Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AbstractTarget coverage and data collection are two fundamental problems for wireless sensor networks (WSNs). Target
coverage is needed to select sensors in a given area that can
monitor a set of interesting points. Data collection is needed to
transmit the sensed data from sensors to a sink. Since, in many
applications, sensors are battery powered, it is expected that a
WSN can work untended for a long period. This paper addresses
the scheduling problems for both target coverage and data collection in WSNs with the objective of maximizing network lifetime.
First, a polynomial-time approximation scheme is developed for
the case where the density of target points is bounded, and then, a
polynomial-time constant-factor approximation algorithm is developed for the general case. It is also proved that it is N P-hard
to find a maximum lifetime scheduling of target cover and data
collection for a WSN, even if all the sensors have the same sensing
radius and the same transmission radius. Further, the practical
efficiency of our algorithms is analyzed through simulation. These
extensive simulation results show better performances of our algorithms compared with other research findings.
Index TermsApproximation algorithm, data collection, lifetime maximization, N P-hard, target coverage, wireless sensor
network (WSN).
I. I NTRODUCTION
A. Background and Motivation
N many wireless sensor network (WSN) applications, sensors are spatially distributed in a finite area to monitor
physical or environmental conditions, such as pressure, humidity, temperature, etc., and to transmit the sensed data to
a base station cooperatively [6], [27]. In addition, at times,
a set of target points has to be monitored in a given area.
On the one hand, to provide deterministic quality-of-service
guarantees, every point of interest should be monitored by at
least one sensor at all times. On the other hand, the energy
consumption of sensors should be minimized since, in most
cases, sensors are battery powered. Therefore, sensors should
have their power supplies turned off when they are not in use to
Manuscript received October 11, 2013; revised February 24, 2014; accepted
April 22, 2014. Date of publication May 7, 2014; date of current version
February 9, 2015. This work was supported in part by the National Science
Foundation under Grant NSF-1137732, Grant NSF-1241626, and Grant NSF1343361 and in part by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under Grant
FA8650-13-C-5800. The review of this paper was coordinated by Prof. J. Tang.
Z. Lu is with the National Science Foundation Center for Research on
Complex Networks, Texas Southern University, Houston, TX 77004 USA
(e-mail: luz@tsu.edu).
W. W. Li and M. Pan are with the Department of Computer Science and
the National Science Foundation Center for Research on Complex Networks,
Texas Southern University, Houston, TX 77004 USA (e-mail: liww@tsu.edu;
panm@tsu.edu).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TVT.2014.2322356
0018-9545 2014 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
LU et al.: MAXIMUM LIFETIME SCHEDULING FOR TARGET COVERAGE AND DATA COLLECTION IN WSNs
715
Fig. 1.
thus, the first path consumes less energy. However, using the
first path to transmit the sensed data from s2 to B will decrease
the network lifetime because it consumes the additional energy
of s1 . Therefore, we need to transmit data wisely when there
are multiple paths from a sensor to the base station.
B. Our Contribution
In this paper, we study the Maximum Lifetime Coverage
Scheduling (MLCS) problem for WSNs, considering both target coverage and data collection. Our contributions follow.
1) Generally, a sensor si can monitor a target point pj if and
only if pj is in the sensing range of si . In addition, the
energy consumed for transmitting a bit of data between
two sensors will depend on their Euclidean distance. In
this research, we find that MLCS in a Euclidean plane is
N P-hard, even if all the sensors have the same sensing
radius and the same transmission radius.
2) To overcome the computational intractability of MLCS,
we develop a polynomial-time approximation algorithm
having a constant-factor ratio to general MLCS. In
addition, we develop a polynomial-time approximation
scheme for MLCS, assuming the number of target points
is bounded by a constant in a unit area. This assumption
is of practical interest because in many real applications,
the target points are uniformly distributed. In addition, the
distance between any two target points should not be too
close; otherwise, we can merge them into a single target
point.
716
) =
algorithm, where H(N
i=1 (1/i), and N is the maximum
number of targets in the sensing area of a sensor. In [20], Du and
Lin developed a differentiated coverage algorithm that provided
different coverage degrees for different areas in terms of the
importance of the area (i.e., some key areas are covered by
multiple sensors). In [26], Liu et al. further investigated the kcoverage and data collection problem in WSNs, where network
lifetime is defined as the duration up to the time when there
exists one target point that cannot be monitored by k sensors, or
the sensed data cannot be transmitted to the base station. After
that work, Lin et al. [40] considered the k-coverage problem
in hybrid sensor networks where each node is equipped with
various types of sensors. They found that the optimal solution
for the k-coverage was a pure Nash equilibrium, and thus, an algorithm was designed based on game theory. In addition to full
coverage, many research efforts have been done on constructing
energy-efficient WSNs to partially cover a given area or a subset
of target points (see, e.g., [15], [19], [33], [34], and [41]).
III. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
In the study, we assume that the base station, wireless sensors, and target points are in a finite Euclidean plane. We also
assume that all the sensors have the same transmission radius
Rt and sensing radius Rs . Let B be the base station, S = {s1 ,
s2 , . . . , sM } be the set of sensors, and P = {p1 , p2 , . . . , pN }
be the set of target points. A sensor si covers a point pj if the
Euclidean distance between si and pj is no greater than Rs , and
it can send data to B if the Euclidean distance between si and
B is no greater than Rt . Similarly, two sensors si and sj can
communicate with each other if the Euclidean distance between
si and sj is no greater than Rt . Hence, we can formulate the
sensors and the base station as an undirected graph G(V, E),
where V = S {B} and (vi , vj ) E if and only if vi and
vj can communicate with each other. In addition, each sensor
si V is associated with a set P(si ) P of target points that
are covered by si . Without loss of generality, we assume that
Fig. 2. Coverage and data collection tree. (a) CDCT. (b) Sensor repeated
CDCT.
LU et al.: MAXIMUM LIFETIME SCHEDULING FOR TARGET COVERAGE AND DATA COLLECTION IN WSNs
B. Energy Model
We consider the following energy consumption scenarios.
Initially, each sensor si S has a battery with a specific
residual energy e0 (si ). When sensors perform the monitoring
task, they not only consume energy but also generate data. We
assume that all the sensors are equipped with the same hardware
and software (i.e., have the same sampling frequency, coding
scheme, etc.) and, thus, the same data generation rate (bits
per unit time) and energy consumption rate (joules per unit
time). Therefore, the amount of data generated by a monitoring
sensor during an OTI is bits, and the amount of energy
consumed is joules. For data transmission, as pointed out
in [29], the amount of energy consumed by a sensor in receiving
a bit of data is fixed, but the amount of energy consumed
when transmitting a bit of data depends on the transmission
distance. Therefore, we let er (si , sj ) = er be the amount of
joules consumed by sensor sj for receiving a bit of data from
any sensor si , where er is a constant, and let et (si , sj ) = et +
d(si , sj ) be the amount of joules consumed by sensor si
when transmitting a bit of data to sensor sj , where et , , and
are constants, and d(si , sj ) is the Euclidean distance between
si and sj .
Let T = (L, N L, E) be a CDCT for an OTI , where L and
N L are the sets of leaf and nonleaf nodes, respectively, and E
is the set of transmission links. For a node v T , we denote
by p(v) the parent node of v (i.e., (v, p(v)) E) and s(v) the
sensor at node v. Then, the energy consumption rate of each
node v except for the root B can be formulated as
+ et (s(v), s (p(v))) ,
vL
e(v, T ) =
(er (s(v), s (p(v)))+et (s(v), s (p(v)))) , v N L.
(1)
Since a sensor may appear at multiple nodes in T , the total
energy consumption
rate of a sensor si according to T is
e(si , T ) = vT ,s(v)=si e(v, T ), and the amount of energy
consumed by si during is e(si , T ) .
C. Lifetime Maximization
Assume that all the sensors have nonzero residual energy
initially. We call a sensor alive at some point if its residual
energy is greater than zero and a target point uncovered if there
exists no path of alive sensors from the target point to the
base station. In this paper, the network lifetime of a WSN is
defined as the duration of network operation time until the first
uncovered target point appears. We next present here the formal
definition of MLCS.
Definition 1MLCS: Given a set P of target points and a set
S of sensors in a finite Euclidean plane, MLCS is the problem
of finding a schedule of CDCTs to cover all the target points,
such that the network lifetime is maximized.
Let T1 , T2 , . . . , TQ be the possible CDCTs that can cover all
the target points and 1 , 2 , . . . , Q be their OTIs. According to
717
subject to
Q
i
L(P, S)
i=1
Q
e(si , Tj ) j e0 (si ) si S.
(2)
j=1
718
bT y
subject to AT y I, y 0
Fig. 3. Convert unit disk dominating set into MLCS. (a) Unit disk graph.
(b) MLCS.
(3)
LU et al.: MAXIMUM LIFETIME SCHEDULING FOR TARGET COVERAGE AND DATA COLLECTION IN WSNs
bT y 0 + r
j=1...k
M + r
j=1...k
719
Let = miny (bT y/(y)). Then, is the optimal objective value for the dual problem, and thus, (bT yj1 /(yj1 )) for
any j k. Therefore, by inequality (4), we have
bT yj1
(Tj Tj1 )
bT y k M + r
j=1...k
r
M +
bT yj1 (Tj Tj1 ) . (5)
j=1...k
r
W (yk1 )(Tk Tk1 )
r(Tk Tk1 )
rTk
rTk
W (yk1 )
W (y0 )
M.
(6)
720
sij receives data from sij1 , and et (sij , sij+1 ) is the energy
consumption rate when sij transmits data to sij+1 . This way,
we can focus on the coverage problem and solve MWCDCT
by first finding a minimum weight sensor cover with weights
w(si ) = w(P (si )) and then converting it into an MWCDCT.
Before we present our approximation algorithm formally, some
notations must be introduced first.
Regardless of the communication constraints, we call two
sensors si and sj neighbors if and only if P(si ) P(sj ) = ,
where P() denotes the set of target points covered by
and define the 1-hop neighborhood of a sensor si by N (si ) =
of si }. For a set S
S of sensors, we
{sj S|sj is a neighbor
by w(MWSC(P )) = si SC(P ) w(si ). Based on the aforementioned notations, the pseudocode of our algorithm is given
in Algorithm 2.
Algorithm 2 Polynomial-Time Approximation Scheme
Input: A positive constant > 0, a set P of target points, a set
S of sensors and a vector y.
Output: A minimum weight CDCT.
1: Let SC (SC holds the selected sensors);
2: For each sensor si , create a minimum weight path P (si )
and let w(si ) = w(P (si ));
3: while P = do
4: For each target point pi (P \ PSC ) where PSC denotes
the target points covered by SC, let smin (pi ) denote the
minimum weight sensor that covers pi ;
5: Let pj arg maxpi (P\PSC ) w(smin (pi ));
6: Find the minimum positive integer r satisfying that
w(MWSC (P (N r+1 (smin (pj ))))) (1 + )w(MW
SC(P(N r (smin (pj )))));
7: Let SC SC MWSC(P(N r+1 (smin (pj )))) and let
P P \ P(N r+1 (smin (pj )));
8: end while
9: Let T (SC) be the CDCT where SC performs the monitoring task, and each sensor si SC transmits the sensed
data to the base station by path P (si ), return T (SC);
The polynomial-time approximation scheme (see
Algorithm 2) to construct a CDCT works as follows. It
uses a set SC to store the sensors that perform the monitoring
tasks, and initially, SC is empty (see Step 1). For each sensor
in S, it computes the weight by finding a minimum weight
path from that sensor to the base station (see Step 2). During
Steps 38, it continually adds sensors to SC until all the target
points are covered. Each time it considers a target point pj
that has to be covered by a sensor with the maximum weight
and finds an optimal solution to cover all the target points in
P(N r+1 (smin (pj ))). When all the target points are covered by
SC, it constructs the CDCT by adding paths from each sensor
in SC to the base station (Step 9). To show the correctness of
Algorithm 2, we first show the following lemmas.
vL w(P (s(v)))
e(v,
T
)
y
.
v
vT
Lemma 2: Let the sensing radius be 1. If the density of target
points per unit area (1 1) is bounded by a constant c, for any
constant > 0, there exists a constant integer r() that only
depends on such that w(MWSC(P(N r()+1 (smin (pj )))))
is no greater than (1 + ) w(MWSC(P(N r() (smin (pj )))))
for any sensor smin (pj ) selected in Step 5 of Algorithm 2.
Proof: For an arbitrary positive constant and a sensor
smin (pj ) selected by Algorithm 2, assume that w(MWSC
(P(N r +1 (smin (pj ))))) is strictly greater than (1 + ) w(M
WSC(P(N r (smin (pj ))))) for integers r
= 1, 2, . . .. Then, on
the one hand, we have
w MWSC P N r +1 (smin (pj ))
> (1 + ) w MWSC P N r (smin (pj ))
(1 + )r w (smin (pj ))
(7)
2
is, at most, (2r + 1) because two sensors are neighbors
if and only if the Euclidean distance between them is no
more than 2. Hence, there are, at most, c (2r
+ 1)2 target
points in P(N r +1 (smin (pj ))). According to Steps 4 and 5 in
Algorithm 2, any target point in P \ PSC can be covered by a
sensor with weight no more than w(smin (pj )). It follows that
w MWSC P N r +1 (smin (pj ))
c (2r
+ 1) w (smin (pj ))
2
O(r
2 ) w (smin (pj )) .
(8)
LU et al.: MAXIMUM LIFETIME SCHEDULING FOR TARGET COVERAGE AND DATA COLLECTION IN WSNs
Theorem 3: Algorithm 2 is a polynomial-time (1 )approximation algorithm to the MWCDCT problem when the
number of target points is bounded by a constant in a unit area.
Proof: It is clear that SC covers all the target points
when Algorithm 2 stops. During Steps 38, it iteratively selects
a sensor smin (pj ) and find a sensor set MWSC(P(N r+1
(smin (pj )))) to cover target point set P(N r+1 (smin (pj ))),
such that the weight of MWSC(P(N r+1 (smin (pj )))) is, at
most, (1 + ) w(MWSC(P(N r (smin (pj ))))). In addition,
any sensor covers target points in P(N r (smin (pj ))) cannot
cover any target point out of P(N r+1 (smin (pj ))). Therefore,
the sum of weights of SC is greater than the weight of the
minimum weight sensor cover, at most, by a factor of (1 + ).
By Lemma 1, in Step 9 of Algorithm 2, T (SC) is a (1 + )approximation solution to MWCDCT. By Lemma 2, there are
only a constant number of target points in P(N r+1 (smin (pj )))
when the number of target points is bounded by a constant c in a
unit area. Therefore, each time MWSC(P(N r+1 (smin (pj ))))
can be efficiently computed in polynomial time. In sum,
Algorithm 2 is a polynomial-time (1 )-approximation algorithm to MWCDCT.
Theorem 4: There exists a polynomial-time approximation
scheme to MLSC when the density of target points is bounded.
Proof: It follows directly from Theorems 2 and 3.
D. Constant Approximation to General MLCS
Here, we present a polynomial-time constant-factor approximation algorithm to general MLCS, regardless of the density of
the target points. As with the previous approximation scheme,
our constant-factor approximation algorithm solves MLCS by
creating a minimum weight path from each sensor to the base
station and converting MWCDCT into the minimum weight
sensor coverage problem. In [21], Ambuhl et al. first developed
a 72-factor approximation algorithm to the minimum weight
dominating set problem in a unit disk graph, which could be
applied to solve the minimum weight sensor cover problem.
The algorithm is based on an optimal solution under the
condition that all the target points are in a strip, and all the
sensors are outside the strip. The state-of-the-art approximation
algorithm to the minimum weight sensor cover was developed
by Zou et al. [35]. However, it is a theoretical result and
not suitable for practical uses. To solve MLCS efficiently, we
develop a constant-factor approximation algorithm for the minimum weight sensor cover. Its performance is worse than the
algorithm proposed in [35], but it is easy to implement. Before
we introduce the details of our algorithm and its theoretical
analysis, we first want to introduce some of the properties when
using sensors outside a rectangle to cover the target points in
that rectangle.
Fig. 4 shows a rectangle in a Euclidean plane where the
outside region is divided into eight areas. First, if there is a
target point in the rectangle covered by a sensor in the South
area (or respectively, the East, West, North areas), we can draw
two lines across the target point and the border line of the
rectangle to form an isosceles right triangle, such that all the
target points in the isosceles right triangle are covered by that
sensor. As an example, p1 is a target point covered by a sensor
721
in the South area; hence, it is clear that all the target points in
(p1 , b, c) are covered by that sensor. Second, if there are two
target points in the rectangle covered by sensors in the South
area (or, respectively, the North area) and not covered by any
sensor in the East and West areas, we can draw two lines across
the two target points, respectively, to form an isosceles right
triangle, such that all the target points in the isosceles right
triangle are not covered by any sensor in the East or West areas.
As an example, assume that p1 and p2 are two target points
covered by two sensors in the South area and not covered by
any sensor in the East or West areas. Then, all the target points
in (a, b, e) are not covered by any sensor in the East or West
areas. We can prove it by contradiction. Assume that p is such
a target point in (a, b, c) covered by a sensor in the East area.
Then, we can draw two lines across p and the East borderline
to form an isosceles right triangle. Since p2 is in this triangle, it
is covered by that sensor according to the first property, which
is a contradiction. Based on these two properties, Huang et al.
[32] proved the following lemma.
Lemma 3: Given a set of target points in a rectangle and a
set of sensors outside the rectangle, we can select four target
points p1 , p2 , p3 , and p4 to draw two isosceles right triangles as
shown in Fig. 5 such that every target point lying inside the two
triangles is not covered by any sensor in the East and West areas
and that every target point lying outside the two triangles is not
covered by any sensor in the North and South areas.
We next present our constant-factor approximation algorithm
in Algorithm 3.
Algorithm 3 Constant-Factor Approximation
Input: A set P of target points, a set S of sensors and a vector y.
Output: A minimum weight CDCT.
1: Let SC (SC holds the selected sensors);
2: For each sensor si , create a minimum weight path P (si )
and let w(si ) = w(P (si ));
3: Randomly select a point (x0 , y0 ) on the southwest of all
the target points
partition the whole plane into rectan and
gles of size ( 2 ( 2/2)) starting from (x0 , y0 ).
4: For each rectangle containing target points in P, find a set
S
S of sensors with the minimum weight to cover all
the target points in the rectangle;
722
5: Let SC SC S
, S S \ S
, and P P \ P(S
);
6: Let T (SC) be the CDCT where SC performs the monitoring task, and each sensor si SC transmits the sensed data
to the base station by the path P (si ), return T (SC);
Fig. 6.
LU et al.: MAXIMUM LIFETIME SCHEDULING FOR TARGET COVERAGE AND DATA COLLECTION IN WSNs
v L, s(v) = si
is the maxi
MLCS, where H(N ) = 1iN (1/N ), and N
mum number of target points in the sensing area of a sensor.
The algorithms are written in JAVA, and the experiments are
conducted on a DELL Inspiron with Intel Core i5 2.5 GHz and
4-GB RAM. To the best of our knowledge, we do not find any
better approximation algorithm in the literature for scheduling
both target coverage and data collection with the objective of
maximizing network lifetime.
v N L, s(l(v)) = sj .
(9)
B. Energy Settings
+ et (s(v), s (p(v))))
723
724
LU et al.: MAXIMUM LIFETIME SCHEDULING FOR TARGET COVERAGE AND DATA COLLECTION IN WSNs
725
726
TABLE I
RUNNING T IME P ERFORMANCE ( S )
VI. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we have addressed the sensor scheduling
problem, considering both target monitoring and data collection
to maximize network lifetime. We studied the problem both
theoretically and practically. On the one hand, we prove that
it is N P-hard to maximize the network lifetime even if all the
sensors and target points are in a Euclidean plane. On the other
side of the issue, we develop a polynomial-time approximation
scheme, assuming that the density of target points is bounded,
and a constant-factor approximation algorithm for the general
case. To evaluate the practical efficiency of our algorithms,
we compared them with the greedy algorithm proposed in
[29]. Extensive simulation results show that our approximation
algorithms are better than the greedy algorithm for maximizing
network lifetime. Our future work will extend this research to
the directional sensor coverage problem. In addition, we investigated the MLCS by assuming that the sensors have uniform
sensing radius in this work. As a direction for further research,
the MLCS can be studied without applying this assumption.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
result makes sense because when is small, and M and Rs
are large, the primal and dual method will construct a large
number of CDCTs. When Rt increases from 40 to 50 m, the
running time changes for all the algorithms are minor; however,
when Rs increases from 15 to 25, the average running time for
all the algorithms gradually increases. Intuitively, when N is
increasing, the average running time should be getting longer.
However, in our experiment, the average running time does not
monotonically increase when N increases, e.g., when N = 20,
the average running time for the three algorithms are 3.48,
3.89, and 3.62, respectively, and when N = 40, the average
running time for the three algorithms are 2.90, 3.48, and 3.17,
respectively. This is probably because when N = 20, the primal
and dual method constructs much less CDCTs than it constructs
when N = 10. In such a case, although a CDCT needs more
time to construct, the entire running time becomes shorter.
According to the experimental results, we can conclude that
the three algorithms each have their own advantages. The
approximation scheme has a higher running time complexity
than the greedy algorithm (65% in the worst case and 32%
on average), and it outperforms the greedy algorithm by about
1%18% in terms of network life. The running time complexity of the constant-factor approximation algorithm is slightly
higher than that of the greedy algorithm, whereas its lifetime
performance is better than the greedy algorithm but worse than
the approximation scheme in most cases. Therefore, the choice
between the three algorithms depends on real situations. When
the WSN is large, and running time is the first priority, the
greedy algorithm is the best option. When network lifetime is
the first priority, the approximation scheme is the best option.
However, the approximation scheme is not scalable for the case
that the number of target points is extremely large. In such a
case, the constant-factor approximation algorithm can find a
near-optimal solution in a short time.
LU et al.: MAXIMUM LIFETIME SCHEDULING FOR TARGET COVERAGE AND DATA COLLECTION IN WSNs
[15] P. Berman, G. Calinescu, C. Shah, and A. Zelikovsky, Efficient energy management in sensor networks, in Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks.
Commack, NY, USA: Nova, 2005.
[16] C. F. Huang and Y. C. Tseng, A survey of solutions to the coverage
problems in wireless sensor networks, J. Internet Technol., vol. 6, no. 1,
pp. 18, 2005.
[17] M. Cardei and D. Du, Improving wireless sensor network lifetime
through power aware organization, Wireless Netw., vol. 11, no. 3,
pp. 333340, May 2005.
[18] M. Lu, J. Wu, M. Cardei, and M. Li, Energy-efficient connected coverage
of discrete targets in wireless sensor netorks, Netw. Mobile Comput.,
vol. 3619, pp. 4352, 2005.
[19] H. Zhang and J. Hou, On the upper bound of -lifetime for large sensor
networks, ACM Trans. Sens. Netw., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 272300, Nov. 2005.
[20] X. Du and F. Lin, Maintaining differentiated coverage in heterogeneous
sensor networks, EURASIP J. Wireless Commun. Netw., vol. 2005, no. 4,
pp. 565572, 2005.
[21] C. Ambuhl, T. Erlebach, M. Mihalak, and M. Nunkesser, Constantfactor approximation for minimum-weight (connected) dominating sets
in unit disk graphs, in Approximation, Randomization, Combinatorial
Optimization. Algorithms and Techniques, vol. 4110. Berlin, Germany:
Springer-Verlag, 2006, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 314.
[22] H. Gupta, Z. Zhou, S. R. Das, and Q. Gu, Connected sensor cover: Selforganization of sensor networks for efficient query execution, IEEE/ACM
Trans. Netw., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 5567, Feb. 2006.
[23] M. Cardei and J. Wu, Energy-efficient coverage problems in wireless ad
hoc sensor networks, Comput. Commmun., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 413420,
2006.
