New method for increase reliability in WSNs

8/9/2019 New method for increase reliability in WSNs

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/new-method-for-increase-reliability-in-wsns 1/5

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,

Vol. 8, No. 3, 2010

New method for increase reliability in WSNs

Saeid Aga alizadehDepartment of Computer

Engineering

Islamic Azad University-

Shabestar BranchShabestar Iran

[email protected]

Shahram BabaieDepartment of Computer

Engineering

PhD students, Islamic Azad

University, Olom VA TahghighatBranch,

Tehran, Iran

[email protected]

Ahmad Khadem ZadeDepartment of Computer

Engineering

Iran Telecommunication

Research CenterTehran, Iran

[email protected]

Ali HosseinalipourDepartment of Computer

Engineering

Islamic Azad University-

Tabriz BranchTabriz Iran

[email protected]

Abstract ——Recent advances in Wireless Sensor Networks(WSN) have led to many new protocols specifically designed fordifferent kinds of applications where energy efficiency is anessential consideration. Limitations of wireless sensor networksmake it more prone to failure. Thus after discussing

disadvantages of SPIN, GAF, DSDV, TinyLAP, EAR and FDDAprotocols, In this paper we offer a way that all Data-Centerprotocols can send and receive data to use this information to bereceived by the sink properly. The method for sending data fromtwo different path and use the node could vote. Our simulationresults show that our algorithm increases network lifetime andreliability as well.

Keywords-component; Data-center protocols, Reliability,lifetime, Wireless Sensor Networks formatting; style; styling; insert

(key words)

I. INTRODUCTION

Wireless communication endowed with numerous

advantages over traditional wired network and enables todevelop small, low-cost, low power and multi-functional

sensing devices. These small sensing devices have thecapabilities of sensing, computation, self organizing and

communication known as sensors. Sensor is a tiny deviceused to sense the ambient condition of its surroundings,

gather data, and process it to draw some meaningfulinformation which can be used to recognize the

phenomena around its environment. These sensors can be

grouped together using mesh networking protocols to forma network communicating wirelessly using radio frequency

channel. The collection of these homogenous or

heterogeneous sensor nodes called wireless sensor network

(WSN) [12].

WSNs can be considered distributed computingplatforms with many severe constraints, including limited

CPU speed, storage capabilities, power, and bandwidth.Sensors live until their powers fade away. So power is vital

for systems like wireless sensor networks. During a specialmission in order to increase sensor lifetime consumption of

power should be managed knowingly [2].

Fault tolerance and reliability are the other main issues

to be considered in wireless sensor networks. It is

necessary to know how the distributed network will act if one node fall down, especially in systems with low

maintenance possibility. Since failure of nodes is commonin wireless sensor networks it is possible that sensed data

or received data from faulty nodes will be mistaken. Insome applications such as military and nuclear laboratory

information is significantly vital. Therefore in theseapplications in addition to necessity of receivinginformation by sink, received information must be error

free. Because deciding on the basis of incorrect

information cause to deviate. The main focus of most

researches in this field has been tend to increase faulttolerance of network when nodes are completely corrupted

and less efforts have been done for preventing

incompatible errors. Data incompatibility errors happendue to changes in binary contents when it is processing ortransmitting.

In this paper we offer a way that all Data-Center

protocols can send and receive data to use this information

to be received by the sink properly. The method forsending data from two different path and use the node

could vote. And also we corrected the incompatibility

errors.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in section

, we describe the related works. New proposed algorithmand making routing table and routing and learning step of proposed method are provided in section I. In section I

simulation results are presented. Finally, conclusion and

future works are presented in section I.

II. RELATED WORKS

Many routing protocols for WSN have beenformalized. Some of the very early protocols like SPIN[13], Directed diffusion [14] did not attach due importance

to longevity of the network. This prime factor provided an

impetus to researchers which gave birth to protocols like

Energy Aware Routing [8] by Shah and Rabaey which tryto ensure uniform energy utilization in the network. The

authors argue that using the lowest energy path may not bethe best choice from the point of view of the network

lifetime. They propose that using several sub-optimallowest energy paths and probabilistically choosing one of

them will extend the network lifetime of WSN.

251 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/

ISSN 1947-5500

mailto:Saeid.Agaalizadeh:@yahoo.com

mailto:Sh.babaie:@iaut.ac.ir

mailto:Zadeh:@itrc.ac.ir

mailto:Ali.Hosseinalipour:@yahoo.com

mailto:Ali.Hosseinalipour:@yahoo.com

mailto:Zadeh:@itrc.ac.ir

mailto:Sh.babaie:@iaut.ac.ir

mailto:Saeid.Agaalizadeh:@yahoo.com




Vol. 8, No. 3, 2010

An optimal chain based approach has been employed inPEGASIS [7].

Also in some other protocols like AFECA [1], SPAN[3] and GAF [5] a different approach is used to conserve

power. In these protocols power is conserved byintelligently switching on or off the node’s radio accordingto some available schedule. DSDV [15], a proactive

protocol, uses the Bellman Ford algorithm for nding the

shortest path to the destination. In DSDV, every nodemaintains the distance information and next hop to everyother node in the network. On the other hand AODV [16]

is a reactive protocol, which is also based on distance

vector algorithm like DSDV. The source node broadcasts aRoute Request (RREQ) and if any node has a path to the

destination can reply with Route Reply (RREP) to the

source. The reply contains the entire path recorded in the

RREQ packet.

TinyLAP protocol is a scalable learning automatabased energy aware routing protocol that used for wireless

sensor networks [9]. This protocol allocates a LearningAutomata for each node so these are used for selecting the

appropriate route according to the circumstance of network. TinyLAP protocol includes two steps,

"Distribution" and "Routing and learning”.

Distribution step starts by the node which has

information to send. This node makes a packet that called

FLOOD and sends it to its neighbors. This packet includesattribution of data and is very low-sized. Each node will

send this received packet to their neighbors again. After

receiving the FLOOD packet by sink, it makes a packetwhich is called FEEDBACK and distributes it through the

network. Then nodes after receiving this packet withattached information of packet can add new route to their

routing table and distribute it to their neighbors again.Distributed step will finish when whole nodes receive the

FEEDBACK packet. Now each node has multiple diverse

routes to the sink. Each node calculates probability of eachroute and allocates them to the corresponding routes.

Probability of ith route is:

ngh

j

j

i

h

hiP

1

1)(

(

Where ih is the number of hops to sink for the ith route

andngh

is the number of routes in the routing table.

Each node has learning automata and number of actions

are equal to the number of routes that exists in its routingtable that calculated by number of received FEEDBACKpacket. Then probability of each route has allocated to

the corresponding action. In fact, learning automata actionshave one to one correspondence with the routes in the

routing table.

Routing and learning step starts when the source nodereceives FEEDBACK packet. Source node selects the

route with maximum probability for sending the

information to the sink. Middle nodes do the same manner

until delivering the information by the sink. Each nodewaits for the acknowledgment from the receiver node after

sending the information. The route will be rewarded If

source node receives acknowledge from that route. In

TinyLAP protocol each node uses Warn packet fornotification of energy to its neighbors also sends Warn

packet when its energy is lower than 75% of when it had

send last Warn packet. In the first time when energy of node become lower than 75% of initial energy it will send

Warn packet. Node i penalizes the action corresponding to

the route j, .if receives Warn packet from node j and if

node j is exist in routing table of node i. Thereforeprobability of selection node j as route will reduce at next

round.

EAR routing protocol is energy aware routing protocol

for low energy ad hoc sensor networks [8]. This protocolby request messages and local distribution finds all thepossible routes to destination and put these routes in the

routing table of nodes. Each node according to consumed

energy and the distance of the next node calculatesprobability of routes and puts these values in routing

tables. If each node has information to send select a route

according to the relative probabilities to the routes and

forward information to the sink by it. By using this methodinstead of using a single route for sending, several routes

are being used to transmit. Therefore lifetime of network

will increase.

