INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH

Vol. 3. No. 3. May, 2011, I Part

EFFICIENT ROUTING LEACH (ER-LEACH) ENHANCED ON LEACH PROTOCOL IN WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS
Hasan Al-Refai, Ali Al-Awneh, Khaldoun Batiha, Amer Abu Ali, Yehia M. El. Rahman Department of Computer Information Systems, Management Information Systems, Network Management, Software Engineering, Computer Science, Philadelphia University, Amman (JORDAN) E-mails: halrefai@philadelphia.edu.jo, aalawneh@philadelphia.edu.jo, kh_batihah@philadelphia.edu.jo, aabuali@philadelphia.edu.jo , yehia_by@hotmail.com

ABSTRACT Efficient design and implementation of wireless sensor networks has become a hot area of research in recent years, due to the vast potential of sensor networks to enable applications that connect the physical world to the virtual world. By networking large numbers of tiny, low-powered wireless nodes with limited computation, communication, and sensing abilities, in a battery-powered sensor network, energy and communication bandwidth are a precious resources. Thus there is a need to adapt the networking process to match the application in order to minimize the resources consumed and extend the life of the network. In this paper, we introduce an Efficient Routing LEACH (ER-LEACH) which is a modified version of the well known LEACH protocol; ER-LEACH proposes vital solutions to some shortcomings of the pure LEACH. ER-LEACH is expected to perform well especially when the mobility is high and will prolong the overall network lifetime through load balancing. OMNET++ simulator will be used to prove that ER-LEACH performs better than LEACH protocol. Key words: Wireless sensor networks; Geographic routing; Localized routing; Power-aware routing, reliability, timeliness, query processing, redundancy, energy conservation, QoS. 1. INTRODUCTION Recent advances in technology have made low-cost, low-power wireless sensors a reality. Sensor networks formed from such sensors can be deployed in an ad hoc fashion and cooperate to sense and process a physical phenomenon. As each sensor has a finite battery source, an important feature of sensor network is energy efficiency to extend the networks lifetime. Each node in a sensor network is typically equipped with one or more sensors, a radio transceiver or other wireless communications device, a small microcontroller, and an energy source, since in most Wireless sensor network applications the energy source is a battery, energy plays an important role in wireless sensor network, and preserving the consumed energy of each node is an important goal that must be considered when developing a routing protocol for wireless sensor networks.Many routing protocols have been proposed in the literature such as LEACH [6]. Leach is considered as the most popular routing protocol that use cluster based routing in order to minimize the energy consumption; in this paper we propose an improvement on the Leach Protocol that further enhance the Power consumption, our protocol is expected to outperform Leach protocol in term of energy consumption. In this paper, we introduce an Efficient Routing LEACH (ER-LEACH) which is a modified version of the well known LEACH protocol; ER-LEACH proposes vital solutions to some shortcomings of the pure LEACH; there are three contributions in this protocol which are; enhancing the selection of the cluster head during setup phase by taking into account the residual energy of any sensor node which intends to become a CH to prolong the network lifetime. The second contribution is trying to reduce the overhead of dynamic clusters generation by using alternative CH which is expected to take the role of the CH in case that the underlying CH died which will prolong the lifetime of each cluster, and finally for the sake of load balancing the zone routing protocol is used which attempts to balance the load over CHs evenly by permitting the CH to discover the optimal route to the BS with less cost messages update and then sends the fused data to the BS through many other CHs instead of direct sending to the BS. ER-LEACH is expected to perform well especially when the mobility is very high and will prolong the overall network lifetime through load balancing. In section 2 we present the related work , Section 3 will discusses the taxonomy of sensor networks, Section 4 discusses the Unique Features of Sensor Networks, in Section 5 the Performance Metrics will be discussed, Section 6 discusses the Leach protocol in details, in section 7 we introduce our proposed protocol ER-LEACH, and finally in section 8 we conclude the paper. 2. RELATED WORK Many protocols have been proposed for ad-hoc and sensor networks in the last few years. That attempt to reduce the energy consumption due to long distances transmission by rearrangement these scattered nodes into different small areas which is referred to as a clusters. In [1] the authors have proposed an algorithm that

42 | www.ijar.lit.az

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH

Vol. 3. No. 3. May, 2011, I Part

investigate how to make on-demand routing protocols adapt quickly to topology changes, this problem is important because such protocols use route caches to make routing decisions; it is challenging because topology changes are frequent. They propose proactively disseminating the broken link information to the nodes that have that link in their caches. Proactive cache updating is key in making route caches adapt quickly to topology changes, it is also important to inform only the nodes that have cached a broken link to avoid unnecessary overhead. Thus, when a link failure is detected, the goal is to notify all reachable nodes that have cached the link about the link failure. They define a new cache structure called a cache table to maintain the information necessary for cache updates. A cache table has no capacity limit; its size increases as new routes are discovered and decreases as stale routes are removed. The algorithm is fully-distributed, adaptive to the topology changes and fault-tolerant, since there is always a way to handle broken link or node failure. In [2] the authors have proposed an algorithm that focus on the network lifetime and the minimization of the power usage by using the geographical power efficient routing (GPER) protocol, that is, whether networks have uniform or non-uniform node density distributions, using GPER can greatly reduce the power consumption, unlike other algorithms which stick to minimal power consuming paths which may conversely drain the nodes on these paths and result in short network life when the communication in the network is unevenly distributed, on the other hand this approach which uses mulitpaths aim at eliminating power drainage due to repeated use by routing consecutive messages between the same end-points through different paths. The use of multiple paths improves load balancing; the traffic between a node-destination pair is split among multiple paths so that the energy utilization is spread across nodes in the network. Moreover, this algorithm eliminates the overhead of flooding route request into the network and can construct the multipaths on the fly. Thus, this algorithm is scalable and efficient and it has less communication and storage overhead than other algorithms while providing greater resilience to node failures. In [3] the authors have proposed a fast, randomized, distributed algorithm for organizing the sensors in a wireless sensor network in a hierarchy of clusters with an objective of minimizing the energy spent in communicating the information to the information processing center, but in the other hand, they assume that the communication environment is contention and error-free, so sensors do not have to retransmit any data, in the other words the overall reliability of the system is on a stake, since there is no redundancy mechanism to cope with network failures. So the main concentration in this approach is how to reduce the overall power consumption in the system to cope with limited battery power or battery constraints.In [4] the authors have proposed an algorithm that handle the fault tolerant and reliability requirements for data information in sensor networks, so in this approach each node has a maximum transmission range to avoid link failure due to the power limitations of sensors(small battery), also it uses Total Time to Live (TTL) to adjust the level of data reliability, so that the more TTL the more possible paths used by the data the more robust it would be in the face of link or node failures, and TTL is always chosen to be slightly higher than the diameter of a network for the sake of necessary redundant packet. In [5] the authors have proposed an algorithm that is very based on query-based sensor systems, in which a user would issue a query with QoS requirements in term of reliability and timeliness and expect a response within a specific time which is called the deadline, where the fault-tolerant for the overall system can be achieved by redundancy of path and source and the optimal path and source redundancy is chosen depends on the routing algorithm they mentioned. They also determine the optimal redundancy level that could satisfy the QoS requirements while prolonging the lifetime of the wireless sensor network [6]. Since sensor networks are constrained with resources, they develop a hop-by-hop data dissemination paradigm to dynamically form multiple paths for data delivery, instead of incurring extra overhead to first formulate multiple paths before data delivery. In [7] a low energy adaptive clustering hierarchy (LEACH) has been proposed which partitions the nodes into clusters, in each cluster a dedicated node with extra privileges called cluster head (CH) is responsible for creating and manipulating a TDMA (time division multiple access) schedule and sending aggregated data from nodes to the BS where these data is needed using CDMA (code division multiple access). Remaining nodes are cluster members.The LEACH protocol presented in [6] is an elegant solution for power conservation where clusters are formed to fuse data before transmitting to the base station. By randomizing the cluster heads chosen to transmit to the base station, LEACH achieves a factor of 8 improvement compared to direct transmissions, as measured in terms of when nodes die. In [9] the a power-efficient gathering protocol (PEGASIS) has been used which is based on forming optimal chain that is, each node communicates only with a close neighbor and takes turns transmitting to the base station , thus reducing the amount of energy spent per round, eliminating the overhead of dynamic cluster formation, minimizing the distance non leader-nodes must transmit, limiting the number of transmissions and receives among all nodes, and using only one transmission to the BS per round. Nodes take turns to transmit the fused data to the BS to balance the energy depletion in the network and preserves robustness of the sensor web as nodes die at ransom locations.Distributing the energy load among the nodes increases the lifetime and quality of the network, on the other hand, a significant overhead arose because there is no redundancy (i.e. multipath), since only single chain is constructed among all sensor nodes, that is if a break happens to this chain by dieing of consecutive sensor nodes, then the overall network will not function properly which will put the overall network reliability on a stake. Furthermore, disproportionate energy depletion for sensors near the BS most likely to happen since each node has a single round to send data to the BS (I.e. if the time comes for a certain node which is very far away from the BS to transmit (its round) then such node should send data without take into account how far such node is from the BS which will result in dieing such nodes very frequently.

B a k u , A z e r b a i j a n | 43

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH

3. TAXONOMY OF SENSOR NETWORKS

Vol. 3. No. 3. May, 2011, I Part

As research in sensor networks has grown, so too has the range of applications proposed to make use of this rich source of data. Such diversity of sensor network applications translates to differing requirements from the underlying sensor network. To address these varying needs, many different network models have been proposed, around which protocols for different layers of the network stack have been designed. While there are many ways to classify different sensor network architectures, the following list highlights some fundamental differences in sensor networks that affect protocol design: Data sinks. One of the most important aspects of a sensor network is the nature of the data sinks. In some situations, end users may be embedded within the sensor network (e.g., actuator that correct abnormalities in environmental conditions, access points that network with the outside world), or they may be less accessible mobile access points that collect data once in a while (e.g., data collectors in the DATA Mules project [10] and in a sensor reach back scenario [11]). This distinction may be important, as efficient distributed data storage techniques may be effective in the latter scenario. Sensor mobility. Another classification of sensor networks may be made based on the nature of the sensors being deployed. Typically, it can be assumed that sensors are immobile; however, some recent sensor networks projects such as the ZebraNet project [12] have used mobile sensor nodes. In addition, in military operations, additional sensors may be mounted on soldiers or Unattended Air Vehicles (UAVs) to interact with a deployed sensor network. The mobility of sensors can influence protocols at the networking layer as well as those for localization services. Sensor resources. Sensor nodes may vary greatly in the computing resources available. It is obvious that memory and processing constraints should influence protocol design at nearly every level. Traffic patterns. Another important aspect to consider is the traffic generated on the network. In many event-driven applications, sensors may operate in a sentry state for the majority of time, only generating data traffic when an event of interest is detected. In other applications such as environmental monitoring, data should be continuously generated. As can be seen by the above discussion, there are many features of the sensors, the network and the application that should influence protocol design. Accordingly, much research has gone into designing protocols for these different scenarios. 4. UNIQUE FEATURES OF SENSOR NETWORKS It should be noted that sensor networks do share some commonalities with general ad hoc networks. Thus, protocol design for sensor networks must account for the properties of ad hoc networks, including the following: Lifetime constraints imposed by the limited energy supplies of the nodes in the network. Unreliable communication due to the wireless medium. Need for self-configuration, requiring little or no human intervention. However, several unique features exist in wireless sensor networks that do not exist in general ad hoc networks. These features present new challenges and require modification of designs for traditional ad hoc networks: While traditional ad hoc networks consist of network sizes on the order of 10s, sensor networks are expected to scale to sizes of 1000s. Sensor nodes are typically immobile, meaning that the mechanisms used in traditional ad hoc network protocols todeal with mobility may be unnecessary and overweight. Since nodes may be deployed in harsh environmental conditions, unexpected node failure may be common. Sensor nodes may be much smaller than nodes in traditional ad hoc networks (e.g., PDAs, laptop computers), with smaller batteries leading to shorter lifetimes, less computational power, and less memory. Additional services, such as location information, may be required in wireless sensor networks. While nodes in traditional ad hoc networks compete for resources such as bandwidth, nodes in a sensor networkcan be expected to behave more cooperatively, since theyare trying to accomplish a similar universal goal, typicallyrelated to maintaining an application-level QoS, or fidelity. Communication is typically data-centric rather thanaddress-centric, meaning that routed data may beaggregated/ compressed/prioritized/dropped depending on the description of the data. Communication in sensor networks typically takes place inthe form of very short packets, meaning that the relativeoverhead imposed at the different network layers becomesmuch more important. Sensor networks often have a many-to-one traffic pattern,which leads to a hot spot problem. Incorporating these unique features of sensor networks into protocol design is important in order to efficiently utilize the limited resources of the network. At the same time, to keep the protocols as light-weight as possible, many designs focus on particular subsets of these criteria for different types of applications.This has led

44 | www.ijar.lit.az

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH

Vol. 3. No. 3. May, 2011, I Part

to quite a number of different protocols from the data-link layer up to the transport layer, each with the goal of allowing the network to operate autonomously for as long as possible while maintaining data channels and network processing to provide the applications required QoS. 5. PERFORMANCE METRICS Because sensor networks posses these unique properties, some existing performance metrics for wireless network protocols are not suitable for evaluating sensor network protocols. For example, since sensor networks are much more cooperative in nature than traditional ad hoc networks, fairness becomes much less important. In addition, since data sinks are interested in a general description of the environment rather than in receiving all raw data collected by individual nodes, throughput is less meaningful. Depending on the application, delay may be either much more or much less important in sensor networks. Much more important to sensor network operation is energy-efficiency, which dictates network lifetime, and the high level QoS, or fidelity, that is met over the course of the network lifetime [8]. This QoS is application-specific and can be measured in a number of different ways. For example, in a typical surveillance application, it may be required that one sensor remains active within every subregion of the network, so that any intruder may be detected with high probability. In this case, QoS may be defined by the percentage of the environment that is actually covered by active sensors. In a typical tracking application, this QoS may be the expected accuracy of the target location estimation provided by the network. 6. LEACH Protocol In-network processing can greatly reduce the overall power consumption of a sensor network when large amounts of redundancy exist between nearby nodes. Rather than requiring all sensors data to be forwarded to a base station that is monitoring the environment, nodes within a region can collaborate and send only a single summarization packet for the region. This use of clustering was first introduced in the low energy adaptive clustering hierarchy (LEACH) protocol [13]. In LEACH, nodes are divided into clusters, each containing a cluster head whose role is considerably more energy-intensive than the rest of the nodes; for this reason, nodes rotate roles between cluster head and ordinary sensor throughout the lifetime of the network. At the beginning of each round, each sensor node makes an independent decision through a randomized algorithm about whether or not to assume a cluster head role. Nodes that choose to be cluster heads announce their status to the rest of the network. Based on the received signal strength of these announcements, sensors join the cluster that requires the least power to communicate with the cluster head (assuming transmission power control is available). During the round, the ordinary sensors in each cluster send data to their respective cluster heads according to a time-division multiple access (TDMA) schedule. Intercluster interference is reduced using different spreading codes in neighboring clusters. The cluster head aggregates data from all the cluster members and sends the aggregate data to the base station. The length of each round is chosen such that each node is expected to be able to perform a cluster head role once during its lifetime. Because there is no interaction between nodes when deciding roles, the cluster heads may be chosen such that there is no uniformity throughout the network and certain sensors are forced to join clusters located at large distances from them. To mitigate this problem, a centralized version of LEACH called LEACH-C has been developed. LEACH-C uses simulating annealing to choose the cluster heads for a given round so that the average transmission power between sensors and their cluster heads is minimized. Nodes in LEACH independently decide to become cluster heads. While this approach requires no communication overhead, it has the drawback of not guaranteeing that the cluster head nodes are well distributed throughout the network. While the LEACH-C protocol solves this problem, it is a centralized approach that cannot scale to very large numbers of sensors. 7. EFFICIENT ROUTING LEACH (ER-LEACH) When designing network protocols for wireless sensor networks, several factors should be considered. First and foremost, because of the scarce energy resources, routing decisions should be guided by some awareness of the energy resources in the network. Furthermore, sensor networks are unique from general ad hoc networks in that communication channels often exist between events and sinks, rather than between individual source nodes and sinks. The sink nodes are typically more interested in an overall description of the environment, rather than explicit readings from the individual sensor devices. Thus, communication in sensor networks is typically referred to as data-centric, rather than address- centric, and data may be aggregated locally rather than having all raw data sent to the sinks [11]. These unique features of sensor networks have implications in the network layer and thus require a rethinking of protocols for data routing. In addition, sensors often have knowledge of their own location in order to meaningfully assess their data. This location information can be utilized in the network layer for routing purposes. Finally, if a sensor network is well connected (i.e., better than is required to provide communication paths), topology control services should be used in conjunction with the normal routing protocols. This section describes some of the work that has been done to address these sensor network-specific issues in the routing layer.In our new version of LEACH protocol, there are three contributions which are:

B a k u , A z e r b a i j a n | 45

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH

Vol. 3. No. 3. May, 2011, I Part

(1) During setup phase of LEACH, the selection of the cluster head will not be done randomly, instead it makes the residual energy of node as the main metric which decides whether the nodes turn into CH or not after first round. (2) After setup phase of LEACH, each cluster head which responsible for sending data that is received from the clusters members to the BS should have an A-CH which is the node that will become a CH of the cluster in case of CH dies. (3) After setup phase of LEACH, all CHs of a certain geographical area are grouped into different zones with respect to some conditions to route the fused data of a certain CH to the BS consuming minimal energy by choosing the shortest path which connects the underlying CH with the BS. Cluster head selection To improve the CH selection procedure we use the residual energy of node as a main criterion which decide whether the nodes are allowed to be CHs or not after the first round. Same as LEACH protocol, the setup phase is divided into rounds, in the first round, every node has the same probability to become a CH, which means that CH nodes are selected randomly at first round, but in the next rounds, the residual energy of each node is different after one round communication and taken into account for the selection of the CHs. That means nodes have more energy will become a CHs rather than does with less energy.So, this will solve the problem incurred from selection of unfit CH that is a node which is selected to be a CH should have high energy level more than other cluster members since the CH is always ON to receive data from cluster members, aggregate them and then send them to the base station, which means that the CH is most likely to die before other nodes because it has many responsibilities, so it should have an energy level not below certain level (i.e. the threshold) which is predetermined by the network designer. Alternative Cluster Head In original LEACH, the CH is always ON receiving data from cluster members, aggregate these data and then send it to the BS that might be located far away from it. The CH will die earlier than the other cluster members in the cluster because of its operation of receiving, sending and overhearing. When the CH die, the cluster will become useless because the data gathered by cluster nodes will never reach the base station. So, besides of having a CH in the cluster, there is a alternative cluster head (A-CH) that takes the role of the CH when the CH dies. See the fig.1 below.

Fig. 1. Alternative Cluster Head By doing this, cluster nodes data will always reach the base station; and there is no need to elect a new CH each time the CH dies. This will extend the overall network lifetime. Grouping Zones Our approach to routing in the wireless sensor networks (WSN) is based on the notion of a routing zone, which is defined for each CH and includes the CHs whose distance (e.g., in hops) is at most some predefined number. This distance is referred to here as the zone radius, rzone.

46 | www.ijar.lit.az

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH

Vol. 3. No. 3. May, 2011, I Part

Each CH is required to know the topology of the network within its routing zone only and CHs are updated about topological changes only within their routing zone. Thus, even though a network can be quite large, the updates are only locally propagated. Since for radius greater than 1 the routing zones heavily overlap, the routing tends to be extremely robust. The routes within the network are specified as a sequence of CHs separated by approximately the zone radius. We illustrate the Route Discovery protocol by an example in Fig. 2. To allow the cluster head A to send a packet to the BS, a route from A to BS needs to be determined. First, A verifies that the BS is not within its routing zone (to recall, each node knows all the nodes within its routing zone). Then, A sends a query to all the CHs on the periphery of its zone; i.e., G.

Fig. 2: Zone Routing Now, in turn, each one of these CHs, after verifying that the BS is not in their routing zone, broadcast the query to their peripheral CHs. In particular, G sends the query to S, which recognizes that the BS is not within its routing zone so, S sends the query to C and H and soon until reaching F and D where each of them recognizes the BS as being in its routing zone and responds to the query, indicating the forwarding path: A-G-S-C-F-BS or A-G-SH-B-D-BS. The mechanism by which A learns about the forwarding path is the Route Accumulation. Route Accumulation is a simple protocol by which each node that forwards the query appends its identity to the query message. In order to limit the message size and to bound the Route Discovery process, a hop-count is included within the query messages. The value of the hop-count in the initial query message is set to some maximal value, hopMax. The value of the hop count is decreased by one, each time a query message is forwarded. When the hopcount reaches zero, the copy of the query message is discarded. If the BS is within maximum hopcount from the source node, the algorithm will discover at least one path between the two nodes, no matter what the value of the zone radius is. The means by which each CH learns about the topology of its zone is through any proactive algorithm. For example a truncated version of DSDV is possible, in which the reachability updates propagate only within distance limited by the zone radius. Note that this routing protocol requires only a relatively small number of query messages, as these messages are routed only to peripheral CHs, omitting all the nodes within the routing zones. As the zone radius is significantly smaller than the network radius, the cost of learning the zones topologies is a very small fraction of the cost required by a global proactive mechanism. Furthermore, the amount of data stored at each node is similarly reduced. On the other hand, this routing protocol is much faster than a global reactive route discovery mechanisms, as the number of nodes queried in the process is on the order of (rzone/rnet) 2 of the number of nodes queried by a global flooding process. Additionally, this routing protocol discovers multiple routes to the BS. The Route Discovery process can be made much more efficient in resources, at the expense of longer latency. Instead of querying simultaneously all the peripheral CHs at the boundary of the routing zone, these CHs can be queried either sequentially, one-by-one, or in groups. Thus, there is a tradeoff between the cost and latency of the Route Discovery protocol. Finally, the path, which consists of CHs spaced approximately by distance of zone radius, is more stable than a full path that includes all the CHs between the source CH and the BS. As the nodes move and links are frequently broken, this path is more stable than the full path. The behavior of this protocol can be adjusted by changing the value of rzone. In particular, for large zone radius, the coverage area is a single zone and this protocol is a traditional proactive protocol. For small zone radius, the protocol is more reactive, and become pure flooding at zone radius of one. OMNeT++ simulator used extensively concerning all mentioned measurements and proves that the performance of ER-LEACH is better than LEACH protocol.

B a k u , A z e r b a i j a n | 47

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH

6. CONCLUSION

Vol. 3. No. 3. May, 2011, I Part

In this paper we introduce a well known protocol for wireless sensor networks which is LEACH protocol which uses clusters to manage the communications between different sensor nodes and the base station, then we mentioned the most shortcomings in this protocol and we proposed a new version of LEACH which is attempting to solve such shortcomings; the proposed protocol is called Efficient Routing LEACH( ER-LEACH). There are three contributions in this protocol which are ; enhancing the selection of the cluster head during setup phase by taking into account the residual energy of any sensor node which intends to become a CH that is if the selected sensor nodes energy level is greater than a certain level (i.e. threshold) then this node is allowed to advertise its desire to become a CH to other nodes, otherwise it will join the closest CH to it; which will prolong the network lifetime since CH nodes have much responsibilities than other nodes so, it should have enough energy to handle such responsibility, The second contribution is trying to reduce the overhead of dynamic clusters generation by using alternative CH which is expected to take the role of the CH in case that the underlying CH died which will prolong the lifetime of each cluster independently, and finally for the sake of load balancing the zone routing protocol is used which attempts to balance the load over CHs evenly by permitting the CH to discover the optimal route to the BS with less cost message updates and then sends the fused data to the BS through many other relay CHs instead of direct sending to the BS. ER-LEACH is expected to perform well especially when the mobility is very high and will prolong the overall network lifetime through load balancing. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful to Wendi Heinzelman for answering questions about LEACH, and to other researchers for their feedback on earlier works in this field.

REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Xin Yn, Distributed cache updating for the dynamic source routing protocol, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MOBILE COMPUTING, VOL. 5, NO. 6, JUNE 2006 Shibo Wu, K. Selc, Uk Candan, Power-aware single and multipath geographic routing in sensor networks Seema Bandyopadhyay and Edward J, Coyle, An Energy Efficient Hierarchical Clustering Algorithm for Wireless Sensor Networks Jen-Yeu Chen, Yen-Shiang Shue, Hakeem Ogunleye, Saurabh Bagchi, A comparative study on data fault tolerant requirements for data propagation in sensor networks. Anh Phan Speer Ing-Ray Chen Virginia Tech, On Optimal Path and Source Redundancy for Achieving QoS AND Maximizing Lifetime of Query-Based Wireless Sensor Networks W. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, and H. Balakrishnan Energy-Efficient Communication Protocol for Wireless Microsensor Networks. In Proceedings of the Hawaii Conference on System Sciences. Jan. 2000 Stephanie Lindsey, Cauligi S. Raghavendra, Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems (PEGASIS) Pflaum, Alexander; Meier, Fritz; Muench, Ulli. Deployment of a wireless sensor network to support and optimize logistical processes in a clinical environment. RFID Systech 2010 - European Workshop on Smart Objects: Systems, Technologies and Applications Ciudad, Spain 2010 R. Shah, S. Roy, S. Jain, and W. Brunette. Data MULEs: Modeling a three-tier architecture for sparse sensor networks. In Proceedings of the First IEEE Workshop on Sensor Network Protocols and Applications (SNPA), 2003. J. Barros and S. Servetto. On the capacity of the reachback channel in wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the IEEEWorkshop on Multimedia Signal Processing, 2002. P. Juang, H. Oki, Y. Wang, M. Martonosi, L. Peh, and D. Rubenstein. Energy-efficient computing for wildlife tracking: Design tradeoffs and early experiences with zebranet. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASLOS), 2002. W. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, and H. Balakrishnan. An application-specific protocol architecture for wireless microsensor networks. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 1: 660670, 2002. Jennifer Yick, Biswanath Mukherjee, Dipak Ghosal . Wireless sensor network survey. Elsevier Science 2008.

7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

12. 13.

48 | www.ijar.lit.az