Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 76, Issue 19, pp 19635–19647 | Cite as

Research on an optimal selection method for sensor network node under high-speed mobile environment

  • Li ZhuEmail author
  • Hwa Young Jeong


The traditional selection methods for the selection of sensor network node under high-speed mobile environment is randomness, which cannot effectively use the multiple attributes of nodes, resulting in the irregular distribution of cluster head of nodes, and high energy consumption. An optimal selection method for sensor network node under the high-speed mobile environment based on EERNFS and Naive Bayesian Networks is proposed. By using EERNFS algorithm within each network intercept / sleep cycle, the sensor network node is made processing under high-speed mobile environment, to ensure the stable local connectivity and consistent collaboration intercepts, and reduces energy consumption. Naive Bayes algorithm is used to make optimization of general Bayesian classification method, and set the parameters. In the two-dimensional area, several sensor nodes are randomly placed, and the known two-dimensional area is divided. A certain node is selected arbitrarily in different regions to constitute the original set of Naive Bayes algorithm, and compute the training results and thresholds in the Bayesian system of node set at this moment. On the basis of the threshold, the optimal selection of sensor network node is achieved. Simulation results show that the proposed method not only has higher node coverage, but also the operating efficiency and energy consumption are better than the genetic method.


High-speed mobile Sensor networks Node Optimal selection 


  1. 1.
    Bas CU, Ergen SC (2013) Ultra-wideband channel model for intra-vehicular wireless sensor networks beneath the chassis: from statistical model to simulations. IEEE 1(62):14–25Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bouabana A, Sourkounis C (2013) Analysis of a measurement system in respect to the dependency of the current sensor sampling rate and the inverter switching time. IEEE (39) 3877–3882Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chang C-C, Hsu T-E (2014) The study of micro-bridge structure PZT underwater ultrasonic sensors with Al sacrificial layer. IEEE 8(5):1–5Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cheng VW, Wang T-Y (2012) Performance analysis of distributed decision fusion using a multilevel censoring scheme in wireless sensor networks. IEEE 4(61):1610–1619Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cheymol G, Gusarov A, Gaillot S et al. (2013) Dimensional measurements under high radiation with optical fibre sensors based on white light interferometry - report on irradiation tests. IEEE (3):1–7Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Choudhary H, Kumar A, Bahl R et al. (2013) Enhanced passive acoustic localization with an array of non-identical sensors using blind Gauss-Markov estimate. IEEE (8) 1–6Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clark DA (2010) Correction of electric and magnetic fields and gradients measured within and around an insulating sensor capsule in seawater. IEEE 10(9):1–9Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Efros AA, Narasimhan SG (2009) Estimating natural illumination from a single outdoor image. ICCV 5(8):183–190Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gosiewski Z, Kulesza Z (2013) Virtual collocation of sensors and actuators for a flexible rotor supported by active magnetic bearings. IEEE 2(9):94–99Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kapoor NK, Majumdar S, Nandy B et al. (2012) Sensor allocation to multiple applications in shared wireless sensor networks. IEEE (31) 197–198Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kembhavi A, Harwood D, Davis LS (2009) Human detection using partial least squares analysis. ICCV 5(6):24–31Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim Y, Sim J-Y, Kim C-S (2015) Spatiotemporal saliency detection for video sequences based on random walk with restart. TIP 5(11):2552–2564MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kumar D, Sarma H, Rai P et al (2014) Energy efficient communication protocol for wireless sensor networks with mobile node. IEEE (8) 1–6Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kumar AA, Sivalingam KM (2012) Target tracking in a WSN with directional sensors using electronic beam steering. IEEE (9) 1–10Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee H, Kim B, Kwon Y et al. (2015) The comparison of RBS and TDP for the sensor networks synchronization. JIPS (8) 5–10Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Levy R, Papin G, Le Traon O et al. (2014) A high resolution vibrating beam accelerometer working in nonlinear region for seismic ground sensor application. IEEE (8) 1–3Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li G, Yang D, Li R, Cai M, Li C, Wang L (2014) Mold flow analysis of molding process for a MEMS fingerprint sensor package. IEEE 2(15):1534–1538Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liu T, Wang G, Chan KL (2015) Video tracking using learned hierarchical features. TIP 3(2):1424–1435MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu Z, Yang J (2009) Sparsity induced similarity measure for label propagation. ICCV 12(20):317–324Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meti SA, Sangam VG (2015) Biological sensor performance validation using fusion technique. IEEE (5) 1158–1163Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nowozin S (2009) On feature combination for multiclass object classification. ICCV 9(25):221–228Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Obeid S, Dogaru T (2015) Improvement on printed circuit board inspection using injected AC current and GMR magnetic sensor. IEEE (25) 150–154Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rella MA, Galletti D, Maguer A, Stoner R, Molinari E (2011) Assessment of CTD and optical sensor calibration differences between standalone sensors and those mounted within an undersea glider. IEEE 6(8):1–8Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Singh V (2009) An efficient algorithm for co-segmentation. ICCV 9(12):269–276Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Teaching and Management Center for InformationJilin Agricultural UniversityChangchunChina
  2. 2.Humanitas College of Kyung Hee UniversityDongdaemun-guSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations