X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/JournalMultiPeriods.git/blobdiff_plain/36db960042a3c1e4f89192ddb4ebd8916f310b92..d52eae3075643f51c932474748b8ba104d442968:/article.tex diff --git a/article.tex b/article.tex index b1a25fa..23109b4 100644 --- a/article.tex +++ b/article.tex @@ -1059,7 +1059,7 @@ $S_{pop}$ & 50 \textcolor{red}{Our first protocol based GLPK optimization solver is declined into four versions: MuDiLCO-1, MuDiLCO-3, MuDiLCO-5, and MuDiLCO-7, corresponding respectively to $T=1,3,5,7$ ($T$ the number of rounds in one sensing period). The second protocol based GA is declined into four versions: GA-MuDiLCO-1, GA-MuDiLCO-3, GA-MuDiLCO-5, -and GA-MuDiLCO-7 for the same reason of the first protocol}. In the following, we will make comparisons with +and GA-MuDiLCO-7 for the same reason of the first protocol. After extensive experiments, we chose the dedicated values for the parameters $P_c$, $P_m$, and $S_{pop}$ because they gave the best results}. In the following, we will make comparisons with two other methods. The first method, called DESK and proposed by \cite{ChinhVu}, is a full distributed coverage algorithm. The second method, called GAF~\cite{xu2001geography}, consists in dividing the region into fixed squares. @@ -1273,19 +1273,20 @@ rounds, and thus should extend the network lifetime. \label{fig3} \end{figure} +\textcolor{red}{ We +can see that for the first thirty nine rounds GA-MuDiLCO provides a little bit better coverage ratio than MuDiLCO. Both DESK and GAF provide a coverage +which is a little bit better than the one of MuDiLCO and GA-MuDiLCO for the first thirty rounds because they activate a larger number of nodes during sensing phase. After that GA-MuDiLCO provides a coverage ratio near to the MuDiLCO and better than DESK and GAF. GA-MuDiLCO gives approximate solution with activation a larger number of nodes than MuDiLCO during sensing phase while it activates a less number of nodes in comparison with both DESK and GAF. The results of GA-MuDiLCO seems to be comparable and can maintain the lifetime coverage as long as possible.} + + + \subsubsection{Active sensors ratio} It is crucial to have as few active nodes as possible in each round, in order to -minimize the communication overhead and maximize the network -lifetime. Figure~\ref{fig4} presents the active sensor ratio for 150 deployed +minimize the communication overhead and maximize the network lifetime. Figure~\ref{fig4} presents the active sensor ratio for 150 deployed nodes all along the network lifetime. It appears that up to round thirteen, DESK and GAF have respectively 37.6\% and 44.8\% of nodes in ACTIVE status, whereas -MuDiLCO clearly outperforms them with only 24.8\% of active nodes. After the -thirty-fifth round, MuDiLCO exhibits larger numbers of active nodes, which agrees -with the dual observation of higher level of coverage made previously. -Obviously, in that case DESK and GAF have less active nodes, since they have -activated many nodes at the beginning. Anyway, MuDiLCO activates the available -nodes in a more efficient manner. +MuDiLCO clearly outperforms them with only 24.8\% of active nodes. \textcolor{red}{GA-MuDiLCO activates a number of sensor nodes larger than MuDiLCO but lower than both DESK and GAF. GA-MuDiLCO-1, GA-MuDiLCO-3, and GA-MuDiLCO-5 continue in providing a larger number of active sensors until the forty-sixth round after that it provides less number of active nodes due to the died nodes. GA-MuDiLCO-7 provides a larger number of sensor nodes and maintains a better coverage ratio compared to MuDiLCO-7 until the fifty-seventh round. After the thirty-fifth round, MuDiLCO exhibits larger numbers of active nodes compared with DESK and GAF, which agrees with the dual observation of higher level of coverage made previously}. +Obviously, in that case DESK and GAF have less active nodes, since they have activated many nodes at the beginning. Anyway, MuDiLCO activates the available nodes in a more efficient manner. \textcolor{red}{GA-MuDiLCO activates near optimal number of sensor nodes also in efficient manner compared with both DESK and GAF}. \begin{figure}[ht!] \centering @@ -1294,6 +1295,9 @@ nodes in a more efficient manner. \label{fig4} \end{figure} +%\textcolor{red}{GA-MuDiLCO activates a sensor nodes larger than MuDiLCO but lower than both DESK and GAF } + + \subsubsection{Stopped simulation runs} %The results presented in this experiment, is to show the comparison of our MuDiLCO protocol with other two approaches from the point of view the stopped simulation runs per round. Figure~\ref{fig6} illustrates the percentage of stopped simulation %runs per round for 150 deployed nodes. @@ -1301,11 +1305,9 @@ nodes in a more efficient manner. Figure~\ref{fig6} reports the cumulative percentage of stopped simulations runs per round for 150 deployed nodes. This figure gives the breakpoint for each method. DESK stops first, after approximately 45~rounds, because it consumes the more energy by turning on a large number of redundant nodes during the sensing -phase. GAF stops secondly for the same reason than DESK. MuDiLCO overcomes -DESK and GAF because the optimization process distributed on several subregions -leads to coverage preservation and so extends the network lifetime. Let us -emphasize that the simulation continues as long as a network in a subregion is -still connected. +phase. GAF stops secondly for the same reason than DESK. \textcolor{red}{GA-MuDiLCO stops thirdly for the same reason than DESK and GAF.} \textcolor{red}{MuDiLCO and GA-MuDiLCO overcome} +DESK and GAF because \textcolor{red}{they activate less number of sensor nodes, as well as }the optimization process distributed on several subregions leads to coverage preservation and so extends the network lifetime. +Let us emphasize that the simulation continues as long as a network in a subregion is still connected. %%% The optimization effectively continues as long as a network in a subregion is still connected. A VOIR %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%