ENERGY EFFICENT OPTIMAL ROUTING

PROTOCOL OF WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORK

A Thesis Submitted
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
In
Computer Science
by
ANURAG SINGH
(1409010501)
Under the Supervision of

Prof.Rajnish Singh
Assistant Professor,CS Dept.
IEC Colllege of Engineering & Technology
GreaterNoida

IEC College of Engineering and Technology, Gautam Buddh Nagar

to the
Faculty of Computer Science and Engineering

UTTAR PRADESH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

LUCKNOW, INDIA
JUNE, 2014
 CERTIFICATE

Certified that ANURAG SINGH (roll no 1409010501) has carried out the research work

presented in this thesis entitled “ENERGY EFFICIENT OPTIMAL ROUTING PROTOCOL

OF WIRELES SENSOR NETWORK” for the award of MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY

from Uttar Pradesh Technical University, Lucknow under our supervision. The thesis

embodies results of original work, and studies are carried out by the student herself and the

contents of the thesis do not form the basis for the award of any other degree to the candidate

or to anybody else from this or any other University /Institution.

Signature

(Rajnish Singh)
Associate Professor,
IEC College of Engineering and
Technology
Greater Noida
 ENERGY EFFICIENT OPTIMAL ROUTING PROTOCOL OF
WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORK

ANURAG SINGH

ABSTRACT

Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN) has attracted the attention of researchers due to their
potential for providing new capabilities. One important challenge is to design sensor
networks that have long system lifetimes. This challenge is especially difficult due to the
energy constrained nature of the devices. So the energy consumption emerges as a primary
concern. This is because in many practical scenarios, sensor node batteries cannot be (easily)
refilled, thus nodes have a finite lifetime or limited energy and forward messages of different
importance (priorities). Here we want to propose the good selective message forwarding
schemes. The parameter for this is the available battery at the node, the energy cost of
retransmitting a message, or the importance of messages. The forwarding schemes are
designed for three different cases: when sensors maximize the importance of their own
transmitted messages; when sensors maximize the importance of messages that have been
successfully retransmitted by at least one of its neighbours; and when sensors maximize the
importance of messages that successfully arrive to the sink. The result of existing system and
proposed system is compared through simulations and show the advantage of proposed
system over existing system.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I take this opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude towards my guide Prof.RAJNISH

SINGH, for providing excellent guidance, encouragement and inspiration throughout the

project work. Without his invaluable guidance, this work would never have been a successful

one. I would also like to thank all my classmates for their valuable suggestions and helpful

discussions.

ANURAG SINGH
IEC College of Engineering and Technology
May, 2017
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

A wireless sensor network (WSN) is a wireless network consisting of distributed

autonomous devices using sensors to monitor physical or environmental conditions, such as
temperature, sound, vibration, pressure, motion or pollutants at different locations. WSNs
architecture is shown in Figure 1 which contains all major components. A sensor field can be
considered as the area in which the nodes are placed i.e. the area in which we expect a
particular phenomenon to occur. Sensors nodes or motes are the heart of the network.

Figure1.1 WSN Architecture

A sensor network composed of large no of sensor node that is densely deployed either inside
the phenomenon or very close to it. The position of sensor nodes need not be predetermined.
This allows random deployment means that sensor network protocol and algorithms must
possess self-organizing capabilities. The major components of a typical sensor network are:
sensor nodes, the sensor field, the sink and the task manager.
WSNs architecture contains all major components. A sensor field can be considered as the
area in which the nodes are placed i.e. the area in which we expect a particular phenomenon
to occur. Sensors nodes or motes are the heart of the network. They are in charge of
collecting data and routing this information back to a sink.
A sink is a sensor node with the specific task of receiving, processing and storing data from
the other sensor nodes. They serve to reduce the total number of messages that need to be
sent, hence reducing the overall energy requirements of the network. Such points are usually
assigned dynamically by the network. Regular nodes can also be considered as sinks if they
delay outgoing messages until they have aggregated enough sensed information. For this
reason sinks are also known as data aggregation points. The task manager or base station is
centralized point of control within the network, which extracts information from the network
and disseminates control information back into the network. It also serves as a gateway to
other networks, a powerful data processing/storage centre and an access point for a human
interface.
In WSN the data can be forwarded, possibly via multiple hops, to a sink (sometimes denoted
as controller or monitor) that can use it locally or is connected to other networks (e.g., the
Internet) through a gateway. The nodes can be stationary or moving. They can be aware of
their location or not. They can be homogeneous or not. There are two possibility single-sink
scenario and multiple sink scenario. There are two possibility single-sink scenario and
multiple sink scenario. In multiple sink scenario gave a level of node density, a larger number
of sinks will decrease the probability of isolated clusters of nodes that cannot deliver their
data owing to unfortunate signal propagation conditions.
 Figure 1.2 Single-Sink and Multi-Sink Network

Figure 1.3 shows the component of WSN which is very important part of wireless sensor
network for energy consumption because the energy will be filled or refilled by hardware
components example battery. Sensor nodes have four very important basic components of
hardware: a sensing unit, a processing unit, a radio transceiver and a power unit. Additional
components may include location finding systems such as GPS, mobilizes and power
generators. Mobilizers are required to move the node in specific applications. The analog
signals that are measured by the sensors are digitized via an ADC and fed into the processing
unit. The processing unit and its associated storage manage then procedures that make the
sensor node carry out its assigned sensing and collaboration tasks. The radio transceiver
connects the node with the network and serves as the communication medium of the node.
The power unit is the most important component of the sensor mote because it is used to
determine the lifetime of the entire sensor network.
 Figure 1.3 Components of WSN

There is also a protocol stack in wireless sensor network shown in figure1.3 . Layered
network architectures are adopted because they most certainly always improve the robustness
of a system. Following are the functionality of different layers. The Physical Layer is
responsible for carrier frequency generation, frequency selection, signal detection,
modulation and data encryption. Techniques such as Ultra Wideband, Impulse Radio and
Pulse Position modulation have been used to reduce complexity and energy requirements,
whilst improving reliability and reducing path loss effects and shadowing.

There is also a protocol stack in wireless sensor network shown in figure 1.4. Layered
network architectures are adopted because they most certainly always improve the robustness
of a system. Following are the functionality of different layers. The Data Link Layer is
responsible for medium access, error control, multiplexing of data streams and data frame
detection. It ensures reliable point to point and point to multi hop connections in the network
 Figure 1.4. Protocol Stack of WSN

The Network Layer is responsible for routing information through the sensor network i.e.
finding the most efficient path for the packet to travel on its way to a destination. Most
protocols can be categorized under one of the following techniques: flooding, SMECN
(Small Minimum Energy Communication Network). The Transport Layer is needed when the
sensor network intends to be accessed through the internet.
The Applications Layer is responsible presenting all required information to the application
and propagating requests from the application layer down to the lower layer.

1.2 Characteristic of Wireless Sensor Network:

Dense sensor node deployment: Sensor nodes are usually densely deployed and can be
several orders of magnitude higher than that in a MANET.

Battery-powered sensor nodes: Sensor nodes are usually powered by battery and are
deployed in a harsh environment where it is very difficult to change or recharge the batteries.

Severe energy, computation, and storage constraints: Sensors nodes are having highly
limited energy, computation, and storage capabilities.
Self-configurable: Sensor nodes are usually randomly deployed and autonomously configure
themselves into a communication network. Unreliable sensor nodes: Since sensor nodes are
prone to physical damages or failures due to its deployment in harsh or hostile environment.

Data redundancy: The data sensed by multiple sensor nodes typically have a certain level of
correlation or redundancy.
Application specific: The design requirements of a sensor network change with its
application because the sensor network is usually designed and deployed for a specific
application.

Many-to-one traffic pattern: In most sensor network applications, the data sensed by sensor
nodes flow from multiple source sensor nodes to a particular sink, exhibiting a many-to-one
traffic pattern.

Frequent topology change: Network topology changes frequently due to the node failures,
damage, addition, energy depletion, or channel fading.
The variety of possible applications of WSNs to the real world is practically unlimited,
from environmental monitoring, health care, positioning and tracking, to logistic,
localization, and so on.

1.3 DESIGN ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

Here we describe that how we can create the sensor network which is useful in real life.
Our topic is energy consumption so it is necessary that we should maintain the energy
amount of when we are going to create the wireless sensor network. Below we describe
design issue which help us to minimize the energy consumption.

Small node size: When node size will be small then it will reduce the power consumption
and cost of sensor nodes.

Low node cost: Sensor nodes are usually deployed in large numbers and cannot be reused so
reducing cost of sensor nodes is important and will result into the cost reduction of whole
network.
Low power consumption: As we know that sensor nodes are powered by battery and it is
often very difficult or even impossible to charge or recharge their batteries, so it is very
necessary to design such type of protocol which reduce the power consumption of sensor
nodes so that the lifetime of the sensor nodes will increase.

Scalability: The network protocols designed for sensor networks should be scalable to
different network sizes because the numbers of sensor node are huge.

Reliability: Network protocols designed for sensor networks will be reliable means it must
provide error control and correction mechanisms to ensure reliable data delivery over noisy
channel.

Self-configurability: Sensor nodes should be able to autonomously organize themselves and

reconfigure their connectivity when topology will changed and node failures after
deployment.

Adaptability: Network protocols designed for sensor networks should be adaptive for
density and topology changes because the node in sensor network may fail, join or move.

Channel utilization: The protocol should utilize total bandwidth because the networks have
limited bandwidth resources.
Fault tolerance: Sensor nodes should be fault tolerant and have the abilities of self testing,
self-calibrating, self-repairing, and self-recovering.

Security: A sensor network should have effective security mechanisms to prevent the data
information in the network or a sensor node from unauthorized access.

QoS support: Network protocol design should consider the QoS requirements of specific
applications because different applications may have different quality-of-service (QoS).

Sensor locations: Routing protocols should manage the locations of the sensors. Most of the
proposed protocols use some localization technique to learn about their locations.
Limited hardware resources: Network protocol design should responsible for hardware
constraint because processing and storage capacities are also limited.

Random node deployment and unreliable environment: Sensor nodes can be scattered
randomly in an intended area which effects for protocol design and also sensor network
operates in a dynamic and unreliable environment so topology is also changeable.

Data Aggregation: Data aggregation technique has been used to achieve energy efficiency
and data transfer optimization in a number of routing protocols.

Diverse sensing application requirements: No network protocol can meet the requirements
of all applications. So the routing protocols should guarantee data delivery and its accuracy
so that the sink can gather the required knowledge about the physical phenomenon on time.

A sensor network composed of large no of sensor node that are densely deployed either
inside the phenomenon or very close to it. The position of sensor nodes need not be
predetermined. This allow random deployment means that sensor network protocol and
algorithms must possess self-organizing capabilities.The ability of sensors to behave in an
autonomous and self organized manner using limited energy and computation resources
states new challenges that require novel solutions. In many practical scenarios, sensor node
batteries cannot be (easily) refilled and nodes have a finite lifetime. Since communication
processes are energy-expensive, the cost of transmitting and receiving information should
influence node decisions. Typically, nodes are compelled to transmit any signal captured by
their sensors while batteries are alive. A similar situation occurs in scenarios where nodes act
as relays that have to forward any message upon request from other neighboring node. This
inability to apply autonomous transmission policies, thus preventing nodes from managing
their own resources, hinders an efficient utilization of the network. Some strategies to extend
wireless sensor networks lifetime were early proposed; e.g., by establishing inactivity periods
in node operation lifetime or by adopting distributed digital signal processing (DDSP)
techniques to reduce the amount of transmitted data. Resource-saving strategies based on the
nature of the information to be transmitted and the expected available resources in the sensors
that take part in communication at each moment, have barely been analyzed in the literature.
Nevertheless, there exist many practical scenarios where it is feasible to attribute a particular
significance; priority; relevance; or utility value to messages transmitted or forwarded by
sensor nodes. Tailored to those scenarios, we will consider that messages can be evaluated
through an importance indicator which reflects the priority of the message, the relevance of
the information conveyed or the required level of quality of service (QoS). Relevant
examples in the context of Sensor Networks can be found in the fields of: security (attack
reports), medical care (critical alerts ), or data fusion (DAIDA algorithm in ), to name a few.
Summarizing, in this paper we address the design of efficient transmission policies for Sensor
Networks, constraining ourselves to applications where: (i) message importance can be
properly quantified, and (ii) low graded messages can be eventually discarded.
This way, we propose selective transmitters that save energy by discarding low priority
messages with the expectation of sending more important upcoming messages. Related ideas
have recently been explored in literature. The IDEALS algorithm, built under the concept of
message and power priorities, tries to extend network lifetime for important messages,
discarding all messages except those of high importance when battery resources are scarce.
The PGR (Prioritized Geographical Routing) algorithm selects the appropriated routing
technique depending on the priority of the message (low, medium or high). Moreover, a
fuzzy logic approach to deal with message transfer priority arbitration that considers fifteen
different priority levels has been presented in. Nevertheless, none of these algorithms have
been proposed under a probabilistic and statistical approach that may open the door to a long-
term optimization of the network. A selective forwarding scheme using a probabilistic
approach has recently been explored in and. In those works, the decision to transmit or
discard a message at each node is taken in order to minimize a cost which depends on the
energy expenses as well as the message importance. The resulting protocols promote the
transmission and forwarding of highly graded messages and, as a result, the overall
importance of the transmitted messages during the full node lifetime is higher than the
corresponding to non-selective methods. However, the relative influence of energy expenses
and importance values in the overall cost is a heuristic parameter in the model, whose value is
difficult to optimize. Different from the aforementioned works, in this paper we develop an
optimum selective message forwarding scheme based on a statistical model of the message
importances. More specifically, we derive optimal decisions maximizing the importance sum
of the transmitted messages at each node, and analyze the node behavior under different
importance distributions. Using asymptotic analysis, gains with regard to a nonselective
scheme are theoretically quantified. Furthermore, in scenarios where nodes do not know the
statistical importance distribution of messages, an alternative method that does not require a
priori knowledge of the statistical information is developed. Noticeably, the statistical model
here presented exhibits similarities to other problems in Operations Research and Stochastic
Dynamic Programming, and the equations describing the energy evolution at the sensor node
and the importance sum can be restated as a particular type of Markov decision process.
Nonetheless, our treatment of the problem and the theoretical derivations are self-contained.
Finally, remark that the sensor model in this paper is an abstraction of reality which makes
some simplifying assumptions: perfect transmissions, perfect knowledge of energy resources
and importance distributions, and some others. Some of these assumptions are likely not
critical, and the model can be modified in order to incorporate more realistic situations. Some
others state some challenges in order to obtain more practical decision schemes. In any case,
we believe that our model captures the essential behavior of a selective transmission scheme,
and can be used as a starting point for other designs more accurately adapted to specific
scenarios.
This paper has introduced an optimum selective forwarding policy in wireless sensor
networks as an energy-efficient scheme for data transmission. Messages, which were
assumed to be graded with an importance value and which could be eventually discarded,
were transmitted by sensor nodes according to a forwarding policy, which considered
consumption patterns, available energy resources in nodes, the importance of the current
message and the statistical description of such importance’s. The optimal selective transmitter
was derived, leading to an expression for the optimal decision which turned out to compare
the received importance and the forwarding threshold, whose optimum value varies with
time. Under certain simplifying operating conditions, a constant forwarding threshold which
did not change along time and entailed asymptotic optimality, was also developed and closed-
form expressions were obtained. Moreover, the gain of the selective forwarding policy
compared to a non-selective one was quantified and it was proved to have a strong
dependence on energy expenses (transmission, reception and idle), the frequency of idle
times and the statistical distribution of importance’s. Finally, for cases were the importance
distribution of messages was unknown (or it varied with time), a blind algorithm that caught
this distribution on-the-fly based on the the received messages was proposed. This study has
also motivated the application of the selective forwarding model to two different evaluation
cases, an isolated node and a sensor network. In both cases performance was assessed for
different importance distributions. Numerical results validated our analytical claims and
corroborated that the novel selective forwarding scheme clearly outperforms the non-
selective one, even when idle times are considered. Results also evidenced that the simplified
developed designs obtained a performance close to the optimal forwarder. Several activities
are under way within our research group in order to enhance the above contributions. First of
all, a selective transmission policy aimed at improving the global performance in terms of
quantity and quality of messages successfully arrived to the sink should be designed.
Therefore, future work also includes the study of selective transmission in a sensor network,
based on not only energy requirements, but also taking into account neighboring information.
A preliminary work can be found in. Also, to show the utility of the new optimization
approach, our selective model will be applied to a target tracking scenario, whose first
preliminary results can be found in. Secondly, we are working on getting a solution for some
model limitations, such as the computational load of the threshold computation.
Following are the related algorithms to take intelligent importance-driven decisions about
message transmission:-

1.4 IDEAL algorithm: The working of IDEAL algorithm is shown in following figure

Figure 1.4 The IDEALS System Diagram

In this figure the sensor passes detected events to the controller. The controller supplies the
detected event to IDEALS, which scrutinizes the information content, and assigns a message
priority (MP). A message with high information content is given message priority 1 (MP1).
In contrast, a message with low information content (for example a routine ‘everything is ok’
message) is given MP5. Intermediate message priorities MP2–MP4 are allocated for
messages whose information content lies between these two extremes. In addition, IDEALS
also measures the residual power available to the sensor node, and assigns a power priority
(PP). A full battery is allocated power priority 5 (PP5), while a near empty battery receives
PP1.Intermediate power priorities PP2–PP4 relate to the power levels which lie between
these two extremes.
The priority balancing algorithm then decides whether or not the message should be
transmitted, by comparing the PP and MP. The message will be sent if PP ≥ MP. Therefore,
as the residual power drops, messages will be selectively discarded in order of their
information content.

Figure 1.5 The IDEALS Priority Balancing Mechanism

In above figure1.4 e, if the battery is full (PP5), messages with any information content
(MP1–MP5) will be transmitted. However, if the battery is empty (PP1), only messages with
a high information content (MP1) will be transmitted. IDEALS is also used during the
message forwarding process. When sensor node receives a message that requires forwarding,
IDEALS makes the same comparison between the MP, and the PP. If the node does not have
the required resources to forward the message, the message is simply discarded. If PP < MP,
the sensor node will simply not respond to the request, and appear invisible to the requestor
node.

1.5 Decentralized detection Algorithm:-

Decentralized detection problem formulations have addressed detection in sensor networks
by focusing on measures of performance such as error probability and have neglected system
costs. The energy dissipation in the system including transmit energy and the energy due to
processing has not been considered directly in the detection problem. We address the problem
of detection in sensor networks with energy constraints as a system-level problem that
requires the consideration of detection performance jointly with system resources. We
formulate detection problems with constraints on the expected cost arising from transmission
and measurement to address some of the system-level costs in a sensor network.
decentralized detection with a wireless sensor network consisting of a fusion center and a
large number of geographically distributed sensors. We assume that sensor nodes can
communicate with the fusion center, but not with each other, and there is no feedback from
the fusion center to local sensors. Because of their low-power budget, sensors
may have limited dynamic range, resolution or communicationcapability. As a result, local
quantization/compression of sensor observations is of great importance. In general, optimal
local compression schemes are dependent on sensor noise distributionswhich, in many
practical situations, can be hard to characterize due to large network size and unpredictable
environment change. Consequently, we are motivated to design decentralized detection
algorithms which work universally for any unknown noise and have low bandwidth
requirements.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE SURVEY
2.1 INTRODUCTION

Wireless Sensor Network is one of the most intresting research areas. Wireless Sensor
networks have features like low cost, flexibility, fault tolerance, high sensing fidelity,
creating many new and exciting application areas for remote sensing. So, wireless sensor
network has emerged as a promising tool for monitoring the physical world with wireless
sensor that can sense, process and communicate. There are many issues of wireless sensor
network which need to be addressed. As researchers are working in the area of wireless
sensor network, more and more data is collected, the refined the models and techniques will
become in the future our research on energy efficiency and routing protocols of wireless
sensor networks. In this project we want to create successfully optimization networks and
energy consumption selective forwarding scheme in which the energy consumption is less in
the comparison of previous one by which we can achieve the increased network lifetime.

2.2. RELATED WORK

We have considered a number of research papers till now from various International
journals and conferences such as IEEE transactions on Software Engineering, ACM Sigsoft,
Journal of Object Technology and Elsevier. Following research papers related to energy
efficiency and routing protocols for wireless sensor networks have been studied till now for
literature survey. Here is a brief description of some good papers:

Eugene Shih,Seong-Hwan (2001) in this research paper tries to develop low power sensor
network. The sensor network is used in various application and there are different technical
issues are available for different application area. In this paper the solutions are discussed
under their related protocol stack layer. All the design issue, the protocol stack layer and the
hardware description are describe in this paper. The power consumption is also very major
issue which is focused for all layers.
Sensor network needs to satisfy the constraints by fault tolerance, scalability, cost,
hardware, topology change, environment and power consumption. So new wireless
techniques are required to solve these issue for different layer of the sensor network protocol
stack.
 Anthony D.Wood and John A. Stankovic (2002) in this research paper tries to
describes the experiences with developing a combined hardware and software platform for
medical sensor networks, called CodeBlue CodeBlue provides protocols for device
discovery and publish/ subscribe multihop routing, as well as a simple query interface that is
tailored for medical monitoring. This paper also study the effect of node mobility, fairness
across multiple simultaneous paths, and patterns of packet loss, confirming the system’s
ability to maintain stable routes despite variations in node location and data rate.
There are various critical area in Code Blue. The most serious is the lack of reliable
communication; this problem can be mitigated somewhat through redundant transmissions.
Another area worth exploring is the impact of bandwidth limitations and effective techniques
for sharing bandwidth across patient sensors. An important shortcoming of the current Code
Blue prototype is its lack of security.

Rocio Arroyo-Valles (2008) in this research paper focused the design of sensor
networks that have extremely long lifetimes, and propose a physical layer driven approach to
designing protocols and algorithms. This paper, first present a hardware model for wireless
sensor node and then introduce the design of physical layer aware protocols, algorithms, and
applications that minimize energy consumption of the system. This paper also shows how to
reduce energy consumption of non-ideal hardware through physical layer aware algorithms
and protocols.
This paper advocate a physical layer driven approach to protocol and algorithm design
for wireless sensor networks. In order to meet the system lifetime goals of wireless sensor
applications, considering the parameters of the underlying hardware are critical. If protocol
designers treat the physical layer as a black box, system designers may design protocols that
are detrimental to energy consumption.

Salman Faiz Solehria,Sultanullah Jadoon (2011) in this research paper gives a

survey of routing protocols for Wireless Sensor Network and compares their strengths and
limitations. The sensor nodes have a limited transmission range, and their processing and
storage capabilities as well as their energy resources are also limited. Routing protocols for
wireless sensor networks are responsible for maintaining the routes in the network and have
to ensure reliable multi-hop communication under various types of physical and
environmental conditions, data processing, and wireless communication.
 This paper surveyed a sample of routing protocols by taking into account several
classification criteria, including location information, network layering and in-network
processing, data centricity, path redundancy, network dynamics, QoS requirements, and
network heterogeneity.

P.Santhiya and J.Bhavithra (2012) in this research paper work on ,to avoid the
packet loss and also to reduce energy consumption using optimal selective rebroadcast (or)
forwarding lost packet by applying Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) algorithm .Mobile
objects is used to retrieve sensor-data from sampling points within a large sensor field.
Each sensor maintains the routing table and only if the route is available then the
optimal selective forwarding scheme is applied. This scheme depends on parameters such as
the available battery at the node, the energy cost of retransmitting a message, or the
importance/preference of the messages. The forwarding schemes are designed for three
different cases: the sensors maximize the importance of their own transmitted messages; the
sensors maximize the importance of messages that have been successfully retransmitted by at
least one of its neighbors; and the sensors maximize the importance of messages that
successfully arrive to the sink. Since by using the optimal selective forwarding and Dynamic
Source Routing techniques the packet loss can be controlled.

Routing in wireless sensor networks differs from conventional routing in fixed

networks in various ways. There is no infrastructure, wireless links are unreliable, sensor
nodes may fail, and routing protocols have to meet strict energy saving
requirements.Following table shows the list of routing protocol for sensor network

TABLE 1.1. ROUTING PROTOCOL

Category Protocol Name

Location-based MECN, SMECN, GAF,
Protocols GEAR, Span, TBF, BVGF,
GeRaF
 SPIN, Directed Diffusion,
Rumor Routing, COUGAR,
ACQUIRE, EAD,
Information-Directed
Data-centric Routing, Gradient- Based
Protocols Routing, Energy-aware
Routing, Information-
Directed Routing, Quorum-
Based Information
Dissemination, Home
Agent Based Information
Dissemination
Hierarchical LEACH, PEGASIS, HEED,
Protocols TEEN, APTEEN
SEAD, TTDD, Joint
Mobility-based Mobility and Routing, Data
Protocols MULES, Dynamic Proxy
Tree-Base Data
Dissemination
Multipath-based Sensor-Disjoint Multipath,
Protocols Braided Multipath, N-to-1
Multipath Discovery
Heterogeneity- IDSQ, CADR, CHR
based Protocols
QoS-based SAR, SPEED, Energy-
protocols aware routing

I.F. Akyildiz,W.Su,Y.Sankarasubramaniam and E.Cayirci (2002) in this paper paper tries

to develop low power sensor network. The sensor network is used in various application and
there are different technical issues are available for different application area. In this paper
the solutions are discussed under their related protocol stack layer. All the design issue, the
protocol stack layer and the hardware description are describe in this paper. The power
consumption is also very major issue which is focused for all layers.
 Sensor network needs to satisfy the constraints by fault tolerance, scalability, cost,
hardware, topology change, environment and power consumption. So new wireless
techniques are required to solve these issues for different layer of the sensor network protocol
stack.

V.Shnayder,B.Chen (2005) tries to describe the experiences with developing a combined

hardware and software platform for medical sensor networks, called Code Blue. CodeBlue
provides protocols for device discovery and publish/ subscribe multihop routing, as well as a
simple query interface that is tailored for medical monitoring. This paper also study the effect
of node mobility, fairness across multiple simultaneous paths, and patterns of packet loss,
confirming the system’s ability to maintain stable routes despite variations in node location
and data rate.
There are various critical areas in Code Blue. The most serious is the lack of reliable
communication; this problem can be mitigated somewhat through redundant transmissions.
Another area worth exploring is the impact of bandwidth limitations and effective techniques
for sharing bandwidth across patient sensors. An important shortcoming of the current Code
Blue prototype is its lack of security.
A.Wang,A.Chandrakasan (2001) In this paper focused the design of sensor networks
that have extremely long lifetimes, and propose a physical layer driven approach to designing
protocols and algorithms. This paper, first present a hardware model for wireless sensor node
and then introduce the design of physical layer aware protocols, algorithms, and applications
that minimize energy consumption of the system. These papers also showhow to reduce
energy consumption of non-ideal hardware through physical layer aware algorithms and
protocols.
This paper advocate a physical layer driven approach to protocol and algorithm design
for wireless sensor networks. In order to meet the system lifetime goals of wireless sensor
applications, considering the parameters of the underlying hardware are critical. If protocol
designers treat the physical layer as a black box, system designers may design protocols that
are detrimental to energy consumption.
Salman Faiz (2011) in this paper give a survey of routing protocols for Wireless Sensor
Network and compare their strengths and limitations. The sensor nodes have a limited
transmission range, and their processing and storage capabilities as well as their energy
resources are also limited. Routing protocols for wireless sensor networks are responsible for
maintaining the routes in the network and have to ensure reliable multi-hop communication
under various types of physical and environmental conditions, data processing, and wireless
communication.
This paper surveyed a sample of routing protocols by taking into account several
classification criteria, including location information, network layering and in-network
processing, data centricity, path redundancy, network dynamics, QoS requirements, and
network heterogeneity.
Arroyo-Valles,A.G.Marques nd J.cid-Sueiro (2009) in this paper work on ,to avoid the
packet loss and also to reduce energy consumption using optimal selective rebroadcast (or)
forwarding lost packet by applying Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) algorithm .Mobile
objects is used to retrieve sensor-data from sampling points within a large sensor field.
Each sensor maintains the routing table and only if the route is available then the
optimal selective forwarding scheme is applied. This scheme depends on parameters such as
the available battery at the node, the energy cost of retransmitting a message, or the
importance/preference of the messages. The forwarding schemes are designed for three
different cases: the sensors maximize the importance of their own transmitted messages; the
sensors maximize the importance of messages that have been successfully retransmitted by at
least one of its neighbors; and 3) the sensors maximize the importance of messages that
successfully arrive to the sink. Since by using the optimal selective forwarding and Dynamic
Source Routing techniques the packet loss can be controlled

2.2 A Survey of Sensor Network Applications:-

Great Duck Island (GDI) system:-
In August 2002, researchers from UCB/Intel Research Laboratory deployed a mote-
based tiered sensor network on Great Duck Island, Maine, to monitor the behavior of storm
petrel.
UCB Mica mote:-
UC Berkeley Mica mote deployed in this application use an Atmel At mega 103
microcontrollers running at 4MHz, 916MHz radio from RF monolithic to provide
bidirectional communication at 40kbps, and a pair of AA batteries to provide energy. The
Mica Weather Board, stacked to the processor board via the 51 pin extension connector,
includes temperature, photo resistor, barometer, humidity and thermopile sensors. Some new
designs to preserve energy on this version include an ADC and an I2C 8x8 power switch on
the sensor board, the bypassing of the DC booster etc. To protect from the variable weather
condition on GDI, the Mica mote is packaged in acrylic enclosure, which will not obstruct the
sensing functionality and radio communication of the motes.
32 motes were placed at area of interest (e.g., inside a burrows). Those motes, grouped into
sensor patches, transmit sensor reading to a gateway(Cerf Cube),which is responsible for
forwarding the data from the sensor patch to a remote base station through a local transmit
network. The base station then provides data logging and replicates the data every 15 minutes
to a Postures database in Berkeley over satellite link. Users can interact with the sensor
network in 2 ways. Remote users can access the replica database server in Berkeley; a small
PDA-size device can be used to perform local interactions such as adjusting the sampling
rates, power management parameters etc.

2.3 Other works on habitat monitoring applications

Wang et al. discuss methods for habitat monitoring, such as target classification by
maximum cross-correlation between measured acoustic signal and reference signal,
localization using TDOA-based beam forming and data reduction using zero-crossing rate
technique A prototype tested consisting of iPods is built to evaluate the performance of those
target classification and localization methods. Energy efficiency shall be one of the design
goals at every level: hardware, local processing (compressing, filtering etc.),MAC and
topology control, data aggregation, data-centric routing and storage. Wang et al. proposed
preprocessing in habitat monitoring applications. They argue that the tiered network in GD is
solely used for communication, they then present a 2-tier network for the purpose of
collaborative signal and information processing The proposed network architecture consists
of micro nodes and macron odes, the micro nodes perform local filtering and data reduction
as 2 types of preprocessing that significantly reduce the amount of data transmitted to macro
nodes. A preliminary experiment shows that data reduction and event filtering using cross-
zero rate are effective, especially in the high data volume scenario such as acoustic sampling.
2.4 Selective Forwarding

The model offers powerful insights and guidelines for the design of schemes able to
exploit the trade-off between message importance and energy consumption. We develop
optimum forwarding schemes for three different scenarios:
 When sensors maximize the importance of their own transmitted messages.

 When sensors maximize the importance of their messages that are actually retransmitted
by their neighbors

 When sensors maximize the importance of the messages that successfully arrive to the
sink.

To reduced the computational cost using selective message forwarding schemes and
energy conception in wireless sensor networks. Provides a technique to verify data in line and
drop false packets from malicious nodes. Minimize max node cost of the path to delay node
failure. All selective communication strategies outperform non-selective forwarding (NS).
Despite the fact that the latter delivers more messages to the sink, the total importance sum is
lower and so the network lifetime is maximum.

Markov Decision Process

MDP models is sequential decision in WSN has attracted recent attention. It has been used as
a tool to find a trade-off between the energy savings of data aggregation and the transmission
delay; to balance the energy saving of low-power sensor states and the efficiency of the
sensing, receiving and transmitting processes; or to optimize a reward function combining
power consumption, throughput and delay. Content-driven: the importance is used to decide
whether transmit or discard a message so that the accumulated importance of all transmitted
messages is maximized. Markov Decision Process is a discrete
time stochastic control process. At each time step, the process is in some state , and the
decision maker may choose any action that is available in state . The process responds at
the next time step by randomly moving into a new state , and giving the decision maker a

corresponding reward .

The probability that the process moves into its new state is influenced by the chosen

action. Specifically, it is given by the state transition function . Thus, the next
state depends on the current state and the decision maker's action . But given and ,
it is conditionally independent of all previous states and actions; in other words, the state
transitions of an MDP possess the Markov property.

Markov decision processes are an extension of Markov chains; the difference is the addition
of actions (allowing choice) and rewards (giving motivation). Conversely, if only one action
exists for each state and all rewards are the same (e.g., zero), a Markov decision process
reduces to a Markov chain.

AODV Protocol

Ad hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV) is mainly used in vehicle path estimation . To
find the shortest distance among the peer. Intended for use by mobile nodes in an ad hoc
network. It offers quick adaptation to dynamic link conditions, low processing and memory
overhead, low network utilization, and determines unicast routes to destinations within the ad
hoc network. It uses destination sequence numbers to ensure loop freedom at all times
(even in the face of anomalous delivery of routing control messages), avoiding problems
(such as ``counting to infinity'') associated with classical distance vector protocols. The
AODV Routing Protocol uses an on-demand approach for finding routes, that is, a route is
established only when it is required by a source node for transmitting data packets. It employs
destination sequence numbers to identify the most recent path. The major difference between
AODV and Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) stems out from the fact that DSR uses source
routing in which a data packet carries the complete path to be traversed. However, in AODV,
the source node and the intermediate nodes store the next-hop information corresponding to
each flow for data packet transmission. In an on-demand routing protocol, the source node
floods the RouteRequest packet in the network when a route is not available for the desired
destination. It may obtain multiple routes to different destinations from a
single RouteRequest. The major difference between AODV and other on-demand routing
protocols is that it uses a destination sequence number (DestSeqNum) to determine an up-to-
date path to the destination. A node updates its path information only if the DestSeqNum of
the current packet received is greater or equal than the last DestSeqNum stored at the node
with smaller hopcount.

A RouteRequest carries the source identifier (SrcID), the destination identifier (DestID),
the source sequence number (SrcSeqNum), the destination sequence number (DestSeqNum),
the broadcast identifier (BcastID), and the time to live (TTL) field. DestSeqNum indicates
the freshness of the route that is accepted by the source. When an intermediate node receives
a RouteRequest, it either forwards it or prepares a RouteReply if it has a valid route to the
destination. The validity of a route at the intermediate node is determined by comparing the
sequence number at the intermediate node with the destination sequence number in the
RouteRequest packet. If a RouteRequest is received multiple times, which is indicated by the
BcastID-SrcID pair, the duplicate copies are discarded. All intermediate nodes having valid
routes to the destination, or the destination node itself, are allowed to send RouteReply
packets to the source. Every intermediate node, while forwarding a RouteRequest, enters the
previous node address and its BcastID. A timer is used to delete this entry in case a
RouteReply is not received before the timer expires. This helps in storing an active path at the
intermediate node as AODV does not employ source routing of data packets. When a node
receives a RouteReply packet, information about the previous node from which the packet
was received is also stored in order to forward the data packet to this next node as the next
hop toward the destination.

2.7 Energy aware system / Battery consumption

The sensor does not sensor any message called Non-Selective sensor (NS). Energy
consumption may depend on factors such as the amount of time spent in each state (which in
fact is closely linked to messages of different lengths as a consequence (or not) of having
different priorities) or the inter-sensor distances. To compute the forwarding threshold, the
average value of the energy costs is needed. To save memory resources, all estimates are
based on an battery power as an virtual energy.
2.71Energy Consumption Sources

• Sensing
• Communication
• Data processing
• Transient
• Logging
• Actuation
• Cluster Formation

Problem Statement

 Existing System:
o Previously we are using important driven schemes.

o Previously we are using forwarding policies.

o It can follows priority techniques representation process.

o It can contain high link delay amount of time representation process under
distribution of network.

o It can store all states information under retransmission of information.

 Disadvantages

o It can select high distance nodes.

o It can expect high energy levels for distribution of information.

o Less scalable solutions.

o We are identifying less performance under selective forward communication

representation
 .

 Propose System

o We are implementing self constrained environment network design.

o Under first path transmission identify the any problems we are select nearest
neighbors.

o Two paths are transferring the information like parallel communication

representation.

o It can provide the services with less amount of delay time representation.

o Optimal Selective Forwarding schemes:

 when sensors maximize the importance of their own transmitted

messages;

 when sensors maximize the importance of messages that have been

successfully retransmitted by at least one of its neighbors; and

 when sensors maximize the importance of messages that successfully

arrive to the sink

o Introducing the battery power with actual energy, says there is enough energy for
a reasonable number of transmissions. If the node has some battery for only a few
transmissions, the forwarding threshold should start to oscillate and decreases.

 Advantages

o It can transmit the information effectively in destination point.

o Network design use only less amount of energy levels.

o It can provides high scalability and high throughput results.

 CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1. INTRODUCTION

Research Methodology:- In this paper we use following methodology:-

Investigation:- For achieving reliable results and excellent efficiency of the problem
solution, further in depth literature review has been done.
Designing:- In this phase, solution of the identified problem was developed for
onward analysis, efficiency and reliability measures during modeling and simulation. The
proposed solution was reconsidered, based on the analysis of the results of simulations, for
further improvement.
Modeling and simulation:- As Simulation, is "the process of designing a model of a
real system and conducting experiments with this model for the purpose either of
understanding the behavior of the system or of evaluating various strategies for the operation
of the system". Therefore Modeling & Simulation was the main part of this research in which
application of different simulations techniques was developed using the following simulators.
Here we use NS2 simulator.

NS2 is an open-source event-driven simulator designed specifically for research in

computer communication networks. NS2 now contains modules for numerous network
components such as routing, transport layer protocol, application, etc To investigate network
performance, we simply use an easy-to-use scripting language to configure a network, and
observe results generated by NS2.

Hypotheses Formulation:-

As we know the ability of sensors to behave in an autonomous and self organized

manner using limited energy and computation resources states new challenges that require
novel solutions. In many practical scenarios, sensor node batteries cannot be (easily) refilled
and nodes have a finite lifetime. Since communication processes are energy-expensive, the
cost of transmitting and receiving information should influence node decisions; see.
Typically, nodes are compelled to transmit any signal captured by their sensors while
batteries are alive. A similar situation occurs in scenarios where nodes act as relays that have
to forward any message upon request from other neighboring node. This inability to apply
autonomous transmission policies, thus preventing nodes from managing their own resources,
hinders an efficient utilization of the network. Some strategies to extend wireless sensor
networks lifetime were early proposed; e.g., by establishing inactivity periods in node
operation lifetime or by adopting distributed digital signal processing (DDSP) techniques to
reduce the amount of transmitted data. Resource-saving strategies based on the nature of the
information to be transmitted and the expected available resources in the sensors that take
part in communication at each moment have barely been analyzed in the literature.
Nevertheless, there exist many practical scenarios where it is feasible to attribute a particular
significance; priority; relevance; or utility value to messages transmitted or forwarded by
sensor nodes. Tailored to those scenarios, we will consider that messages can be evaluated
through an importance indicator which reflects the priority of the message, the relevance of
the information conveyed or the required level of quality of service (QoS). Relevant
examples in the context of Sensor Networks can be found in the fields of: security (attack
reports), medical care (critical alerts), or data fusion (DAIDA algorithm in ), to name a few.
The basic problem is selective communication policies in WSN and Markov Decision
Process.
Here we are going to think the better way to reduced the computational cost using selective
message forwarding schemes and energy conception in wireless sensor networks. The
following figure describe that how we are going to calculate and save the energy then the
performance metrics are describe which is used to analysis and show the result.

Figure 3.1 Optimal Policy State Chart

Let 𝒩 = {𝑛∣𝑛 = 0, . . ., − 1} is the collection of sensor nodes then the state will be
characterized by at least two variables
𝑒𝑘: available energy (battery level) at time 𝑘. It reflects the “internal state” of the
node
𝑥𝑘: importance of the message to be sent at time 𝑘. It reflects the “external input” to the node
s𝑘 = (𝑒𝑘, z𝑘): state vector that contains all and only the information that is available at the
node to make a decision at time 𝑘.
At time 𝑘, the sensor node must make a decision 𝑑𝑘 about sending or not the current
message. The message is sent if 𝑑𝑘 = 1, while it is discarded if 𝑑𝑘 = 0.
A forwarding policy 𝜋 = {𝑑1, 𝑑2, . . .} at a given node is a sequence of decision rules, which
are functions of the state vector; i.e.,

𝑑𝑘 = (s𝑘) = (𝑒𝑘, z𝑘)

Nodes consume energy at each time epoch by an amount that depends on the taken actions.
We will express the available energy at time 𝑘 recursively as
Available energy at time :-
𝑒𝑘+1 = 𝑒𝑘 − 𝑑𝑘𝑐1, − (1 − 𝑑𝑘)0,𝑘
Where
𝑐1, is the energy consumed when the node decides to transmit the message.
𝑐0, is the energy consumed when the message is discarded.
Our goal is to use the previous assumptions to characterize the probability of any state
transition from 𝑘 to 𝑘 + 1. More specifically, we want to find 𝑝(s𝑘+1∣s𝑘, 𝑑𝑘), which denotes
the probability of reaching the state 𝑠𝑘+1 given that at time 𝑘 the state was 𝑠𝑘 and the
decision made was 𝑑𝑘.
The transition probability (s𝑘+1/s𝑘, 𝑑𝑘) can be expressed as

(s𝑘+1∣s𝑘, 𝑑𝑘) = (𝑑𝑘𝑝1,(𝑒𝑘 − 𝑒𝑘+1∣z𝑘+1 ) + (1 − 𝑑𝑘)𝑝0,𝑘(𝑒𝑘 − 𝑒𝑘+1∣z𝑘+1))𝑝𝑘+1(z𝑘+1)

If 𝑑𝑘 = 1
Then 𝑝1,(𝑒𝑘 − 𝑒𝑘+1∣z𝑘+1)𝑝𝑘+1(z𝑘+1);
If 𝑑𝑘 = 0
Then 𝑝0,(𝑒𝑘−𝑒𝑘+1∣z𝑘+1)𝑝𝑘+1(z𝑘+1).

The reward at time 𝑘 for a node that decides to transmit a message will be:-
𝑟𝑘 = (𝑒𝑘 − 𝑐1,)
Here ∈ {0, 1} denote the success index that is a binary variable taking value 1 if the
transmission is successful, and zero otherwise.
if 𝑑𝑘 denotes the decision at node 𝑖, then the node receives a reward equal to the message
importance if 𝑑𝑘 = 1 i.e., the node decides to transmit the message, 𝑞𝑘 = 1 i.e., the
transmission is successful, and 𝑒𝑘 ≥ 𝑐1,𝑘 i.e., the node has enough energy for the
transmission. Otherwise, the reward is zero.
The “success” of a transmission can be measured in different ways.
Global success index:- Since each message must travel through several nodes before
arriving to destination, the message transmission is completely successful (𝑞𝑘 = 1) if the
message arrives to the sink node, and zero otherwise.
Local success index:- If the transmitting node has no way to know if the message
arrives to the sink, the global success index is not accessible. However, it may be the case
that the transmitting node can know if the neighboring node receiving the message forwards
it to other nodes or not (by listening to the channel, or because the neighboring node returns a
confirmation message). The local success index is 𝑞𝑘 = 1 if a neighboring node forwards the
message, and zero otherwise.
Zero-order success index:- As a degenerate case, we can take any transmission as
successful, so that 𝑞𝑘 = 1 in any case. This amounts to say that every node maximizes the
importance of its own transmitted messages.

3.2 Technology (NS2)

Network Simulator also known as NS-2 is an event driven packet level network
simulator. It is used to evaluate the performance of existing network protocols, to evaluate
new network protocols before use, to run large scale experiments not possible in real
experiments , to simulate a variety of networks. NS2 simulator is based upon two language:-
an object oriented simulator, written in c++ and an OTcl interpreter which is a object
oriented extension of Tcl, used to execute user’s command script.
NS has a rich library of network and protocol objects. Following figure show the working
concept of NS2.

Figure 3.2 Working of NS2

NS-2 : Components
NS – Simulator
 NAM – Network AniMator
 visual demonstration of NS output
 Preprocessing
 Handwritten TCL or
 Topology generator
 Post analysis
 Trace analysis using Perl/TCL/AWK/MATLAB

Basically NS 2 programming contains the following steps-

1.Create the event scheduler

2.Turn on tracing

3.Creating network

a) Computing setup routing - rtproto

b) Creating transport connection-Agents
c) Creating traffic-Applications

4. Monitoring

a) Visualization using nam

Note: every tcl script must write in small letters only except protocol agents i.e. TCP, FTP
Template

Every ns2 script starts with creating simulator object

set ns [new Simulator]

How to create node

set n0 [$ns node]

set n1 [$ns node]

Creating link

$ns duplex-link $n0 $n1 1Mb 10ms DropTail

This line tells the simulator object to connect the nodes n0 and n1 with a duplex link with the bandwidth
delay of 10ms and a DropTail queue.

How to use Trace?

We use simulator to see results. How is it achieved? Using trace

Two types of trace

1. generic trace
for use with xgraph, and other things

2. nam trace
 for use with visualization

# open trace file

set tracefile [open out.tr w]
$ns trace-all $tracefile

#Open the nam trace file

set nf [open out.nam w]
$ns namtrace-all $nf

Since we have started tracing, we should end also. For this we use finish procedure.

#Define a 'finish' procedure

proc finish {}
{
global ns tracefile nf
$ns flush-trace
close $nf
close $tracefile # close tracefile
exec nam out.nam & #Execute nam on the trace file
exit 0
}

Finish procedure is forced to be called at the end with the line

$ns at 5.0 “finish”

Every tcl script must contain following statement

$ns run
Rules

All communication between 2 agents.

Upper layer to lower layer, we attach agents.

Same layer in two nodes, we connect agents.

Agents are tcp, udp, telnet, cbr…etc

UDP communication
In UDP communication, data is flows from UDP agent to Null agent.

#Create a UDP agent and attach it to node n0

set udp0 [new Agent/UDP]
$ns attach-agent $n0 $udp0

# create a null agent which act as traffic sink and attach it to node n1
set null0 [new Agent/Null]
$ns attach-agent $n1 $null0

# connect two agents with each other

$ns connect $udp0 $null0
TCP Communication

In TCP communication, data is flows from TCP agent to TCPsink agent.

# create Tcp agent and attach it to node no

set tcp0 [new Agent/TCP]
$ns attach-agent $n0 $tcp0

# create a tcpsink agent which act as traffic sink and attach it to node n1
set tcpsink0 [new Agent/TCPSink]
$ns attach-agent $n1 $tcpsink0

# connect two agents with each other

$ns connect $tcp0 $tcpsink0

Traffic generator

For actual data to flow, we need traffic generators.They simulate some application traffic.
Simple example using CBR

# creating CBR agent

set cbr0 [new Application/Traffic/CBR]

# Attach the CBR agent to some udp/tcp agent

$cbr0 attach-agent $udp0

Scheduling the events

 Here “at” place major role.

$ns at 1.0 “$cbr0 start”

$ns at 5.0 “finish"

cbr0 will start at a time of 1.0 ms and whole process will stops at 5.0ms.
we can also stop each and traffic generator.

3.3 Result
Theoretical Result

Following table show the comparison of non-selective transitions, adaptive selective

transmitter which uses zero order success index, local selective forwarder which uses local
success index and global selective forwarder which uses the global success index to
calculate the sum of total importance received, mean received value ,total number of
transmission of the message and lifetime of sensor network based upon the formulas
described previously.

Table 3.1
Total import. received Importance received Number of receptions Number
value gen
messages
NS 321.04 0.54 599.00 600.00

AT 552.44 0.96 577.42 2623.60

LF 910.66 1.60 567.58 21170.40

GF 910.66 1.60 567.58 21170.40

All selective communication strategies (AT, LF and GF) outperform non-selective forwarding (NS).
LF and GF nodes get around 65% higher importance sum than that achieved by AT nodes.
Also,the higher mean value of the messages received by the sink implies that selective forwarders
are much more selective, enlarging the network lifetime.

Construction Of wireless sensor network

Sensor networks are the key to gathering the information needed by smart environments, whether
in buildings, utilities, industrial, home, shipboard, transportation systems automation, or elsewhere.
The ideal wireless sensor is networked and scaleable , consumes very little power, is smart and
software programmable, capable of fast data acquisition, reliable and accurate over the long term,
costs little to purchase and install, and requires no real maintenance.

1) Managing data collection from the sensors

2) Performing power management functions

3) Interfacing the sensor data to the physical radio layer

4) Managing the radio network protocol

Here we create network nodes in different positions in one location. Every Node contains two
coordinates like X and Y. Nodes are categorizes into three types source node, selective
forwarder nodes, sink. Different kind’s nodes start communication with different channels.
3.4 Snapshot of Simulation:-

Network Simulator also known as NS-2 is an event driven packet level network
simulator. It is used to evaluate the performance of existing network protocols, to evaluate
new network protocols before use, to run large scale experiments not possible in real
experiments , to simulate a variety of networks. NS2 simulator is based upon two language:-
an object oriented simulator, written in c++ and an OTcl interpreter which is a object
oriented extension of Tcl, used to execute user’s command script. NS has a rich library of
network and protocol objects. Following figure show the working concept of NS2.

First the parameter is decided to create the sensor network that is given in following
table with description:-

Table 3.2
Variable Value Description
chan Wireless channel channel type
prop Propagation radio-propagation model
mac Mac802_11 MAC type
ant Antenna antenna model
Ifq Queue Interface queue type
ifqlen 50 max packet in ifq
Nn 34 No of mobile node
rp AODV routing protocol
X 500 X dimension of topography
Y 400 Y dimension of topography
stop 10 time of simulation end
Snapshot in Time Interval

Fig. 3.3 Snapshot of WSN Creation Placed Equidistance

Fig3.4 Blue Circle for Source Node and Red Circle for Forwarding Nodes
Fig3.5 Source Forward the Message to Forwarding Node
Fig3.6 AT send packet to Sink
Fig3.7 Forwarding Node Send the Message to Sink
Fig3.8 Forwarding Node Send the Message to Sink
Fig3.9 Forwarding Node Send the Message to Sink
Fig3.10 Forwarding Node Send the Message to Sink
Fig3.11 Yellow Circle Show the Discharging of Nodes
Fig3.12 Energy Level is Changed
Graph shows that the adaptive transmission take more energy to forward the message in the
comparison of local transmission with full information

Fig. 3.13comparision between Adaptive Transmission & local Forwording

Graph shows that the adaptive transmission have less throughput in the comparison of local
transmission with full information.

Fig.3.14 Throughput between Adaptive Transmission & Local Forwording

3.5 H/S Requirement

Following are the basic hardware and software requirement for this project:-

Hardware Requirements:
Processor Type : Pentium -IV

Speed : 2.4 GHZ

Ram : 128 MB RAM

Hard disk : 20 GB HD

Software Requirements:
Operating System : Linux – red hat 9.0

Programming Package : C++ , TCL

Tool Used : Vm ware Work station

Version : NS2 2.27
 CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK

4.1 CONCLUSION

In this project work we show several selective message forwarding policies to save
energy and extend the lifetime of WSN. Messages, which were assumed to be graded with an
importance value and which could be eventually discarded, were transmitted by sensor nodes
according to a forwarding policy, which considered consumption patterns, available energy
resources in nodes, the importance of the current message and the statistical description of
such importance. Forwarding schemes were designed for three different scenarios: when
sensors maximize the importance of their own transmitted messages (no information from
other nodes is available); when sensors maximize the importance of messages that have been
successfully retransmitted by at least one of its neighbors i.e nodes need to know/estimate if
the message was retransmitted; and when sensors maximize the importance of the messages
that successfully arrive to the sink i.e nodes need to know if the message arrived to the sink.

4.2 FUTURE WORK

In this project we compare the selective forwarding schemes. So we can say that the
adaptive transmission take more energy to transmit the message in the comparison of local
transmission scheme. So when we use the LT scheme the network lifetime will be increased.
It also concludes that the local information is very necessary or valuable to reduce the energy
for transmitting the message because the local transmission gives the importance to the
information from neighbor.
This project concludes that the energy consumption is very important factor to design
sensor network because nodes have a finite lifetime or limited energy to forward the
messages of different importance. The energy refilling is possible with the help of
neighboring node or harvesting nodes or solar energy or any other mean of energy production
but it is not very easy that’s why our main aim to design the network which consume less
energy and full utilize the energy.
So our future work is based upon the energy of ideal states. In ideal state most of
energy is wasting because the sensor node not forwarding the message. This project the
energy consumption during the ideal state is not consider and we know that during the ideal
state the node also consume the energy. So next we study the optimal selective forwarding
policy when ideal state energy is also considered.
 CHAPTER 5

REFERENCES

1. E. Shih, S.-H. Cho, N. Ickes, R. Min, A. Sinha, A. Wang, and A. Chandrakasan,

“Physical layer driven protocol and algorithm design for energy-efficient wireless
sensor networks,” in Proc. 7th Annual ACM/IEEE Int’l Conf. on Mobile Computing
and Networking (Mobicom 01), July 2001.

2. I.F. Akyildiz, W. Su, Y. Sankarasubramaniam, and E. Cayirci, “A survey on sensor

networks,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 102–114, Aug. 2002.

3. Wood and J. Stankovic, “Denial of service in sensor networks,” IEEE Computer, vol.
35, no. 10, pp. 54–62, Oct. 2002.

4. V. Shnayder, B. Chen, K. Lorincz, T. Fulford-Jones, and M. Welsh, “Sensor networks

for medical care,” Division of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University,
Tech. Rep. TR-08-05, 2005.

5. S. Appadwedula, V. V. Veeravalli, and D. L. Jones, “Energy-efficient detection in

sensor networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 693-702, Apr.
2005.

6. G. Merrett, B. Al-Hashimi, N. White, and N. Harris, “Information managed wireless

sensor networks with energy aware nodes,” in Proc. NSTI Nanotechnology Conf. and
Trade Show (NanoTech ’05), May 2005, pp. 367–370.
7. Shio Kumar Singh , M P Singh and D K Singh “Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor
Networks –A survey” in International Journal of Computer Science & Engineering
Survey (IJCSES) Vol.1, No.2, November.

8. R. Arroyo-Valles, A. G. Marques, and J. Cid-Sueiro, Wireless Sensor Networks. IN-

TECH, 2010, ch. Energy-aware Selective Communications in Sensor Networks.

9. J. Qiu, Y. Tao, and S. Lu, Grid and Cooperative Computing. Springer Berlin /
Heidelberg, 2005, vol. 3795, ch. Differentiated Application Independent Data
Aggregation in Wireless Sensor Networks, pp. 529– 534.

10. R. Arroyo-Valles, A. G. Marques, and J. Cid-Sueiro, “Energy-efficient selective

forwarding for sensor networks,” in Proc. Workshop on Energy in Wireless Sensor
Networks (WEWSN’08), in conjunction with DCOSS’08, June 2008.

11. G. Marques, X. Wang, and G. B. Giannakis, “Minimizing transmitpower for coherent

communications in wireless sensor networks with finite-rate feedback,” IEEE Trans.
Signal Process., vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 4446–4457, Sep. 2008.

12. 2010R. Arroyo-Valles, A. G. Marques, and J. Cid-Sueiro, “Optimal selective

transmission under energy constraints in sensor networks,” IEEE Trans. Mobile
Computing, vol. 8, no. 11, pp.1524–1538, Nov. 2009

13. P. Santhiya and J. Bhavithra “An Optimal Selective Forwarding Algorithm for
Reducing Packet Loss in Mobile Sampling of Sensor Field” in Bonfring International
Journal of Research in Communication Engineering, Vol. 2, Special Issue 1, Part 3,
February 2012.

14. NS2 Tutorial “Introduction to Network Simulator NS2”

15. Wei Ye, John Heidemann, Deborah Estrin”” An Energy-Efficient MAC Protocol for
Wireless Sensor Networks.
 16. Mark A. Perillo and Wendi B. Heinzelman Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering University of Rochester Rochester, NY, USA “Wireless Sensor Network
Protocols”

17. Yazeed Al-Obaisat, Robin Braun Institute of Information and Communication

Technologies University of Technology, Sydney , Australia” On Wireless Sensor
Networks: Architectures, Protocols, Applications, and Management”

18. A. Hac, Wireless Sensor Network Design. New York: Wiley, 2003

19.J. Branch, G. Chen,& B. Szymański, “ESCORT: Energy- efficient sensor network

routing topology using signal quality metrics”, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol.
3420, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 2005, pp. 438–448

20.Namarta Kapoor.Nitin Bhatiya,Sangeet Kumar Simranjeet Kour”Wireless Sensor

Networks:A Profound Technology”IJCST Vol2 Issue2 June 2011.

21. Monica R Mundada, Savan Kiran1 , Shivanand Khobanna1, Raja Nahusha ,Varsha1
and Seira Ann George” A STUDY ON ENERGY EFFICIEN ROUTING
PROTOCOLS IN WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS”. International Journal of
Distributed and Parallel Systems (IJDPS) Vol.3, No.3, May 2012

22.Luis Javier García Villalba *, Ana Lucila Sandoval Orozco, Alicia Triviño Cabrera and
Cláudia Jacy Barenco Abbas” Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Networks”
ISSN 1424-8220 www.mdpi.com/journal.

23.Geoff Merrett,Bashir M.AI-Hashimi,Neil White and Nick Hais “Information Managed

Wireless Sensor Networks with Energy Aware Nodes”

24.Ali Norouzi1, Faezeh Sadat Babamir2, Abdul Halim Zaim3” A Novel Energy Efficient
Routing Protocol in Wireless Sensor Networks” Wireless Sensor Network, 2011, 3, 341-
 350 doi:10.4236/wsn.2011.310038 Published Online October 2011
(http://www.SciRP.org/journal/wsn).

25. Kemal Akkaya and Mohamed Younis “A Survey on Routing Protocols for Wireless
Sensor Networks” .

26. W. Ye, J. Heidemann and D. Estrin, "An Energy-Efficient MAC Protocol for Wireless
Sensor Networks", in the Proceedings of IEEE Infocom 2002, New York, NY, June 2002.

27. Q. Jiang and D. Manivannan, “Routing Protocols for Sensor Networks,”

in Proc.1st IEEE Consumer Comm. and Networking Conf. (CCNC ’04),Jan. 2004, pp. 93–98.

28.J. Paradiso and T. Starner, “Energy scavenging for mobile and wireless electronics,”
IEEE Trans. Pervasive Computing, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 1827,2005.

29.K. Sohrabi, J. Gao, V. Ailawadhi, and G. Pottie, “Protocols for selforganization

of a wireless sensor network,” IEEE Personal Commu.,vol. 7, no. 5, p. 1627, Oct. 2000.

30. W. Ye and J. Heidemann, “Medium Access Control in Wireless Sensor

Networks,” Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, Tech. Rep. ISI-
TR-580, Oct. 2003.

31. C. Schurgers, V. Tsiatsis, and M. Srivastava, “STEM: Topology management

for energy efficient sensor networks,” in Proc. IEEE Aerospace Conf., vol. 3, 2002, pp.
1099 – 1118.

32. J. Xiao, S. Cui, Z. Luo, and A. Goldsmith, “Power scheduling of universal decentralized
estimation in sensor networks,.”

33.Hong-Ning Dai “Throughput and Delay in Wireless Sensor Networks using Directional
antennas ”.
34. Z. Ye, A. Abouzeid, and J. Ai, “Optimal Policies for Distributed DataAggregation in
Wireless Sensor Networks,” in Proc. 26th IEEE Int’l Conf. on Computer Communications
(INFOCOM 2007), May 2007, pp.1676–1684.
35 M. Bhardwaj, T. Garnett, and A. P. Chandrakasan, “Upper bounds onthe lifetime of sensor
networks,” vol. 3, June 2001, pp. 785–790.

36.W. Ye, J. Heidemann, and D. Estrin, “An energy-efficient MAC protocol for wireless
sensor networks,” vol. 3, June 2002, pp. 1567–1576.

37. J. N. Al-Karaki and A. E. Kamal, “Routing techniques in wireless sensor networks: A

survey,” vol. 11, no. 6, Dec. 2004, pp. 6–28.

38.S. Goel and T. Imielinski, “Prediction-based monitoring in sensor networks: taking

lessons from MPEG.”

39. S. Santini and K. Rmer, “An Adaptive Strategy for Quality-Based Data Reduction in
Wireless Sensor Networks,” in Proc. 3rd Int’l Conf. on Networked Sensing Systems (INSS
2006), May 2006.

40. E. Sabbath, A. Majeed, K. Kang, K. Liu, and N. AbuGhazaleh, “An Application Driven
Perspective on Wireless Sensor Network Security,”in Proc. 2nd ACM Int’l Workshop on
Quality of service and security for wireless and mobile networks (Q2SWinet’06), Oct. 2006,
pp. 1–8.

41.G. Merrett, N. Harris, B. Al-Hashimi, and N. White, “Energy Controlled Reporting for
Industrial Monitoring Wireless Sensor Networks,” in Proc.5th IEEE Conf. on Sensors, Oct.
2006, pp. 892–895.

42. J. Zhou, D. D. Roure, and S. Vivekanandan, “Adaptive Sampling and Routing in a

Floodplain Monitoring Sensor Network,” in Proc.IEEE Int’l Conf. on Wireless and Mobile
Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob’2006), June 2006, pp. 85–93.

43. J. Qiu, Y. Tao, and S. Lu, Grid and Cooperative Computing. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg,
2005, vol. 3795/2005, ch. Differentiated Application Independent Data Aggregation in
Wireless Sensor Networks, pp. 529–534.
44. F. Dressler, “Weighted Probabilistic Data Dissemination (WPDD),”Dept. of Computer
Science 7, University of Erlangen, Germany, Tech.Rep. TR-05/06, Dec. 2006.

45.G. Merrett, B. Al-Hashimi, N. White, and N. Harris, “Information Managed Wireless

Sensor Networks with Energy Aware Nodes,” in Proc.NSTI Nanotechnology Conf. and
Trade Show (NanoTech ’05), May 2005,pp. 367–370.

46 S. J. Mujumdar, “Prioritized Geographical Routing in Sensor Networks,”Master’s thesis,

Vanderbilt University, Tennessee, May 2004.

47. J. Rivera, G. Bojorquez, M. Chacon, G. Herrera, and M. Carrillo, “A Fuzzy Message

Priority Arbitration Approach for Sensor Networks,” in Proc. North American Fuzzy
Information Processing Society (NAFIPS’07), June 2007, pp. 586–591.

48. R. Arroyo-Valles, A. Garc´ıa-Marqu´es, J. Vinagre-D´ıaz, and J. Cid-Sueiro, “A Bayesian

Decision Model for Intelligent Routing in Sensor Networks,” in Proc. 3rd IEEE Int’l Symp.
on Wireless Comm. Systems(ISWCS ’06), Sept. 2006.

49.R. Arroyo-Valles, A. Garc´ıa-Marqu´es, and J. Cid-Sueiro, “Energy-aware Geographic

Forwarding of Prioritized Messages in Wireless Sensor Networks,” in Proc. 4th IEEE Int’l
Conf. on Mobile Ad-hoc and Sensor Systems (MASS ’07), Oct. 2007.

50. R. Arroyo-Valles, R. Alaiz-Rodr´ıguez, A. Guerrero-Curieses, and J. Cid-

Sueiro, “Q-Probabilistic Routing in Wireless Sensor Networks,” in Proc.3th Int’l Conf. on
Intelligent Sensors, Sensor Networks and Information Processing (ISSNIP ’07), Dec. 2007.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.
Certificate ii
Abstract iii
Acknowledgements iv
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
Abbreviations viii

CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION 1-13

1.1 INTRODUCTION 1-5
1.2 CHARACTERISTIC OF WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORK 5-6

1.3 DESIGN ISSUES & CHALLENGES 6-11

1.4 IDEAL ALGORITHM 11-12
1.5 DECENTRALIZED DETECTION ALGORITHM 13

CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE SURVEY 14-26

2.1 INTRODUCTION 14-18
2.2 RELATED WORK 18-23
2.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT 24-26

CHAPTER 3 : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 27-52

3.1 INTRODUCTION 26-30

3.2 TECHNOLOGY NS2 30-36

3.3 RESULT 37
3.4 EXPERIMENT RESULT 39-51
3.5 H/S REQUIREMENT 52
CHAPTER 4 : CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
4.1 CONCLUSION 53
4.2 FUTURE WORK 54
CHAPTER 5 : REFERENCES 55-60

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Name Page No

Table 1.1 Routing Protocol 17
Table 3.1 comparison of non-selective transitions 37
Table 3.2 Description of variables 39
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Name Page No

Figure 1.1 WSN Architecture 1

Figure 1.2 Single-Sink and Multi-Sink Network 3
Figure 1.3 Components of WSN 4
Figure 1.4 Protocol Stack of WSN 5
Figure 1.5 The IDEALS System Diagram 11

Figure 1.6 The IDEALS Priority Balancing Mechanism 12

Figure 3.1 Optimal Policy State Chart 28

Figure 3.2 Working of NS2 30

Figure 3.3 Snapshot of WSN Creation Placed Equidistance 39
Figure 3.4 Snapshot of WSN Creation 40
Figure 3.5 Snapshot of WSN Creation 41
Figure 3.6 Snapshot of WSN Creation 42

Figure 3.7 Snapshot of WSN Creation 43

Figure 3.8 Snapshot of WSN Creation 44
Figure 3.9 Snapshot of WSN Creation 45

Figure 3.10 Snapshot of WSN Creation 46

Figure 3.11 Snapshot of WSN Creation 47

Figure 3.12 Snapshot of WSN Creation 48

Figure 3.13 Snapshot of graph Representation 50

Figure 3.14 Snapshot of graph Representation 51

 ABBREVIATIONS

Variable Value Description

chan Wireless channel channel type
prop Propagation radio-propagation model
mac Mac802_11 MAC type
ant Antenna antenna model
Ifq Queue Interface queue type
ifqlen 50 max packet in ifq
Nn 34 No of mobile node
rp AODV routing protocol
X 500 X dimension of topography
Y 400 Y dimension of topography
stop 10 time of simulation end