on its
residual energy
Unable to guarantee data delivery
Aggregation efficiency is poor if the
randomized waiting time selected by the
sensor nodes nearer to base station is
shorter
Computation overhead while selecting
dynamic aggregator
Network holes created
Aggregator node chosen on basis of event
detection
Aggregator node selected on basis highest
residual energy may not have sufficient
energy for transmission to base station

123
340
other sensor node as the forwarding node. Such a mecha-
nism achieves both the forwarding node selection and early
aggregation. In the second stage, these aggregators send the
collected packets back to the base station where the number
of transmissions for control packets is twice that of data
packets. In SFEB phase-2, the sensor nodes that have to send
packets for reporting include the PA of each aggregation set
and those sensor nodes that fail to find an aggregator to
collect their data. The sensor nodes that fail to send data to
aggregators will also transmit their packets to the base sta-
tion. The authors assumed the sensor nodes are self-con-
figured, localized and synchronized.
3.4 Multi-agent data aggregation (MADA) [13]
Sardouk et al. proposed MADA mechanism for structure-
free event-driven wireless sensor networks. The proposed
data aggregation protocol works spontaneously where a
sensor node detects significant information—it asks its
adjoining neighbors to participate in order to aggregate the
most representative information to be sent to the base
station. Each sensor node in the wireless sensor network
decides to participate or not in the data aggregation process
depending on relevance participation factor which is
determined by various parameters i.e. importance of the
information, its density, the criticality of its position and its
residual energy. These parameters are weighted and used in
the decision function. Hence, a group of nodes will be
formed to aggregate the information and transmit their data
to the initiator node that has detected the event and been
designated as aggregation head (AH). The AH transmits
the aggregated data to the base station in a single hop or
multiple hops depending on the network configuration. At
the end of this aggregation mechanism, these groups dis-
appear and then a new aggregation session is initiated at
time of new event detection. This data aggregation mech-
anism enhances the energy conservation of the wireless
sensor network in terms of reduction of total sensor nodes’
participation.
3.5 Energy efficient data aggregation (EEDAA) [14]
Boughami et al. have proposed EEDAA in which the
energy conservation is enhanced by the selection of
aggregator node (called aggregation head) and participant
sensor nodes all the way throughout. In this mechanism,
the sensor node which is aggregating and transmitting the
concise message to the base station is selected on basis of
its residual energy and proximity to the base station. When
a sensor node detects an event, it sends a request message
along with its residual energy to all its neighbor sensor
nodes using ad–hoc on demand distance vector routing
(AODV) protocol [15] which establishes routes, using
123
Wireless Netw (2016) 22:335–350
route request message (RREQ) with a unique RREQ
identification number. The message will reach the neigh-
boring sensor nodes where each sensor node calculate its
participation relevance and reply with their residual energy
to the requesting sensor node using route reply (RREP)
message along with updating the routing table and setting
up a reverse route to the sender sensor node. If the residual
energy of the requesting sensor node is highest then it is
elected as the aggregation head otherwise among its
neighbor sensor nodes, the sensor node which has the
highest residual energy is assigned as the aggregation head.
Once a sensor node is selected as aggregation head, it
collects the data from all the sensor nodes that want to
participate, aggregates it and finally send the data to the
base station.
4 Data aggregation protocols for structured
wireless sensor networks
In an unstructured network, aggregation node has excessive
communication and computation load hence its battery
depletes faster. The death of such a crucial sensor node
breaks down the functionality of the network [16]. Hence,
in vision of scalability and energy efficiency, several
structured data aggregation approaches have been
proposed.
In this section, we survey quite a few data aggregation
protocols which have primarily been designed for struc-
tured wireless sensor networks and highlight their merits
and demerits in Table 4.
4.1 Cluster based data aggregation
In energy constrained wireless sensor networks of large
size, the major traffic during data collection is the reported
data from each sensor node to the base station. It is
incompetent for sensor nodes to transmit the data directly
to the base station as energy hole problem was reported and
discussed in [17], where sensor nodes closer to the base
station are depleted quickly in case of multi hop routing
due to traffic relays and create a hole shape area that leaves
the remaining network disconnected from the base station,
resulting network disconnectivity and reduction in cover-
age area of the base station. In such circumstances, few
sensor nodes can be designated as aggregator or cluster
head that collect and aggregate data from all the sensor
nodes belonging to its locale which in turn transmit the
concise message to the base station.
In Fig. 3, a cluster based wireless sensor network
organization is shown. The cluster heads can communicate
with the base station directly via long range transmissions
or multi hopping through other cluster heads. Many data
Wireless Netw (2016) 22:335–350 341

Table 4 Analysis of structured data aggregation protocols

Base Protocol Key features Merits Demerits
structure

Cluster LEACH Randomly selects a few sensor Each node has equal chance to There is a good chance that a node with
based [18] nodes as cluster heads (CHs) become cluster head very low energy gets selected as a CH
Rotates this role to evenly Use of TDMA keeps away CHs from Good CHs distribution cannot be
distribute the energy load among unnecessary collisions guaranteed
the sensors in the network Some nodes will not have any CH in their
range
Chain PEGASIS Nodes are organized into a linear Energy load is distributed uniformly No concern for redundant data
based [20] chain Reduce overhead due to dynamic Requires global knowledge of the location
Greedy approach cluster formation of all nodes at the sink.
Decrease number of data Long chain formation results in delay
transmission
Tree EADAT Node with the higher residual Sensor nodes with higher residual Network density at base station not
based [21] power and shorter path to the power have a higher chance to considered
sink is chosen as its parent become a non-leaf tree node
Average residual energy of all alive Lack of load balancing
sensor nodes decreases slowly If a child node does not receive help
Network lifetime increases linearly message or unable to switch to a new
with the network density parent, it enters into a danger state
Grid Grid [22] A set of data aggregators per grid Adaption to dynamic changes and Nodes in same grid do not communicate
based Data aggregation per Grid event mobility with each other
Data redundancy
In- Data aggregator per grid selected Each sensor node within the grid Overhead in selection of aggregation head
network on basis of signal strength communicates with its neighboring
[22] sensor nodes
Any sensor node within the grid can
attain the role of a data aggregator

aggregation protocols with cluster based organization have
been proposed in literature and one of them is described in
this section.
Low energy adaptive cluster hierarchy (LEACH)
[18] Heinzelman et al. were the first to propose an energy
efficient cluster formation protocol called LEACH, a
distributed protocol in which sensor nodes arrange them-
selves into clusters for data aggregation and is well-suited
for applications requiring constant monitoring and periodic
data reporting. Data aggregation done periodically by
cluster heads (CHs) reduces the redundancy in information
that is to be transmitted to the base station. The protocol
comprises of two phases: setup phase (network is organized
into clusters and cluster heads are chosen) and steady state
phase (data aggregation and transmission to base station by
cluster heads). Nevertheless, LEACH is capable of esca-
lating the network lifetime.

4.2 Chain based data aggregation [19]

In cluster-based wireless sensor networks, if the cluster

Fig. 3 Cluster based wireless sensor network
head is far away from its member sensor nodes, excessive
energy is expend in communication. This drawback con-
structs the key idea for chain based data aggregation where
each sensor node transmits only to its closest neighbor.
Several protocols have been suggested in literature and one
of them is described as follows:
Power efficient data gathering protocol for sensor infor-
mation systems (PEGASIS) [20] Lindsey et al. presented
a chain based data aggregation protocol PEGASIS with

123
342
primarily objective to increase the lifetime of each sensor
node by using cooperative techniques and allow local
coordination only between closer sensor nodes so that total
bandwidth utilization get reduced during wireless com-
munication. Chain formation as shown in Fig. 4 is initiated
by the farthest sensor node from the base station and at
each step, the contiguous neighboring sensor node is cho-
sen as the successor in the chain on the basis of signal
strength to measure the distance to all neighboring sensor
nodes so that only one sensor node can be heard.
The greedy chain formation approach used in [20] may
result in some sensor nodes having relatively distant
neighbors along the chain. This problem is alleviated by
not allowing such sensor nodes to become leaders.
PEGASIS outperforms LEACH by 100 to 200 % [20] in
terms of the number of data gathering rounds for different
network sizes. Such performance gain is achieved through
the elimination of the overhead, shorter distance and
decreasing the number of transmissions and reception by
using data aggregation.
4.3 Tree based data aggregation
In a tree based network, sensor nodes are prearranged into a
tree where data aggregation is performed at intermediate
nodes along the tree and a concise digest of data is trans-
mitted to the root node as shown in Fig. 5.
Tree based organization is well-suited for applications
that incorporate in-network data aggregation. In this sub-
section, we will describe the organization of data aggre-
gation tree by following protocol:
Energy aware distributed aggregation technique (EADAT)
[21] Ding et al. have proposed an energy aware dis-
tributed heuristic (EADAT) to construct and maintain a
data aggregation tree in wireless sensor networks. The
technique is initiated by the base station which broadcasts a
control message assuming the role of root node in the
aggregation tree. The control message has five fields: ID,
parent, power, status and hopcount indicating the sensor
ID, its parent, its residual power, the status (leaf, non-leaf
Fig. 4 Chain based wireless
sensor network
123
Wireless Netw (2016) 22:335–350
node or undefined state) and the number of hops from the
base station. After receiving the control message for the
first time, a sensor node sets up its timer that counts down
when the channel is idle. During this process, the sensor
node chooses other sensor node as its parent having higher
residual power and shorter path to the base station via a
control message. The process continues until each node
broadcasts once and the result is an aggregation tree rooted
at the sink. When the residual power of a sensor falls below
a threshold, it periodically broadcasts help messages for
certain time units and shuts down its radio.
4.4 Grid based data aggregation
Vaidhyanathan et al. [22] have proposed two data
aggregation schemes: grid-based data aggregation and in-
network data aggregation as shown in Fig. 6 by parti-
tioning the region. In grid-based data aggregation, a set of
sensor nodes is assigned as data aggregators in fixed
regions of the wireless sensor network. The sensor nodes
in a particular grid transmit the data directly to the data
aggregator of that grid. Hence, the sensor nodes within a
grid do not communicate with each other. Grid-based data
aggregation is compatible for nomadic environments such
as military surveillance and weather forecasting where
adaption to dynamic changes and event mobility are
required. In-network aggregation is analogous to grid
based data aggregation but differs in two conducts, firstly,
each sensor node within the grid communicates with its
neighboring sensor nodes and secondly, any sensor node
within the grid can attain the role of a data aggregator.
The in-network aggregation scheme is best suited for
environments where events are highly localized. In terms
of the data acquired (throughput), and data latency, the in-
network scheme perform better than grid-based aggrega-
tion and no-aggregation scheme. The schemes have also
been compared with respect to the total energy con-
sumption as simulation results indicate that the energy
consumed by the grid based scheme is 2.2 less times than
the no-aggregation scheme.
Wireless Netw (2016) 22:335–350
Fig. 5 Tree based wireless
sensor network
Fig. 6 Grid based wireless
sensor network
Research issues in data collection and aggregation:
• To develop methods for combining data into high
quality information at the event detecting sensor node
or intermediate nodes which can reduce the number of
packets transmitted to the base station to conserve
energy and bandwidth.
5 Current state of art for structured wireless
sensor network
For structured wireless sensor networks, our review is
mainly focused on cluster based networks [23]. Clustering
protocols facilitates distributed control by the formation of
hierarchical network topology [24, 25] to figure out and
set-up the network management regulating the data
343
aggregation process in wireless sensor networks [26].
Further, merits and demerits of the clustering protocols are
given in Table 5.
5.1 K-overlapping clustering algorithm (KOCA)
[28]
Fernandess et al. [27] proposed K-clustering protocol
which can constitute maximum k-hop non-overlapping
clusters with partial networks topology information instead
of the whole network topology and simultaneously saves
energy to prolong the network life time. On the other hand,
it doesn’t consider cluster size and may form unbalanced
cluster i.e. some clusters may contain enormous number of
sensor nodes, which result in outsized overhead of inter
communication. To fix this problem, different improved
K-clustering algorithms have been come up with in
123
344 Wireless Netw (2016) 22:335–350

succession. Youssef et al. put forward KOCA algorithm
[28], an overlapping clustering algorithm appropriate for
uniform distribution of sensor nodes, elaborating the
overlapping k-hop clustering problem for wireless sensor
networks and presented a randomized distributed heuristic
algorithm for solving the problem.
5.2 Distributed energy—balanced unequal
clustering (DEBUC) [29]
DEBUC protocol, proposed by Jiang et al. combines an
unequal clustering mechanism with an inter-cluster multi-
hop routing. DEBUC partitions all nodes into unequal
clusters, by deploying time based competitive clustering
method, in which the cluster heads can preserve more
energy for the inter-cluster relay communications to avoid
the ‘hot-spots’ problem. DEBUC takes up an energy-aware
multi-hop routing system for inter-cluster traffic, to reduce
and balance the energy overhead of the cluster heads.
However, unequal clusters may result in loss of informa-
tion and full area coverage problem arises.
5.3 Distributed self-organization balanced
clustering algorithm (DSBCA) [30]
distribution, and considered connectivity density and
residual energy of sensor nodes to form clusters. In cycle
phase, the process of reelecting cluster head is triggered.
The cluster head gathers the weight of all member nodes,
and then selects the node with highest weight as the next
head node. In this way, the communication costs are
decreased.
5.4 Sink mobility based and energy balancing
unequal clustering protocol (SEBUCP) [31]
In order to balance the energy consumption of a sensor
node moderately, SEBUCP chooses those sensor nodes as
cluster heads having higher residual energy and powerful
communication capabilities and by adopting the improved
SFLA (shuffled frog leaping algorithm), divides all sensor
nodes into clusters of different size. In order to reduce the
cluster head replacement regularity, cluster head serves
continuously and by comparing nodes weight to determine
the cluster head exchange time. The greedy algorithm is
introduced to select an optimum relay sensor node between
cluster head and base station. Simulation results demon-
strate that SEBUCP has good performance on the network
lifetime and energy balance.

DSBCA follows a distributed approach to establish hier-
archical structure in self-organizing mode without central
control. The authors have divided the protocol into three
stages: cluster head (CH) selecting phase, clusters building
phase and cycle phase. In CH selection phase, DSBCA
selects random sensor node (ut) to trigger clustering pro-
cess. The sensor node with the highest weight in k-hop
neighbors of ut is elected as CH. Then, the trigger node ut
calculates its connected density and distance from the base
station to determine cluster radius k and becomes the
temporary CH. In cluster building phase, the authors cal-
culated the radius of cluster based on distance and
5.5 Transmission-efficient clustering method
(TECM) [32]
The hybrid method of using compressive sensing (CS) was
proposed to reduce the number of transmissions in sensor
networks. The authors proposed a clustering method that
employs hybrid CS for sensor networks. The sensor nodes
are organized into clusters where in each cluster, nodes
transmit data to cluster head (CH) without using CS and
later CHs use CS to transmit data to the base station.
Significant reduction in number of transmissions is
observed from the simulation results where centralized

Table 5 Merits and demerits of clustering protocols

Protocol Merits Demerits

KOCA Constitute maximum k-hop non-overlapping clusters with partial Doesn’t consider cluster size and may form unbalanced
[28] networks topology information and saves energy cluster, no consideration for residual energy of sensor
nodes
DEBUC An energy-aware multi-hop routing is adopted for inter-cluster traffic, Unequal clusters may result in loss of information and full
[29] to reduce and balance the energy overhead of the cluster heads coverage problem
DSBCA Communication costs are decreased as cluster head gathers the weight Random selection of trigger node for cluster head
[30] of all member nodes, and then selects the node with highest weight as selection, Energy holes may be created
the next head node
SEBUCP Cluster heads are the sensor nodes having higher residual energy and Non uniform energy drainage across different sensors
[31] powerful communication capabilities
TECM Optimal size of clusters is based on number of transmission and Coverage problem as some nodes may not join any cluster
[32] compressive sensing is deployed to reduce redundancy

