X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/JournalMultiPeriods.git/blobdiff_plain/4e0783212d2ef38d47c78e94e3053b88999aef79..01aef364b44f686503abfe937ebe9face8ef1f4c:/article.tex?ds=inline diff --git a/article.tex b/article.tex index 6707012..9625e1e 100644 --- a/article.tex +++ b/article.tex @@ -73,15 +73,25 @@ %% \author[label1,label2]{} %% \address[label1]{} %% \address[label2]{} -\author{Ali Kadhum Idrees, Karine Deschinkel, \\ -Michel Salomon, and Rapha\"el Couturier} +%\author{Ali Kadhum Idrees, Karine Deschinkel, \\ +%Michel Salomon, and Rapha\"el Couturier} + %\thanks{are members in the AND team - DISC department - FEMTO-ST Institute, University of Franche-Comt\'e, Belfort, France. % e-mail: ali.idness@edu.univ-fcomte.fr, $\lbrace$karine.deschinkel, michel.salomon, raphael.couturier$\rbrace$@univ-fcomte.fr.}% <-this % stops a space %\thanks{}% <-this % stops a space -\address{FEMTO-ST Institute, University of Franche-Comt\'e, Belfort, France. \\ -e-mail: ali.idness@edu.univ-fcomte.fr, \\ -$\lbrace$karine.deschinkel, michel.salomon, raphael.couturier$\rbrace$@univ-fcomte.fr.} +%\address{FEMTO-ST Institute, University of Franche-Comt\'e, Belfort, France. \\ +%e-mail: ali.idness@edu.univ-fcomte.fr, \\ +%$\lbrace$karine.deschinkel, michel.salomon, raphael.couturier$\rbrace$@univ-fcomte.fr.} + + +\author{Ali Kadhum Idrees$^{a,b}$, Karine Deschinkel$^{a}$, \\ +Michel Salomon$^{a}$ and Rapha\"el Couturier $^{a}$ \\ + $^{a}${\em{FEMTO-ST Institute, UMR 6174 CNRS, \\ + University Bourgogne Franche-Comt\'e, Belfort, France}} \\ + $^{b}${\em{Department of Computer Science, University of Babylon, Babylon, Iraq}} +} + \begin{abstract} %One of the fundamental challenges in Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) @@ -96,9 +106,14 @@ divided into subregions and then the MuDiLCO protocol is distributed on the sensor nodes in each subregion. The proposed MuDiLCO protocol works in periods during which sets of sensor nodes are scheduled to remain active for a number of rounds during the sensing phase, to ensure coverage so as to maximize the -lifetime of WSN. The decision process is carried out by a leader node, which -solves an integer program to produce the best representative sets to be used -during the rounds of the sensing phase. Compared with some existing protocols, +lifetime of WSN. \textcolor{green}{The decision process is carried out by a leader node, which +solves an optimization problem to produce the best representative sets to be used +during the rounds of the sensing phase. The optimization problem formulated as an integer program is solved to optimality through a branch-and-Bound method for small instances. For larger instances, the best feasible solution found by the solver after a given time limit threshold is considered. } +%The decision process is carried out by a leader node, which +%solves an integer program to produce the best representative sets to be used +%during the rounds of the sensing phase. +%\textcolor{red}{The integer program is solved by either GLPK solver or Genetic Algorithm (GA)}. +Compared with some existing protocols, simulation results based on multiple criteria (energy consumption, coverage ratio, and so on) show that the proposed protocol can prolong efficiently the network lifetime and improve the coverage performance. @@ -106,7 +121,7 @@ network lifetime and improve the coverage performance. \end{abstract} \begin{keyword} -Wireless Sensor Networks, Area Coverage, Network lifetime, +Wireless Sensor Networks, Area Coverage, Network Lifetime, Optimization, Scheduling, Distributed Computation. \end{keyword} @@ -173,7 +188,7 @@ algorithms in WSNs according to several design choices: \item Sensors scheduling algorithm implementation, i.e. centralized or distributed/localized algorithms. \item The objective of sensor coverage, i.e. to maximize the network lifetime or - to minimize the number of sensors during a sensing round. + to minimize the number of active sensors during a sensing round. \item The homogeneous or heterogeneous nature of the nodes, in terms of sensing or communication capabilities. \item The node deployment method, which may be random or deterministic. @@ -194,9 +209,12 @@ network. Note that centralized algorithms have the advantage of requiring very low processing power from the sensor nodes, which usually have limited processing capabilities. The main drawback of this kind of approach is its higher cost in communications, since the node that will make the decision needs -information from all the sensor nodes. Moreover, centralized approaches usually -suffer from the scalability problem, making them less competitive as the network -size increases. +information from all the sensor nodes. \textcolor{green} {Exact or heuristics approaches are designed to provide cover sets. + %(Moreover, centralized approaches usually +%suffer from the scalability problem, making them less competitive as the network +%size increases.) +Contrary to exact methods, heuristic methods can handle very large and centralized problems. They are proposed to reduce computational overhead such as energy consumption, delay and generally increase in +the network lifetime. } The first algorithms proposed in the literature consider that the cover sets are disjoint: a sensor node appears in exactly one of the generated cover @@ -221,7 +239,8 @@ node. After that, they proposed a High Residual Energy First (HREF) node selection algorithm to minimize the number of active nodes so as to prolong the network lifetime. Various centralized methods based on column generation approaches have also been -proposed~\cite{castano2013column,rossi2012exact,deschinkel2012column}. +proposed~\cite{gentili2013,castano2013column,rossi2012exact,deschinkel2012column}. +\textcolor{green}{In~\cite{gentili2013}, authors highlight the trade-off between the network lifetime and the coverage percentage. They show that network lifetime can be hugely improved by decreasing the coverage ratio. } \subsection{Distributed approaches} %{\bf Distributed approaches} @@ -286,7 +305,8 @@ computation complexity. Compared to our previous paper, in this one we study the possibility of dividing the sensing phase into multiple rounds and we also add an improved model of energy consumption to assess the efficiency of our approach. In fact, in this paper we make a multiround optimization, while it was -a single round optimization in our previous work. +a single round optimization in our previous work. \textcolor{green}{The idea is to take advantage of the pre-sensing phase + to plan the sensor's activity for several rounds instead of one, thus saving energy. In addition, when the optimization problem becomes more complex, its resolution is stopped after a given time threshold}. \iffalse @@ -518,11 +538,64 @@ Zhou~\cite{Zhang05} proved that if the transmission range fulfills the previous hypothesis, a complete coverage of a convex area implies connectivity among the active nodes. -Instead of working with a continuous coverage area, we make it discrete by -considering for each sensor a set of points called primary points. Consequently, -we assume that the sensing disk defined by a sensor is covered if all of its -primary points are covered. The choice of number and locations of primary points -is the subject of another study not presented here. +%Instead of working with a continuous coverage area, we make it discrete by considering for each sensor a set of points called primary points. Consequently, we assume that the sensing disk defined by a sensor is covered if all of its primary points are covered. The choice of number and locations of primary points is the subject of another study not presented here. + + +\indent Instead of working with the coverage area, we consider for each sensor a set of points called primary points~\cite{idrees2014coverage}. We also assume that the sensing disk defined by a sensor is covered if all the primary points of this sensor are covered. By knowing the position (point center: ($p_x,p_y$)) of a wireless sensor node and it's sensing range $R_s$, we calculate the primary points directly based on the proposed model. We use these primary points (that can be increased or decreased if necessary) as references to ensure that the monitored region of interest is covered by the selected set of sensors, instead of using all the points in the area. +We can calculate the positions of the selected primary +points in the circle disk of the sensing range of a wireless sensor +node (see Figure~\ref{fig1}) as follows:\\ +Assuming that the point center of a wireless sensor node is located at $(p_x,p_y)$, we can define up to 25 primary points $X_1$ to $X_{25}$.\\ +%$(p_x,p_y)$ = point center of wireless sensor node\\ +$X_1=(p_x,p_y)$ \\ +$X_2=( p_x + R_s * (1), p_y + R_s * (0) )$\\ +$X_3=( p_x + R_s * (-1), p_y + R_s * (0)) $\\ +$X_4=( p_x + R_s * (0), p_y + R_s * (1) )$\\ +$X_5=( p_x + R_s * (0), p_y + R_s * (-1 )) $\\ +$X_6= ( p_x + R_s * (\frac{-\sqrt{2}}{2}), p_y + R_s * (0)) $\\ +$X_7=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}), p_y + R_s * (0))$\\ +$X_8=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{-\sqrt{2}}{2}), p_y + R_s * (\frac{-\sqrt{2}}{2})) $\\ +$X_9=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}), p_y + R_s * (\frac{-\sqrt{2}}{2})) $\\ +$X_{10}=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{-\sqrt{2}}{2}), p_y + R_s * (\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2})) $\\ +$X_{11}=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}), p_y + R_s * (\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2})) $\\ +$X_{12}=( p_x + R_s * (0), p_y + R_s * (\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2})) $\\ +$X_{13}=( p_x + R_s * (0), p_y + R_s * (\frac{-\sqrt{2}}{2})) $\\ +$X_{14}=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}), p_y + R_s * (\frac{1}{2})) $\\ +$X_{15}=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{-\sqrt{3}}{2}), p_y + R_s * (\frac{1}{2})) $\\ +$X_{16}=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}), p_y + R_s * (\frac{- 1}{2})) $\\ +$X_{17}=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{-\sqrt{3}}{2}), p_y + R_s * (\frac{- 1}{2})) $\\ +$X_{18}=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}), p_y + R_s * (0) $\\ +$X_{19}=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{-\sqrt{3}}{2}), p_y + R_s * (0) $\\ +$X_{20}=( p_x + R_s * (0), p_y + R_s * (\frac{1}{2})) $\\ +$X_{21}=( p_x + R_s * (0), p_y + R_s * (-\frac{1}{2})) $\\ +$X_{22}=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{1}{2}), p_y + R_s * (\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2})) $\\ +$X_{23}=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{- 1}{2}), p_y + R_s * (\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2})) $\\ +$X_{24}=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{- 1}{2}), p_y + R_s * (\frac{-\sqrt{3}}{2})) $\\ +$X_{25}=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{1}{2}), p_y + R_s * (\frac{-\sqrt{3}}{2})) $. + + + +\begin{figure} %[h!] +\centering + \begin{multicols}{2} +\centering +\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{fig21.pdf}\\~ (a) +\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{principles13.pdf}\\~(c) +\hfill \hfill +\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{fig25.pdf}\\~(e) +\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{fig22.pdf}\\~(b) +\hfill \hfill +\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{fig24.pdf}\\~(d) +\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{fig26.pdf}\\~(f) +\end{multicols} +\caption{Wireless Sensor Node represented by (a) 5, (b) 9, (c) 13, (d) 17, (e) 21 and (f) 25 primary points respectively} +\label{fig1} +\end{figure} + + + + + %By knowing the position (point center: ($p_x,p_y$)) of a wireless %sensor node and its $R_s$, we calculate the primary points directly @@ -546,7 +619,7 @@ implemented in each subregion in a distributed way. As can be seen in Figure~\ref{fig2}, our protocol works in periods fashion, where each is divided into 4 phases: Information~Exchange, Leader~Election, Decision, and Sensing. Each sensing phase may be itself divided into $T$ rounds -and for each round a set of sensors (a cover set) is responsible for the sensing +\textcolor{green} {of equal duration} and for each round a set of sensors (a cover set) is responsible for the sensing task. In this way a multiround optimization process is performed during each period after Information~Exchange and Leader~Election phases, in order to produce $T$ cover sets that will take the mission of sensing for $T$ rounds. @@ -569,7 +642,8 @@ running out of energy), because it works in periods. decision, the node will not participate to this phase, and, on the other hand, if the node failure occurs after the decision, the sensing task of the network will be temporarily affected: only during the period of sensing until a new -period starts. +period starts. \textcolor{green}{The duration of the rounds are predefined parameters. Round duration should be long enough to hide the system control overhead and short enough to minimize the negative effects in case of node failure.} + %%RC so if there are at least one failure per period, the coverage is bad... %%MS if we want to be reliable against many node failures we need to have an %% overcoverage... @@ -638,12 +712,27 @@ consumption due to the communications. \subsection{Decision phase} -Each WSNL will solve an integer program to select which cover sets will be +Each WSNL will \textcolor{green}{ solve an integer program to select which cover sets will be activated in the following sensing phase to cover the subregion to which it -belongs. The integer program will produce $T$ cover sets, one for each round. -The WSNL will send an Active-Sleep packet to each sensor in the subregion based -on the algorithm's results, indicating if the sensor should be active or not in -each round of the sensing phase. The integer program is based on the model +belongs. $T$ cover sets will be produced, one for each round. The WSNL will send an Active-Sleep packet to each sensor in the subregion based on the algorithm's results, indicating if the sensor should be active or not in +each round of the sensing phase. } +%Each WSNL will \textcolor{red}{ execute an optimization algorithm (see section \ref{oa})} to select which cover sets will be +%activated in the following sensing phase to cover the subregion to which it +%belongs. The \textcolor{red}{optimization algorithm} will produce $T$ cover sets, one for each round. The WSNL will send an Active-Sleep packet to each sensor in the subregion based on the algorithm's results, indicating if the sensor should be active or not in +%each round of the sensing phase. + + +%solve an integer program + + + + + + + +%\section{\textcolor{red}{ Optimization Algorithm for Multiround Lifetime Coverage Optimization}} +%\label{oa} +As shown in Algorithm~\ref{alg:MuDiLCO}, the leader will execute an optimization algorithm based on an integer program. The integer program is based on the model proposed by \cite{pedraza2006} with some modifications, where the objective is to find a maximum number of disjoint cover sets. To fulfill this goal, the authors proposed an integer program which forces undercoverage and overcoverage @@ -762,11 +851,12 @@ In our simulations priority is given to the coverage by choosing $W_{U}$ very large compared to $W_{\theta}$. %The Active-Sleep packet includes the schedule vector with the number of rounds that should be applied by the receiving sensor node during the sensing phase. + \subsection{Sensing phase} The sensing phase consists of $T$ rounds. Each sensor node in the subregion will receive an Active-Sleep packet from WSNL, informing it to stay awake or to go to -sleep for each round of the sensing phase. Algorithm~\ref{alg:MuDiLCO}, which +sleep for each round of the sensing phase. Algorithm~\ref{alg:MuDiLCO}, which will be executed by each node at the beginning of a period, explains how the Active-Sleep packet is obtained. @@ -790,7 +880,7 @@ Active-Sleep packet is obtained. \If{$ s_j.ID = LeaderID $}{ \emph{$s_j.status$ = COMPUTATION}\; \emph{$\left\{\left(X_{1,k},\dots,X_{T,k}\right)\right\}_{k \in J}$ = - Execute Integer Program Algorithm($T,J$)}\; + Execute \textcolor{red}{Optimization Algorithm}($T,J$)}\; \emph{$s_j.status$ = COMMUNICATION}\; \emph{Send $ActiveSleep()$ to each node $k$ in subregion a packet \\ with vector of activity scheduling $(X_{1,k},\dots,X_{T,k})$}\; @@ -812,6 +902,174 @@ Active-Sleep packet is obtained. \end{algorithm} +\iffalse +\textcolor{red}{This integer program can be solved using two approaches:} + +\subsection{\textcolor{red}{Optimization solver for Multiround Lifetime Coverage Optimization}} +\label{glpk} +\textcolor{red}{The modeling language for Mathematical Programming (AMPL)~\cite{AMPL} is employed to generate the integer program instance in a standard format, which is then read and solved by the optimization solver GLPK (GNU linear Programming Kit available in the public domain) \cite{glpk} through a Branch-and-Bound method. We named the protocol which is based on GLPK solver in the decision phase as MuDiLCO.} +\fi + +\iffalse + +\subsection{\textcolor{red}{Genetic Algorithm for Multiround Lifetime Coverage Optimization}} +\label{GA} +\textcolor{red}{Metaheuristics are a generic search strategies for exploring search spaces for solving the complex problems. These strategies have to dynamically balance between the exploitation of the accumulated search experience and the exploration of the search space. On one hand, this balance can find regions in the search space with high-quality solutions. On the other hand, it prevents waste too much time in regions of the search space which are either already explored or don’t provide high-quality solutions. Therefore, metaheuristic provides an enough good solution to an optimization problem, especially with incomplete information or limited computation capacity \cite{bianchi2009survey}. Genetic Algorithm (GA) is one of the population-based metaheuristic methods that simulates the process of natural selection \cite{hassanien2015applications}. GA starts with a population of random candidate solutions (called individuals or phenotypes) . GA uses genetic operators inspired by natural evolution, such as selection, mutation, evaluation, crossover, and replacement so as to improve the initial population of candidate solutions. This process repeated until a stopping criterion is satisfied. In comparison with GLPK optimization solver, GA provides a near optimal solution with acceptable execution time, as well as it requires a less amount of memory especially for large size problems. GLPK provides optimal solution, but it requires higher execution time and amount of memory for large problem.} + +\textcolor{red}{In this section, we present a metaheuristic based GA to solve our multiround lifetime coverage optimization problem. The proposed GA provides a near optimal sechedule for multiround sensing per period. The proposed GA is based on the mathematical model which is presented in Section \ref{oa}. Algorithm \ref{alg:GA} shows the proposed GA to solve the coverage lifetime optimization problem. We named the new protocol which is based on GA in the decision phase as GA-MuDiLCO. The proposed GA can be explained in more details as follow:} + +\begin{algorithm}[h!] + + \small + \SetKwInput{Input}{\textcolor{red}{Input}} + \SetKwInput{Output}{\textcolor{red}{Output}} + \Input{ \textcolor{red}{$ P, J, T, S_{pop}, \alpha_{j,p}^{ind}, X_{t,j}^{ind}, \Theta_{t,p}^{ind}, U_{t,p}^{ind}, Child_{t,j}^{ind}, Ch.\Theta_{t,p}^{ind}, Ch.U_{t,p}^{ind_1}$}} + \Output{\textcolor{red}{$\left\{\left(X_{1,1},\dots, X_{t,j}, \dots, X_{T,J}\right)\right\}_{t \in T, j \in J}$}} + + \BlankLine + %\emph{Initialize the sensor node and determine it's position and subregion} \; + \ForEach {\textcolor{red}{Individual $ind$ $\in$ $S_{pop}$}} { + \emph{\textcolor{red}{Generate Randomly Chromosome $\left\{\left(X_{1,1},\dots, X_{t,j}, \dots, X_{T,J}\right)\right\}_{t \in T, j \in J}$}}\; + + \emph{\textcolor{red}{Update O-U-Coverage $\left\{(P, J, \alpha_{j,p}^{ind}, X_{t,j}^{ind}, \Theta_{t,p}^{ind}, U_{t,p}^{ind})\right\}_{p \in P}$}}\; + + + \emph{\textcolor{red}{Evaluate Individual $(P, J, X_{t,j}^{ind}, \Theta_{t,p}^{ind}, U_{t,p}^{ind})$}}\; + } + + \While{\textcolor{red}{ Stopping criteria is not satisfied} }{ + + \emph{\textcolor{red}{Selection $(ind_1, ind_2)$}}\; + \emph{\textcolor{red}{Crossover $(P_c, X_{t,j}^{ind_1}, X_{t,j}^{ind_2}, Child_{t,j}^{ind_1}, Child_{t,j}^{ind_2})$}}\; + \emph{\textcolor{red}{Mutation $(P_m, Child_{t,j}^{ind_1}, Child_{t,j}^{ind_2})$}}\; + + + \emph{\textcolor{red}{Update O-U-Coverage $(P, J, \alpha_{j,p}^{ind}, Child_{t,j}^{ind_1}, Ch.\Theta_{t,p}^{ind_1}, Ch.U_{t,p}^{ind_1})$}}\; + \emph{\textcolor{red}{Update O-U-Coverage $(P, J, \alpha_{j,p}^{ind}, Child_{t,j}^{ind_2}, Ch.\Theta_{t,p}^{ind_2}, Ch.U_{t,p}^{ind_2})$}}\; + +\emph{\textcolor{red}{Evaluate New Individual$(P, J, Child_{t,j}^{ind_1}, Ch.\Theta_{t,p}^{ind_1}, Ch.U_{t,p}^{ind_1})$}}\; + \emph{\textcolor{red}{Replacement $(P, J, T, Child_{t,j}^{ind_1}, Ch.\Theta_{t,p}^{ind_1}, Ch.U_{t,p}^{ind_1}, X_{t,j}^{ind}, \Theta_{t,p}^{ind}, U_{t,p}^{ind} )$ }}\; + + \emph{\textcolor{red}{Evaluate New Individual$(P, J, Child_{t,j}^{ind_2}, Ch.\Theta_{t,p}^{ind_2}, Ch.U_{t,p}^{ind_2})$}}\; + + \emph{\textcolor{red}{Replacement $(P, J, T, Child_{t,j}^{ind_2}, Ch.\Theta_{t,p}^{ind_2}, Ch.U_{t,p}^{ind_2}, X_{t,j}^{ind}, \Theta_{t,p}^{ind}, U_{t,p}^{ind} )$ }}\; + + + } + \emph{\textcolor{red}{$\left\{\left(X_{1,1},\dots,X_{t,j},\dots,X_{T,J}\right)\right\}$ = + Select Best Solution ($S_{pop}$)}}\; + \emph{\textcolor{red}{return X}} \; +\caption{\textcolor{red}{GA($T, J$)}} +\label{alg:GA} + +\end{algorithm} + + +\begin{enumerate} [I)] + +\item \textcolor{red}{\textbf{Representation:} Since the proposed GA's goal is to find the optimal schedule of the sensor nodes which take the responsibility of monitoring the subregion for $T$ rounds in the sensing phase, the chromosome is defined as a schedule for alive sensors and each chromosome contains $T$ rounds. The proposed GA uses binary representation, where each round in the schedule includes J genes, the total alive sensors in the subregion. Therefore, the gene of such a chromosome is a schedule of a sensor. In other words, The genes corresponding to active nodes have the value of one, the others are zero. Figure \ref{chromo} shows solution representation in the proposed GA.} +%[scale=0.3] +\begin{figure}[h!] +\centering + \includegraphics [scale=0.35] {rep.pdf} +\caption{Candidate Solution representation by the proposed GA. } +\label{chromo} +\end{figure} + + + +\item \textcolor{red}{\textbf{Initialize Population:} The initial population is randomly generated and each chromosome in the GA population represents a possible sensors schedule solution to cover the entire subregion for $T$ rounds during current period. Each sensor in the chromosome is given a random value (0 or 1) for all rounds. If the random value is 1, the remaining energy of this sensor should be adequate to activate this sensor during the current round. Otherwise, the value is set to 0. The energy constraint is applied for each sensor during all rounds. } + + +\item \textcolor{red}{\textbf{Update O-U-Coverage:} +After creating the initial population, The overcoverage $\Theta_{t,p}$ and undercoverage $U_{t,p}$ for each candidate solution are computed (see Algorithm \ref{OU}) so as to use them in the next step.} + +\begin{algorithm}[h!] + + \SetKwInput{Input}{\textcolor{red}{Input}} + \SetKwInput{Output}{\textcolor{red}{Output}} + \Input{ \textcolor{red}{parameters $P, J, ind, \alpha_{j,p}^{ind}, X_{t,j}^{ind}$}} + \Output{\textcolor{red}{$U^{ind} = \left\lbrace U_{1,1}^{ind}, \dots, U_{t,p}^{ind}, \dots, U_{T,P}^{ind} \right\rbrace$ and $\Theta^{ind} = \left\lbrace \Theta_{1,1}^{ind}, \dots, \Theta_{t,p}^{ind}, \dots, \Theta_{T,P}^{ind} \right\rbrace$}} + + \BlankLine + + \For{\textcolor{red}{$t\leftarrow 1$ \KwTo $T$}}{ + \For{\textcolor{red}{$p\leftarrow 1$ \KwTo $P$}}{ + + % \For{$i\leftarrow 0$ \KwTo $I_j$}{ + \emph{\textcolor{red}{$SUM\leftarrow 0$}}\; + \For{\textcolor{red}{$j\leftarrow 1$ \KwTo $J$}}{ + \emph{\textcolor{red}{$SUM \leftarrow SUM + (\alpha_{j,p}^{ind} \times X_{t,j}^{ind})$ }}\; + } + + \If { \textcolor{red}{SUM = 0}} { + \emph{\textcolor{red}{$U_{t,p}^{ind} \leftarrow 0$}}\; + \emph{\textcolor{red}{$\Theta_{t,p}^{ind} \leftarrow 1$}}\; + } + \Else{ + \emph{\textcolor{red}{$U_{t,p}^{ind} \leftarrow SUM -1$}}\; + \emph{\textcolor{red}{$\Theta_{t,p}^{ind} \leftarrow 0$}}\; + } + + } + + } +\emph{\textcolor{red}{return $U^{ind}, \Theta^{ind}$ }} \; +\caption{O-U-Coverage} +\label{OU} + +\end{algorithm} + + + +\item \textcolor{red}{\textbf{Evaluate Population:} +After creating the initial population, each individual is evaluated and assigned a fitness value according to the fitness function is illustrated in Eq. \eqref{eqf}. In the proposed GA, the optimal (or near optimal) candidate solution, is the one with the minimum value for the fitness function. The lower the fitness values been assigned to an individual, the better opportunity it gets survived. In our works, the function rewards the decrease in the sensor nodes which cover the same primary point and penalizes the decrease to zero in the sensor nodes which cover the primary point. } + +\begin{equation} + F^{ind} \leftarrow \sum_{t=1}^{T} \sum_{p=1}^{P} \left(W_{\theta}* \Theta_{t,p} + W_{U} * U_{t,p} \right) \label{eqf} +\end{equation} + + +\item \textcolor{red}{\textbf{Selection:} In order to generate a new generation, a portion of the existing population is elected based on a fitness function that ranks the fitness of each candidate solution and preferentially select the best solutions. Two parents should be selected to the mating pool. In the proposed GA-MuDiLCO algorithm, the first parent is selected by using binary tournament selection to select one of the parents \cite{goldberg1991comparative}. In this method, two individuals are chosen at random from the population and the better of the two +individuals is selected. If they have similar fitness values, one of them will be selected randomly. The best individual in the population is selected as a second parent.} + + + +\item \textcolor{red}{\textbf{Crossover:} Crossover is a genetic operator used to take more than one parent solutions and produce a child solution from them. If crossover probability $P_c$ is 100$\%$, then the crossover operation takes place between two individuals. If it is 0$\%$, the two selected individuals in the mating pool will be the new chromosomes without crossover. In the proposed GA, a two-point crossover is used. Figure \ref{cross} gives an example for a two-point crossover for 8 sensors in the subregion and the schedule for 3 rounds.} + + +\begin{figure}[h!] +\centering + \includegraphics [scale = 0.3] {crossover.pdf} +\caption{Two-point crossover. } +\label{cross} +\end{figure} + + +\item \textcolor{red}{\textbf{Mutation:} +Mutation is a divergence operation which introduces random modifications. The purpose of the mutation is to maintain diversity within the population and prevent premature convergence. Mutation is used to add new genetic information (divergence) in order to achieve a global search over the solution search space and avoid to fall in local optima. The mutation operator in the proposed GA-MuDiLCO works as follow: If mutation probability $P_m$ is 100$\%$, then the mutation operation takes place on the new individual. The round number is selected randomly within (1..T) in the schedule solution. After that one sensor within this round is selected randomly within (1..J). If the sensor is scheduled as active "1", it should be rescheduled to sleep "0". If the sensor is scheduled as sleep, it rescheduled to active only if it has adequate remaining energy.} + + +\item \textcolor{red}{\textbf{Update O-U-Coverage for children:} +Before evaluating each new individual, Algorithm \ref{OU} is called for each new individual to compute the new undercoverage $Ch.U$ and overcoverage $Ch.\Theta$ parameters. } + +\item \textcolor{red}{\textbf{Evaluate New Individuals:} +Each new individual is evaluated using Eq. \ref{eqf} but with using the new undercoverage $Ch.U$ and overcoverage $Ch.\Theta$ parameters of the new children.} + +\item \textcolor{red}{\textbf{Replacement:} +After evaluation of new children, Triple Tournament Replacement (TTR) will be applied for each new individual. In TTR strategy, three individuals are selected +randomly from the population. Find the worst from them and then check its fitness with the new individual fitness. If the fitness of the new individual is better than the fitness of the worst individual, replace the new individual with the worst individual. Otherwise, the replacement is not done. } + + +\item \textcolor{red}{\textbf{Stopping criteria:} +The proposed GA-MuDiLCO stops when the stopping criteria is met. It stops after running for an amount of time in seconds equal to \textbf{Time limit}. The \textbf{Time limit} is the execution time obtained by the optimization solver GLPK for solving the same size of problem. The best solution will be selected as a schedule of sensors for $T$ rounds during the sensing phase in the current period.} + + + +\end{enumerate} + +\fi + \section{Experimental study} \label{exp} \subsection{Simulation setup} @@ -859,19 +1117,50 @@ Sensing time for one round & 60 Minutes \\ $E_{R}$ & 36 Joules\\ $R_s$ & 5~m \\ %\hline -$W_{\Theta}$ & 1 \\ +$W_{\theta}$ & 1 \\ % [1ex] adds vertical space %\hline -$W_{U}$ & $|P|^2$ +$W_{U}$ & $|P|^2$ \\ +%$P_c$ & 0.95 \\ +%$P_m$ & 0.6 \\ +%$S_{pop}$ & 50 %inserts single line \end{tabular} \label{table3} % is used to refer this table in the text \end{table} -Our protocol 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). In the following, we will make comparisons with +\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 based GLPK optimization solver with time limit is declined into four versions: TL-MuDiLCO-1, TL-MuDiLCO-3, TL-MuDiLCO-5, and TL-MuDiLCO-7. Table \ref{tl} shows time limit values for TL-MuDiLCO protocol versions. After extensive experiments, we chose the values that explained in Table \ref{tl} because they gave the best results. In these experiments, we started with the average execution time of the corresponding MuDiLCO version and network size divided by 3 as a time limit. After that, we increase these values until reaching the best results. In Table \ref{tl}, "NO" refers to apply the GLPK solver without time limit because we did not find improvement on the results of MuDiLCO protocol with the time limit. }. + +\begin{table}[ht] +\caption{Time limit values for TL-MuDiLCO protocol versions } +\centering +\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} + \hline + WSN size & TL-MuDiLCO-1 & TL-MuDiLCO-3 & TL-MuDiLCO-5 & TL-MuDiLCO-7 \\ [0.5ex] +\hline + 50 & NO & NO & NO & NO \\ + \hline +100 & NO & NO & NO & NO \\ +\hline +150 & NO & NO & NO & 0.03 \\ +\hline +200 & NO & 0.0094 & 0.020 & 0.06 \\ + \hline + 250 & NO & 0.013 & 0.03 & 0.08 \\ + \hline +\end{tabular} + +\label{tl} + +\end{table} + + + + + 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. @@ -948,7 +1237,7 @@ and 24~bits respectively. The value of energy spent to send a 1-bit-content message is obtained by using the equation in ~\cite{raghunathan2002energy} to calculate the energy cost for transmitting messages and we propose the same value for receiving the packets. The energy needed to send or receive a 1-bit -packet is equal to $0.2575~mW$. +packet is equal to 0.2575~mW. The initial energy of each node is randomly set in the interval $[500;700]$. A sensor node will not participate in the next round if its remaining energy is @@ -1011,7 +1300,7 @@ network, and $R$ is the total number of subregions in the network. % New version with global loops on period \begin{equation*} \scriptsize - \mbox{EC} = \frac{\sum\limits_{m=1}^{M_L} \left[ \left( E^{\mbox{com}}_m+E^{\mbox{list}}_m+E^{\mbox{comp}}_m \right) +\sum\limits_{t=1}^{T_m} \left( E^{a}_t+E^{s}_t \right) \right]}{\sum\limits_{m=1}^{M_L} T_m}, + \mbox{EC} = \frac{\sum\limits_{m=1}^{M} \left[ \left( E^{\mbox{com}}_m+E^{\mbox{list}}_m+E^{\mbox{comp}}_m \right) +\sum\limits_{t=1}^{T_m} \left( E^{a}_t+E^{s}_t \right) \right]}{\sum\limits_{m=1}^{M} T_m}, \end{equation*} @@ -1030,7 +1319,7 @@ network, and $R$ is the total number of subregions in the network. % Old version -> where $M_L$ and $T_L$ are respectively the number of periods and rounds during %$Lifetime_{95}$ or $Lifetime_{50}$. % New version -where $M_L$ is the number of periods and $T_m$ the number of rounds in a +where $M$ is the number of periods and $T_m$ the number of rounds in a period~$m$, both during $Lifetime_{95}$ or $Lifetime_{50}$. The total energy consumed by the sensors (EC) comes through taking into consideration four main energy factors. The first one , denoted $E^{\scriptsize \mbox{com}}_m$, @@ -1040,7 +1329,7 @@ factor, corresponds to the energy consumed by the sensors in LISTENING status before receiving the decision to go active or sleep in period $m$. $E^{\scriptsize \mbox{comp}}_m$ refers to the energy needed by all the leader nodes to solve the integer program during a period. Finally, $E^a_t$ and $E^s_t$ -indicate the energy consummed by the whole network in round $t$. +indicate the energy consumed by the whole network in round $t$. %\item {Network Lifetime:} we have defined the network lifetime as the time until all %nodes have been drained of their energy or each sensor network monitoring an area has become disconnected. @@ -1057,9 +1346,57 @@ indicate the energy consummed by the whole network in round $t$. \end{enumerate} -\section{Results and analysis} +\subsection{Performance Analysis for Different Number of Primary Points} +\label{ch4:sec:04:06} + +In this section, we study the performance of MuDiLCO-1 approach for different numbers of primary points. The objective of this comparison is to select the suitable primary point model to be used by a MuDiLCO protocol. In this comparison, MuDiLCO-1 protocol is used with five models, which are called Model-5 (it uses 5 primary points), Model-9, Model-13, Model-17, and Model-21. + + +%\begin{enumerate}[i)] -\subsection{Coverage ratio} +%\item {{\bf Coverage Ratio}} +\subsubsection{Coverage Ratio} + +Figure~\ref{Figures/ch4/R2/CR} shows the average coverage ratio for 150 deployed nodes. +\parskip 0pt +\begin{figure}[h!] +\centering + \includegraphics[scale=0.5] {R2/CR.pdf} +\caption{Coverage ratio for 150 deployed nodes} +\label{Figures/ch4/R2/CR} +\end{figure} +As can be seen in Figure~\ref{Figures/ch4/R2/CR}, at the beginning the models which use a larger number of primary points provide slightly better coverage ratios, but latter they are the worst. +%Moreover, when the number of periods increases, coverage ratio produced by Model-9, Model-13, Model-17, and Model-21 decreases in comparison with Model-5 due to a larger time computation for the decision process for larger number of primary points. +Moreover, when the number of periods increases, coverage ratio produced by all models decrease, but Model-5 is the one with the slowest decrease due to a smaller time computation of decision process for a smaller number of primary points. +As shown in Figure ~\ref{Figures/ch4/R2/CR}, coverage ratio decreases when the number of periods increases due to dead nodes. Model-5 is slightly more efficient than other models, because it offers a good coverage ratio for a larger number of periods in comparison with other models. + + +%\item {{\bf Network Lifetime}} +\subsubsection{Network Lifetime} + +Finally, we study the effect of increasing the primary points on the lifetime of the network. +%In Figure~\ref{Figures/ch4/R2/LT95} and in Figure~\ref{Figures/ch4/R2/LT50}, network lifetime, $Lifetime95$ and $Lifetime50$ respectively, are illustrated for different network sizes. +As highlighted by Figures~\ref{Figures/ch4/R2/LT}(a) and \ref{Figures/ch4/R2/LT}(b), the network lifetime obviously increases when the size of the network increases, with Model-5 that leads to the larger lifetime improvement. + +\begin{figure}[h!] +\centering +\centering +\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{R2/LT95.pdf}\\~ ~ ~ ~ ~(a) \\ + +\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{R2/LT50.pdf}\\~ ~ ~ ~ ~(b) + +\caption{Network lifetime for (a) $Lifetime_{95}$ and (b) $Lifetime_{50}$} + \label{Figures/ch4/R2/LT} +\end{figure} + +Comparison shows that Model-5, which uses less number of primary points, is the best one because it is less energy consuming during the network lifetime. It is also the better one from the point of view of coverage ratio. Our proposed Model-5 efficiently prolongs the network lifetime with a good coverage ratio in comparison with other models. Therefore, we have chosen Model-5 for all the experiments presented thereafter. + +%\end{enumerate} + + +\subsection{Results and analysis} + +\subsubsection{Coverage ratio} Figure~\ref{fig3} shows the average coverage ratio for 150 deployed nodes. We can notice that for the first thirty rounds both DESK and GAF provide a coverage @@ -1080,55 +1417,62 @@ rounds, and thus should extend the network lifetime. \begin{figure}[ht!] \centering - \includegraphics[scale=0.5] {R1/CR.pdf} + \includegraphics[scale=0.5] {F/CR.pdf} \caption{Average coverage ratio for 150 deployed nodes} \label{fig3} \end{figure} -\subsection{Active sensors ratio} +\iffalse +\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. MuDiLCO and GA-MuDiLCO clearly outperform DESK and GAF for +a number of periods between 31 and 103. This is because they optimize the coverage and the lifetime in a wireless sensor network by selecting the best representative sensor nodes to take the responsibility of coverage during the sensing phase.} +\fi + + +\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 -\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{R1/ASR.pdf} +\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{F/ASR.pdf} \caption{Active sensors ratio for 150 deployed nodes} \label{fig4} \end{figure} -\subsection{Stopped simulation runs} +%\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. 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 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \begin{figure}[ht!] \centering -\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{R1/SR.pdf} +\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{F/SR.pdf} \caption{Cumulative percentage of stopped simulation runs for 150 deployed nodes } \label{fig6} \end{figure} -\subsection{Energy consumption} \label{subsec:EC} +\subsubsection{Energy consumption} \label{subsec:EC} We measure the energy consumed by the sensors during the communication, listening, computation, active, and sleep status for different network densities @@ -1139,9 +1483,9 @@ network sizes, for $Lifetime_{95}$ and $Lifetime_{50}$. \begin{figure}[h!] \centering \begin{tabular}{cl} - \parbox{9.5cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{R1/EC95.pdf}} & (a) \\ + \parbox{9.5cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{F/EC95.pdf}} & (a) \\ \verb+ + \\ - \parbox{9.5cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{R1/EC50.pdf}} & (b) + \parbox{9.5cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{F/EC50.pdf}} & (b) \end{tabular} \caption{Energy consumption for (a) $Lifetime_{95}$ and (b) $Lifetime_{50}$} @@ -1150,23 +1494,19 @@ network sizes, for $Lifetime_{95}$ and $Lifetime_{50}$. The results show that MuDiLCO is the most competitive from the energy consumption point of view. The other approaches have a high energy consumption -due to activating a larger number of redundant nodes as well as the energy -consumed during the different status of the sensor node. Among the different -versions of our protocol, the MuDiLCO-7 one consumes more energy than the other -versions. This is easy to understand since the bigger the number of rounds and -the number of sensors involved in the integer program are, the larger the time -computation to solve the optimization problem is. To improve the performances of -MuDiLCO-7, we should increase the number of subregions in order to have less -sensors to consider in the integer program. - +due to activating a larger number of redundant nodes as well as the energy consumed during the different status of the sensor node. Among the different versions of our protocol, the MuDiLCO-7 one consumes more energy than the other +versions. This is easy to understand since the bigger the number of rounds and the number of sensors involved in the integer program are, the larger the time computation to solve the optimization problem is. To improve the performances of MuDiLCO-7, we should increase the number of subregions in order to have less sensors to consider in the integer program. +%\textcolor{red}{As shown in Figure~\ref{fig7}, GA-MuDiLCO consumes less energy than both DESK and GAF, but a little bit higher than MuDiLCO because it provides a near optimal solution by activating a larger number of nodes during the sensing phase. GA-MuDiLCO consumes less energy in comparison with MuDiLCO-7 version, especially for the dense networks. However, MuDiLCO protocol and GA-MuDiLCO protocol are the most competitive from the energy +%consumption point of view. The other approaches have a high energy consumption +%due to activating a larger number of redundant nodes.} %In fact, a distributed optimization decision, which produces T rounds, on the subregions is greatly reduced the cost of communications and the time of listening as well as the energy needed for sensing phase and computation so thanks to the partitioning of the initial network into several independent subnetworks and producing T rounds for each subregion periodically. -\subsection{Execution time} - +\subsubsection{Execution time} +\label{et} We observe the impact of the network size and of the number of rounds on the computation time. Figure~\ref{fig77} gives the average execution times in -seconds (needed to solve optimization problem) for different values of $T$. The +seconds (needed to solve optimization problem) for different values of $T$. The modeling language for Mathematical Programming (AMPL)~\cite{AMPL} is employed to generate the Mixed Integer Linear Program instance in a standard format, which is then read and solved by the optimization solver GLPK (GNU linear Programming Kit available in the public domain) \cite{glpk} through a Branch-and-Bound method. The original execution time is computed on a laptop DELL with Intel Core~i3~2370~M (2.4 GHz) processor (2 cores) and the MIPS (Million Instructions Per Second) rate equal to 35330. To be consistent with the use of a sensor node with Atmels @@ -1177,7 +1517,7 @@ for different network sizes. \begin{figure}[ht!] \centering -\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{R1/T.pdf} +\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{F/T.pdf} \caption{Execution Time (in seconds)} \label{fig77} \end{figure} @@ -1195,7 +1535,7 @@ optimization problem. %While MuDiLCO-1, 3, and 5 solves the optimization process with suitable execution times to be used on wireless sensor network because it distributed on larger number of small subregions as well as it is used acceptable number of round(s) T. We think that in distributed fashion the solving of the optimization problem to produce T rounds in a subregion can be tackled by sensor nodes. Overall, to be able to deal with very large networks, a distributed method is clearly required. -\subsection{Network lifetime} +\subsubsection{Network lifetime} The next two figures, Figures~\ref{fig8}(a) and \ref{fig8}(b), illustrate the network lifetime for different network sizes, respectively for $Lifetime_{95}$ @@ -1210,14 +1550,15 @@ of $Lifetime_{95}$ with large wireless sensor networks results from the difficulty of the optimization problem to be solved by the integer program. This point was already noticed in subsection \ref{subsec:EC} devoted to the energy consumption, since network lifetime and energy consumption are directly -linked. - +linked. +%\textcolor{red}{As can be seen in these figures, the lifetime increases with the size of the network, and it is clearly largest for the MuDiLCO +%and the GA-MuDiLCO protocols. GA-MuDiLCO prolongs the network lifetime obviously in comparison with both DESK and GAF, as well as the MuDiLCO-7 version for $lifetime_{95}$. However, comparison shows that MuDiLCO protocol and GA-MuDiLCO protocol, which use distributed optimization over the subregions are the best ones because they are robust to network disconnection during the network lifetime as well as they consume less energy in comparison with other approaches.} \begin{figure}[t!] \centering \begin{tabular}{cl} - \parbox{9.5cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{R1/LT95.pdf}} & (a) \\ + \parbox{9.5cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{F/LT95.pdf}} & (a) \\ \verb+ + \\ - \parbox{9.5cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{R1/LT50.pdf}} & (b) + \parbox{9.5cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{F/LT50.pdf}} & (b) \end{tabular} \caption{Network lifetime for (a) $Lifetime_{95}$ and (b) $Lifetime_{50}$} @@ -1252,7 +1593,7 @@ scheduling. The activity scheduling in each subregion works in periods, where each period consists of four phases: (i) Information Exchange, (ii) Leader Election, (iii) Decision Phase to plan the activity of the sensors over $T$ rounds, (iv) Sensing -Phase itself divided into T rounds. +Phase itself divided into $T$ rounds. Simulations results show the relevance of the proposed protocol in terms of lifetime, coverage ratio, active sensors ratio, energy consumption, execution