Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Wireless Sensor
Networks: A Survey
IEEE Wireless Communication Dec 2004
Jamal N. Al-Karaki, The Hashemite University
Ahmed E. Kamal, Iowa State University
presented by R93725047
Outline
Introduction
Challenges
Design Issues
Flat Routing
Hierarchical Routing
Flat vs. Hierarchical
Location-based Routing
Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation
Future Directions
Conclusions
Outline
Introduction
Challenges
Design Issues
Flat Routing
Hierarchical Routing
Flat vs. Hierarchical
Location-based Routing
Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation
Future Directions
Conclusions
Introduction (1/2)
Routing protocols in WSNs Differ depending on the
application and network architecture
Classified into three categories based on the underlying
network structure:
Classified into multipath-based, query-based, negotiationbased, QoS-based, and coherent-based depending on the
protocol operation
Trade-offs between energy and communication overhead
savings
Introduction (2/2)
Outline
Introduction
Challenges
Design Issues
Flat Routing
Hierarchical Routing
Flat vs. Hierarchical
Location-based Routing
Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation
Future Directions
Conclusions
Challenges (1/2)
Due to the relatively large number of sensor
nodes, it is not possible to build a global
addressing scheme for the deployment of a large
number of sensor nodes as the overhead of ID
maintenance is high
Applications of sensor networks require the few
of sensed data from multiple sources to a
particular BS
Sensor nodes are tightly constrained in terms of
energy, processing, and storage capacities
Challenges (2/2)
In most application scenarios, nodes in WSNs are
generally stationary after deployment except for
maybe a few mobile nodes.
Sensor networks are application-specific
Position awareness of sensor nodes is important
since data collection is normally based on the
location
Data collected based on common phenomena, so
there is a high probability that this data has some
redundancy
Outline
Introduction
Challenges
Design Issues
Flat Routing
Hierarchical Routing
Flat vs. Hierarchical
Location-based Routing
Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation
Future Directions
Conclusions
Node/link heterogeneity
Fault tolerance
Scalability
Network dynamics
Transmission media
Connectivity
Coverage
Data aggregation
Quality of service
Outline
Introduction
Challenges
Design Issues
Flat Routing
Hierarchical Routing
Flat vs. Hierarchical
Location-based Routing
Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation
Future Directions
Conclusions
Flat Routing
Protocols
Features
Negotiation
Resource adaptation
SPIN Message
Operation process
ADV
REQ
Step1
Step2
ADV
REQ
Step4
Step5
DATA
Step3
DATA
Step6
Advantage
Simplicity
Each node performs little decision making when it receives new data
Need not forwarding table
Drawback
Large overhead
Data broadcasting
Feature
Four elements
Interest
Gradient
Data message
Reinforcement
Basic scheme
Low rate
Event
Event
Source
Sink
Source
Sink
Interests
Gradients
Event
Source
Sink
High rate
Advantage
Small delay
Drawback
Rumor Routing
Feature
Assumption
Rumor Routing
Basic scheme
A lists of neighbors
An event table
Generate an agent
Let it travel on a random path
The visited node form a gradient
to the event
Transmit a query
The query meets some node
which lies on the gradient
Route establishment
Rumor Routing
The node sensing an event probabilistically
generates an agent. The probability of generating
an agent is an algorithm parameter
In order to propagate directions to the event as
far as possible in the network, a straightening
algorithm is used
The agent maintains a list of recently seen nodes.
When picking its next hop, it will first try nodes not in the list.
Feature
Optimality
Simplicity
Drawback
The time to set the cost field is directly proportional to the size of the
network
The BS broadcasts a
message with the cost set
to zero, while every node
initially sets its least cost
to the BS to infinity
To check if the estimate
in the message plus the
link on which it is received
is less than the current
estimate.
