Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 640–655 | Cite as

CLEVER: Cluster-based Energy-aware Virtual Ring Routing in randomly deployed wireless sensor networks

Article

Abstract

Energy-aware routing is an important remedy to face the quick failure of energy-constrained nodes in Wireless Sensor Networks. Network clustering with electing energy-powerful nodes as cluster heads is a perfect solution. However, such clustering requires ideal nodes placement to afford best performances. Manual nodes placement is not always possible, the sensors can be randomly deployed. In such networks, the cluster heads cannot always communicate directly. In this paper, we present a novel clustering strategy for randomly deployed heterogeneous sensors, in which a cluster is defined as a set of energy-powerful nodes placed at the range of each other. The proposed protocol, called CLEVER (Cluster-based Energy-aware Virtual Ring Routing), uses virtual identity-based routing for intra and inter-cluster communications. The experimental results show that CLEVER increases drastically the network lifetime and optimizes efficiently sensors energy.

Keywords

Wireless sensor networks Distributed Hash Tables Energy-aware routing Clusters 

References

  1. 1.
    Akyildiz IF, Su W, Sankarasubramaniam Y, Cayirci E (2008) Wireless sensor networks: A survey. Computer Networks 38:393–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yick J, Mukherjee B, Ghosal D (2008) Wireless sensor network survey. Comput Netw 52:2292–2330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Isabel D, Falko D (2009) On the lifetime of wireless sensor networks. ACM Trans Sens Netw 5:1–39Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heinzelman WR, Chandrakasan A, Balakrishnan H (2000) Energy-efficient communication protocol for wireless microsensor networks. In: Proceedings of the international conference on system sciences, Hawaii, 4-7, Jan, IEEE, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fan X, Song Y (2007) Improvement on LEACH protocol of wireless sensor network. In: Proceedings of the international conference on sensor technologies and applications, Valencia, 14-20 October, IEEE, USA, pp 260–264Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Israr N, Awan I (2008) Coverage based inter cluster communication for load balancing in heterogeneous wireless sensor networks. J Telecommun Syst 38:121–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boukerche A, Martirosyan A (2007) An energy-aware and fault tolerant inter-cluster communication based protocol for wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE global communications conference (GLOBECOM’07), 26-30 November, Washington, DC, IEEE, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fersi G, Louati W, Ben Jemaa M (2012) Distributed Hash Table-based Routing and Data Management in Wireless Sensor Networks: a Survey. ACM/Springer Wireless NetworksGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Matthew C, Miguel C, Edmund BN, Greg O, Antony R (2006) Virtual ring routing: Network routing inspired by DHTs. In: Proceedings of the SIGCOMM, Pisa, Italy, 11-15 September, ACM, pp 351–362Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Al-Mamou A, Labiod H (2007) ScatterPastry: An overlay routing using a DHT over wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the international conference on intelligent pervasive computing, Jeju City, 11-13 October, IEEE, USA , pp 274–279Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Al-mamou A, Schiller J, Labiod H, Mesut G (2007) A case for an overlay routing on top of MAC Layer for WSN. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on sensor technologies and applications (sensorcomm’2008), Cap Esterel, 25-31 August, IEEE, USA, pp 87-92Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fuhrmann T, Di P, Kutzner K, Cramer C (2006) Pushing chord into the underlay: Scalable routing for hybrid manets. Tech. Rep.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Muneeb A, Koen L (2007) A case for peer-to-peer network overlays in sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the international Workshop on Wireless Sensor Network Architecture (WWSNA) with 6th IPSN, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA , pp 56–61Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sioutas S, Oikonomou K, Papaloukopoulos G (2009) Building an efficient P2P overlay for energy-level queries in sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the international conference on management of emergent digital EcoSystems (MEDES’09), Lyon, France, 27-30 October, ACM, New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fersi G, Louati W, Ben Jemaa M (2010) Energy-aware virtual ring routing in wireless sensor networks. J Netw Protocols Algorithms 2:16–29Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Longxiang G, Ming L (2009) Multi-level virtual ring: A foundation network architecture to support peer-to-peer application in wireless sensor network. In: Proceedings of Australasian telecommunication networks and applications conference, Canberra, Australia, 10-12, November, IEEE, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    NS2 website Available at http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/
  18. 18.
    Christin D, Reinhardt A, Mogre P, Steinmetz R (2009) Wireless Sensor Networks and the Internet of Things: Selected Challenges. In: Proceedings of the 8th GI/ITG KuVS Fachgesprach, “Drahtlose Sensornetze”Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fersi G, Louati W, Ben Jemaa M (2013) The optimal transmitting power in randomly deployed heterogeneous Wireless Sensor Networks for predetermined average node degree. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Wireless Communications & Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC 2013). Cagliari, Sardinia , ItalyGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stoica I, Morris R, Karger D, Kaashoek MF, Balakrishnan H (2001) Chord: A scalable peer-to-peer lookup service for internet applications. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference of the Special Interest Group on Data Communication, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rowstron A, Druschel P (2001) Pastry: Scalable, distributed object location and routing for large-scale peer-to-peer systems. In: Proceedings of IFIP/ACM international conference in distributed systems platforms, Heidelberg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kleinrock L, Silvester JA (1978) Optimum transmission radii for packet radio networks or why six is a magic number. In: Proceedings of the IEEE national telecommunications conference, Birmingham, Alabama, Dec. 1978, pp 431–435Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Takagi H, Kleinrock L (1984) Optimal transmission ranges for randomly distributed packet radio terminals. IEEE Trans Commun 32(3):246–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Avidor D, Mukherjee S, Atay F (2007) Transmit power distribution of wireless ad hoc networks with topology control. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM’07), Anchorage, Alaska, USA, pp 46–52Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang Y, Wang X, Agrawal DP, Minai A (2006) Impact of heterogeneity on coverage and broadcast reachability in wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the international conference on computer communications and networks (ICCCN’06), Arlington, Virginia, USA, pp 63–67Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bettstetter C (2002) On the minimum node degree and connectivity of a wireless Multihop network. In: Proceedings of the ACM international symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing (MOBIHOC’02), EPF Lausanne, Switzerland, June 2002, pp 80–91Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ghofrane Fersi
    • 1
  • Wassef Louati
    • 1
  • Maher Ben Jemaa
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Laboratory of Development and Control of Distributed Applications (ReDCAD), Department of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, National School of Engineers of SfaxUniversity of SfaxSfaxTunisia

Personalised recommendations