123
Wireless Netw (2016) 22:335–350
clustering is done on basis of relationship between the size
of clusters and number of transmissions in the hybrid CS
method intended for the optimal size of clusters.
Research challenges identified in clustering:
• Grouping adjacent sensor nodes and how many groups
should be there that could optimize some performance
parameter.
• Determining optimal value of distance d that minimizes
overall energy consumption
• Amount of data to be transferred within each cluster
and between clusters
• Selection of cluster head (CH) of a cluster.
6 Routing in structure-free and structured
wireless sensor network
Energy efficiency is a key issue while designing the net-
work routing as sensor nodes meet head-on constraints
such as limited energy supply, low memory and reduced
processing power in structure-free as well as structured
wireless sensor networks Table 6.
High sensor node density in wireless sensor networks
excludes them from being completely cut off from each
other hence sensor nodes are anticipated to be highly
connected. This feature incorporates multi-hop in wireless
sensor networks where each sensor node imparts a twin
role as data sender as well as data router. The malfunc-
tioning of some sensor nodes due to energy drain out can
cause topological changes, and may need rerouting of
packets and reconfiguration of the wireless sensor network
[33]. This may result in unstable network topology and
shrinkage in network coverage area. To restrain energy
consumption, protocols proposed in the literature for
wireless sensor network exploit some well-defined routing
strategy. More or less all of the routing protocols can be
classified [46] according to the path based as proactive,
reactive or hybrid, network structure based as flat, hierar-
chical, or location-based, protocol operation based as
multipath, query, negotiation, QoS or coherent/non-coher-
ent and next hop selection based as broadcast, location,
probabilistic, content or hierarchical as in Fig. 7.
6.1 Path based routing protocols
Path establishment can be done while routing in three
ways, namely proactive, reactive or hybrid. Proactive
protocols uphold fresh lists of destinations and their routes
by periodically distributing routing tables throughout the
wireless sensor network. However, they necessitate rele-
vant amount of data for maintenance and have slow reac-
tion on reorganization and failures (DSDV) [33]. Reactive
345
protocols find a route on demand by flooding the network
with route request packets. However, it takes high latency
time in route discovery and excessive flooding can lead to
network congestion (AODV) [34]. Hybrid protocols are
blend of proactive and reactive protocols where path is
established with proactive approach and then provides the
demand from additionally activated sensor nodes through
reactive flooding. The efficiency of hybrid protocol
depends on number of other sensor nodes being activated.
Nevertheless, reaction to traffic demand depends on
amount of traffic volume (ZRP) [35].
6.2 Network based routing protocols
Network based routing protocols depend on the strategy
how the network is prearranged. Such protocols fall under
three categories [36]: flat, hierarchical and location based.
Flat based routing is used when enormous sensor nodes are
required to impart same responsibility. The protocol fol-
lows data-centric routing approach in which base station
sends query to a group of specific sensor nodes in a region
and waits for response for e.g. direct diffusion [37]. In
hierarchical-based routing, high energy sensor nodes are
arbitrarily selected as cluster heads for processing and
transmitting data while low energy nodes are used for
sensing and sending sensed data to the cluster heads. For
e.g. HPAR [38], TEEN [39]. Location-based routing pro-
tocols perform routing based on the location of sensor
nodes by using their position information instead of their
links information for routing. They are located mostly by
means of GPS. The distance between sensor nodes is
estimated by the signal strength received from these nodes
and their coordinates are calculated by exchanging infor-
mation between neighboring sensor nodes. For e.g. GAF
[40], GPSR [41]. The merits and demerits of network based
routing protocols are listed in Table 7.
6.3 Operation based routing protocols
As per the requirements, the applications of WSNs are
designed with different functionalities. Hence routing pro-
tocols are classified according to their type of action taken in
order to meet these functionalities as: multipath, query-
based, negotiation-based, QoS-based, coherent and non-
coherent routing protocols. In case of multipath routing
protocols, multiple path selection is followed by a message to
reach destination so that delay is reduced to improve the
network performance. However, consumption of energy is
more due to augmented communication as network paths are
to be kept alive by sending periodic messages For e.g.
MMSPEED [42]. Query based routing protocols works on
commencement of queries for data. The initiator node set off
query of interest from a node through network and node with
123
346 Wireless Netw (2016) 22:335–350

Table 6 Analysis of clustering protocols on basis of properties

Protocol Cluster Intra-cluster Inter-cluster Stability Cluster Clustering goal Algorithm
count topology connectivity balancing complexity

KOCA Fixed Fixed (k-Hop) Direct link/multi- Presumed Low Overlapping and Constant O(1)
[28] hop connectivity
DEBUC Fixed Adaptive (multi- Direct link/multi- Prerequisite Moderate Scalability and fault Constant O(1)
[29] level) hop tolerance
DSBCA Variable Adaptive (multi- Direct Link/multi- Prerequisite Moderate Load balancing and Constant O(1)
[30] level) hop bandwidth gain
SEBUCP Variable Fixed (k-Hop) Direct link Presumed Moderate Save energy and coverage Constant O(1)
[31]
TECM Variable Fixed (k-Hop) Direct link/Multi- Prerequisite High Save energy and load Constant O(1)
[32] hop balancing

