Advertisement

A novel approach of WSN routing protocols comparison for forest fire detection

  • Noureddine MoussaEmail author
  • Abdelbaki El Belrhiti El Alaoui
  • Claude Chaudet
Article
  • 32 Downloads

Abstract

Wireless sensor networks represent a promising solution for forest fire detection. Yet, these networks are composed of constrained elements and their operation must be optimized to reach a satisfying performance in terms of response time, fault tolerance and network lifetime. Studies have been made in this direction but they have studied only some of the aforementioned constraints and have not discussed the influence of the encountered situations after network deployment. The aim of this paper is to propose a comparison approach of fault tolerant routing protocols for the forest fire detection application which studies the network lifetime and network response time to an event taking into account the specificities of the different cases encountered in the field. To test this approach, the fault-tolerant routing protocols Multilevel, Heterogeneous Disjoint Multipath Routing Protocol (HDMRP) and Enhanced Ant-based QoS-aware routing protocol for Heterogeneous wireless Sensor Networks (EAQHSeN) are implemented and tested in the Castalia WSNs simulator. Simulations results showed that the three protocols have a very comparable network lifetime with a slight advantage in favor of the HDMRP and EAQHSeN protocols. On the other hand, HDMRP and EAQHSeN present a network response time respectively twice and approximately trice more preforming than that of multilevel.

Keywords

Forest fire WSN Lifetime Response time Routing Fault tolerance 

References

  1. 1.
    Keshtgary, M., & Rikhtegar, N. (2013). Performance evaluation of routing protocols for wireless sensor networks in forest fire detection application. In 5th Conference on In-formation and Knowledge Technology (pp. 248–251).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roy, S., Bose, R., & Sarddar, D. (2016). Self-servicing energy efficient routing strategy for smart forest. Brazilian Journal of Science and Technology, 3, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Devadevan, V., & Suresh, S. (2016). Energy efficient routing protocol in forest fire detection system. In 6th International Advanced Computing Conference (pp. 618–622).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Herutomo, A., Abdurohman, M., Suwastika, N. A., Prabowo, S., & Wijiutomo, C. W. (2015). Forest fire detection system reliability test using wireless sensor network and OpenMTC communication platform. In 3rd International Conference on Information and Communication Technology (pp. 87–91).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS). http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/sew/fire/olm/nfdrs.htm/. Accessed 01 May 2017.
  6. 6.
    Aslan, Y. E., Korpeoglu, I., & Ulusoy, Ö. (2012). A framework for use of wireless sensor networks in forest fire detection and monitoring. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 36, 614–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mohapatra, S., & Khilar, P. M. (2016). Forest fire monitoring and detection of faulty nodes using wireless sensor network. In IEEE Region 10 Conference (TENCON) (pp. 3232–3236).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wenning, B., Pesch, D., Timm-Giel, A., & Görg, C. (2010). Environmental monitoring aware routing: making environmental sensor networks more robust. Telecommunication Systems, 43, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Al-Habashneh, A. Y., Ahmed, M. H., & Husain, T. (2011). Reliability analysis of wireless sensor networks for forest fire detection. In 7th International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC) (pp. 1630–1635).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ajay, A., Tarasia, N., Dash, S., Ray, S., & Swain, A. R. (2011). A dynamic fault tolerant routing protocol for prolonging the lifetime of wireless sensor networks. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies, 2, 727–734.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hadjidj, A., Bouabdallah, A., & Challal, Y. (2012). HDMRP: An efficient fault-tolerant multipath routing protocol for heterogeneous wireless sensor networks. Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, 74, 469–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Malik, S. K., Dave, M., Dhurandher, S. K., Woungang, I., & Barolli, L. (2017). An ant-based QoS-aware routing protocol for heterogeneous wireless sensor networks. Soft computing, 21, 6225–6236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Castalia, https://castalia.forge.nicta.com.au/index.php/en/. Accessed 20 December 2015.
  14. 14.
    Omnet++ Network Simulation Framework. https://omnetpp.org/. Accessed 20 December 2015.
  15. 15.
    Boulis, A. (2011). Castalia, a simulator for wireless sensor networks and body area networks, version 3.2. User’s manual, NICTA.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tselishchev, Y., Boulis, A., & Libman, L. (2010). Experiences and lessons from implementing a wireless sensor network MAC protocol in the Castalia simulator. In IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC)(pp. 1–6).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stetsko, A., Stehlik, M., & Matyas, V. (2011). Calibrating and comparing simulators for wireless sensor networks. In Eighth IEEE International Conference on Mobile Ad-Hoc and Sensor Systems (pp. 733–738).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pediaditakis, D., Tselishchev, Y., & Boulis, A. (2010). Performance and scalability evaluation of the castalia wireless sensor network simulator. In SIMUTools’10 Proceedings of the 3rd International ICST Conference on Simulation Tools and Techniques (pp. 1–6).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Networks and Systems Laboratory, Faculty of SciencesMoulay Ismail UniversityZitoune, MeknesMorocco
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and MathematicsWebster University GenevaBellevueSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations