Cargando…

On the MAC/Network/Energy Performance Evaluation of Wireless Sensor Networks: Contrasting MPH, AODV, DSR and ZTR Routing Protocols

Wireless Sensor Networks deliver valuable information for long periods, then it is desirable to have optimum performance, reduced delays, low overhead, and reliable delivery of information. In this work, proposed metrics that influence energy consumption are used for a performance comparison among o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Del-Valle-Soto, Carolina, Mex-Perera, Carlos, Orozco-Lugo, Aldo, Lara, Mauricio, Galván-Tejada, Giselle M., Olmedo, Oscar
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4299041/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25474377
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s141222811
_version_ 1782353344039223296
author Del-Valle-Soto, Carolina
Mex-Perera, Carlos
Orozco-Lugo, Aldo
Lara, Mauricio
Galván-Tejada, Giselle M.
Olmedo, Oscar
author_facet Del-Valle-Soto, Carolina
Mex-Perera, Carlos
Orozco-Lugo, Aldo
Lara, Mauricio
Galván-Tejada, Giselle M.
Olmedo, Oscar
author_sort Del-Valle-Soto, Carolina
collection PubMed
description Wireless Sensor Networks deliver valuable information for long periods, then it is desirable to have optimum performance, reduced delays, low overhead, and reliable delivery of information. In this work, proposed metrics that influence energy consumption are used for a performance comparison among our proposed routing protocol, called Multi-Parent Hierarchical (MPH), the well-known protocols for sensor networks, Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), and Zigbee Tree Routing (ZTR), all of them working with the IEEE 802.15.4 MAC layer. Results show how some communication metrics affect performance, throughput, reliability and energy consumption. It can be concluded that MPH is an efficient protocol since it reaches the best performance against the other three protocols under evaluation, such as 19.3% reduction of packet retransmissions, 26.9% decrease of overhead, and 41.2% improvement on the capacity of the protocol for recovering the topology from failures with respect to AODV protocol. We implemented and tested MPH in a real network of 99 nodes during ten days and analyzed parameters as number of hops, connectivity and delay, in order to validate our simulator and obtain reliable results. Moreover, an energy model of CC2530 chip is proposed and used for simulations of the four aforementioned protocols, showing that MPH has 15.9% reduction of energy consumption with respect to AODV, 13.7% versus DSR, and 5% against ZTR.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4299041
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42990412015-01-26 On the MAC/Network/Energy Performance Evaluation of Wireless Sensor Networks: Contrasting MPH, AODV, DSR and ZTR Routing Protocols Del-Valle-Soto, Carolina Mex-Perera, Carlos Orozco-Lugo, Aldo Lara, Mauricio Galván-Tejada, Giselle M. Olmedo, Oscar Sensors (Basel) Article Wireless Sensor Networks deliver valuable information for long periods, then it is desirable to have optimum performance, reduced delays, low overhead, and reliable delivery of information. In this work, proposed metrics that influence energy consumption are used for a performance comparison among our proposed routing protocol, called Multi-Parent Hierarchical (MPH), the well-known protocols for sensor networks, Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), and Zigbee Tree Routing (ZTR), all of them working with the IEEE 802.15.4 MAC layer. Results show how some communication metrics affect performance, throughput, reliability and energy consumption. It can be concluded that MPH is an efficient protocol since it reaches the best performance against the other three protocols under evaluation, such as 19.3% reduction of packet retransmissions, 26.9% decrease of overhead, and 41.2% improvement on the capacity of the protocol for recovering the topology from failures with respect to AODV protocol. We implemented and tested MPH in a real network of 99 nodes during ten days and analyzed parameters as number of hops, connectivity and delay, in order to validate our simulator and obtain reliable results. Moreover, an energy model of CC2530 chip is proposed and used for simulations of the four aforementioned protocols, showing that MPH has 15.9% reduction of energy consumption with respect to AODV, 13.7% versus DSR, and 5% against ZTR. MDPI 2014-12-02 /pmc/articles/PMC4299041/ /pubmed/25474377 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s141222811 Text en © 2014 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/).
spellingShingle Article
Del-Valle-Soto, Carolina
Mex-Perera, Carlos
Orozco-Lugo, Aldo
Lara, Mauricio
Galván-Tejada, Giselle M.
Olmedo, Oscar
On the MAC/Network/Energy Performance Evaluation of Wireless Sensor Networks: Contrasting MPH, AODV, DSR and ZTR Routing Protocols
title On the MAC/Network/Energy Performance Evaluation of Wireless Sensor Networks: Contrasting MPH, AODV, DSR and ZTR Routing Protocols
title_full On the MAC/Network/Energy Performance Evaluation of Wireless Sensor Networks: Contrasting MPH, AODV, DSR and ZTR Routing Protocols
title_fullStr On the MAC/Network/Energy Performance Evaluation of Wireless Sensor Networks: Contrasting MPH, AODV, DSR and ZTR Routing Protocols
title_full_unstemmed On the MAC/Network/Energy Performance Evaluation of Wireless Sensor Networks: Contrasting MPH, AODV, DSR and ZTR Routing Protocols
title_short On the MAC/Network/Energy Performance Evaluation of Wireless Sensor Networks: Contrasting MPH, AODV, DSR and ZTR Routing Protocols
title_sort on the mac/network/energy performance evaluation of wireless sensor networks: contrasting mph, aodv, dsr and ztr routing protocols
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4299041/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25474377
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s141222811
work_keys_str_mv AT delvallesotocarolina onthemacnetworkenergyperformanceevaluationofwirelesssensornetworkscontrastingmphaodvdsrandztrroutingprotocols
AT mexpereracarlos onthemacnetworkenergyperformanceevaluationofwirelesssensornetworkscontrastingmphaodvdsrandztrroutingprotocols
AT orozcolugoaldo onthemacnetworkenergyperformanceevaluationofwirelesssensornetworkscontrastingmphaodvdsrandztrroutingprotocols
AT laramauricio onthemacnetworkenergyperformanceevaluationofwirelesssensornetworkscontrastingmphaodvdsrandztrroutingprotocols
AT galvantejadagisellem onthemacnetworkenergyperformanceevaluationofwirelesssensornetworkscontrastingmphaodvdsrandztrroutingprotocols
AT olmedooscar onthemacnetworkenergyperformanceevaluationofwirelesssensornetworkscontrastingmphaodvdsrandztrroutingprotocols