Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Computer Networks
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comnet
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 5 May 2012
Received in revised form 26 February 2013
Accepted 22 March 2013
Available online 2 April 2013
Keywords:
Wireless sensor networks
Data forwarding
Slicing
Optimization
Trade-off
Energy
Delay
Proxy forwarders
a b s t r a c t
The design and development of multi-hop wireless sensor networks are guided by the specic requirements of their corresponding sensing applications. These requirements can be
associated with certain well-dened qualitative and/or quantitative performance metrics,
which are application-dependent. The main function of this type of network is to monitor a
eld of interest using the sensing capability of the sensors, collect the corresponding
sensed data, and forward it to a data gathering point, also known as sink. Thus, the longevity of wireless sensor networks requires that the load of data forwarding be balanced
among all the sensor nodes so they deplete their battery power (or energy) slowly and uniformly. However, some sensing applications are time-critical in nature. Hence, they should
satisfy strict delay constraints so the sink can receive the sensed data originated from the
sensors within a specied time bound. Thus, to account for all of these various sensing
applications, appropriate data forwarding protocols should be designed to achieve some
or all of the following three major goals, namely minimum energy consumption, uniform
battery power depletion, and minimum delay. To this end, it is necessary to jointly consider
these three goals by formulating a multi-objective optimization problem and solving it. In
this paper, we propose a data forwarding protocol that trades off these three goals via slicing the communication range of the sensors into concentric circular bands. In particular, we
discuss an approach, called weighted scale-uniform-unit sum, which is used by the source
sensors to solve this multi-objective optimization problem. Our proposed data forwarding
protocol, called Trade-off Energy with Delay (TED), makes use of our solution to this multiobjective optimization problem in order to nd a best trade-off of minimum energy consumption, uniform battery power depletion, and minimum delay. Then, we present and
discuss several numerical results to show the effectiveness of TED. Moreover, we show
how to relax several widely used assumptions in order to enhance the practicality of our
TED protocol, and extend it to real-world network scenarios. Finally, we evaluate the performance of TED through extensive simulations. We nd that TED is near optimal with
respect to the energy delay metric. This simulation study is an essential step to gain more
insight into TED before implementing it using a sensor test-bed.
2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
1914
suffer heavy depletion of their energy as they will be frequently selected as forwarders. In contrast, a large cone ensures a more balanced data forwarding load among the
sensors and hence helps achieve uniform energy depletion
of the sensors. Therefore, it is necessary to nd a trade-off
of these three goals, which are jointly considered.
1.1. Major contributions
Our major contributions in this paper are fourfold and
can be summarized as follows:
First, we propose an approach based on slicing the communication range of the sensors in order to trade-off
three conicting goals of sensing applications. More
precisely, our approach aims to decompose the communication range of the sensors into concentric circular
bands and classify them with a goal to satisfy the specic requirements of sensing applications in terms of
energy consumption, delay, and energy depletion. For
tractability, we assume that the communication ranges
of the sensors are modeled by a disk. In addition, we
suppose that all the sensors have the same radius of
their communication range.
Second, we formulate a trade-off of these three conicting goals as a multi-objective optimization problem,
which is solved using a weighted scale-uniform-unit
sum (WES) approach [19]. Then, we propose a data forwarding protocol for WSNs, which exploits a solution to
this multi-objective optimization problem to nd an
optimum trade-off of three conicting goals, namely
minimum energy consumption, minimum delay, and
uniform energy depletion. To account for the third goal,
we propose an approach to characterize the uniform
energy depletion of the sensors based on the size of
the cone that includes a subset of candidate forwarders.
Although there are other methods, such as multiobjective optimization genetic algorithm (MOGA) [12],
we nd that the WES approach offers more exibility
to nd solutions to an optimization problem with several weighted objective functions. We introduce these
weighting coefcients to reect the relative importance
of the individual objective functions and address
the problem of their different units and order of magnitude. Our theoretical results show that an optimum
trade-off of the three goals exists. Moreover, this optimum trade-off depends on these weighting coefcients.
Third, we relax several widely used assumptions in the
design of WSNs and which we adopted in our study. Our
ultimate goal is to enhance the practicality and effectiveness of our proposed TED protocol.
Fourth, we evaluate the performance of TED through
extensive simulations, and compare it with existing
ones. We nd that the performance of TED is near optimal with respect to the energy delay metric. This simulation study seems to be an essential step to gain more
insight into TED before implementing it on a sensor
test-bed. To the best of our knowledge, although the
design of energy-efcient data forwarding protocols
for WSNs has received much attention, there is no
1915
1916
Assumption 2 (Communication disk model). The communication ranges of the sensors follow the unit disk model, i.e.,
they are modeled by disks with the same radius R. The
communication disk of sensor si is centered at its location
fi and denoted by CD(fi, R).
Assumption 3 (Dense network model ). The sensors are
densely deployed in a planar eld. In fact, the limited
energy of the sensors and the difculty of replacing and/
or recharging batteries on the sensors in hostile environments require that the sensors be deployed with high density (up to 20 sensors per m3 [42]) in order to extend the
network operational lifetime.
Assumption 4 (Energy consumption model ). The energy
consumption of the sensors is dominated by data transmission and reception. Let si and si be two neighbors. According to the energy consumption model specied by
Heinzelman et al. [16], when data is sent from a transmitter to a receiver, there is energy consumption incurred at
both ends (i.e., transmitter and receiver). While at the
receiver end, the energy consumption is due to only one
component, called the transceiver, the energy consumption
at the transmitter end depends on two components,
namely the transceiver and the transmitter amplier. The
energy consumed by the latter component depends on
the size of the data packet being sent, the distance between
the transmitter and the receiver, and another constant,
called transmitter amplier and denoted by e. The value of
this constant depends on whether the free space or the
multi-path model is being considered. Formally, according
to [16], the energy spent in data transmission is given by
Erx si aEelec
Ds0 ; sm qd td pdNf s0 ; sm
where qd is the average queuing delay per intermediate
forwarder, td is the average transmission delay, pd is the
average propagation delay, and Nf(s0, sm) is the number of
intermediate forwarders between s0 and sm.
Given that the size of the eld is in the order of a few
miles, the average propagation delay pd is negligible. Thus,
the delay D(s0, sm) is proportional to Nf(s0, sm), i.e.
Ds0 ; sm cN f s0 ; sm / Nf s0 ; sm
Table 1
Parameters setting.
Eelec
efs
emp
50 nJ/bit
d(s0, sm)
3500 m
a=2
dmin = 70.71 m
nccb = 5
10 pJ/bit/m2
R
350 m
a=3
dmin = 156.68 m
nccb = 3
0.013 pJ/bit/m2
c
0.001
a=4
dmin = 44.29 m
nccb = 8
256 bits
k
0.001
4. A slicing approach
This section shows how to slice the communication
range of the sensors into concentric circular bands (CCBs).
Also, it characterizes the uniform battery power depletion
of the sensors.
4.1. Slicing of communication range
The idea of slicing the communication range of the sensors stems from the simple fact that any sensor has higher
preference to some of its neighbors than to others. This notion of preference becomes apparent in the next-forwarder
selection process when a sensor has to decide to which sensor it wants to forward its data so it reaches the sink while
meeting some energy and/or delay constraints. The slicing
approach is based on an approximation of the minimum
transmission distance dmin in data transmission [6]. For this
paper to be self-contained, both of the result regarding dmin
(Lemma 1) and the proof are given below. As it will be discussed, the communication range slicing approach helps a
sensor si classify its neighbors based on which of the
above-mentioned metrics si wishes to optimize.
Lemma 1. The minimum transmission distance that can be
used in data transmission can be approximated by
dmin
1
Eelec a
1917
dmin
1
Eelec a
1918
of the rst and second CCBs are associated with minimizing the energy consumption during data forwarding to the
sink. The outmost CCB favors delay and uniform energy
depletion over minimum energy consumption. The CCBs
located in the middle help achieve a trade-off of the three
metrics. It all depends on the values of the weighting
coefcients w1, w2, and w3. These coefcients reect the
importance of each of the three metrics, and will be
discussed in Section 5.2.
Notice that our proposed approach may nd a longer
data forwarding path from a source to the sink that
involves several proxy forwarders. A longer data forwarding path is due to the fact that it is not always possible to
forward data through the shortest path between a source
and the sink. The main reason is that the selection of proxy
forwarders is based on the remaining energy of the
sensors. If we keep selecting the shortest path all the time,
the sensors located on this path would deplete their energy
very fast and die before expected. However, the presence of
more proxy forwarders does not always mean more energy
consumption. According to our energy model, which was
proposed by Heinzelman et al. [16], the energy consumption due to data transmission depends on the distance
between the sender and receiver. Thus, less energy
consumption requires sending data over short distances.
That is, we need to have more proxy forwarders. In [5], we
proved that there is an upper bound on the number of
forwarders on the data forwarding path from a source to
the sink. In fact, we computed the optimum number of
forwarders and proved that it depends on the path loss
exponent a and the ratio of the Euclidean distance between
a source and the sink, and dmin. Given that the width of CCB
is dmin, our protocol TED is able to improve the network
lifetime. h
4.2. Selection of candidate proxy forwarders
We consider a set of sensors and a single sink sm that are
deployed in a planar eld. Next, we dene the notion of
candidate proxy forwarder.
Denition 4 (Candidate proxy forwarder ). A candidate
proxy forwarder set of a sensor si, denoted by CPF(si, sm, k, b),
is a subset of sensors from the neighbor set NS(si) of si that
belong to the kth CCB and located within a zone determined
by a wedge with an angle b centered at si (Fig. 2).
The size of CPF(si, sm, k, b) depends on the values of k
and b, where 1 6 k 6 nccb and 0 < b < p. We design our
trade-off protocol between energy and delay based on
the following rule: When a source selects a specic concentric circular band, say k, from which it will designate
a sensor as a forwarder, any future proxy forwarder will
have to use the same value of k. We use this design decision for the sake of ease of the analysis of our proposed
protocol based on this trade-off. Also, this decision would
help us nd some theoretical results in terms of upper
bounds on some specic metrics. We will further relax
this decision by allowing the sensors to select their own
values of k before forwarding data originated from a
source to the sink.
1919
Eexp s0 ; sm ; k; h
a a
a 2Eelec ek dmin ds0 ; sm
wk; h
Dexp s0 ; sm ; k; h
cds0 ; sm
wk; h
jCPF exp s0 ; sm ; k; bj
Dexp s0 ; sm ; k
cds0 ; sm
kdmin
2
3
4
jCPF exp s0 ; sm ; k; hj
respectively,
where
wk; h d s0 ; sp1 kdmin cosh.
1 6 k 6 nccb
and
Proof. By
Pythagorean
Theorem,
we
have
wk; h d s0 ; sp1 kdmin cosh, where sp1 is the orthogonal
projection of s1 on the segment [s0, sm] and hmax 2b. Also,
0 ;sm
. Thus, we obtain
we have N f ds
wk;h
a a
Eexp s0 ; sm ; k; h a 2Eelec ek dmin Nf
a a
a 2Eelec ek dmin ds0 ; sm
wk; h
Similarly, the expected delay is given by
Dexp s0 ; sm ; k; h cN f
cds0 ; sm
wk; h
jCPF exp s0 ; sm ; k; hj
1920
where
A1 k
2Eelec
kdmin
MinimizeFx
Subjectto x 2 X
where ci
and
Fx F 1 x; . . . ; F n xT
where Fi(x) is an objective function, for 1 6 i 6 n. WES is a
simple approach that introduces a weighting coefcient wici for each Fi(x), where wi is a weight selected by a network
designer to reect the relative importance of Fi(x) and ci is a
coefcient that not only scales Fi(x) but also helps produce
a one-dimensional function F(x). A survey on similar approaches for solving multi-objective optimization problems can be found in [34]. Using WES, a multi-objective
optimization problem can be formulated as follows:
i1
l max F max
:16i6n
i
@ 2 jCPF exp s0 ; sm ; kj
l
F max
i
F max
maxfF i x : 8x 2 Xg
i
n
X
wi 1
wi P 0; where
@2k
In this section, we solve our multi-objective optimization problem for trading off the above-mentioned three
metrics, namely minimum energy consumption, minimum
delay, and uniform energy depletion. First, we discuss a
weighted scale-uniform-unit sum (WES) approach [19] that
we use in solving this multi-objective optimization
problem.
