ok

[LiCO.git] / PeCO-EO / articleeo.tex~

diff --git a/PeCO-EO/articleeo.tex~ b/PeCO-EO/articleeo.tex~
index 5ba7f55932dd982a40e034a21050950216875f02..4faafaa6a289a7d2b84086dab2f19b696422a210 100644 (file)
--- a/PeCO-EO/articleeo.tex~
+++ b/PeCO-EO/articleeo.tex~
@@ -507,7 +507,7 @@ in  the current  period.   Each  sensor node  determines  its  position and  its
 subregion using an  embedded GPS or a location discovery  algorithm. After that,
 all the sensors collect position  coordinates, remaining energy, sensor node ID,
 and the number of their one-hop  live neighbors during the information exchange.
 subregion using an  embedded GPS or a location discovery  algorithm. After that,
 all the sensors collect position  coordinates, remaining energy, sensor node ID,
 and the number of their one-hop  live neighbors during the information exchange.

-\textcolor{blue}{Both INFO packet and ActiveSleep packet contain two parts: header and data payload. The sensor ID is included in the header, where the header size is 8 bits. The data part includes position coordinates (64 bits), remaining energy (32 bits), and the number of one-hop live neighbors (8 bits). Therefore the size of the INFO packet is 112 bits. The ActiveSleep packet is 16 bits size, 8 bits for the header and 8 bits for data part that includes only sensor status (0 or 1).}
+\textcolor{green}{Both INFO packet and ActiveSleep packet contain two parts: header and data payload. The sensor ID is included in the header, where the header size is 8 bits. The data part includes position coordinates (64 bits), remaining energy (32 bits), and the number of one-hop live neighbors (8 bits). Therefore the size of the INFO packet is 112 bits. The ActiveSleep packet is 16 bits size, 8 bits for the header and 8 bits for data part that includes only sensor status (0 or 1).}

 The sensors  inside a same  region cooperate to  elect a leader.   The selection
 criteria for the leader are (in order  of priority):
 \begin{enumerate}
 The sensors  inside a same  region cooperate to  elect a leader.   The selection
 criteria for the leader are (in order  of priority):
 \begin{enumerate}


@@ -719,8 +719,8 @@ approach.
   sensing period~$p$, $R$  is the number of subregions, and  $|J|$ is the number
   of sensors in the network.
   
   sensing period~$p$, $R$  is the number of subregions, and  $|J|$ is the number
   of sensors in the network.
   

-\item {\bf \textcolor{blue}{Energy Saving Ratio (ESR)}}:  
-\textcolor{blue}{this metric, which shows the ability of a protocol to save energy, is defined by:
+\item {\bf \textcolor{green}{Energy Saving Ratio (ESR)}}:  
+\textcolor{green}{this metric, which shows the ability of a protocol to save energy, is defined by:

 \begin{equation*}
 \scriptsize
 \mbox{ESR}(\%) = \frac{\mbox{Number of alive sensors during this round}}
 \begin{equation*}
 \scriptsize
 \mbox{ESR}(\%) = \frac{\mbox{Number of alive sensors during this round}}


@@ -853,26 +853,20 @@ keeping a greater coverage ratio as shown in Figure \ref{figure5}.
 \label{figure6}
 \end{figure} 
 
 \label{figure6}
 \end{figure} 
 

-\subsubsection{\textcolor{blue}{Energy Saving Ratio (ESR)}} 
-
-%\textcolor{blue}{In this experiment, we study the energy saving ratio, see Figure~\ref{fig5}, for 200 deployed nodes. 
-%The larger the ratio  is,  the more  redundant sensor  nodes are switched off, and consequently  the longer the  network may  liv%e. }
-
-\textcolor{blue}{The simulation  results show that  our protocol PeCO  allows to
-  efficiently save energy by turning off  some sensors during the sensing phase.
-  As shown in Figure~\ref{fig5}, GAF provides better energy saving than PeCO for
-  the  first fifty  rounds, because  GAF  balances the  energy consumption  among
-  sensor nodes inside each  small fixed grid and thus permits to  extend the life of
-  sensors in  each grid  fairly but  in the same  time turn  on large  number of
-  sensors during sensing  that lead later to quickly  deplete sensor's batteries
-  together. After that  GAF  provide  less energy  saving  compared with  other
-  approaches because of the large number of dead nodes. DESK algorithm shows less
-  energy saving compared with other approaches  due to activate a large number of
-  sensors during the  sensing. DiLCO protocol provides less  energy saving ratio
-  compared with  PeCO because it generally  activate a larger number  of sensor
-  nodes during sensing.  Note that again as the number  of rounds increases PeCO
-  becomes the most  performing one, since it consumes less  energy compared with
-  other approaches.}
+\subsubsection{\textcolor{green}{Energy Saving Ratio}} 
+
+
+\textcolor{green}{The  simulation  results  show  that our  protocol  PeCO  saves
+  efficiently energy by  turning off some sensors during the  sensing phase.  As
+  shown in  Figure~\ref{fig5}, GAF provides  better energy saving than  PeCO for
+  the  first fifty  rounds. Indeed  GAF  balances the  energy consumption  among
+  sensor nodes inside each small fixed grid  and thus permits to extend the life
+  of sensors in each grid fairly. However, at  the same time it turns on a large
+  number of sensors and that leads  later to quickly deplete sensor's batteries.
+  DESK algorithm  shows less energy  saving compared with other  approaches.  In
+  comparison  with PeCO,  DiLCO protocol  usually provides  lower energy  saving
+  ratios. Moreover,  it can  be noticed  that after  round fifty,  PeCO protocol
+  exhibits the slowest decrease among all the considered protocols.}

