Advertisement

The Journal of Supercomputing

, Volume 74, Issue 2, pp 696–716 | Cite as

Efficient routing for dense UWSNs with high-speed mobile nodes using spherical divisions

  • Mohammad Reza KhosraviEmail author
  • Hamid Basri
  • Habib Rostami
Article

Abstract

Three major problems of wireless sensor networks can be summarized into communication traffic, energy consumption and routing security. In this paper, we analyze performance of an underwater sensor network in dense mode under creation of spherical division-based forbidden regions. Obviously, unnecessary smart node removal from the packet forwarding process of a flooding-based routing policy is theoretically an idea for enhancing the known network parameters. In this research, our purposed approach is to improve energy consumption by using a removal process over physical routing space toward more network reliability and better network lifetime. Clearly, our aim is performance improvement in terms of a network protocol in an underwater wireless sensor networks with a huge number of high-speed mobile nodes. The nodes generally consist of different underwater instruments such as sensors, robots, modems and batteries and are categorized into two groups of autonomous unmanned underwater vehicles and remotely operated vehicles. The proposed approach is a hybrid solution based on vector-based forwarding routing protocol and spherical divisions which is named spherical division-based vector-based forwarding. The proposed protocol can successfully reduce energy consumption and equivalently increase the network lifetime while packet delivery ratio is in a saturation level. In details, our proposed method works on preservation of sensors’ energy in which we physically remove some additional paths of routing process (based on a multipath forwarding using a basic routing algorithm). In this regard, we apply a spherical division-based physical restriction on the routing space. However, removing these additional sensor nodes/routers is conditionally done under keeping the suitable traffic performance in terms of PDR because it is essential to say that a new scheme is effective.

Keywords

Underwater wireless sensor networks (UWSNs) Dense applications Spherical divisions (SD) Multipath distributed routing Spherical division-based vector-based forwarding (SD-VBF) 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the managing editor and also all reviewers for their reviews and helpful comments.

