Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Computer Networks
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comnet
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 18 January 2014
Received in revised form 28 May 2014
Accepted 27 June 2014
Available online 23 August 2014
Keywords:
Convergecast
Graph theory
Scheduling
Tree construction
Wireless sensor network
a b s t r a c t
Many previous studies propose to use wake-up scheduling to support energy efcient data
gathering in a wireless sensor network (WSN). However, these previous works schedule network nodes with regular patterns, and thus can only support regular and periodical data
reporting. In this work, we further consider the event data reporting scenario, where the
network may randomly have urgent events. We design an event data collection mechanism
for ZigBee tree-based WSNs. In the network, nodes are divided into routers and end devices.
Routers form the tree backbone of the network, and end devices are connected to routers.
Each router will be assigned to a regular slot and several event slots. To support regular data
reporting, routers and their child devices periodically wake up in their regular slots to
sense and to report. When an event happens, devices nearby the event can wake up more
times in their event slots, and routers can collect more event data from child devices and
report more frequently. In this paper, we design a tree formation algorithm, slot assignment schemes, and event mode operations for the event data collection scenario. Simulation and implementation results show that our designs can support both regular and event
data reporting, and the proposed schemes can effectively increase the amount of report
data when there are events.
2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Wireless sensor networks (WSNs) are discussed to
develop various kinds of applications including monitoring
[5,13], health care [6], guiding [19], and smart home [16].
In these applications, there are many inexpensive wireless
sensors capable of collecting, storing, processing environmental information, and communicating with neighboring
nodes.
Recently, the standards ZigBee/IEEE 802.15.4 [24,7] are
widely supported in many WSN platforms, where the IEEE
802.15.4 and ZigBee specications dene the physical/link
layer protocols and the protocols above the link layer,
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mspan@mail.tku.edu.tw (M.-S. Pan), 600420391@
s00.tku.edu.tw (P.-L. Liu), 602420068@s02.tku.edu.tw (Y.-P. Lin).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2014.06.016
1389-1286/ 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
143
144
145
v p : vs parent in T.
v c : Set of vs children in T.
v m : vs not-in-tree neighbors, i.e., Nv n fv p [ v c g.
v pp : v p s Parent in T.
v pc : Set of v p s children in T.
v pm : v p s Not-in-tree neighbors and excluding Nv , i.e.,
Nv p n fNv [ v pp [ v pc g.
v mp : Set of v m routers parents in T.
v mc : Set of v m routers children in T.
v mm : Set of v m routers not-in-tree neighbors and
S
excluding Nv , i.e., 8u2v Nu n fNv [ v mp [ v mc g.
v cc : Set of v c routers children in T.
v cm : Set of v c routers not-in-tree neighbors and
S
excluding Nv , i.e., 8u2v Nu n fNv [ v [ v cc g.
146
event slot. We will show a scheme to relieve beacon collisions in event slots in Section 4.
Based on the above observations, a router vs interference neighbors can be reduced by removing its neighbors
in v pp and v mp . We have proposed a centralized tree formation scheme in [14]. In this work, we aim to provide a distributed scheme. To ease the operations of the distributed
algorithm, a router v will try to reduce its interference
neighbors by nding those v mp routers only. Before presenting the details of the distributed tree formation, we
rst dene two special sets:
The set Pv ; v 2 V: a router u 2 Pv if it satises (i)
u 2 v m and (ii) up belongs to N 2 v and locates in set
v mp but not in sets v pp ; v cm , and v cc . Pv contains vs
neighbors, which can change their parents.
The set Rv ; u; v 2 V and u 2 Pv : a router x 2 Rv ; u
if it satises (i) x is an inevitable interference neighbor
of v, i.e., x 2 Nv and (ii) x 2 um . Rv ; u contains potential new parents for routers in Pv .
The details of the proposed distributed algorithm are as
follows. In the proposed tree formation scheme, routers
rst perform distributed operations to form a BFS-like tree
T, and then they will try to locally reconnect some of their
nearby links to reduce IT. During the tree formation, each
router periodically broadcasts HELLO packets to its two
hop neighbors. Each HELLO contains the sender vs neighbor information (i.e., v p ; v c , and v m ) and vs depth in the
tree T (initially set to 1 before forming the tree). By HELLOs, routers can classify their neighbors into corresponding
sets dened in Section 2.3.
The procedure of forming a BFS tree is started by the
sink ooding a FORM_BFS(t; 0) packet. A router v that
receives a FORM_BFS(u; depthu) packet will connect to
u, set its depth depthv depthu 1, and then rebroadcast a FORM_BFS(v ; depthv ) packet. After broadcasting a
FORM_BFS packet, a router broadcasts HELLOs containing
its updated information. The sink waits for a tbfs time and
then broadcasts a RECONN packet to trigger its neighbors
to perform the tree reconnection procedure. When a router
v receives a RECONN packet, it checks if it receives a
RECONN packet before. If so, it will ignore the RECONN
packet. Otherwise, router v will perform the following
steps.
1. Router v identies if it has neighbors located in Pv set.
If the Pv set is empty, v rebroadcasts the RECONN
packet and ends the procedure. Otherwise, v performs
the next step.
2. Router v starts a timer T w (initially set to t wait ) and periodically broadcasts COMPETE (v ; jIv j) packets to its
two hop neighbors during the timer T w . The COMPETE
packet is used by a router to compete the right of executing tree reconnection procedure with its two hop
neighbors. During timer T w ; v may receive COMPETE,
WIN, and HELLO packets.
(a) If v receives a COMPETE(u; jIuj), v checks if one of
the following two conditions is satised: (i)
jIuj > jIv j and (ii) jIuj jIv j and IDu >
IDv . If so, v loses this competition, and then v
resets the T w timer to twait .
(b) If v receives a WIN(u), which represents that u wins
the competition, v resets its T w timer to t reconn twait ,
and will stop broadcasting its COMPETE packet for
the treconn time.
(c) If v receives a HELLO packet, v updates its two hop
neighbors information according to the HELLO. If
v realizes that its Pv set is empty according to
the updated HELLO, it will rebroadcast a RECONN
packet and end the procedure.
3. When the timer T w expires, v wins the competition.
Router v announces it is the winner by broadcasting a
WIN(v) packet to its two hop neighbors. Then, v puts
its Pv neighbors to a queue Q 1 and performs the next
step.
4. Router v sets u dequeueQ 1. There are two cases.
First, if u ;, it means that there is no router in Q 1.
At this time, v can rebroadcast the RECONN packet
and end the procedure. Second, if u ;; v computes
Rv ; u for u and then v checks all routers in Rv ; u.
For a router x 2 Rv ; u, if depthx < depthu; v puts x
into a queue Q 2. After checking all routers in Rv ; u,
if Q 2 ;, which means that v cannot reconnect u; v will
re-perform the step 4 to extract the next neighbor in
Q 1. Otherwise, v performs the step 5.
5. Router v sets x dequeueQ 2. Again, there are two
cases. First, if x ;; v goes back to step 4 to checks
the next router in Q 1. Second, if x ;; v performs the
step 6 to try to reconnect u to x.
6. In this step, router v sends a CHG(x) packet to u and
waits us reply. (Router u performs the rule R2 below,
and u will reply a NO_CHG(u) or an updated HELLO.)
If v receives a NO_CHG(u), which represents that u
refuses to reconnect, v goes back to step 5 to check
the next candidate in Q 2. If v realizes that u successfully
connects to x from us new HELLOs, v goes back to step 4
to extract the next router in Q 1.
In the reconnection procedure, there is two extra rules
for routers.
R1. For the case that a router u, which is not currently
participating any competition, receives a WIN packet,
u will inhibit itself to broadcast COMPETE for the
treconn time.
R2. For the case that a router u receives a CHG(x)
packet, u checks if jchildNu xj > jchildNu up j, where
jchildNi jj represents the number of js child routers
that are located in Ni. If so, u reconnects to x and
immediately broadcasts the updated HELLOs to its
147
148
149
150
event slots, routers simply use periodical HELLOs determine their event slots. As a result, when assigning slots,
the communication complexity of the entire network is
OjVj DI .
5.2.1. Performance on IT
We rst compare our tree formation algorithm
(denoted as pOUR) against the centralized tree formation
algorithm in [14] (denoted as rCEN), the distributed top
down algorithm in [22] (denoted as rDTA), and the distributed scheme in [15] (denoted as rBFS) on IT. Note that we
also apply the proposed interference model to calculate the
IT of rBFS. Fig. 6(a) shows the results when using S1. The
results indicate that when the transmission range becomes
larger, the IT increases (due to the increased one hop and
two hop neighbors of routers). Compare to the pOUR, rDTA
and rBFS, the centralized algorithm rCEN has the smallest
IT. The IT of the pOUR is only 1.5% larger than rCEN.
The rDTA has the largest IT because that, instead of
reducing interference neighbors, the authors in [22] choose
links that can minimize hop-by-hop latency for regular
data reporting. We remark that by pOUR, when setting
the transmission ranges of routers to be 17 m, 18 m, and
26 m, the average one hop neighbors (resp., interference
neighbors) of a router will be 7.66, 8.46, and 16.53 (resp.,
10.41, 11.38, and 20.01), respectively. We can see that
when using the pOUR, most of the increased interference
neighbors are induced by the increased number of one
hop neighbors. The numerical results demonstrate that
the pOUR can effectively eliminate interference neighbors
2600
8v
Fig. 7(a) shows the results when using S1, which indicate a trend that when the transmission range of routers
becomes larger, the Lr G increases because that routers
have more interference neighbors. The network formed
by the rCEN has the longest Lr G. This is because that
the rCEN may cause some routers to have longer hop count
distances to the sink, and thus increases Lr G. We can also
see that the Lr G of the pOUR is slightly higher than the
rDTA. The pOUR can shorten the Lr G by allowing a router
to have more choices when selecting its regular slot. And,
when reconnecting routers, unlike the rCEN, the pOUR will
not arbitrarily lengthen the tree height. Moreover, Fig. 7(b)
shows the results when using S2. We can see that the Lr G
of pOUR approaches the Lr G of rBFS when the network
density becomes higher. This is because that when the network density becomes higher, routers will have more
interference neighbors, and thus the pOUR has less choices
when reconnecting neighbors. On the other hand, when
the network density is lower, the Lr G of pOUR can be
slightly better than the rDTA since a router can reduce its
interference neighbors easier.
4400
pOUR
rCEN
rDTA
rBFS
4000
2000
1800
1600
1400
3200
2800
2400
2000
1600
1200
1200
1000
17
pOUR
rCEN
rDTA
rBFS
3600
2200
Averaged I (T)
Averaged I (T)
2400
Lr G maxfLr v g:
800
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
60
70
80
90
Number of routers
(a)
(b)
Fig. 6. Simulation results on averaged IT when using (a) S1 and (b) S2.
151
34
39
32
36
Averaged Lr (G)
Averaged Lr (G)
30
28
26
24
22
20
pOUR
rCEN
rDTA
rBFS
18
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
33
30
27
24
21
pOUR
rCEN
rDTA
rBFS
18
25
15
60
26
70
80
90
Number of routers
(a)
(b)
140
140
120
120
Fig. 7. Simulation results on averaged Lr G when using (a) S1 and (b) S2.
100
80
60
pOUR
rBFS
rCEN with event op
rDTA with event op
rBFS with event op
40
20
0
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
100
80
60
pOUR
rBFS
rCEN with event op
rDTA with event op
rBFS with event op
40
20
0
60
70
80
90
Number of routers
(a)
(b)
Fig. 8. Simulation results on averaged received event data reports (in unit of KB) per superframe when using (a) S1 and (b) S2.
1
To ease of experiment, we set the threshold to be a large value
(10 dBm). According to our tests, a router v can only put a router, which is
1025 cm away from it, into its Nv .
152
(a)
(b)
Fig. 9. (a) The used platform and (b) the implemented scenario in our video.
CDF
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
pOUR
rBFS
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
6. Conclusions
In this paper, we have proposed a system to support
both regular and event data reporting in the low-dutycycled ZigBee tree network. We design a tree formation
algorithm, slot assignment schemes, and event mode operations to achieve our goals. The slot assignment schemes
can assign several event slots for routers by the help of
the tree formation algorithm (which aims at minimizing
interference neighbors of routers). The designed event
mode operations do not affect the regular operations of
other network nodes. Simulation results show that our tree
formation algorithm can effectively decrease total number
of interferences. Compare to other works, our slot assignment schemes can not only decrease latency for regular
data reporting, but also can effectively increase the amount
of report data when there are events. In this paper, we also
show a prototyping system, and perform some experiments on it. We are going to enhance our system, and then
deploy the system in real environment to support disaster
and wildlife monitoring.
Acknowledgement
M.-S. Pans research is sponsored by NSC Grants 1022219-E-032-001 and 101-2218-E-032-004-MY3.
References
[1] Our Prototyping System. <http://youtu.be/wOV7CtfW944>.
[2] Jennic JN5148. <http://www.jennic.com/>.
[3] H. Choi, J. Wang, E.A. Hughes, Scheduling for information gathering
on sensor network, ACM/Springer Wireless Networks 15 (1) (2009)
127140.
[4] J. Elson, L. Girod, D. Estrin, Fine-grained network time
synchronization using reference broadcasts, in: Proc. of the USENIX
Symposium
on
Operating
Systems
Design
and
Implementation(OSDI), 2002.
[5] J. Hayes, S. Beirne, K.-T. Lau, D. Diamond, Evaluation of a low cost
wireless chemical sensor network for environmental monitoring, in:
Proc. of IEEE Sensors Conference, 2008.
[6] H. Huo, Y. Xu, H. Zhang, Y.-H. Chuang, T.-C. Wu, Wireless-sensornetworks-based healthcare system: a survey on the view of
communication paradigms, Int. J. Ad Hoc Ubiquitous Comput.
(IJAHUC) 8 (3) (2011) 135154.
[7] IEEE Computer Society. IEEE 802.15.4: Wireless medium access
control and physical layer specications for low-rate WPANs,
October 2003.
[8] IEEE Computer Society. IEEE 802.15.4b: Wireless Medium Access
Control and Physical Layer Specications for Low-rate WPANs,
September 2006.
[9] O.D. Incel, A. Ghosh, B. Krishnamachari, K. Chintalapudi, Fast data
collection in tree-based wireless sensor networks, IEEE Trans. Mobile
Comput. 11 (1) (2012) 8699.
[10] M. Li, Y. Liu, Underground coal mine monitoring with wireless
sensor networks, ACM Trans. Sensor Networks 5 (2) (2009) 129.
[11] C.-Y. Lin, W.-C. Peng, Y.-C. Tseng, Efcient in-network moving object
tracking in wireless sensor networks, IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput. 5
(8) (2006) 10441056.
[12] A. Marco, R. Casas, J.L.S. Ramos, V. Coarasa, A. Asensio, M.S. Obaidat,
Synchronization of multihop wireless sensor networks at the
application layer, IEEE Wireless Commun. 18 (1) (2011) 8288.
[13] M.-S. Pan, H.-W. Fang, Y.-C. Liu, Y.-C. Tseng, Address assignment and
routing schemes for ZigBee-based long-thin wireless sensor
networks, in: Proc. of IEEE Intl Conference on Vehicular
Technology Conference (VTC), 2008.
[14] M.-S. Pan, P.-L. Liu, C.-F. Cheng. Convergecast in ZigBee tree-based
wireless sensor networks, in: Proc. of IEEE Wireless Communications
and Networking Conference (WCNC), 2013.
153