Performance Analysis of Different Link Layer Protocols in Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN)
- 163 Downloads
This paper presents a fair comparison between different representative link layer protocols for wireless sensor networks: S-MAC, DRAND and Z-MAC protocols. The performance of these protocols is evaluated in terms of power consumption, the use of the propagation channel resources and the traffic rate provided for each node and the overall aggregated traffic. For the experimentation and the performance analysis, an evaluation scenario is built up, including a set of nodes randomly placed around reference places. This scenario is evaluated under different circumstances and traffic load levels. In addition, some conflictive issues are included, such as the presence of ‘bottle necks’ or egoist nodes in the network, and their influence is analyzed for each protocol in order to determine which one copes better with hostile conditions.
KeywordsLink layer protocols Wireless sensor networks Energy efficiency Distributed traffic rate
This work has been supported by a PYR-2014 GENIL project (PYR-2014-CEB09-0010/MICINN), and a CEI BioTIC project.
- 3.Padilla, P., Camacho, J., Maciá, G., García, P., Díaz, J. E., & Gómez-Calero, C. (2013). On the influence of the propagation channel in the performance of energy efficient geographic routing algorithms for wireless sensor networks (WSN). Wireless Personal Communications, 70(1), 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.van Dam. T., & Langendoen, K. (2003). An adaptive energy-efficient MAC protocol for wireless sensor networks. In ACM proceedings of the 1st international conference on embedded networked sensor systems, New York, NY (pp. 171–180).Google Scholar
- 11.Polstre, J., Hill, J., & Culler, D. (2004). Versatile low power media access for wireless sensor networks. In ACM proceedings of the 2st international conference on embedded networked sensor systems (pp. 95–107).Google Scholar
- 12.Yoo, D., Park, S., Choi, S., & Park, S. H. (2008). Dynamic S-MAC protocol for wireless sensor networks based on network traffic states. 14th Asia-Pacific conference on communications, 14–16 Oct 2008.Google Scholar
- 13.El-Hoiydi, A., & Decotignie, J. D. (2004). WiseMAC: an ultra-low power MAC protocol for the downlink of infrastructure wireless sensor networks. Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Computers and Communications, 1, 244–251.Google Scholar
- 14.Chang, Y. C., Jiang, J. R., Sheu, J. P., & Shih, H. Y. (2008). ADCA: An asynchronous duty cycle adjustment MAC protocol for wireless sensor networks. IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, IEEE GLOBECOM.Google Scholar
- 15.Hu, W., Li, X., & Yousefizadeh, H. (2009). LA-MAC: A load adaptive MAC protocol for MANETs. IEEE global telecommunications conference, IEEE GLOBECOM.Google Scholar
- 16.van Hoesel, L. F. W., Nieberg, T., Kip, H. J., & Havinga, P. J. M. (2004). Advantage of a TDMA based, energy-efficient, self-organizing MAC protocol for WSNs. In Proceeding of IEEE vehicular technology conference (VTC) (pp. 1598–1602), 2004.Google Scholar
- 17.van Hoesel, L. F. W., & Havinga, P. J. M. (2004). A lightweight medium access protocol (LMAC) for wireless sensor network: Reducing preamble transmissions and transceiver state switches. In Proceeding of international workshop on networked sensing systems (INSS) (pp. 1481–1486), Mar 16–20, 2004.Google Scholar
- 18.Song, H., Chun, D. Y., & Chang, G. (2008). A modified directional MAC protocol for using smart antenna in wireless ad hoc and sensor networks. International conference on wireless communications, networking and mobile computing, 2008.Google Scholar
- 19.The Network Simulator, NS–2: http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/