Advertisement

Efficient Routing in Geographic and Opportunistic Routing for Underwater WSNs

  • Ghazanfar Latif
  • Nadeem JavaidEmail author
  • Aasma Khan
  • Aisha Fatima
  • Landing Jatta
  • Wahab Khan
Conference paper
  • 772 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 773)

Abstract

Underwater wireless sensor networks (UWSNs) are capable of providing facilities for the wide range of aquatic applications. However, due to the adverse environment, UWSNs face huge challenges and issues i.e., limited bandwidth, node mobility, higher propagation delay, high manufacturer and deployment costs etc. In this paper, we propose two techniques: the geographic and opportunistic routing via transmission range (T-GEDAR) and the geographic and opportunistic routing via the backward transmission (B-GEDAR). Firstly, in the absence of forwarder node, we increase the transmission range to determine the forwarder node. Because of this, we can send packets to the sink; Secondly, when the forwarder node is unavailable in adjustable transmission range. Then, the B-GEDAR is used for determining the forwarder node so that the packet delivery ratio (PDR) can be increased effectively. This is because, our simulation results perform better network performance in terms of an energy efficiency, PDR, and the fraction of void nodes.

Keywords

Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks (UWSNs) Opportunistic Routing Void Nodes Forwarding Node High Propagation Delay 
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.

1 Introduction

Underwater wireless sensor networks (UWSNs) are gaining huge interest due to the demanding oceanic applications of natural disaster prevention, military surveillance, aquatic environmental monitoring and resource investigations etc. UWSNs consist of various sensors are deployed in depth of water. However, sonobuoys are deployed at the water surface to perform the collaborative tasks [1]. The UWSNs use in the acoustic channel, which is five orders of magnitude less than the radio channel. The radio channel cannot perform well in the underwater network. This is because, the high propagation delay, limited bandwidth, and interference are in the channel. However, the acoustic channel has some problems to be solved i.e., long propagation delay and limited bandwidth as compared to radio waves. The speed of the acoustic signal is 1500 m/s which is five orders of magnitude less than the radio signal and their speed is 3 x \(10^8\) m/s. In UWSNs, the bit error rate (BER) occurs due to the multi-path fading, path loss and low bandwidth [2].

It is described in the literature that balanced load distribution (BLOAD) [2], an adaptive hop-by-hop vector based forwarding (AHH-VBF) [3], and balanced routing (BR) [14], that provide the efficient and reliable communications. The BLOAD provides the load distribution among different coronas. In BLOAD, the energy hole problem can be reduced and maximized the lifespan of the network. Moreover, the AHH-VBF ensures the reliability and reducing the void nodes via adaptively adjusting the pipeline radius of the virtual pipeline. While BR provides the balanced routing protocol in which the load distribution is balanced among different coronas. However, It is also to increase the lifespan of network. The energy hole problem occurs near the sink due to imbalance load distribution.

The limitation of geographic and opportunistic routing protocol is communication void region. The communication void regions are those regions where the forwarder nodes do not occur in the region. The nodes are located in the void region called the void node. Sometimes the number of the data packet does not transmit due to the void hole problem. The proposed routing protocol transmits the data via the alternative path. Furthermore, the sensor nodes are activated by batteries. After deployment of sensor nodes, it is difficult to recharge because of an adverse environment, especially in the depth of water. So, the energy efficiency is one of the important issues in the deployment of UWSNs.

Taking motivation from the above considerations, we have proposed an efficient communication-based routing protocol over sensor nodes geographic and opportunistic routing via transmission range (T-GEDAR) and geographic and opportunistic routing via the backward transmission (B-GEDAR) for UWSNs. In this paper, our proposed routing protocols prevent void nodes during the data forwarding from source to the sink on the surface of the water. We also to increase the PDR with the increasing number of sensor nodes. In this way, the network lifetime can be increased and energy consumption can be minimized.

Contributions: In this paper, we have proposed two routing protocols named T-GEDAR and B-GEDAR, respectively for UWSNs. The T-GEDAR defines the maximum communication range upon failing the depth adjustment topology. In the topology of T-GEDAR, if the forwarder node is unavailable in the communication range, then the communication range is maximized up to the certain limit and data will be transmitted to sink via adjustable transmission range. However, because of this scheme, the data delivery ratio can be increased but the chance of duplicate packets are generated by the collision. Moreover, it is also to increase the network lifetime by the presence of forwarder node in communication range.

