A Localized Coverage Preserving Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks
In a randomly deployed and large scale wireless sensor network, coverage-redundant nodes consume much unnecessary energy. As a result, turning off these redundant nodes can prolong the network lifetime, while maintaining the degree of sensing coverage with a limited number of on-duty nodes. None of...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2009-01-01
|
| Series: | Sensors |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/9/1/281/ |
| _version_ | 1811279293731307520 |
|---|---|
| author | Yuheng Liu Juhua Pu Yunlu Liu Shuo Zhang Zhang Xiong |
| author_facet | Yuheng Liu Juhua Pu Yunlu Liu Shuo Zhang Zhang Xiong |
| author_sort | Yuheng Liu |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | In a randomly deployed and large scale wireless sensor network, coverage-redundant nodes consume much unnecessary energy. As a result, turning off these redundant nodes can prolong the network lifetime, while maintaining the degree of sensing coverage with a limited number of on-duty nodes. None of the off-duty eligibility rules in the literature, however, are sufficient and necessary conditions for eligible nodes. Hence redundancy or blind points might be incurred. In this paper we propose a complete Eligibility Rule based on Perimeter Coverage (ERPC) for a node to determine its eligibility for sleeping. ERPC has a computational complexity of O(N2log(N)), lower than the eligibility rule in the Coverage Control Protocol (CCP), O(N3), where N is the number of neighboring nodes. We then present a Coverage Preserving Protocol (CPP) to schedule the work state of eligible nodes. The main advantage of CPP over the Ottawa protocol lies in its ability to configure the network to any specific coverage degree, while the Ottawa protocol does not support different coverage configuration. Moreover, as a localized protocol, CPP has better adaptability to dynamic topologies than centralized protocols. Simulation results indicate that CPP can preserve network coverage with fewer active nodes than the Ottawa protocol. In addition, CPP is capable of identifying all the eligible nodes exactly while the CCP protocol might result in blind points due to error decisions. Quantitative analysis and experiments demonstrate that CPP can extend the network lifetime significantly while maintaining a given coverage degree. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T00:52:04Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-5d00e731969e469eb99b4c8db6341ab9 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1424-8220 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T00:52:04Z |
| publishDate | 2009-01-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Sensors |
| spelling | doaj.art-5d00e731969e469eb99b4c8db6341ab92022-12-22T03:09:51ZengMDPI AGSensors1424-82202009-01-019128130210.3390/s90100281A Localized Coverage Preserving Protocol for Wireless Sensor NetworksYuheng LiuJuhua PuYunlu LiuShuo ZhangZhang XiongIn a randomly deployed and large scale wireless sensor network, coverage-redundant nodes consume much unnecessary energy. As a result, turning off these redundant nodes can prolong the network lifetime, while maintaining the degree of sensing coverage with a limited number of on-duty nodes. None of the off-duty eligibility rules in the literature, however, are sufficient and necessary conditions for eligible nodes. Hence redundancy or blind points might be incurred. In this paper we propose a complete Eligibility Rule based on Perimeter Coverage (ERPC) for a node to determine its eligibility for sleeping. ERPC has a computational complexity of O(N2log(N)), lower than the eligibility rule in the Coverage Control Protocol (CCP), O(N3), where N is the number of neighboring nodes. We then present a Coverage Preserving Protocol (CPP) to schedule the work state of eligible nodes. The main advantage of CPP over the Ottawa protocol lies in its ability to configure the network to any specific coverage degree, while the Ottawa protocol does not support different coverage configuration. Moreover, as a localized protocol, CPP has better adaptability to dynamic topologies than centralized protocols. Simulation results indicate that CPP can preserve network coverage with fewer active nodes than the Ottawa protocol. In addition, CPP is capable of identifying all the eligible nodes exactly while the CCP protocol might result in blind points due to error decisions. Quantitative analysis and experiments demonstrate that CPP can extend the network lifetime significantly while maintaining a given coverage degree.http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/9/1/281/Wireless Sensor NetworksCoverage Control ProtocolPerimeter CoverageOff-duty Eligibility Rule |
| spellingShingle | Yuheng Liu Juhua Pu Yunlu Liu Shuo Zhang Zhang Xiong A Localized Coverage Preserving Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks Sensors Wireless Sensor Networks Coverage Control Protocol Perimeter Coverage Off-duty Eligibility Rule |
| title | A Localized Coverage Preserving Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks |
| title_full | A Localized Coverage Preserving Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks |
| title_fullStr | A Localized Coverage Preserving Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Localized Coverage Preserving Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks |
| title_short | A Localized Coverage Preserving Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks |
| title_sort | localized coverage preserving protocol for wireless sensor networks |
| topic | Wireless Sensor Networks Coverage Control Protocol Perimeter Coverage Off-duty Eligibility Rule |
| url | http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/9/1/281/ |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT yuhengliu alocalizedcoveragepreservingprotocolforwirelesssensornetworks AT juhuapu alocalizedcoveragepreservingprotocolforwirelesssensornetworks AT yunluliu alocalizedcoveragepreservingprotocolforwirelesssensornetworks AT shuozhang alocalizedcoveragepreservingprotocolforwirelesssensornetworks AT zhangxiong alocalizedcoveragepreservingprotocolforwirelesssensornetworks AT yuhengliu localizedcoveragepreservingprotocolforwirelesssensornetworks AT juhuapu localizedcoveragepreservingprotocolforwirelesssensornetworks AT yunluliu localizedcoveragepreservingprotocolforwirelesssensornetworks AT shuozhang localizedcoveragepreservingprotocolforwirelesssensornetworks AT zhangxiong localizedcoveragepreservingprotocolforwirelesssensornetworks |