Fig. 7 Classification of energy-

aware routing protocols in
wireless sensor networks

Table 7 Merits and demerits of network based routing protocols

Protocol Category Merits Demerits

DD [38] Flat Resolve the numerous mobile sinks in large scale Large latency as matching data to queries might require
WSNs overhead
Suitable to event detecting WSNs among irregular Low energy efficiency
data traffic
TEEN Hierarchical Data transmission can be controlled by varying two If thresholds are not meet, the sensor node will not
[39] thresholds communicate
Well suited for time critical applications Data may be lost if CHs are not able to communicate with
each other
GAF Location Increase the network lifetime by saving energy Large traffic injection and delay is not predictable
[40] based Routing fidelity is maintained

123
Wireless Netw (2016) 22:335–350 347

Table 8 Merits and demerits of operation based routing protocols

Protocol Category Merits Demerits

PRTR [53] Multipath Minimizes delay for real-time traffic and alleviate possible Not suitable for time varying topologies
congestions
COUGAR Query based Uses queries to abstract query processing Query may add extra overhead
[43] Utilizes in-network data aggregation to obtain more energy Synchronization among nodes is required
savings
SPIN [11] Negotiation Negotiates before transmitting data to avoid redundancy Data advertise mechanism do not guarantee
based Topological changes are localized since each node knows delivery of data
only single-hop neighbors Need to maintain global network topology
SAR [44] QoS based Routing metric: energy resources, QoS on each path, and the Suffers from the overhead of maintaining the
priority level of each packet routing tables and states at each sensor node
Ensures fault tolerance and easy recovery
SWE, Data- Election of a sensor node is based on energy reserves and Has longer delay, higher overhead, and lower
MWE processing computational capability scalability
[45] based A minimum-hop spanning tree will completely cover the
network that yields the minimum energy consumption

this interest matches the query and drives back to the node
which initiated the query. For e.g. COUGAR [43]. Negoti-
ation based routing protocols employ negotiation to elimi-
nate redundant data transmission by exploiting high level
data descriptors that make intelligent decisions for commu-
nication and other actions on basis of some fact like avail-
ability of resources. For e.g. SPIN [11].
In QoS based routing protocols, various parameters have
to be considered during routing to provide a sense of bal-
ance between energy consumption and data quality. The
parameters like delay, reliability, jitter and bandwidth are
determined as QoS metric in the wireless sensor network
when the sensor nodes communicate to the base station in
addition with energy consumption as another metric.
Routing decision depends on three factors: available
energy resources, QoS on each path, and the priority level
of each packet. To avoid single route failure, a multipath
approach and localized path restoration schemes are used.
Examples of such routing are: SPEED [44], Sequential
assignment routing (SAR) [44]. Coherent and non-coherent
processing [45] involves data processing as a major con-
stituent in the operation of wireless sensor networks at the
time of routing that adopt different data processing tech-
niques. In non-coherent data processing routing, sensor
nodes in the surrounding area process the raw data before
being sent to other sensor nodes for further processing. The
sensor nodes that carry out further processing are called the
aggregators. In case of coherent data-processing routing,
the data is forwarded to aggregators after minimum pro-
cessing that typically includes the tasks like time-stamping
and redundancy elimination. For e.g. Single winner algo-
rithm (SWE) and Multiple winner algorithm (MWE) [45].
Further, merits and demerits of operation based routing
protocols are summarized in Table 8.
6.4 Next-hop selection based routing protocols
Next-hop selection based routing protocols can be cate-
gorized under following: broadcast based, location based,
hierarchy based, content-based and probability based. In
broadcast-based routing protocols, each node in the net-
work decides individually whether to forward a message or
not. If a node decides to forward, it simply re-broadcasts
the message. If it declines to forward, the message will be
dropped. For e.g. Minimal cost forwarding algorithm
(MCFA) [47]. Location-based routing protocols make a
decision on the next-hop en routed for the destination on
the basis of known location of its neighbors and the des-
tination designated as centroid of a region. Such protocols
can avoid the communication overhead imposed by
flooding, but the calculation of the positions of neighbors
may incur extra overhead. For e.g. Geographical and
energy aware routing (GEAR) [48]. In case of hierarchical-
based routing protocols, all nodes forward a message to a
sensor node (also called aggregator). Each sensor node
aggregates the incoming data in order to reduce commu-
nication overload and conserve more energy thereby
resulting in increase in network lifetime. This routing is
primarily bi-layer routing where one layer is assigned for
selection of cluster heads and the other layer is dedicated
for routing. For e.g. TSC [50]. Content-based routing
protocols determine the next-hop on the route purely based
on the query content and are compatible to the architecture
of wireless sensor networks as the base station requests
only for data regardless of its origin. For e.g. Gradient
based routing (GBR) [50]. Probabilistic routing protocols
assume that all sensor nodes are homogeneous and ran-
domly deployed. Using this routing protocol, sensor nodes
arbitrarily select the next-hop neighbor for each message to

