From: Karine Deschinkel Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 09:08:04 +0000 (+0200) Subject: ok X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/LiCO.git/commitdiff_plain/32b3267d56158c2c6b227fe08ec1b280fdde3606?hp=--cc ok --- 32b3267d56158c2c6b227fe08ec1b280fdde3606 diff --git a/PeCO-EO/articleeo.aux b/PeCO-EO/articleeo.aux index 07cbb3d..37fefc8 100644 --- a/PeCO-EO/articleeo.aux +++ b/PeCO-EO/articleeo.aux @@ -70,19 +70,18 @@ \newlabel{figure5}{{5}{14}} \newlabel{figure6}{{6}{14}} \@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {5.2.3}\leavevmode {\color {blue}Energy Saving Ratio (ESR)}}{14}} +\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {5.2.4}Energy Consumption}{14}} \citation{li2011transforming} -\citation{vu2009universal} -\citation{wang2014keeping} +\citation{1279193} \newlabel{fig5}{{7}{15}} -\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {5.2.4}Energy Consumption}{15}} \@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {5.2.5}Network Lifetime}{15}} \newlabel{figure7}{{8}{16}} \@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {5.2.6}Impact of $\alpha $ and $\beta $ on PeCO's performance}{16}} \newlabel{sec:Impact}{{5.2.6}{16}} +\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {6}Conclusion and Future Works}{16}} +\newlabel{sec:Conclusion and Future Works}{{6}{16}} \newlabel{figure8}{{9}{17}} \newlabel{figure9}{{10}{17}} -\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {6}Conclusion and Future Works}{17}} -\newlabel{sec:Conclusion and Future Works}{{6}{17}} \bibstyle{gENO} \bibdata{biblio} \bibcite{akyildiz2002wireless}{{1}{2002}{{Akyildiz et~al.}}{{Akyildiz, Su, Sankarasubramaniam, and Cayirci}}} @@ -90,11 +89,11 @@ \bibcite{berman04}{{3}{2004}{{Berman and Calinescu}}{{}}} \bibcite{cardei2005improving}{{4}{2005}{{Cardei and Du}}{{}}} \bibcite{cardei2005energy}{{5}{2005}{{Cardei et~al.}}{{Cardei, Thai, Li, and Wu}}} -\newlabel{my-labelx}{{4}{18}} \bibcite{castano2013column}{{6}{2014}{{Casta{\~n}o et~al.}}{{Casta{\~n}o, Rossi, Sevaux, and Velasco}}} \bibcite{iamigo:cplex}{{7}{2010}{{CPLEX}}{{}}} \bibcite{Deng2012}{{8}{2012}{{Deng, Jiguo~Yu, and Chen}}{{}}} \bibcite{deschinkel2012column}{{9}{2012}{{Deschinkel}}{{}}} +\newlabel{my-labelx}{{4}{18}} \bibcite{AMPL}{{10}{November 12, 2002}{{Fourer, Gay, and Kernighan}}{{}}} \bibcite{HeShibo}{{11}{2014}{{He et~al.}}{{He, Gong, Zhang, Chen, and Sun}}} \bibcite{huang2005coverage}{{12}{2005}{{Huang and Tseng}}{{}}} @@ -103,20 +102,20 @@ \bibcite{Idrees2}{{15}{2015}{{Idrees et~al.}}{{Idrees, Deschinkel, Salomon, and Couturier}}} \bibcite{jaggi2006}{{16}{2006}{{Jaggi and Abouzeid}}{{}}} \bibcite{kim2013maximum}{{17}{2013}{{Kim and Cobb}}{{}}} -\bibcite{0031-9155-44-1-012}{{18}{1999}{{Lee et~al.}}{{Lee, Gallagher, Silvern, Wuu, and Zaider}}} -\bibcite{li2013survey}{{19}{2013}{{Li and Vasilakos}}{{}}} -\bibcite{li2011transforming}{{20}{2011}{{Li et~al.