wi ci F i x
i1
a1 a1
n
X
@ 2 Eexp s0 ; sm ; k
@2k
@ Dexp s0 ; sm ; k
>0
>0
@2k
@ PF exp s0 ; sm ; k
>0
@2k
2
In addition, because the feasible set {1, . . . , nccb} is a convex set, the WES approach yields correct solutions [9].
1921
Fig. 4. Impact of CCB id (k), angle h, and path loss exponent (a) on the energy consumption.
Let M(k) = (Eexp(s0, sm, k), Dexp(s0, sm, k), PFexp(s0, sm, k))T
be our multi-objective function, which we wish to
minimize. Notice that Eexp(s0, sm, k) reaches its
maximum
Emax
exp
2Eelec
a
eRa1 ds0 ; sm at k nccb for
R
a 2 f2; 3; 4g
Also, Dexp(s0, sm, k) and PFexp(s0, sm, k) reach their respecmax
tive maximum Dmax
exp and PF exp at k = 1. Both maximum values are computed as follows:
Dmax
exp
cds0 ; sm
dmin
Subject to 1 6 k 6 nccb
where
8
Emax
Emax PF s ;s ;k
exp Dexp s0 ;sm ;k
>
>
w3 exp PFexpmax0 m
> w1 Eexp s0 ; sm ; k w2
Dmax
>
exp
exp
>
n
o
>
>
>
max
max
max
max
>
if
E
max
E
;
D
;
PF
>
exp
exp
exp
exp
>
>
>
>
>
Dmax E s0 ;sm ;k
Dmax PF s ;s ;k
>
< w1 exp exp
w
D
s
;
s
;
k
w3 exp PFexpmax0 m
max
2
exp
0
m
Eexp
exp
n
o
Mk
max
max
max
max
>
>
if
D
max
E
;D
;
PF
>
exp
exp
exp
exp
>
>
>
>
>
PF max
PF max
exp Eexp s0 ;sm ;k
exp Dexp s0 ;sm ;k
>
>
w
w3 PF exp s0 ;sm ; k
w
max
max
1
2
>
Eexp
Dexp
>
>
n
o
>
>
max
max
max
>
:
if PF exp max Eexp ; Dexp ; PF max
exp
0 6 w1 ; w2 ; w3 6 1 with w1 w2 w3 1
Emax
exp maxfEexp s0 ; sm ; k : 1 6 k 6 nccb g
and
PF max
exp
MO Minimize Mk
kpdmin ds0 ; sm
6
Using the WES approach, where the weights w1, w2, and
w3 indicate the relative importance of Eexp(s0, sm, k), Dexp
(s0, sm, k), and PFexp(s0, sm, k), respectively, our unconstrained
multi-objective optimization problem can be written as
follows:
Dmax
exp maxfDexp s0 ; sm ; k : 1 6 k 6 nccb g
PF max
exp maxfPF exp s0 ; sm ; k : 1 6 k 6 nccb g
Let us study the non-linear multi-objective function M
(k), which depends on the maximum values Emax
Dmax
exp ;
exp ,
and PF max
of
their
corresponding
objective
functions.
Thus,
exp
we consider the following three cases depending on the
max
values Emax
Dmax
exp ;
exp , and PF exp .
1922
Fig. 5. Impact of CCB id (k), angle h, and path loss exponent (a) on the delay.
n
o
max
max
max
Case 1: Emax
exp max Eexp ; Dexp ; PF exp
Let k1 be a solution to the (MO) problem stated above.