123
348 Wireless Netw (2016) 22:335–350

Table 9 Merits and demerits of next-hop selection based routing protocols

Protocol Category Merits Demerits

MCFA Broadcast Each node know the least cost path estimate from Long delays cause a node to become bottleneck due to
[46] based itself to the base station rebroadcasting
GEAR Location Each node keeps an estimated cost and a learning A hole occurs when a node does not have any closer neighbor
[47] based cost of reaching the destination Requires a location service to map locations and node
identifiers
GBR Content Obtain balanced distribution of the traffic in the Extra overhead in terms of energy consumption and memory
[48] based network, thus increasing the network lifetime storage
Memorize the number of hops when interest is
diffused through the whole network
EAR Probability Maintains a set of paths instead of maintaining one Needs location information and setting up the address
[49] based optimal path at higher rates mechanism for the nodes, which complicate route setup
TSC Hierarchical Constructs more balanced network in term of energy Lot of overhead due to global information for communication
[50] based consumption and communication load Single hop communication consume lot of energy
Uses dynamic sizing of clusters
ALBA- Content Relay selection and load balancing Requires a location service to map locations and node
R [51] based Detect and route around connectivity holes identifiers
EESOR Opportunistic Reduces the size of forwarder list on basis of Long delays cause a node to become bottleneck
[52] proximity to destination

be forwarded. A set of paths are maintained and selected by
means of a specific probability whose value depends on
how low the energy consumption for each path can be
achieved. For e.g. Energy aware routing (EAR) [51].
Subsequently, the next-hop selection based protocols are
summarized with their merits and demerits in Table 9. We
observed that there are some hybrid protocols that fall
under more than one category.
Research challenges identified in routing:
• To develop energy-efficient data routing protocol from
sensor nodes to cluster head and from cluster head to
base station via normal/traffic nodes handling frequent
change in network topology and node hardware
condition.
• Exploit spatial diversity to provide spatial communi-
cation between sensor nodes and density of sensor/
actuator nodes should allow the network to adapt to an
unpredictable environment.
• To provide localization, self-configuration and recon-
figuration in wireless sensor nodes being unattended in
a dynamic and energy constrained environment to
enhance the network lifetime.
7 Conclusion
In this paper we had surveyed and examined current state
of the main approaches for energy conservation in WSNs
with issues on three major activities (1) data collection and
aggregation, (2) clustering and (3) routing. We have
summarized and compared different proposed design and
protocols. Specific consideration has been given to a sys-
tematic and comprehensive classification of the protocols
that are being proposed in the literature for energy con-
servation. We observed that the field of energy conserva-
tion targeted for data collection and aggregation has to be
explored with collaboration of clustering and communica-
tion. There is a big room available for developing energy-
efficient techniques with different approaches (aggregation,
clustering and routing) into a single off-the-shelf feasible
solution for data collection. Clustering protocols presented
in this paper have focus on minimization of energy con-
sumption associated with the cluster head selection pro-
cess, distribution of cluster heads, re-selection of cluster
heads and re-clustering. Further enhancements should be
able to get accustomed to clustering mechanism to main-
tain wireless sensor network connectivity by reducing
energy consumption activities associated with re-election
of CHs and re-clustering. The comprehensive review of
routing protocols convinced us that a routing protocol is
said to be energy-efficient if it fulfills one or more aspects
of the following: minimizing total energy spent in the
network, minimizing the number of data transmissions,
maximizing the number of alive nodes over time or bal-
ancing the energy dissipation among the sensor nodes in
the WSN. We are persuaded that this class of approach will
get an even greater importance and attention within the
research community in the coming years and can reduce
the gap between technology and application by reducing
energy consumption over time and extending network
lifetime.

123
Wireless Netw (2016) 22:335–350
References
1. News of bridge collapse at Minnesota, USA. http://www.nytimes.
com/2007/08/02/us/02bridge.html.
2. News of fire break at forests of California. http://www.huffington
post.com/2013/06/30/arizona-wildfire-yarnell_n_3526934.html.
3. Akyildiz, I. F., Su, W., Sankarasubramaniam, Y., & Cayirci, E.
(2002). A survey on sensor networks. IEEE Communications
Magazine, 40(8), 102–114.
4. Tilak, S., Abhu-Gazhaleh, N., & Heinzelman, W. R. (2002). A
taxanomy of wireless micro-sensor network models. ACM SIG-
MOBILE Mobile Computing Communication Review, 6(2), 28–36.
5. Shen, C. C., Srisathapornphat, C., & Jaikaeo, C. (2001). Sensor
information networking architecture and applications. IEEE
Personal communications, 8(4), 52–59.
6. Chong, C.-Y., & Kumar, S. P. (2003). Sensor networks: Evolu-
tion, opportunities, and challenges. Proceedings of the IEEE,
91(8), 1247–1256.
7. Yick, J., Mukherjee, B., & Ghosal, D. (2008). Wireless sensor
network survey. Elsevier Journal on Computer Networks, 52,
2292–2330.
8. Halgamuge, M. N., Zukerman, M., Vu, H. L., & Ramamoha-
narao, K. (2009). An estimation of sensor energy consumption.
Progress In Electromagnetics Research B, 12, 259–295.
9. Ramesh, R., & Varshney, P. K. (2006). Data aggregation tech-
niques in sensor networks: A survey. Electrical Engineering and
Computer Science. Paper 22. http://surface.syr.edu/eecs/22.
10. Fan, K. W., Liu, S., & Sinha, P. (2007). Structure-free data
aggregation in sensor networks. IEEE Transactions on Mobile
Computing, 6(8), 929–942.
11. Kulik, J., Heinzelman, W. R., & Balakrishnan, H. (2002).
Negotiation-based protocols for disseminating information in
wireless sensor networks. Wireless Networks, 8, 169–185.
12. Chao, C. M., Hsiao, T. Y. (2009). Design of structure-free and
energy-balanced data aggregation in wireless sensor networks. In
11th IEEE international conference on high performance com-
puting and communications, HPCC 2009 (pp. 222–229).
13. Sardouk, A., Mansouri, M., Merghem-Boulahia, L., Gaiti, D.,
Rahim-Amoud, R. (2010) Multi-agent system based wireless
sensor network for crisis management. In 2010 IEEE global
telecommunications conference (GLOBECOM 2010) (pp. 1–6).
14. Boughanmi, Najet, Esseghir, Moez, Merghem-Boulahia, L., &
Khoukhi, L. (2013). Energy efficient aggregation in wireless
sensor networks, ICD/ERA, UMR 6279, Troyes University of
Technology, 12 rue Marie Curie, 10000 Troyes. Berlin: Springer.
15. Perkins, C., Belding-Royer, E., & Das, S. (2003). Ad hoc on-
demand distance vector (AODV) routing IETF RFC 3561.
16. Xue, Y, Cui, Y., & Nahrstedt, K. (2005). Maximizing lifetime for data
aggregation in wireless sensor networks. ACM/Kluwer mobile net-
works and applications (MONET) special issue on energy constraints
and lifetime performance in wireless sensor networks (pp. 853–864).
17. Tan, H. O., & Korpeoglu, I. (2003). Power efficient data gath-
ering and aggregation in wireless sensor networks. Sigmod
Record, 32(4), 66–71.
18. Heinzelman, W. B., Chandrakasan, A. P., & Balakrishnan, H.
(2002). An application-specific protocol architecture for wireless
microsensor networks. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Commu-
nications, 1(4), 660–670.
19. Du, K., Wu, J.,& Zhou, D. (2003). Chain-based protocols for data
broadcasting and gathering in sensor networks. International
parallel and distributed processing symposium.
20. Lindsey, S., Raghavendra, C., & Sivalingam, K. M. (2002). Data
gathering algorithms in sensor networks using energy metrics.
IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 13(9),
924–935.
349
21. Ding, M., Cheng, X., & Xue, G. (2003). Aggregation tree con-
struction in sensor networks. 2003 IEEE 58th vehicular tech-
nology conference (Vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 2168–2172).
22. Vaidhyanathan, K., Sur, S., Narravula, S., & Sinha, P. (2004).
Data aggregation techniques sensor networks. Technical report,
OSU-CISRC-11/04-TR60, Ohio State University.
23. Comeau, F., Sivakumar, S. C., Robertson,W., & Phillips,W. J.
(2006) Energy conserving architectures and algorithms for
wireless sensor networks. 39th hawaii international conference on
system sciences (HICSS-39 2006).
24. Tilak, S., Abu-Ghazaleh, N. B., & Heinzelman, W. (2002). A
taxonomy of wireless micro-sensor network models. Mobile
Computing Communications Review, 6(2), 28–36.
25. Lee, J. S., & Cheng, W. L. (2012). Fuzzy-logic-based clustering
approach for wireless sensor networks using energy predication.
IEEE Sensors Journal, 11(9), 2891–2897.
26. Attea, B. A., & Khalil, E. A. (2011). A new evolutionary based
routing protocol for clustered heterogeneous wireless sensor
networks. Applied Soft Computing, 12(7), 1950–1957.
27. Fernandess, Y., & Malkhi, D. (2002). K-clustering in wireless ad-
hoc networks. In Proceedings 2nd ACM workshop principles
mobile computing conference (pp. 31–37).
28. Youssef, M., Youssef, A., & Younis, M. (2009). Overlapping
multi-hop clustering for wireless sensor networks. IEEE Trans-
actions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 20(12), 1844–1856.
29. Jiang, C. J., Shi, W. R., Tang, X. L., Wang, P., & Xiang, M.
(2012). Energy balanced unequal clustering routing protocol for
wireless sensor networks. Journal of Software, 23(5), 1222–1232.
30. Liao, Ying, Qi, Huan, & Li, Weiqun. (2013). Load-balanced
clustering algorithm with distributed self-organization for wire-
less sensor networks. IEEE Sensors Journal, 13(5), 1498–1506.
31. Chen, K. (2013). Unequal cluster-based routing protocol in wire-
less sensor networks. Journal of Networks, 8(11), 2656–2662.
32. Xie, Ruitao, & Jia, Xiaohua. (2014). Transmission-efficient
clustering method for wireless sensor networks using compres-
sive sensing. IEEE Transactions onParallel and Distributed
Systems, 25(3), 806–815.
33. Boukerche, A. (2009). Algorithms and protocols for wireless
sensor networks. Mississauga: Wiley.
34. Dargie, W., & Poellabauer, C. (2010). Wireless sensor networks
theory and practice (1st ed.). Wiley: Hoboken.
35. Rahman, J., Hasan, M. A. M., Islam, M. K. B., (2012) Compar-
ative analysis the performance of AODV, DSDV and DSR
routing protocols in wireless sensor network. Electrical and
computer engineering (ICECE), 2012 7th international confer-
ence on (pp. 283, 286).
36. Royer, E. M., & Toh, C. K. (1999). A review of current routing
protocols for ad hoc mobile wireless networks. IEEE Personal
Communications, 6(2), 46–55.
37. Intanagonwiwat, C., Govindan, R., & Estrin, D. (2000, August).
Directed diffusion: A scalable and robust communication para-
digm for sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 6th annual
international conference on ACM Mobile computing 2000 (Bos-
ton, MA, pp. 56–67).
38. Li, Q., Aslam, J., & Rus, D. (2001). Hierarchical power-aware
routing in sensor networks. In Proceedings of the DIMACS
workshop on pervasive networking.
39. Manjeshwar, A., & Agarwal, D. P. (2001). TEEN: A routing
protocol for enhanced efficiency in wireless sensor networks. 1st
international workshop on parallel and distributions of comput-
ing issues in wireless networks and mobile computing.
40. Xu, Y., Heidemann, J., & Estrin, D. (2001). Geography-informed
energy conservation for ad hoc routing. In Proceedings of the 7th
annual international conference on Mobile computing and net-
working (pp. 70–84).
123
350 Wireless Netw (2016) 22:335–350

41. Karp, B., & Kung, H. T. (2000). GPSR: Greedy perimeter Recent trends in computer networks and distributed systems
stateless routing for wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of security communications in computer and information science
mobile computing (Boston, MA). (vol. 420, pp. 16–31).
42. Felemban, E., Lee, C. G., & Ekici, E. (2006). MMSPEED:
Multipath Multi-SPEED protocol for QoS guarantee of reliability
and, timeliness in wireless sensor networks. IEEE Transactions Sarika Yadav is presently pur-
onMobile Computing, 5(6), 738–754. suing a Ph.D. degree in Com-
43. Yao, Y., & Gehrke, J. (2002). The cougar approach to in-network puter Science and Engineering
query processing in sensor networks. Sept: SIGMOD Record. from Motilal Nehru National
44. He, T., Stankovic, J., Lu, C., & Abdelzaher, T. (2003). SPEED: A Institute of Technology
stateless protocol for real-time communication in sensor net- (MNNIT), Allahabad, India.
works. In Proceedings of the23rd international conference on She received her M. Tech.
distributed computing systems, providence, RI. degree in Computer Science and
45. Sohrabi, K., & Pottie, J. (2000). Protocols for self-organization of Engineering from Uttar Pradesh
a wireless sensor network. IEEE Personal Communications, 7(5), Technical University, Lucknow,
16–27. India. Her research interests are
46. Kumar, D. (2014). Performance analysis of energy efficient in the field of wireless sensor
clustering protocols for maximising lifetime of wireless sensor networks, network survivability,
networks. Wireless Sensor Systems, IET, 4(1), 9–16. fault tolerance systems, and
47. Ye, F., Chen, A., Lu, S., & Zhang, L. (2001). A scalable solution artificial intelligence.
to minimum cost forwarding in large sensor networks. In Pro-
ceedings of the 10th international conference on computer
communications and networks (pp. 304–309). Rama Shankar Yadav is cur-
48. Yu, Y., Estrin, D., & Govindan, R. (2001). Geographical and rently a professor at Motilal
energy-aware routing: A recursive data dissemination protocol Nehru National Institute of
for wireless sensor networks, UCLA Computer Science Depart- Technology, Allahabad, India.
ment technical report, UCLA-CSD TR-010023. He received his Ph.D. degree
49. Gautam, N., Lee, W. I., & Pyun, J. Y. (2009). Track-sector from the Indian Institute of
clustering for energy efficient routing in wireless sensor net- Technology (IIT), M.S. degree
works. In Proceedings of the 9th IEEE international conference from Birla Institute of Technol-
on computer and information technology (pp. 116–121). ogy and Science (BITS) Pilani,
50. Schurgers, C., & Srivastava, M. B. (2001). Energy efficient and B. Tech. degree from the
routing in wireless sensor networks. In Military communications Institute of Engineering and
conference, 2001. MILCOM 2001. Communications for network- Technology (I.E.T.), Lucknow,
centric operations: Creating the information. Force, McLean, India. Dr. Yadav has extensive
VA. research and academic experi-
51. Shah, R. C., & Rabaey, J. (2002). Energy aware routing for low ence. He has worked in leading
energy ad hoc sensor networks. IEEE WCNC, Orlando, FL (pp. institutions such as Govind Ballabh Pant Engineering College
17–21). (GBPEC), Pauri, Garhwal, and Birla Technical Training Institute
52. Petrioli, Chiara, Nati, Michele, Casari, Paolo, Zorzi, Michele, & (BTTI), Pilani. He has authored more than 50 research papers in
Basagni, Stefano. (2014). ALBA-R: Load-balancing geographic national/international conferences, refereed journals, and book chap-
routing around connectivity holes in wireless sensor networks. ters. Dr. Yadav’s areas of interest are real time systems, embedded
IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 25(3), systems, fault-tolerant systems, energy aware scheduling, network
529–539. survivability, computer architecture, distributed computing, and
53. Yamuna Devi, C. R., Shivaraj, B., Manjula, S. H., Venugopal, K. cryptography.
R., Patnaik, L. M. (2014). EESOR: Energy efficient selective
opportunistic routing in wireless sensor networks. Springer:

123