Soft Computing

, Volume 21, Issue 20, pp 6019–6029 | Cite as

Coverage enhancing of 3D underwater sensor networks based on improved fruit fly optimization algorithm

Focus

Abstract

The coverage rate of the underwater sensor networks directly influences on the monitoring efficiency in underwater environment, and it can be effectively improved by adjusting the positions of the mobile nodes reasonably for a 3D underwater sensor network which consists of mobile nodes as underwater robots like Autonomous Underwater Vehicles. An optimal deployment method can quickly set up a reasonable topology of the sensor networks and achieve a higher efficiency for detecting or investigating. An optimal algorithm of coverage enhancing for 3D Underwater sensor networks based on improved Fruit Fly Optimization Algorithm (UFOA) is proposed in this paper. This method realizes the global optimal coverage based on foraging behavior of fruit flies, and it has the features of higher speed of convergence, few parameters to set up and stronger global searching ability. Simulation result indicates that the proposed UFOA method can significantly improve the effective coverage rate of the sensor networks compared with some widely studied PSO and IPSO algorithms.

Keywords

3D underwater sensor networks Deployment Optimization algorithm Coverage rate Fruit fly 

References

  1. Abidin ZZ, Arshad MR, Ngah UK (2011) A simulation based fly optimization algorithm for swarms of mini autonomous surface vehicles application. Indian J Geo Mar Sci 40(2):250–266Google Scholar
  2. Akkaya K, Newell A (2009) Self-deployment of sensors for maximized coverage in underwater acoustic sensor networks. Comput Commun 32(7):1233–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen P, Lin W, Huang T et al (2013) Using fruit fly optimization algorithm optimized grey model neural network to perform satisfaction analysis for e-business service. Appl Math Inf Sci 7(2):459–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Du X, Sun L, Liu L et al (2013) Coverage optimization algorithm based on sampling for 3D underwater sensor networks. Int J Distrib Sens Netw 42(3):286–291Google Scholar
  5. Du H, Xia N, Jiang J (2014) Particle swarm inspired underwater sensor self-deployment. Sensors 14(8):15262–15281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Heidemann J, Stojanovic M, Zorzi M (2012) Underwater sensor networks: applications, advances and challenges. Philos Trans R Soc A: Math Phys Eng Sci 370(1958):158–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Huang J, Sun L, Wei X et al (2014) Redundancy model and boundary effects based coverage-enhancing algorithm for 3D underwater sensor networks. Int J Distrib Sens Netw 7(1):234–244Google Scholar
  8. Jiang P, Wang X, Jiang L (2015) Node deployment algorithm based on connected tree for underwater sensor networks. Sensors 15(7):16763–16785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Li H, Guo S, Li C et al (2013) A hybrid annual power load forecasting model based on generalized regression neural network with fruit fly optimization algorithm. Knowl Based Syst 37:378–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lian X, Zhang J, Chen C et al (2012) Three-dimensional deployment optimization of sensor network based on an improved Particle Swarm Optimization algorithm. In: 2012 10th world congress on intelligent control and automation (WCICA), IEEE 2012, pp 4395–4400Google Scholar
  11. Lloret J (2013) Underwater sensor nodes and networks. Sensors 13(9):11782–11796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Luo X, Feng L, Yan J et al (2015) Dynamic coverage with wireless sensor and actor networks in underwater environment. IEEE/CAA J Autom Sin 2(3):274–281MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Manjarres D, Ser JD, Gil-Lopez S et al (2013) A novel heuristic approach for distance- and connectivity-based multihop node localization in wireless sensor networks. Soft Comput 17(1):17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pan W (2011) Fruit fly optimization algorithm. Tsang Hai Book Publishing Co., TaipeiGoogle Scholar
  15. Pan W (2012) A new fruit fly optimization algorithm: taking the financial distress model as an example. Knowl Based Syst 26:69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pluhacek M, Senkerik R, Zelinka I (2014) Particle swarm optimization algorithm driven by multichaotic number generator. Soft Comput 18(4):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Senel F, Yilmaz T (2013) Autonomous deployment of sensors for maximized coverage and guaranteed connectivity in underwater acoustic sensor networks. In: 2013 IEEE 38th conference on local computer networks (LCN), IEEE, 2013, pp 211–218Google Scholar
  18. Srivastava JR, Sudarshan TSB (2015) Energy-efficient cache node placement using genetic algorithm in wireless sensor networks. Soft Comput 19:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tian D, Georganas ND (2005) Connectivity maintenance and coverage preservation in wireless sensor networks. Ad Hoc Netw 3(6):744–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Xia N, Wang C, Zheng R et al (2012) Fish swarm inspired underwater sensor deployment. Acta Autom Sin 38(2):295–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Yao H, Cai M, Wang J et al (2013) A Novel Evolutionary Algorithm with Improved Genetic Operator and Crossover Strategy. Appl Mech Mater 411–414:1956–1965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zhang Y, Xiong X, Zhang Q (2013) An improved self-adaptive PSO algorithm with detection function for multimodal function optimization problems. Math Probl Eng 24(4):657–675MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Information EngineeringShanghai Maritime UniversityShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceTennessee State UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations