International

OPEN

Journal

ACCESS

Of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER)

A Review of Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensor Network

Vikas Chaudhary1, Aasiya Khatoon2, Nalin Chaudhary3
1.

M.Tech (C.S) (Assistant Professor, Bhagwant University, Ajmer, India)

2.
M.Tech (C.S) (Scholar, Bhagwant University, Ajmer, India)
3.
M.Tech (C.S) (Scholar, Bhagwant University, Ajmer, India)

Abstract- A wireless sensor network is a collection of nodes organized into a cooperative network.
Each node consists of processing capability, may contain multiple types of memory, have a RF
transceiver, have a power source, and accommodate various sensors and actuators. The nodes
communicate wirelessly and often self-organize after being deployed in an ad hoc fashion.
Routing protocols for wireless sensor networks are responsible for maintaining the routes in the
network and have to ensure reliable multi-hop communication .The performance of the network is
greatly influenced by the routing techniques. Routing is to find out the path to route the sensed data to
the base station. In this paper the features of WSNs are introduced and routing protocols are reviewed
for Wireless Sensor Network.
Keywords- Wireless Sensor Networks, Routing Protocols, Hierarchical Routing Protocols

I. Introduction
Wireless sensor networks are quickly gaining popularity due to the fact that they are potentially low
cost solutions to a variety of real-world challenges [1]. Their low cost provides a means to deploy large sensor
arrays in a variety of conditions capable of performing both military and civilian tasks. Wireless Sensor
Network (WSN) is intended for monitoring an environment. Wireless sensor network (WSN) is widely
considered as one of the most important technologies for the twenty-first century [2]. In the past decades, it has
received tremendous attention from both academia and industry all over the world. A WSN typically consists of
a large number of low-cost, low-power, and multifunctional wireless sensor nodes, with sensing, wireless
communications and computation capabilities [3, 4]. These sensor nodes communicate over short distance via a
wireless medium and collaborate to accomplish a common task, for example, environment monitoring, military
surveillance, and industrial process control [5].
The wireless sensor node is used to sense and collect data from a certain domain and transmit it to the
sink where application lies. Ensuring the direct communication between a sensor and the sink may lead nodes to
produce their messages with such a high power that it could result resources to be quickly consumed. Therefore,
the collaboration of nodes to ensure that distant nodes communicate with the sink is a requirement. In this way,
messages are generated by intermediate nodes so that a route with multiple links or hops to the sink is
established.
The communication with the sink could be initially evolved without a routing protocol. Based on this
statement, the flooding algorithm comes out as a solution. In this algorithm, the transmitter broadcasts the data
which are consecutively retransmitted in order to make them arrive at the intended destination. However, its
simplicity brings out significant drawbacks. An implosion is detected because nodes repeatedly receive multiple
copies of the same data message.
One optimization relies on the gossiping algorithm [6]. Gossiping avoids implosion as the sensor
transmits the message to a selected neighbor instead of informing all its neighbors as in the classical flooding
algorithm. However, overlap and resource blindness are still present. Furthermore, these inconveniences are
highlighted when the number of nodes in the network increases.
Due to shortcomings of the previous strategies, routing protocols become necessary in wireless sensor
networks. Nevertheless, the inclusion of a routing protocol in a wireless sensor network is not a insignificant
task. One of the main limitations is the identification of nodes. Since wireless sensor networks are formed by a
significant number of nodes, the manual assignation of unique identifiers becomes infeasible [7].
However, this shortcoming is easily overcome in wireless sensor networks since an IP address is not
required to identify the destination node of a specific packet. As a matter of fact, attribute-based addressing fits
better with the explicitness of wireless sensor networks. In this case, an attribute such as node location and
sensor type is used to identify the final destination. Once nodes are identified, routing protocols are in charge of

| IJMER | ISSN: 22496645 |

www.ijmer.com

| Vol. 4 | Iss.9| Sept. 2014 | 61|

A Review of Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensor Network

building and maintaining routes between distant nodes. The routing protocols operate in various ways which
make them suitable for certain applications.

II. Network Characteristics And Design Objectives

The characteristics of sensor networks and application requirements have a determine impact on the
network design objectives in term of network capabilities and network performance [8].
2.1 Network Characteristics
Wireless sensor networks as compared to traditional wireless networks have the following unique
characteristics and constraints:
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.
Unreliable sensor nodes: Since sensor nodes are prone to physical damages or failures due to its deployment in
harsh or hostile environment.
Data redundancy: In most sensor network application, sensor nodes are densely deployed in a region of
interest and collaborate to accomplish a common sensing task. Thus, the data sensed by multiple sensor nodes
typically have a certain level of correlation or redundancy.
Self-configurable: Sensor nodes are usually randomly deployed and autonomously configure themselves into a
communication network.
Frequent topology change: Network topology changes frequently due to the node failures, damage, addition,
energy depletion, or channel fading.
Application specific: A sensor network is usually designed and deployed for a specific application. The design
requirements of a sensor network change with its 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.
2.2 Network Design Objectives
Most sensor networks are application specific and have different application requirements. Thus, all or
part of the following main design objectives is considered in the design of sensor networks:
Small node size
Low power consumption
Low node cost
Scalability
Reliability
Adaptability
Self-configurability
Channel utilization
Fault tolerance
QoS support
Security

III. Design Constraints For Routing In Wireless Sensor Networks

Due to the reduced computing, radio and battery resources of sensors, routing protocols in wireless
sensor networks are expected to fulfill the following requirements [9]:
Autonomy: The assumption of a dedicated unit that controls the radio and routing resources does not
stand in wireless sensor networks as it could be an easy point of attack. Since there will not be any
centralized entity to make the routing decision, the routing procedures are transferred to the network
nodes.
Energy Efficiency: Routing protocols should prolong network lifetime while maintaining a good grade
of connectivity to allow the communication between nodes. It is important to note that the battery
replacement in the sensors is infeasible since most of the sensors are randomly placed. Under some
circumstances, the sensors are not even reachable. For instance, in wireless underground sensor networks,
some devices are buried to make them able to sense the soil [10].
Scalability: Wireless sensor networks are composed of hundred of nodes so routing protocols should
work with this amount of nodes.
Resilience: Sensors may unpredictably stop operating due to environmental reasons or to the battery
consumption. Routing protocols should cope with this eventuality so when a current-in-use node fails, an
alternative route could be discovered.
| IJMER | ISSN: 22496645 |

www.ijmer.com

| Vol. 4 | Iss.9| Sept. 2014 | 62|

A Review of Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensor Network

Device Heterogeneity: Although most of the civil applications of wireless sensor network rely on
homogenous nodes, the introduction of different kinds of sensors could report significant benefits. The
use of nodes with different processors, transceivers, power units or sensing components may improve the
characteristics of the network. Among other, the scalability of the network, the energy drainage or the
bandwidth is potential candidates to benefit from the heterogeneity of nodes [11].
Mobility Adaptability: The different applications of wireless sensor networks could demand nodes to
cope with their own mobility, the mobility of the sink or the mobility of the event to sense. Routing
protocols should render appropriate support for these movements.

IV. Classification Of Routing Protocols In Wireless Sensor Networks

As per the involvement of sensor node in the network, the routing protocols are mainly classified into
three categories:

Data-centric or negotiation based protocol

Hierarchical or cluster based protocol

location-based protocol
4.1 DATA-CENTRIC OR NEGOTIATION BASED PROTOCOL
Data-centric or negotiation based protocol [9.12], these protocols are basically query based and
depend on the desired data (name of the data), which help us to remove or eliminate the redundancy of the data.
Data-centric model assures to combine the applications needed to access data (instead of individual nodes) with
a natural framework for in-network processing [13]. Wireless sensor networks have many applications where
due to lack of global identification along with random deployment of sensor nodes, it is hard to select a specific
set of sensor nodes to be queried. This consideration differentiates data centric routing from traditional address
based routing where routes are created between addressable nodes. SPIN [14] is the first data-centric protocol,
which considers data negotiation between nodes in order to eliminate redundant data and save energy. Later,
Directed diffusion has been developed and has become a breakthrough in data-centric routing.
S
PIN (Sensor protocol for information exchange): SPIN (sensor protocol for information exchange) is the first
category of data centric protocol. The key feature of this routing protocol is to name the data using meta-data
which describes the characteristics of data. SPIN is the 3-stage protocol since there are three messages in order
to have communication between nodes.
ADV (Advertisement): To advertise new data.
REQ (Request): To Request for data.
DATA: Carry the actual data.
One of the advantages of SPIN is that topological changes are localized since each node needs to know
only its single-hop neighbors. SPIN gives a factor of 3.5 less than flooding in terms of energy dissipation and
meta-data negotiation almost halves the redundant data.
Directed Diffusion: Directed Diffusion is very significant finding in the data-centric routing research of sensor
networks. The idea aims at diffusing data through sensor nodes by using a naming scheme for the data. Directed
Diffusion avoids unnecessary operation of network layer routing in order to serve its best purpose i.e. to save
energy. Directed diffusion has several key elements namely data naming, interests and gradients, data
propagation, and reinforcement. A sensing task can be described by a list of attribute-value pairs. At the
beginning of the directed diffusion process, the sink specifies a low data rate for incoming events. After that, the
sink can reinforce one particular sensor to send events with a higher data rate by resending the original interest
message with a smaller interval. Likewise, if a neighboring sensor receives this interest message and finds that
the sender's interest has a higher data rate than before, and this data rate is higher than that of any existing
gradient, it will reinforce one or more of its neighbors.
4.2 HIERARCHICAL PROTOCOL
Hierarchical or cluster based protocol, as the name suggests in this protocol, the group of some nodes
in the network makes one or more clusters (depend on the size of the networks). In a cluster one node works as a
cluster head. All nodes in a cluster first send the data to the cluster head; the cluster head perform some
aggregation function upon this data then send to the sink or base station. Similar to other communication
networks, scalability is one of the major design attributes of sensor networks. A single-tier network can cause
the gateway to overload with the increase in sensors density. Such overload might cause latency in
communication and inadequate tracking of events. In addition, the single-gateway architecture is not scalable for
| IJMER | ISSN: 22496645 |

www.ijmer.com

| Vol. 4 | Iss.9| Sept. 2014 | 63|

A Review of Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensor Network

a larger set of sensors covering a wider area of interest since the sensors are typically not capable of long-haul
communication. Clustering is the best approach to increase the scalability of the system and cover a wide area
without degrading the performance.
The main aim of hierarchical routing is to efficiently maintain the energy consumption of sensor nodes
by involving them in multi-hop communication within a particular cluster and by performing data aggregation
and fusion in order to decrease the number of transmitted messages to the sink. LEACH [15] is the first cluster
based routing protocol for the sensor network.
LEACH (Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy): LEACH [15, 16] is a most popular clustering-based
protocol for the sensor network. The idea is to form clusters of the sensor nodes based on the received signal
strength and use local cluster heads as routers to the sink. This will save energy since the transmissions will only
be done by such cluster heads rather than all sensor nodes. It utilizes randomized rotation of the cluster-heads to
evenly distribute the energy load among the sensor nodes in the network. All nodes in the network are
homogeneous and energy-constrained. The main energy saving of LEACH protocol comes from the
combination of data compression and routing.
All the data processing such as data fusion and aggregation are local to the cluster. Cluster heads
change randomly over time in order to balance the energy dissipation of nodes. This decision is made by the
node choosing a random number between 0 and 1. The node becomes a cluster head for the current round if the
number is less than the following threshold:
p/(1-P*(r mod 1/P))

if n belongs to G

T (n) =
0
1

Otherwise

Where p is the desired percentage of cluster heads (e.g. 0.05), r is the current round, and G is the set of nodes
that have not been cluster heads in the last 1=p rounds.
LEACH is completely distributed and requires no global knowledge of network. It reduces energy
consumption by (a) minimizing the communication cost between sensors and their cluster heads and (b) turning
off non-head nodes as much as possible. LEACH uses single-hop routing where each node can transmit directly
to the cluster-head and the sink. Therefore, it is not applicable to networks deployed in large regions.
Furthermore, the idea of dynamic clustering brings extra overhead, e.g. head changes, advertisements etc.,
which may diminish the gain in energy consumption.
PEGASIS (Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems): PEGASIS [17] is an extension of
the LEACH protocol, which forms chains from sensor nodes so that each node transmits and receives from a
neighbor and only one node is selected from that chain to transmit to the base station (sink). The data is gathered
and moves from node to node, aggregated and eventually sent to the base station. The chain construction is
performed in a greedy way. Simulation results showed that PEGASIS is able to increase the lifetime of the
network twice as much the lifetime of the network under the LEACH protocol. Such performance gain is
achieved through the elimination of the overhead caused by dynamic cluster formation in LEACH and through
decreasing the number of transmissions and reception by using data aggregation. PEGASIS is a chain-based
power efficient protocol based on LEACH.
4.3 LOCATION-BASED PROTOCOL
location-based protocol, these protocol utilize the position information of the desired data in the
desired region than rather considering the whole network [9, 12].Most of the routing protocols for sensor
networks require location information for sensor nodes. In most cases location information is needed in order to
calculate the distance between two particular nodes so that energy consumption can be estimated. Since, there is
no addressing scheme for sensor networks like IP-addresses and they are spatially deployed on a region, location
information can be utilized in routing data in an energy efficient way. For instance, if the region to be sensed is
known, using the location of sensors, the query can be diffused only to that particular region which will
eliminate the number of transmission significantly. The location-based routing protocols take into account the
mobility of sensor nodes and perform very well when the density of network increases. But, the performance is
very poor when the network deployment is sparse, and there is no data aggregation and further processing by the
header node. In this section, we present a sample of location-aware routing protocols proposed for WSNs.

| IJMER | ISSN: 22496645 |

www.ijmer.com

| Vol. 4 | Iss.9| Sept. 2014 | 64|

A Review of Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensor Network

Geographic Adaptive Fidelity (GAF): Geographic adaptive fidelity (GAF) [18] is an energy-aware locationbased routing algorithm designed primarily for mobile ad hoc networks, but may be applicable to sensor
networks as well.
GAF is based on mechanism of turning off unnecessary sensors while keeping a constant level of
routing fidelity (or uninterrupted connectivity between communicating sensors). In GAF, sensor field is divided
into grid squares and every sensor uses its location information, which can be provided by GPS or other location
systems, to associate itself with a particular grid in which it resides. This kind of association is exploited by
GAF to identify the sensors that are equivalent from the perspective of packet forwarding.

Sleeping

After Ts

Discovery

Receive discovery
messages from high
rank nodes

After Td
After Ta

Active

As shown in Figure 1, the state transition diagram of GAF has three states, namely, discovery, active,
and sleeping. When a sensor enters the sleeping state, it turns off its radio for energy savings. In the discovery
state, a sensor exchanges discovery messages to learn about other sensors in the same grid. Even in the active
state, a sensor periodically broadcasts its discovery message to inform equivalent sensors about its state. The
time spent in each of these states can be tuned by the application depending on several factors, such as its needs
and sensor mobility. GAF aims to maximize the network lifetime by reaching a state where each grid has only
one active sensor based on sensor ranking rules. The ranking of sensors is based on their residual energy levels.
Thus, a sensor with a higher rank will be able to handle routing within their corresponding grids.
Geographic and Energy-Aware Routing (GEAR): GEAR [19] is an energy-efficient routing protocol
proposed for routing queries to target regions in a sensor field, In GEAR, the sensors are supposed to have
localization hardware equipped, for example, a GPS unit or a localization system [20] so that they know their
current positions. Furthermore, the sensors are aware of their residual energy as well as the locations and
residual energy of each of their neighbors. GEAR uses energy aware heuristics that are based on geographical
information to select sensors to route a packet toward its destination region. Then, GEAR uses a recursive
geographic forwarding algorithm to disseminate the packet inside the target region.

V. Conclusion
Routing emerges as a challenge in wireless sensor network as compared to traditional wireless
networking. In this paper, we reviewed routing protocols in wireless sensor networks based on the various
performance characteristics (like scalability, efficient use of resources, Energy saving). Overall, depending upon
the network structure, routing techniques are divided into three categories. Data centric or flat routing,
hierarchical or cluster routing and location based routing. All these routing techniques have common goal to
increase the life of the network.

REFERENCES
[1].
[2].
[3].

I.F. Akyildiz, W. Su, Y. Sankarasubramaniam, and E. Cayirci.A survey on sensor networks. IEEE Communications
Magazine, 40(8):102114, August 2002.
21 ideas for the 21st century, Business Week, Aug. 30 1999, pp. 78-167.
S.K. Singh, M.P. Singh, and D.K. Singh, A survey of Energy-Efficient Hierarchical Cluster-based Routing in
Wireless Sensor Networks, International Journal of Advanced Networking and Application (IJANA), Sept.Oct.
2010, vol. 02, issue 02, pp. 570580.

| IJMER | ISSN: 22496645 |

www.ijmer.com

| Vol. 4 | Iss.9| Sept. 2014 | 65|

A Review of Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensor Network

[4].
[5].
[6].

[7].
[8].
[9].
[10].
[11].
[12].
[13].
[14].
[15].

[16].
[17].
[18].

[19].
[20].

S.K. Singh, M.P. Singh, and D.K. Singh, "Energy-efficient Homogeneous Clustering Algorithm for Wireless Sensor
Network", International Journal of Wireless & Mobile Networks (IJWMN), Aug. 2010, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 49-61.
Jun Zheng and Abbas Jamalipour, Wireless Sensor Networks: A Networking Perspective, a book published by A
John & Sons, Inc, and IEEEE, 2009.
Zanaj, E.; Baldi, M.; Chiaraluce, F. Efficiency of the Gossip Algorithm for Wireless Sensor Networks. In
Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Software, Telecommunications and Computer Networks
(SoftCOM), SplitDubrovnik, Croatia, September, 2007.
Zhou, H.; Mutka, M.W.; Ni, L.M. Reactive ID Assignment for Sensor Networks. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE
International Conference on Mobile Ad-hoc and Sensor Systems (MASS), Washington, DC, USA, November, 2005.
Jun Zheng and Abbas Jamalipour, Wireless Sensor Networks: A Networking Perspective, a book published by A
John & Sons, Inc, and IEEEE, 2009.
Akkaya, K.; Younis, M. A Survey on Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks. Ad Hoc Netw. 2005, 3, 325
349.
Akyildiz, I.; Pompili, D.; Melodia, T. Underwater Acoustic Sensor Networks: Research Challenges. Ad Hoc Netw.
2005, 3, 257279.
Karl, H.; Willig, A. Protocols and Architectures for Wireless Sensor Networks. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, West
Sussex, UK, 2005.
Qiangfeng Jiang, D. Manivannan Routing Protocols for Sensor Networks in IEEE trans. 2004.
P. Jiang, Y. Wen, X. Shen and A.Xue. A Study of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Networks, in Proc. of the
6th World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation, vol. 1, pp. 266-270, June, 2006.
Q. Jiang and D. Manivannan, "Routing Protocols for Sensor Networks," in Proc. of IEEE Consumer Communications
and Networking Conference (CCNC), pp. 93-98, January, 2004.
W. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, and H. Balakrishnan, Energy efficient Communication Protocol for Wireless
Micro Sensor Networks, in Proc. of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conf. on System Sciences, 2000, pp.
30053014.
Dezhen Song Probabilistic Modeling of Leach Protoc ol and Computing Sensor Energy Consumption Rate in
Sensor Networks CS Department, Texas A&M University Technical Report: TR 2005-2-2, February 22, 2005
S. Lindsey and C.S. Raghavendra, PEGASIS: Power-efficient Gathering in Sensor Information System,
Proceedings IEEE Aerospace Conference, vol. 3, Big Sky, MT, Mar. 2002, pp. 1125-1130.
Y. Xu, J. Heidemann, D. Estrin, Geography-informed energy conservation for ad hoc routing, in: Proceedings of the
7th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom01), Rome, Italy,
July 2001.
Y. Yu, R. Govindan, and D. Estrin, "Geographical and energy aware routing: A recursive data dissemination
protocol for wireless sensor networks",Technical Report UCLA/CSD-TR-01-0023,UCLA Computer Science
Department, May 2001.
N. Bulusu, J. Heidemann, and D. Estrin, GPS-less Low Cost Outdoor Localization for Very Small Devices, IEEE
Personal Communication Magazine, vol. 7, no. 5, Oct. 2000, pp. 28-34.

| IJMER | ISSN: 22496645 |

www.ijmer.com

| Vol. 4 | Iss.9| Sept. 2014 | 66|