Energy Efficient Clustering Protocol for Wireless Sensor Network

Ashish Mohta, M. M. Chandane

Department of Computer Technology Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute Mumbai, India urashu06@gmail.com mmchandane@vjti.org.in ABSTRACT Sensors are battery operated devices and

are placed in the region where human being could not reach easily, therefore battery has a finite life, if need to be used carefully so that the network life can be prolonged. Routing protocol plays important role in sending data from source to destination, therefore it is essential to think for the protocol that takes care of energy utilization while transmission, thereby increasing the life of the sensor network. In this paper we have proposed a new routing protocol for wireless sensor network called ALEACH, a modified version of LEACH. This has been designed to achieve the mentioned goals. For selection of cluster heads to communicate to base station our protocol uses the average energy of network as main criteria instead of random selection used by LEACH. We have implemented and tested it in NS2, and compared with LEACH for various parameters. The result shows ALEACH performs better than its counterparts.
Keywords- Clustering, LEACH protocol, ALEACH, Wireless Sensor Network (WSN), Base Station, Cluster Head

and the virtual world. WSNs have a variety of applications of distributed wireless sensing including medical, home security, machine diagnosis, military Information applications, environmental monitoring, agriculture, etc. Microsensors of WSN must be designed in a highly integrated way with the goal of optimizing energy dissipation, limited computation and self-configuration. Figure-1.1 shows the concept.

Figure-1.1 WSN Concept

1. INTRODUCTION Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) is a new computing paradigm that emerged from the fusion of the SCADA systems and Ad hoc networks technologies [1][2]. WSN derives the networking characteristics of ad-hoc network and combines it with the hardware facilities of tiny wireless sensors. Once a sufficient number of nodes have been deployed, the sensor network can be used to fulfill its task, such as measuring the physical variables. This task can be issued and supervised by an external entity connected to the WSN, such as manager or supervisor. WSNs are increasingly attractive tools to detect, monitor and control environmental conditions. WSNs can be used to bridge the gap between the physical

Routing is used to make any network more useful and efficient. For WSN main aim of any routing protocol is to save the sensor energy for transmission and increase the network lifetime. LEACH [4] is perhaps the first cluster based routing protocol for wireless sensor networks, which uses a stochastic model for cluster head selection. LEACH has motivated the design of several other protocols [4] [5]. Like other protocol LEACH is also having some problems, for that I have proposed a new version of LEACH called ALEACH and implemented it in NS2 and after simulation the results are compared with LEACH and got several promising results. In this paper section 2 discussed about cluster based routing protocols in WSN with LEACH protocol and its variants, in section 3 the proposed protocol ALEACH discussed followed by performance evaluation of proposed protocol in section 4, and in section 5 I have concluded my work.

2. CLUSTER BASED ROUTING PROTOCOLS IN WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORK In a cluster based routing protocol, sensor nodes are partitioned into many groups (clusters), which integrates information data collected from sensor nodes and transmits them to the sink node of the network. In each of the many clusters in this network resides a cluster head which collects data from sensor nodes within its group, completes data aggregation, and sends them to the sink node of the network. Such data aggregation can reduce the consumption of node energy and the transmission delay as compared to multi-hop routing protocols [6].

In the clustering algorithm, all nodes in a sensor network can become a cluster head but must belong to only one cluster. The algorithm should minimize the overhead of clustering setup messages and establishing times. Additionally, the algorithm must maintain a stable network configuration, routing, network efficiency, with a minimization of energy consumption [6]. Many clustering algorithms have been proposed, most of which are based upon node identifier, node connectivity, and node weights. Some of betterknown cluster based hierarchical routing protocols are LEACH, LEACH-Centralized, and Chain-based level PEGASIS (Power Efficiency Gathering in Sensor Information Systems). Figure-2.1 show the basic operational diagram of a cluster based routing protocol. 2.1 LEACH Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy (LEACH) is the first hierarchical cluster-based routing protocol for wireless sensor network which partitions the nodes into clusters, in each cluster a dedicated node with extra privileges called Cluster Head (CH) is responsible for creating and manipulating a TDMA (Time division multiple access) schedule and sending aggregated data from nodes to the BS where these data is needed using CDMA (Code division multiple access). Remaining nodes are cluster members [3]. This protocol is divided into rounds; each round consists of two phases; A) Set-up Phase (1) Advertisement Phase (2) Cluster Set-up Phase B) Steady Phase (1) Schedule Creation (2) Data Transmission

Figure-2.0 Clustering

Advantages to a clustering network are the reduction of an overhead of routing establishment, minimization of the size of the routing table, and stabilization of the network topology. The clustering network can make resource management and bandwidth allocation more efficient and make node positioning management and transmitting power management possible. In addition, the clustering scheme in a wireless sensor network enables an aggregate data of cluster member nodes at the cluster head and can easily provide the network scalability due to node increase. Consequently, in a huge sensor network that is several hundred thousand times bigger than ad hoc networks; the clustering based routing algorithm is a possible approach to maintain network configuration management and to make data aggregation.

Figure-2.0 Leach protocol Phases

Figure-2.0 Leach Protocol

A) Setup Phase Each node decides independent of other nodes if it will become a CH or not. This decision takes into account when the node served as a CH for the last time (the node that hasn't been a CH for long time is more likely to elect itself than nodes that have been a CH recently). In the following advertisement phase, the CHs inform their neighborhood with an advertisement packet that they become CHs. Non-CH nodes pick the advertisement packet with the strongest received signal strength. In the next cluster setup phase, the member nodes inform the CH that they become a member to that cluster with "join packet" contains their IDs using CSMA. After the cluster-setup sub phase, the CH knows the number of member nodes and their IDs. Based on all messages received within the cluster, the CH creates a TDMA schedule, pick a CSMA code randomly, and broadcast the TDMA table to cluster members. After that steady-state phase begins.

B) Steady-state phase Data transmission begins; Nodes send their data during their allocated TDMA slot to the CH. This transmission uses a minimal amount of energy (chosen based on the received strength of the CH advertisement). The radio of each non-CH node can be turned off until the nodes allocated TDMA slot, thus minimizing energy dissipation in these nodes. When all the data has been received, the CH aggregates these data and sends it to the BS. LEACH is able to perform local aggregation of data in each cluster to reduce the amount of data that transmitted to the base station. Although LEACH protocol acts in a good manner, it suffers from many drawbacks such like; CH selection is randomly, that does not take into account energy consumption. The CH selected randomly for transmission, may die between data transmission because of low energy. Since LEACH has many drawbacks, many researches have been done to make this protocol performs better. 2.2 PEGASIS Power efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems (PEGASIS) [11] is an improvement of the LEACH protocol. Rather than forming multiple clusters, PEGASIS forms chains from sensor nodes so that each node transmits and receives from a neighbor and only one node is selected from that chain to transmit to the base station (sink). Gathered data moves from node to node, aggregated and eventually sent to the base station. The chain construction is performed in a greedy way. As shown in Figure.2.5 node c0 passes its data to node c1. Node c1 aggregates node c0s data with its own and then transmits to the leader. After node c2 passes the token to node c4, node c4 transmits its data to node c3. Node c3 aggregates node c4s data with its own and then transmits to the leader. Node c2 waits to receive data from both neighbors and then aggregates its data

with its neighbors data. Finally, node c2 transmits one message to the base station.

other cluster members as original LEACH, but rather than transfer data to the BS directly, it uses one of the CHs that lies between the CH and the BS as a relay station [8].

Figure-2.0 Data gathering approach in PEGASIS

The difference from LEACH is to use multi-hop routing by forming chains and selecting only one node to transmit to the base station instead of using multiple nodes. 2.3 E-LEACH protocol Energy-LEACH protocol improves the CH selection procedure. It makes residual energy of node as the main metric which decides whether the nodes turn into CH or not after the first round [7]. Same as LEACH protocol, E-LEACH is divided into rounds, in the first round, every node has the same probability to turn into CH, that mean nodes are randomly selected as CHs, in the next rounds, the residual energy of each node is different after one round communication and taken into account for the selection of the CHs. That mean nodes have more energy will become a CHs rather than nodes with less energy. 2.4 TL-LEACH In LEACH protocol, the CH collects and aggregates data from sensors in its own cluster and passes the information to the BS directly. CH might be located far away from the BS, so it uses most of its energy for transmitting and because it is always on it will die faster than other nodes. A new version of LEACH called Two-level Leach was proposed. In this protocol; CH collects data from

Figure-2.0 TL-LEACH [8]

2.5 M-LEACH protocol In LEACH, Each CH directly communicates with BS no matter the distance between CH and BS. It will consume lot of its energy if the distance is far. On the other hand, Multihop-LEACH protocol selects optimal path between the CH and the BS through other CHs and use these CHs as a relay station to transmit data over through them [9]. First, multi-hop communication is adopted among CHs. Then, according to the selected optimal path, these CHs transmit data to the corresponding CH which is nearest to BS. Finally, this CH sends data to BS. M-LEACH protocol is almost the same as LEACH protocol, only makes communication mode from single hop to multi-hop between CHs and BS. 2.6 LEACH-C protocol LEACH offers no guarantee about the placement and/or number of cluster heads. In [10], an enhancement over the LEACH protocol was proposed. The protocol, called LEACH-C, uses a centralized clustering algorithm and the same steadystate phase as LEACH. LEACH-C protocol can

produce better performance by dispersing the cluster heads throughout the network. During the set-up phase of LEACH-C, each node sends information about its current location (possibly determined using GPS) and residual energy level to the sink. In addition to determining good clusters, the sink needs to ensure that the energy load is evenly distributed among all the nodes. To do this, sink computes the average node energy, and determines which nodes have energy below this average. Once the cluster heads and associated clusters are found, the sink broadcasts a message that obtains the cluster head ID for each node. If a cluster head ID matches its own ID, the node is a cluster head; otherwise the node determines its TDMA slot for data transmission and goes sleep until its time to transmit data. The steady-state phase of LEACH-C is identical to that of the LEACH protocol. 2.7 V-LEACH In V-LEACH protocol, the cluster contains; CH (responsible only for sending data that is received from the cluster members to the BS), vice-CH (the node that will become a CH of the cluster in case of CH dies), cluster nodes (gathering data from environment and send it to the CH).

I have done changes based on Energy of sensor nodes in LEACH protocol and proposed a new protocol named ALEACH. It employs the same clustering approach as LEACH during initial phase and transmission. Adjacent nodes are organized into clusters with one node from each cluster acting as the cluster head. The choice of the cluster head (CH) is determined by the amount of energy remaining in a node with the total energy of the network, the energy should be more than or equal to the average energy of the network, so that the node will not die within the transmission phase. The average energy is calculated as follows:
Etotal = i=0 E Ni Eavg = Etotal nn
n1

Where, Etotal is the total energy of the network Eavg is the average energy of the network nn is total number of nodes alive The problem with LEACH protocol is the steep dying of sensor nodes after some time, so the data loss as well energy consumption is more with less network lifetime. The reason for this is the stochastic selection of cluster heads. The algorithm of proposed protocol works in two phases Setup and Steady, like LEACH. Here instead of choosing random Cluster Head, we have used concept proposed above. 3.1 ALEACH ALGORITHM The proposed algorithm for ALEACH protocol is given below: Step 1 Initialization

Figure-2.0 V-LEACH

In our V-LEACH protocol, besides having a CH in the cluster, there is a vice-CH that takes the role of the CH when the CH dies because the reasons we mentioned above. 3. PROPOSED ROUTING PROTOCOL

- Create node Ui; Set node position Uxyz - Node Ui broadcast an ADV message, with its ID Node Uj receives messages from its neighbor if (no message received) then Uj is ORPHAN; else

Ui receives JOIN messages (with ID) from Uj ; End Form: the neighbor set N (Ui) Compute: dij , for all neighbors

Step 2 Cluster Head formation

Select CH on the basis of Energy and Threshold value //Check nodes energy if (E(Ui >= E(S(Ui))/(n-1)) then if (T(Ui) < Random(0 ,1 )) then CH(Ui) = SetClusterHead; else CH(Ui) = UnsetClusterHead ; else Return; End

4.1 ENVIRONMENT SETUP In this simulation, our experiment model performed on 100 nodes which were randomly deployed and distributed in a 100100 square meter area. We assume that all nodes have no mobility since the nodes are fixed in applications of most wireless sensor networks. Our simulation model uses the parameters shown in Table-4.1. To verify my results I have used Network Simulator2.27 on Ubuntu-9.04 and implemented the proposed protocol. I also implemented the MITs Leach protocol for evaluation of protocol. I have used different network topology where nodes vary from 10 to 100 and regions vary from 100x100 to 1000x1000, to test the protocol behavior different time intervals are taken. I have used following parameters to test the performance: A) Network Lifetime: It deals with the life of network. It shows how long the nodes in network are alive when time passes. B) Data Received by Base Stations: Number of data messages received by the base station with fixed number of nodes. It shows how effective the protocol is when data transmission is concerned. C) Energy Consumed: Energy consumed by the network to transmit and receive the data. D) Sensors Alive: Number of sensors alive for the data transmission. This is obtained by removing the dead nodes from the network. I have used some fixed parameters to test the efficiency of the protocols for varying number of sensors for different regions or the different size region.
Table-4.1 Summery of the parameter used in the Simulation experiments

Step 3 Clusters formation

Select an initiator node number of Ci is a preset fraction of S(Ui) Cj distributed across the field using node ID Select CH in Ci based on amount of energy if (E(Ui) > E(Uj)) then CH(Ui) = Ui ; else CH(Ui) = Uj ; End

Step 4 Send Data to Cluster Head

Nodes in Ui THEN transmit to CH(Ci)

Step 5 Send data to base station

CH(Ui) sends data to Base station

Step 6 Repeat the process for different rounds from step 1 4. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION The performance of routing protocols is evaluated with the NS-2 simulator [12]. Then our proposed protocol is compared to the LEACH algorithm in terms of the network lifetime, number of nodes alive and data packet received at Base Station. The results are discussed here.

Parameter

Value

Initial Energy Antenna Height Propagation Speed Netif Antenna No. of sensors No. of Base Station Base Station position Region Simulation Time

2 Joul 1.5 meter 3e8 m/s Phy/wirelessphy OmniAntenna 10, 25, 50, 100 nodes 1 Located at 100*100, 1000*1000 m2 800 sec

Figure 4.1 Node Alive Vs Time for 10 sensors

I have simulated the protocol on sensors ranging from 10 to 100 and obtained the result of two protocols and then compared the protocols. For comparison I have calculated the values of following parameters for LEACH and ALEACH protocols: I have calculated analyzed the average value of above parameters for each simulation and this data is also shown in the tabular and graphical form, in the following sections. 4.1 NETWORK WITH SENSORS I have deployed 10 sensors in a region of 100*100 for both the protocols and after simulation for 200 seconds got following results (see graphs) for different parameters. From the results we observe that the same network with two protocols behaves different and gives different results. In the first case when simulated with LEACH protocol the full network died in approx 80 seconds as compare to second case where network is able to survive for 150 seconds with ALEACH. Following graph compares the behavior of both protocols:

In above graph we can see the sensors in Leach protocol died rapidly after a certain time period, the reason for this may be the drain of sensor energy. But ALEACH performs much better with the sensors live nearly double than LEACH. In figure-4.1 Node alive with increase in time is shown. In the figure-4.2 the Data packet received at base station with time is shown for both protocol.

Figure 4.2 Data Packet Received Vs Time for 10 Sensors

Where after 40 seconds no new data packet is send by LEACH and sensors are dying rapidly. But in case of Aleach protocol the data packet received by Base Station is more than double of LEACH protocol. In the figure-4.3 the Energy consumed by the network with each protocol is shown. In the figure the energy consumed by LEACH protocol is higer than ALEACH till 80 seconds after which network with Leach protocol died.

Figure 4.3 Energy Consumed Vs Time for 10 Sensors

Figure 4.5 Sensors Alive Vs Time for 25 sensors in 100*100 Region

Because of less network lifetime the performance of LEACH is low as compare to ALEACH where network life is better. 4.2 NETWORK WITH 25 SENSORS In this case 25 sensor nodes are deployed at different sized regions: A) WITH 100*100 REGIONS The observations after the simulation of networks with both protocols are shown below:

In next figure the energy consumed by both protocol is compared where we can easily conclude that in the case of Leach energy consumsion is more, because network dies rapidly after 110 sec.

Figure 4.6 Energy Consumed Vs Time for 25 Sensors in 100*100 Region

B) WITH 1000*1000 REGIONS This section shows the observation after the network with 25 sensors with 3 Cluster Heads is deployed in the region of 1000*1000.
Figure 4.4 Data Packet Received Vs Time for 25 Sensors in 100*100 Region

In Figure-4.4 the Data packet received by Base Station in the case of Leach is less than the Aleach. Where network with Leach protocol has received 60% less data packets as compare to ALEACH. In the next figure-4.5 the network liftime is discussed where after 110 seconds the sensors in LEACH died reapidly. Which is also the reson for data loss in the case of LEACH.

Figure 4.7 Data Packet Received Vs Time for 25 Sensors with 1000*1000 region

The energy consumption is increased suddenly after 270 seconds and the overall energy consumpsion is much higher as compare to ALEACH. The figure4.11 discussed the Energy consumed in the network in case of LEACH and ALEACH.

Figure 4.8 Sensors Alive Vs Time for 25 sensors in 1000*1000 Region

Figure 4.11 Energy Consumed Vs Time for 50 Sensors

Figure 4.9 Energy Consumed Vs Time for 25 Sensors in 1000*1000 Region

From the above comparisons we can conclude that the performance of ALEACH is much better than LEACH. And it is 70% more efficient when data transmission is considered, Network Life increases 65% and the energy consumption is 75% less. 4.3 NETWORK WITH 50 SENSORS The following result shows the observation after the simulation of network with 50 Sensors with 3 CH is done with both protocols:

The sensors again died rapidly after 230 seconds. Which make network to consume more energy and increases data loss while transmission. Here the sensors die gradually in the case of ALEACH which is making it more useful in such scenarios.

Figure 4.12 Sensors Alive Vs Time for 50 sensors

4.4 NETWORK WITH 100 SENSORS Since ALEACHs performance is better than LEACH in all cases discussed above I finally analyzed it with 100 sensors. After the simulation of network with 100 Sensors in the region of 1000*1000 with 5 Cluster Heads the protocols are compared.

Figure 4.10 Data Packet Received Vs Time for 50 Sensors

As compare to other scenario the Data packet received at Base Station is increased in LEACH but again 25% less than ALEACH.

With ALEACH data packets received at Base Station is more compared to LEACH. When time passes the number of sensors dying rapidly in LEACH which makes it again consume more energy and make more Data Packets to lost. The figure-4.13 shows that after 430 seconds data transmission in LEACH decreasing and there is no data transmission at all.

From the figure-4.15 we can conclude that energy consumption in the network with LEACH protocol at a particular time period is higer than ALEACH protocol.