 
 \begin{figure}[h!]
 %\centering
 
 \begin{figure}[h!]
 %\centering


@@ -881,9 +875,7 @@ keeping a greater coverage ratio as shown in Figure \ref{figure5}.
 \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{ESR.eps} %\\~ ~ ~(a)
 \caption{Energy Saving Ratio for 200 deployed nodes}
 \label{fig5}
 \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{ESR.eps} %\\~ ~ ~(a)
 \caption{Energy Saving Ratio for 200 deployed nodes}
 \label{fig5}

-\end{figure} 
-
-
+\end{figure}

 
 \subsubsection{Energy Consumption}
 
 
 \subsubsection{Energy Consumption}
 


@@ -940,14 +932,12 @@ for  different   coverage  ratios.   We  denote  by   Protocol/70,  Protocol/80,
 Protocol/85, Protocol/90,  and Protocol/95 the  amount of time during  which the
 network  can satisfy  an  area  coverage greater  than  $70\%$, $80\%$,  $85\%$,
 $90\%$, and  $95\%$ respectively,  where the  term Protocol  refers to  DiLCO or
 Protocol/85, Protocol/90,  and Protocol/95 the  amount of time during  which the
 network  can satisfy  an  area  coverage greater  than  $70\%$, $80\%$,  $85\%$,
 $90\%$, and  $95\%$ respectively,  where the  term Protocol  refers to  DiLCO or

-PeCO.  \textcolor{blue}{Indeed there are applications that do not require a 100\% coverage of the
+PeCO.  \textcolor{green}{Indeed there are applications that do not require a 100\% coverage of the

 area to be  monitored. For example, forest
 fire application might require complete coverage
 in summer seasons while only require 80$\%$ of the area to be covered in rainy seasons~\citep{li2011transforming}. As another example, birds habit study requires only 70$\%$-coverage at nighttime when the birds are sleeping while requires 100$\%$-coverage at daytime when the birds are active~\citep{1279193}. 
 area to be  monitored. For example, forest
 fire application might require complete coverage
 in summer seasons while only require 80$\%$ of the area to be covered in rainy seasons~\citep{li2011transforming}. As another example, birds habit study requires only 70$\%$-coverage at nighttime when the birds are sleeping while requires 100$\%$-coverage at daytime when the birds are active~\citep{1279193}. 

-%Mudflows monitoring applications may require part of the area to be covered in sunny days. Thus, to extend network lifetime, the coverage quality can be decreased if it is acceptable~\citep{wang2014keeping}}. 

  PeCO always  outperforms DiLCO  for the  three  lower coverage  ratios, moreover  the
  PeCO always  outperforms DiLCO  for the  three  lower coverage  ratios, moreover  the

-improvements grow  with the network  size. DiLCO outperforms PeCO when the coverage ratio is required to be $>90\%$, but PeCo extends the network lifetime significantly when coverage ratio can be relaxed.}
-%DiLCO  is better for  coverage ratios near 100\%, but  in that case PeCO  is not ineffective for  the smallest network sizes.
+improvements grow  with the network  size. DiLCO outperforms PeCO when the coverage ratio is required to be $>90\%$, but PeCO extends the network lifetime significantly when coverage ratio can be relaxed.}

 
 \begin{figure}[h!]
 \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{figure9.eps}
 
 \begin{figure}[h!]
 \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{figure9.eps}