Analysis of a Set of Error Correcting Schemes in Multi-hop Wireless Sensor Networks

This paper considers encoding at the first node and powerful decoding only at the base station. It states that encoding and decoding at every node consumes a lot of energy and thus reduces the network life time. It compares several powerful codes that have same encoding complexity as RS and have power decoders at base station which is not energy constrained thus reducing the power consumption at nodes. Before comparing the different codes it first discusses the Energy and the error probability model to answer these two questions i.e. 1) what is the energy consumed during transmitting the data from source to sink? 2) What is the probability of reproducing the original data overcoming all the errors introduced by the noisy channel during transmission? ENERGY MODEL: E total = Eenc + +

m: total no of hops, Nb: total no bits transmitted, Etx/b: energy consumed in transmitting a single bit from a node, Erx/b: energy consumed by in receiving a single bit at a node Etx/b = Ete + Et d , Ete is the power consumption at transmitter electronics, is path loss component usually varies between 2-4

MODEL FOR ERROR PROBABILITY: Correction of error at receiver depends on several factors like channel model, number of hops and error decoding capability of code For typical WSN, Rayleigh slow fading channel attenuation model and FSK modulation is assumed. For this particular case probability of bit error is given as

Where

is the average received bit signal to noise ratio

Probability of code word being in error is

denotes bit error probability , probability that a packet is received with no errors is

Where P(i) is the probability of receiving a packet with in correctable errors, p(i) is given by (1-PFSK) hence Pc is given by (1-PFSK)m therefore bit error probability is = 1-(1-PFSK)m in this paper decoding is just only once at sink node and all the other nodes just keeps on transmitting the code word and adding errors to it. Thus packet error probability at sink node can be calculated as

Probability of successful transmission is 1-Pe and the expected number of transmission for successful end to end packet transmission is 1/1-Pe ENERGY SONSUMPTION AND ERROR CORRECTION CAPABILTY OF DIFFERENT DECODING SCHEMES K: no of information symbols, n: length of code word, T: maximum no of errors that a code can correct, Fq2 : field over which code are defined, Etotal : evaluated from the equation A. Uncoded Data: Etotal = klog2(q2)[mEtx/b+(m-1)Erx/b], Tuncoded = 0 B. RS Codes: Etotal= ERS + (q2-1)log2(q2)[mEtx/b + (m-1)kErx/b] , TRS q2 - k -1/2 C.List Decoder for RS codes: Etotal is equal to RS codes because encoding process is same but error correction capability is much higher than that of RS decoder , TList n(1-R) , R is code rate k/n D.Hermitian Codes: Etotal= qERS+q3log2(q2) [mEtx/b + (m-1)kErx/b] , TH ( 2q3 q2 + q -2k + 2) / 2 E. Multivariate Interpolation Decoded RS Codes (MIDRS): Etotal= MERS + M(q2-1)log2(q2)[mEtx/b + (m-1)kErx/b] , TMIDRS Mn(1-RM/M+1) The figure 1 shows that hermitian code transmission has lowest energy consumption and uncoded transmission has the highest energy consumption. The figure 2 shows that MIDRS and Hermitian codes are defined over same field i.e. F64 so here both are having almost the same performance, while uncoded transmission is again the worst

Figure 1

Figure 2 Different coding schemes are examined for reliable communication of data in WSN environment under a new model that encodes data only at source node and the decoding takes place only at base station. Thus it saves energy at node level which might prolong the network life. According to graphs if the length of the code is same then Hermitian Codes are the most optimum, and if they are defined over same field then Hermitian and MIDRS codes have almost the same performance.