Figure 4.15 Energy Consumed Vs Time in the network with 100 Sensors

Figure 4.13 Data Packet Received Vs Time for 100 Sensors

Figure-4.14 compares the networks. Here the network with LEACH protocol died after 480 seconds. And network with ALEACH died after 540 secons which makes it to transmit more data as compare to LEACH.

From the comparison we can say that the performance of ALEACH protocol is much better than LEACH protocol in all scenarios. 4.5 COMPARISON OF ALL SCENARIOS In this section we are comparing these two protocols with final results obtained by the simulation of all scenarios discussed above. Here in table-4.1 contains the final result obtained from all above scenarios for the fixed parameters like Network Lifetime, Data Packet Received and Energy Consumed by the network. We have compared the two protocols and the results are shown next in the form of graphs.
Table-4.2 Final Results of all Scenarios LEACH PROTOCOL ALEACH PROTOCOL N/w Lifetime 80 180 410 490 Data Packet Received 5050 13633 34393 44884 Energy Consumed 22.67791 69.49907 194.8386 319.4876 N/W Lifetime 150 270 470 550 Data Packet Received 12248 21074 45095 58574 Energy Consumed 23.54646 83.76278 169.2549 390.4171

Figure 4.14 Sensors Alive Vs Time for 100 sensors in 1000*1000 Region
N/W Size 10 25 50 100

Figure-7.16 shows the number of data packet received at Base Station by using both protocols for same number of nodes. Here data packet received for network using ALEACH protocol compared to LEACH is highe for the network of same number of sensors.

ALEACH the ration of data packet received with energy consumption is better than LEACH protocol.

Figure 4.18 Data Packet Received Vs Energy Consumed in LEACH

Figure 4.16 Data Packet Received Vs Number of Sensors in LEACH and ALEACH

Figure-4.17 shows the Lifetime of network for different number of sensor network for both protocols. Here also network with ALEACH protocol is having higher network Lifetime compared to network with LEACH prtocol. Here I have taken a new field for the network related to its lifetime and named it Network Lifetime. To check the availability of the Network for the transmission.

Figure 4.19 Data Packet Received Vs Energy Consumed in ALEACH

Figure-4.20 compares the two protocol on the basis of Data Packet Received per Unit Energy Consumed with network size. Here the protocol ALEACH performed much better for small networks and also performs average for large networks.

Figure 4.17 Network Lifetime Vs Number of Sensors

Figure 4.20 Data Packet Receive per unit Energy Consumed in LEACH and ALEACH

Figure-4.18 and 4.19 shows the Energy consumption by the same network with Data Packet Received at base station by using LEACH and ALEACH protocols. From these figure we can easily say that for

In Figure-4.21 and 4.22 we have discussed two protocols on the basis of their energy consumption in the period of network life. Means how much energy one consumes to make this network work.

shown in Table-4.2 Figure-4.24 shows the throughput vs Network Size graph for bot protocols.
Table-4.3 AVERAGE THROUGHPUT FOR DIFFERENT NETWORKS

Figure 4.21 Network Lifetime Vs Energy Consumed in LEACH

Figure 4.22 Network Lifetime Vs Energy Consumed in ALEACH

From above Figures we can conclude to make network alive energy consumed by ALEACH network is less than LEACH Protocol.
Figure 4.24 Network Throughput Vs Network Size in LEACH and ALEACH

Figure 4.23 Packet Received per Unit Time Vs Network Size in LEACH and ALEACH

From Figure-4.23 we can say that the packet received by the base station per unit time is better in ALEACH than LEACH Protocol. 4.6 AVERAGE THROUGHPUT The throughput of the network with different sensors for the LEACH and ALEACH is calculated and

