This thesis proposes two topology control schemes, namely SmartBone and HCR separately, in wireless sensor networks. The first proposed scheme in the thesis, SmartBone, selects proper backbone nodes in wireless sensor networks.
Flow-Bottleneck preprocessing is adopted to obtain critical-aware nodes, and Dynamic Density Cutback is adopted to reduce the number of redundant nodes efficiently. A significant result of this section is that the proposed algorithm can achieve a 50% smaller backbone than previous algorithms, and improves the energy saving ratio from 25% using traditional methods to 40% using SmartBone. Moreover, SmartBone improves packet delivery ratio from 40% using traditional methods to 90% when the density of sensor networks become sparse due to the node failure.
The second proposed scheme in the thesis has modeled and analyzed the performance of HCR in wireless sensor networks. The objective of the HCR is to choose the appropriate nodes for the next hop and to perform path aggregation. The end-to-end transmission delay of HCR is as short as brute-force method, and the power consumption of HCR is efficient comparing with other methods. The impact of failed nodes was studied, and Lazy Grouping was proposed to improve the robustness of HCR. In addition to providing the maintenance algorithm, the proposed algorithm performs restricted flooding to handle the effects caused by the fault nodes. A major result of HCR is that only about 15% of nodes out of 400 are NTR. Furthermore, in LG-HCR algorithm, only about 7% of nodes out of 400 are NTR. The flooding scopes of the two methods are similar. About 5% of 400 nodes are needed to be updated with correct HCVs. The performance of restricted flooding is compared with using full-scale flooding. HCR is a complete solution comprising routing, grouping and
maintenance. HCR performs significantly better than other algorithms, since it simultaneously considers energy cost and transmission delay.
Appendix:
[Lemma 1] Node-X is assumed to have one neighbor node-Y, and the HCVs of the two nodes are (X1,X2,X3,...,Xn) and (Y1,Y2,Y3,...,Yn) separately. It exists the formula that
|Xk-Yk|| 1, for any k in the range [1 to n], and if node-X and node-Y are neighbor nodes.
≤
[Proof] Without loss of generality, supposes two nodes, node-A and node-B like Fig.
45 shows, are neighbor nodes. The HCV of node-A is equal to n, and the undecided HCV of node-B is equal to n+k (k>1) which obtained through path 1. However, according to the assumption, node-A and node-B are neighbor nodes, it exists a path which costs 1-hop to achieve another node like path 2. Therefore, the undecided HCV of node-B is equal to n+1. Since n+1 is less than n+k (k>1), the HCV of node-B is equal to n+1 based on the definition of HCV. Hence, the difference in HCV between node-A and node-B is not more than one. Scilicet, the property of |Xk-Yk||≤ 1 is guaranteed for any k in the range [1 to n].
Fig. 45. The mathematical proof of lemma 1
[Lemma 2] Assumes that node-X exists in the network topology, according to HCR algorithm, messages could achieve each sinks from node-X. This property guarantees HCR works.
[Proof] We would prove that two propositions subsist. The first proposition is that there exists certainly routing paths to achieve each sinks. The second proposition is that HCR could find routing paths to achieve each sinks. According to lemma 1, the first proposition is straightforward. For each sink-k, we could individually find a neighbor of node-X which is more close to the sink-k. The rest may be deduced by analogy. Finally, we could get the destination. The following is the proof of the second proposition:
Assumes that node-X is in the network topology and the HCV of node-X is (X1,X2,X3,...,Xn). According to lemma 1, we could find n nodes, namely node-N1, node-N2, …, and node-Nn, which are more close to sinks than node-X. The HCV of Nk
is (Nk,1, Nk,2, Nk,3, ..., Nk,k, ..., Nk,n) and Nk,k < Xk which k is in the range [1 to n]. Based on Set Cover algorithm, without loss of generality, we have j nodes which are I1,k1, I2,k2, I3,k3, ..., Ij,kj and satisfies that: node-X. Tautologically, for each intermediate node-I, there exists certainly routing paths to achieve the restricted part of sinks based on the first proposition. Therefore,
we could find routing paths to achieve each sinks from node-X using HCR algorithm.
Reference:
[1] R. Rajaraman, “Topology control and routing in ad hoc networks: a survey,”
ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory (SIGACT) News, June 2002.
[2] D. Estrin, et. Al., http://nesl.ee.ucla.edu/tutorials/mobicom02
[3] C. Schurgers, V. Tsiatsis, S. Ganeriwal, and M. Srivastava, “Topology management for sensor networks: exploiting latency and density,” International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking & Computing Proceedings of the 3rd ACM international symposium on Mobile ad hoc networking & computing, 2002.
[4] M. Min, F. Wang, D. Du, and P. M. Pardalos, “A Reliable Virtual Backbone Scheme in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks,” IEEE Mobile Ad hoc and Sensor Systems, 2004.
[5] F. Heide, C. Schindelhauer, K. Volbert, and M. Grünewald, “Energy, congestion and dilation in radio networks,” In Proc. of the fourteenth annual ACM symposium on Parallel algorithms and architectures, 2002.
[6] H. Liu and R. Gupta, “Selective Backbone Construction for Topology Control,”
First IEEE International Conference on Mobile Ad-hoc and Sensor Systems, pp.
41-50, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, October 2004.
[7] Y. Wang, W. Wang, and X. Y. Li, “Distributed low-cost backbone formation for wireless ad hoc networks,” In Proc. of the 6th ACM international symposium on Mobile ad hoc networking and computing, 2005.
[8] L. Bao, J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, “Topology management in ad hoc networks,”
In Proc. of the 4th ACM international symposium on Mobile ad hoc networking &
computing, 2003
[9] K. Alzoubi, X.-Y. Li, Y. Wang, P.-J. Wan and O. Frieder, “Geometric Spanners for Wireless Ad Hoc Networks”, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 408-421, 2003.
[10] C. Sengul and R. Kravets, “TITAN: on-demand topology management in ad hoc networks,” ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications, 2004.
[11] The network simulator – NS-2, http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns.
[12] C. C. Shen, C. Srisathapornphat, R. Liu, Z. Huang, C. Jaikaeo, and E. L. Lloyd,
“CLTC: A Cluster-Based Topology Control Framework for Ad Hoc Networks,”
IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 2004.
[13] S. Srivastava and R. K. Ghosh, “Cluster based routing using a k-tree core backbone for mobile ad hoc networks,” In Proc. of the 6th international workshop on Discrete algorithms and methods for mobile computing and communications, 2002.
[14] B. Das and V. Bharghavan, “Routing in Ad-Hoc Networks Using Minimum Connected Dominating Sets,” In Proc. of International Conference on Communication, pp. 376-380, 1997.
[15] J. Wu and H. L. Li, “On calculating connected dominating set for efficient routing in ad hoc wireless networks,” In Proc. of the 3rd ACM international workshop on Discrete algorithms and methods for mobile computing and communications, pp. 7-14, 1999.
[16] I. Stojmenovic, M. Seddigh, and J. Zunic, “Dominating sets and neighbor elimination based broadcasting algorithms in wireless networks,” In Proc. of IEEE Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, January 2001.
[17] X. Cheng, X. Huang, D. Li and D.-Z.- Du, “Polynomial-Time Approximation Scheme for Minimum Connected Dominating Set in Ad Hoc Wireless Networks,”
Technical Report TR02-003, Computer Science and Engineering Department, Univ. of Minnesota, 2002.
[18] P.-J. Wan, K. M. Alzoubi and O. Frieder, “Distributed Construction of Connected Dominating Set in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks,” In Proc. of the IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM), pp. 1597-1604, 2002.
[19] M. Cardei, X. Cheng, X. Cheng, and D.-Z. Du, “Connected Domination in Multihop Ad HocWireless Networks,” 6th International Conference on Computer Science and Informatics, March 2002, North Carolina, USA.
[20] G. J. Pottie and W. Kaiser, “Wireless integrated network sensors,”
Communications of the ACM, 43(5):51–58, May 2000.
[21] R. Ramanathan, R. Rosales-Hain, “Topology Control of Multihop Wireless Networks using Transmit Power Adjustment,” In Proc. of the IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM), 2000.
[22] M. Kubisch, H. Karl, A. Wolisz, L. C. Zhong, and J. Rabaey, “Distributed Algorithms for Transmission Power Control in Wireless Sensor Networks,”
Wireless Communications and Networking (WCNC'03), pp. 558-563, March 2003.
[23] H. Koskinen, J. Karvo and O. Apilo, “On Improving Connectivity of Static Ad-Hoc Networks by Adding Nodes”, In Proc. of The Fourth annual Mediterranean workshop on Ad Hoc Networks (Med-Hoc-Net), 2005.
[24] S. M. Das, H. Pucha, and Y. Charlie Hu, “MicroRouting: A Scalable and Robust Communication Paradigm for Sparse Ad Hoc Networks,” In Proc. of the 19th IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS’05), 2005.
[25] R. Meraihi, G. Le Grand, N. Puech, “Improving ad hoc network performance with backbone topology control,” In Proc. of IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC), pp. 26-29, Sep. 2004.
[26] H. Kim, T. Abdelzaher, and W. Kwon, “Minimum Energy Asynchronous Dissemination to Mobile Sinks in Wireless Sensor Networks,” SenSys'03, LA, CA, pp. 193-204, Nov. 2003.
[27] W. R. Heinzelman, J. Kulik, and H. Balakrishnan “Adaptive Protocols for Information Dissemination in wireless Sensor Networks,” In Proc. of the Fifth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom ’99), pp. 174-185, August 15-20, 1999.
[28] D. Estrin, L. Girod, G. Pottie, and M. Srivastava, “Instrumenting the World with Wireless Sensor Networks,” International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP 2001), pp. 2033-2036, May 2001.
[29] C. H. Ke, et. Al., “Merged Multi-path Routing: Two Energy-Efficient Strategies in Wireless Sensor Networks,” In Chinese, In Proc. of National Computer Symposium (NCS) in Taiwan, Dec. 2005.
[30] F. Heide, C. Schindelhauer, K. Volbert, and M. Grünewald, “Energy, congestion and dilation in radio networks,” In Proc. of the fourteenth annual ACM symposium on Parallel algorithms and architectures, 2002.
[31] D. S. Johnson, “Approximation algorithms for combinatorial problems,” J.
Comput. System Sci. 9, 256-278, 1974.
[32] D. Estrin, R. Govindan, J. Heidemann and S. Kumar, “Next Century Challenges:
Scalable Coordination in sensor Networks,” ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networks (MobiCom ’99), Seattle, Washington, pp.
263-270, August 1999.