Interference and Bandwidth Aware Depth Based Routing Protocols in Underwater WSNs

Conference Paper (PDF Available) · April 2015with 183 Reads
DOI: 10.1109/IMIS.2015.17
Conference: IEEE 9th International Conference on Innovative Mobile and Internet Services in Ubiquitous Computing (IMIS-2015), Blumenau, Brazil.
Abstract
Many researcher has paid their to explore and monitor the under water environment. There are lot of application of Underwater WSNs like environment monitoring, exploration of under water surfaces, disaster preventions assisted navigation etc. Underwater sensors are totally different from the terrestrial sensors. Terrestrial sensor network uses the radio signal and underwater sensor network uses the acoustic signal. As the radio signal has not good strength that it can propagate in the water. The Radio signal can propagate over the large distance as compared to the acoustic signals. Therefor, acoustic signal are used. In this paper, we propose Energy Hole Repairing Depth based routing protocol (EHRDBR) and Interference-Bandwidth aware Depth based routing (IBDBR) protocol. In both protocols, nodes move toward the specific area where the other node dies and cover the energy hole. In EHRDBR, forwarder node is selected on the basis of the interference residual energy, and depth parameters. In IBDBR, interference, bandwidth, residual energy, and depth parameters are used to select the forward node. Our protocols have performed better in network lifetime, throughput and ene to end delay .
Figures - uploaded by Nadeem Javaid
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nadeem Javaid
Interference and Bandwidth Aware Depth Based
Routing Protocols in Underwater WSNs
Hamza Fahim1, Nadeem Javaid1,*, Umar Qasim2, Zahoor Ali Khan3,
Shumaila Javed1, Amir Hayat1, Zafar Iqbal4, Ghazanfar Rehman5
1COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan
2University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada
3CIS, Higher Colleges of Technology, Fujairah Campus, UAE
4PMAS, Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
5Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, Edmonton, Canada
*www.njavaid.com, nadeemjavaidqau@gmail.com
Abstract—Many researcher has paid their to explore and
monitor the under water environment. There are lot of application
of Underwater WSNs like environment monitoring, exploration
of under water surfaces, disaster preventions assisted navigation
etc. Underwater sensors are totally different from the terrestrial
sensors. Terrestrial sensor network uses the radio signal and
underwater sensor network uses the acoustic signal. As the
radio signal has not good strength that it can propagate in the
water. The Radio signal can propagate over the large distance
as compared to the acoustic signals. Therefor, acoustic signal are
used. In this paper, we propose Energy Hole Repairing Depth
based routing protocol (EHRDBR) and Interference-Bandwidth
aware Depth based routing (IBDBR) protocol. In both protocols,
nodes move toward the specific area where the other node dies
and cover the energy hole. In EHRDBR, forwarder node is
selected on the basis of the interference residual energy, and
depth parameters. In IBDBR, interference, bandwidth, residual
energy, and depth parameters are used to select the forward
node. Our protocols have performed better in network lifetime,
throughput and ene to end delay .
I. INTRO DUC TIO N
Our earth covers with approximately 70% of water. Only
10% of water surface have been discovered. As the oceans have
their own importance such as presence of natural resources,
defense etc. so the researcher are paying their attention to
explored the oceans. As the monitoring of the oceans are very
difficult task because of the unsuitable underwater environ-
ment, high cost etc. So the Under Wireless Sensor Networks
are considered to explore and monitor the oceans.
Many researcher has paid their to explore and monitor
the under water environment. There are lot of application of
Underwater WSNs like environment monitoring, exploration of
under water surfaces, disaster preventions assisted navigation
etc.
Many protocol have been proposed for the terrestrial sensor
networks. But Underwater sensors are totally different from
the terrestrial sensors. Terrestrial sensor network uses the
radio signal and underwater sensor network uses the acoustic
signal. As the radio signal has not good strength that it
can propagate in the water. The Radio signal can propagate
over the large distance as compared to the acoustic signals.
Therefor, acoustic signal are used. Acoustic signal has longer
delay than the radio model (1500m/s). Acoustic signals are
used for communication is underwater WSN due to relatively
low absorption rate. Underwater environments is typically
very harsh for signal propagation because of the continuously
varying water temperature, salinity and pressure etc. Because
of these factor the acoustic signal have limited bandwidth as
well. Link quality is also affected by the multi path fading and
the refractive properties of sound channel [1].
Authors in [2] examine important challenges in acoustic
communication and routing. They also address the routing
challenges, according to the network protocol stack.There are
two types of protocol in UWSN, localization based proto-
cols and localization free protocols. In the Localized based
protocols, nodes uses location information to route the data.
localization information of the nodes can be achieved through
GPS. The contrast to the localization based protocols, localiza-
tion free protocol do not use localization information. S. Wang
et al. [3] recommend an efficient way to achieve localization
information of sensor nodes and environment mapping scheme
utilizing robotic fish. It is mainly based on cooperative location
and particle filter. In QELAR [4] scheme, reward function
plays main role in selecting the optimal forwarder for sensor
nodes. QELAR achieves enhanced network lifetime by using
the reinforcement learning method.
As underwater sensor node has limited transmission range,
so relay nodes are used to communicate over the long dis-
tances. Efficient routing is done by finding the appropriate
relay node. once the relay nodes find the node send their data
through these node.
Many UWSN protocol has been proposed. The main issue
of routing in underwater environment is to enhance the life
time of the network. As the battery of the underwater sensor
nodes are very expensive to replace in harsh underwater
environment. Protocols should be designed considering the
energy efficient to improve the network lifetime. In this paper
we have proposed two technique Energy Hole Repairing DBR
(EHRDBR) and Interference-Bandwidth aware DBR (IBDBR)
protocols which are energy efficient. We consider four param-
eters to design a protocols and these parameters are depth,
residual energy, interference, load of each node. Node select
their relay node on the basis of these parameters. Those node
which has high residual energy and less interference, load, and
depth are selected for the relay node. Each node broadcast
a message containing the residual energy information, depth,
load and interference. When node transmit a packet, it add
these parameters into its header. Every receiving node extract
the information from the header and update its table. It helps
node to select the relay nodes. There is no extra communi-
cation and each node update its table without sending extra
packet to its neighbors etc. Detail proposed technique is given
in the section. Using these parameter for selection of the relay
nodes, can improve the lifetime as well as the balance energy
consumption of the sensor nodes. And the work load is equally
distributed among all the nodes.
The rest of the paper as organized as follows. In section
2, we give some overview of the existing routing protocol of
UWSN. In section 3, we give relay node selection criteria and
in section 4, we describe our proposed techniques in detail. In
section 5, presents the performance evaluation of our proposed
techniques and finally in section 6 we conclude our work.
II. RE L ATE D WOR K
In this section we present some UWSN protocols.In recent
years, Many protocols have been proposed for the underwater
wireless sensor networks. Main aim of these protocol is to
enhance the lifetime and throughput of the network.
Authors in [5], proposed a depth based routing protocol
(DBR). In this protocol, relay node is selected on the basis
of depth. Each node include its depth into the data packet.
The receiving nodes compare their depths to the depth of the
sender. The node which has smaller depth selected as the relay
node. The node with the smaller depth has the short holding
time and the node which the larger depth has the larger holding
time. So node having smaller depth will broadcast the packet.
The node which has less depth consume more energy and die
quickly which causes energy holes.
Authors in [6], proposed a energy efficient DBR protocol
in which node can be selected as a relay node on the basis
of residual energy and the depth. In this protocol, both these
parameters are considered. The node with less depth and high
residual energy has less holding time. This protocol is energy
balancing because it consider the residual energy of the node
and it also reduces the number of transmissions of sensor nodes
in order to improve the network lifetime.
Authors in [7], proposed a Improved Adaptive Mobility
of Courier Nodes in Threshold-Optimized DBR (iAMCTD)
routing protocol. In this protocol, whole network is divided
into 4 regions. And there are 3 mobile courier nodes and 1
mobile sink. In this protocol there is hard and soft threshold
of transmitting packet.
DBR uses the depth of the sensor nodes as a metric for
forwarding data packets. During data forwarding, the sender
includes its depth in the data packet. The receiving nodes
compare their depths to the depth of the sender. The node
having smaller depth participates in forwarding the data packet.
Each node has a certain holding time for each data packet,
where the nodes having smaller depths have a short holding
time compared to the nodes having higher depths. Since only
the depth of sensor nodes is used as a metric for forwarding,
most of the time, the nodes having smaller depths are involved
in forwarding. Hence, such nodes die earlier than the other
nodes in the network, which creates the routing holes in the
network.
Authors in [8], proposed a vector based forwarding (VBF)
protocol in which a source node computes the vector from
itself to the sink or destination node and then broadcast the
packet. Packet includes the information of its position as well.
Authors in [9], proposed a hop by hop vector based
forwarding (HHVBF) routing protocol. In this protocol vector
is computed on the basis of hops. HHVBF protocol was better
than the VBF as the computation of the vector is done on hop
basis. HHVBF also needs the localization of sensor nodes.
Authors In [], proposed a directional flooding based routing
(DFR) routing protocol with the assumption of the localization
of nodes.
Authors in [10], proposed a Focused Beam Routing (FBR)
routing protocol in which different transmission power levels
are used to transmit the packet. The sender node transmit a
RTS packet with specific transmission power level. If a node
nearer to the sink send CTS reply to the sender node, then
sender node sends it packet to that relay node. If sender node
do not receive any CTS reply than it send again RTS packet
with high level of transmission power.
Authors in [11], proposed a sector based routing with
destination location prediction (SBR-DLP) routing protocol.
In this protocol the mobile sink is moving in the network area
and every node has the knowledge of the sink movement. The
node which is nearer to the sink is selected as the relay node.
The main drawbacks of this protocol is to require a localiza-
tion technique, a large delay due to chk_ngb, chk_ngb_reply
packets and the hard assumptions.
III. PRO POS ED TEC HNI QU E
In this section we introduce our proposed schemes in detail.
We have proposed Energy Hole Repairing DBR (EHRDBR)
and Interference-Bandwidth aware DBR (IBDBR) protocols.
In both protocols, nodes move toward the specific area where
the other node dies and cover the energy hole. In EHRDBR,
forwarder node is selected on the basis of the interference
residual energy, and depth parameters. In IBDBR, interference,
bandwidth, residual energy, and depth parameters are used
to select the forward node. Detail discussion of these two
protocols is given in next subsection.
A. Network Architecture
Fig shows the architecture of UWSN. There are multiple
sink that are mobile on the surface of the water and nodes
are deployed into the water. Nodes send their data toward the
sink from bottom to top approach. The sink are equipped with
both acoustic and radio model while, the nodes are equipped
with only acoustic modem. Sink communicate with the node
using the modem and communicate with the other sink with
the radio model. As the radio communication is faster than the
acoustic communication. We assume that packet is delivered
to all sink if it is received by a single sink.
B. EHRDBR
We have divided EHRDBR protocol into three phases
Region formation phase, neighbor information phase and data
transmission phase.
1) Region Formation Phase: In Region Formation Phase,
the whole network is logically divided into 4 region based
upon the depth. Two regions are high depth region or lower
region and two other regions are low depth region or the upper
region. This region formation is useful when any node dies at
the upper region then the lower region’s node moved toward
the upper region and fulfill the energy hole. As we know that
the upper region nodes have high load as they have to collect
the data from the lower region nodes and send it to the sink.
Therefore, the upper region nodes die faster than the lower
region nodes as a result the energy hole created. To overcome
the energy hole problem we used the region formation phase
in which lower region nodes moved toward the upper region
and full fill the energy holes.
2) Neighbor Information Phase: In Neighbor Information
Phase, the nodes share their depth and their nearby neighbor
information among their neighbors. The main purpose of
this information sharing is to help the sender node to select
forwarder node on the basis of depth and the interference of
other nodes transmission. The node which has less number
of neighbors in its specific transmission range and has some
specific distance from the neighbor has less interference and
the chances of packet drop is also very low. So that is why
the nodes share their depth, residual energy and their neighbor
information.
When the network initialize, each node broadcast iHello
packet in its specific transmission range and waits for the
response of the neighboring nodes. The format of the iHello
packet is given in fig 1. Those nodes which received the iHello
packet will send their response to the sender node. Every nodes
save its responses as a counter that tells the total information
of the neighbors. After knowing about all the neighbors, node
sends the Hello packet in which it sends the information of its
total neighbors, its residual energy and the depth value. The
format of the Hello packet is given in fig 1. Node receiving
the Hello packet stores the residual energy, the depth and
the neighbor counter of those nodes which has less neighbor
counter. Because when the network initialize, all node have
initially same energy but after the network initialization, node
check the neighbor counter and the residual energy of the
Hello packet. On the basis of residual energy and neighbor
counter information, node selects the forwarder node. Node
only saves the node which has the lower interference and the
high residual energy. There is no need to save all the neighbors
record, because only single node select as a forwarder. So we
can save the only data which is useful which save the energy
to store the large amount of data and minimizes the delay as
well.
As every node send three parameters depth, residual energy
and the neighbor counter. In our protocol, these three parame-
ters can change because of the node movement. So when any
node dies or node change its depth, it send the iHello packet
to find the neighbor and after receiving of the response node
sends the Hello packet. Node only sends the Hello packet when
there residual energy is less than the threshold. When any node
reaches at certain threshold of the energy, the node broadcast
the packet containing residual energy =0 and its position. Upon
receiving the packet every node broadcast that packet so that
all nodes can come to know which node is dying at which
position. Random node from the lower region moves toward
that position where last node was died.
Sender ID
Sender
ID
Residual
Energy Depth
Neighbor
counter
iHello packet Format
Hello packet Format
Fig. 1: Hello Packet and iHello packet Format
3) Data Transmission Phase: In this Data Transmission
Phase, packets are transmitted from the source node to the
destination/sink node. As our in our protocol, lower depth
nodes forward their packets toward the surface where the
sinks are moving. Each node selects its neighbor on the
basis of the depth, residual energy and the number of the
neighbors of the next node to minimize the interference. With
the help of depth parameter, node only select that forward node
which has less depth than itself and is near to the surface.
Residual Energy parameter is used to select the forward node
which has maximum residual energy and the neighbor counter
parameter is used to select the node which has minimum
number of neighbor so that there could be less interference
and the chances of packet drop is minimized. Every node has
information of its neighbor’s depth, residual energy and total
number of neighbors, so the sending node selects the most
suitable forwarder node.
We give some scenarios in which forwarder node is se-
lected by the sender node.
In fig 2, node S is the sender node, the node Aand Aare
the forwarding node. 50, 60 and 70 are assumed as the residual
energies and 1, 2 and 3 are assumed as the neighbor_counter
of each node. Nodes Aand Bhave the same residual energy
as well as same the neighbor_counter but they have different
depth. So node Bforwards the packet. Because they both have
the same residual energy and the number of neighbor, but the
sender node selects that forward node which is near to the
surface.
In fig 3, both node Aand Bhave same depth and neigh-
bor_counter but different residual energies. As the Bresidual
energy is greater than the node A, so node Bforwards the
packet.
In fig 4, energy and the depth of both nodes are the same
but both have different neighbors_counter. The node Bwill
send the packet, because node Bhas less interference than the
node A.
S
(60,2)
(60,2)
A
B
Fig. 2: Scenario 1
S
(60,2)
AB
Fig. 3: Scenario 2
S
(60,2)
AB
Fig. 4: Scenario 3
In fig 5, energy and the depth of both nodes is different
but they both have the same neighbor_counter. Node Asends
the packet as its residual energy is greater than the node B.
But in this case the node 2 can also send the packet because
it has low depth, but our main focus is on the energy and the
number of neighbors.
S
(60,2)
A
B
Fig. 5: Scenario 4
In fig 6, both nodes have same energy but different depth
and the neighbor_counter. In this case the node Asends the
packet and because node Ahas less interference.
In fig 7, the both nodes have different energy and the
neighbor_counter but same depth. but same depth. In this case,
node Bsends the packet as at node Athere is less interference
as well as it has great residual energy than the other node.
S
(50,3) (60,2)
AB
Fig. 6: Scenario 5
S
(60,3)
A
B
Fig. 7: Scenario 6
C. IBDBR
We have also divided IBDBR protocol into three phases
Region Formation phase, Neighbor Information phase and
Data Transmission phase. Each phase is given below in detail.
1) Region Formation Phase: Like the EHRDBR protocol,
in this protocol the whole network is also logically divided
into four regions based upon the depth. Two regions are high
depth region and two regions are low depth region. Lower
region nodes move toward the upper regions when any node
dies at the upper regions. Because of the nodes movement the
energy hole are repaired. This phase is of the same like the
EHRDBR.
2) Neighbor Information Phase: In Neighbor Information
Phase, the nodes share their depth and their nearby neighbor’s
information. The main purpose of this information sharing
is to help the sender node to select forwarder node on the
basis of depth, residual energy, bandwidth utilization and the
interference of other nodes transmission. The node which
has less number of neighbors in its specific range has less
interference and the chances of packet drop are also very low.
We also consider the node load that how many packets are
transferred by that node or how many times node have become
the forward node. So that is why the nodes share their depth,
their neighbor information and their packet load as well. We
use the ‘load’ keyword for the next of the paper instead of
packets load.
When the network initialize, each node broadcast iHello
packet in its specific range and waits for the response of the
neighboring nodes. The format of the iHello packet is given in
fig 1. Those nodes which received the iHello packet send their
response to the sender node. Every nodes save its responses
as a counter that tells the total information of the neighbors.
After knowing about all the neighbors, node sends the Hello
packet in which it sends the information of its total neighbor,
its residual energy and the depth value. The format of the hello
packet is given in fig 1. Node will not send their number of
packet sent information in Hello packet. Every node sends this
information in the data transmission phase. Node receiving
the Hello packet stores the residual energy, the depth and
the neighbor counter of those nodes which has less neighbor
counter. Because when the network initialize, all node have
initially same energy but after the network initialization, node
check the neighbor counter, load and the residual energy of the
Hello packet. On the basis of residual energy and neighbor
counter information, node selects the forwarder node. Node
only saves the node which has the lower interference, low
load and the high residual energy. There is no need to save
all the neighbors record, because only single node select as
a forwarder. So we can save the only data which is useful
which save the energy to store the large amount of data and
minimizes the delay as well.
As every node send three parameters depth, residual energy
and the neighbor counter in Hello packet. In our protocol,
these parameters can change because of the node movement.
So when any node dies or node change its depth, it send
the iHello packet to find the neighbor and after receiving of
the response node sends the Hello packet. When any node
reaches at certain threshold of the energy, the node broadcast
the packet containing residual energy =0 and its position. Upon
receiving the packet every node broadcast that packet so that
all nodes can come to know which node is dying at which
position. Random node from the lower region moves toward
that position where last node was died. Nodes send their load
information in the data packet header.
3) Data Transmission Phase: In this Data Transmission
Phase, packets are transmitted from the source node to the
destination/sink node. As our in our protocol, lower depth
nodes forward their packets toward the surface where the sinks
are moving. Each node selects its neighbor on the basis of the
depth, residual energy, load and the number of the neighbors
of the next node. Along with the data packet nodes send their
load information. In the load information, nodes send that how
many times they have become the forward node or sent the
packets. Nodes include their load information into the header
of the data packet. Each time when nodes send the packet,
it increment the load counter and put that load counter into
the header of the data packet and transmits it. On receiving
the packet, node extract the load information from the header
of packet. And checks whether they can transmit or not. The
format of the packet is given in fig 8. Packet header contains
the packet id, destination id, source id, residual energy and
load information. As the residual energy is changed with every
transmission of the packet so nodes send their residual energy
information with the data packet headers.
With the help of depth parameter, node only select that
forward node which has less depth than itself and is near to
the surface. Residual Energy parameter is used to select the
forward node which has maximum residual energy and the
neighbor counter parameter is used to select the node which
has minimum number of neighbor so that there could be less
interference so that chances of packet drop is minimized. And
the load information is used to select the forward node which
has fewer loads. Every node has information of its neighbor’s
depth, residual energy, load and total number of neighbors, so
the sending node selects the most suitable forwarder node on
the basis of these parameters.
Packet ID
Source ID
Destination ID
Load Information
Residual Energy
Payload Data
H
E
A
D
E
R
Fig. 8: Packet Format
IV. SIM ULATIO N RE S ULT S
In this section we have discussed the simulation result of
our proposed techniques.We compare our protocols with DBR,
EEDBR, IAMCTD protocols. We have performed our simu-
lation with 100 number of sensor nodes which are randomly
deployed into water. we have performed our simulation in area
of 100 m3. transmission range of 50m was set for each sensor
node. Initial energy of each sensor node was 70 joule. Multiple
sink are moving on the surface of water. Each node generate a
single packet after some amount of time. So for our simulation
, 100 nodes generate 100 packets after some amount of time.
A. Comparison of EHRDBR and IBDBR with DBR and IAM-
CTD
In EHRDBR, for the fair comparison with DBR and
IAMCTD, we neglect the residual energy parameter and we
run our EHRDBR protocol with only 2 parameter that are
depth ad the neighbor_counter.
1) Network Lifetime: The network lifetime of the 4 scheme
is show in fig9,10. IBDBR and EHRDBR shows improved
performances than the IAMCTD and the DBR. As DBR selects
the nodes having smaller depth to frequently use to forward
the data packets due to which the nodes die quickly because
they have lot of load for forwarding the packets But EHRDBR
selects the node which has less interference to forward the data
and if the nodes die at the lower region, lower region nodes
move toward the upper region and cover up the energy holes.
As a result the network lifetime is increased. IBDBR selects
the forwarder node which has fewer loads of data packets to
forward as well as the node which has less interference. IN
IBDBR, the energy holes are covers with the lower nodes
mobility so the network life time is increased. In DBR, the
redundant packets are transmitted. Those nodes which have
same depth and same holding time can transmit the same
packets. But in EHRDBR and IBDBR, only those nodes
forward the data packets which have less interference and less
number of loads in term of data packets. So it also increased
the life time of the network. Fig dead shows the comparison
of dead nodes of DBR, IAMCTD, EHRDBR, IBDBR. It is
sown from the fig that IAMCTD protocol, nodes die at 420
seconds. And DBR protocol node dies at about 1000 seconds
but our proposed protocols EHRDBR, IBDBR, the nodes die
at 1750 and 2200 seconds respectively.
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Time (sec)
Dead Nodes
DBR
EHRDBR
IBDBR
IAMCTD
Fig. 9: Dead nodes
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Time (sec)
Alive Nodes
DBR
EHRDBR
IBDBR
IAMCTD
Fig. 10: Alive nodes
2) Delay: In fig 11, delay of DBR,EHRDBR,IBDBR and
IMCTD is shown. As in IMCTD sink and the 3 courier nodes
are mobile into the water so the packet reach to the sink or
any courier node take very less time so the overall delay is
less than the other three protocols. Our protocols still have
less delay than the DBR. As the overall network lifetime of
our proposed techniques are much better than the DBR and the
IMCTD. In DBR, delay is much higher in initial rounds due
to distant data forwarding. In start of the network the delay
of our proposed protocol is same as of the DBR, but with the
passage of time our protocol delay is going less than the DBR.
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Time (sec)
Delay
DBR
EHRDBR
IBDBR
IAMCTD
Fig. 11: Delay
3) Packet received: Total numbers of packet received are
shown in fig 12. EHRDBR and IBDBR have most number of
packets sent to the BS and received at the BS. As the network
lifetime of these two protocol s also up to 2200 sec. So they
send packets up to 2200 sec. There are very less packet drop
because lower region node moves toward the upper region
when any node dies at the upper region. Therefore, there are
very less chances of energy hole. In DBR, nodes die very
quickly which have low depth because they have loads of
all those nodes that have maximum depth. And if the upper
region nodes die, the energy hole creates and the packet drop
is increased. But in EHRDBR and IBDBR, lower region nodes
cover the energy holes created by the node death. So the packet
drop is very less as compared to the DBR. In IAMCTD, the
sink is mobile in water and there are 4 sink which are mobile
in the water so they can collect the data to overall packet drop
is very minor.
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Time (sec)
Packet Recieved
DBR
EHRDBR
IBDBR
IAMCTD
Fig. 12: Packets Received
4) Transmission Loss: Fig 13 shows that transmission loss
of the network in DBR, EHRDBR, IBDBR and IAMCTD.
DBR transmission loss is much higher than the other tech-
niques.. In DBR, there are preferences of distant transmissions
and multiple transmissions increase transmission loss between
sender node and the sink. We utilize thorp’s attenuation model
for underwater acoustics to calculate the transmission loss
in packet forwarding between a source node and sink. It
considers transmission frequency, bandwidth efficiency, and
noise density which scrutinize the signal quality during data
transmission.
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Time (sec)
Transmission Loss
DBR
EHRDBR
IBDBR
IAMCTD
Fig. 13: Transmission Loss
5) Path Loss: Fig 14 shows the path loss of the DBR,
EHRDBR, IBDBR and IAMCTD. Path loss depends upon
distance between sender and receiver and is effected by wave
movement. The path loss of DBR is much higher than the
proposed scheme EHRDBR and IBDBR. Because the upper
region node dies very quickly and energy hole created so the
path loss increased. As nodes start dying, the distance between
sender and receiver increases thus path loss increases. But in
our proposed technique the energy holes are tackled with the
nodes movement so there are very less path loss. In Iamctd,
the sink is mobile into the water as a result energy holes are
not created and the distance between sink and the source node
is less so the path loss is very less as compared to the other
protocols.
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
−50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Time (sec)
Path Loss
DBR
EHRDBR
IBDBR
Fig. 14: Path Loss
B. Comparison of EHREEDBR and IBDBR with EEDBR and
IAMCTD
In EHREEDBR, we use three parameter residual energy ,
depth and the Neighbor_counter. so that the comparison with
the EEDBR is fair.
1) Network Lifetime: The network lifetime of the EEDBR,
EHREEDBR, IBDBR and IAMCTD is show in fig 16. 15. IB-
DBR and EHREEDBR shows improved performances than the
IAMCTD and the DBR. As EEDBR selects the nodes having
smaller depth as well as having the high residual energy use to
forward the data packets due to which the nodes die quickly
because they have lot of load for forwarding the packets But
EHREEDBR selects the node which has less interference to
forward the data and also check the residual energy and if the
nodes die at the lower region, lower region nodes move toward
the upper region and cover up the energy holes. As a result
the network lifetime is increased. IBDBR selects the forwarder
node which has fewer loads of data packets to forward as well
as the node which has less interference. IN IBDBR, the energy
holes are covers with the lower nodes mobility so the network
life time is increased. Fig dead shows the comparison of dead
nodes of EEDBR, IAMCTD, EHREEDBR, IBDBR. It is sown
from the fig 15 that IAMCTD protocol, nodes die at 450 sec.
And EEDBR protocol node dies at about 1400 sec but our
proposed protocols EHRDBR, IBDBR, the nodes die at 1750
and 2200 seconds respectively.
2) Delay: In figure 17 delay of
EEDBR,EHREEDBR,IBDBR and IMCTD is shown. As
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Time (sec)
Dead Nodes
EEDBR
EHREEDBR
IBDBR
IAMCTD
Fig. 15: Dead nodes
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Time (sec)
Alive Nodes
EEDBR
EHREEDBR
IBDBR
IAMCTD
Fig. 16: Alive nodes
in IMCTD sink and the 3 courier nodes are mobile into the
water so the packet reach to the sink or any courier node
take very less time so the overall delay is less than the other
three protocols. Our protocols still have less delay than the
EEDBR. As the overall network lifetime of our proposed
techniques are much better than the EEDBR and the IMCTD.
In EEDBR, delay is much higher at the start due to distant
data forwarding. In start of the network the delay of our
proposed protocol is same as of the EEDBR, but with the
passage of time our protocol delay is going less than the
EEDBR.
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Time (sec)
Delay
EEDBR
EHREEDBR
IBDBR
IAMCTD
Fig. 17: Delay
3) packet Received: Total numbers of packet received are
shown in fig 18. EHREEDBR and IBDBR have most number
of packets sent to the BS and received at the BS. As the
network lifetime of these two protocols is up to 2200 sec.
So they send packets up to 2200 sec. There are very less
packet drop because lower region node moves toward the upper
region when any node dies at the upper region. Therefore, there
are very less chances of energy hole. In EEDBR, nodes die
very quickly which have low depth because they have loads
of all those nodes that have maximum depth. And if the upper
region nodes die, the energy hole creates and the packet drop
is increased. But in EHREEDBR and IBDBR, lower region
nodes cover the energy holes created by the node death. So
the packet drop is very less as compared to the EEDBR. In
IAMCTD, the sink is mobile in water and there are 4 sink
which are mobile in the water so they can collect the data and
overall packet drop is very minor.
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Time (sec)
Packet Recieved
EEDBR
EHREEDBR
IBDBR
IAMCTD
Fig. 18: Packet Received
4) Transmission Loss: Fig 19 shows that transmission
loss of the network in EEDBR, EHREEDBR, IBDBR and
IAMCTD. EEDBR transmission loss is much higher than the
other techniques. In EEDBR, there are preferences of distant
transmissions and multiple transmissions increase transmission
loss between sender node and the sink. We utilize thorp’s
attenuation model for underwater acoustics to calculate the
transmission loss in packet forwarding between a source nodes
and sink. It considers transmission frequency, bandwidth effi-
ciency, and noise density which scrutinize the signal quality
during data transmission.
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0
50
100
150
200
250
Time (sec)
Transmission Loss
EEDBR
EHREEDBR
IBDBR
IAMCTD
Fig. 19: Transmission Loss
V. CON CL U SI ON
In this paper we design two techniques; Energy Hole
Repairing DBR (EHRDBR) and Interference-Bandwidth aware
DBR (IBDBR) protocols. In both protocols, nodes move to-
ward the specific area where the other node dies and cover the
energy hole. In EHRDBR, forwarder node is selected on the
basis of the interference residual energy, and depth parameters.
In IBDBR, interference, bandwidth, residual energy, and depth
parameters are used to select the forward node. We compare
these protocols with the existing technique like DBR, EEDBR
and iAMCTD. Our protocol performs well in network lifetime,
delay, throughput.
REF ERE NC E S
[1] J. Llor, E. Torres, P. Garrido, and M. P. Malumbres, “Analyzing
the behavior of acoustic link models in underwater wireless sensor
networks,” in Proceedings of the 4th ACM workshop on Performance
monitoring and measurement of heterogeneous wireless and wired
networks, pp. 9–16, ACM, 2009.
[2] I. F. Akyildiz, D. Pompili, and T. Melodia, “Underwater acoustic sensor
networks: research challenges,” Ad hoc networks, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 257–
279, 2005.
[3] S. Wang, L. Chen, H. Hu, Z. Xue, and W. Pan, “Underwater localization
and environment mapping using wireless robots,” Wireless personal
communications, vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 1147–1170, 2013.
[4] T. Hu and Y. Fei, “Qelar: a machine-learning-based adaptive routing
protocol for energy-efficient and lifetime-extended underwater sensor
networks,Mobile Computing, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 9, no. 6,
pp. 796–809, 2010.
[5] H. Yan, Z. J. Shi, and J.-H. Cui, “Dbr: depth-based routing for
underwater sensor networks,” in NETWORKING 2008 Ad Hoc and
Sensor Networks, Wireless Networks, Next Generation Internet, pp. 72–
86, Springer, 2008.
[6] A. Wahid, S. Lee, H.-J. Jeong, and D. Kim, “Eedbr: Energy-efficient
depth-based routing protocol for underwater wireless sensor networks,”
in Advanced Computer Science and Information Technology, pp. 223–
234, Springer, 2011.
[7] N. Javaid, M. Jafri, Z. Khan, U. Qasim, T. Alghamdi, and M. Ali, “iam-
ctd: Improved adaptive mobility of courier nodes in threshold-optimized
dbr protocol for underwater wireless sensor networks,International
Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, vol. 2014, 2014.
[8] P. Xie, J.-H. Cui, and L. Lao, “Vbf: vector-based forwarding protocol
for underwater sensor networks,” in Networking 2006. Networking
technologies, services, and protocols; performance of computer and
communication networks; mobile and wireless communications systems,
pp. 1216–1221, Springer, 2006.
[9] M. Ayaz and A. Abdullah, “Hop-by-hop dynamic addressing based
(h2-dab) routing protocol for underwater wireless sensor networks,” in
Information and Multimedia Technology, 2009. ICIMT’09. International
Conference on, pp. 436–441, IEEE, 2009.
[10] J. M. Jornet, M. Stojanovic, and M. Zorzi, “Focused beam routing
protocol for underwater acoustic networks,” in Proceedings of the third
ACM international workshop on Underwater Networks, pp. 75–82,
ACM, 2008.
[11] N. Chirdchoo, W.-S. Soh, and K. C. Chua, “Sector-based routing with
destination location prediction for underwater mobile networks,” in
Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops, 2009.
WAINA’09. International Conference on, pp. 1148–1153, IEEE, 2009.
  • ... However, the protocol requires localization information of the sensor nodes. The energy hole repairing-depth-based routing (EHRDBR) [18] considers the death of low-depth nodes in the depth-based routing (DBR) protocol [19]. In DBR, the low-depth nodes die early because of frequent selection as forwarders. ...
    Article
    Full-text available
    Interference and energy holes formation in underwater wireless sensor networks (UWSNs) threaten the reliable delivery of data packets from a source to a destination. Interference also causes inefficient utilization of the limited battery power of the sensor nodes in that more power is consumed in the retransmission of the lost packets. Energy holes are dead nodes close to the surface of water, and their early death interrupts data delivery even when the network has live nodes. This paper proposes a localization-free interference and energy holes minimization (LF-IEHM) routing protocol for UWSNs. The proposed algorithm overcomes interference during data packet forwarding by defining a unique packet holding time for every sensor node. The energy holes formation is mitigated by a variable transmission range of the sensor nodes. As compared to the conventional routing protocols, the proposed protocol does not require the localization information of the sensor nodes, which is cumbersome and difficult to obtain, as nodes change their positions with water currents. Simulation results show superior performance of the proposed scheme in terms of packets received at the final destination and end-to-end delay.