From above discussion we conclude that for all scenarios, my proposed protocol ALEACH outperforms LEACH. The performance of this protocol is 60-70% better than LEACH protocol. According to me this increase in performance of ALEACH is due to increase in network life, so that the sensors live for more time and can participate in data transmission. Here the energy is saved because I am choosing sensors which are having energy more than average energy of the network. Choosing sensors by above criteria made data transmission better and the energy of the sensors is saved by not selecting it as a Cluster Head if it has a low energy, So that the sensor is saved from dying early and data loss can be reduced. 5. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK In this paper we considered a well known protocol for wireless sensor networks called LEAH protocol

which is the first and the most important protocol in wireless sensor network which uses cluster based broadcasting technique. Followed by an overview of LEACH protocol implementations, then we proposed a new version of LEACH protocol called ALEACH protocol. Based upon the NS-2 simulation, the protocol has confirmed that it provides a longer network lifetime than LEACH, with more data packets to deliver with same amount of energy consumed. It is our belief that our proposed protocol can effectively extend the network lifetime without other critical overheads and performance degradation. From comparison of our protocol with LEACH following conclusion can be made on the basis of given parameters: 1. Network Lifetime: The life of network is increased because of increase in sensor life in the network. 2. Energy Consumption by the Network: The consumption of energy by the network is decreased, so the sensors can send more data in same energy consumption than LEACH. 3. Data Packet Received at Base Station: Data packet received at base station increased, so we can say that the data loss decrease. The overall performance of ALEACH protocol compared to LEACH is 70% better. ALEACH affords to conserve energy through choosing sensor having energy more than average energy of network. If each node were to transmit its sensed data directly to the BS, it will deplete its energy reserves rapidly, and also with low energy node can also create problem if it got selected as a Cluster Head. ALEACHs approach to minimizing energy consumption is to improve network Lifetime by making sensor live more time. After getting the results of ALEACH we can say that this concept of saving energy may be useful to make other variants of LEACH work much better. We may also make the cluster communication of ALEACH by using more level of hierarchy, so that the performance of this protocol will improve. REFERENCES

[1]

Eiko Yoneki, Jean Bacon, A Survey of Wireless Sensor Network Technologies: Research Trends and Middlewares Role, University of Cambridge, Sep 2005. [2] Hetal Jasani, Kia Makki, and Niki Pissinou, On Wireless Sensor Networks, Florida International University, Miami, USA, June 2004. [3] M. Bani Yassein, A. Al-zou'bi, Y. Khamayseh, W. Mardini, Improvement on LEACH Protocol of Wireless Sensor Network (VLEACH), International Journal of Digital Content Technology and its Applications Volume 3, Number 2, June 2009. [4] Heinzelman W., Chandrakasan A., and Balakrishnan H.,"Energy-Efficient Communication Protocol for Wireless Microsensor Networks", 2000. [5] W. R. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, and H. Balakrishnan,An Application Specific Protocol Architecture for Wireless Sensor Network Microsensor Networks, IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 660670, October 2002. [6] J. Ibriq and I. mahgoub, "Cluster-Based Routing in Wireless Sensor Networks: Issues and Challenges", Proceedings of the 2004 Symposium on Performance Evaluation of Computer Telecommunication Systems, pp.759-766, Jul. 2004. [7] Fan Xiangning, Song Yulin. "Improvement on LEACH Protocol of Wireless Sensor Network", 2007. [8] V. Loscr, G. Morabito and S. Marano. "A Two-Levels Hierarchy for Low-Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy". [9] Dissertation, Hang Zhou, Zhe Jiang and Mo Xiaoyan,Study and Design on Cluster Routing Protocols of Wireless Sensor Networks,2006. [10] W. B. Heinzelman et al., An Application-Specific Protocol Architecture for Wireless Microsensor Networks. [11] S. Lindsey and C. S. Raghavendra, PEGASIS: Powerecient gathering in sensor information systems, in Proc. of the IEEE Aerospace Conference, vol. 3, Los Angels, CA, USA, March 2002, pp. 31125. [12] Information Sciences Institute, "The Network Simulator ns-2" http://www.isi.edu/nanam/ns/, University of Southern California. [13]