}}{{Li, Vu, Ai, Chen, and Zhao}}} -\bibcite{ling2009energy}{{21}{2009}{{Ling and Znati}}{{}}} -\bibcite{glpk}{{22}{2012}{{Makhorin}}{{}}} -\bibcite{Misra}{{23}{2011}{{Misra, Kumar, and Obaidat}}{{}}} -\bibcite{pc10}{{24}{2010}{{Padmavathy and Chitra}}{{}}} -\bibcite{puccinelli2005wireless}{{25}{2005}{{Puccinelli and Haenggi}}{{}}} -\bibcite{pujari2011high}{{26}{2011}{{Pujari}}{{}}} -\bibcite{qu2013distributed}{{27}{2013}{{Qu and Georgakopoulos}}{{}}} -\bibcite{rault2014energy}{{28}{2014}{{Rault, Bouabdallah, and Challal}}{{}}} -\bibcite{doi:10.1080/0305215X.2012.687732}{{29}{2013}{{Singh, Rossi, and Sevaux}}{{}}} -\bibcite{varga}{{30}{2003}{{Varga}}{{}}} -\bibcite{vu2009universal}{{31}{2009}{{Vu et~al.}}{{Vu, Chen, Zhao, and Li}}} +\bibcite{1279193}{{18}{2004}{{Kumagai}}{{}}} +\bibcite{0031-9155-44-1-012}{{19}{1999}{{Lee et~al.}}{{Lee, Gallagher, Silvern, Wuu, and Zaider}}} +\bibcite{li2013survey}{{20}{2013}{{Li and Vasilakos}}{{}}} +\bibcite{li2011transforming}{{21}{2011}{{Li et~al.}}{{Li, Vu, Ai, Chen, and Zhao}}} +\bibcite{ling2009energy}{{22}{2009}{{Ling and Znati}}{{}}} +\bibcite{glpk}{{23}{2012}{{Makhorin}}{{}}} +\bibcite{Misra}{{24}{2011}{{Misra, Kumar, and Obaidat}}{{}}} +\bibcite{pc10}{{25}{2010}{{Padmavathy and Chitra}}{{}}} +\bibcite{puccinelli2005wireless}{{26}{2005}{{Puccinelli and Haenggi}}{{}}} +\bibcite{pujari2011high}{{27}{2011}{{Pujari}}{{}}} +\bibcite{qu2013distributed}{{28}{2013}{{Qu and Georgakopoulos}}{{}}} +\bibcite{rault2014energy}{{29}{2014}{{Rault, Bouabdallah, and Challal}}{{}}} +\bibcite{doi:10.1080/0305215X.2012.687732}{{30}{2013}{{Singh, Rossi, and Sevaux}}{{}}} +\bibcite{varga}{{31}{2003}{{Varga}}{{}}} \bibcite{ChinhVu}{{32}{2006}{{Vu et~al.}}{{Vu, Gao, Deshmukh, and Li}}} \bibcite{chin2007}{{33}{2009}{{Vu}}{{}}} \bibcite{wang2011coverage}{{34}{2011}{{Wang}}{{}}} diff --git a/PeCO-EO/articleeo.bbl b/PeCO-EO/articleeo.bbl index 412c38f..2fcd549 100644 --- a/PeCO-EO/articleeo.bbl +++ b/PeCO-EO/articleeo.bbl @@ -103,6 +103,10 @@ Kim, Hyunbum, and Jorge~A Cobb. 2013. ``Maximum lifetime of reinforced barrier-coverage in Wireless Sensor Networks.'' In \emph{19th IEEE International Conference on Networks (ICON), 2013,} 1--6. +\bibitem[Kumagai(2004)]{1279193} +Kumagai, J. 2004. ``Life of birds [wireless sensor network for bird study].'' + \emph{Spectrum, IEEE} 41 (4): 42--49. + \bibitem[Lee et~al.(1999)Lee, Gallagher, Silvern, Wuu, and Zaider]{0031-9155-44-1-012} Lee, Eva~K, Richard~J Gallagher, David Silvern, Cheng-Shie Wuu, and Marco @@ -171,12 +175,6 @@ Singh, Alok, André Rossi, and Marc Sevaux. 2013. ``Metaheuristic approaches Varga, A. 2003. ``OMNeT++ Discrete Event Simulation System.'' \emph{Available: http://www.omnetpp.org} . -\bibitem[Vu et~al.(2009)Vu, Chen, Zhao, and Li]{vu2009universal} -Vu, Chinh, Guantao Chen, Yi~Zhao, and Yingshu Li. 2009. ``A universal framework - for partial coverage in Wireless Sensor Networks.'' In \emph{Performance - Computing and Communications Conference (IPCCC), 2009 IEEE 28th - International,} 1--8. IEEE. - \bibitem[Vu et~al.(2006)Vu, Gao, Deshmukh, and Li]{ChinhVu} Vu, Chinh, Shan Gao, Wiwek Deshmukh, and Yingshu Li. 2006. ``Distributed Energy-Efficient Scheduling Approach for K-Coverage in Wireless Sensor diff --git a/PeCO-EO/articleeo.blg b/PeCO-EO/articleeo.blg index a69b1a0..5b7e31d 100644 --- a/PeCO-EO/articleeo.blg +++ b/PeCO-EO/articleeo.blg @@ -10,43 +10,43 @@ I'm skipping whatever remains of this entry Reallocated wiz_functions (elt_size=4) to 6000 items from 3000. You've used 45 entries, 3679 wiz_defined-function locations, - 980 strings with 14132 characters, -and the built_in function-call counts, 32279 in all, are: -= -- 2639 -> -- 1697 + 981 strings with 13992 characters, +and the built_in function-call counts, 31913 in all, are: += -- 2611 +> -- 1659 < -- 4 -+ -- 837 -- -- 462 -* -- 2250 -:= -- 4701 -add.period$ -- 102 ++ -- 813 +- -- 452 +* -- 2224 +:= -- 4663 +add.period$ -- 101 call.type$ -- 45 -change.case$ -- 305 +change.case$ -- 302 chr.to.int$ -- 52 cite$ -- 45 -duplicate$ -- 2431 -empty$ -- 2397 -format.name$ -- 575 -if$ -- 6615 +duplicate$ -- 2408 +empty$ -- 2378 +format.name$ -- 562 +if$ -- 6532 int.to.chr$ -- 2 int.to.str$ -- 1 -missing$ -- 435 +missing$ -- 431 newline$ -- 146 num.names$ -- 180 -pop$ -- 1292 +pop$ -- 1269 preamble$ -- 1 -purify$ -- 303 +purify$ -- 300 quote$ -- 0 -skip$ -- 1135 +skip$ -- 1121 stack$ -- 0 -substring$ -- 1347 -swap$ -- 1121 +substring$ -- 1343 +swap$ -- 1112 text.length$ -- 2 text.prefix$ -- 0 top$ -- 0 type$ -- 402 warning$ -- 0 -while$ -- 252 +while$ -- 250 width$ -- 0 -write$ -- 503 +write$ -- 502 (There was 1 error message) diff --git a/PeCO-EO/articleeo.log b/PeCO-EO/articleeo.log index b51e886..08b5092 100644 --- a/PeCO-EO/articleeo.log +++ b/PeCO-EO/articleeo.log @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -This is pdfTeX, Version 3.1415926-2.4-1.40.13 (TeX Live 2012/Debian) (format=pdflatex 2013.9.3) 28 SEP 2015 10:48 +This is pdfTeX, Version 3.1415926-2.4-1.40.13 (TeX Live 2012/Debian) (format=pdflatex 2013.9.3) 29 SEP 2015 11:04 entering extended mode restricted \write18 enabled. %&-line parsing enabled. @@ -825,11 +825,11 @@ Overfull \vbox (701.0pt too high) has occurred while \output is active [] [10] -LaTeX Font Warning: Command \scriptsize invalid in math mode on input line 702. +LaTeX Font Warning: Command \scriptsize invalid in math mode on input line 703. -LaTeX Font Warning: Command \scriptsize invalid in math mode on input line 714. +LaTeX Font Warning: Command \scriptsize invalid in math mode on input line 715. @@ -858,23 +858,23 @@ Overfull \vbox (701.0pt too high) has occurred while \output is active [] [11] -LaTeX Font Warning: Command \scriptsize invalid in math mode on input line 728. +LaTeX Font Warning: Command \scriptsize invalid in math mode on input line 729. -LaTeX Font Warning: Command \scriptsize invalid in math mode on input line 734. +LaTeX Font Warning: Command \scriptsize invalid in math mode on input line 735. -LaTeX Font Warning: Command \scriptsize invalid in math mode on input line 740. +LaTeX Font Warning: Command \scriptsize invalid in math mode on input line 741. -LaTeX Font Warning: Command \scriptsize invalid in math mode on input line 742. +LaTeX Font Warning: Command \scriptsize invalid in math mode on input line 743. -LaTeX Font Warning: Command \scriptsize invalid in math mode on input line 744. +LaTeX Font Warning: Command \scriptsize invalid in math mode on input line 745. @@ -913,14 +913,14 @@ Package epstopdf Info: Source file: (epstopdf) size: 12638 bytes (epstopdf) Command: -(epstopdf) \includegraphics on input line 831. +(epstopdf) \includegraphics on input line 832. Package epstopdf Info: Output file is already uptodate. File: figure5-eps-converted-to.pdf Graphic file (type pdf) -Package pdftex.def Info: figure5-eps-converted-to.pdf used on input line 831. +Package pdftex.def Info: figure5-eps-converted-to.pdf used on input line 832. (pdftex.def) Requested size: 242.40503pt x 175.15395pt. @@ -934,13 +934,13 @@ Package epstopdf Info: Source file: (epstopdf) size: 12695 bytes (epstopdf) Command: -(epstopdf) \includegraphics on input line 850. +(epstopdf) \includegraphics on input line 851. Package epstopdf Info: Output file is already uptodate. File: figure6-eps-converted-to.pdf Graphic file (type pdf) -Package pdftex.def Info: figure6-eps-converted-to.pdf used on input line 850. +Package pdftex.def Info: figure6-eps-converted-to.pdf used on input line 851. (pdftex.def) Requested size: 242.40503pt x 175.15395pt. @@ -982,23 +982,20 @@ Package epstopdf Info: Source file: (epstopdf) size: 12896 bytes (epstopdf) Command: -(epstopdf) \includegraphics on input line 864. +(epstopdf) \includegraphics on input line 881. Package epstopdf Info: Output file is already uptodate. File: ESR-eps-converted-to.pdf Graphic file (type pdf) -Package pdftex.def Info: ESR-eps-converted-to.pdf used on input line 864. +Package pdftex.def Info: ESR-eps-converted-to.pdf used on input line 881. (pdftex.def) Requested size: 242.40503pt x 175.15395pt. LaTeX Warning: `!h' float specifier changed to `!ht'. -Underfull \vbox (badness 2042) has occurred while \output is active [] - - Underfull \vbox (badness 10000) has occurred while \output is active [] @@ -1031,14 +1028,14 @@ Package epstopdf Info: Source file: (epstopdf) size: 8179 bytes (epstopdf) Command: -(epstopdf) \includegraphics on input line 892. +(epstopdf) \includegraphics on input line 907. Package epstopdf Info: Output file is already uptodate. File: figure7a-eps-converted-to.pdf Graphic file (type pdf) -Package pdftex.def Info: figure7a-eps-converted-to.pdf used on input line 892. +Package pdftex.def Info: figure7a-eps-converted-to.pdf used on input line 907. (pdftex.def) Requested size: 246.92189pt x 175.15395pt. Package epstopdf Info: Source file: (epstopdf) date: 2015-02-06 11:42:02 @@ -1048,14 +1045,14 @@ Package epstopdf Info: Source file: (epstopdf) size: 8180 bytes (epstopdf) Command: -(epstopdf) \includegraphics on input line 893. +(epstopdf) \includegraphics on input line 908. Package epstopdf Info: Output file is already uptodate. File: figure7b-eps-converted-to.pdf Graphic file (type pdf) -Package pdftex.def Info: figure7b-eps-converted-to.pdf used on input line 893. +Package pdftex.def Info: figure7b-eps-converted-to.pdf used on input line 908. (pdftex.def) Requested size: 246.92189pt x 175.15395pt. @@ -1069,13 +1066,13 @@ Package epstopdf Info: Source file: (epstopdf) size: 8351 bytes (epstopdf) Command: -(epstopdf) \includegraphics on input line 916. +(epstopdf) \includegraphics on input line 931. Package epstopdf Info: Output file is already uptodate. File: figure8a-eps-converted-to.pdf Graphic file (type pdf) -Package pdftex.def Info: figure8a-eps-converted-to.pdf used on input line 916. +Package pdftex.def Info: figure8a-eps-converted-to.pdf used on input line 931. (pdftex.def) Requested size: 246.92189pt x 175.15395pt. Package epstopdf Info: Source file: (epstopdf) date: 2015-02-06 11:42:03 @@ -1085,19 +1082,42 @@ Package epstopdf Info: Source file: (epstopdf) size: 8466 bytes (epstopdf) Command: -(epstopdf) \includegraphics on input line 917. +(epstopdf) \includegraphics on input line 932. Package epstopdf Info: Output file is already uptodate. File: figure8b-eps-converted-to.pdf Graphic file (type pdf) -Package pdftex.def Info: figure8b-eps-converted-to.pdf used on input line 917. +Package pdftex.def Info: figure8b-eps-converted-to.pdf used on input line 932. (pdftex.def) Requested size: 246.92189pt x 175.15395pt. LaTeX Warning: `!h' float specifier changed to `!ht'. +Package epstopdf Info: Source file: +(epstopdf) date: 2015-09-28 10:13:03 +(epstopdf) size: 26999 bytes +(epstopdf) Output file: +(epstopdf) date: 2015-09-28 10:24:52 +(epstopdf) size: 7928 bytes +(epstopdf) Command: +(epstopdf) \includegraphics on input line 953. +Package epstopdf Info: Output file is already uptodate. + +File: figure9-eps-converted-to.pdf Graphic file (type pdf) + + +Package pdftex.def Info: figure9-eps-converted-to.pdf used on input line 953. +(pdftex.def) Requested size: 266.647pt x 192.6704pt. + + +LaTeX Warning: `!h' float specifier changed to `!ht'. + + +Underfull \vbox (badness 8189) has occurred while \output is active [] + Underfull \vbox (badness 10000) has occurred while \output is active [] @@ -1123,27 +1143,6 @@ Overfull \vbox (29.0pt too high) has occurred while \output is active [] Overfull \vbox (701.0pt too high) has occurred while \output is active [] [15 <./ESR-eps-converted-to.pdf>] -Package epstopdf Info: Source file: -(epstopdf) date: 2015-09-28 10:13:03 -(epstopdf) size: 26999 bytes -(epstopdf) Output file: -(epstopdf) date: 2015-09-28 10:24:52 -(epstopdf) size: 7928 bytes -(epstopdf) Command: -(epstopdf) \includegraphics on input line 937. -Package epstopdf Info: Output file is already uptodate. - - -File: figure9-eps-converted-to.pdf Graphic file (type pdf) - - -Package pdftex.def Info: figure9-eps-converted-to.pdf used on input line 937. -(pdftex.def) Requested size: 266.647pt x 192.6704pt. - - -LaTeX Warning: `!h' float specifier changed to `!ht'. - LaTeX Warning: `h' float specifier changed to `ht'. @@ -1157,9 +1156,6 @@ Underfull \vbox (badness 10000) has occurred while \output is active [] Underfull \vbox (badness 10000) has occurred while \output is active [] -Underfull \vbox (badness 10000) has occurred while \output is active [] - - Overfull \vbox (36.0pt too high) has occurred while \output is active [] @@ -1200,6 +1196,12 @@ Overfull \vbox (701.0pt too high) has occurred while \output is active [] [17 <./figure8a-eps-converted-to.pdf> <./figure8b-eps-converted-to.pdf> <./fig ure9-eps-converted-to.pdf>] (./articleeo.bbl +Underfull \hbox (badness 6658) in paragraph at lines 48--50 +[]\OT1/cmr/m/n/10 CPLEX, Op-ti-mizer. 2010. ``IBM ILOG CPLEX Op-ti-mizer.'' \OT +1/cmr/m/it/10 Avail-able: http://www- + [] + + Underfull \vbox (badness 10000) has occurred while \output is active [] @@ -1224,13 +1226,7 @@ Overfull \vbox (29.0pt too high) has occurred while \output is active [] Overfull \vbox (701.0pt too high) has occurred while \output is active [] [18] -Underfull \hbox (badness 6658) in paragraph at lines 48--50 -[]\OT1/cmr/m/n/10 CPLEX, Op-ti-mizer. 