The main focus of most researches in fault tolerancefield has been tend to tolerances when nodes arecompletely corrupted and less efforts have been done for

preventing incompatible errors. Data incompatibility

errors happen due to changes in binary contents when it isprocessing or transmitting. These errors are called soft

errors [11]. These errors happen when the content of

received packet pktdby the receiver different from

content of sent packet pktd. The incompatible errors can

happen in the manner of temporarily or permanently.

Failures in hardware components such as processor or

memory units cause incompatible errors. Exception decayof battery, a node that has been involved with incompatible

errors still does its services correctly but in doing someother services they encounter errors. Ssu et al and his

colleagues in [10] have proposed new algorithm for

detection and diagnosis of data inconsistency failures in

wireless sensor networks that called Fault Detection andDiagnosis Algorithm (FDDA). This protocol first makes

two distinct routes between source node and sink, then

information will be sent in two copies by two routes isbeing. In sink two received information will comparedwith each other if they are same they can be admitted.

Otherwise other new route without any shared link with


ISSN 1947-5500




Vol. 8, No. 3, 2010

the two established routes will made between source nodeand sink. Now information in three copies and from two

previous routes and new route is being sent. Fig.1 shows

data sending flow in FDDA protocol. To recognize the

correct information, sink uses the quorum in vote. InFDDA protocol each node maintains returning route,

therefore to recognize the corrupted node, sink sends a

message for notification of error by routes that received

mistake information. As soon as each node receive thismessage will increase probability of its fault and when

probability of fault gets more than threshold automatically

becomes a corrupted node and has to be inactive. So sink sends a message for notification of acknowledgment by the

correct routes. As soon as each node receives this message

set probability of fault to ‘0’.

Figure 1. Data sending flow in FDDA protocol

III. PROPOSED METHOD

In this paper we present one of the best methods fordata-based routing algorithms that work before attempting

to create routing table to determine the paths from each

node to the sink. (Including LABER, EAR, and TinyLAP),

its routing table up and then we act as follows.

Figure 2. State proposed protocol

After the routing tables, two are likely to choose theirpath than other routes in the routing table are for data to

select. (Such as two-way route1 route2 and that is shown

in Figure 2). In addition, high-energy node as the node

could vote any way possible (including: methods or throwin the placement, if possible) about the network put in the

center.

Upon being stuck node votes for itself in the position to

estimate the distance a signal to other nodes all the nodeseven central node sends. With involvement from the nodesto the node could vote, sink and routing table to us

algorithms describe following starts. Each node that wants

to send data as the source node is considered. Source nodesstart to send data simultaneously from both directions it

likely that their selection is way more to send. Source node

to send data to the next node in the routing table is that if

the Czech distance smaller than the distance to the source

node to node as the central node is attempting to send datato the next node, otherwise the data could vote to send to

node Available. This process would continue until the twonodes to route data could be voted. Node votes could bereceived if the comparison is given with two equal data to

the next node the same route (the routing table) leads, and

if both have not received equal votes by knot stuck afeedback packet to sender node data is sent and the request

by the same route to source node are reported.. Source

node to another optimal path according to routing table and

that the previously selected path as path data is not used,select the data and sends it by. Until a data node could be

voted upon reaching the given node majority vote could

take them both and the direction that data are delivered to

equality action to send packages to the sink and eliminatesthe third path sink back in action voting is done. The data

compared with two-way and if the peer's confidence that

the correct data received and if the two have not received aproper feedback directly without the intermediate nodes

and the vote could send request. The third data path is

optimized. Node that received the vote could signal the

possibility of the data node and choose not to use previousroutes, and sends selected data to third optimum path to

reach the sink as soon as the receive data path third sink

action vote making the majority and that majority hasbrought the final data will be used.. Of course, should notethat the sense data by the nodes between the node and the

vote could sink node is located in votes could not be sentbecause the condition does not apply where two optimalpath for data transmission to the sink selection Available.

And the same sink as soon as they receive data from the

two track and compare if the two have equal algorithmends otherwise a feedback from both path towards the

source node sends the source node and receiving feedback

Data from the third optimum path and sends the data path

upon reaching the third sink, sink the three-way datamajority vote is given to bring the data is reliable. It should

be noted that each packet received by node could vote, andthe sender node address next node routing table is

determined.

Sink

Sourc

Voter

Route 1

Route 2

Route 3


ISSN 1947-5500




Vol. 8, No. 3, 2010

IV. SIMULATION RESULTS

We stimulate wireless sensor network in a 100*100

space and with distribution of 100 sensors randomly byusing MATLAB software. Fig. 5 and 7 shows simulated

network. We suppose sink settles at end of area with definecoordination. The initial energy of sensors suppose 0.5

joule. Simulation repeats until 1000 cycles andconsumption energy is calculated on the basis of table 1.

TABLE I. USED RADIO CHARACTERISTICS IN OUR SIMULATION

Energy Dissipated Operation

Eelec=50nJ/bitTransmitter/Receiver Electronics

EDA=5nJ/bit/signalData Aggregation

ƒs=10pJ/bit/m2Transmit Amplifier

if d maxtoBS d 0

mp=0.0013pJ/bit/m4Transmit Amplifierif d maxtoBS d 0

We implement first step this method that is createrouting table with TinyLAP and LABER. Simulation

results show that our proposed protocol better than

TinyLAP, FDDA protocols. And reliability has the good

performance than TinyLAP. Proposed algorithm incomparison with EAR acts better and lifetime of network

will increases.

In Fig.3 influence the number of corrupted nodes to

numbers of sent packets in proposed algorithm rather than

TinyLAP, EAR and FDDA will be compared. Simulationresult shows that number of sent packet in proposed

algorithm was overlap with TinyLAP protocol but in

proposed algorithm fault tolerance has been added.Proposed algorithm in comparison with FDDA protocol,

both methods get majority vote to identify correct

information. In FDDA protocol number of hop between

source node and sink affect to probability of choosing butin our protocol in addition to number of hops, remaining

energy affect to selection a route. So our algorithm in

contrasting with FDDA increases lifetime of network

significantly.

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

0 100 200 300 400Node Count

P a c k e t C o u n t

Proposed method tinyLAP EAR FDDA

Figure 3. Comparison of quantity of received data packets

Other parameter for investigation of performance inproposed algorithm is received data to sent data ratio. In

fig.4 influence of corrupted nodes to received data to sentdata ratio illustrate. It is obvious that with increasing of

corrupted nodes received data to send data ratio will

decrease. But proposed algorithm has better performance

than FDDA protocol.

0

2

0 2 0 4 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 4 0 1 6 0 1 8 0 2 0 0

Fa ilure n o de Co un t

s c a l e

r e c e i v e

d i r e c t t o

s u m

a l l d a t a

F D D A P r o po se d m e t h o de

Figure 4. Comparison of influence of corrupted nodes to received data to

send ratio in proposed and FDDA algorithm

V. CONCLUSION

In this paper routing protocol proposed that can balance

energy consumption in sensor nodes. Our algorithmaccording to number of hops to sink and remaining energy

select appropriate route to sending. Simulation results

show that our proposed algorithm can solves disadvantagesof TinyLAP, EAR and FDDA protocols. In proposed

algorithm in contrary to TinyLAP protocol remaining

energy affect to choose that cause balancing in power

consumption. We conclude that with increasing of number

nodes number of sent packets in our algorithm better thanEAR, FDDA protocols and equal to TinyLAP protocol but

take consideration that our algorithm with improving of

approach of selecting of route in respect of TinyLAPincreases lifetime of network.

It is obvious that with increasing number of nodes

received data to send data ratio will decrease. In FDDA

protocol when number of corrupted nodes equal to 200nodes received data to send data ratio will be almost 0.1,

but with this number of corrupted nodes this ration will be

almost 0.6. Therefore we conclude proposed algorithm has

better performance than FDDA protocol.

REFERENCE

[1] Y.Xu, J. Heidemann, and D. Estrin, “Adaptive

energyconserving routing for multihop ad hoc

networks,” in Research Report 527, USC/InformationSciences Institute, 2000.

[2] Gaurav Gupta, Mohamed Younis "Fault-Tolerant

Clustering of Wireless Sensor Networks"2003 IEEE[3] B. Chen, K. Jamieson, H. Balakrishnan, and R.

Morris, “Span: an energy-ef cient coordination

algorithm for topology maintenance in ad hoc

wireless networks,” in Wireless Networks, Vol. 8,No. 5, pp. pp: 481–494, 2002.


ISSN 1947-5500




Vol. 8, No. 3, 2010

[4] Ameer Ahmed Abbasi, Mohamed Younis, SaudiArabia "A survey on clustering algorithms for

wireless sensor networks" Computer

Communications 30(2007)2826-2841

WWW.ScienceDirect.com[5] Y. Xu, J. Heidemann, and D. Estrin, “Geography-

informed energy conservation for ad-hoc routing,” in

In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual ACM/IEEE

International Conference on Mobile Computing andNetworking, pp. pp 70–84, 2001.

[6] D. Estrin, R. Govindan, J. Heidemann, and S. Kumar.

Scalable coordination in sensor networks. Proc. of ACM/IEEE MobiCom 1999, Seattle, Washington,

August 1999.

[7] S. Lindsey and C.Raghavendra, “Pegasis: Power-

ef cient gathering in sensor information systems,” inIEEE Aerospace Conference Proceedings, 2002,

Vol.3, pp. pp 1125–1130, 2002.

[8] Shah R. And Rabaey J.”Energy aware routing for lowenergy ad hoc sensor networks”, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking

Conference (WCNC), Orlando, FL, pp.350-355,

March 2002.[9] Ankit M., Arpit M., Deepak T. J, Venkateswarlu R.

and Janakiram D., “TinyLAP: A Scalable learning

automata-based energy aware routing protocol for

sensor networks”. Communicated to IEEE Wirelessand Communications and Networking Conference to

be held in Las Vegas, NV USA. 2006.

[10] Chessa S. and Santi P., “Comparison-based system-level fault diagnosis in ad hoc networks”, in:

Proceedings of 20th IEEE Symposium on ReliableDistributed Systems, pp. 257–266, 2001.

[11]Ssu K. F., Chou C. H., Jiau H. C. and Hu W. T.,

“Detection and diagnosis of data inconsistency

failures in wireless sensor networks”, in: Proceedingsof the Computer Networks, Vol 50, Issue 9, Pages

1247-1260, 20 June 2006.

[12]S. Gobriel. "Energy-efficient design of ad-hoc and

sensor networks", M.Sc, University of Pittsburgh,2008.

[13]W. Heinzelman, J. Kulik, and H. Balakrishnan,

“Adaptive protocols for information dissemination inwireless sensor network,” in Proc. 5th ACM/IEEE

Mobicom Conference (MobiCom ’99, pp. pp. 174–

85, 1999.

[14] C.Intanagonwiwat, R.Govindan, and D.Estrin,“Directed diffusion: a scalable and robust

communication paradigm for sensor networks,” in

Proceedings of ACM MobiCom, pp. pp. 56–67.,2000.

[15] C. Perkins and P. Bhagwat., “Highly dynumic

destinution sequenced disrunce vector routing for

mobile computers,” in ACM SIGCOMM, 1994.[16] Charles, E.Perkins, Elizabeth, and M.Royer., “Ad

hoc on-demand distance vector routing.,” in

Proceedings of the 2nd

IEEE Workshop on Mobile

Computing Systems and Applications, New Orleans,LA, pp. pp. 90–100, 1999.


ISSN 1947-5500

http://www.sciencedirect.com/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/

Documents

New method for increase reliability in WSNs