Advertisement

A Cross-Layer Analysis for Providing Mobility in Wireless Body Area Networks

  • R. Venkateswari
  • S. SubhaRani
  • V. Sudharshan
  • R. Umadharshini
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 325)

Abstract

A wireless body area network consists of a network of implanted and wearable sensor nodes to transmit the biological information for wireless healthcare monitoring, elderly care, and many other innovative applications. To support mobility in these resource-constrained networks, suitable modifications have to be performed both at the medium access control and routing layers. Low-duty-cycle MAC protocols that avoid energy problems in the MAC Layer have been taken, and the performance with the RPL routing protocol has been evaluated. RPL is routing protocol proposed by IETF ROLL working group for low-power and lossy networks. In this paper, the performance of XMAC and ContikiMAC is analyzed with respect to RPL parameters and the results show that ContikiMAC consumes 49 % less power compared to XMAC.

Keywords

WBAN ContikiMAC XMAC RPL Mobility 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the University Grants Commission, New Delhi, under the Major Research Project scheme (2011).

References

  1. 1.
    H. Cao, V. Leung, C. Chow, H. Chan, Enabling technologies for wireless body area networks: a survey and outlook. IEEE Trans. Commun. 47, 84–93 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Bream, C. Blondia, Supporting mobility in wireless body area networks: an analysis, in 18th IEEE Symposium on Communications and Vehicular Technology (2011), pp. 1–6Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Nabi, M. Geilen, T. Basten, MoBAN: A configurable mobility model for wireless body area networks, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Simulation Tools and Techniques (2011), pp. 168–177Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. De Nardis, D. Domenicali, M.-G. Di Benedetto, Mobility model for body area networks of soccer players, in IEEE Wireless Technology conference (2010), pp. 65–68Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Ali, T. Suleman, Z.A. Uzmi, MMAC: a mobility-adaptive, collision free MAC protocol for wireless sensor networks, in 24th International IEEE Conference on Performance, Computing and communications (2005), pp. 401–407Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Zhang, Q. Li, X. Zhang, X. Wang, De-ass: an adaptive mac algorithm based on mobility evaluation for wireless sensor networks, in 6th International Conference on Wireless Communications Networking and Mobile Computing (2010), pp. 1–5Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S.C. Choi et al., An adaptive mobility-supporting MAC protocol for mobile sensor networks, in IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (2008), pp. 168–172Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    T. Liu, C.M. Sadler, P. Zhang, M. Margaret, Implementing software on resource-constrained mobile sensors: experiences with Impala and ZebraNet, in Proceedings of Mobile Systems, Applications and Services (2004), pp. 256–269Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Gonga, O. Landsiedel, M. Johansson, MobiSense: power- efficient micro-mobility in wireless sensor networks, in IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems and Workshops (2011), pp. 1–8Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    K.C. Lee, R. Sudhaakar, J. Ning, L. Dai, S. Addepalli, J.P. Vasseur, M. Gerla, A comprehensive evaluation of RPL under mobility. Int. J. Veh. Technol. 2012, 10, Article ID: 904308 (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/904308
  11. 11.
    H. Ali, A Performance Evaluation of RPL in Contiki, M.S. thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M.R. Khan, Performance and route stability analysis of RPL protocol, M.S. thesis, KTH Electrical Engineering (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Buettner, G.V. Yee, E. Anderson, R. Han, X-MAC: a short preamble mac protocol for duty-cycled wireless sensor networks, in International Conference on Sensor Systems (2006),pp. 307–320Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J.G. Ko, N. Tsiftes, A. Terzis, A. Dunkels, Pragmatic low-power interoperability: ContikiMAC vs TinyOS LPL, in 9th Annual IEEE Communications Society Conference on Sensor, Mesh and Adhoc Communications and Networks (2012), pp. 94–96Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Dunkels, The ContikiMAC radio duty cycling protocol. Technical Report T2011:13. Swedish Institute of Computer Science (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    X. Hong, M. Gerla, G. Pei, C.-C. Chiang, A group mobility model for Ad-Hoc wireless networks, in MSWiM’99 Proceedings of Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Wireless and Mobile Systems (1999), pp. 53–60Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J.-P. Vasseur, A. Dunkels, Interconnecting Smart Objects with IP—The Next Internet (Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, 2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    O. Gaddour, A. Kouba, RPL in a nutshell: a survey. Comput. Netw. 56, 3163–3178 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Y. Chen, J.P. Chanet, K.M. Hou, RPL routing protocol a case study: precision agriculture. First China-France Workshop on Future Computing Technology (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Venkateswari
    • 1
  • S. SubhaRani
    • 1
  • V. Sudharshan
    • 1
  • R. Umadharshini
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electronics and Communication EngineeringPSG College of TechnologyCoimbatoreIndia

Personalised recommendations