110
Gradient-based routing
Memorize the number of hops when the
interest is diffused
Minimum the number of hops to reach the
BS
To obtain balanced traffic and prolong
lifetime:
A stochastic scheme
An energy-based
A stream-based scheme
CADR:
IDSQ:
Does not specifically define how the query and information are
routed
The querying node can determine which node can provide the
most useful information with the additional advantage of
balancing the energy cost
COUGAR
View the network as a huge distributed
database system
Use declarative queries
Abstract query processing from the
network layer
Disadvantages
May add extra overhead query layer
Synchronization
Leader nodes maintenance
COUGAR
ACQUIRE
Views the network as a distributed DB where
complex queries can be divided into several
subqueries
The BS sends a query, which is then forwarded by
each node receiving the query
Each node tries to respond to the query partially
bye using its precached information
Triggered update obtaining information from all
neighborhood within a look-ahead of d hops
Query is returned back to the querying node as a
completed response
ACQUIRE
Active Query
Update Messages
Complete Response
Energy-Aware Routing
A destination-initiated reactive
protocol
It maintains a set of paths
Choosing paths by means of certain
probability depending on how low the
energy consumption is
Energy-Aware Routing
Setup Phase
Local Rule
Directional flooding
Sensor
p1 = 0.75
Controller
p2 = 0.25
10 nJ
30 nJ
Energy-Aware Routing
Data Communication Phase
Each node makes
a local decision
0.3 Sensor
0.6
Controller
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.7
2/3
1/2
1/2
1/3
1/3
2/3
1/2
3/4
1/2
1/4
1/4
1/3
1/3
2/3
1/2
Outline
Introduction
Challenges
Design Issues
Flat Routing
Hierarchical Routing
Flat vs. Hierarchical
Location-based Routing
Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation
Future Directions
Conclusions
Hierarchical Routing
Protocols
Me Head !!!
I am with you
(CSMA-MAC)
(CSMA-MAC)
Advertisement
Cluster Set up
Phase
Phase
Every node chooses a random number (R) and compute a After decide which cluster it
To reduce
energy consumption nonthreshold
T(n).
joins, each node informs the
T(n) = P/(1-P*(r mod(1/p))
if n element of G,
cluster-head
nodes:
cluster-head
Based
on
the
number of nodes in the
0
else
Use=minimal
amount of energy
cluster, the cluster-head node creates
P desired percentage of cluster heads (e.g. 5%)
chosen
based on the strength of the
r the current round
a TDMA schedule telling each node
cluster-head
advertisement.
G set of nodes that have not been cluster head in the last
1/P it can transmit.
when
rounds
Can turn off the radio until their
This schedule is broadcast back to the
It elects
itself as
a cluster-headtime.
if R < T(n)
allocated
transmission
nodes in the cluster.
Phase
Creation
Phase
p=0.05
0.0500 = 0.05/(1-0.05*0)
0.0526 = 0.05/(1-0.05*1)
0.0555 = 0.05/(1-0.05*2)
0.0588 = 0.05/(1-0.05*3)
0.0625 = 0.05/(1-0.05*4)
0.0666 = 0.05/(1-0.05*5)
0.0714 = 0.05/(1-0.05*6)
0.0769 = 0.05/(1-0.05*7)
0.0833 = 0.05/(1-0.05*8)
0.0909 = 0.05/(1-0.05*9)
0.1000 = 0.05/(1-0.05*10)
0.5000 = 0.05/(1-0.05*18)
1.0000 = 0.05/(1-0.05*19)
Power-Efficient Gathering in
Sensor Information Systems
(PEGASIS)
Assumption
Feature
Data fusion
Power-Efficient Gathering in
Sensor Information Systems
(PEGASIS)
Performance
Problem
Scalability problem
Very long delay
Threshold-Sensitive Energy
Efficient Protocols
Terminology
A small change in the value of the sensed attribute which triggers the node
to switch on its transmitter
Feature
Threshold-Sensitive Energy
Efficient Protocols
Basic scheme
Drawback
Cannot distinguish a node which does not sense a big change from a
dead or failed node
Collision occurrence in the cluster
MECN
G
SMECN
v
u
Self-organizing protocol
(SOP)
To build architecture to support
heterogeneous sensor
SOP
Sensor aggregates
routing
The objective:
Sensor aggregates
routing
Sensor aggregates
routing
DAM algorithm:
Goal : elect local
cluster leaders.
One peak may
represent one target
Compare with one-hop
neighbors
Broadcasts
qualification
Downward only
Sensor aggregates
routing
12
13
10
12
14
15
12
10
12
11
10
Sensor aggregates
routing
EBAM algorithm:
Sensor aggregates
routing
MLAM algorithm:
Hierarchical power-aware
routing
Goal
To optimize the lifetime of the network.
We develop an approximation algorithm
called max-min zPmin.
To ensure scalability, we introduce a
hierarchical algorithm, which is called
zone-based routing
Hierarchical power-aware
routing
Max-min zPmin algorithm
Hierarchical power-aware
routing
Adaptive computation for z
: lifetime estimate
Hierarchical power-aware
routing
Max-min zPmin: requires accurate
power level information for all nodes
Zone-based: a hierarchical approach
Zone power estimation
Routing across zones (Globe path routing)
Routing within each zone (local path
selection)
Hierarchical power-aware
routing
Zone power estimation
Hierarchical power-aware
routing
Globe path routing:
Modified Bellman-Ford algorithm
State Maintenance
Overhead
Feature
Data Announcement
Source
Data
Sink
Query
Immediate
Dissemination
Node
Data Announcement
Source
Data
Source
Immediate
Dissemination
Node
Solutions:
Source
X
Data
Immediate
Dissemination
Node
Source
X
Data
Immediate
Dissemination
Node
Outline
Introduction
Challenges
Design Issues
Flat Routing
Hierarchical Routing
Hierarchical vs. Flat
Location-based Routing
Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation
Future Directions
Conclusions
Outline
Introduction
Challenges
Design Issues
Flat Routing
Hierarchical Routing
Flat vs. Hierarchical
Location-based Routing
Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation
Future Directions
Conclusions
Location-Based Routing
Protocols
Nodes positions are exploited to route data
Protocols:
Geographic Adaptive
Fidelity
Core idea
Turn off a node if it is equivalent from a
routing perspective
Adaptively adjust routing fidelity use node
deployment density
Whats fidelity
Uninterrupted connectivity between
communicating nodes
Geographic Adaptive
Fidelity
Determine routing equivalence
r 2 ( 2r ) 2 R 2
Whats fidelity
R
r
5
Geographic Adaptive
Fidelity
Use GPS information
to decide virtual grid
ID
3-state transition
Discovery (Td)
Active (Ta)
Sleep (Ts)
Node ranking
Adapting to mobility
Basic ideas:
h( N , R) h( N min , R) C ( N , N min )
Estimated cost
c( Ni , R) d ( Ni , R) (1 )e( Ni )
S
E
Closest direction
S
B
Closest neighbor to D
A
S
D
A B
Starting at s, GOAFR proceeds in greedy mode until reaching the local minimum n1.
The algorithm switches to face routing mode and explores the boundary of face F to
find n2, the node closest to t on F's boundary. GOAFR falls back to greedy mode and
finally reaches t.
SPAN
Goal
Turn off nodes without significantly
diminishing the capacity or connectivity of the
network
Core concept
Coordinator
Forwarding backbone
Non-coordinator
SPAN
Rule1: periodically broadcasts HELLO message
Current Status (coordinator or not)
Current coordinator
Current neighbors
SPAN
Announcement contention
1
2
1
4
6
2
4
1
5
Boo
Boo
Boo
7
6
Initial configuration
SPAN
Resolving announcement contention using
backoff
utility 0<R<1
Outline
Introduction
Challenges
Design Issues
Flat Routing
Hierarchical Routing
Flat vs. Hierarchical
Location-based Routing
Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation
Future Directions
Conclusions
Multipath Routing
Protocols
Use multiple paths in order to
enhance network performance
Fault tolerance
Balance energy consumption
Energy-efficient
Reliability
Query-Based Routing
Destination nodes propagate a query for
data
Usually theses queries are described in
natural language or high-level query
language
E.g.
Directed diffusion
Rumor routing protocol
Negotiation-Based
Routing Protocols
Use high-level data descriptors in order to
eliminate redundant data transmissions
through negotiation
Communication decisions are also made
based on the resources available to them
E.g.
SPIN
QoS-based Routing
Has to balance between energy
consumption and data quality
E.g.
SPEED (congestion avoidance)
Outline
Introduction
Challenges
Design Issues
Flat Routing
Hierarchical Routing
Flat vs. Hierarchical
Location-based Routing
Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation
Future Directions
Conclusions
QoS
Nodes mobility
Exploit redundancy
Tiered architectures
Exploit spatial diversity and density of
sensor nodes
Achieve desired global behavior with
adaptive localized algorithms
Future Directions
(2/2)
Outline
Introduction
Challenges
Design Issues
Flat Routing
Hierarchical Routing
Flat vs. Hierarchical
Location-based Routing
Routing Protocols Based on Protocol Operation
Future Directions
Conclusions
Conclusions
They have the common objective of
trying to extend the lifetime of
network
Trade-off energy and communication
overhead
There are still many challenges that
need to be solved
The End
Thanks for Listening