Performance Comparison of a Novel Adaptive Protocol with the Fixed Power Transmission in Wireless Sensor Networks
<p>State transition diagram of the adaptive algorithm.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>The curves behave differently depending on the value of R. A low R value indicates slow back off while a high R indicates fast back off. When the number of successes is 0, the probability of transition is 0. This drop-off algorithm takes into account of all the previous successes indicating that it also uses past history while dropping-off.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Comparison of the PSR, efficiency, and average cost of successful transmission when the distance between the sensor and the hub is 14 m. The minimum cost at fixed power is achieved at 0 dBm. The PSR of fixed power at 0 dBm is almost similar to the PSRs of the adaptive protocol. The adaptive protocol consumes 55% less energy than at 0 dBm when value of R is 0.5.The efficiency of the fixed power transmisison (0 dBm) is a touch higher than the adaptive protocol at R = 0.5.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Comparison of the PSR, efficiency and average cost of successful transmission when the distance between the sensor and the hub is 18 m. The minimal cost of fixed power transmission is achieved at –6 dBm. The minimum energy consumption is at −6 dBm, primarily because of similar PSR and efficiency as at 0 dBm. In terms of energy efficiency, the adaptive protocol consumes 30% less energy than the fixed power transmission at −6 dBm when R is 1. The efficiency of the adaptive protocol at R = 1 is higher than fixed power transmission at –6 dBm.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Comparison of the efficiency and average cost of successful transmission based on the PSR when the distance between the sensor and the hub is 20 m. The minimal cost of fixed power transmission is achieved at 0 dBm. In this case the PSR of fixed power at 0 dBm is same as the PSRs of adaptive protocol. In terms of energy efficiency, the adaptive protocol consumes 55% less energy than the fixed power transmission at 0 dBm when R = 1. The efficiency of the fixed power transmisison is a touch higher than that of the adpative protocol at R = 1.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Comparison of the efficiency and average cost of successful transmission based on the PSR when the distance between the sensor and the hub is 24 m and collected during the busy hour. The minimum energy consumption of fixed power is achieved at 0 dBm, primarily because it has much higher PSR and efficiency than at −6 dBm. The adaptive protocol consumes 6% less energy than the fixed power transmission at 0 dBm when R = 0.5. The efficiency of the fixed power transmisison at 0 dBm is a touch higher than that of adpative protocol at R = 0.5.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Comparison of the efficiency and average cost of successful transmission based on the PSR when the distance between the sensor and the hub is 24 m and collected during non-busy hours. The minimum energy consumption of fixed power is achieved at 0 dBm The adaptive protocol consumes 29% less energy than the fixed power transmission at 0 dBm when R = 1 The efficiencies of the adaptive protocol (at R = 1) and fixed power transmission (0 dBm) are comparable.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Comparison of the efficiency and average cost of successful transmission based on the PSR and data collected during a gathering in a house. The minimum energy consumption of fixed power is achieved at 0 dBm. In terms of energy efficiency, the adaptive protocol consumes 26% less energy than the fixed power transmission at 0 dBm when R = 0.5. The protocol efficiencies of both fixed (at 0 dBm) and adaptive R = 0.5) are the same.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Related Work in Power Saving Algorithms
- Reduce collisions
- Reduce idle listening
- Avoid overhearing
- Reduce control packet overhead
- Transmission power
- Modulation technique
- Data rate
RSSI/LQI Based Power Control Algorithms for Energy Efficiency
- The transmitter sends packet at an updated power level to the receiver
- Receiver measures the RSSI /LQI
- If the RSSI/LQI is below the threshold that is required for faithful packet delivery, then the receiver sends the control packet at the new transmission power level.
- At the transmitter, the control packet is received and the current power level is updated for packet delivery
- Use of error correction code to recover the original data packet at the receiver
- Retransmit when the error correction mechanism has failed due to severe distortion
- Drop some packets to save energy for transmission of higher priority packets
- The initial overhead cost for building up the RSSI vs. Power level table.
- In case the sensor is mobile, the frequency of refreshing the table becomes crucial and that also adds up to the cost.
- Determining the ideal channel sampling frequency for link quality estimation that would optimise energy efficiency. It has been suggested that in general sampling once every 24 h is sufficient to track channel link quality. However, indoor radio channels are dynamic and link quality can vary widely over a period of 24 h and such a sampling rate may fail to capture the temporal dynamics of the radio channel [6].
3. Non-RSSI/LQI Based Channel Estimation and Power Control Algorithms for Energy Efficiency
Operational Mode | Current Consumed (mA) |
---|---|
Transmission @ −18 dBm output power (MIN) | 7 |
Transmission @ −12 dBm output power (LOW) | 7.5 |
Transmission @ −6 dBm output power (HIGH) | 9 |
Transmission @ 0 dBm output power (MAX) | 11.3 |
State | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Available power levels | Minimum (M) | |||
Low (L) | Low (L) | |||
High (H) | High (H) | High (H) | ||
Maximum (X) | Maximum (X) | Maximum (X) | Maximum (X) | |
Number of retries | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
Next State | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 (MLHX) | 2 (LHX) | 3 (HX) | 4 (X) | ||
Current State | 1 (MLHX) | Succeed at level M | Succeed at level L | Succeed at level H | Failed or Succeed at level X |
2 (LHX) | Not applicable | Not applicable | Succeed at level H | Failed or Succeed at level X | |
3 (HX) | No transition | Not applicable | Not applicable | Failed or Succeed at level X | |
4 (X) | No transition | No transition | Not applicable | Not applicable |
Next State | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 (MLHX) | 2 (LHX) | 3 (HX) | 4 (X) | ||
Current State | 1 (MLHX) | Success at state M | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
2 (LHX) | Probabilistic model that depends on the number of successes in level L | Probabilistic model that depends on the number of successes in level L | Not applicable | Not applicable | |
3 (HX) | No transition | Probabilistic model that depends on the number of successes in level H | Probabilistic model that depends on the number of successes in level H | Not applicable | |
4 (X) | Not applicable | Not applicable | Probabilistic model that depends on the number of successes in level X | Probabilistic model that depends on the number of successes in level X |
- Pdrop-off = probability of drop-off
- S = THE NUMBER OF SUCCESSES IN THAT POWER LEVEL OF THE HIGHER STATE
- R = DROP-OFF FACTOR
4. Performance Parameters
- Average cost per successful transmission
- Expected success rate or protocol efficiency [26]
- CS_avg = average cost of successful transmission
- CT = total cost of transmission
- PS = total packets to send
- PL = number of lost packets
- Succrate = expected success rate
- RetT = total number of retries
5. Experimental Setup
- •
- Four packets at power levels −18 dBm, −12 dBm, −6 dBm and 0 dBm
- •
- Five packets at power levels determined by the drop-off rates (R) 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5 and 1 of the proposed adaptive protocol
6. Factors Affecting the Average Cost in Fixed Power Mode
- Energy used to transmit one packet (Cp)
- Average number of retries (Retavg)
- Total number of successes (Ps – PL)
7. Experimental Results and Analysis
Distance between the Sensor and the Hub | Number of Wall Type I: Light Internal Walls (Plasterboards) | Number of Wall Type II: Internal Walls (Concrete, Bricks) |
14m | 5 | 0 |
Distance Between the Sensor and the Hub | Number of Wall Type I: Light Internal Walls (Plasterboards) | Number of Wall Type II: Internal Walls (Concrete, Bricks) |
18m | 4 | 0 |
Distance Between the Sensor and the Hub | Number of Wall Type I: Light Internal Walls (Plasterboards) | Number of Wall Type II: Internal Walls (Concrete, Bricks) |
20m | 4 | 0 |
Distance Between the Sensor and the Hub | Number of Wall Type I: Light Internal Walls (Plasterboards) | Number of Wall Type II: Internal Walls (Concrete, Bricks) |
24m | 4 | 0 |
Distance Between the Sensor and the Hub | Number of Wall Type I: Light Internal Walls (Plasterboards) | Number of Wall Type II: Internal Walls (Concrete, Bricks) |
15m | 3 | 1 |
8. Conclusions and Future Work
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Weiser, M. Ubiquitous Computing. Available online: http://www.ubiq.com/weiser/UbiHome.html (accessed on 17 September 2015).
- Philips Research—Technologies. What Is Ambient Intelligence? Available online: http://www.research.philips.com/technologies/projects/ami/ (accessed on 17 September 2015).
- Limitations of Batteries in Powering Wireless Sensors. Available online: http://www.perpetuapower.com/battery_limitations.htm (accessed on 17 September 2015).
- Perpetual Power Solutions to Save $1 billion in Labor Costs. ONWORLD. Available online: http://onworld.com/html/newsperpower.htm (accessed on 17 September 2015).
- Sheu, J.P.; Hsieh, K.Y.; Cheng, Y.-K. Distributed Transmission Power Control Algorithm for Wireless Sensor Networks. J. Inf. Sci. Eng. 2009, 25, 1447–1463. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, S.; Zhang, J.; Zhou, G.; Gu, T.H.L.; Stankovic, J.A. ATPC: Adaptive Transmission Power Control for Wireless Sensor Networks. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, Boulder, CO, USA, 1–3 November 2006; pp. 223–236.
- Baccour, N.; Koubaa, A.; Mottola, L.; Zuniga, M.A.; Youssef, H.; Boana, C.A.; Alves, M. Radio Link Quality Estimation in Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey. ACM Trans. Sens. Netw. 2012, 8, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chipcon products from Texas Instruments. 2.4 GHz IEEE 802.15.4/ZigBee-ready RF Transceiver. Available online: http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/cc2420.pdf (accessed on 17 September 2015).
- Fu, Y.; Sha, M.; Hackmann, G.; Lu, C. Practical Control of Transmission Power for Wireless Sensor Networks. In Proceedings of the 20th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols, Austin, TX, USA, 30 October–2 November 2012; pp. 1–10.
- Hackmann, G.; Chipara, O.; Lu, C. Robust Topology Control for Indoor Wireless Sensor Networks. In Proceedings of ACM Conference on Embedded Network Sensor Systems, Raleigh, NC, USA, 5 November 2008; pp. 57–70.
- Soltani, S.; Ilyas, M.U.; Radha, H. An Energy Efficient Link Layer Protocol for Power-Constrained Wireless Networks. In Proceedings of International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN), Maui, HI, USA, 31 July 2011; pp. 1–6.
- Zheng, L.; Wang, W.; Mathewson, A.; O’Flynn, B.; Hayes, M. An Adaptive Transmission Power Control Method for Wireless Sensor Networks. In Proceedings of Signals and Systems Conference (ISSC 2010), Cork, Ireland, 23–24 June 2010; pp. 261–265.
- Jeong, J.; Culler, D.; Oh, J.-H. Empirical Analysis of Transmission Power Control Algorithms for Wireless Sensor Networks. In Proceedings of International Conference on Networked Sensing Systems, Braunschweig, Germany, 6–8 July 2007; pp. 27–34.
- Lal, D.; Manjeshwar, A.; Herrmann, F.; Uysal-Biyikoglu, E.; Keshavarzian, A. Measurement and characterization of link quality metrics in energy constrained wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM ’03), San Francisco, CA, USA, 1–5 December 2003; Volume 1, pp. 446–452.
- Sheth, A.; Han, R. An Implementation of Transmit Power Control in 802.11b Wireless Networks. University of Colorado at Boulder: Boulder, CO, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Eberspächer, J.; Vögel, H.J.; Bettstetter, C.; Hartmann, C. GSM—Architecture, Protocols and Services; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, Chapter 4; 2009. [Google Scholar]
- ENERGIZER CR2320. Available online: http://data.energizer.com/PDFs/cr2320.pdf (accessed on 17 September 2015).
- EB-B600BUBESTA. SAMSUNG. Available online: http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones-accessories/EB-B600BUBESTA (accessed on 17 September 2015).
- Gsmarena. Available online: http://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_5-4910.php (accessed on 17 September 2015).
- Vandervell, A. Nokia Lumia 1520: Battery Life and Verdict. Available online: http://www.trustedreviews.com/nokia-lumia-1520-review-battery-life-and-verdict-page-5 (accessed on 17 September 2015).
- Basu, D.; Gupta, G.S.; Moretti, G.; Gui, X. Protocol for improved energy efficiency in wireless sensor networks to support mobile robots. In Proceedings of International Conference on Automation, Robotics and Applications (ICARA), Queenstown, New Zealand, 17–19 February 2015; pp. 230–237.
- nRF24L01+ Single Chip 2.4GHz Transceiver Product Specification v1.0. Available online: http://www.nordicsemi.com/eng/Products/2.4GHz-RF/nRF24L01P (accessed on 17 September 2015).
- CC2500 Low-Cost Low-Power 2.4 GHz RF Transceiver. Available online: http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/cc2500.pdf (accessed on 17 September 2015).
- Exponential backoff. Available online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_backoff (accessed on 17 September 2015).
- IEEE Standard for Information Technology—Telecommunications and Information Exchange between Systems—Local and Metropolitan Area Networks—Specific Requirements Part 3: Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) Access Method and Ph. IEEE Computer Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2002.
- Schmidt, D.; Berning, M.; Wehn, N. Error correction in single-hop wireless sensor networks—A case study. In Proceedings of Conference & Exhibition of Design, Automation & Test in Europe, Nice, France, 20–24 April 2009; pp. 1530–1591.
- Rappaport, T. Wireless Communications—Principles and Practice; Prentice Hall PTR: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2002; pp. 177–253. [Google Scholar]
- Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS); Selection procedures for the choice of radio transmission technologies of the UMTS (UMTS 30.03 Version 3.1.0). UMTS: Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France, 2011.
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Basu, D.; Gupta, G.S.; Moretti, G.; Gui, X. Performance Comparison of a Novel Adaptive Protocol with the Fixed Power Transmission in Wireless Sensor Networks. J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2015, 4, 274-292. https://doi.org/10.3390/jsan4040274
Basu D, Gupta GS, Moretti G, Gui X. Performance Comparison of a Novel Adaptive Protocol with the Fixed Power Transmission in Wireless Sensor Networks. Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks. 2015; 4(4):274-292. https://doi.org/10.3390/jsan4040274
Chicago/Turabian StyleBasu, Debraj, Gourab Sen Gupta, Giovanni Moretti, and Xiang Gui. 2015. "Performance Comparison of a Novel Adaptive Protocol with the Fixed Power Transmission in Wireless Sensor Networks" Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks 4, no. 4: 274-292. https://doi.org/10.3390/jsan4040274
APA StyleBasu, D., Gupta, G. S., Moretti, G., & Gui, X. (2015). Performance Comparison of a Novel Adaptive Protocol with the Fixed Power Transmission in Wireless Sensor Networks. Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks, 4(4), 274-292. https://doi.org/10.3390/jsan4040274