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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |