Data gathering algorithms in sensor networks using energy metrics

被引:658
作者
Lindsey, S [1 ]
Raghavendra, C
Sivalingam, KM
机构
[1] Microsoft Corp, Redmond, WA 98052 USA
[2] Univ So Calif, Dept Elect Engn Syst, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
[3] Aerosp Corp, Comp Syst Res Dept, Los Angeles, CA 90009 USA
[4] Washington State Univ, Sch Elect Engn & Comp Sci, Pullman, WA 99164 USA
关键词
wireless sensor networks; data gathering protocols; energy-efficient operation; greedy algorithms; performance evaluation;
D O I
10.1109/TPDS.2002.1036066
中图分类号
TP301 [理论、方法];
学科分类号
081202 ;
摘要
Sensor webs consisting of nodes with limited battery power and wireless communications are deployed to collect useful information from the field. Gathering sensed information in an energy efficient manner is critical to operating the sensor network for a long period of time. In [12], a data collection problem is defined where, in a round of communication, each sensor node has a packet to be sent to the distant base station. There is some fixed amount of energy cost in the electronics when transmitting or receiving a packet and a variable cost when transmitting a packet which depends on the distance of transmission. If each node transmits its sensed data directly to the base station, then it will deplete its power quickly. The LEACH protocol presented in [12] is an elegant solution where clusters are formed to fuse data before transmitting to the base station. By randomizing the cluster-heads chosen to transmit to the base station, LEACH achieves a factor of 8 improvement Compared to direct transmissions, as measured in terms of when nodes die. An improved version of LEACH, called LEACH-C, is presented in [14], where the central base station performs the clustering to improve energy efficiency. In this paper, we present an improved scheme, called PEGASIS (Power-Efficient GAthering in Sensor Information Systems), which is a near-optimal chain-based protocol that minimizes energy. In PEGASIS, each node communicates only with a close neighbor and takes turns transmitting to the base station, thus reducing the amount of energy spent per round. Simulation results show that PEGASIS performs better than LEACH by about 100 to 200 percent when 1 percent, 25 percent, 50 percent, and 100 percent of nodes die for different network sizes and topologies. For many applications, in addition to minimizing energy, it is also important to consider the delay incurred in gathering sensed data. We capture this with the energy x delay metric and present schemes that attempt to balance the energy and delay cost for data gathering from sensor networks. Since most of the delay factor is in the transmission time, we measure delay in terms of number of transmissions to accomplish a round of data gathering. Therefore, delay can be reduced by allowing simultaneous transmissions when possible in the network. With CDMA capable sensor nodes [111], simultaneous data transmissions are possible with little interference. In this paper, we present two new schemes to minimize energy x delay using CDMA and non-CDMA sensor nodes. If the goal is to minimize only the delay cost, then a binary combining scheme can be used to accomplish this task in about log N units of delay with parallel communications and incurring a slight increase in energy cost. With CDIVA capable sensor nodes, a chain-based binary scheme performs best in terms of energy x delay. If the sensor nodes are not CDMA capable, then parallel communications are possible only among spatially separated nodes and a chain-based 3-level hierarchy scheme performs well. We compared the performance of direct, LEACH, and our schemes with respect to energy x delay using extensive simulations for different network sizes. Results show that our schemes perform 80 or more times better than the direct scheme and also outperform the LEACH protocol.
引用
收藏
页码:924 / 935
页数:12
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]   Toward power-sensitive network architectures in wireless communications: Concepts, issues, and design aspects [J].
Bambos, N .
IEEE PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS, 1998, 5 (03) :50-59
[2]   Design considerations for distributed microsensor systems [J].
Chandrakasan, A ;
Amirtharajah, R ;
Cho, SH ;
Goodman, J ;
Konduri, G ;
Kulik, J ;
Rabiner, W ;
Wang, A .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE 1999 CUSTOM INTEGRATED CIRCUITS CONFERENCE, 1999, :279-286
[3]  
CHEN B, 2001, P SIGMOBILE
[4]   Self-organizing distributed sensor networks [J].
Clare, LP ;
Pottie, GJ ;
Agre, JR .
UNATTENDED GROUND SENSOR TECHNOLOGIES AND APPLICATIONS, 1999, 3713 :229-237
[5]  
Dong MJ, 1997, 1997 INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON LOW POWER ELECTRONICS AND DESIGN, PROCEEDINGS, P173, DOI 10.1109/LPE.1997.621275
[6]  
DUDGEON DE, 1984, MULTIDIMENSIONAL SIG
[7]  
ESTRIN D, 1999, P ACM IEEE MOB AUG
[8]  
ETTUS M, 1998, P RAD WIR C RAWCON
[9]  
HEINZELMAN W, 2000, P HAW C SYST SCI JAN
[10]  
Heinzelman WB., 2000, THESIS MIT