@Mk
0 implies k1
k
v
u
u
w2 cEmax
w3 pkEmax
2Eelec
a
exp
exp
t
a
a
a2
a 1edmin w1 a 1aedmin Dmax
6w1 a 1aedmin PF max
exp
exp
@ 2 M k1
Notice that
@2 k1 > 0. Thus, k1 corresponds to the minimum of M k1 . Furthermore, varying the weights w1, w2,
and w3 from 0 to 1, where w1 + w2 + w3 = 1, generates
the corresponding minimum solutions of M k1 .
n
o
max
max
max
Case 2: Dmax
exp max Eexp ; Dexp ; PF exp
Let k2 be a solution to the (MO) problem dened
earlier.
@Mk
0 implies k2
k
v
u
u
w2 c Emax
w3 pk Emax
2Eelec
a
exp
exp
t
a
a
a2
a 1edmin w1 a 1aedmin Dmax
6w
a
1aedmin PF max
1
exp
exp
n
o
max
max
max
Case 3: PF max
exp max Eexp ; Dexp ; PF exp
Let k3 be a solution to the abovementioned (MO)
problem.
@Mk
0 implies k3
k
v
u
u
w2 c Emax
w3 pk Emax
2Eelec
a
exp
exp
t
a
a
a2
a 1edmin w1 a 1aedmin Dmax
6w1 a 1aedmin PF max
exp
exp
1923
Fig. 6. Impact of CCB id,, path loss exponent a, angle h on PF exp s0 ; sm ; k, which is convex.
1924
Fig. 7. Trade-off between energy consumption, delay, and uniform energy depletion (w1 > w2, w3).
Fig. 10 shows that the best trade-off of the three objective functions with the same weight corresponds to k = 4
for a = 2, k = 2 for a = 3, and k = 3 for a = 4. It is worth noting that minimizing delay and guaranteeing uniform energy depletion are not conicting metrics since both of
them require maximizing k. Thus, the weights w2 and w3
can be viewed as a combined weight against the weight w1.
5.3. TED detailed description
Our proposed data forwarding protocol TED is given in
Fig. 11. It has three phases: Communication range slicing,
concentric circular band selection, and proxy forwarder
selection. Next, we describe each of those phases in details.
5.3.1. Communication range slicing
This phase is run by each sensor only once at the beginning of the sensing task. Each sensor creates a table with
nccb entries, each including a subset of neighbors located
in the corresponding CCB. Notice that the sensors that
are located at the boundaries of two consecutive CCBs
are assigned to the inner one.
1925
Fig. 8. Trade-off between energy consumption, delay, and uniform energy depletion (w2 > w1, w3).
1926
Fig. 9. Trade-off between energy consumption, delay, and uniform energy depletion (w3 > w1, w2).
of k), there is no change to TED. However, for the rst scenario (i.e., same value of k for all source and proxy forwarders), it may happen that the number of CCBs of some proxy
forwarder si, say nccb(si), is less than k (i.e., solution to the
multi-objective optimization problem (MO)). In this case,
the sensor si selects its proxy forwarder from its k0 th CCB,
where k0 < nccb (si) < k. Given that k0 < k, the data forwarding
process will consume less energy than expected. Also, given that the proxy forwarder si selects its last CCB, a minimum delay and a uniform energy depletion will be
ensured. Thus, we obtain the best trade-off with respect
to the three goals.
1927
Fig. 10. Trade-off between energy consumption, delay, and uniform energy depletion (w3 = w1 = w2).
no change to TED protocol in the second scenario. However, for the rst scenario, the number nccb (si) of CCBs of
a sensor si may be less than the value of k computed by a
source. Similarly, sensor si would consider its last CCB from
which it would selects its proxy forwarder. Using the same
argument as in Section 5.4.1, we can see that we obtain the
best trade-off between all the three individual objective
functions. Furthermore, the relation of the radio sending
power and the radio communication range has been reported irregular and also vary with time [27]. In order to
account for the dynamic nature of the communication
range of the sensors, it would be useful to use the algorithm ATPC [25] jointly with TED. In fact, the slicing approach depends on the radius of the communication
range of the sensors. Given that the latter is irregular and
time-varying, TED would be more practical if the concept
of the largest enclosed disk is used based on the prediction
of the communication range produced by ATPC algorithm.
This helps improve the effectiveness of our protocol TED
and its generalization to real-world scenarios.
We should point out the fact that in reality and as demonstrated in [58], the radio pattern is not likely to be con-
1928
located in the selected kth CCB. Although some proxy forwarder may be located in another CCB, say the ith CCB,
where i k, it may not be always possible to nd the best
1929
6. Simulation results
Our approach to trading-off minimum energy consumption, minimum delay, and uniform energy depletion
is unique in several ways as described below. Thus, it is
impossible to make a fair quantitative comparison between TED and other existing approaches, such as the ones
given in [27,28,31,35,40,51,56,59,60] and reviewed in Section 2.2. First, TED allows a network designer to optimize
the above-mentioned three metrics according to the specic needs of the underlying sensing application. This is
done by using weights that specify the interest in each of
these three metrics. Second, TED works at the network
layer and does not assume any sleep-wakeup scheduling
protocol, where sensors are duty-cycled (i.e., turned on or
off) to save their energy. TED applies to always-on and
many-to-one WSNs, where sensors are always onto collect
data about a specic phenomenon in a eld of interest, and
send them to a single sink for further analysis and processing. Third, TED does not assume any aggregation of the
data originated from sources toward the sink. In other
words, all data should be received by the sink without
undergoing any fusion or aggregation at any intermediate
sensor. On the other hand, PEGASIS (Power-Efcient GAthering in Sensor Information Systems) [27,28] is a simple
and elegant data aggregation protocol. It forms a chain
among sensors so that each sensor receives from and
transmits to a close neighbor. Also, only one designated
sensor sends the combined data to the sink in each round.
Precisely, all sensors take turns to directly transmit the
combined data to the sink. PBBF (Probability-Based Broadcast Forwarding) [35] works at the MAC layer and assume
a sleep-wakeup mechanism for all the sensors. Indeed,
PBBF benets from the redundancy in broadcast
1930
communication and forwards packets using a probabilitybased approach with two parameters that need to be used
by a sleep-wakeup scheduling protocol. The rst parameter is a probability p that a sensor rebroadcasts a packet
in the current active time while not all its neighbors are
guaranteed to be awake to receive the broadcast. The second parameter is a probability q that a sensor would remain awake after the active time when it would be
asleep. Furthermore, the goal of PBBF applies to many-tomany WSNs and ensures that a sensor receives at least
one copy of each broadcast packet with high probability,
while reducing the latency due to sleeping. Also, PTW
(Pipelined Tone Wakeup) [51] helps the sensors forward
their data to their nal destinations based on a wakeup
scheme that helps achieve a balance between energy saving and end-to-end delay. Also, GeRaF [59,60] assumes a
sleep-wakeup scheduling protocol, where each sensor
keeps forwarding data until at least one of its neighboring
sensor is awake and able to receive them.
6.1. Simulation settings
In this section, we present the performance results of
the TED protocol for the free-space model (a = 2) based
on simulation programs written in the C programming language. We consider a square sensor eld of side length
equal to 1000 m, where the sensors are randomly and uniformly distributed. Furthermore, we assume that every
sensor continuously generates constant bit rate (CBR) data
of 1024 bits/s (i.e., 4 data packets of size 256 bits/s). Moreover, the radius of the communication range of the sensors
is equal to 250 m. Also, we assume that the total number of
deployed sensors in the default case is 1000, which corresponds to a sensor spatial density equal to k = 0.001 sensor
per m2. In addition, we assume that all sensors have the
same amount of initial energy that is equal to 1 J.
6.2. Impact of selection space size
In this experiment, we consider one metric, namely
number of communication rounds, and show the impact of
the size of the selection space of proxy forwarders on
TED. We assume that all sensors use the same value of
the angle b. As it is discussed earlier, the values of k and
b dene the size of the space of the kth CCB from which
proxy forwarders are selected. According to Fig. 12, the
number of communication rounds increases with the value
of b. The existence of more communication rounds means
that there are more communication paths between the
sensors and the sink so that data originated from the former would reach the latter. In the absence of a balance of
the load of data forwarding among all the sensors, some
of them are more heavily used as proxy forwarders than
others. As a result, they die quickly. Thus, holes (i.e., void
regions) in the network appear and the network consequently disconnects, which prohibits data from reaching
the sink. This situation appears if the space from which
the sensors select their proxy forwarders is small. In this
case, the same neighbors are selected frequently to forward data to the sink, thus, depleting their energy faster
than others. Thus, uniform energy depletion would guar-
1931
variability of k yields better performance. It is worth mentioning that the sensors nearer the static sink represent
hot-spot trafc points as they are heavily used in forwarding data to the sink. This situation creates a problem
known as the energy sink-hole problem, which could possibly isolate the sink, thus, disconnecting the network. These
sensors care more about minimizing their energy consumption by forwarding the data to the sink over short distances even when the sink is within their communication
range. Thus, their selection scheme enables them to extend
their individual lifetime, which will prolong the network
operational lifetime.
6.5. Impact of sensor heterogeneity
1932
1933
1934
[30] J. Luo, J.-P. Hubaux, Joint mobility and routing for lifetime elongation
in wireless sensor networks, Proceedings of IEEE Infocom (2005)
17351746.
[31] D. Luo, X. Zhu, X. Wu, G. Chen, Maximizing lifetime for the shortest
path aggregation tree in wireless sensor networks, Proceedings of
IEEE INFOCOM (2011) 15661574.
[32] A. Manjeshwar, D.P. Agrawal, APTEEN: a hybrid protocol for efcient
routing and comprehensive information retrieval in wireless sensor
networks, Proceedings of IPDPS (2002) 195202.
[33] A. Manjeshwar, D.P. Agrawal, TEEN: a routing protocol for enhanced
efciency in wireless sensor networks, Proceedings of IPDPS (2001)
20092015.
[34] R.T. Marler, J.S. Arora, Survey of multi-objective optimization
methods for engineering, Structural and Multidisciplinary
Optimization 26 (6) (2004) 369395.
[35] M. Miller, C. Sengul, I. Gupta, Exploring the energy-latency trade-off
for broadcasts in energy-saving sensor networks, Proceedings of
IEEE ICDCS (2005) 1726.
[36] S. Nath, P.B. Gibbons, Communicating via reies: geographic
routing on duty-cycled sensors, Proceedings of IPSN (2007) 440449.
[37] S. Olariu, I. Stojmenovic, Design guidelines for maximizing lifetime
and avoiding energy holes in sensor networks with uniform
distribution and uniform reporting, Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM
(2006) 112.
[38] D. Pompili, T. Melodia, I.F. Akyildiz, Routing algorithms for delayinsensitive and delay-sensitive applications in underwater sensor
networks, Proceedings of ACM MobiCom (2006) 298309.
[39] V. Rodoplu, T.H. Meng, Minimum energy mobile wireless networks,
IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 17 (8) (1999)
13331344.
[40] R. Sarkar, X. Yin, J. Gao, F. Luo, X.D. Gu, Greedy routing with
guaranteed delivery using ricci ows, Proceedings of IPSN (2009)
121132.
[41] R.C. Shah, S. Roy, S. Jain, W. Brunette, Data MULEs: modeling a threetier architecture for sparse sensor networks, Proceedings of SNPA
(2003) 3041.
[42] E. Shih, S. Cho, N. Ickes, R. Min, A. Sinha, A. Wang, A. Chandrakasan,
Physical layer driven protocol and algorithm design for energyefcient wireless sensor networks, Proceedings of ACM MobiCom
(2001) 272287.
[43] K. Sohrabi, J. Gao, V. Ailawadhi, G. Pottie, Protocols for selforganization of a wireless sensor network, IEEE Personal
Communications 7 (5) (2000) 1627.
[44] M. Soltan, M. Maleki, M. Pedram, Lifetime-aware hierarchical
wireless sensor network architecture with mobile overlays,
Proceedings of IEEE Radio and Wireless Symposium (2007) 325328.
[45] W. Wang, V. Srinivasan, K.-C. Chua, Using mobile relays to prolong
the lifetime of wireless sensor networks, Proceedings of ACM
MobiCom (2005) 270283.
[46] A. Woo, T. Tony, D. Culler, Taming the underlying challenges of
reliable multi-hop routing in sensor networks, Proceedings of ACM
SenSys (2003) 1427.
[47] X. Wu, G. Chen, S.K. Das, On the energy hole problem of nonuniform
node distribution in wireless sensor networks, Proceedings of IEEE
MASS (2006) 180187.
[48] X. Wu, G. Chen, S.K. Das, Avoiding energy holes in wireless sensor
networks with nonuniform node distribution, IEEE TPDS 19 (5)
(2008).
[49] G. Xing, C. Lu, R. Pless, Q. Huang, On greedy geographic routing
algorithms in sensing-covered networks, Proceedings of ACM
MobiHoc (2004) 3142.
[50] G. Xing, X. Wang, Y. Zhang, C. Lu, R. Pless, C. Gill, Integrated coverage
and connectivity conguration for energy conservation in sensor
networks, ACM TOSN 1 (1) (2005) 3672.
[51] X. Yang, N. Vaidya, A wakeup scheme for sensor networks: achieving
balance between energy saving and end-to-end delay, Proceedings
of IEEE RTAS (2004) 1926.
[52] M. Yarvis, N. Kushalnagar, H. Singh, A. Rangarajan, Y. Liu, S. Singh,
Exploiting heterogeneity in sensor networks, Proceedings of IEEE
INFOCOM (2005) 878890.
[53] F. Ye, H. Luo, J. Cheng, S. Lu, L. Zhang, A two-tier data dissemination
model for large-scale wireless sensor networks, Proceedings of ACM
MobiCom (2002) 148159.
[54] H. Zhang, J. Hou, Maintaining sensing coverage and connectivity in
large sensor networks, Ad Hoc & Sensor Wireless Networks 1 (1-2)
(2005) 89124.
[55] J. Zhao, R. Govindan, Understanding packet delivery performance in
dense wireless sensor networks, Proceedings of ACM SenSys (2003)
113.
[56] W. Zeng, R. Sarkar, F. Luo, X.D. Gu, J. Gao, Resilient routing for sensor
networks using hyperbolic embedding of universal covering space,
Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM (2010) 16941702.
[57] G. Zhou, T. He, S. Krishnamurthy, J. Stankovic, Impact of radio
irregularity on wireless sensor networks, Proceedings of MobiSys
(2004) 125138.
[58] G. Zhou, T. He, S. Krishnamurthy, J. Stankovic, Models and solutions
for radio irregularity in wireless sensor networks, ACM TOSN 2 (2)
(2006) 221262.
[59] M. Zorzi, R. Rao, Geographic random forwarding (GeRaF) for ad hoc
and sensor networks: Multi-hop performance, IEEE TMC 2 (4) (2003)
337348.
[60] M. Zorzi, R. Rao, Geographic random forwarding (GeRaF) for ad hoc
and sensor networks: energy and latency performance, IEEE TMC 2
(4) (2003) 349365.
1935
including IEEE TMC, IEEE TPDS, IEEE SMC, ACM TOSN, IEEE TVT, IEEE
TWireless, IEEE CL, Springers MONE, Springers WINET, Elseviers ADHOC,
Elseviers COMNET, AHSWN, IJSNet, Elseviers IPL, Elseviers COMCOM,
Elseviers JPDC, Elseviers INS, IJCA, and Elseviers DKE, and as a Technical
Program Committee member of numerous IEEE and ACM conferences,
symposia, and workshops, including IEEE Infocom, IEEE ICDCS, IEEE
DCOSS, IEEE INSS, IEEE PerCom, IEEE GlobeCom, IEEE ICC, SSS, IEEE MASS,
IEEE MSN, IEEE LCN, IEEE VTC, IEEE ICCCN, EWSN, ICDCN, and AdHocNets.