An Efficient Data Gathering Routing Protocol in Sensor Networks Using the Integrated Gateway Node

M.Jagadesh1,Assiatant professor/ECE M.udhayaMoorthi2,Lecturer/IT Sasurie Academy of Engineering,Coimbatore

Abstract In the future ubiquitous home network, sensors will collect various home environment data in the home. Since the sensor nodes are equipped with small, often irreplaceable, batteries with limited power capacity, it is essential that the network be energy-efficient in order to maximize its lifetime. Our study, described in this paper, was divided into two classes: the primary class was to set a gatewayselection level and the secondary class was to propose an offer of a home automation using a routing technique centered on a sensor network to set a flooding level. The proposed scheme is to increase the life time of the sensor network with the integrated gateway node. The IGN increases the life time of the network to integrate the multiple gateway 1 nodes . Index Terms Home Network, Wireless Sensor Networks, Sensor Routing, Home Automation, Zigbee.

network of infra-structure. Especially, the need for wireless network on a small scale is increasing in environments such as inside buildings and mountain area, where wired facilities are unavailable. Wireless sensor network is one example. Unlike network of infra-structure, there is no router that relays packet transport in wireless sensor, but each sensor node performs both the roles of host and router. Since the transport range of each node's wireless frequency is limited in wireless sensor network, there are times when event packets are unavailable to be sent from the start node to the end node. In such case, event packets are transported via multiple sensor nodes that work as a router. Such method is called multi-hop and routing protocol is required for multi-hop method in wireless sensor network. The most important thing in wireless sensor network is an efficient energy use in network environment and there are efficient routing and MAC protocols introduced. Routing can be largely classified into flat structure and hierarchical structure. In hierarchical structure, although energy dataaggregation and data-aggregation is very efficient as well as in-network processing is easy, there are problems that the overhead to make hierarchical structure is large and hierarchical structure is not maintained and needs to be created again because energy use is focused on nodes like cluster head. In addition, it is energy-efficient because all sensor nodes are not used in communication but it intensively uses energy because of a large amount of data processing in header node as well as it is hard to synchronize between header node and other nodes. Flat-structure Routing Protocol has easier multi-hop communication than hierarchical structure and each sensor node uses even amount of energy because there are no nodes that intensively use energy like cluster header in hierarchical structure. However, it is energyinefficient than hierarchical structure because there are frequent packet collisions if event packets for Interest take place a lot and the number of re-transports increases due to the loss through multi-hop and all sensor nodes are always used to communicate. And there is also a problem that each node uses a lot of energy since sensor nodes installed in the same area all perform sensing as well as most flat-structure protocols have to have all sensor nodes in network routable for communication. Therefore, in this study, a method to make energy use efficient with router protocols of cluster concept and flatstructure that put a multiple sensor nodes in one group without

I. INTRODUCTION With the rapid advance in semiconductor production and communications technologies, the variety of consumer electronics used at home has been and continues to become digital. Developers of these digital home appliances have pursued providing their users with better services in the manner of interworking based on data communications, rather than having these devices operate independently. In this context, home networking plays a key role in these evolutionary processes. Wireless home networking is coming into the spotlight, as a consequence of the inconvenience of in-home hard wiring, and the convenience of wireless innate mobility, in spite of the presence of several proposed homenetworking techniques. Technologies intended to implement wireless home networking include: IEEE 802.11 wireless local area network (LAN), Bluetooth, IEEE 1394, UWB(Ultra WideBand)-based wireless network, and ZigBee used primarily to control all kinds of home appliances. Currently, there are several ongoing studies on ubiquitous sensor networks for context-aware-based home services. However, we expect that wireless home networking based on the IEEE 802.11 wireless LAN and Bluetooth, which have been adopted almost universally due to their technical maturity, will be predominant in the foreseeable future. As mobile communication devices and communication technology are developing, the demand for wireless communication network on a small scale besides existing

changing the purpose and function of existing network and performance analysis for the method is conducted. In Section II, we describe related works. In Section III, we describe our system model, and in Section IV, we present detailed operation of the proposed algorithm. Finally, we give concluding remarks in Section V. II. RELATED WORKS Supporting the mobility of sensor nodes is one of the most important factors to enable ubiquitous sensor networks, since mobile wireless sensor nodes can be attached to the human body, vehicles, and other mobile objects. So, the network layer should be implemented with the viewpoint of an efficient routing algorithm for wireless mobile sensor nodes [6]-[9]. To efficiently maintain the routing path between a sink node and sensor nodes, various routing algorithms have been proposed. The hierarchical routing algorithm is one of them. Typical hierarchical routing algorithms are LEACH and LEACH-C. Direct communication is the simplest and the most intuitive way to send and collect sensor data. In a direct connection, each sensor sends data to the base station directly. It is simple, but may consume a large amount of energy for nodes further away from the base station. Based on the first order radio model, the energy drains more rapidly as the distance from the base station grows. Low-Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy (LEACH) [3] divides the entire network into clusters. Each cluster has a cluster head. Nodes in each cluster send their data to the cluster head. The cluster head then collects the data and relays it to the base station. Each cluster uses different CDMA codes to avoid collisions. LEACH is a branch-based protocol, which is simple and scalable. However, this protocol is not very energy efficient for nodes. Besides, the radio of cluster heads must be turned on all the time to receive packets from the nodes in its cluster. This drains power more rapidly. In contrast to LEACH, Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems (PEGASIS) [4] organizes the sensor nodes by a single chain. Messages are sent hop-by-hop along the chain starting with the node farthest away from the base station. PEGASIS is often referred to as a chain-based protocol. The main advantage of PEGASIS protocol is the small total energy dissipation as nodes only need to communicate with their neighbors. However PEGASIS assumes every node has the global knowledge of the other nodes, which is not feasible. The delay also gets longer when the chain grows longer. III. THE SYSTEM MODEL In most cases, it is reasonable to assume that the sensor nodes have fixed and relatively short transmission range. In this case, an energy-efficient multi-hop routing mechanism is essential, and cluster organization becomes more complex

than in the single-hop condition stated above. Efficient clustering algorithms for WSN have to satisfy several requirements, such as: 1. Clusters should cover entire sensor field. 2. Average cluster size should be as large as possible to maximize data aggregation efficiency. 3. The clusters should be repeatedly reorganized to balance energy consumption among the nodes. 4. Clustering overhead should be small. 5. Clustering algorithm should be simple enough to be performed by low performance processor with small available memory space. Clustered structure of a network is very beneficial to energy conservation as shown in [10]. The benefit comes from the data aggregation of cluster heads. Aggregation efficiency increases as more data packets are aggregated. This benefit, however, is limited in multi-hop networks since cluster size is limited by the radio transmission range of the nodes. On the other hand, clustering overhead increases since clustering becomes more complex. The complexity comes mainly from the following two reasons: First, in multi-hop networks, it is difficult to re- cluster in a synchronized way as in single-hop networks. Second, when one cluster is reorganized, i.e. the role of a cluster head shift from one node to another, physical region the cluster head covers is also changed. This may necessitate reorganization of other clusters to satisfy the above requirements 1 and 2. These two requirements are for efficiency of the clusters. To better satisfy these requirements, however, more signaling and processing is required. But, requirements 4 and 5 prevent increasing the overhead and complexity. Requirement 3 says that the clustering overhead should be continually generated for fair energy consumption among the nodes. Moreover, if the nodes have mobility, clustering overheads will be far more increased. Thus, the benefit of clustering can be cancelled by the clustering overhead. In single-hop networks node mobility does not affect any network operation as long as the node does not move out of the transmission range of any other node. Among many of the previous researches, the network models for hierarchical protocols for WSNs are single-hop networks in [10-12] and those for flat routing protocols are multi-hop networks [13-14]. Clustering complexity in multi-hop networks can be one explanation for this research trend in sensor networks. We consider for the following network and application model. 1. A lot of sensor nodes are dispersed randomly on an interested region. 2. Sink nodes are placed at some convenient places in or near the sensor field. The users can get the information from the sensor field and control it through the sink nodes by direct or remote access to it. Thus the sink nodes should have user interface or capabilities to communicate with remote users with

high powered radio or wired connection. The number of sink nodes is very small compared with the number of sensor nodes. Thus they can have special capability, battery with larger capacity or external power supply. 3. The sensor nodes have limited processing and communication capabilities in order to satisfy the low-cost condition. Thus very complex and/or energy consuming algorithm is difficult to be adopted. 4. All the sensor nodes have the same constant transmission ranges. 5. Users request data from the sensor network by disseminating query packets through the sink nodes. And, the data sensed from each node is gathered by sink nodes through cluster heads so that users can access it through the sink nodes. IV. IGCP A INTEGRATED GATEWAY-NODE CONTROL PROTOCOL Although the hierarchical structure is energy-efficient and great in data-aggregation as well as in-network processing is easy, the hierarchical-structure cannot be maintained for a long time and needs to be created again because of intense energy use in nodes like cluster head. The flat-structure has easier multi-hop communication that the hierarchical-structure and allows even energy use of each node. However, the most important aspect of wireless sensor network, energy use, is very inefficient because all sensor nodes should always be used for communication. This study suggests the IGN (Integrated Gateway Node) Algorithm to compensate the vulnerability of two structures. It is an Algorithm in which virtual gateway nodes consisting of several nodes like the cluster of hierarchical-structure routing protocol and allows the flat-structure routing protocols between virtual nodes. A. The initial flooding process: Routing information is flooded from the sink nodes. The procedure of each node to set the routing information for each sink node is similar to the distance vector algorithm. In the routing information packet, the number of hops to a specific sink node and the address of transmitting node are included. When a node receives routing information from a neighbor node, it increases the number of hops by one and uses the number as its own number of hops to the sink node, and then, retransmit this information with its own address. When different number of hops is received from different neighbor nodes, the smallest number of them is used. If a node receives smaller number after it has retransmitted routing information, the smaller number should be again retransmitted to correct the propagated errors. Through this procedure, each node can know its own number of hops to a specific sink and the address of the next hop node to the sink.

B. Clustering: The initial clustering occurs during the initial routing information distribution. In a routing information packet, energy state information of the transmitting node should be included. When a node has transmitted routing information, every neighbor of the node, except those who have previously transmitted the information, will retransmit the information. The node can gather information about the energy states of every neighbor node with the routing information packet, and compare them with its own energy state. When a node has found that it has the local maximum amount of energy, it becomes cluster head and broadcast a cluster head advertisement (CHAD) message to its neighbors. Before a node decides to be a cluster head, it has to wait for a sufficient time to gather the energy state information from all the neighbor nodes. The nodes that decided not to be a cluster head wait for a CHAD message from any other node. If a node waiting for a CHAD message cannot receive one for a pre-determined time period, it repeats the exchange procedure of energy state information with other nonaffiliated nodes. This procedure is repeated until every node is affiliated with one cluster head. Any nonaffiliated node affiliates with the node whose CHAD massage it first receives. C. Gateway-Selection: One cluster head has one gateway node to a sink node. A gateway node is selected by cluster head among the nodes which are one hop closer to the sink node right after the cluster head is elected. The gateway node may be or not be a cluster member of the cluster head which selects it as a gateway. A cluster head sends a gateway selection (GWS) message to a selected gateway node, and thus the selected node can know whose gateway it is. Query dissemination from a sink node and data gathering to a sink node is performed through cluster heads and gateway nodes. D. Integrated Gateway node Although the hierarchical structure is energy-efficient and great in data-aggregation as well as in-network processing is easy, the hierarchical-structure cannot be maintained for a long time and needs to be created again because of intense energy use in nodes like cluster head. The flat-structure has easier multi-hop communication than the hierarchicalstructure and allows even energy use of each node. However, the most important aspect of wireless sensor network, energy use, is very inefficient because all sensor nodes should always be used for communication. This study suggests the IGN (Integrated Gateway Node) Algorithm to compensate the vulnerabilities of two structures. It is an Algorithm in which virtual gateway nodes consisting of several nodes like the cluster of hierarchical-structure routing protocol and allows the flat-structure routing protocols between virtual nodes.

E. Link setting Cluster head advertisement (CHAD) is largely classified into the busy status and static status. The busy status is a status in which IGN is operating as IGNH(Integrated Gateway Node Head) and the static status is a status in which IGN is operating as IGNM(Integrated Gateway Node Member) because there is no need of the IGNH role. The busy status occurs when different IGN's are created, adjacent IGN's are newly created, or the routing table of adjacent IGN's is changed. It also becomes the busy status when it is short of IGNM nodes and needs to borrow IGNM nodes from IGN with many IGNM nodes. In the busy status, IGNM does not play the role of IGNM node but plays the IGN role only and always stays awaken. IGNH in the busy status has many roles thus it does not play any role for data communication but only works for Control Signal Communication. It is to even out the energy use of all sensor nodes within virtual nodes. The static status occurs when IGNH does not have any control communication signals between IGNH's during the communication period of IGN. The communication period is as shown Picture 4.5 and consists of Frame and Sync. Frame is the time for virtual nodes to communicate and Sync is the time for schedule re-configuration and error process. Sync is a lot shorter than Frame. IGNH does not have many roles in the static status and IGNH works as IGNM node. Once the initialization level is over and virtual nodes are created, it becomes the busy status of Gradient Level. The operations that require IGNM transport between virtual nodes or IGNH information take place. In the first busy status, it does not move on to the static status until a routing table is created. Although Routing Table Configuration take place when sending query or broadcasting just like other flat-structure protocols, there is a bit of difference in the configuration method. If virtual nodes receive query or packets in broadcasting, it first checks that received nodes are received with less than one-half power of the transport distance. A routing table is created if the nodes are received with more power and it is ignored otherwise. Also, routing table information is saved up to 2 hops of virtual nodes. The reason that virtual nodes require receiving power is because of the communication limit mentioned earlier. In fig.1, the process of the integrated gateway node initialization shows. Node B operates as IGNH, node A and C are operates as IGNM.
Node A Node B Node C

F. Flooding level Above all, once cluster formation has been completed, the flooding process is not executed. Based on the level acquired through flooding, nodes piggyback their own levels in the data transmitted to update them. This level-updating process is seen in Fig. 2.

(a)

(b) Fig. 2 The level-updating procedure.

(c)

In this figure, (a) indicates the levels of child nodes if the root (or parent) node equals level 1. This figure shows available connections between individual nodes and root or child nodes. However, in the event that the node with level 3 malfunctions, of child nodes detecting that, the node whose upstream connection has relied only on a connection with the faulty node finds out a node with the highest-layer level, i.e., with the lowest level value among its adjacent nodes. This node, then, sets its own level to the result of adding 1 to the existing level. These processes are happen for a level update. The processes (a), (b), and (c) represent level-dependent data transmission from usual low-layer sensor nodes to a highlayer gateway node. G. Data transmission Once a cluster has been formed, as a rule, all of its operations are controlled by the gateway node. The information, detected and obtained in the cluster, is transmitted to the gateway node. Then, the gateway node transmits the data via data aggregation to the relay node. Next, the relay node simply transmits the data to a selected upper link. This facilitates significantly in setting upper links. Most interestingly, the upstream nodes of a cluster go towards the sink node. IV. A Performance Evaluation We create a simulator with C++and make sensor nodes as each event and operates differently according to the type of the handler. It is also possible for the class which represents sensor nodes to create virtual nodes proposed in this study and

A wake-up point of each node Listen time of each node 1 JREQ t 3 JOIN 2 JOIN 4 Random delay time of each node Control messages of a node No response

JREQ

Fig. 1 IGN initial operation.

apply operation algorithm. Packets are also a class object and inherit events to be configured. There are various types depending on packet's function and packets are processed in the node object. An arbitrary node object is selected, and if the object is in inactive status or is already a member of other virtual node then next object is selected. If the selected object is not a member of virtual node or in inactive status, algorithm defined in the node object is performed. With a repetition of such process, virtual node algorithm is applied till all node objects are selected. Data of sensor field with virtual nodes created are set to take place in Sync node. The packet type can be either 'interest' or 'query' depending on the flat=structure routing protocol and the size can be changed to be suitable for application. Also, packets can be transported in a certain period of time in CBR method. We will look at the applied parameter values for simulation.

Dissipated energy in the sensor network (Joule)

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.18 0.10

SPIN SPIN via Virtual Node

0.12

0.14

0.16

Simulation time (sec)

Fig. 5 The simulation results of the energy comparison between SPIN.

Fig. 3 Our simulator program.

This simulation analyzes the energy amount used when existing routing protocols are operating and the energy amount used after the algorithm suggested in this study is applied. This simulation does not consider the energy amount used in the initialization level to create virtual nodes. It is because it is a very small energy amount comparing to the total energy amount used.

In this simulation, one 1024-byte packet is created in Sync and, this packet is sent to entire network and the energy used in the process is analyzed. The routing protocols used are Flooding and Spin. Parameters used in Verse 5.1.2 are used to experiment under the same condition as other simulations. The figure 4 shows the energy comparison between General Flooding in which virtual node algorithm is not used and Flooding via Virtual Node in which virtual node algorithm is applied. As shown in the figure 4, there is up to 55% of energy saving effect when the IGN algorithm is applied. Also, the energy efficiency is increasing in a long run. The figure 5 is when Spin algorithm is applied in the same way. The energy used is different by the size of meta-data because Spin has a lot of meta-data. This simulation sets the size of metadata to 32 bytes. Like Flooding, Spin protocol (Spin via virtual node) [15]with virtual node algorithm suggested in this study shows up to 32% of energy saving effect. V. CONCLUSION Many ways of energy-efficient routing for wireless sensor network are suggested and are largely divided into the hierarchical-structure algorithm and flat-structure algorithm. Each algorithm has own advantages and disadvantages. This study suggests a mixed algorithm with virtual gateway nodes, which includes both the advantages of existing algorithm hierarchical-structure algorithm and flat-structure in wireless sensor network. The suggested algorithm communicates with application of flat-structure type protocols after bundling up several nodes like the hierarchicalstructure cluster and making them work as one node. Virtual gateway node algorithm allows efficient energy management since it not only increases the energy efficiency which is considered important in wireless sensor network but also creates virtual nodes. In addition, various applications can be realized. It also makes up the disadvantages of existing hierarchical-structure routing protocols by allowing even energy use of each node as well as performing data aggregation and in-network that are characterized in existing sensor network routing protocols.

Dissipated energy in the sensor n etwork (Joule)

G enera l flooding Flooding v ia Virtual N ode

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 .00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

Sim ula tion time (se c)

Fig. 4 The simulation results of the energy comparison between General Flooding.

The algorithm suggested in this study allows easily to create virtual nodes with simple MAC protocols since control signals that create virtual nodes are not complicated and also allows smooth packet flows since not many sensor nodes are used for communication and there are less packet collisions and less re-transports. But, it is not possible to use the algorithm in environments with sensor nodes in which RSSI is not supported because RSSI is needed to create virtual nodes and form routing tables. As analyzed in the simulation, it shows a great performance in energy use and does not use a lot of energy to create virtual nodes. It is more efficient in long-distance transport environments. The algorithm suggested in this study is expected to be used in a number of application fields of sensor network since it has many characteristics and advantages. However, it will be efficient only in the environments suggested in this study, which is only a small part of many application fields of sensor network. In the future, it will be necessary to have more studies on many types of algorithm that can work in many more application fields with more efficient energy use if we look at infinite possibilities of sensor network used in numerous fields with numerous environment and application factors. REFERENCES
I.F. Akyildiz, W. Su, Y. Sankarasubramaniam, E. Cayirci, "Wireless sensor networks: a survey," Computer Networks 38 (2002) [2] Praveen Rentala, Ravi Musunnuri, Shashidhar Gandham, Udit Saxena, "Survey on Sensor Networks" [3] W. R. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, H. Balakrishnan, "Energy- Efficient Communication Protocol for Wireless Microsensor Networks" Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Science, ,page 1-10, Jan, 2000. [4] S. Lindsey and C. S. Raghavendra, "Pegasis: Power-efficient gathering in sensor information systems," in IEEE Aerospace Conference, March 2002. [5] K. Du, J. Wu, and D. Zhou, "Chain-based protocols for data broadcasting and gathering in sensor networks," in Proceedings of Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Scientic and Engineering Computing with Applications (in conjunction with IPDPS), April 2003. [6] C. Intanagonwiwat, R. Govindan, and D. Estrin, Directed Diffusion: A Scalable and Robust Communication Paradigm for Sensor Networks, in Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MOBICOM), 2000. [7] J. Kulik, W. R. Heinzelman, and H. Balakrishnan, Negotiation-Based Protocols for Disseminating Information in Wireless Sensor Networks, ACM Wireless Networks, vol. 8, no. 2-3, pp. 169185, 2002. [8] K. Sohrabi, J. Gao, V. Ailawadhi, and G. J. Pottie, Protocols for SelfOrganization of a Wireless Sensor Network, IEEE Personal Comm. Mag., vol. 7, no. 5, Oct. 2000. [9] Z. Haas and S. Tabrizi, On Some Challenges and Design Choices in Ad-Hoc Communications, in IEEE MILCOM98, October 1998. [10] Huseyin Ozgur Tan, Ibrahim Korpeoglu, "Power Efficient Data Gathering and Aggregation in Wireless Sensor Networks", ACM SIGMOD Record, Vol. 32, No. 4, Pages 66-71, December, 2003. [11] A. Manjeshwar, D. P. Agrawal, "TEEN: a routing protocols for enhanced efficiency on wireless sensor networks." International Proceedings of 15th Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium, page 2009-2015, 2001 [12] A. Manjeshwar, D. P. Agrawal, "APTEEN: A Protocol for Efficient Routing and Comprehensive Information Retrieval in Wireless Sensor Networks," Proceedings of the 2nd Int. Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Computing Issues in Wireless Networks and Mobile Computing, April 2002 [13] C. Intanagonwiwat, R. Govindan, and D. Estrin, Directed Diffusion: A [1]

Scalable and Robust Communication Paradigm for Sensor Networks, in Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MOBICOM), 2000. [14] J. Kulik, W. R. Heinzelman, and H. Balakrishnan, Negotiation-Based Protocols for Disseminating Information in Wireless Sensor Networks, ACM Wireless Networks, vol. 8, no. 2-3, pp. 169185, 2002. [15] W. R. Heinzelman, J. Kulik, and H. Balakrishnan, "Adaptive Protocols for Information Dissemination in Wireless Sensor Networks," Proc. ACM MobiCom '99, Seattle, WA, 1999, pp. 174-85. .