References

  1. 1.
    Ayaz M, Baig I, Abdullah A, Faye I (2011) A survey on routing techniques in underwater wireless sensor networks. J Netw Comput Appl 34:1908–1927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Waseem MH, Alamzeb M, Mustafa B (2013) Design of a low-cost underwater wireless sensor network for water quality monitoring. IETE J Res 59(5):523–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Khosravi MR, Basri H, Khosravi A, Rostami H (2015) Energy efficient spherical divisions for VBF-based routing in dense UWSNs. In: Proceedings of KBEI 2015, IUST, Tehran, Iran, pp 961–965Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amalia C, Jayaprakasha D, Ramachandrana B (2014) Enhanced media independent network selection for heterogeneous wireless networks. IETE Tech Rev 31(5):392–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rajkumara S, Goyala NK (2015) Fault tolerant interconnection network design. IETE Tech Rev 33:396–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Prasad P (2015) Recent trend in wireless sensor network and its applications: a survey. Sens Rev 35(2):229–236MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Xie P, Cui J, Lao L (2006) VBF: vector-based forwarding protocol for underwater sensor networks. In: Proceedings of International IFIP Conference: Networking Technologies, Services and Protocols Performance of Computer and Communication Networks, Mobile and Wireless Communications Systems, pp 1216–1221Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Xie P et al (2010) Efficient vector-based forwarding for underwater sensor networks. EURASIP J Wirel Commun Netw 2010:195910. doi: 10.1155/2010/195910 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yu H, Yao N, Liu J (2014) An adaptive routing protocol in underwater sparse acoustic sensor networks. Ad Hoc Netw 34:121–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ibrahim DM et al (2014) Enhancing the vector-based forwarding routing protocol for underwater wireless sensor networks: a clustering approach. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Communications, pp 98–104Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khosravi MR, Basri H, Rostami H (2015) Improvement of energy consumption in dense underwater sensor networks. In: Proceedings of 2nd International Congress of Electrical Engineering, Computer Science and Information Technology (IT2015), SBU, Tehran, Iran, vol 9, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cai S, Gao Z, Yang D, Yao N (2013) A network coding based protocol for reliable data transfer in underwater acoustic sensor. Ad Hoc Netw 11:1603–1609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pouryazdanpanah M, Anjomshoa M, Salehi A, Afroozeh A, Moshfegh M (2014) DS-VBF: dual sink vector-based routing protocol for underwater wireless sensor network. In: Proceedings of 5th Control and System Graduate Research Colloquium, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Proakis JG, Rice JA, Sozer EM, Stojanovic M (2001) Shallow water acoustic networks. IEEE Commun Mag 39(11):114–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Razaquea A, Elleithya K (2016) Nomenclature of medium access control protocol over wireless sensor networks. IETE Tech Rev 33(2):160–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Niculescu D, Nath B (2003) Trajectory based forwarding and its applications. In: Proceedings of the 9th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MOBICOM’03), San Diego, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Islam M, Kim J (2012) Step-by-step approach for energy-efficient wireless sensor network. IETE Tech Rev 29:336–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jornet M, Stojanovic M, Zorzi M (2008) Focused beam routing protocol for underwater acoustic networks. In: Proceedings of the ACM WUWNet, San Francisco, CA, USA, pp 75–81Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Daeyoup H, Dongkyun K (2008) DFR: directional? Flooding-based routing protocol for underwater sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the OCEANS, Quebec City, QC, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nicolaouy N, See A, Xie P, Cui J, Maggiorini D (2007) Improving the robustness of location-based routing for underwater sensor networks, IEEEGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yan H, Shi Z, Cui J (2008) DBR: depth-based routing for underwater sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the 7th International IFIP-TC6 Networking Conference on Ad-hoc and Sensor NetworksGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Uichin L et al (2010) Pressure routing for underwater sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference: INFOCOM, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ayaz M, Abdullah A (2009) Hop-by-hop dynamic addressing based (H2-DAB) routing protocol for underwater wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Information and Multimedia Technology (ICIMT’09), Republic of Korea, pp 436–441Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ayaz M, Abdullah A, Faye I (2010) Hop-by-hop reliable data deliveries for underwater wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Broadband Wireless Computing, Communication and Applications (BWCCA’10), Fukuoka, Japan, pp 363–368Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gopi S, Govindan K, Chander D, Desai UB, Merchant SN (2010) E-PULRP: energy optimized path unaware layered routing protocol for underwater sensor networks. IEEE Trans Wirel Commun 9(11):3391–3401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chen GM, Wu XB, Chen GH (2008) REBAR: a reliable and energy balanced routing algorithm for UWSNs. In: Proceedings of the seventh International Conference on Grid and Cooperative Computing, Shenzhen, China, pp 349–355Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Domingo MC (2011) A distributed energy-aware routing protocol for underwater wireless sensor networks. Wirel Pers Commun 51(4):607–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pu W, Cheng L, Jun Z (2007) Distributed minimum-cost clustering protocol for under- water sensor networks (UWSNs). In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communications, Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom, pp 3510–3515Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Anupama KR, Sasidharan A, Vadlamani S (2008) A location-based clustering algorithm for data gathering in 3D underwater wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Telecommunications (IST), Tehran, Iran, pp 343–348Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang C, Liu GL (2011) LUM-HEED: a location unaware, multi-hop routing protocol for underwater acoustic sensor networks. In: Proceedings of 2011 International Conference on Computer Science and Network Technology, China, pp 2236–2240Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Liu GZ, Wei CY (2011) A new multi-path routing protocol based on cluster for underwater acoustic sensor networks. In: Proceedings of 2011 International Conference on Multimedia Technology, China, pp 91–94Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Younis Abbasi, M (2007) A survey on clustering algorithms for wireless sensor networks. Comput Commun 30:2826–2841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhou Z, Cui JH, Shi ZJ (2011) Efficient multipath communication for time-critical applications in underwater acoustic sensor networks. IEEE Trans Netw 19:28–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dhurandher SK, Obaidat MS, Gupta M (2013) Energized geocasting model for underwater wireless sensor networks. Simul Model Pract Theory 37:125–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hao K, Jin Z, Shen H, Wang Y (2015) An efficient and reliable geographic routing protocol based on partial network coding for underwater sensor networks. Sensors 15:12720–12735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sharif-Yazd M, Khosravi MR, Moghimi MK (2017) A survey on underwater acoustic sensor networks: perspectives on protocol design for signaling, MAC and routing. J Comput Commun 5:12–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Xie P et al (2009) Aqua-Sim: an NS-2 based simulator for underwater sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the OCEANS2009, MTS/IEEE Biloxi Marine Technology for Our Future: Global and Local ChallengesGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pompili D, Melodia T (2005) Three-dimensional routing in underwater acoustic sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM International Workshop on Performance Evaluation of Wireless Ad-hoc, Sensor, and Ubiquitous Networks (WASUN’05), Montreal, Calif, USA, pp 214–221Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Khosravi MR, Basri H, Rostami H (2015) Routing with using vector-based forwarding in underwater wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of 2nd International Congress of Electrical Engineering, Computer Science and Information Technology (IT2015), SBU, Tehran, Iran, vol 9, pp 10–20Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ali T, Jung LT, Ameer S (2012) Flooding control by using angle based cone for UWSNS. In: Proceedings of 1st IEEE International Telecommunication Technologies, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, pp 112–117Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kuila P, Jana PK (2014) Approximation schemes for load balanced clustering in wireless sensor networks. J Supercomput 68:87–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Torabi AT, Er MJ, Li X, Lim BS (2016) Sequential fuzzy clustering based dynamic fuzzy neural network for fault diagnosis and prognosis. Neurocomputing 196:31–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Alhihi M (2017) Practical routing protocol models to improve network performance and adequacy. J Comput Commun 5:116CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Electronic EngineeringShiraz University of TechnologyShirazIran
  2. 2.Department of Computer EngineeringK. N. Toosi University of TechnologyTehranIran
  3. 3.Computer Engineering Department, School of EngineeringPersian Gulf UniversityBushehrIran

Personalised recommendations