  • ... The authors in [23] propose two protocols: energy hole repairing DBR (EHRDBR) and interference-bandwidth-aware DBR (IBDBR). The former selects forwarder nodes based on the interference, residual energy and depth while the latter chooses them by considering interference, bandwidth, residual energy and depth. ...
    Article
    Full-text available
    Interference-aware routing protocol design for underwater wireless sensor networks (UWSNs) is one of the key strategies in reducing packet loss in the highly hostile underwater environment. The reduced interference causes efficient utilization of the limited battery power of the sensor nodes that, in consequence, prolongs the entire network lifetime. In this paper, we propose an energy-efficient interference-aware routing (EEIAR) protocol for UWSNs. A sender node selects the best relay node in its neighborhood with the lowest depth and the least number of neighbors. Combination of the two routing metrics ensures that data packets are forwarded along the least interference paths to reach the final destination. The proposed work is unique in that it does not require the full dimensional localization information of sensor nodes and the network total depth is segmented to identify source, relay and neighbor nodes. Simulation results reveal better performance of the scheme than the counterparts DBR and EEDBR techniques in terms of energy efficiency, packet delivery ratio and end-to-end delay.
  • Conference Paper
    Energy efficient routing, minimum network lifetime, adaptation to continuous variation in topology of nodes and high energy consumption for data transmission are the major limitations in Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs). Different routing techniques of WSNs have been presented to tackle the above mentioned challenges. These techniques are Direct Transmission Mechanism (DTM), Chain Based Routing (CBR) and Hierarchical Clustering (HC) for network lifetime maximization. Nevertheless, the available solutions are suitable for limited range network but not for scalable networks. Moreover, these techniques do not address the variable clustering approach in terms of energy efficiency and the hot spot problem. In this work, an efficient algorithm is proposed to enhance lifetime and stability period of the entire systems by meeting the all available constraints.
  • ... Rest of the nodes associated with this primary level behaves as secondary levels. Compression was performed at leader nodes to relaying the information to BS. H. Fahim et al., presented Energy Hole Repairing Depth Based Routing (EHRDBR) and Interferencebandwidth aware Depth Based Routing (IDBR) protocols to minimized the energy consumption in order to maximize the network lifetime, throughput and maintained end to end delay upto certain level [11]. For the throughput problem [12] proposed an Optimized Region Based Efficient Data (AORED) routing protocol which is employed on Connecting Dominating Set (CDS) of wireless nodes. ...
    Energy efficient routing, minimum network lifetime, adaptation to continuous variation in topology of nodes and high energy consumption for data transmission are the major limitations in Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs). Different routing techniques of WSNs have been presented to tackle the above mentioned challenges. These techniques are Direct Transmission Mechanism (DTM), Chain Based Routing (CBR) and Hierarchical Clustering (HC) for network lifetime maxi-mization. Nevertheless, the available solutions are suitable for limited range network but not for scalable networks. Moreover, these techniques do not address the variable clustering approach in terms of energy efficiency and the hot spot problem. In this work, an efficient algorithm is proposed to enhance lifetime and stability period of the entire systems by meeting the all available constraints.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    We propose forwarding-function (íµí°¹ íµí°¹) based routing protocol for underwater sensor networks (UWSNs): improved adaptive mobility of courier nodes in threshold-optimized depth-based-routing (iAMCTD). Unlike existing depth-based acoustic protocols, the proposed protocol exploits network density for time-critical applications. In order to tackle flooding, path loss, and propagation latency, we calculate optimal holding time (íµí°» íµí±‡) and use routing metrics: localization-free signal-to-noise ratio (LSNR), signal quality index (SQI), energy cost function (ECF), and depth-dependent function (DDF). Our proposal provides on-demand routing by formulating hard threshold (íµí°» th), soft threshold (íµí±† th), and prime energy limit (íµí±… prime). Simulation results verify effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed iAMCTD.
  • Article
    Localization and mapping are the fundamental ability for underwater robots to carry out exploration and searching tasks autonomously. This paper presents a novel approach to localization and mapping of a school of wirelessly connected underwater robotic fish (URF). It is based on both Cooperative Localization Particle Filter (CLPF) scheme and Occupancy Grid Mapping Algorithm (OGMA). Using the probabilistic framework, the proposed CLPF has the major advantage that no prior knowledge about the kinematic model of URF is required to achieve accurate 3D localization. It works well when the number of mobile beacons is less than four, which is the minimum number for some traditional localization algorithms. The localization result of CLPF is fed into OGMA to build the environment map. The performance of the proposed algorithms is evaluated through extensive simulation experiments, and results verify the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed strategy.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    In the last years, wireless sensor networks have been proposed for their deployment in underwater environments where a lot of applications like aquiculture, pollution monitoring and offshore exploration would benefit from this technology. Despite having a very similar functionality, Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks (UWSNs) exhibit several architectural differences with respect to the terrestrial ones, which are mainly due to the transmission medium characteristics (sea water) and the signal employed to transmit data (acoustic ultrasound signals). So, the design of appropriate network architecture for UWSNs is seriously hardened by the specific characteristics of the communication system. In this work we analyze several acoustic channel models for their use in underwater wireless sensor network architectures. For that purpose, we have implemented them by using the OPNET Modeler tool in order to perform an evaluation of their behavior under different network scenarios. Finally, some conclusions are drawn showing the impact on UWSN performance of different elements of channel model and particular specific environment conditions
  • Article
    Full-text available
    Providing an efficient communication for the underwater wireless sensor networks is a significant problem due to the unique characteristics of such environments. Radio signal cannot propagate well in deep water, and we have to replace this with the acoustic channel. This replacement results in many issues like high latency due to less propagation speeds, low bandwidths and high error probability. In addition, new features like node mobility with water currents and 3-dimensional space brings additional challenges to the underwater sensor network (UWSN) protocol design. Many routing protocols have been proposed for such environments but most of them considered that the complete dimensional location of all the sensor nodes is already known through a localization process, which itself is a challenging task in UWSNs. In this paper, we propose a novel routing protocol, called Hop-by-Hop Dynamic Addressing Based (H2-DAB), in order to provide scalable and time efficient routing. Our routing protocol will take advantage of the multiple-sink architecture of the underwater wireless sensor networks. The novelty of H2-DAB is that, it does not require any dimensional location information, or any extra specialized hardware compared to many other routing protocols in the same area. Our results show that H2-DAB effectively achieves the goals of higher data deliveries with optimal delays and energy consumptions.
  • Chapter
    Recently, Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks (UWSNs) have attracted much research attention from both academia and industry, in order to explore the vast underwater environment. However, designing network protocols is challenging in UWSNs since UWSNs have peculiar characteristics of large propagation delay, high error rate, low bandwidth and limited energy. In UWSNs, improving the energy efficiency is one of the most important issues since the replacement of the batteries of such nodes is very expensive due to harsh underwater environment. Hence, in this paper, we propose an energy efficient routing protocol, named EEDBR (Energy-Efficient Depth Based Routing protocol) for UWSNs. Our proposed protocol utilizes the depth of the sensor nodes for forwarding the data packets. Furthermore, the residual energy of the sensor nodes is also taken into account in order to improve the network life-time. Based on the comprehensive simulation using NS2, we observe that our proposed routing protocol contributes to the performance improvements in terms of the network lifetime, energy consumption and end-to-end delay. KeywordsUnderwater wireless sensor networks–routing–network life-time–residual energy
  • Conference Paper
    Full-text available
    Unlike in terrestrial sensor networks where the locations of destination nodes are often assumed to be fixed and accurately known, such assumptions are usually not valid in underwater sensor networks where the destination nodes tend to be mobile inherently, either due to their self-propelling capability, or due to random motion caused by ocean currents. As a result, many existing location-based routing protocols do not work well in underwater environments. We propose a location-based routing protocol that is designed for mobile underwater acoustic sensor networks, called "sector-based routing with destination location prediction (SBR-DLP)". While the SBR-DLP also assumes that a node knows its own location like many other location-based routing protocols, it predicts the location of the destination node, and therefore, relaxes the need for precise knowledge of the destination's location. Through simulations, the SBR-DLP is shown to enhance the packet delivery ratio significantly when all nodes are mobile.
  • Article
    Underwater sensor nodes will find applications in oceanographic data collection, pollution monitoring, offshore exploration, disaster prevention, assisted navigation and tactical surveillance applications. Moreover, unmanned or autonomous underwater vehicles (UUVs, AUVs), equipped with sensors, will enable the exploration of natural undersea resources and gathering of scientific data in collaborative monitoring missions. Underwater acoustic networking is the enabling technology for these applications. Underwater networks consist of a variable number of sensors and vehicles that are deployed to perform collaborative monitoring tasks over a given area.In this paper, several fundamental key aspects of underwater acoustic communications are investigated. Different architectures for two-dimensional and three-dimensional underwater sensor networks are discussed, and the characteristics of the underwater channel are detailed. The main challenges for the development of efficient networking solutions posed by the underwater environment are detailed and a cross-layer approach to the integration of all communication functionalities is suggested. Furthermore, open research issues are discussed and possible solution approaches are outlined.
  • Conference Paper
    Providing scalable and ecient routing services in underwater sensor net- works (UWSNs) is very challenging due to the unique characteristics of UWSNs. Firstly, UWSNs often employ acoustic channels for communications because radio signals do not work well in water. Compared with radio-frequency channels, acous- tic channels feature much lower bandwidths and several orders of magnitudes longer propagation delays. Secondly, UWSNs usually have very dynamic topology as sen- sors move passively with water currents. Some routing protocols have been proposed to address the challenging problem in UWSNs. However, most of them assume that the full-dimensional location information of all sensor nodes in a network is known in prior through a localization process, which is yet another challenging issue to be solved in UWSNs. In this paper, we propose a depth-based routing (DBR) protocol. DBR does not require full-dimensional location information of sensor nodes. Instead, it needs only local depth information, which can be easily obtained with an inex- pensive depth sensor that can be equipped in every underwater sensor node. A key advantage of our protocol is that it can handle network dynamics eciently with- out the assistance of a localization service. Moreover, our routing protocol can take advantage of a multiple-sink underwater sensor network architecture without intro- ducing extra cost. We conduct extensive simulations. The results show that DBR can achieve very high packet delivery ratios (at least 95%) for dense networks with only small communication cost.
  • Conference Paper
    Multi-hop transmission is considered for large coverage ar- eas in bandwidth-limited underwater acoustic networks. In this paper, we present a scalable routing technique based on location information, and optimized for minimum energy per bit consumption. The proposed Focused Beam Rout- ing (FBR) protocol is suitable for networks containing both static and mobile nodes, which are not necessarily synchro- nized to a global clock. A source node must be aware of its own location and the location of its final destination, but not those of other nodes. The FBR protocol can be defined as a cross-layer ap- proach, in which the routing protocol, the medium access control and the physical layer functionalities are tightly cou- pled by power control. It can be described as a distributed algorithm, in which a route is dynamically established as the data packet traverses the network towards its final destina- tion. The selection of the next relay is made at each step of the path after suitable candidates have proposed themselves. The system performance is measured in terms of energy per bit consumption and average packet end-to-end delay. The results are compared to those obtained using pre-establi- shed routes, defined via Dijkstra's algorithm for minimal power consumption. It is shown that the protocol's perfor- mance is close to the ideal case, as the additional burden of dynamic route discovery is minimal.