Wireless Networks

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 1085–1099 | Cite as

Supervisory routing control for dynamic load balancing in low data rate wireless sensor networks

Article
First Online:

Abstract

Routing protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN) are designed to select parent nodes so that data packets can reach their destination in a timely and efficient manner. Typically neighboring nodes with strongest connectivity are more selected as parents. This Greedy Routing approach can lead to unbalanced routing loads in the network. Consequently, the network experiences the early death of overloaded nodes causing permanent network partition. Herein, we propose a framework for load balancing of routing in WSN. In-network path tagging is used to monitor network traffic load of nodes. Based on this, nodes are identified as being relatively overloaded, balanced or underloaded. A mitigation algorithm finds suitable new parents for switching from overloaded nodes. The routing engine of the child of the overloaded node is then instructed to switch parent. A key future of the proposed framework is that it is primarily implemented at the Sink and so requires few changes to existing routing protocols. The framework was implemented in TinyOS on TelosB motes and its performance was assessed in a testbed network and in TOSSIM simulation. The algorithm increased the lifetime of the network by 41 % as recorded in the testbed experiment. The Packet Delivery Ratio was also improved from 85.97 to 99.47 %. Finally a comparative study was performed using the proposed framework with various existing routing protocols.

Keywords

Wireless sensor networks Load balancing Sensor data Greedy routing Network lifetime 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Arora, A., Dutta, P., Bapat, S., Kulathumani, V., Zhang, H., Naik, V., et al. (2004). A line in the sand: A wireless sensor network for target detection, classification, and tracking. Computer Networks, 46, 605–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Data Sheet from Crossbow (2012). http://www.xbow.com/Products/productdetails.aspx?sid=252. Accessed 02 Jan 2010.
  3. 3.
    Dai, H., & Han, R. (2003). A node-centric load balancing algorithm for wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the Global Telecommunications Conference, volume 1 of GLOBECOM 03, pp. 548552 Vol. 1. IEEE.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Demaine, E. D., Lopez-Ortiz, A., & Munro, J. I. (2002). Frequency estimation of internet packet streams with limited space. Proceedings of the 10th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms, ESA 02 (pp. 348–360). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fletcher, J. (1982). An arithmetic checksum for serial transmissions. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 30(1), 247–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fyffe, M., Sun, M. T., & Ma, X. (2007). Traffic-adapted load balancing in sensor networks employing geographic routing. In Proceedings of the Wireless Communications and Networking Conference, WCNC 07, pp. 43894394. IEEE.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gnawali, O., Fonseca, R., Jamieson, K., Moss, D., & Levis, P. (2009). Collection tree protocol. Proceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, SenSys 09 (p. 114). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goyal, D., & Tripathy, M.R. (2012). Routing protocols in wireless sensor networks: A survey. In Advanced Computing Communication Technologies (ACCT), Second International Conference on, pp. 474–480.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hsiao, P.H., Hwang, A., Kung, H.T., & Vlah, D. (2001). Load-balancing routing for wireless access networks. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, volume 2 of INFOCOM 01, pp. 986–995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hui, J. W., & Culler, D. (2004). The dynamic behavior of a data dissemination protocol for network programming at scale. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, SenSys 04 (pp. 81–94). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ingelrest, F., Barrenetxea, G., Schaefer, G., Vetterli, M., Couach, O., & Parlange, M. (2010). Sensorscope: Application-specific sensor network for environmental monitoring. ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks, 6, 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Intel lab sensor data (2004). http://db.csail.mit.edu/labdata/labdata.html.
  13. 13.
    Jung, D., Teixeira, T., & Savvides, A. (2009). Sensor node lifetime analysis: Models and tools. ACM Transactions on, Sensor Networks, 5(1), 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kamal, A. R. M., Bleakley, C. J., & Dobson, S. (2014). Failure detection in wireless sensor networks: A sequence-based dynamic approach. ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks, 10, 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim, S., Fonseca, R., Dutta, P., Tavakoli, A., Culler, D., Levis, P., et al. (2007). Flush: a reliable bulk transport protocol for multihop wireless networks. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, SenSys 07 (pp. 351–365). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Langendoen, K., Baggio, A., & Visser, O. (2006). Murphy loves potatoes: Experiences from a pilot sensor network deployment in precision agriculture. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Processing, IPDPS06 (p. 174). Washington: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Levis, P., Lee, N., Welsh, M., & Culler, D. (2003). Tossim: Accurate and scalable simulation of entire tinyos applications. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, SenSys 03 (pp. 126–137). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Puccinelli, D., & Haenggi, M. (2010). Reliable data delivery in large-scale low-power sensor networks. ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks, 6, 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Szewczyk, R., Mainwaring, A., Polastre, J., & Culler, D. (2004). An analysis of a large scale habitat monitoring application. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, SenSys 04 (pp. 214–226). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    TinyOS Documentation (2010). http://docs.tinyos.net. [Online] Accessed 10 Jan 2010.
  21. 21.
    Tolle, G., Polastre, J., Szewczyk, R., Culler, D., Turner, N., Tu, K., et al. (2005). A macroscope in the redwoods. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, SenSys 05 (pp. 51–63). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Toumpis, S., & Gitzenis, S. (2009). Load balancing in wireless sensor networks using kirchhoffs voltage law. In Proceedings of the 28th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications, INFOCOM 09, pp. 1656–1664.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wan, C. Y., Eisenman, S. B., Campbell, A. T., & Crowcroft, J. (2007). Overload traffic management for sensor networks. ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks, 3(4), 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Woo, A., Tong, T., & Culler, D. (2003). Taming the underlying challenges of reliable multihop routing in sensor networks. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, SenSys 03 (pp. 14–27). New York: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Xu, N., Rangwala, S., Chintalapudi, K. K., Ganesan, D., Broad, A., Govindan, R., et al. (2004). A wireless sensor network for structural monitoring. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, SenSys 04 (pp. 13–24). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringIslamic University of TechnologyGazipurBangladesh
  2. 2.Department of Computer Engineering, College of Computer Science and EngineeringTaibah UniversityMadinahSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations