40 REV Journal on Electronics and Communications, Vol. 6, No.

34, JulyDecember, 2016

Regular Article

A Distributed Heuristic Algorithm for Delay Constrained Energy

Efficient Routing in Wireless Sensor Networks
Trong-Thua Huynh1 , Cong-Hung Tran2 , Anh-Vu Dinh-Duc3
1 Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology, Vietnam
2 Posts and Telecommunications Institute of Technology, Ho Chi Minh city, Vietnam
3 University of Information Technology, Ho Chi Minh city, Vietnam

Correspondence: Trong-Thua Huynh, htthua@ptithcm.edu.vn

Communication: received 30 May 2016, revised 28 September 2016, accepted 13 November 2016
Online publication: 31 January 2017, Digital Object Identifier: 10.21553/rev-jec.114
The associate editor coordinating the review of this article and recommending it for publication was Dr. Truong Trung Kien.

Abstract Besides energy restriction, wireless sensor networks (WSNs) should be able to provide bounded end-to-end delay
when they are used to support real-time applications such as early forest fire alarm systems. In this paper, we investigate
the problem of finding the least energy consumption route subject to a delay constraint with low computational complexity
in such networks. Based on the distance-vector routing approach, which has less computational complexity and message
overhead, we propose a distributed heuristic algorithm called Delay Constrained Energy Efficient Routing (DCEER) in
order to minimize the total energy consumption while meeting the end-to-end delay requirement. DCEER only requires
a moderate amount of information at each sensor node and does not suffer from the excessive running time. We prove
that our proposed algorithm always finishes within a finite time and the computation complexity is only O(n), where
n is a divisor of the number of sensor nodes. By mathematical proof and simulation, we verify that DCEER is suitable
for large-scale WSNs because the number of messages exchanged between sensor nodes are represented by a polynomial
function. Furthermore, we evaluate our proposal to compare its performance with related protocols.
Keywords Wireless sensor network, cluster, routing, energy consumption, delay.

1 Introduction mission energy while meeting the end-to-end delay

Energy efficiency is the main objective in the design
of the WSN. However, in real-time applications such as
early forest fire alarm systems, data should be transmit-
ted from sources to the sink within a limited time. If
it exceeds this time, data will not be useful any more.
Thus, a trade-off exists between energy consumption
and end-to-end delay for such applications. Although
many heuristic solutions have been proposed to balance
the network delay and the energy consumption in
WSNs [16], none of them achieves the optimal trade-
off.
In-network data aggregation is the technique that
processes redundant data and fuses disparate data into
a unified data [7]. Clustering algorithms are used in in-
network data aggregation to create small data packets
that carry all necessary information from sensors mon-
itoring a specific region before forwarding them to the
destination [8]. In addition, multi-hop routing protocols
can forward data to the destination in a variety of
multi-hop routes with high reliability and good balance
of energy [9]. Our approach is based on associating
clustering [8] and multi-hop routing [9] in order to
(i) aggregate in-network data before transmitting them
to the sink for reducing the total energy consumption
and communication overhead across the network; and
(ii) pursue multi-hop data relaying to minimize trans-
c 2016 REV
1859-378X2016-3401
requirement.
There are several techniques to minimize the en-
ergy consumption in WSNs based on the clustering
approach [8]. However, in this work, we apply the clus-
tering scheme proposed in [6], which uses the Trade-off
for Energy and Delay (TED) index to make a trade-
off between energy consumption and end-to-end delay.
The major contribution of this paper is the proposal of
a new multi-hop routing algorithm that can find the
least energy consumption route starting from a given
cluster-head to the sink within a bounded end-to-end
delay.
In [1] and [5], the authors focused on constructing a
network topology that aims to make a good trade-off
between energy consumption and end-to-end delay so
that routing is just forwarding data from any sources to
a given destination with a fixed topology. In this paper,
we instead investigate into route selection based on
network conditions at different time. Besides, instead
of routing based on the aggregate cost function of both
delay and energy consumption metrics as in [6], we
focus on route selection that is based on each metric
separately but mutually bounded.
Many solutions [1018] have been proposed to tackle
the problem of delay constrained energy efficient rout-
ing in WSNs with various degrees of success. This
problem is to minimize the total energy consumption
T.-T. Huynh et al.: A Distributed Heuristic Algorithm for Delay Constrained Energy Efficient Routing in WSNs
Etotal of a route Ri , while keeping the end-to-end delay
Dete under a given constraint . Specifically, we want
to
min Etotal ( Ri ) : Dete ( Ri ) , Ri <(CHi , SINK), (1)
where <(CHi , SINK) is the set of routes from the
cluster-head i to the destination node, SINK. In our
model, there is only one destination node. This node
receives all data from the sensor nodes in the whole
network.
Unfortunately, because this problem has been proven
to be NP-hard [19], there exist no algorithms that can
find the optimal solution and run in polynomial time.
The above-mentioned solutions did not try to solve this
complex problem, instead they defined simpler prob-
lems. In this paper, we focus on a simplified problem
by considering the class of applications having only a
single destination. Our algorithm uses combined routes
instead of combined metrics in order to reduce the
search space.
The novelty in our proposal is mainly in the route
discovery algorithm. It only uses a moderate amount
of information from neighboring nodes instead of the
whole network, and the routing is effective, fast conver-
gent and with less overhead. To achieve so, we define
several special messages for exchanging information
among neighboring nodes as well as a simple entry
to store the exchanged information. These assist the
routing in quickly determining the best next node of
the optimal route with low computational complexity.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows.
Section 2 discusses existing proposals for this problem.
Section 3 briefly describes the pseudo code of the clus-
tering algorithm proposed in [6]. Section 4 presents the
multi-hop routing algorithm for DCEER and analyzes
its convergence and complexity. Section 5 shows the
simulation results for DCEERs performance. Section 6
concludes the paper.
2 Related Works
Huynh et al. proposed a multi-hop routing scheme to
balance energy consumption and network delay in [1].
An energy* delay routing algorithm is applied to sensor
nodes within each three-hop cluster while an energy-
efficient chain construction algorithm is applied to
cluster-heads to construct energy-efficient chains from
the cluster-heads to the base station. In [5], the authors
proposed another energy efficient delay-aware routing
algorithm for a multi-layer WSN, wherein cluster-heads
at each layer are interconnected as de Bruijn graph
to improve network delay, energy consumption, and
system reliability. Recently, in [6], the authors have
proposed a new distributed clustering method to de-
termine the best cluster-head for each cluster by con-
trolling adjustment parameters. In addition, they have
proposed a new aggregated cost function used in the
multi-hop routing algorithm from cluster-heads to sink
for a trade-off between energy consumption and end-
to-end delay.
41
In HEED [10], the cluster-heads are selected periodi-
cally based both on the residual energy of a sensor node
and the distance from each sensor node to its neighbor-
ing nodes. HEED can achieve a uniform cluster-head
distribution across the whole network, but it needs too
many iterations, incuring a high overhead. Based on
HEEDs architecture, Akkaya and Younis proposed a
routing protocol [11] that finds an energy-efficient route
along which end-to-end delay requirements are met.
This protocol divides data packets into two categories
based on the delay and bandwidth requirements, puts
them into the corresponding queues, and forwards to
the sink. Their approach, however, did not take into
consideration the delay factors that can occur due to
channel contention at the MAC layer.
In [12], authors proposed an energy efficient and
delay constrained routing protocol based on the length
of data packet and queue length to reduce network
congestion. This protocol allows time-sensitive pack-
ets to select the shortest path for reducing the end-
to-end delay while other data packets to select the
neighbor nodes for forwarding the data to the sink
for an energy balance. In [13], Han et al. proposed
a minimum spanning tree with the Wiener index for
WSNs, in which base nodes are mobile. For small-
scale WSNs, the branch and bound algorithm used to
minimize the search space. For large-scale WSNs, the
simulated annealing algorithm was used to ignore the
local optimal solutions and toward better optimal solu-
tion. This proposal outperforms the minimum spanning
tree in terms of energy consumption and network delay.
With the same objective, Niu et al. studied minimum
delay and energy efficient flooding tree construction for
WSNs whose links are unreliable [14]. The problem was
formulated as a minimum spanning tree problem with
an undetermined delay constraint. A distributed heuris-
tic algorithm based on the known delay constraint
was proposed to solve this problem. Although their
proposed algorithm achieves a good balance between
flooding delay and energy consumption, it requires a
lot of overhead to construct the minimum spanning
tree.
Nadeem et al. proposed a gateway-based energy-
aware multi-hop routing protocol for WSNs called M-
GEAR in [15]. To save energy, the proposed protocol
divides the sensor nodes in different regions, each
region uses a different routing architecture. In addition,
this protocol deploys a gateway located in the sensing
region to support the sensor nodes in clustering and
routing. Based on the distance from each sensor node
to the gateway and to the base station, the protocol
decides to carry out either direct transmission or in-
direct multi-hop transmission. However, this protocol
can only be applied to stationary sensor networks;
it is difficult to implement such network topology.
Moreover, the handling of clustering and setting up a
TDMA schedule is dependent on a gateway; it cannot
be deployed in distributed networks. Similarly, Guidoni
et al. proposed a routing protocol based on topologies
for heterogeneous WSNs called RouT in [16]. With
the same physical network architecture, the proposed
42 REV Journal on Electronics and Communications, Vol. 6, No. 34, JulyDecember, 2016

Algorithm 1 Pseudo codes of clustering algorithm for

each sensor node
Input: ADV message from SINK
Output: NodeRole
1: Calculate the approximate distance from sensor
node to SINK, dtoSINK
1
2: Wait for = E
3: broadcast ADV message to neighbors
4: if Received ADV message from other neighbors
then
5: for j = 0 to Ni do
6: if Ei Ej then
7: flag = 1
8: break
9: end if
10: end for
11: if flag == 1 then
12: NodeRole = Cluster-member
: cluster-member : cluster-head : SINK 13: end if
14: end if
: link from cluster-member to cluster-head 1
15: Wait for =
: link from cluster-head to cluster-head (or SINK) TEDi
16: if Received JCR message then
Figure 1. Hierarchical wireless sensor network model. 17: Send ACK message to its cluster-head
18: NodeRole = Cluster-member
19: else
protocol creates different logical topologies depending 20: Broadcast JCR message to others
on the capacities of sensor nodes. They are divided 21: NodeRole = Cluster-head
into two types as L-sensors (low capacity) and H- 22: end if
sensors (high capacity). Each logical topology is set 23: Broadcast NCR message to other cluster-heads
based on the delay of links connected between the 24: Update nodal residual energy
H-sensors. In this way, each logical topology creates 25: Return NodeRole
a balance between energy consumption and network
delay. However, the messages exchange between sensor
nodes to establish the logical topologies amount to DCEER operates in consecutive rounds. Each round is
more overhead and end-to-end delay. separated into two phases: (i) network organization,
DEAR (delay bounded adaptive energy constrained which establishes the cluster network topology, and
routing) proposed in [17] is a multi-path routing proto- (ii) data transmission, which finds the best route to
col. It considers many parameters such as reliability, transmit data from cluster-heads to SINK. In the first
delay and energy consumption. This protocol allows phase, DCEER uses the distributed clustering scheme
packets to be continuously distributed across the net- proposed in [6] to set up clusters.
work even if the paths are going to crash. It balances The pseudo codes of this algorithm is described in
the delay among different paths by using a polynomial- Algorithm 1. In line 3, the ADV message is used to
time algorithm to solve a multi-objective optimization calculate the distance from each sensor node to other
problem. In [18], Yao et al. designed an energy efficient sensor nodes. In line 6, Ei and Ej are the residual energy
delay aware protocol to balance network lifetime, called of sensor nodes i and j, respectively. In line 15, the TED
EDAL. They proposed a centralized heuristic to reduce index is determined by
computational complexity and a distributed heuristic
to make the algorithm suitable for large-scale WSNs.    
Ei 1
This algorithm was also extended, for reducing the total TEDi = + , (2)
energy consumption for applications with loose delay Etotal di,SINK
constraints.
where Ei is the residual energy of the cluster-head
candidate i, Etotal is the cumulative energy of the other
3 DCEER: Distributed Clustering Scheme cluster-head candidates it has received from ADV mes-
sages, di,SINK is the distance from cluster-head candi-
Consider a set of sensor nodes dispersed in a field date i to SINK. Values of and are in the range
as illustrated in Figure 1. We employ the hierarchical of [0, 1] and + 6= 0. In lines 16 and 20, the JCR
network model in which sensor nodes are distributed (Join Cluster Request) message is used to determine
in clusters. Each cluster itself elects a cluster-head that whether a sensor node has joined the cluster. In line
aggregates data from its cluster-member nodes and 23, the NCR (Neighbor Cluster-head Request) message
sends the aggregated data to SINK in multi hops. is used to determine the neighbor cluster-heads.
T.-T. Huynh et al.: A Distributed Heuristic Algorithm for Delay Constrained Energy Efficient Routing in WSNs
4 DCEER: Multi-hop Routing
After the clusters have been set up, each cluster-
member node turns off the radio until its allocated
transmission time for sending data to the cluster-head.
The cluster-head keeps its receiver on to receive data
from its cluster-member nodes. After all data have been
received, the cluster-head aggregates all data packets
into a single packet to reduce redundancy and trans-
mission energy. It then discovers the best route to
transfer the aggregated data to SINK. This route must
have the least total energy consumption while keeping
the end-to-end delay under a given value .
4.1 Route Discovery Algorithm
Each cluster-head i must have the following informa-
tion to find the best route to delivery data to the SINK.
(i) nextCHle : the next cluster-head (node j) that makes
cluster-head i consume the least energy in sending
data to node j, that is,
nextCHle = min ETx (i, j),
j Ni
where Ni are the neighbors of cluster-head i,
ETx (i, j) is energy consumed in transmitting an l-
bit data packet from cluster-head i to cluster-head
j over a distance of dij , and is defined as
( where D (initCH, currCH) is the time elapsed from
lEelec + lefs d2ij , if dij < d0 ,
ETx (i, j) = 4
lEelec + lemp dij , if dij d0 ,
where Eelec is an electronic energy consumption
factor, efs and emp are the amplifier energies to
maintain an acceptable signal-to-noise ratio, d0 =
(efs /emp )1/2 is the reference distance between the
transmitter and the receiver.
(ii) nextCHld : the next cluster-head (node j) that makes
cluster-head i take the least delay in sending data
to node j, that is,
nextCHld = min D (i, j),
j Ni
where Ni are the neighbors of cluster-head i, D (i, j)
is a measure of the delay a packet experiences
when traversing the link from cluster-head i to
cluster-head j, which is defined as
D (i, j) = DQ + DT + DP ,
where DQ , DT and DP are, respectively, the queu-
ing delay per cluster-head node, the transmission
delay, and the propagation delay. According to [6],
we have:
1 l dij
D (i, j) = + + , (7)
where is the service rate which is an exponential
stochastic variable, is the rate of entry for new
packets which is a Poisson stochastic variable, l is
the packet size (in bits), is the link bandwidth
(in bps), dij is the length of the physical link
from cluster-head i to cluster-head j, and is the
propagation speed in medium (in m/s).
43
(iii) ld(i, SINK): the least time required for sending
data from cluster-head i to the SINK. This value
is calculated similarly to Equation (7) except that
dij is replaced with di,SINK , which is the distance
from cluster-head i to the SINK. This distance
is calculated by using the RSSI (Received Signal
Strength Indicator) value it received from the first
step of the cluster set-up phase.
At any time, if cluster-head i has data to send to
the SINK, it initiates route discovery by checking the
ld(i, SINK). If this value is greater than the bounded
delay, there does not exist any route between cluster-
head i and the SINK that meets the delay constraint.
It stops the algorithm execution and does not send
data out. If, however, ld(i, SINK) , i.e., the routes
meet the delay constraint between cluster-head i and
the SINK, it continues execution until a route is found.
In this case, cluster-head i determines the next cluster-
head, j, that satisfies Equation (3). Then, cluster-head
i sends the Least Delay Request (LDR) message to its
neighboring cluster-head j in order to get the value of
(3) ld( j, SINK). Cluster-head j returns the newest value of
ld( j, SINK) to cluster-head i. Cluster-head i checks the
following inequality:
D (initCH, currCH) + D (i, j) + ld( j, SINK) , (8)
(4) the initiating cluster-head of this route to the current
cluster-head (in this case, it is the cluster-head i).
If this inequality is satisfied then there exist valid
delay constrained routes from cluster-head i to the
SINK that meet the delay constraint and they use the
link (i, j) to follow the least energy route. Cluster-head
i selects cluster-head j as the next node of route toward
the SINK. If the inequality is not satisfied, cluster-head
i selects another cluster-head, k, as the next node by
using Equation (5) to follow the least delay route. This
selection ensures that the route from the current cluster-
(5) head, i, to the SINK is a part of at least one route
from the initiating cluster-head to the SINK that meets
the delay constraint, otherwise, the current cluster-head
could not have been selected in a previous step.
After selecting the link (next node) to follow, the
current cluster-head, i, creates a routing table entry
(6) for this route. It contains the information as shown in
Figure 2.
For the current cluster-head (CHi ) of this route iden-
tified by routeCODE, initCH is the initiating cluster-
head of the route, prevCH is the neighboring cluster-
head that precedes CHi on the route, and nextCH is the
neighboring cluster-head that follows CHi on the route.
nextCH is nextCHle if (8) is satisfied, and nextCHld , oth-
erwise. D (initCH, currCH) is time elapsed from initCH
to the current cluster-head of this route.
routeCODE initCH prevCH nextCH D(initCH,currCH)
Figure 2. Routing table entry.
44 REV Journal on Electronics and Communications, Vol. 6, No. 34, JulyDecember, 2016

routeCODE initCH D(initCH,nextCH) D(initCH,currCH) Algorithm 2 Find next cluster-head that consumes
least energy and meets end-to-end delay constraint -
Figure 3. Constructed Cluster-heads Route (CCR) message. Find_NextCH(Input,Output)
Input: prevCH, initCH, SINK, , D (initCH, currCH)
Output: nextCH
Then, the current cluster-head creates a new delay The current cluster-head is the initiator
value, D (initCH, nextCH), which is the delay along 1: if (prevCH = null | D (initCH, currCH) = 0 |
the constructed route from the initiating cluster-head initCH = i) then
to the next cluster-head. This value is calculated 2: if ld(i, SINK) > then
by adding D (currCH, nextCH) to the current delay 3: nextCH = null
D (initCH, currCH), that is, 4: exit(1)
5: end if
D (initCH, nextCH) =
6: end if
D (initCH, currCH) + D (currCH, nextCH). (9) Every cluster-head will execute to construct the route
After all, it sends a Constructed Cluster-heads Route 7: for j = 0 to Ni do
(CCR) message to the next cluster-head. This message 8: nextCHle = min ETx (i, j)
contains the information as shown in Figure 3. 9: end for
In Figure 3, is the bounded delay of the route 10: temp = NodeID(nextCHle )
identified by routeCODE. If any cluster-head j, which is 11: if ( D (initCH, currCH) + D (i, temp)
not the SINK, receives a CCR message, it becomes the +ld(temp, SINK)) then
current cluster-head of this route. This cluster-head j 12: nextCH = temp
selects the next cluster-head, creates a routing table 13: else
entry and constructs the route in a similar manner as 14: for j = 0 to Ni do
described above. At this time, the prevCH value in 15: nextCHld = min D (i, j)
the routing table entry of cluster-head j is the cluster- 16: end for
head i that sent it a CCR message. When the SINK 17: nextCH = NodeID(nextCHld )
receives a CCR message, it sends an acknowledgement 18: end if
(ACK) message back to the initiating cluster-head of 19: D (initCH, nextCH) = D (initCH, currCH)
that route. When the initiating cluster-head receives + D (i, nextCH)
the ACK message, it starts to transmit data to the 20: return nextCH
SINK following the route which has been previously
discovered. The selection of the next cluster-head is
detailed in Algorithm 2, implemented at each cluster- <0 = R0 . Since D ( R0 ) = 0 and ld(CH0 , SINK) ,
head. then algorithm will definitely stop with nextCH =
SINK.
Suppose now that
4.2 Convergence and Complexity of DCEER
We verify the convergence of DCEER by proving that D ( Rk ) + ld(CHk , SINK) . (10)
it can always finishes within a finite time. In addition,
we prove that the computation complexity of DCEER We have the following two cases.
is a constant function as well as its message overhead Case 1: Rk+1 extends a route Rk <k by adding
is a polynomial function. the link that has chose nextCHle as the next cluster-
We denote the route created by k cluster-heads as Rk , head from CHk to follow the least energy route. The
that is Rk : CH0 CHk . Route Rk+1 is created following inequalities must be satisfied:
by adding a link to Rk . Let =k = {CH0 , . . . CHk } be the D ( Rk ) + D (CHk , CHk+1 ) + ld(CHk+1 , SINK) (11a)
set of cluster-heads of route Rk , and <k = { R0 , . . . , Rk }
the set of routes constructed at the kth step. D ( Rk+1 ) + ld(CHk+1 , SINK) . (11b)
Theorem 1. Algorithm 2 always finds either the route that
consumes the least energy and meets the end-to-end delay Case 2: Rk+1 extends a route R j <k (0 j k)
constraint if such a route exists or no route within a finite by adding the link that has chose nextCHld as the next
time. cluster-head from CH j to follow the least delay route.
Proof: If there exists no route from a given cluster- In this case, we have
head i to the SINK, i.e., ld(i, SINK) > (line 2), the ld(CH j , SINK) = D (CH j , CHk+1 ) + ld(CHk+1 , SINK).
algorithm terminates immediately after line 4 without
constructing the route. Otherwise, i.e., ld(i, SINK) Thus, the following inequalities must be satisfied:
, the algorithm continues execution until a route is
D ( R j ) + D (CH j , CHk+1 ) + ld(CHk+1 , SINK) (12a)
found. It is proven by induction on the number of the
constructed routes as follows. D ( Rk+1 ) + ld(CHk+1 , SINK) . (12b)
For k = 0, cluster-head i is the initiator of the route
and it is connected directly to the SINK, i.e., R0 = CH0 ,
T.-T. Huynh et al.: A Distributed Heuristic Algorithm for Delay Constrained Energy Efficient Routing in WSNs
In both cases, it is clearly that the delay of route Rk+1
is upper bounded by since inequalities (11) and (12)
are the same.
Theorem 2. The route constructed by Algorithm 2 from a
given cluster-head i to the SINK is loop-free.
Proof: Let = j be the set of cluster-heads of route
R j . A loop can only be created if there exists a link
that is added by connecting cluster-head j with another
cluster-head, k, where CHk 6= CH j and CHk = j . How-
ever, a routing table entry of cluster-head k indicates
that there exists a link between j and k for this route.
This new entry will not be added in the routing table.
Thus, the route constructed by DCEER is loop-free.
Theorem 3. The computation complexity of DCEER is a
linear function of n, i.e. O(n), where n is a divisor of the
number of sensor nodes in a WSN.
Proof: For Algorithm 1, it is easy to see that each
node will only execute a fixed number of simple cal-
culations (calculate the approximate distance dtoSINK in
line 1, calculate the first timer in line 2, calculate the
second timer in line 15, and update nodal residual
energy in line 24) as well a fixed number of operations
(broadcast the ADV message to neighbors in line 3,
send the ACK message back to its cluster-head in
line 17, and broadcast the JCR and NCR messages to
neighbors in lines 20 and 23). Besides, it only performs
checking a fixed number of simple conditions (lines 4,
6, 11, and 16). The FOR loop is executed repeatedly in
Ni = N/K, where N is the number of sensor nodes,
K is the expected number of clusters, and Ni is the
average number of sensor nodes within each cluster
for a WSN. Therefore, the computation complexity of
Algorithm 1 is a linear function O(m), where m is the
average number of sensor nodes within each cluster of
a WSN.
In addition, the computation complexity of Algo-
rithm 2 at any cluster-head for constructing a route
between a given cluster-head i and the SINK is O( Ni ),
where Ni is the number of neighboring cluster-heads
of node i. This is because each time a cluster-head
receives a CCR message, it just performs checking the
delay condition (lines 1, 2, and 11) and calculates the
minimum values of delay and energy for each outgoing
link (lines 8, 15, and 19) in order to select the next
cluster-head within a limited number of neighbors, Ni .
In the worst case, each calculation in lines 8 and 15
takes Ni times and thus has complexity of O( Ni ).
Consequently, the computation complexity of DCEER
is a linear function O(m) + O( Ni ) O(n), where n is
a divisor of the number of sensor nodes in a WSN.
Theorem 4. The message overhead of DCEER is a poly-
nomial function O( N 2 ), where N is the number of sensor
nodes.
Proof: For Algorithm 1, the number of messages
needed to establish the clusters depends upon the ADV,
JCR and ACK messages (lines 3, 17, and 20). For a net-
work of N sensor nodes, K expected clusters, consider
the nodal operation in line 3, the maximum number
45
of ADV messages which are broadcast to neighbors
is K ( Ni ( Ni + 1)/2) KNi2 , where Ni is the average
number of sensor nodes within each cluster. Because
Ni = N/K, the maximum number of ADV messages is
approximated to N 2 /K.
Considering the operation in line 17, the maximum
number of ACK messages which are sent to the cluster-
heads is ( N K ). Similarly, for line 20, the maximum
number of JCR messages which are broadcast to neigh-
bors is KNi . Because Ni = N/K, the maximum number
of JCR messages is approximated to N. Therefore, in the
worst case, the total number of messages exchanged in
the process of setting up clusters will be ( N 2 /K ) + N.
In other words, the message overhead of Algorithm 1
is O( N 2 ).
Furthermore, in Algorithm 2, it is easy to see that
the number of messages needed to construct a route is
proportional to the number of links in that route. For a
network of K cluster-heads, the longest loop-free route
contains at most K cluster-heads and (K 1) links.
Thus, constructing this loop-free route requires O(K )
messages in the worst case.
Consequently, the message overhead of DCEER is a
polynomial function O( N 2 ) + O(K ) ' O( N 2 ).
5 Simulation Results
The maximum one-hop delay depends on the least
delay from the farthest node to the sink node. To
guarantee that cluster-head nodes can find the sufficient
routes to the sink node, the bounded end-to-end delay
should not be less than this least delay. In addition, to
reduce interference among neighboring sensor nodes
and to ensure that the cluster-head nodes can find the
sufficient routes to the sink without fail, we set the
maximum transmission range value based on the RSSI
value. Based on [20], we rewrite the following formula
to express the relationship between the distance (trans-
mission range) and RSSI in a WSN.
d = 10(ETx RSSI)/(10n) , (13)
with n = 2 for the free space. Then, the maximum
transmission range (distance) depends on the RSSI
value and ETx defined in Equation (4). In our simulation
scenarios, we set the minimum RSSI value to 91 dBm.
Our simulation is implemented for cluster-based
WSNs using Castalia simulator [21] on a Ubuntu plat-
form. We set the parameters common to all experiments
as follows. The data packet size is 30 bytes, = 3,
= 6, initial energy of node is 1 joule, Eelec =
50 nJ/bit, efs = 10 pJ/bit/m2 , emp = 0.0013 pJ/bit/m4 ,
Eaggr = 5 nJ/bit, = 250 bps, = 3 108 m/s, and
= = 0.5. Other parameters will be set in accordance
with each particular experiment.
In the first simulation scenario, we measured the av-
erage number of messages required to construct energy
efficient routes that meet the bounded delay constraint,
. This simulation was performed for different network
sizes of 100, 200, 300, 400, and 500 sensor nodes. For
each network size, we varied the delay constraint as
46 Trong-Thua
Trong-Thua Huynh
Huynh et Distributed
et al.: A REV Heuristic
al.: A Distributed Journal
Heuristic on
Algorithm Electronics
Algorithm
for Delayfor and Constrained
Delay Communications,
Constrained Energy Efficient Vol.
EnergyRouting 6,inNo.
Efficient 34, in
Routing
Wireless JulyDecember,
Wireless
Sensor Sensor 2016
Networks7 Networks7

340 200 200

340
320 320 I: Confidence
I: Confidence IntervalInterval 180 180
300 300 Confidence
Confidence level =level
95% = 95% 160 160
280 280
140 140
Average Number of Messages

260
Average Number of Messages

260

Number of Nodes alive

Number of Nodes alive

240 240 120 120
Multihop-HEED Multihop-HEED
220 220 100 100 DEM DEM
200 200 DCEER DCEER
80 I:80
ConfidenceI:Interval
180 180 Confidence Interval
Confidence level = 95%
160 60 Confidence level = 95%
160 60
140
140 40
40
120
120 20
100 =2s 20
100 =2s
80 =4s 0
80 =4s 5 10 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
60 =6s 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
60 =6s Rounds of Communication
40 =8s Rounds of Communication
20 40 =8s
= 10 s Figure 5. Performance of Multihop-HEED, DEM and DCEER on
20 = 10 s Number Figure
0 Figure
of 5. 5.alive
Nodes Performance
Performance
with respectofof Multihop-HEED,
toMultihop-HEED, DEM
DEMand
given delay constraint. andDCEER
DCEER on on
1000 200 300 400 500 Number
Number of of Nodesalive
Nodes alivewith
with respect
respect to
to given
givendelay
delayconstraint.
constraint.
100 200 300 400 500
Number of Sensor Nodes
reasonable value of the bounded delay , and DCEER
Number of Sensor Nodes
Figure
Figure 4. 4. Average
Average numberofofmessages
number messages with network
versus size. size.
network may be reasonable
able Besides,
node. to follow valueforofleast
the athe bounded
energy
relaxed route
value delay of,and
direction = DCEER
10 s, the
Figure 4. Average number of messages with network size. at somemay be able
cluster-heads to follow
and the
to follow least theenergy route
least delay direction
cluster-head is able to follow the least energy route
route direction
at someatcluster-heads
others. This increasesand to follow the averagethe least delay
direction most of the time without breaking the delay
2, 4,and6, 500).
8, and For each network size, we vary the delay
10 s. For each delay constraint value, number of messages
route
constraint.
directionexchanged
Therefore,
at others. between
this
This cluster-heads
increases the average
constraint
and 500).valueFor from each 2s network
to 10s (2s, size, 4s, we6s, vary
8s, and the delayto select the nextofnode.
number Besides,
messages forreduces
exchanged a relaxed the
between valuenumber of of mes-
cluster-heads
we performed For eachfive
10s). constraint experiments
delay constraint with we
value, theperform
same network five the sages
bounded exchanged
delay , 10s,between
the the
cluster-head cluster-heads.
is able to
value from 2s to 10s (2s, 4s, 6s, 8s, and to select the next node. Besides, for a relaxed value of
size.experiments
Applying with the DCEER algorithm, weApplying
measured for thefive
10s). For eachthedelay sameconstraint
network size. value, we perform follow theIn the
theleast second
energydelay
bounded simulation
route direction
, 10s, the scenario,
most of the
cluster-head we time evaluated
is able tothe
average
DCEER number
algorithm,
experiments ofwith
messages
we measure
the same exchanged
the averagesize.
network between
number of the for
Applying without breaking
performance
follow the the ofdelay
least DCEER,
energy constraint.
route Therefore,
in comparison
direction most thisof Multihop-
with the time
sensor nodes.
messages
DCEER For
exchanged a confidence
algorithm, between thelevel
we measure sensor set
the to 95%,
nodes.
average confi- reduces
For number
the of HEED the number
without andofDEM
[10]breaking messages
the [6],
delay exchanged
terms ofbetween
in constraint. network
Therefore, lifetime.
this
denceconfidence
intervals level is set to 95%, confidence intervals are cluster-heads.
messageswere indicated
exchanged between for each delay
the sensor constraint
nodes. For the We reduces
implemented the number the of messages
three protocols exchanged
for the between
same con-
indicated for each delay constraint value correspond-
value confidence level is set to 95%, confidence intervals areIn text
correspondingly. the second simulation scenario, we evaluate the
cluster-heads.
with five experiments repeatedly for each simula-
ingly. performance of the DCEER protocol comparing with
Figure 4 shows
indicated for the
eachaverage
delay constraintnumbervalue of messages
correspond- tion In the [10]
scenario. second
The simulation
network scenario,network we
200evaluate the
Figure 4 shows the average number of messages Multihop-HEED and DEM [6] inconsists
terms ofof sensor nodes
versus ingly.
the size of the network for five different values performance of the DCEER protocol comparing with
versus the size of the network for five different values of distributed
lifetime. We implement in a field threewith protocolsdimensions
for the same 100 m 100 m.
Figuredelay. 4 shows the average number ofthat
messages Multihop-HEED [10]atand
of the
the bounded
bounded delay. AllAllfive five
curves curves indicate
of Figure 4 indicate the contextThewith SINK five is located
experiments (0, DEM
0). For
repeatedly [6]
forain terms sim-of network
confidence
each level set
average versus
number
obviously the the
that size of the network
of average
messages number grew for five different
steadily
of messages withvalues
grows of
the ulation lifetime. Network
scenario. We implement consists three
of 200 protocols
sensor nodes for the same
to 95%, the results are shown with confidence intervals
very the
network bounded
steadily
size. Forwithanydelay.
the of All
network
the fivebounded
curves
size. Forofdelay
Figure
any 4 indicate
of values,
the context
distributed in a with
field five experiments repeatedly for each sim-
obviously that theshown
average number of extending
messages grows in ulation
Figure 5. Towith evaluatedimensions the 100m 100m.
network lifetime among
bounded delay values in the figure,
extending the size of the network lead to an increase SINKprotocols, is located at (0,0). For the confidence level is sensor
scenario. Network consists of 200 set nodes
veryofsteadily
the size the network withincreases
the network by maximumsize. For of any
10% of the distributed we estimated
in shown
a fieldwith the number
withconfidence
dimensions of 100m 100m.for
alive nodes
in the average number of messages by a maximum of to 95%, the results are
each round by implementing the
intervals
experiments
bounded delay values shown
the average number of messages. This makes DCEER in the figure, extending via FigureSINK 5. Tois located
evaluateatthe (0,0). For the
network confidence
lifetime amonglevelup to 50
is set
10%.suitable
Thisthe makes
size
to of the
deploy DCEER
fornetwork suitable
large-scale increases to deploy
WSNs. by maximum for large-of 10% rounds
protocols, we and
to 95%, thefixing
results
estimate theare atshown
number 6 s. of with nodeconfidence
alive for intervals
scale WSNs.
In the average
addition, it isnumber
obvious that of messages.
the smallerThis makes DCEER
the bounded each roundThe following 5. Toanalysis
by implementing
via Figure evaluate istheused
experiments networktoupexplain
to
lifetime50 the results
among
Inend-to-end
addition, ittoisdeploy
suitabledelay obvious
is the fewerforthat thenumber
large-scale
the smaller ofthe
WSNs. linksbounded
per rounds and fix in
protocols,
obtained thewe value of 5the
estimate
Figures and bounded
the 6.number
In the delayof
data totransmission
node alive for
end-to-end delay the
route isInalthough
addition, it isfewer
the number
obvious theofthatnumber
messages
the smaller of links
exchanged per 6s. phase,
the bounded each the round by implementing
cluster-member nodes experiments
only need up toto send
50
routebetween
was, cluster-heads
although
end-to-end to the
the number
delay is construct
fewer the
the route
of messages number canofnot
exchangedlinks perThedata following
rounds analysis
and fix is used
the value to ofexplain
the the resultsdelay to
bounded
to the cluster-head. Therefore, the energy con-
be fewer
between thecorrespondingly.
route is although theThey
cluster-heads number
to are even
construct more
the inroute
of messages some can obtained
exchanged 6s.in Figure 5 and Figure 6. In data transmission
cases.between
However, on average, the number of messages phase, sumption
cluster-member of each nodes cluster-member
only need to send node dataj to is given by
cluster-heads toThey
not be fewer correspondingly. construct
werethe even route
more caninnot The following analysis is used to explain the results
exchanged
be fewer between cluster-heads
correspondingly. willare
They decrease
even more as thein some the cluster-head.
obtained Therefore,
in EFigure 5the energy
and Figure consumption
6. In 2
data of
transmission
some cases. However, on average,
bounded end-to-end delay is decreased. That is because the number of mes- each cluster-member node j is: mem ( j ) = l ( E elec + e fs d ( j )) , (14)
sages cases. However,
exchanged between on average,
the the numberdecreased
cluster-heads of messages phase, cluster-member nodes only need to send data to
the cluster-head is forced to follow the least delay route
exchanged between cluster-heads will decrease as the where l is the data
theEcluster-head. packet the
Therefore, size,
2 energy is(14)
Eelecconsumption an electronicof
as the bounded
direction mostend-to-end
of the timedelay as thedecreased.
bounded delay That is be- mem ( j ) = l ( Eelec + f s d ( j )),
bounded end-to-end delay is decreased. That is because energy each cluster-member
consumption node
factor, je is:
fs is the amplifier energy to
causesmall.
the For the 400 sensor
cluster-head is nodestoof
forced the network
follow theleastleastsize,
delay
when the cluster-head
the bounded is
delay forced
istime to follow
2s, the number the delay route maintain
where l is an
the acceptable
data packet signal-to-noise
size, E is the ratio,
factor and d ( j ) is
route direction most of the the time aswhen theofbounded
mes-
Efrom ( j)cluster-member
= l ( Eelec is
elec
d2 ( jj))to , its cluster-
(14)
sagesdirection
exchanged most of
between cluster-heads the bounded
is smallest, fordelay ofis electronics
the distanceenergy mem
consumption, fs
+ the
f s node
amplifier
delay was small.small.
For ortheFor400a sensornetwork nodessizeof ofthe400 sensor energy to maintain an acceptable signal-to-noise ratio,
example, more less 133 messages in Figure 4.network
When size, head.
nodes, with a
when thedelay
the bounded bounded
bounded delay
delay to
is increased =
is 6s, 2
2s, the s, the
thenumber number
numberofof mes- and d(j)In iswhere
distance l isfrom
the cluster-member
data packet size, nodeEelec j to is
its the factor
of messages exchanged between the cluster-heads was of addition,
electronics the
energy cluster-head
consumption, needs istothe aggregate
amplifierall
sages exchanged between
exchanged messages is largest, more or less 253 mes- cluster-heads is smallest, for
cluster-head. fs
intra-cluster
4. WhenIn theenergy data
to maintain from its
an acceptable cluster-member nodes and
the sages.
smallest,
example,
However,formore example,
whenorthe less more or
133 messages
bounded delayless in133
is messages
Figure
increased other hand, cluster-head needs tosignal-to-noise
aggregate ratio,
in Figure
to 10s,thethe
4.bounded
numberdelay
When ofwas increased
exchanged is increased to 6to s,6s,
messages is thethenumber
reduced,number all forward
and d(j) data
of intra-cluster the aggregated
is distance
from its from data
cluster-member to
cluster-member other nodes cluster-heads.
node j to its
moreexchanged
of exchanged 232messages
or lessmessages messages.is the isThelargest,
reason
largest, more
is that
more oror lessis 253
6sless a 253mes- Therefore,
cluster-head.
and forward its energydata
the aggregated consumption
to other cluster-heads. is given by
sages.
messages. However,
However, whenthe
when bounded
was delayto10
increased is increased
s, the In the other hand, cluster-head needs to aggregate
to 10s, the number of exchanged messages is reduced, ECH (i )data
all intra-cluster = ERfrom ( i ) + E F ( i ),
(i ) +itsE Acluster-member (15)
nodes
number of exchanged messages was reduced, more or
more or less 232 messages. The reason is that 6s is a and forward the aggregated data to other cluster-heads.
less 232 messages. The reason is that 6 s is a reasonable where ER (i ) is the energy of cluster-head i consumed
value of , and DCEER may be able to follow the least to receive all intra-cluster data, E A (i ) is the energy of
energy route direction at some cluster-heads and to cluster-head i consumed to aggregate all intra-cluster
follow the least delay route direction at others. This data, and EF (i ) is the energy of cluster-head i consumed
causes an increase the average number of messages to forward l-bit data to other cluster-heads or the SINK,
exchanged between the cluster-heads to select the next which is derived from Equation (4). They are defined
 REV
T.-T.8 Huynh et al.:Journal on Electronics
A Distributed andAlgorithm
Heuristic Communications: Article
for Delay scheduled for
Constrained publication
Energy in Vol.
Efficient 6, No. in
Routing 34, January-June, 201647
WSNs

Therefore, its energy consumption is:

200
by the following:
180 Multi-HEED
ER (i ) = lEelecE(CH size(i ) =(E ( i ) + E ( i ) + E F ( i ), (15)
CH i )R+ F ), A (16)
160
DEM
DCEER
i ) = size
E A (where ERCH (i )(i )isEaggr
the l,energy of cluster-head i spent (17)

Energy Efficiency (bits/mJ)

( all intra-cluster data, E (i ) is the energy 140 I: Confidence Interval
to receive
l ( Eelec + efs d2ij )(1 + F ), Aif dij < d0 , Confidence level = 95%
Eof cluster-head
F (i ) =
i spent to aggregate all intra-cluster
4 )(1 + F ), if d d ,
(18) 120

data, andl (EEFelec (i ) +isethe mp dijenergy of cluster-head

ij 0 i spent 100
to forward l-bit data to other cluster-head or SINK,
where which sizeis (i ) is thefrom
CHderived number eq. (4). of cluster-member
They are definednodes by the 80
which belongequations:
following to the cluster-head i, Eelec is a data 60
aggregation factor, F is the number of forwards, dij
is the distance ERfrom (i ) = lcluster-head
Eelec (sizei CH z), cluster-
i ) +next
to (its (16) 40

head j as definedEin(iEquation (4). Then, the total energy (17)

A ) = sizeCH (i ) Eaggr l,
20
consumption{for each round is given by 2 4 6 8 10
l ( Eelec K
+ f s d2ijN) K
(1 + z), if dij < d0
EF (i ) = Bounded End-to-End Delay (s)
Etotal l =( E E +
elec CHmp ( i ) + d ij
4 ) E(1 + z)
mem ( j ), if dij (19) d0
i =1 j =1 (18) Figure6.6. Energy
Figure The energy efficiency
efficiency of Multihop-HEED,
of Multihop-HEED, DEM andDEMDCEER
and
Trong-Thua
DCEER
over Huynh
over end-to-end
end-to-end al.: Aconstraints.
et delay
delay constraints. Distributed Heuristic Algorithm for Delay Con
wherewhere K is size the CH (i ) denotes
number the number of cluster-
of cluster-heads, N is the
member nodes which belong to the cluster-head i, Eelec
number of sensor nodes in the network.
is the factor of data aggregation, z is the number of 100
experiment is assigned a distinctive end-to-end delay Refer
In Multihop-HEED, each node i elects itself to be-
forwards, dij is the distance from cluster-head i to its constraint, i.e., we set the bounded delay from 2s to
come next a cluster-head
cluster-headj is with definedprobability
as in eq.CH prob
(4). (i ) =
Then, the [1] T.
( Ei /Eenergy
Copttotal ) , where E is the residual energy of node 10s 90with interval 2s for experiments respectively. For mu
Data Transmission Reliability (%)
max consumption i for each round is:
i, Emax is the reference maximum energy of node i, and the confidence level is set to 95%, the result is shown IE
K N K with confidence intervals via Figure 6 and Figure 7. no
Copt is the optimal number of cluster-heads which is set [2] X.
Etotal = ECH (i ) + Emem ( j), (19) 80
The energy efficiency is the ratio of the total achieved
as an initial percentage i =1
of cluster-headsj =1
among all N tra
data by SINK to the total energy consumption. In me
sensor nodes. For Multihop-HEED operation, Dynamic
Figure70 6, because Multihop-HEED is not interested in
Multihop-HEED an
Sourcewhere Routing K is[22] the is number
used to of communicate
cluster-heads, N is the
among DEM efficiency is 54
end-to-end delay constraint so its energy
the number
cluster-heads,of sensor ornodesbetween in thethe network.
cluster-heads and DCEER [3] Y.
In Multihop-HEED, eachthe node i elects itself to be- almost unaffected by the bounded DCEM end-to-end delay.
the SINK. However, it selects most energy efficient Whereas DCEER presents the impact of the bounded
an
come a cluster-head with probability CH probofi )the=
60
routes to forward requests and replies regardless ( I: Confidence Interval wi
Ei end-to-end delay to the energy efficiency Confidencevery level =clearly.
95% In mu
end-to-end
Copt delay
, where requirement
Ei is the of the application.
residual energy of More- node i, particular, when the value of end-to-end delay is bound 1
Emax
over,Emaxbothis DCEER and DEM are
the reference maximum energy of node i, and inter-cluster multi-hop 50
too tight (2 = 2s, 4s),4DCEER is6 less efficient 8 than10DEM [4] R.
routing
Copt protocols
is the optimal that take number into of account the end-to-end
cluster-heads which is and Multihop-HEEDBounded in terms of energy
End-to-End Delay (s) consumption.
in
delay in routing decision. Notwithstanding, to reduce wa
set as an initial percentage of cluster-heads among However, when this constraint is looser ( = 6s, 8s and fer
the allsearch space nodes.
N sensor and save Forenergy, DCEER uses
Multihop-HEED com-
operation, Figure7.DCEER
10s),
Figure 7. Data
The datais transmission
more energy
transmission reliability
reliability of Multihop-HEED,
efficient than bothDEM
of Multihop-HEED, DEM
otherand Ne
and DCEER
DCEER over over different
different delaydelay constraints.
constraints.
bined routes instead of combined
Dynamic Source Routing [22] is used to communicate metrics as proposed protocols. That is because Multi-HEED not only allows [5] T.
in [6],
among wherein the cost function
cluster-heads, or between combines both delay
cluster-heads and sensors send data to SINK whenever they have data effi
andSINK.energyHowever,consumption. it selects Therefore,
the most theenergy
total energy
efficient regardless of the delay requirement of application but wi
en
routes tobyforward
consumed the data requests and replies
transmission on regardless
using DCEER isof DEM
also and Multihop-HEED
end elects
delay the cluster-heads
constraint is looser in
upon terms
( = of8senergy
the6s,nodal and con-
residual
10s), 20
the end-to-end
significantly less than delaythat requirement of the application.
using Multihop-HEED butIn sumption.
energy
the data However,
regardless
transmission of thewhendistancethisbetween
reliability constraint
of bothsensor DCEMwas loose
nodes.
and [6] T.-
the other
slightly less as hand,comparedboth DCEER to using andDEM. DEM This are inter-cluster
results in (In =the6, 8,
DCEER other
10), hand,
DCEER
approximately DEM was and
equals more DCEER
that use the same
energy-efficient
of Multihop-HEED. than en
fastermulti-hop
death ofrouting sensorprotocols nodes after thateach takesround
into account
for both the cluster
otherscheme,
Furthermore,
the DEM
protocols. i.e., does
both not
That of because
is them
consider elects
the the cluster-
end-to-end
Multi-HEED not se
end-to-end delay heads upon nodal to residual energy and the iswhenever
distance (IC
Multihop-HEED andinDEM routing as decision.
compared Notwithstanding,
to DCEER as delay
only as
allows ansensors
independent send factor.
data Its objective
to the SINK just to
[7] K.
shown to reduce
in Figure the5.searching
Thus, DCEER space prolongs
and save the more energy,
network between
they the sensor
find have route nodes.
to balance
data regardless However,
ofthethe two DEMfactors
delay associates
of energy
requirement theof wi
DCEER uses combined
lifetime better than both Multihop-HEED and DEM. routes instead of combined delay factor
consumption into
and the cost
end-to-end function,
delay.
the application but also elects the cluster-heads upon it is
Therefore, not affected
the data wo
Inmetrics
the third as proposed
simulation in [6] (i.e., in [6],
scenario, to the cost function
evaluate the en-is by
the the
nodal delay
transmission constraint
reliability
residual of DEM
of
energy application.
is muchTherefore,
regardless lower
of thethan when
that
distance lar
the combination of the delay and energy consumption). the
of end-to-end
the protocols delay
DCEM, constraint
DCEER is
and relaxed, the
Multihop-HEED. energy [8] O.
ergy efficiency and the data transmission reliability, we between sensor nodes. In addition, DEM and DCEER R.
Therefore, the total energy consumed by the data trans- efficient routes from any sensor node to SI NK found by
implemented five experiments with the same network use the same cluster scheme, i.e., both of them elect les
mission for DCEER is significantly less than Multihop- DCEER are more than by DEM and Multihop-HEED. Ne
size but different values of the bounded delay, = the cluster-heads upon nodal residual energy and the
HEED but slightly less compared with DEM. This The data transmission reliability is the percentage of 36
2, 4, results
6, 8, 10,inrespectively. Forsensora confidence level distance between sensor nodes. However, because DEM
faster death of nodes after eachsetround to
6 Conclusion
total archived data by SINK to the total deliverable data. [9] S.
95%,forthe result is shown with
both of Multihop-HEED and DEM comparing with confidence intervals in associates the delay factor into the cost function, it is Se
In Figure 7, Because Multihop-HEED allows sensors
Figures
DCEER 6 and as 7. shown in Figure 5. Thus, DCEER prolongs not
sendaffected
data tobySINK the delay
wheneverconstraintthey have of the application.
data regard- Ch
Energy efficiency is the ratio of both
the Multihop-HEED
total achieved In this research,
Therefore, when we
the have proposed
end-to-end a new
delay distributed
constraint was gin
the network lifetime better than less of the delay requirement of application, the data [10] O.
dataand by DEM.
the SINK to the total energy consumption. heuristicDCEER
relaxed, algorithm calledmore
found DCEER whichefficient
energy not only routes
elect
transmission reliability is quite high (>80%). Although effi
In Figure 6, third
because Multihop-HEED does not involve best cluster-heads
from anytransmission
sensor node in terms to ofthe theSINKenergythan efficiency
DEM and
and
In the simulation scenario, to evaluate the en- the data reliability of the protocols DEM, so
the network
Multihop-HEED delay but also look for
did. is lower than that of Multihop-the least energy vo
the ergy
end-to-end
efficiency delay
and the constraint its energyreliability,
data transmission efficiency we DCEM and DCEER
consumption routes subject to an end-to-end delay con- [11] K.
wasimplement
almost unaffected five experiments by the bounded with theend-to-end
same network de- Data transmission
HEED, especially, when reliability is the percentage
the end-to-end of total
delay is bound
straint with low computation complexity and message ro
lay, size
whereas DCEER clearly
but different values showed of bounded an impact
delay . of Each
the archived
too tightdata ( =by 2sthe
andSINK to the total
4s). However, whendeliverable
the end-to- data. vo
overhead in large-scale WSNs. We have proven that
bounded end-to-end delay on the energy efficiency. InourFigure 7, because Multihop-HEED
proposed algorithm always finish within a finite allows sensors [12] Q.
In particular, when the end-to-end delay is bounded totime
send dataasto de
as well its the SINK whenever
computation complexity they
andhave
message data
les
very tightly ( = 2, 4), DCEER was less efficient than regardless of the delay requirement
overhead are a constant function and a polynomial of the application, Te
function, respectively. In addition, we also have verified [13] S.-
that the route constructed by DCEER does not contain an
ne
loops and easy to deploy for large-scale WSNs in a
an
distributed manner. By simulation, we have shown that 20
48 REV Journal on Electronics and Communications, Vol. 6, No. 34, JulyDecember, 2016
the data transmission reliability was quite high (more
than 80%). In addition, the data transmission reliability
of Multihop-HEED was higher than DEM, DCEM and
DCEER, especially, when the end-to-end delay was
bounded very tightly ( = 2, 4). However, when the
end-to-end delay constraint was loose ( = 6, 8, 10),
DCEM, DCEER and Multi-hop HEED had similar data
transmission reliability. Furthermore, since DEM does
not consider the end-to-end delay as an independent
factor, its objective is just to find the route to balance
the energy consumption and the end-to-end delay, and
thus its data transmission reliability was much lower
than that of DCEM, DCEER and Multihop-HEED.
6 Conclusion
In this paper, we have proposed a new distributed
heuristic algorithm called DCEER. It not only elects the
best cluster-heads in terms of energy efficiency and net-
work delay but also looks for the least energy consump-
tion routes subject to an end-to-end delay constraint
with low computational complexity and message over-
head in large-scale WSNs. We have proved that our
proposed algorithm always finishes within a finite time
as well as its computational complexity and message
overhead are a constant function and a polynomial
function, respectively. In addition, we have also verified
that the route constructed by DCEER does not contain
loops and that it can be easily deployed for large-scale
WSNs in a distributed manner. By simulation, we have
shown that our proposed algorithm not only balances
the energy consumption among sensor nodes but also
extends the network lifetime and consumes less energy
than other approaches if the bounded delay is adjusted
appropriately. In summary, in view of a rapid increase
in deploying delay-sensitive applications in WSNs, we
have contributed a simple and distributed algorithm
to save energy while satisfying delay requirements.
However, as shown, the message overhead is still a
polynomial function. Subsequent studies may look into
improving the message overhead to a linear function.
References
[1] T. T. Huynh and C. S. Hong, An energy* delay efficient
multi-hop routing scheme for wireless sensor networks,
IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, vol. 89,
no. 5, pp. 16541661, 2006.
[2] X. Zhang and L. Zhang, Optimizing energy-latency
trade-off in wireless sensor networks with mobile ele-
ment, in 16th IEEE International Conference on Parallel
and Distributed Systems (ICPADS), 2010, pp. 534541.
[3] Y. Jin, D. Wei, A. Gluhak, and K. Moessner, Latency and
energy-consumption optimized task allocation in wire-
less sensor networks, in IEEE Wireless Communication
and Networking Conference, 2010, pp. 16.
[4] R. Cohen and B. Kapchits, Energy-delay optimization
in an asynchronous sensor network with multiple gate-
ways, in 8th IEEE Communications Society Conference on
Sensor, Mesh and Ad Hoc Communications and Networks
(SECON), 2011, pp. 98106.
[5] T. T. Huynh, A.-V. Dinh-Duc, and C. H. Tran, Energy
efficient delay-aware routing in multi-tier architecture for
wireless sensor networks, in International Conference on
Advanced Technologies for Communications (ATC), 2013, pp.
603608.
[6] T.-T. Huynh, C.-H. Tran, and A.-V. Dinh-Duc, Delay-
energy aware clustering multi-hop routing in wireless
sensor networks, in Information Science and Applications
(ICISA). Springer, 2016, pp. 3140.
[7] K. Akkaya and I. Ari, In-network data aggregation
in wireless sensor networks, in Handbook of Computer
Networks: LANs, MANs, WANs, the Internet, and Global,
Cellular, and Wireless Networks. Wiley Online Library,
2007, vol. 2, pp. 11311146.
[8] O. Boyinbode, H. Le, A. Mbogho, M. Takizawa, and
R. Poliah, A survey on clustering algorithms for wire-
less sensor networks, in 13th International Conference on
Network-Based Information Systems (NBiS), 2010, pp. 358
364.
[9] S. Rani and S. H. Ahmed, Multi-hop Routing in Wireless
Sensor Networks: An Overview, Taxonomy, and Research
Challenges. Springer, 2016, ch. 2, pp. 1528.
[10] O. Younis and S. Fahmy, HEED: A hybrid, energy-
efficient, distributed clustering approach for ad hoc sen-
sor networks, IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing,
vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 366379, 2004.
[11] K. Akkaya and M. Younis, Energy and QoS aware
routing in wireless sensor networks, Cluster Computing,
vol. 8, no. 2-3, pp. 179188, 2005.
[12] Q. Liang, D. Yao, and H. Liu, Energy-Efficient and
Delay-Constrained Routing for different services in
Wireless Sensor Network. Journal of Convergence Infor-
mation Technology, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 233243, 2012.
[13] S.-W. Han, I.-S. Jeong, and S.-H. Kang, Low latency
and energy efficient routing tree for wireless sensor
networks with multiple mobile sinks, Journal of Network
and Computer Applications, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 156166,
2013.
[14] J. Niu, L. Cheng, Y. Gu, J. Jun, and Q. Zhang, Minimum-
delay and energy-efficient flooding tree in asynchronous
low-duty-cycle wireless sensor networks, in IEEE wire-
less communications and networking conference (WCNC),
2013, pp. 12611266.
[15] Q. Nadeem, M. B. Rasheed, N. Javaid, Z. Khan, Y. Maq-
sood, and A. Din, M-GEAR: Gateway-based energy-
aware multi-hop routing protocol for WSNs, in 8th IEEE
International Conference on Broadband and Wireless Comput-
ing, Communication and Applications (BWCCA), 2013, pp.
164169.
[16] D. L. Guidoni, F. S. H. Souza, J. Ueyama, and L. A.
Villas, RouT: a routing protocol based on topologies
for heterogeneous wireless sensor networks, IEEE Latin
America Transactions, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 812817, 2014.
[17] S. Bai, W. Zhang, G. Xue, J. Tang, and C. Wang, DEAR:
Delay-bounded energy-constrained adaptive routing in
wireless sensor networks, in 31st IEEE International Con-
ference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM), 2012,
pp. 15931601.
[18] Y. Yao, Q. Cao, and A. V. Vasilakos, EDAL: An energy-
efficient, delay-aware, and lifetime-balancing data col-
lection protocol for heterogeneous wireless sensor net-
works, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 23,
no. 3, pp. 810823, 2015.
[19] O. Goldreich, P, NP, and NP-Completeness: The Basics of
Computational Complexity. Cambridge University Press,
2010.
[20] J. Xu, W. Liu, F. Lang, Y. Zhang, and C. Wang, Distance
measurement model based on RSSI in WSN, Wireless
Sensor Network, vol. 2, no. 8, pp. 606611, 2010.
[21] Castalia, Wireless Sensor Network Simulator (Latest version
3.2), https://castalia.forge.nicta.com.au/index.php/en/.
[22] D. B. Johnson and D. A. Maltz, Dynamic source rout-
ing in ad hoc wireless networks, in Mobile Computing.
Springer, 1996, pp. 153181.
T.-T. Huynh et al.: A Distributed Heuristic Algorithm for Delay Constrained Energy Efficient Routing in WSNs 49

Trong-Thua Huynh received his B.Sc. in Com- Anh-Vu Dinh-Duc is an associate professor
puter Science from Ho Chi Minh city Uni- at the University of Information Technology,
versity of Science, and M.Sc. in Communica- Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh
tion Engineering from Kyung Hee University, city, where he has served as Vice-Rector, R&D
South Korea, in 1999 and 2005, respectively. and External Relations since 2012. He also
His current research interests include em- leads the UIT-VLSI Design group at the Fac-
bedded systems, communication technologies ulty of Computer Engineering. His research
and system optimization in wireless sensor interests include WSN, Design Automation
networks. He is currently pursuing his Ph.D. of Embedded Systems, Hardware/Software
study in Computer Science from Ho Chi Minh Verification, VLSI CAD, and Reconfigurable
city University of Technology, Vietnam. Architectures. Dr. Anh-Vu Dinh-Duc received
the Master and Ph.D. degrees in Microelectronics from the Institute
National Polytechnique de Grenoble (INPG), France, in 1998 and
in 2003, respectively. He currently serves as a program/organizing
committee member of several ACM and IEEE conferences. He is a
Cong-Hung Tran received the B.Eng. degree valued member of the IEEE.
in Electronic and Telecommunication Engi-
neering with first class honors from Ho Chi
Minh city University of Technology in Viet-
nam in 1987. He received the B.Eng. degree in
Informatics and Computer Engineering from
the same university in 1995. He received the
M.Eng. degree in Telecommunications Engi-
neering from Hanoi University of Technology
in Vietnam, 1998. He received the Ph.D de-
gree from Hanoi University of technology in
Vietnam in 2004. His main research areas are B-ISDN performance
parameters and measuring methods, QoS in high speed networks,
MPLS. He is currently an associate professor in the Faculty of
Information Technology II, Posts and Telecommunication Institute of
Technology, Ho Chi Minh city, Vietnam.