Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

2013 5th Conference on Information and Knowledge Technology (IKT

Performance Evaluation of Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks in Forest Fire Detection Application
Manijeh Keshtgary, Negar Rikhtegar
Department of Computer Engineering and Information Technology Shiraz University of Technology Shiraz, Iran keshtgari@sutech.ac.ir, n.rikhtegar@gmail.com
Abstract Nowadays, the wireless sensor networks have critical applications in the environmental monitoring, medical, security, industrial and military fields. The forest fire detection as a monitoring network is one of these applications. Sensors collect dynamic changes such as temperature, humidity, smoke, atmospheric pressure and forward those to a single node or a base station. These informations are sent to a long-distance data server which is located in a fire center. Due to the importance of these networks and their ability of real-time monitoring, they should be a reliable network communications. On the other hand, due to the limitations of sensors in processing, memory and energy resource, we need protocols that consider these limitations, especially energy. Energy consumption is important because sensors are often remote, or are located in hazardous areas. Typically, the energy resources are very small batteries that are not rechargeable and replaceable. In this paper, the performance of three routing protocols: AODV, DSR, DSDV in the forest fire detection application based on a zigbee wireless sensor network are compared. The metrics for this comparison are average end-to-end delay, packet delivery ratio and energy consumption. We evaluate their performance using NS-2. Our results show that AODV is the best between these three protocols regarding packet delivery ratio but is the worst regarding energy consumption. Keywords-wireless sensor network; forest fire detection; Zigbee; routing protocol; AODV; DSR; DSDV

these networks require a stronger and more reliable routing protocol. Existing routing protocol are divided into three categories: proactive, reactive and hybrid routing protocols. In Proactive or table driven protocols, each node store routing information in tables. The changes of network topology propagate through the network, and the nodes update their routing tables [5]. In these protocols, nodes establish the routes before they are needed. Consequently, when there is a need to send data, the route discovery process is performed faster than reactive protocols. Reactive or on-demand routing protocols are an approach that the source node establishes routes only when they are needed. When a node wants to send a packet, it initiates the route discovery process to find a route to destination within the network. This route discovery process is completed once a route is found or all possible routes to the destination have been examined. Once a route has been established, it is maintained until the destination becomes inaccessible through any path between source and destination or until the route is no longer desired [5]. The hybrid routing protocols have both proactive and reactive characteristics. In this paper, we describe three routing protocols, AODV and DSR as reactive protocols and DSDV as a proactive protocol, and then compare their performance using he average end-to-end delay, packet delivery ratio and energy consumption metrics in fire detection application. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we review the three routing protocols. The related works are given in section 3. In section 4, we explain our simulation and performance evaluation of the routing protocols. In section 5 simulation results are discussed. Finally, section 6 concludes the paper. II. REVEIW OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS



Wireless sensor network in forest fire detection application consists of a number of sensor nodes that communicate with each other over a wireless channel and without any established infrastructure. These sensors collect dynamic changes such as temperature, humidity, smoke, atmospheric pressure and forward those to a single node or a base station, which are sent to a long-distance data server in a fire center [2]. In forest fire detection networks, due to need of continuous and real-time monitoring, the power consumption is a critical issue, especially when recharging or replacement of batteries is difficult. On the other hand, in the forest, the vegetation and density of trees cause the attenuation of the communication signal, so in order to support of the vital task of monitoring,

A. DSDV DSDV (Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector) is a table driven routing protocol. It is the extension of Bellman-ford (shortest path between two nodes) algorithm. Each node maintains a routing table that lists all available destinations with their hop counts and sequence numbers. The nodes

978-1-4673-6490-4/13/$31.00 2013 IEEE


propagate these tables within the network at a regular intervals or when a topology change is occurred, to keep the tables up to date [4, 5, 10]. B. AODV AODV (Ad-Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector) is a reactive protocol that determines a route only when it is needed. It is based on the distance vector algorithm. When a source wants to send a packet to the destination and doesnt have any route to it, it will broadcast a ROUTE REQUEST (RREQ) which is beginning of the route discovery process. When, the nodes receive the RREQ packet, if they have any active route to the destination, will reply using a ROUTE REPLY (RREP). Otherwise, the receiver nodes rebroadcast the RREQ for their neighbors. In order to prevent routing loops and to ensure the freshness of routing information, AODV utilizes destination sequence numbers. Each node has one sequence number and a broadcast ID. The broadcast ID is incremented for every RREQ and uniquely determine a RREQ. A larger sequence number means a fresher route. The RREQ receiver node, reply to it only when it is either the destination, or it has a route to the destination with the corresponding sequence number greater than or equal to that contained in the RREQ. During the process of forwarding RREQ, intermediate nodes keep a record of the first RREQ packet that received from their neighbors, therefore, a reverse route to the RREQ source is established and if additional copies of the same RREQ are received, they are dropped. In addition, if more than one RREP represents the routes to the destination, the one with the largest destination sequence number is chosen, and if the destination sequence numbers of several paths are equal, the one which has fewer hop counts is selected [4,5,10]. C. DSR DSR (Dynamic Source Routing) is a reactive routing protocol that is based on source routing. This protocol includes of two phases: Route Discovery and Route Maintenance. In this protocol, the nodes need to keep the route cache. When a node wants to send a packet to a destination and doesnt have any route in its route cache, it initiates the route discovery process by broadcasting a ROUTE REQUEST packet. This node is known as the initiator of the route discovery. The request contains the address of destination and a unique identification number. Each node that receives this packet, it checks whether this request identifier has recently seen, in other words, it knows the route to the destination. If the request is seen for the first time, the node adds its own address to the request packet and rebroadcasts it. Otherwise, it discards the request. When the request packet arrives to destination node or an intermediate node which has an unexpired route to the destination in its route cache, a ROUTE REPLY backs to the initiator and it caches the new route in its route cache. In route maintenance, a node sends a packet along a specific route in order to detect the broken routes. This phase is performed by ROUTE ERROR packets and acknowledgements. When a node detects a link break from itself to the next node, it generates and sends a ROUTE ERROR packet to the original source. The source, removes this broken link from its route cache and all routes containing this hop [4, 5].



In [1] jie-fu et al. evaluate the performance of AODV routing protocol for wireless sensor anti-fire network using NS2. They set a simulation area 1000m1000m with different numbers of nodes, 8, 14, 20, 30, 45 and a sink node to receive signals sent by sensor nodes. In this simulation, every node has a very low mobility, for example, remove from (300,200) to point (400,200) at speed of 1m/s. They have evaluated five parameters. The connection success rate parameter that is high when the number of nodes is less. The amount of data transmission parameter which because of the incensement in the number of nodes, the average data transmission amount will be reduced. The energy consumption, which while the nodes are few, this is large, and the minimum average energy consumption belongs to 20 nodes afterwards it increasing. The achievement of network balance, generally speaking the more nodes are in the network the shorter time costs. The average packet loss rate, it has positive value only for 14 nodes situation and for others is zero [1]. Khatawkar et al. in [4] compare the performance of three routing protocol: DSR, DSDV and AODV in MANET on considering packet delivery ratio and throughput metrics with constant mobility using NS-2. IV. DESIGN THE EXPRIMENT

In this paper, we consider three scenarios with various routing protocols, DSDV, DSR, AODV for different numbers of nodes, 12, 20, 30, 40, 50 respectively. We evaluate performance of these protocols in terms of average end-to-end delay, packet delivery ratio and energy consumption. The results are given in section 5. Because usually the sensor nodes in the forest fire network are static, therefore, the nodes have no mobility in our simulation. Simulation time is 1000 seconds, and every node is located randomly in an area of 500m500m. We consider a sink node in network topology to collect the data that send from other sensor nodes. The CBR traffic with 512 byte packet size is generated by all of nodes to the sink. Moreover, we set random noise in CBR traffic. Due to importance of energy consumption in this network, we use Zigbee protocol as MAC protocol because it consumes less power than Wifi. The simulation parameters are shown in table I. V. SIMULATION RESULTS

A. Average end-to-end Delay Fig.1 shows that AODV has the lowest average end-to-end delay in these scenarios. When the number of node is low, DSDV is better than DSR, but for the large number of nodes, DSR is better than DSDV.


TABLE I. SIMULATION PARAMETERS Parameters Protocols studied Simulation Time Simulation area Mac protocol type Transmission Range Traffic Type Data Payload Bandwidth Transmission power Receive power Idle power Value DSDV, AODV and DSR 1000 sec 500 m x 500 m Zigbee 100 m CBR 512 Bytes / packet 200 kbps 44.1 e-3 35.2 e-3 712 e-6

TABLE II. Routing Protocol AODV DSR DSDV

PACKET DELIVERY RATIO FOR 50 NODES Total packets Sent 23691 23709 23649 Total packets Received 23612 5427 121 Packet Delivery Ratio 99.67% 22.9% 0.51%

C. Energy Consumption Fig.3 shows that energy consumption in DSR is higher than DSDV. In addition, AODV has the maximum energy consumption. So DSDV has the best performance in this metric. Due to the various numbers of nodes, we calculate the harmonic mean of each metric per routing protocol. Fig 4 shows three metrics end-to-end delay, packet delivery ratio and energy consumption per routing protocol in a kiviat diagram.

Figure 2.

Packet delivery ratio versus no. of nodes

Figure 1. Average end-to-end delay versus no. of nodes

B. Packet Delivery Ratio Fig.2 shows that the packet delivery ratio in AODV is the heights. When, the nodes are few in the network (e.g. 12), the packet delivery ratio parameter in DSDV is larger than DSR, and DSDV as a table driven protocol performs better than DSR, but with increasing network size, the packet delivery ratio in DSR is larger and better than DSDV. From this figure, we can see that DSDV has the worst values for this parameter. Table II shows the details of this parameter for three routing protocols with 50 nodes.

Figure 3. Energy consumption versus no. of nodes


P. Jie-fu, G. Lin, and Z. Yan-dong, Wireless sensor forest anti-fire network simulation based on NS2, In proceeding of International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology (ICCSIT), 2nd IEEE International Conference on, pp. 300-303, 2009. [2] J. Zhang, W. Li, Z. Yin, S. Liu, and X. Guo, Forest fire detection system based on wireless sensor network, IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA),pp. 520-523, 2009. [3] J. Zhang, W. LI, N. Han, and J. Kan, Forest fire detection system based on a ZigBee wireless sensor network, Journal of Beijing Forestry University, Vol. 29, No 04, pp. 41-45, July 2007. [4] S. D. Khatawkar , K. K. Pandyaji , R. M. Patil , V. M. Sali , and U.L. Kulkarni, Performance comparison of DSDV, AODV, DSR, routing protocols for MANETs, International Conference on Computer Networks and Communication Systems (CNCS), Singapore, Vol. 35, pp. 44-48, 2012. [5] E.M. Roye, A review of current routing protocols for Ad hoc mobile wireless networks, IEEE Personal Communications, Vol. 06, No 02, pp.46-55, April 1999. [6] C. Xueli, C. Wenyan, C. Suhua, and Y. ying, Role of wireless sensor networks in forest fire prevention, 2nd International Conference on Computer Engineering and Technology, Vol. 4, pp.12-14, 2010. [7] L. Yu, N. Wang, and X. Meng, Real-time Forest fire detection with wireless sensor networks, In Proceeding of International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, IEEE Press, New York, vol. 02, pp. 12141217, 2005. [8] A.Y. Al-Habashneh, M.H. Ahmed, and T. Husain, Reliability analysis of wireless sensor networks for forest fire detection, In proceeding of Proceedings of the 7th International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference, IWCMC, Istanbul, Turkey, pp. 16301635, 2011. [9] http://www.libelium.com/wireless_sensor_networks_to_detec_forest_fir es, Observed August 2012. [10] M.M. Morshed, F.I.S. Ko, D. Lim, M.H. Rahman, M.R.R. Mazumder, and J. Ghosh, Performance evaluation of DSDV and AODV routing protocols in mobile Ad-hoc networks, New Trends in Information Science and Service Science (NISS), South Korea, pp. 399-403, May 2010. [1]

Figure 4. End-to-end delay, packet delivery ratio and energy consumption comparison at one look



In this paper, the performance of DSDV, DSR and AODV were evaluated considering three parameters using NS-2 simulator. We summarize the results in table III.
TABLE III. Routing Protocol AODV DSDV DSR Protocol Type reactive proactive reactive ROUTING PROTOCOL COMPARISION Packet Delivery Ratio *** * ** End-toEnd Delay *** * ** Energy Consumption * *** **

The number of star used in this table shows the best to the worst routing protocol per metric. *** represents the best protocol and * indicates the worst one. As we can see in the table, AODV has the maximum of energy consumption and DSDV has the minimum energy consumption.