Furthermore, we have determined the B-GEDAR scheme for hole avoidance among sensor nodes during the communication of network nodes. The B-GEDAR is performed upon failing the T-GEDAR routing scheme. Because of this, the void nodes decrease and network lifetime is also increased. However, B-GEDAR can determine the T-GEDAR of forwarder node for data transmission among network nodes. By this process, the nodes dissipate energy, so network lifetime, PDR and other parameters can be increased.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Related work is discussed in Sect. 2. The problem statement of our system is given in Sect. 3. The system model is explained in Sect. 4. The simulation and results are presented in Sect. 5. The conclusions are in Sect. 6 and finally, references are listed for related work.

2 Related Work

Recently, researchers have interested in terrestrial wireless sensor networks (WSNs) due to the distinctive characteristics of UWSNs. In this section, we explain some existing literature in this domain.

In [2], authors proposed the routing protocol called the BLOAD. In this paper, there are three types of data fractions i.e., small, medium and large. The advantages of this protocol are avoidance of energy hole problem due to unbalance energy consumption. This work achieves the higher network lifetime and stability period. The limitation of this protocol, the energy consumption is high due to the direct transmission at long distance.

Haitao et al. proposed the routing protocol called AHH-VBF [3]. In this work, authors investigate the void node problem and increase the data delivery ratio. This article adaptively adjusts the communication range by maximizing the pipeline radius. The simulation results show that the propagation delay and energy consumption can be reduced effectively. This paper achieves to improve the network lifetime. However, their proposed scheme produces the duplicate packets and high manufacturing costs.

Jarnet et al. proposed the routing protocol called focused beam routing (FBR) in UWSNs [4]. This protocol is to minimize the extra flooding. In this strategy, before transmitting the packets, the nodes increase the transmitting range time-by-time according to adjust the flooding angle and the communication power level via power gradient. Moreover, the nodes need to determine the request to send (RTS) message in the sparse network. Due to this scheme, the wastage of energy consumption and propagation delay are high. However, the flooding angle is affected by the network performance.
Table 1.

State of-the-art-work

Technique (s)

Feature (s)

Achievement (s)

Limitation (s)

BLOAD [2]

Balanced load distribution, energy hole avoidance

Higher network lifetime, stability period is high

Higher energy consumption due to long distance

AHH-VBF [3]

Reduces propagation delay, higher network lifetime

Reliability, energy efficiency

Duplicate packets, high manufacturing and deployment cost

FBR [4]

Focused beam routing, minimize the extra flooding

Due to flooding angle the packet delivery ratio is high

Wastage of energy consumption and propagation delay is high

VBVA [5]

Vector-based void avoidance, vector shift and back pressure

Void node decreases, better network performance

Higher propagation delay

VAPR [6]

Void-aware pressure routing, greedy forwarding strategy

Same as geographic and opportunistic routing, high packet delivery ratio

Higher energy consumption, greater propagation delay

GEAR [7]

Transmission based upon cluster head and multi-hop strategy

Higher network lifetime, energy efficiency

Larger end-to-end delay

BECHA [8]

Load distribution is balanced, greater network lifetime

Network lifetime, energy efficiency

Energy hole problem due to load imbalance

EEDBR [9]

Energy efficient depth based routing, forwarder is selected on the basis of residual energy and depth

Network lifetime

Packet is neglected due to low energy

WDFAD-DBR [10]

Forwarder nodes select up to two hop neighbor, avoidance of void nodes

Higher reliability, higher PDR and lower propagation delay

High manufacturer and deployment cost

EEBET [11]

Enhanced efficient and balancing energy technique, solves the deficiencies in balanced transmission mechanism

Energy efficiency, higher network lifetime

Energy hole problem

RDBF [12]

Relative distance based forwarding protocol, fitness factor for appropriate forwarder

Data delivery ratio, low propagation delay and energy efficiency

Load is an imbalance

In [5], authors introduced the routing protocol called vector-based void avoidance (VBVA). This paper investigates the void hole problem in a mobile-based scenario of UWSNs. There are two methods of this protocol i.e., vector shift and back pressure which are to resolve the void nodes. The vector shift procedure is used for sending data along the routing hole boundary. Moreover, the back pressure technique describes the packet forwarding back in routing path and packet move away from the destination. However, this work achieves to minimize the routing hole and high PDR.

