Wireless Networks

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 153–164 | Cite as

Improved approximation algorithms for connected sensor cover

  • Stefan Funke
  • Alex Kesselman
  • Fabian Kuhn
  • Zvi Lotker
  • Michael Segal


Wireless sensor networks have recently posed many new system building challenges. One of the main problems is energy conservation since most of the sensors are devices with limited battery life and it is infeasible to replenish energy via replacing batteries. An effective approach for energy conservation is scheduling sleep intervals for some sensors, while the remaining sensors stay active providing continuous service. In this paper we consider the problem of selecting a set of active sensors of minimum cardinality so that sensing coverage and network connectivity are maintained. We show that the greedy algorithm that provides complete coverage has an approximation factor no better than Ω(log n), where n is the number of sensor nodes. Then we present algorithms that provide approximate coverage while the number of nodes selected is a constant factor far from the optimal solution. Finally, we show how to connect a set of sensors that already provides coverage.


Approximation algorithms Sensing connected coverage 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Z. Abrams, A. Goel and S. Plotkin, Set k-cover algorithms for energy efficient monitoring in wireless sensor networks, in Proc. of Third International Symposium on Information Processing in Sensor Networks (IPSN) (2004).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    I. F. Akyildiz, W. Su, Y. Sankarasubramaniam and E. Cayirci, Wireless sensor networks: A survey, Computer Networks (March 2002).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Berman, G. Calinescu, C. Shah and A. Zelikovsky, Power efficient monitoring management in sensor networks, in IEEE Wireless Communication and Networking Conference (WCNC’04), Atlanta, (March 2004).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Badrinath, M. Srivastava, K. Mills, J.S Holtz and K. Sollins, Editors, Special issue on smart spaces and environments, in IEEE Personal Communications (2000).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. Ben-Moshe, M. J. Katz and M. Segal, Obnoxious facility location: Complete service with minimal harm, International Journal of Computational Geometry and Applications 10 (2000) 581–592.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. Brönnimann and M. T. Goodrich, Almost optimal set covers in finite VC-dimension, Discrete and Computational Geometry 14 (1995) 463–479.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Bose, A. Maheshwari, P Morin and J. Morrison, The grid placement problem, in Proceedings of the 7th Annual Workshop on Algorithms and Data Structures, Vol. 2125 of LNCS (2001) pp. 180–191.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Cerpa and D. Estrin, ASCENT: Adaptive self-configuring sensor networks topologies, in Proc. of INFOCOM ’02, New York, NY, USA, (June 2002).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. Chakrabarty, S.S. Iyengar, H. Qi and E. Cho, Grid coverage for surveillance and target location in distributed sensor networks, IEEE Transactions on Computers 51(12) (December 2002) 1448–1453.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. Chen, K. Jamieson, H. Balakrishnan and R. Morris, Span: An energy-efficient coordination algorithm for topology maintenance in ad hoc wireless networks, in ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom 2001), Rome, Italy (July 2001).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    B. Clark, C. Colbourn and D. Johnson, Unit Disk Graphs, Discrete Mathematics 86 (1990) 165–177.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    S.S. Dhillon and K. Chakrabarty, Sensor placement for effective coverage and surveillance in distributed sensor networks, in Proc. of IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (2003) pp. 1609–1614.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Estrin, R. Govindan and J. Heidemann, Editors, special issue on embedding the internet, Communications of the ACM, 43 (2000).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Franceschetti, M. Cook and J. Bruck, A geometric theorem for approximate disk covering algorithms, Technical Report ETR035, Caltech University (January 2001).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. Funke, A. Kesselman, U. Meyer and M. Segal, A simple improved distributed algorithm for minimum cds in unit disk graphs, in IEEE International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (2005), to appear.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Guha and S. Khuller, Improved methods for approximating node weighted steiner trees and connected dominating sets, Inf. Comput., 150(1) (1999) 57–74.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    H. Gupta, S.R. Das and Quinyi Gu, Connected sensor cover: Self-organization of sensor networks for efficient query execution, in Proc. of MobiHoc 03, Annapolis, Maryland (June 2003).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D.S. Hochbaum and W. Maas, Approximation schemes for covering and packing problems in image processing and vlsi, J. ACM 32 (1985) 130–136.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    H. Huang, A. Richa and M. Segal, Dynamic coverage and related problems in ad hoc sensor networks, ACM Mobile Networks and Applications: Special Issue on Algorithmic Solutions for Wireless, Mobile, Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks (2003).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D.S. Johnson, Approximation algorithms for combinatorial problems, J. Comput. System Sci. 9 (1974) 256–278.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    D.T. Lee, M. Sarrafzadeh and Y.F. Wu, Minimum cut for circular-arc graphs, SIAM J. Computing 19(6) (1990) 1041–1050.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    A. Mainwaring, J. Polastre, R. Szewczyk and D. Culler, Wireless sensor networks for habitat monitoring, in First ACM International Workshop on Wireless Workshop in Wireless Sensor Networks and Applications (August 2002).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    S. Masuda and K. Nakajima, An optimal algorithm for finding a maximum independent set of a circular-arc graph, SIAM Journal on Computing, 17(1) (1988) 41–52.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. Matousek, R. Seidel and E. Welzl, How to net a lot with little: Small ε-nets for disks and halfspaces, in Proc. of 6th Annu. ACM Sympos. Comput. Geom. (1990) pp. 16–22.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    S. Meguerdichian and M. Potkonjak, Low power 0/1 coverage and scheduling techniques in sensor networks, UCLA Technical Report 030001 (January 2003).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    S. Slijepcevic and M. Potkonjak, Power efficient organization of wireless sensor networks, in Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC) (2001) pp. 472–476.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    D. Tian and N.D. Georganas, A coverage-preserved node scheduling scheme for large wireless sensornetworks, in Proc. of First International Workshop on Wireless Sensor Networks and Applications, Atlanta, USA (September 2002).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    P.J. Wan, K. Alzoubi and O. Frieder, Distributed construction of connected dominating set in wireless ad hoc networks, in Proc. of INFOCOM 2002.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    X. Wang, G. Xing, Y. Zhang, C. Lu, R. Pless and C.D. Gill, Integrated coverage and connectivity configuration in wireless sensor networks, in Proc. of SenSys ’03.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Y. Xu, J. Heidemann, and D. Estrin, Geography-informed energy conservation for ad hoc routing, in ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (Proc. of MobiCom 2001), Rome, Italy, (July 2001).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    F. Ye, G. Zhong, S. Lu and L. Zhang, Peas: A robust energy conserving protocol for long-lived sensor networks, in Proc. of The 23nd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS) (2003).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    H. Zhang and J.C. Hou, Maintaining sensing coverage and connectivity in large sensor networks, Technical Report UIUC (2003) UIUCDCS-R-2003–2351.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Funke
    • 1
  • Alex Kesselman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Fabian Kuhn
    • 3
  • Zvi Lotker
    • 4
  • Michael Segal
    • 5
  1. 1.Max Planck Institut fur InformatikSaarbruckenGermany
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Scienze dell’InformazioneUniversita di Roma La SapienzaItaly
  3. 3.Computer Engineering an Networks LaboratoryETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  4. 4.Project MascotteINRIASophia AntipolisFrance
  5. 5.Communication Systems Engineering Dept.Ben-Gurion University of the NegevBeer-ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations