SURVEY ON ROUTING PROTOCALS IN WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS

ABSTRACT:

Recent developments in the area of micro-sensor devices have accelerated advances in the sensor networks field leading to many
new protocols specifically designed for wireless sensor networks (WSNs). Wireless sensor networks with hundreds to thousands of sensor
nodes can gather information from an unattended location and transmit the gathered data to a particular user, depending on the application.
These sensor nodes have some constraints due to their limited energy, storage capacity and computing power .Wireless Sensor Networks
(WSNs) are a type of self-organizing networks with limited energy supply and communication ability. One of the most crucial issues in
WSNs is to use an energy efficient routing protocol to prolong the network lifetime. Data are routed from one node to other using different
routing protocols. There are a number of routing protocols for wireless sensor networks. In this review article, we discuss the Architecture of
wireless sensor networks. Further, we categorize the routing protocols according to some key factors and summarize their mode of
operation. Finally, we provide a comparative study on these various protocols.

Keywords: wireless sensors; protocols; routing; energy efficiency; clustering.

INTRODUCTION: other, disseminating information that enables them to select

A wireless sensor network (WSN) consists of routes between any two nodes on the network, the choice of the
hundreds to thousands of low-power multi-functional sensor route being done by routing algorithms. Each router has a priori
nodes, operating in an unattended environment, and having knowledge only of the networks attached to it directly. A routing
sensing, computation and communication capabilities. The basic protocol shares this information first among immediate
components [1]of a node are a sensor unit, an ADC (Analog to neighbours, and then throughout the network. This way, routers
Digital Converter), a CPU (Central processing unit), a power gain knowledge of the topology of the network. There are
unit and a communication unit. Sensor nodes are micro-electro- mainly two types of routing process: one is static routing and the
mechanical systems (MEMS) that produce a measurable other is dynamic routing. Dynamic routing performs the same
response to a change in some physical condition like function as static routing except it is more robust. Static routing
temperature and pressure. Sensor nodes sense or measure allows routing tables in specific routers to be set up in a static
physical data of the area to be monitored. The continual analog manner so network routes for packets are set. If a router on the
signal sensed by the sensors is digitized by an analog-to-digital route goes down, the destination may become unreachable.
converter and sent to controllers for further processing. Sensor Dynamic routing allows routing tables in routers to change as
nodes are of very small size, consume extremely low energy, are the possible routes change. In case of wireless sensor networks
operated in high volumetric densities, and can be autonomous dynamic routing is employed because nodes may frequently
and adaptive to the environment. The spatial density of sensor change their position and die at any moment as shown in figure
nodes in the field may be as high as 20 nodes/m3.As wireless 1
sensor nodes are typically very small electronic devices, they
can only be equipped with a limited power source . Each sensor
node has a certain area of coverage for which it can reliably and
accurately report the particular quantity that it is observing.
Several sources of power consumption in sensors are: (a) signal
sampling and conversion of physical signals to electrical ones;
(b) signal conditioning, and (c) analog-to-digital conversion.
There are three categories of sensor nodes: (i) Passive, Omni
Directional Sensors: passive sensor nodes sense the environment
without manipulating it by active probing. In this case, the
energy is needed only to amplify their analog signals. There is
no notion of “direction” in measuring the environment. (ii)
Passive, narrow-beam sensors: these sensors are passive and
they are concerned about the direction when sensing the
environment. (iii) Active Sensors: these sensors actively probe
the environment.
Since a sensor node has limited sensing and computation
capacities, communication performance and power, a large
number of sensor devices are distributed over an area of interest
for collecting information (temperature, humidity, motion
detection, etc.). These nodes can communicate with each other
for sending or getting information either directly or through
other intermediate nodes and thus form a network, so each node
in a sensor network acts as a router inside the network. In direct Figure (1):
communication routing protocols (single hop), each sensor node A wireless sensor network structure.
communicates directly with a control center called Base Station
(BS) and sends gathered information. The base station is fixed The advantages and disadvantages of wireless sensor networks
and located far away from the sensors. Base station(s) can can be summarized as follows:
communicate with the end user either directly or through some
existing wired network. The topology of the sensor network Advantages:
changes very frequently. Nodes may not have global  Network setups can be done without fixed
identification. Since the distance between the sensor nodes and infrastructure.
base station in case of direct communication is large, they  Ideal for the non-reachable places such as across
consume energy quickly. In another approach (multi hop), data the sea, mountains, rural areas or deep forests.
is routed via intermediate nodes to the base station and thus  Flexible if there is ad hoc situation when
saves sending node energy. A routing protocol is a protocol that additional workstation is required.
specifies how routers (sensor nodes) communicate with each  Implementation cost is cheap.
Disadvantages:
 Less secure because hackers can enter the access
point and get all the information. Figure(2):Cluster chain
 Lower speed compared to a wired network.
 More complex to configure than a wired network. Design flow of cluster-chain mobile agent routing :
 Easily affected by surroundings (walls, The design of the CCMAR algorithm is organized into 3 phases
microwave, large distances due to signal as follows:
attenuation, etc.). • Clustering and chain formation
• Data aggregation within cluster.
ROUTING PROTOCALS: Assumptions for CCMAR:
Routing techniques are required for sending data between sensor • Homogeneous sensor nodes
nodes and the base stations for communication. Different • Communication to the sink node can be established by all
routing protocols are proposed for wireless sensor network. sensor nodes
These protocols are classified according to different parameters. • Initial energy for all the sensor nodes is set same
Protocols can be classified as proactive, reactive and hybrid, • The energy consumed by node for transmitting and receiving a
based on their mode of functioning and type of target message are fixed same.
applications.
Here we considered four routing protocols those are III. LEACH (Low Energy Adaptive Clustering
1. Energy-Efficient Load Balancing Ant-based Routing Hierarchy) :
Algorithm (EBAR) LEACH [4] is a self-organizing, adaptive clustering
2. Cluster-chain mobile agent routing (CCMAR). protocol. It uses randomization for distributing the energy load
3. Low Energy Adaptive Clustering among the sensors in the network.. According to this protocol,
Hierarchy(LEACH). the base station is fixed and located far from the sensor nodes
4. Power efficient Gathering Sensor Information and the nodes are homogeneous and energy constrained. Here,
System(PEGASIS). one node called cluster-head (CH) acts as the local base station.
I. Energy-Efficient Load Balancing Ant-based LEACH randomly rotates the high-energy cluster-head so that
Routing Algorithm (EBAR): the activities are equally shared among the sensors and the
In this, EBAR adopts a pseudo-random route discovery sensors consume battery power equally. LEACH also performs
algorithm and an improved pheromone trail update scheme to data fusion, i.e. compression of data when data is sent from the
balance the energy consumption of the sensor nodes. It uses an clusters to the base station thus reducing energy dissipation and
efficient heuristic update algorithm based on a greedy expected enhancing system lifetime.
energy cost metric to optimize the route establishment. Finally, LEACH divides the total operation into rounds—each round
in order to reduce the energy consumption caused by the control consisting of two phases:
overhead, EBAR utilizes an energy-based opportunistic 1. set-up phase
broadcast scheme. We simulate WSNs in different application 2. steady phase.
scenarios to evaluate EBAR with respect to performance metrics
such as energy consumption, energy efficiency, and predicted 1.SET-UP PHASE :
network lifetime. The results of this comprehensive study show In the set-up phase, clusters are formed and a CH is
that EBAR provides a significant improvement in comparison to selected for each cluster. The CH is selected from the
the state-of-the-art approaches. EBAR[2] is an improved version sensor nodes at a time with a certain probability. Each
of Ant Routing. EEABR considers the energy factors of the node generates a random number from 0 to 1. If this
wireless sensor nodes on top of the Ant colony optimization number is lower than the threshold node [T(n)] then this
ACO mechanism to extend the network lifetime. particular node becomes a CH. T(n) is given as follows:
otherwise where p is the percentage of nodes that are CHs,
II. Cluster-chain mobile agent routing (CCMAR): r is the current round and G is the set of nodes that have
It makes full use of the advantages of both low energy adaptive not served as cluster head in the past 1/p rounds. Then the
clustering hierarchy (LEACH) and power-efficient gathering in CH allocates time slots to nodes within its cluster as shown
sensor information systems (PEGASIS). CCMAR divides the in figure(3).
WSN into a few clusters and runs in two phases[3]. The
proposed system is simulated and evaluated for the performance
metrics such as energy consumption, transmission delay and
network lifetime. CCMAR outperforms LEACH, PEGASIS and
other similar routing algorithm, energy efficient cluster-chain
based protocol as shown in figure(2).

Figure(3):LEACH clustering
 2.STEADY PHASE:
In steady state phase, nodes send data to their CH during
their allocated time slot using TDMA. When the cluster Reference Routing Simulation parameters(size)
head gets data from its cluster, it aggregates the data and paper
sends the compressed data to the BS. Since the BS is far
away from the CH, it needs high energy for transmitting
the data. This affects only the nodes which are CHs and
that’s why the selection of a CH depends on the remaining
energy of that node. EEBAR Pseduo Random No.of nodes:100
routing discovery Initial Energy:1000j
algorithm FieldDimension:
1000 m^2
CCMAR Cluster Chain based No.of nodes:100
routing algorithm Initial Energy:5j
Assumptions made in the LEACH protocol: FieldDimension:
100m*100m
 All nodes can transmit with enough power to reach
the base station.
 Each node has enough computational power to
support different MAC protocols
 Nodes located close to each other have correlated
data. LEACH Cluster based No.of nodes:100
routing algorithm Initial Energy:0,1j
IV. PEGASIS (Power efficient Gathering Sensor Simulation Surface:
Information System) 100m,100m
PEGASIS[5]is a near optimal chain-based power efficient
protocol based on LEACH. According to this protocol, all the
nodes have information about all other nodes and each has the
capability of transmitting data to the base station directly.
PEGASIS assumes that all the sensor nodes have the same level PEGASIS Chain based routing No.of nodes:500
of energy and they are likely to die at the same time. Since all algorithm Initial Energy:0.05j
nodes are immobile and have global knowledge of the network, Simulation Surface:
the chain can be constructed easily by using greedy algorithm. 300m
Chain creation is started at a node far from BS. Each node
transmits and receives data from only one closest node of its
neighbours. To locate the closest neighbour node, each node
uses the signal strength to measure the distance from the
neighbours and then adjusts the signal strength so the only one
node cab is heard. Node passes token through the chain to leader
from both sides. Each node fuses the received data with their
own data at the time of constructing the chain. In each round, a
randomly chosen node (leader) from the chain will transmit the CONCLUSION:
aggregated data to the BS. Node i (mod N) is the leader in round
i. The chain consists of those nodes that are closest to each other WSNs are used in many application areas such as data
and form a path to the base station. The aggregated data is sent collection and target tracking. Due to resource limitations of
to the base station by the leader. PEGASIS outperforms LEACH
sensor nodes, it is necessary to design an energy-efficient
by eliminating the overhead of dynamic cluster information,
minimizes the sum of distances and limits the number of routing algorithm. In this paper, we presented an in-depth study
transmission. of energy-efficient routing for WSNs and propose the novel
Each node requires global information about the network. This energy-efficient load balancing ant-based routing protocol
is a drawback of this protocol because at any time it can be (EBAR). The goals of EBAR,LEACH,PEGASIS,CCMAR are
collected from the network as shown in figure(4). to balance the energy consumption, prolong the network
lifetime, and to speed up the convergence of route discovery
under the constraints of the limited energy supply. Therefore, it
is inferred that the performance of the data aggregation using
routing protocol is strongly influenced by the underlying
network topology.

REFERENCES:

1.Debnath Bhattacharyya 1, Tai- hoon Kim 1,* and

Subhajit Pal 2

2.XINLU LI 1, BRIAN KEEGAN2, (Senior Member, IEEE),

FREDRICK MTENZI2, THOMAS WEISE1, AND MING
TAN1. Date of publication August 12, 2019
Figure(4):Chaining in PEGASIS.
3. Selvakumar Sasirekha and Sankaranarayanan Published: 24 November 2010
Swamynathan. journal of communications and networks,
vol. 19, no. 4, august 2017 5.Heritage Institute of Technology, Kolkata-700107, India;
E-Mail: pal.subhajit77@gmail.com
4.Department of Multimedia Engineering, Hannam
University, Daejeon, Korea; E-Mail: debnathb@gmail.com Published: 24 November 2010