A LOAD AWARE WATCHDOG SYSTEM

TOWARD ENERGY EFFICIENT IN WSN

First Author#1 and Second Author*2
#
Qualification, Department, College Name, Location,Country
*
Qualification, Department, College Name, Location,Country

Abstract- WSNTs based on the Watchdog system, to systems from being assaulted by the trust sensor
screen and distinguish the malicious node in system. nodes. Those nodes can bypass the conventional
This system is utilized to build a trust relationship, security scheme utilizing their trust personalities; yet
furthermore, subsequently gets a proficient execution in can be conceivably caught by trust frameworks
protecting the information sensing and multi-hop
because of their poor reputation or past misbehavior.
routing. This process has been demonstrated as an
extremely powerful way to deal with WSNTS's
establishments. Nonetheless, this sort of system expends
much energy and subsequently diminishes the lifespan
of WSN. In existing framework, watchdog presents a lot
of extra energy consumptions and does not give proper
solutions for lessen the energy utilization issue. Because
of those difficulties, energy utilization plays an
exceptionally critical part in WSNs. This paper reveals
the inefficiency of energy utilization of watchdog
method in existing trust frameworks and proposed a
load-aware watchdog optimization technique that
develops a mutual relationship between trust-aware and
load-aware watchdog optimization systems. An
experimental result proves the effectiveness of our
system in terms of less energy consumption, Trust
accuracy and Trust robustness. Fig.1. Wireless Sensor Network- Architecture

Keywords: Watchdog system, Trust relationship, Energy
consumptions, Trust accuracy and Trust robustness.
I. INTRODUCTION
A wireless sensor network is also called as a
wireless sensor and actor network are spatially
dispersed and independent sensors to screen the
physical or natural conditions, for example,
temperature, sound, pressure, and so on. Nowadays
[1], the wireless sensor systems are bidirectional,
additionally empowering control of sensor activity.
The advancement in wireless sensor systems was
propelled by military applications, for example,
battlefield surveillance, industrial process
monitoring, health care monitoring etc.
The WSN is constructed with several
number of nodes, where every node is associated
with one (or in some cases a few) sensors [2]. A basic
supplement to security components, for example,
cryptographic strategies, validation and access
control rationales and so on. These trust frameworks
are broadly connected to shield the wireless sensor
Initially, the capable base station and cluster
head, both of which are liable to have business
prerequisites to associate with the entire system [3],
may not situate in the communication scope of all
sensor nodes (i.e., a few nodes are remote),
subsequently missing the chance to have direct
encounters of those remote node. Second, some
sensor nodes might not have business prerequisites to
cooperate with their neighbor nodes, or their business
associations happen at a low recurrence. The past
behavior of lethargic nodes is difficult to be gathered
in accord to business plan. Third, since trust is
context-aware, the experience of one sort of practices
can't be utilized to develop trust for another kind. To
beat those difficulties and encourage past behavior
groupings, the greater part of existing WSNTSs have
embraced a watchdog method. Utilizing this strategy,
sensor nodes can work as proactive screens and also
dispatch the trust-committed tasks in a pre-
characterized recurrence to specifically cooperate
with their neighborhood nodes.
 The rest of the paper is organized as follows:
Section II describes the existing techniques carried
out by various researchers; Section III describes the
functioning of proposed system; Section IV validates
the results using experimental parameters and at last
concluded in Section V.
II. RELATED WORKS
In the literature, trust has been utilized as a
part of WSNs for evaluating the accessibility,
reliability, or security property of a node (e.g.,
whether a node is noxious or not) by considering the
past behaviors [6]–[11]. Ganeriwal et al. [7] proposed
a reputation-based system for information
respectability in WSNs. The proposed reputation
framework takes data gathered by every node
utilizing a Watchdog system to identify the invalid
information and uncooperative nodes. Yao et al. [11]
proposed a parameterized and restricted trust
administration plan for WSN security, especially for
secure routing where every node just keeps up
exceedingly preoccupied parameters to assess its
neighbors. Aivaloglou and Gritzalis [6] proposed a
crossover trust and reputation administration
convention for WSNs by joining certification based
and authentication based frameworks. Likewise, the
investigation was directed in light of a WSN level
which is not a versatile one. Liu et al. [8] and Moraru
et al. [9] proposed trust management conventions and
connected them to geographic routing in WSNs. In
any case, no various leveled trust management was
considered for overseeing grouped WSNs.
Capra et al. [12], [13] talked about the idea
of human trust which could be framed from three
sources: direct experiences, credentials and
recommendations. Specifically, recommendations are
trust data originating from different nodes in the
social relationship. We consider just two sources in
our idea of trust, to be specific, direct experiences
and recommendations, since it is hard for SNs with
constrained assets to convey accreditations. Shaikh
et al. [10] proposed a group based trust management
plan for clustered WSNs in which every SN performs
peer assessment in view of direct perceptions or
recommendations, and, every cluster head (CH)
assesses different CHs and additionally SNs under its
own particular cluster. However, the trust for their
situation is evaluated just in view of past
communication experiences in message delivery,
which for our situation is just one conceivable trust
part alongside other social and QoS trust parts
involving the general trust metric.
To handle those difficulties and encourage
past behavior accumulation, the greater part of
existing WSNTSs have received a watchdog method.
This strategy designated the watchdog task; the node
performs to screen its neighbor node at time space. A
watchdog task comprises of a bidirectional
communication between the watchdog node and the
objective node. In any case, this strategy required a
vast measure of energy. The inefficient utilization of
watchdog method in existing trusts frameworks. It
expands energy utilization in WSNTs. Sensor nodes
are normally furnished with constrained battery;
work in an unattended mode for a long period of
time. And also WSNTSs do not discuss how to
schedule watchdogs.
III. LOAD AWARE WATCHDOG
OPTIMIZATION SYSTEM
In this section, we proposed the load aware
watchdog strategies for WSNTSs. This method is
utilized to adjust energy productivity and security in
terms of trust precision and robustness. The extreme
objective is to decrease the energy cost instigated by
watchdog assignments as much as conceivable, while
preserving the trust precision and robustness in an
adequate level. The optimization technique is
followed in three levels:
In the first level, to improve watchdog’s
position on given a target node to minimize the
general risks regarding both energy utilization and
security. Watchdog Location Improvement method
utilizing DBP (Distance Based Probabilistic)
calculation to recognize the target node and make the
most limited distance communication. It recognizes
the misbehavior sensor nodes and eliminating this
node using secure routing algorithm in order to
predict an efficient and trustworthy neighboring
nodes in the networks.
Second level is to improve watchdog
frequency and decrease its redundancy. Watchdog
Frequency Optimization system also proposed
HWFA (Heuristic Watchdog Frequency Adjustment)
calculation to gauge the energy units for each node.
This calculation characterizes the number of
watchdog task taken for watchdog nodes perform to
screen the target node inside of a period window as
the watchdog frequency.
Third level is to balance the load between
the watchdog node and target node. In Load
Balanced Cluster Head (LBCH), the race of CH just
concerns the node’s residual energy. It could be said,
it is chosen arbitrarily in every group. The cluster
could possibly be isolated or not i.e. every node’s
energy utilization would increment. In addition, CHs
send information directly to the BS, which might
prompt expansive energy utilization when some of
CHs are far from the BS in large area networks. Load
Balancing Group Clustering (LBGC) utilizes multi-
hop routing strategy to lessen the CHs' energy
utilization.
However, this could bring about "hot spots"
issues in sensor systems. To be specific, the CHs
close to the BS will drain their energy earlier, as they
need to forward the information from CHs near from
BS. Accordingly, we utilize uneven-grouping
technique to accomplish load parity among CHs. The
distance between the Group Head (GH) and BS serve
as grouping condition to guarantee the group close to
the BS. Based on the threshold value, the watchdog
tasks are aligned and allocated.
Fig.2. System workflow
IV. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS AND
RESULTS
This Experiment is executed on Intel Core i3
with CPU of 2.40 GHz and RAM of 2 GB. WSNET
is an occasion driven module-based WSN system. It
applies a loosely organized architecture to
modularize the sensor node’s major functionalities
into a succession of pluggable models (e.g., the radio,
MAC, routing protocol stack, battery and
applications and so forth.). Because of this adaptable
design, WSNET has drawn attention in the literature.
In this investigation, actualizing the watchdog
optimization algorithms (i.e., DBP and HFWA (E)
algorithm as another application module to WSNET,
and apply our energy utilization model.
We choose μ=0.2 for HWFA algorithm to
maintain some capability against WSN’s noisy
transmission nature. Watchdog optimization
algorithms can save 91.84% (or 94.61%) energy in
average by sacrificing 1−0.9996= 0.0004 (or
1−0.9998= 0.0002) trust accuracy. The mean
estimations of trust precision/ robustness and energy
sparing over the six nodes is described. As can be
seen, we can set aside to 93.68% energy in this real
scenario and in meanwhile induce trust based
accuracy and robustness value close to 0.3613 −
0.3437 = 0.0176. Then, the experimental design is
presented as follows:
Fig.3. Node’s Initialization and the base station are fixed.
 Fig.4. watchdog node sends the request packet to its target node

Fig.6. Accuracy chart for existing and proposed system.

Fig.5. Similarly, the watchdog node sends RREQ packet to its

target node with predefined threshold level. Fig.7. Energy saving chart for existing and proposed system.

Fig.8. Trust robustness chart for existing and proposed system
V. CONCLUSION
In this task, Watchdog Optimization
Algorithm is introduced by considering load aware
watchdog optimization system. It can be utilized to
take care of some optimal issues. It is intended to
minimize the length of the tour and discover the
target path. The algorithm is profoundly adaptable
and can be adequately used to discover most limited
path by considering very few control parameters as
contrasted and the other heuristic algorithms. The
study sheds light on a promising research direction to
design a load-aware watchdog optimization
technique. The watchdog node analyzes the task on
gathering the neighboring data. Based on this, a
threshold level is set to mutually build the trust-aware
and load-aware watchdog optimization systems.
Experimental designs and results prove the efficiency
of the system.
REFERENCES
[1] J. H. Cho, A. Swami, and I. R. Chen, “A survey on trust
management for mobile ad hoc networks,” IEEE Commun.
Surveys Tutorials, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 562–583, 2011.
[2] E. M. Daly and M. Haahr, “Social network analysis for
information flow in disconnected delay-tolerant MANETs,” IEEE
Trans. Mobile Computing, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 606–621, May 2009.
[3] R. A. Sahner, K. Trivedi, and A. Puliafito, Performance and
Reliability Analysis of Computer Systems. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 1996.
[4] B. Karp and H. T. Kung, “GPSR: greedy perimeter stateless
routing for wireless networks,” in Proc. 2002 ACM Int. Conf.
Mobile Computing Netw., pp. 243–254.
[5] Y. J. Kim, R. Govindan, B. Karp, and S. Shenker, “Geographic
routing made practical,” in Proc. 2005 USENIX/ACM Symp.
Networked Syst. Design Implementation, pp. 217–230.
[6] E. Aivaloglou and S. Gritzalis, “Hybrid trust and reputation
management for sensor networks,” Wireless Networks, vol. 16, no.
5, pp. 1493–1510, July 2010.
[7] S. Ganeriwal, L. K. Balzano, and M. B. Srivastava,
“Reputation-based framework for high integrity sensor networks,”
ACM Trans. Sensor Netw., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1–37, May 2008.
[8] K. Liu, N. Abu-ghazaleh, and K. D. Kang, “Location
verification and trust management for resilient geographic
routing,” J. Parallel Distrib. Computing, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 215–
228, Feb. 2007.
[9] L. Moraru, P. Leone, S. Nikoletseas, and J. D. P. Rolim, “Near
optimal geographic routing with obstacle avoidance in wireless
sensor networks by fast-converging trust-based algorithms,” in
Proc. 2007 ACM Workshop QoS Security Wireless Mobile Netw.,
pp. 31–38.
[10] R. A. Shaikh, et al., “Group-based trust management scheme
for clustered wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Trans. Parallel
Distrib. Syst., vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 1698–1712, Nov. 2009.
[11] Z. Yao, D. Kim, and Y. Doh, “PLUS: parameterized and
localized trust management scheme for sensor networks security,”
in Proc. 2006 IEEE Int. Conf. Mobile Adhoc Sensor Syst., pp.
437–446.
[12] L. Capra and M. Musolesi, “Autonomic trust prediction for
pervasive systems,” in Proc. 2006 Int. Conf. Advanced Inf. Netw.
Applications, pp. 1–5.
[13] L. Capra, “Engineering human trust in mobile system
collaborations,” in Proc. 2004 ACM SIGSOFT Int. Symp.
Foundations Software Engineering.
[14] J. Zhang, et al., “A trust management architecture for
hierarchical wireless sensor networks,” in Proc. 2010 IEEE Conf.
Local Computer Networks, pp. 264–267.
[14] J. Zhang, et al., “A trust management architecture for
hierarchical wireless sensor networks,” in Proc. 2010 IEEE Conf.
Local Computer Networks, pp. 264–267.
[15] S. Rajasegarar, C. Leckie, and M. Palaniswami, “Anomaly
detection in wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 34–40, Aug. 2008.