2010. ``IBM ILOG CPLEX Op-ti-mizer.'' \OT -1/cmr/m/it/10 Avail-able: http://www- - [] - - -Underfull \hbox (badness 4024) in paragraph at lines 130--132 +Underfull \hbox (badness 4024) in paragraph at lines 134--136 []\OT1/cmr/m/n/10 Makhorin, An-drew. 2012. ``The GLPK (GNU Lin-ear Pro-gram-min g Kit).'' \OT1/cmr/m/it/10 Avail-able: [] @@ -1266,7 +1262,7 @@ Overfull \vbox (701.0pt too high) has occurred while \output is active [] Missing character: There is no à in font cmr10! Missing character: There is no © in font cmr10! -Underfull \hbox (badness 10000) in paragraph at lines 171--173 +Underfull \hbox (badness 10000) in paragraph at lines 175--177 []\OT1/cmr/m/n/10 Varga, A. 2003. ``OM-NeT++ Dis-crete Event Sim-u-la-tion Sys- tem.'' \OT1/cmr/m/it/10 Avail-able: [] @@ -1307,12 +1303,12 @@ LaTeX Font Warning: Some font shapes were not available, defaults substituted. ) Here is how much of TeX's memory you used: 4874 strings out of 495059 - 63696 string characters out of 3182031 - 150122 words of memory out of 3000000 + 63672 string characters out of 3182031 + 150098 words of memory out of 3000000 7967 multiletter control sequences out of 15000+200000 14560 words of font info for 56 fonts, out of 3000000 for 9000 14 hyphenation exceptions out of 8191 - 41i,19n,27p,963b,385s stack positions out of 5000i,500n,10000p,200000b,50000s + 41i,19n,27p,518b,385s stack positions out of 5000i,500n,10000p,200000b,50000s -Output written on articleeo.pdf (20 pages, 763694 bytes). +Output written on articleeo.pdf (20 pages, 762722 bytes). PDF statistics: 222 PDF objects out of 1000 (max. 8388607) 151 compressed objects within 2 object streams diff --git a/PeCO-EO/articleeo.pdf b/PeCO-EO/articleeo.pdf index 3af0e9d..9d39aa2 100644 Binary files a/PeCO-EO/articleeo.pdf and b/PeCO-EO/articleeo.pdf differ diff --git a/PeCO-EO/articleeo.tex b/PeCO-EO/articleeo.tex index 317f168..5ba7f55 100644 --- a/PeCO-EO/articleeo.tex +++ b/PeCO-EO/articleeo.tex @@ -865,9 +865,7 @@ keeping a greater coverage ratio as shown in Figure \ref{figure5}. 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 + 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 @@ -938,16 +936,17 @@ time, and the lifetime with a coverage over 50\% is far longer than with 95\%. \end{figure} Figure~\ref{figure9} compares the lifetime coverage of the DiLCO and PeCO protocols -for different coverage ratios. We denote by Protocol/50, Protocol/80, +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 $50\%$, $80\%$, $85\%$, +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 area to be monitored. For example, forest fire application might require complete coverage -in summer seasons while only requires 80$\%$ of the area to be covered in rainy seasons \cite{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 \cite{vu2009universal}. 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\cite{wang2014keeping}}. PeCO might be an interesting method since it achieves a good balance between a high level coverage ratio and network lifetime. PeCO -always outperforms DiLCO for the three lower coverage ratios, moreover the -improvements grow with the network size. \textcolor{blue}{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.