[24] H. Liu, P. J. Wan, and X. Jia, Maximal lifetime scheduling for sensor
surveillance systems with k sensors to 1 target, IEEE Trans. Parallel
Distrib. Syst., vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 15261536, Dec. 2006.
[25] S. Tang and W. Li, QoS supporting and optimal energy allocation for
a cluster based wireless sensor network, Comput. Commun., vol. 29,
no. 13/14, pp. 25692577, Feb. 2006.
[26] H. Liu et al., Maximizing lifetime of sensor surveillance systems,
IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 334345, Apr. 2007.
[27] I. F. Akyildiz, T. Melodia, and K. Chowdhury, A survey on wireless
mltimedia senosr networks, Comput. Netw., vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 921960,
Apr. 2007.
[28] D. Wang, B. Xie, and D. P. Agrawal, Coverage and lifetime optimization
of wireless sensor networks with Gaussian distribution, IEEE Trans.
Mobile Comput., vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 14441458, Dec. 2008.
[29] Q. Zhao and M. Gurusamy, Lifetime maximization for connected target
coverage in wireless sensor networks, IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., vol. 16,
no. 6, pp. 13781391, Dec. 2008.
[30] T. Nieberg, J. Hurink, and W. Kern, Approximation schemes for wireless networks, ACM Trans. Algorithms, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 49:149:17,
Aug. 2008.
[31] Y. Cai, W. Lou, M. Li, and X. Li, Energy efficient target-oriented
scheduling in directional sensor networks, IEEE Trans. Comput., vol. 58,
no. 9, pp. 12591274, Sep. 2009.
[32] Y. Huang, X. Gao, Z. Zhang, and W. Wu, A better constant-factor approximation for weighted dominating set in unit disk graph, J. Comb.
Optim., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 179194, Aug. 2009.
[33] H. Zhang, P. Nixon, and S. Dobson, Partial coverage in homological
sensor networks, in Proc. IEEE WIMOB, 2009, pp. 4247.
[34] Y. Li, C. Vu, C. Ai, G. Chen, and Y. Zhao, Transforming complete
coverage algorithms to partial coverage algorithms for wireless sensor
networks, Parallel Distrib. Syst., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 695703, Apr. 2011.
[35] F. Zou et al., New approximations for minimum-weighted dominating sets and minimum-weighted connected dominating sets on unit disk
graphs, Theoret. Comput. Sci., vol. 412, no. 3, pp. 198208, Jan. 2011.
[36] W. Li, Several characteristics of active/sleep model in wireless sensor
networks, IFIP NTMS, pp. 15, 2011.
[37] Y. Zhang and W. Li, Modeling and energy consumption evaluation of
a stochastic wireless sensor network, EURASIP J. Wireless Commun.
Netw., vol. 2012, p. 282, 2012.
[38] L. Ding et al., Constant-approximation for target coverage problem in wireless sensor networks, in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, 2012,
pp. 15841592.
727
[39] Y. Gu, M. Pan, and W. Li, Prolonging the lifetime of large scale wireless
sensor networks via base station placement, in Proc. IEEE VTC, 2013,
pp. 15.
[40] K. Lin, X. Wang, L. Peng, and X. Zhu, Energy-efficient K-cover problem
in hybrid sensor networks, Comput. J., vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 957967, 2013.
[41] Z. Lu et al., Routing-efficient CDS construction in disk-containment
graphs, Optim. Lett., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 425434, Feb. 2014.
[42] Y. Gu, M. Pan, and W. Li, Maximizing the lifetime of delay-sensitive
sensor networks via joint routing and sleep scheduling, in Proc. IEEE
ICNC, 2014, pp. 540544.
Zaixin Lu received the B.Sc. degree in computer science from Yanshan University, Qinhuangdao, China,
in 2006 and the Ph.D. degree in computer science
from the University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson,
TX, USA, in 2013.
He is currently a Postdoctoral Fellow with the
National Science Foundation Center for Research
on Complex Networks, Texas Southern University,
Houston, TX. His research interests include optimization, approximation algorithm, and networking.