Youngtae et al. proposed the void-aware pressure routing (VAPR) for UWSNs [6]. This paper knows about the depth knowledge of nodes to forward the packets toward the sink on the sea surface. This protocol just like the geographic and opportunistic routing where the next hop forwarder determines through greedy forwarding approach. In this protocol, every node prevents the void node from sink’s reachability data disseminated in the network from periodic beaconing. Every node uses this information to make a directional path towards some surface sonobuoy. The next-hop forwarder node is appointed through neighbor node’s direction, which is those paths in which there is the same transmitting path with the current forwarder i.e., upward or downward. However, VAPR achieves the high PDR at the cost of high energy consumption and propagation delay as data packets are routed through more hops for the avoidance of void nodes in the networks (Table 1).

In [7], authors proposed the routing protocol called gateway based energy-efficient routing protocol (GEAR). In this paper, there are four types of regions. Each region performs different approaches. Firstly, two regions use direct transmission, while other two regions are divided on the basis of cluster head (CH) and perform multi-hop transmissions. This protocol achieves to improve the lifespan of network and minimize the energy consumption.

Naeem et al. proposed the routing protocol called balanced energy consumption and hole alleviation (BECHA) balances the load distribution among different coronas [8]. The energy balancing is a precious resource for maximizing the lifespan of network. Due to imbalance load distribution, the death of sensor nodes very quickly and it causes the energy hole problem. This scheme resolves, the energy hole problem which is located near the sink due to imbalance load distribution. This strategy is an important to improve the throughput. It is also to balance the load distribution and provide the energy efficiency.

In [9], authors proposed the routing protocol called energy efficient depth based routing (EEDBR) for UWSNs. In this paper, the forwarder node is selected on the basis of depth and residual energy. Because of this selection, the energy can be balanced and improved network lifetime. In this work, the sensor nodes retain the data for some time before transmitting. The holding time depends on the residual energy of sensor nodes. In this way, if the residual energy is high then the data is directly transmitted to sink, otherwise, the packet is discarded. The limitation of this paper, the packet is neglected due to the low energy. This protocol does not need to the localization of the network nodes.

Haitao et al. proposed a weighting depth and forwarding area division depth based routing protocol (WDFAD-DBR) [10]. The forwarder node is selected on the basis of two-hop neighbors. This protocol achieves to high reliability, higher PDR and lower propagation delay by the increasing number of nodes in the network. However, their proposed scheme produces the high manufacturing cost.

In [11], authors proposed the routing protocol called enhanced efficient and balancing energy technique (EEBET) to solve the deficiencies in balanced transmission mechanism (BTM). Similarly, the efficient and balancing energy consumption technique (EBET) achieves to improve the energy efficiency and determine the suitable energy level. By this process, the network lifetime can be increased. The limitation of this work is energy hole problem.

In [12], proposed a routing protocol called relative distance based forwarding protocol (RDBF). This paper determines an appropriate forwarder node which acts as a fitness function. It means that the selection of forwarder node via fitness function. This paper achieves the better PDR, an end-to-end delay, and energy efficiency. However, due to the minimum number of hop counts, the load is an imbalance.

Latif et al. proposed the routing protocol called the energy hole and coverage hole in terms of network lifetime and throughput. By this protocol, the network lifetime and throughput can be maximized. The energy hole and coverage hole problems resolve in depth based routing and the residual energy of each node act as a forwarding metrics for the data packet. A node selects as a forwarder node for the data packet if it has a smaller holding time than other neighbor nodes in order to suppress the retransmission of duplicate packets. Moreover, a hole repair technique is used to maintain the connectivity among sensor nodes in order to maximize the network lifetime. Moreover, an adaptive transmission power level is introduced to improve the energy efficiency of the network. However, the limitation of this protocol is higher propagation delay of the network [13].

3 Problem Statement

The communication void region and energy consumption degrade the performance of the network. The data transmission failing upon the absence of forwarder node. It means that the void node is available in the void region creates the problem. In geographic and opportunistic for depth adjustment routing protocol (GEDAR) [1], it avoids the void node region via depth adjustment topology. In this paper, we are mitigating the void node region problem and it is also to increase the PDR. The node located in the void region is known as the void node. Moreover, due to the multi-hop scenario, the energy hole problem occurs closer to the sink located on the water surface. In the presence of void node, the packet gets stuck in a void region. The existing routing protocols should determine to transmit the packet via some proposed techniques.

4 Proposed Scheme

In our proposed scheme, the sensor nodes are randomly deployed and the sinks are located on the water surface. The details of network model and proposed schemes are given below:

4.1 Network Model

In this section, the sensor nodes are randomly deployed in an area the size of 1500 m \(\times \) 1500 m \(\times \) 1500 m and the sonobuoys are 45. In our proposed system, we consider a three-dimensional model, where the sensor nodes are randomly deployed.
Fig. 1.

Network model of proposed scheme

4.2 T-GEDAR

We determine the maximum communication range upon failing the depth adjustment technique. In this scheme, if the forwarder node is unavailable in the communication range of sensor nodes for data transmission. Then, the communication range is maximized up to the certain distance. However, the data is transmitted to sink by adjustable range. Moreover, in this scheme the data delivery ratio is high and the probability of duplicate packets generated due to sending the multiple copies of the same data packet from the source node. This is because it also to increase the network lifetime.
Table 2.

Simulation parameters

Control parameters

Values

Units

Area (A)

1500 m \(\times \) 1500 m \(\times \) 1500 m

Meters

Transmission power (\(T_P\))

2

Watts

Reception power (\(R_P\))

0.1

Watts

Idle power (\(I_P\))

0.01

Watts

Number of sensors (n)

150

4.3 B-GEDAR

We propose the B-GEDAR scheme for the hole avoidance among sensor nodes during the communication of network nodes. The B-GEDAR is performed upon failing the T-GEDAR routing protocol. This is because of the number of void nodes decreases and network lifetime increases. However, in B-GEDAR determines the communication range of forwarder node for data transmission among nodes are shown in Fig. 1 . By this process, the nodes dissipate energy, so network lifetime, PDR and other parameters can be increased.

5 Simulation Results

In this section, we evaluate the performance of our scheme and compare the results with existing protocol (GEDAR) in terms of PDR and energy efficiency of the network. The sensor nodes are randomly deployed. The total network area is 1500 m \(\times \) 1500 m \(\times \) 1500 m. We assume that the 45 sinks are located at the surface of the water. The transmission power of sensor node is set to be \(T_P=2 W\), the reception power is set to be \(R_P = 0.1 W\) and idle power is set to be \(I_P = 0.01 W\). Let us assume that, the sensor nodes are equal to \(n=150\). The control parameters of this paper are given in Table 2.
Fig. 2.

Fraction of void nodes

Figure 2 depicts the fraction of void nodes decreases when the network density increases for both techniques. Similarly, T-GEDAR and B-GEDAR achieve the best performance of results are compared with the GEDAR. When GEDAR is used, the proposed schemes like T-GEDAR and B-GEDAR are to minimize the 33% and 50% fraction of void nodes respectively. However, the overall performance comparison is better for B-GEDAR, because via this scheme achieves approximately 34% is compared with the increase of communication range.
Fig. 3.

Packet delivery ratio

Figure 3 depicts the results of PDR. The overall result is to increase in PDR when the number of nodes increases. GEDAR has the high data delivery ratio and better performance due to increase the transmission range of communication and the B-GEDAR. This is because; the T-GEDAR and B-GEDAR are to achieve the 18.6% and 29.1% data delivery ratio among nodes, respectively. However, the overall achievement is 36% through the B-GEDAR.
Fig. 4.

Energy consumption per message per node

Figure 4 depicts the results of energy consumption per received message per node. In GEDAR, the energy consumption is high due to the lower node density scenario. However, because of T-GEDAR and B-GEDAR the node density increases then the energy consumption is relatively decreased. Moreover, the proposed schemes are to minimize the 66% and 78% of energy consumption per packet per node respectively. However, the overall performance comparison is better for B-GEDAR because this scheme achieves approximately 15.6% and it is compared to increase the communication range.

6 Conclusion and Future Work

In this paper, we have proposed and evaluated the two techniques called T-GEDAR and B-GEDAR in GEDAR routing protocol. Furthermore, T-GEDAR provides a greater communication range for finding the suitable forwarder node and it is used to avoid the void hole. When the forwarder node is unavailable, then the sensor nodes start the B-GEDAR so that the packets can be received successfully at the sink. Simulation results show that the better performance as compared to the GEDAR Protocol. It is also to improve the energy efficiency and PDR.

As future work, we plan to address these major challenges in the UWSNs, considering the various needs for packet delivery. Moreover, we plan to improve the lifespan of the network, so that we balance the energy consumption among various nodes.

References

  1. 1.
    Coutinho, R.W.L., Azzedine, B., Luiz, F.M.V., Antonio, A.F.L.: Geographic and opportunistic routing for underwater sensor networks. IEEE Trans. Comput. 65(2), 548–561 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Azam, I., Javaid, N., Ahmad, A., Wadood, A., Almogren, A., Alamri, A.: Balanced load distribution with energy hole avoidance in underwater WSNs. IEEE Access (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yu, H., Yao, N., Liu, J.: An adaptive routing protocol in underwater sparse acoustic sensor networks. Ad Hoc Netw. 34, 121–143 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jornet, J.M., Stojanovic, M., Zorzi, M.: Focused beam routing protocol for underwater acoustic networks. In: Proceedings of the Third ACM International Workshop on Underwater Networks, pp. 75–82. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Xie, P., Zhou, Z., Peng, Z., Cui, J.-H., Shi, Z.: Void avoidance in three-dimensional mobile underwater sensor networks. In: International Conference on Wireless Algorithms, Systems, and Applications, pp. 305–314. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Noh, Y., Lee, U., Wang, P., Choi, B.S.C., Gerla, M.: VAPR: void-aware pressure routing for underwater sensor networks. IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. 12(5), 895–908 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nadeem, Q., Rasheed, M.B., Javaid, N., Ali Khan, Z., Maqsood, Y., Din, Q.: M-GEAR: gateway-based energy-aware multi-hop routing protocol for WSNs. In: Proceedings of 2013 Eigth International Conference on Broadband and Wireless Computing, Communication and Applications (BWCCA), pp. 164–169. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jan, N., Javaid, N., Javaid, Q., Alrajeh, N., Alam, M., Ali Khan, Z., Niaz, I.A.: A balanced energy-consuming and hole-alleviating algorithm for wireless sensor networks. IEEE. Access 5, 6134–6150 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wahid, A., Kim, D.: An energy efficient localization-free routing protocol for underwater wireless sensor networks. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 8(4), 307246 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yu, H., Yao, N., Wang, T., Li, G., Gao, Z., Tan, G.: WDFAD-DBR: weighting depth and forwarding area division DBR routing protocol for UASNs. Ad Hoc Netw. 37, 256–282 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Javaid, N., Shah, M., Ashfaq, A., Imran, M., Khan, M.I., Vasilakos, A.V.: An enhanced energy balanced data transmission protocol for underwater acoustic sensor networks. Sensors 16(4), 487 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li, Z., Yao, N., Gao, Q.: Relative distance based forwarding protocol for underwater wireless networks. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 10(2), 173089 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Latif, K., Javaid, N., Ahmad, A., Khan, Z.A., Alrajeh, N., Khan, M.I.: On energy hole and coverage hole avoidance in underwater wireless sensor networks. IEEE Sens. J. 16(11), 4431–4442 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zidi, C., Bouabdallah, F., Boutaba, R.: Routing design avoiding energy holes in underwater acoustic sensor networks. Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput. 16(14), 2035–2051 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ghazanfar Latif
    • 1
  • Nadeem Javaid
    • 1
    Email author
  • Aasma Khan
    • 1
  • Aisha Fatima
    • 1
  • Landing Jatta
    • 1
  • Wahab Khan
    • 2
  1. 1.COMSATS Institute of Information TechnologyIslamabadPakistan
  2. 2.Beijing Institute of TechnologyBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations