Evaluation of LEACH Protocol for Different Wireless

0 downloads 0 Views 643KB Size Report
Abstract. Low-Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy (LEACH) is a clustering-based protocol that utilizes randomized rotation of local cluster base stations ...
Evaluation of LEACH Protocol for Different Wireless Sensor Nodes Deployment Farah A. Nasser, Haider M. AlSabbagh

Evaluation of LEACH Protocol for Different Wireless Sensor Nodes Deployment 1

Farah A. Nasser, *2Haider M. AlSabbagh Department of Computer Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Basra, Iraq, [email protected] *2 Department of Electrical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Basra, Iraq, [email protected] 1

Abstract Low-Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy (LEACH) is a clustering-based protocol that utilizes randomized rotation of local cluster base stations (cluster-heads) to evenly distribute the energy load among the sensor nodes in the network. LEACH uses localized coordination to enable scalability and robustness for dynamic networks, and incorporates data fusion into the routing protocol to reduce the amount of information that must be transmitted to the base station. This paper presents analyses to evaluate LEACH protocol for different nodes deployment. Random node deployment shows that the total received packets at the base station, when ideal wireless channel is used, approximately the same as the transmitted packets for collision free state. Other node deployments in grid way are investigated to show the performance of LEACH protocol in different situations.

Keywords: LEACH Protocol, Castalia Simulator, Node Deployment, Wireless Channel. 1. Introduction The wireless sensor networks (WSNs) consist of individual nodes that are tiny, battery-powered devices which can process, compute and communicate various signals/information in order to interact with their environment. They also contain sensors and actuators to control the physical characteristics of the world [1]. With these enhancements, a sensor node is often responsible for data collection and fusion of its own sensor data and data collected from other sensor nodes. They usually consist of processing unit with limited computational power and limited memory [2]. In many potential working environments, such as remote harsh fields, disaster areas and toxic urban regions, sensor deployment cannot be performed manually. To scatter sensors by aircraft is one possible solution [3]. The nodes organized in a random way following their self organizing method to communicate with each other, gathering information sensed from the physical world and transmitting it to the sink node where a final decision is taken place. In [4] the researchers show that LEACH reduces communication energy by as much as 8xs compared with direct transmission and minimum transmission-energy routing. In [5] a comprehensive survey on routing techniques in WSNs was presented. In [6] the researchers showed that cluster-based routing algorithm has a better energy utilization rate compared with non-cluster routing algorithm. The main contribution of this paper is presenting analyses for influence of deployment of nodes in a various fields inspired by Low Energy Adaptive Cluster Hierarchy (LEACH) routing protocol The analyses focus on node deployment under different circumstances based on LEACH routing protocol to achieve minimum energy consumption and prolong system lifetime. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the LEACH protocol, section 3 shows CSMA MAC protocol, section 4 shows the simulation results, then, the achieved conclusions are given in Section 5.

2. LEACH Protocol Heinzelman, et. al. [4] introduced a hierarchical clustering algorithm for sensor networks, called Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy (LEACH). It is a hierarchical based or cluster based routing methods. Clustering process involves dividing the sensor nodes into clusters and each cluster has a cluster head node that is responsible to gather the data from its members and send it to the base station as shown in Fig.1. This approach has the following advantages: 1) non-CH sensor nodes can save the energy consumption because the nodes can avoid long-distance communication and have only

Advances in information Sciences and Service Sciences(AISS) Volume5, Number6, March 2013 doi:10.4156/AISS.vol5.issue6.52

433

Evaluation of LEACH Protocol for Different Wireless Sensor Nodes Deployment Farah A. Nasser, Haider M. AlSabbagh

to seend data to itss own CH beiing nearby annd 2) the amouunt of data to be sent to BS S can be reduuced, whicch also saves the energy coonsumption [7]]. LEACH prootocol consistss of two phasees as illustrateed in Fig. 2:

Figuree 1. Cluster-based concept S Set-up phase:: The clusters are organizedd and CHs aree selected. W When all nodes use the indiccator funcction for electiion as CHs. T The elected CH Hs broadcast aadvertisement message (AD DV) using the nonn perssistent carrier sense multiplle access (CSM MA MAC) prrotocol. This message conttains the CH’ss ID and a header thaat indicates it as an annouuncement messsage. The noon-elected noddes called cluuster mem mbers (CMs) determine theeir cluster by choosing the CH with the minimum com mmunication cost baseed on the receiived signal strrength of the aadvertisement message. Thee CMs send join-request to their t chossen CH usingg CSMA MA AC protocol. T This message contains thee CM-ID (cluuster member--ID), CHIID (cluster heead-ID) and thhe header thaat indicates thhe message ass a request. T The CHs set uup a TDM MA for their inntra-cluster coommunicationn, which ends tthe setup phasse [8]. S Steady state phase: p The trransmission of desired dataa takes place. The steady-sstate phase beegins wheen sensed data are sent from m CMs to CHs and from CHss to BS [8].

EACH protocool phases Figure 2. LE  T duration oof the steady state phase iss longer than the duration oof the set-up phase in ordeer to The minimize the oveerhead. The seet-up phase consists of three phases: addvertisement, ccluster setup, and scheedule creation where a predeetermined fracction of nodes elect themsellves as CHs ass follows. A sensor nodee chooses a ranndom numberr, r, between 0 and 1. If thiss random num mber is less thhan a threshold value, T (n), the nodee becomes a C CH for the currrent round. Thhe threshold vvalue is calcullated baseed on an equaation that incorrporates the ddesired percenttage to becom me a CH, the current c round, and the set s of nodes thhat have not beeen selected aas a CH in the last (1/P) rounnds, denoted G. G It is given bby: p T (n)) =   if n G,

(1)

1-p(r mood (1/p))

434

Evaluation of LEACH Protocol for Different Wireless Sensor Nodes Deployment Farah A. Nasser, Haider M. AlSabbagh

Where G is the set of nodes that are involved in the CH election in the last 1/p rounds. The elected cluster heads then advertise to their neighbor in the network that they are the new cluster heads. For this operation, LEACH relies on a CSMA-based random access scheme (discussed in next section) to avoid advertisement collision from other cluster heads. As the sensor nodes receive the advertisement, they determine the cluster to which they belong to. If a node receive an advertisement from a single cluster head then it become a member of that cluster, else if the sensor node receive advertisements from multiple cluster heads then the advertisement with the highest signal strength will be selected , consequently the channel quality between the cluster heads and its members aimed to be high. On the completion of the advertisement phase, the cluster setup phase take place, where the sensor nodes inform the associated cluster head that they will be a member of that cluster. Again LEACH relies on CSMA-based random access scheme in order to prevent collision between packets sent by each node. Finally, the schedule creation phase is performed, where the cluster heads assign the time during which the sensor nodes can send data to the cluster heads. This selection is based on a time division multiple access (TDMA), which is followed throughout the steady state phase. On completion of the setup phase, LEACH switch to the steady state phase, where the nodes can begin sensing and transmitting data to the cluster heads. Here the role of the cluster head is to aggregate the data from their cluster before sending it to the base station (sink). At the end of the steady state, the network goes to the setup phase again to enter another round of selecting the cluster heads. Consequently, the energy consumption due to the cluster head duty if fairly distributed among sensor nodes [4]. There are a lot of literature presented in [18][19].

3. Medium Access Control Protocol (Carrier Sense Multiple Access) In Carrier Sense Multiple Access (CSMA), the nodes first sense the medium before starting transmission. This aimed to reduce the number of collisions. In non-persistent CSMA, a wireless node is allowed to immediately transmit data once it finds the medium idle. If the medium is busy, the node performs a back off operation, that is, it waits for a certain amount of time before attempting to transmit again [9]. There are many literature researches talk in details about CSMA protocol [10][11]. Time Division Multiple Access protocol is a reservation based protocol where each node communicates according to a specific superframe structure [12]. There are a lot of literature presented in [13][14].

4. Simulation Results We test LEACH protocol for two cases of collisions (case1: no collision, case2: simple collision) using Castalia simulator, a simulator for wireless sensor networks and body area network [15] based on Omnetpp-4.2 simulator. Table 1 show the parameters used in our simulated network: Table 1. Parameter values used in our simulation Parameter value Simulation Field Number of nodes

100x100m² 101 node

Deployment type

Random 25x4 10x10 20 sec 0.05 2J 0:no collision 1: simple collision Ideal Non ideal Chipcon CC2240 2.0 100 byte

Simulation Time Percentage P Initial energy per node Collision type Wireless channel Radio transceiver type Path loss exponent Data size

435

Evaluation of LEACH Protocol for Different Wireless Sensor Nodes Deployment Farah A. Nasser, Haider M. AlSabbagh

The following assumptions are used in the simulation:  



The base station location is chosen outside the simulation area (50,175) as in [16] for the comparison purpose. The collision is tested for two states when no collision occur means there is no interference at the receiver while collision is simple means that there are more than one transmissions heard by a receiver, leads to a collision where the stronger signal will be received at the receiver [15]. Percentage P is chosen 0.5 to achieve better performance as in [17].

The achieved results show the total received packet and average energy consumption at the base station. The different cases are detailed as follows: Case1: 

Total packets received at the base station for ideal wireless channel Deployment No collision Simple collision Random 25x4 10x10



90 54 36

36 71 71

Average energy consumed (in Joule) at the base station for ideal wireless channel Deployment No collision Simple Collision Random 25x4 10x10

0.282 0.249 0.249

0.243 0.288 0.277

Case2:  Total packets received at the base station for non ideal wireless channel Deployment No collision Simple collision Random 25x4 10x10



72 72 37

35 55 55

Average energy consumed (in Joule) at the base station for non ideal wireless channel Deployment No collision Simple collision Random 25x4 10x10

0.312 0.301 0.28

0.274 0.297 0.287

Case 1 for ideal wireless channel shows that when there is no collision at random deployment the total packets received at the base station (90 byte out of 100) is the higher than collision state ( 36 byte out of 100). Two other states 25x4 and 10x10 are also investigated to show some interested results, where at no collision state 25x4 deployment type shows that the total packets received at the base station is ( 53 byte out of 100) , while 10x10 deployment shows (36 byte out of 100). Both 25x4 and 10x10 at the collision state achieved (71 byte out of 100) this is due to different location of the nodes. Case 2 for non ideal wireless channel shows that at random node deployment with no collision state the total packets received at the base station is (72 byte out of 100 byte),while at collision state is (35 byte out of 100 byte). At 25x4 node deployment the total received packets at the base station is (72 byte out of 100) at no collision state, while at collision state it achieved (55 byte out of 100). In 10x10 deployment where no collision occur the total received packets is (37 byte out of 100), while at collision state it achieved (55 byte out of 100).

436

Evaluation of LEACH Protocol for Different Wireless Sensor Nodes Deployment Farah A. Nasser, Haider M. AlSabbagh

5. Conclusions The work described in this paper has demonstrated the advantages of LEACH protocol, the hierarchical based routing protocol and evaluating its architectures in two different wireless channels with different node deployments. Random node deployment shows that the total received packets at the base station, when ideal wireless channel is used, approximately the same as the transmitted packets for collision free state. Other node deployments in grid way are investigated showing lower performance of LEACH protocol than random deployment. For the two cases it’s easy to notice that the average energy consumption in case 1 where ideal wireless channel is used is lower than case 2 where non ideal wireless channel used.

6. References [1] Mert Bal, Weiming Shen, Hamada Ghenniwa, “Collaborative Signal and Information Processing in Wireless Sensor Networks”, IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - SMC, vol.91,no.8, pp. 3151-3156, 2009. [2] Razia Haider , Muhammad Younus Javed, ”Energy Efficient Greedy Approach for Sensor Networks”, Greedy Algorithms, InTech, available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/greedy_algorithms/energy_efficient_greedy_approach_for_sen sor_networks. [3] Guiling Wang, Guohong Cao, Tom La Porta, "A Bidding Protocol for Deploying Mobile Sensors", In Proceeding of the 11th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP'03), pp.315, 2003. [4] Wendi Rabiner Heinzelman , Anantha Chandrakasan and Hari Balakrishnan, “Energy-Efficient Communication Protocol for Wireless Microsensor Networks”, In Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp.8020, 2000. [5] J. N. Al-Karaki and A. E. Kamal, “Routing techniques in wireless sensor networks: a survey,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 6–28, 2004. [6] Do-Hyun Nam, Hongki Min, “An Energy-Efficient Clustering Using a Round-Robin Method in a Wireless Sensor Network”, In Proceedings of the 5th ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering Research, Management & Applications, pp.54-60, 2007. [7] Noritaka Shigei, Hiroki Morishita, and Hiromi Miyajima,” Energy Efficient Clustering Communication Based on Number of Neighbors for Wireless Sensor Networks”, In Proceedings of the International Multi Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, pp762-767, 2010. [8] F. A. Aderohunmu , J. D. Deng, M. K.Purvis,” A Deterministic Energy-efficient Clustering Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks”, In Proceedings of the seventh International Conference on Intelligent Sensors, Sensor Networks and Information Processing (ISSNIP), pp. 341 – 346, 2011. [9] Waltenegus Dargie, Christian Poellabauer, “Fundamentals of Wireless Sensor Networks Theory and Practice”, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, UK, 2010. [10] Wang Xiaofan, Peter H. J. Chong ,and Leong Wai Yie, “Performance Comparison of CSMA/CD, CSMA/CA,CSMA/RI, CSMA/PRI and CSMA/PR with BEB,” In Proceedings of the 5th IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications, pp. 1843-1848, 2010. [11] Leonidas Georgiadis,” Carrier-Sense Multiple Access (CSMA) Protocols”, Wiley Encyclopedia of Telecommunications, vol.1, 2003. [12] Ian F. Akyildiz, Mehmet Can Vuran, “Wireless Sensor Networks”, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, UK, 2010. [13] Ali Norouzi, Abdul Halim Zaim,” An Integrative Comparison of Energy Efficient Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network”, Wireless Sensor Network, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 65-75, 2012. [14] Sameh Gobriel, Daniel Moss´e , and Robert Cleric,” TDMA-ASAP: Sensor Network TDMA Scheduling with Adaptive Slot-stealing And Parallelism”, In Proceedings of the International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems - ICDCS , pp. 458-465, 2009. [15] Athanassios Boulis, Castalia a simulator for wireless sensor networks and body area network version 3.2”, NICTA, Australia, 2011.

437

Evaluation of LEACH Protocol for Different Wireless Sensor Nodes Deployment Farah A. Nasser, Haider M. AlSabbagh

[16] W. Heinzelman, “Application Specific Protocol Architectures for Wireless Networks”, MIT, USA, 2000. [17] Rajesh Patel, Sunil Pariyani, and Vijay Ukani,” Energy and throughput analysis of hierarchical routing protocol (LEACH) for wireless sensor network”, International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887), vol. 20, no.4l,pp.32-36, 2011. [18] Jongwon Choe, Jun Xu,” Energy Balancing LEACH for Wireless Sensor Networks”, IJIIP, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 56 -65, 2012. [19] Chunyao FU, Wei WEI and Ang WEI,” Application of Quadratic-Standard Form Based on LEACH Protocol Analysis”, JDCTA, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 16 -26, 2012.

438