Modelling and Verification of the LMAC Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks

  • Ansgar Fehnker
  • Lodewijk van Hoesel
  • Angelika Mader
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4591)


In this paper we report on modelling and verification of a medium access control protocol for wireless sensor networks, the LMAC protocol. Our approach is to systematically investigate all possible connected topologies consisting of four and of five nodes. The analysis is performed by timed automaton model checking using Uppaal. The property of main interest is detecting and resolving collision. Evaluation of this property for all connected topologies requires more than 8000 model checking runs. Increasing the number of nodes would not only lead increase the state space, but to a greater extent cause an instance explosion problem. Despite the small number of nodes this approach gave valuable insight in the protocol and the scenarios that lead to collisions not detected by the protocol, and it increased the confidence in the adequacy of the protocol.


Wireless Sensor Network Time Slot Model Check Medium Access Control Protocol Frame Length 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bauer, J., Schaefer, I., Toben, T., Westphal, B.: Specification and verification of dynamic communication systems. In: Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD 2006), pp. 189–200. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Behrmann, G., David, A., Larsen, K.G.: A tutorial on uppaal. In: Bernardo, M., Corradini, F. (eds.) Formal Methods for the Design of Real-Time Systems: SFM-RT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3185, Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Behrmann, G., David, A., Larsen, K.G., Hakansson, J., Petterson, P., Yi, W., Hendriks, M.: Uppaal 4.0. In: Quantitative Evaluation of Systems - (QEST 2006), pp. 125–126. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brinksma, E.: Verification is experimentation! Int. J. on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 3(2), 107–111 (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cardell-Oliver, R.: Why Flooding is Unreliable (Extended Version). Technical Report UWA-CSSE-04-001, CSSE, University of Western Australia (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mader, A., Wupper, H., Boon, M.: The construction of verification models for embedded systems. Technical report TR-CTIT-07-02, Centre for Telematics and Information Technology, Univ. of Twente, The Netherlands (January 2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moscibroda, T., Wattenhofer, R.: Coloring unstructured radio networks. In: Proc. of 17th Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Olveczky, P., Thorvaldsen, S.: Formal modeling and analysis of wireless sensor network algorithms in real-time maude. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Real-Time Systems (WPDRTS 2006), IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sridharan, A., Krishnamachari, B.: Max-min fair collision-free scheduling for wireless sensor networks. In: Workshop on multi-hop wireless networks (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Hoesel, L.F.W., Havinga, P.J.M.: A lightweight medium access protocol (lmac) for wireless sensor networks: Reducing preamble transmissions and transceiver state switches. In: In 1st International Workshop on Networked Sensing Systems (INSS 2004), pp. 205–208 (June 2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ansgar Fehnker
    • 1
  • Lodewijk van Hoesel
    • 2
  • Angelika Mader
    • 2
  1. 1.National ICT Australia and University of New South WalesAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science, University of TwenteThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations