Designing of energy efficient stable clustering protocols based on BFOA for WSNs

  • Prateek GuptaEmail author
  • Ajay K. Sharma
Original Research


Efficient clustering method can competently scale down the energy consumption of sensor nodes (SNs) in wireless sensor networks (WSNs). Selection of the best-suited SNs for the role of cluster heads (CHs) can lead to effective clustering process. In past few decades, a number of clustering protocols have been designed to handle these issues in distributed WSNs. However, most of these employed estimation/randomized algorithms for CH selection due to lack of globalized energy awareness problem in distributed WSNs. This paper resolves the problem by using proposed Modified Intelligent CH election based on Bacterial foraging optimization algorithm (M-ICHB), which searches actual higher residual energy SNs for CH selection in distributed WSNs. M-ICHB algorithm does not require any estimation/randomized algorithms during CH selection process, which resolves the issue of energy unawareness problem in the WSN. Moreover in general, most of the existing clustering algorithms have been designed either for homogeneous or heterogeneous WSNs. However in contrary, proposed M-ICHB algorithm is designed for both homogeneous as well as heterogeneous WSNs in this paper. Furthermore, in many critical applications i.e., military surveillance, traffic management, natural disaster forecasting and structural health monitoring; reliability of data from each SN is the most crucial aspect. In this prospect, elongated stability region (from the network initiation till first node dies) of the network is the prime necessity. For this, we have applied proposed M-ICHB algorithm on conventional stability based clustering protocols i.e., LEACH, SEP and DEEC and proposed M-ICHB based stable protocols viz MILEACH, MIrLEACH, MISEP and MIDEEC protocols. Simulation results confirm that proposed MILEACH, MIrLEACH, MISEP and MIDEEC protocols are capable in searching actual higher residual energy nodes for CH selection without using any estimation/randomized algorithm, while maintaining distributive nature of WSNs. Moreover, these offer better stability region, stable CH selection in each round and higher number of packets reception at base station (BS) in comparison to LEACH, SEP and DEEC protocols. Further, MILEACH and MIrLEACH improve the stability region by 53 and 58% and number of packets received at BS by 91 and 97% respectively in comparison to LEACH. Furthermore, MISEP and MIDEEC improve 52 and 21% in stability region and 82 and 188% in number of packets received at BS in comparison to SEP and DEEC protocols.


Wireless sensor networks Clustering Network lifetime Stability region ICHB algorithm Bacterial foraging optimization algorithm 


  1. Adnan MA, Razzaque MA, Ahmed I, Isnin IF (2013) Bio-mimic optimization strategies in wireless sensor networks: a survey. Sensors 14(1):299–345Google Scholar
  2. Afsar MM, Tayarani-N MH (2014) Clustering in sensor networks: a literature survey. J Netw Comput Appl 46:198–226Google Scholar
  3. Akyildiz IF, Su W, Sankarasubramaniam Y, Cayirci E (2002) Wireless sensor networks: a survey. Comput Netw 38(4):393–422Google Scholar
  4. Ali MS, Dey T, Biswas R (2008) ALEACH: Advanced LEACH routing protocol for wireless microsensor networks. In: Proceedings of international conference on electrical and computer engineering, pp 909–914Google Scholar
  5. Amini N, Vahdatpour A, Wenyao X, Gerla M, Sarrafzadeh M (2012) Cluster size optimization in sensor networks with decentralized cluster-based protocols. Comput Commun 35(2):207–220Google Scholar
  6. Anastasi G, Conti M, Di Francesco M, Passarella A (2009) Energy conservation in wireless sensor networks: a survey. Ad Hoc Netw 7(3):537–568Google Scholar
  7. Dorigo M, Di Caro G (1999) Ant colony optimization: a new meta-heuristic. In: Proceedings of 1999 congress on evolutionary computation, vol 2, pp 1470–1477Google Scholar
  8. Gaba GS, Singh K, Dhaliwal BS (2011) Sensor node deployment using bacterial foraging optimization. In: Proceedings of international conference on recent trends in information systems, pp 73–76Google Scholar
  9. Gupta P, Sharma AK (2017) Clustering-based Optimized HEED protocols for WSNs using bacterial foraging optimization and fuzzy logic system. Soft Comput.
  10. Heinzelman WR, Chandrakasan A, Balakrishnan H (2000) Energy-efficient communication protocol for wireless microsensor networks. In: Proceedings of 33rd annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, vol 2, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  11. Heinzelman WB, Chandrakasan AP, Balakrishnan H (2002) An application-specific protocol architecture for wireless microsensor networks. IEEE Trans Wirel Commun 1(4):660–670Google Scholar
  12. Karaboga D, Basturk B (2007) A powerful and efficient algorithm for numerical function optimization: artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm. J Glob Optim 39(3):459–471MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Karaboga D, Okdem S, Ozturk C (2012) Cluster based wireless sensor network routing using artificial bee colony algorithm. Wirel Netw 18(7):847–860Google Scholar
  14. Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Particle swarm optimization. Proc IEEE Int Conf Neural Netw 4:1942–1948Google Scholar
  15. Kumar N, Tyagi S, Deng D-J (2014) LA-EEHSC: learning automata-based energy efficient heterogeneous selective clustering for wireless sensor networks. J Netw Comput Appl 46:264–279Google Scholar
  16. Li Q, Cui L, Zhang B, Fan Z (2010) A low energy intelligent clustering protocol for wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of international conference on industrial technology (ICIT), IEEE, pp 1675–1682Google Scholar
  17. Lin H, Wang L, Kong R (2015) Energy efficient clustering protocol for large-scale sensor networks. IEEE Sens J 15(12):7150–7160Google Scholar
  18. Lindsey S, Raghavendra CS (2002) PEGASIS: Power-efficient gathering in sensor information systems. Proc Aerosp Conf IEEE 3:1125–1130Google Scholar
  19. Liu Z, Zheng Q, Xue L, Guan X (2012) A distributed energy-efficient clustering algorithm with improved coverage in wireless sensor networks. Future Gener Comput Syst 28(5):780–790Google Scholar
  20. Mhatre V, Rosenberg C (2004) Design guidelines for wireless sensor networks: communication, clustering and aggregation. Ad Hoc Netw 2(1):45–63Google Scholar
  21. Mohajerani A, Gharavian D (2016) An ant colony optimization based routing algorithm for extending network lifetime in wireless sensor networks. Wirel Netw 22(8):2637–2647Google Scholar
  22. Ni Q, Huimin D, Pan Q, Cao C, Zhai Y (2017) An improved dynamic deployment method for wireless sensor network based on multi-swarm particle swarm optimization. Nat Comput 16(1):5–13MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. Passino KM (2002) Biomimicry of bacterial foraging for distributed optimization and control. IEEE Control Syst 22(3):52–67MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Pitchaimanickam B, Radhakrishnan S (2013) Bacteria foraging algorithm based clustering in wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of 5th international conference on advanced computing (ICoAC), pp 190–195Google Scholar
  25. Qing L, Zhu Q, Wang M (2006) Design of a distributed energy-efficient clustering algorithm for heterogeneous wireless sensor networks. Comput Commun 29(12):2230–2237Google Scholar
  26. Sahoo RR, Sardar AR, Singh M, Ray S, Sarkar SK (2016) A bio inspired and trust based approach for clustering in WSN. Nat Comput 15(3):423–434MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. Saini P, Sharma AK (2010) Energy efficient scheme for clustering protocol prolonging the lifetime of heterogeneous wireless sensor networks. Int J Comput Appl 6(2):30–36Google Scholar
  28. Salim A, Osamy W (2015) Distributed multi chain compressive sensing based routing algorithm for wireless sensor networks. Wirel Netw 21(4):1379–1390Google Scholar
  29. Selvakennedy S, Sinnappan S, Shang Y (2007) A biologically-inspired clustering protocol for wireless sensor networks. Comput Commun 30(1415):2786–2801Google Scholar
  30. Sharma N, Sharma AK (2016) Cost analysis of hybrid adaptive routing protocol for heterogeneous wireless sensor network. Sādhanā 41(3):283–288MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Singh P, Khosla A, Kumar A, Khosla M (2017) 3D localization of moving target nodes using single anchor node in anisotropic wireless sensor networks. AEU Int J Electron Commun 82:543–552Google Scholar
  32. Smaragdakis G, Matta I, Bestavros A (2004) SEP: a Stable Election Protocol for clustered heterogeneous wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of 2nd international workshop on sensor and actor network protocols and applications, (SANPA’04), pp 251–261Google Scholar
  33. Tao D, Shouning Q, Liu F, Wang Q (2015) An energy efficiency semi-static routing algorithm for WSNs based on HAC clustering method. Inf Fusion 21:18–29Google Scholar
  34. Wang MY, Ding J, Chen WP, Guan WQ (2015) SEARCH: a stochastic election approach for heterogeneous wireless sensor networks. IEEE Commun Lett 19(3):443–446Google Scholar
  35. Zhou H, Yuanming W, Yanqi H, Xie G (2010) A novel stable selection and reliable transmission protocol for clustered heterogeneous wireless sensor networks. Comput Commun 33(15):1843–1849Google Scholar
  36. Ziyadi M, Yasami K, Abolhassani B (2009) Adaptive clustering for energy efficient wireless sensor networks based on ant colony optimization. In: Proceedings of 7th annual communication networks and services research conference, pp 330–334Google Scholar
  37. Zungeru AM, Ang LM, Seng KP (2012) Classical and swarm intelligence based routing protocols for wireless sensor networks: a survey and comparison. J Netw Comput Appl 35(5):1508–1536Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringDr B R Ambedkar National Institute of TechnologyJalandharIndia
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringNational Institute of TechnologyDelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations