e-ISSN : 0975-5462

International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Performance Evaluation Of Energy Efficient

Cluster Based Routing Protocols In Mobile
Wireless Sensor Networks
Mrs.R.U.ANITHA1
Department of MCA
Muthayammal Engineering College,
Rasipuram-637408
Tamil Nadu
India
ruanithamca@gmail.com

Dr.P.KAMALAKKANNAN2
PG& Research Department of Computer Science
Government Arts College (Autonomous)
Salem- 636007
Tamil Nadu
India
Kamal_karthi95@yahoo.co.in
Abstract
Energy efficient is an essential aspect in designing a qualified routing protocol for Mobile wireless sensor
networks (MWSNs). A good quality routing protocol should be energy efficient and high throughput. There
are number of various routing protocols have been proposed to optimize the efficiency of Mobile WSNs.
From these protocols, cluster based routing algorithms have achieved more significant and increasing the
life time of the WSN even the nodes are in mobile state. LEACH is the first clustering routing protocol
using static node and LEACH-Mobile is the cluster based routing protocol in mobility. This paper mainly
compares the clustering protocols, namely LEACH, LEACH-M, LEACH-ME and CBR-MWSN using NS2
tool for analyze the performance of the simulation results with different metrics like Network Life time,
Delay, Throughput and Energy Consumption. The paper will be concluded by mention the observations
made from analysis of results.
Keywords: Mobile Wireless Sensor Network, Energy consumption, Cluster-based Routing Protocol,
performance, LEACH.

1. Introduction
Wireless sensor network consist of autonomous nodes for monitoring an environment. The basic functions
of WSNs are sensing, collecting the information, data processing and distributing. The general ideas about the
wireless sensor network (WSN) nodes are static in nature and also permanent in its location. It has been carried out
for a lengthy period of time [2]. It produces many researches mainly focus on energy consumption in WSN sensor
nodes considered as fixed node. Conversely, some applications like habitat monitoring, animals tracking, search
and rescue, Tracking Vehicles, RoboMote, parasitic mobility, medical care, and disaster response applications are
focusing the mobility in WSN.
Mobile WSNs not only have the communications but also have their own unique features of ApplicationRelated, Data-Centered, Large-Scale Distribution, Dynamic Topology, High Reliability and Self-organization
[12]. One important characteristic of the Mobile WSN is that a group of sensors with limited resources and
functions can achieve some large sensing task and cooperation [1]. The small size of the sensors has limitations in
its energy because they have non-rechargeable batteries. Due to this constraint, a more number of works has been
conducted to manage energy consumption in order to extend the lifetime of the whole network.
In this paper, a performance study of four routing protocols in different metrics focusing on their energy
consumption performance is evaluated. Experiments are preformed through simulations. The purpose is to
identifies the different metrics impose an energy conservation in wireless sensor networks.
The protocols studied include Low-Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy (LEACH), Low-Energy Adaptive
Clustering Hierarchy-Mobile (LEACH-Mobile), Low-Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy- Mobile Enhanced
p-ISSN : 2278-9510

Vol. 5 No. 06S Jun 2013

90

e-ISSN : 0975-5462

International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

(LEACH-Mobile Enhanced) and Cluster Based Routing for mobile node (CBR-MWS). These routing protocols
are energy efficient cluster based routing protocols. It is classified on the basis of their Cluster formation and
transmission of routing information [3].The Metrics used are Network life time, Throughput, Delay and Energy
consumption. The results confirm that the energy consumption of wireless sensor network routing protocols
varies significantly with node mobility pattern. It is also shown that node energy and network traffic considerably
influence the network performance.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents factors of routing protocol design in detail.
Section 3 give explanation about the cluster based routing protocols. Section 4 explains the assumption of the
system model and specifies the Energy model. Section 5 makes clear that the comparison quantitative metrics
applied in this paper. Section 6 describes the details of simulation tools and simulation setup carried out in this
paper. Simulation results and discussions are presented in section 7. Finally Section 8 concludes the paper.

2. Factors of Routing Protocol Design

Initial research in WSNs was mainly motivated by military applications. More recently, the civilian application
domain of wireless sensor networks have been considered, such as environmental and species monitoring, production and healthcare, smart home etc. These WSNs may consist of heterogeneous and mobile sensor nodes, the
network topology may be as simple as a star topology, the scale and density of a network varies depending on
the application. To meet this general development towards different problems, the important design issues were
discussed in the sensor networks [14].
2.1 Energy:
Sensor nodes have limited energy. The nodes may drain out while performing the tasks like calculation and
transmitting the data in a wireless environment. The life time of a sensor node may dependent on its battery
lifetime. Depending on the energy, routing process should be reconfigured and routing algorithm is required to be
highly flexible.
2.2 Scalability:
The number of sensor nodes set up in the sensing area may be hundreds, thousands or more than that. So the
routing system must be scalable to take action to the measures.
2.3 Production Costs:
The sensor networks consist of a large number of sensor nodes. To identify the overall cost of the network, a
single node cost is very important. So, the cost of each sensor node has to be low in cost.
2.4 Data aggregation:
The sensor nodes may transmit the significant redundant data and similar data packets from multiple nodes. The
number of transmissions would be reduced by aggregating the nodes. Data aggregation is the combination of data
from different sources by using functions such as suppression (eliminating duplicates) min, max and average. This
technique has been used to get the energy efficiency and traffic optimization of routing protocols.
2.5 Network life time:
Routing protocols should be extended a network lifetime at the same time it will maintain a good connectivity
to allow the communication between nodes.
2.6 Fault tolerance:
Some sensor nodes may fail or be blocked due to lack of power, have physical damage or environmental
interference. The failure of sensor nodes should not affect the overall task of the sensor network. This is a fault
tolerance issue.
2.7 Latency:
Latency is also an important factor influencing the routing protocol design. Latency in WSN is expressed in
terms of how much time it takes a data packet to transmit from one sensor node in to the base station. Latency in
a sensor network can be measured in either one-way that is source to destination or round-trip that is the one-way
latency from source to destination and one-way latency from the destination back to the source.
2.8 Node Deployment:
In a sensor network, a node can be installed in a deterministic or random way. In deterministic way the nodes
are manually placed and routes are in a pre-determined paths and the routing takes place along that path. But in
random approach the nodes are in a scattered manner.
p-ISSN : 2278-9510

Vol. 5 No. 06S Jun 2013

91

International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

e-ISSN : 0975-5462
2.9 Quality of service (QoS):

The quality of service means the quality service required by the application. Qos could be the length of life
time, the data reliable, energy efficiency, and location awareness, collaborative-processing. These factors will
affect the selection of routing protocols for a particular application.
2.10 Operating environment:
The sensor network can able to set up the internal part of the large machinery, at the underside of an ocean, in a
Biologically or chemically polluted field, in a battle field beyond the enemy lines, in a home or a large building, in
a large warehouse, attached to animals, attached to fast moving vehicles, in forest area for habitat monitoring etc.
2.11 Mobility:
The nodes in WSNs are less mobility than wireless ad-hoc networks. Most of the routing protocols were
particularly designed for the fixed nodes instead of mobile nodes. But mobility is an important issue in WSN.

3. Cluster Based Routing Protocols

Clustering is the process of classifying the nodes into different groups by partitioning sets of data into a series
of subsets called clusters. Clustering basically involved a set of cluster heads which are selected as predefined
criteria. The cluster heads carried out the other responsibilities like collecting data from all the sensor nodes in a
cluster and transmits it to base station. The role of each cluster head is turns around after every round between all
the nodes present in a cluster. It should be balanced the energy level of the cluster head. It is assumed that each
sensor node has an extensive range of communication and is able to reach CH directly and thereafter BS. The
Cluster based wireless sensor network architecture is shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 1. Cluster-based wireless sensor network architecture

There are enormous activities of research has been carried out to provide energy efficient routing [2] for Mobile
WSNs and quite a lot of solutions have been proposed for minimizing the energy consumption. This section
briefly outlines the related work in mobile sensor network (MSN) and LEACH [5] protocol improvements.
In LEACH [5], the nodes are organized themselves into local clusters. Each node has the same initial energy
because of homogeneous networks. The operation is divided into rounds. In the set-up phase, the CH is selected
from the organized clusters if a random number between 0 and 1 chosen by CH is less than threshold value. In the
steady-state phase each non CH node sends data and the time slot allocated to CH .The CH aggregates the data
and sends to the BS. But the cluster formation is initiated in each round is not energy efficient and also it does
not support mobility.
As a result, the work done by Do-Seong Kim and Yeong-Jee Chung propose LEACH-Mobile [6] (LEACH-M)
routing protocol which applicable to Wireless mobile networks. The basic idea in LEACH-Mobile is to declare
the membership of cluster as they move and to confirm whether a mobile sensor node is able to communicate with
a specific cluster head. It transmits a message back to mobile sensor node from cluster head for data transmission
within a timeslot allocated in TDMA schedule of a wireless sensor cluster. If the mobile sensor node does not
receive the data transmission from cluster head within an allocated timeslot according to TDMA schedule, it
sending join-request message at next TDMA time slot allocated. Then it decides the cluster to which it will belong
for this moment by receiving cluster join-ack messages back from specific cluster heads. But in this protocol,
transmitted message overhead is increased for membership declaration.
Cluster head election in LEACH-Mobile has been improved by LEACH-Mobile Enhanced [7] (LEACH-ME)
as proposed whereby the sensor node with minimum mobility factor is elected as cluster head. Mobility factor
is calculated based on the number of time that a node changes from one cluster to another. In steady state phase,
p-ISSN : 2278-9510

Vol. 5 No. 06S Jun 2013

92

e-ISSN : 0975-5462

International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

if the non-CH node may not receive any request packet from CH node due to mobility then the CH node does
not receive any acknowledgement form the non-CH nodes. If it is happened two consecutive timeslots, then CH
assume that the node has moved and it deletes the timeslot of the node. However, LEACH-ME consumes much
energy for determining mobility factor of the each node.
The effort taken by Samer A.B Awwad et al proposes cluster based Routing protocol for mobile Nodes in WSN
[8] (CBR Mobile-WSN) to avoid the packet loss. The idea of this method is that, one of the cluster heads must
be free to receive the packet from lost node that cannot receive data request message. The sensor node does not
wait for two consecutive failure frames from cluster head to make decision but directly decided that the node has
moved out of the cluster after one frame. Thus the data loss is reduced by sending its data to the new free cluster
head and sends join acknowledgement message to the cluster heads.
The work done by Lutful Karim and Nidal Nasser propose Fault Tolerant Clustering Protocol for Mobile WSN
[9] (FTCP-MWSN) that is not only energy efficient but also reliable. It does not require any extra timeslot for
calculating the mobility of sensor node. So that it provide faster data delivery to BS. In the steady phase, CH
assigns timeslots to the member nodes using TDMA scheme. If a node moves into a new cluster then it sends a
Join-Request message to CH. Then the CH does not allocate the node a timeslot until any timeslot becomes free
for moving a node out of this cluster.
Cluster-based Energy-efficient Scheme [10] (CES) for Mobile Wireless Sensor Networks (MWSNs) which
relies on weighing k-density, residual energy and mobility parameters for cluster-head election. The CES scheme
carries out a periodical cluster-head election process after each round. Moreover, CES enables the creation of
balanced 2-hop clusters whose size ranges between two thresholds called upper and lower thresholds.

4. The System and Energy Models

4.1 The System Model and Assumptions
The system model of the wireless sensor network is considered to be one sink node (Base Station) and a huge
number of mobile sensor nodes. The sensor nodes are randomly deployed in the target region to continuously
monitor the environment and the Base station is far away from the network and is fixed. Assumptions about the
sensor nodes and the underlying network are as follows [15].
(1) Every sensor node is capable of communicating with every other sensor node and to the Base Station if
needed.
(2)

The links are symmetric i.e. two nodes can communicate with the same power level.

(3)

Sensor nodes are deployed densely and randomly in sensor field.

(4)

All the nodes of the sensor network are equipped with same amount of energy level in the beginning.

(5)

There is mobility in sensor nodes.

4.2 Radio Energy Dissipation Model

In this simulation model, we use a first order radio model is used for energy dissipation in communication,
where radio dissipates Eelec = 50 nano Joule / bit to drive the transmitter and the transmit-amplifier dissipates elec
=100 pico Joule/ bit/m2. Fig 2 shows that the radio energy model for transmit and receive the packets. To save
energy, when required the radio can be turned on or off. Also the radio spends the minimum energy required to
reach the destination. The energy consumed for data transmission of k bits packet is calculated from the Eq. (1)
ETx (k, d) = Eelec * k + elec * k * d 2 (1)
and to receive this message, the radio expends energy is shown in Eq. (2):
ERx (k) = ERX-elec (k) (2)

p-ISSN : 2278-9510

Vol. 5 No. 06S Jun 2013

93

International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

e-ISSN : 0975-5462

Figure 2. Radio Energy Model

5. Comparison of Quantitative Metrics

In order to compare the LEACH, LEACH-M, LEACH-ME, and CBR-Mobile protocols, the quantitative
metrics are used to measure and evaluate the performance of the simulated routing protocols. For all metrics,
the average over several experiments is determined. The set of performance metrics used [4] [13] for comparing
the selected routing protocols of this paper is shown in Fig 3. Each of these metrics parameters can be described
briefly as follows.

Figure 3. A set of Performance Metrics

5.1 Network life time

It is a time interval from starting operation of the sensor network until the death of the first alive node.
Network lifetime is the time span from the deployment to the instant when the network is considered nonfunctional.
It can be, for example, the instant when the first sensor dies, a percentage of sensors die, the network partitions, or
the loss of coverage occurs. The average Network life time of the Network is measured as the following Eq. (3)
Average Network Lifetime =

Initial Energy Expected Wasted Energy

(3)
Energy consumption of Network + Energy consumed by sensors

5.2 Delay
It is the average delay between the sending of the data packet by the source and its receipt at the corresponding
receiver including the delays due to route acquisition, buffering and processing at intermediate nodes, and
retransmission delays at the MAC layer, etc. if the value of End-to-end delay is high then it means the protocol
performance is not good due to the network congestion [20].The Average Delay can be calculated form the
following Eq. (4)
Average Delay =

Time Packet Received i Time Packet sent i

i =0

Total Number of Packets Received

(4)

5.3 Throughput
The throughput reflects the effective network capacity. It is defined as the total number of bits successfully
delivered at the destination in a given period of time. The ratio of total data received by a receiver from a sender
for a time the last packet received by receiver measures in bit/sec and byte/sec. Throughput shows protocols
successful deliveries for a time. The higher throughput will be the better protocol performance. It can be expressed
mathematically as the Eq. (5)
Throughput (bit / sec) =

p-ISSN : 2278-9510

Number of Delivered Packet * Packet size *8

(5)
Total duration of simulation

Vol. 5 No. 06S Jun 2013

94

International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

e-ISSN : 0975-5462
5.4 Average Energy Consumption ( Ea )

The average energy consumption is calculated across the entire topology. It measures the average difference
between the initial level of energy and the final level of energy that is left in each node. Let Ei = the initial energy
level of a node, Ef = the final energy level of a node and N = number of nodes in the simulation. The Average
energy consumption is calculated from the following Eq. (6)
Ea =

(E ik E fk )

k =1

(6)

This metric is an important because the energy level of the network uses is proportional to the networks
lifetime. The lower the energy consumption the longer is the networks lifespan.

6. Simulation Model
The experiments performed to examine energy performance of wireless sensor network routing protocols on
different metrics have been done through ns-2 network simulator. In this section we describe the scenarios and
parameters used.
6.1 Simulation Tool (NS2)
In this section a comparative analysis between the behaviors of the four routing protocols: LEACH, LEACH-M,
LEACH-ME, and CBR-Mobile will be given by the simulations of Mobile WSN are selected for the task. The well
known NS2 [16] simulation tool is used. NS2 provides a widespread perfection environment for modeling and
performance evaluation of communication networks and distributed systems.
Various simulation results are obtainable with different number of nodes in order to prove performance of the
proposed algorithm. The goal of the study was to examine the performance of LEACH, LEACH-M, LEACHME, and CBR-Mobile for Network life time, packet delivery ratio, throughput, and energy consumption, routing
overhead, and delay. Post simulation analyses are performed to each of the trace files in order to calculate the
energy consumption for communication.
6.2 Simulation Setup
The simulated network sizes vary from 25 to 200 nodes. In this entire scheme, 30% numbers of nodes are
mobility. Random topology has been considered in this implementation. The random waypoint model has been
selected to be used in all simulations presented in this study. Simulation time for each scenario was set to 500
seconds and repetitive simulations for each scenario were performed to verify the reliability of our results. The
network was modeled on an area having dimension of 300 x 300 meters. The packet size is of 128 bytes, and
the packet rate is 4 packets /sec. All nodes in this network are considered as source nodes communicating with
constant bit rate 1 Mbps. The numbers of nodes chosen are 25, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, 175 and 200 nodes. The
input parameters used for all scenarios were the same as shown in Table 1 except the number of nodes. Initially,
each node has the same energy level (1Joule). Any node having energy less than or equal to a set threshold will
be considered as dead.
Table 1: Simulation parameters

Parameter

Value

Simulation time
Simulation area
Number of nodes
Packet size
Packet rate
Mobility model
Initial node energy
Data rate
Base station position
Energy consumption for sending data packets
Energy consumption in free space/air
Initial node energy
p-ISSN : 2278-9510

500 sec
300 m x 300m
25, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, 175, 200
128 bytes
4 packets/sec
Random waypoint
1 Joule
1
Mbps
90 X 170
50 pJoule
0.01 pJoule
2 Joule

Vol. 5 No. 06S Jun 2013

95

International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

e-ISSN : 0975-5462

7. Performance Evaluation
In this section, the performance of the LEACH, LEACH-M, LEACH-ME and CBR-MWSN protocols are
evaluated on basis of scalability of the nodes. The protocols are evaluated using NS2 Simulator. The four metrics
like Network life time, Delay, Throughput and Average Energy Consumption are evaluated for categorize the
performance of the protocols.
Table 2: Comparison between the protocols with various Metrics

Metrics

LEACH

LEACH-M

LEACH-ME

CBR-MWSN

Network life time

81%

91%

96%

84%

Delay

92%

85%

80%

74%

Throughput

85%

87%

88%

95%

Average Energy Consumption

96%

92%

84%

79%

7.1 Network life time

In Figure 4, the Number of Nodes as plotted as x-axis and Network Life Time is plotted as y-axis. From the
graph, it shows that the LEACH-ME, LEACH-M gives the better Network lifetime when compared to CBRMobile and LEACH. This may due the following reasons. First, an LEACH-ME and LEACH-Mobile considered
not only residual energy but also a mobility factor as a cluster head selection that can save more energy in nodes.
Second, CBR-Mobile protocol is mainly focus on the packet delivery ratio and delay but modest on life time of
the network when compared to the other energy efficient routing protocols.

Figure 4. Network life time under different number of sensor nodes

7.2 Delay
Delay refers to the time span between the packet sent from the sensor node and packet received at the BS. This
delay parameter is measured by changing the number of sensor nodes in the network. In Figure 5, the number
of nodes as x-axis and Delay as y-axis and depicted the average delay per packet as the number of nodes is
increased. As shown from the graph, the average delay of the proposed CBR-MWSN, LEACH-ME protocol is the
lowest, whilst LEACH-M being the second and LEACH has the worst delay. Furthermore, as the number of nodes
increases, the difference between the CBR-MWSN, LEACH-ME approach and the other two protocols increases
as well. This suggests that the CBR-Mobile and LEACH-ME protocols are more scalable than the LEACH-M
and LEACH.

p-ISSN : 2278-9510

Vol. 5 No. 06S Jun 2013

96

International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

e-ISSN : 0975-5462

Figure 5. Average delay per packet under different number of sensor nodes

7.3 Throughput
In Figure 6, the numbers of nodes are x-axis and throughput as y-axis. Throughput is calculate from the total
rate of data sent over the network, the rate of data sent from cluster heads to the base station as well as the rate
of data sent from the nodes to their cluster heads. In Figure 6 shows the graphical representation of Throughput
with respect to number of nodes. From the graph, it can be observed that the throughput is high in CBR-Mobile,
LEACH-ME when compared to the LEACH-M and LEACH.

Figure 6. Throughput under different number of sensor nodes

7.4 Average Energy consumption

In Figure 7, average energy per packet on y-axis with varying number of sensor nodes on x-axis is plotted.
From the result of all the simulations, LEACH is found to be most energy consuming among the four tested
protocols. From the graph, it can be observed that the average energy consumption per packet for the cluster head
selection using CBR-MWSN, LEACH-ME is less than LEACH-M and LEACH. The reason is that in LEACH
algorithm the cluster head must change in each round and it does not consider the remaining energy of a node and
also it does not have the concept of sleep mode here. In LEACH-M it starts with the lower energy consumption
but due to the transmission overhead it requires high energy consumptions.

Figure 7. Average energy per packet under different number of sensor nodes

p-ISSN : 2278-9510

Vol. 5 No. 06S Jun 2013

97

International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

e-ISSN : 0975-5462

8. Conclusions and Future Work

In this paper, performance of the Cluster based energy efficient routing protocols LEACH, LEACH- M,
LEACH-ME and CBR-MWSN are evaluated using the different metrics like Network life time, Throughput,
Energy consumption and Delay. NS2 simulator is used to compare the performance of the four routing protocols.
The simulation results show that LEACH-ME can greatly prolong sensor networks lifetime when the
transmission range is limited. CBR-Mobile is the lowest energy consumption as evaluate to other protocols. The
throughput is high in CBR-Mobile and LEACH-ME protocols than other two protocols. The average delay of
the proposed CBR-MWSN, LEACH-ME protocol is the lowest delay. Then the routing overhead is increases the
number of created control packets in LEACH-ME, CBR-Mobile, and LEACH-M. In future, the plan is to expand
the simulation by taking into consider more challenging situations like fault tolerance, Node Balancing, mobility
Model and data security etc.

References
[1]

Wenbin Jiang,Hai Jin,Chen Yu, Chao Liu Introduction and Overview of Wireless Sensor Networks DOI: 10.4018/978-1-61520-7015.ch001

[2]

Akkaya, K.; Younis, M. A Survey on routing protocols for wireless sensor networks, Elsevier Ad Hoc Network Journal, 2003, vol.
3, no. 3, pp. 325 - 349.

[3]

Al-Karaki, and A. Kamal, Routing Techniques in Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey, IEEE Wireless Communications, vol.11,
no.6, pp. 6-28, December 2004.

[4]

A. Hac, Wireless Sensor Network Design, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 2003

[5]

Wendi B.Heinzelman,Anantha P.Chandrakasan and Hari Balakrishnan An Application-Specific Protocol Architecture for Wireless
Microsensor networks,IEEE Transactions on wireless communications vol.1 NO.4 2002.

[6]

Do-Seong Kim and Yeong-Jee Chung, Self-Organization Routing Protocol Supporting Mobile Nodes for Wireless Sensor Network, Proceedings of the First International Multi-Symposiums on Computer and Computational Sciences (IMSCCS06), 2006

[7]

G. S. Kumar, M. V. Vinu Paul, G. Athithan and K. P. Jacob, Routing Protocol enhancement for handling node mobility in wireless
sensor networks, In TENCON 2008 - 2008 IEEE Region 10 Conf, 2008, pp. 1-6.

[8]

S. A. B. Awwad, C. K. Ng, N. K. Noordin and M. F. A. Rasid, Cluster Based routing protocol for mobile nodes in wireless sensor
network, in Collaborative Technologies and Systems, 2009. CTS 09. International Symposium on, 2009, pp. 233-241.

[9]

Lutful Karim and Nidal Nasser Energy efficient and Fault Tolerant Routing protocol for mobile Sensor Network, IEEE ICC
2011processdings.

[10]

Lehsaini M., Guyennet H. and Feham, M. Wireless Sensor and Actor Networks II, 2008, in IFIP International Federation for
Information Processing, Volume 264; (Boston: Springer), pp. 1324.

[11]

Network Simulator , http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns.

[12]

C. Y. Chong, S. P. Kumar, Sensor networks: Evolution, opportunities, and challenges, in Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 91 No 8,
pp. 1247-1256, 2003

[13]

Adel Gaafar A.Elrahim, Hussein A.Elsayed, Member, IEEE, Salwa H.Elramly , Senior Member, IEEE, and Magdy M.Ibrahim, Senior Member, IEEE A new Routing Protocol for Mobility in Wireless Sensor Networks Cyber Journals: Multidisciplinary Journals
in Science and Technology, Journal of Selected Areas in Telecommunications (JSAT), February Edition, 2011

[14]

R.U.Anitha and Dr.P.Kamalakkannan, A Survey on Energy Efficient Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Networks, International
Research Journal of Mobile and Wireless Communications, Vol 03, Issue 01, ISSN: 2249-6491 pp 100-105, January-April 2012

[15]

R.U.Anitha and Dr.P.Kamalakkannan,Energy Efficient Cluster Head Selection Algorithm in Mobile Wireless Sensor Networks ,In
the Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Communication and Informatics (ICCCI -2013) Sri Sakthi Institute of
Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore 04 06 January,2013 2013 IEEE

Authors Biography
Prof. P.Kamalakkannan was born in India, Tamilnadu, in 1967. He received his B.Sc, and MCA degrees from

Bharathiar University, Coimbatore and Ph.D degree from Periyar University, Salem. Since 1991 he has been
teaching to the student community as Professor, Head and Director. He is guiding 12 PhDs. His area of research
includes Computer Networks, Mobile Communication, Image Processing, Parallel and Distributed Computing.
He is having more than 50 National and International research Journals and conference publications. He is a
Journal Reviewer of IJOPCM, IJCSA and also a reviewer of Various International conferences.

R.U.Anitha was born in India, Tamilnadu, in 1981. She received the B.Sc, MCA and M.Phil degrees from

periyar university,Salem and 2001, 2004, and 2007 respectively. From 2004 she has been teaching to the student
community. She is working towards her Ph.D degree at the Computer Applications department of Anna University
of Technology, Coimbatore. Her research interest includes Wireless sensor networks and Wireless Adhoc Networks.
p-ISSN : 2278-9510

Vol. 5 No. 06S Jun 2013

98