} +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 +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. \begin{figure}[h!] diff --git a/PeCO-EO/articleeo.tex~ b/PeCO-EO/articleeo.tex~ index ab832ae..5ba7f55 100644 --- a/PeCO-EO/articleeo.tex~ +++ b/PeCO-EO/articleeo.tex~ @@ -506,7 +506,8 @@ $RE_k$, which must be greater than a threshold $E_{th}$ in order to participate 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. \textcolor{blue}{We suppose that 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 their 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)} +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).} The sensors inside a same region cooperate to elect a leader. The selection criteria for the leader are (in order of priority): \begin{enumerate} @@ -719,7 +720,7 @@ approach. of sensors in the network. \item {\bf \textcolor{blue}{Energy Saving Ratio (ESR)}}: -\textcolor{blue}{we consider a performance metric linked to energy. This metric, called Energy Saving Ratio (ESR), is defined by: +\textcolor{blue}{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}} @@ -854,8 +855,24 @@ keeping a greater coverage ratio as shown in Figure \ref{figure5}. \subsubsection{\textcolor{blue}{Energy Saving Ratio (ESR)}} -\textcolor{blue}{In this experiment, we consider an Energy Saving Ratio (see Figure~\ref{fig5}) for 200 deployed nodes. -The longer the ratio is, the more redundant sensor nodes are switched off, and consequently the longer the network may live. } +%\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.} \begin{figure}[h!] %\centering @@ -866,8 +883,6 @@ The longer the ratio is, the more redundant sensor nodes are switched off, \label{fig5} \end{figure} -\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 balance the energy consumption among sensor nodes inside each small fixed grid that 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 togehter. After that GAF provide less energy saving compared with other approches because of the large number of dead nodes. DESK algorithm shows less energy saving compared with other approaches due to activate a larg number of sensors during the sensing. DiLCO protocol provides less energy saving ratio commpared 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{Energy Consumption} @@ -921,16 +936,17 @@ time, and the lifetime with a coverage over 50\% is far longer than with 95\%. \end{figure} Figure~\ref{figure9} compares the lifetime coverage of the DiLCO and PeCO protocols -for different coverage ratios. We denote by Protocol/50, Protocol/80, +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 $50\%$, $80\%$, $85\%$, +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 area to be monitored. For example, forest fire application might require complete coverage -in summer seasons while only requires 80$\%$ of the area to be covered in rainy seasons \cite{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 \cite{vu2009universal}. 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\cite{wang2014keeping}}. PeCO might be an interesting method since it achieves a good balance between a high level coverage ratio and network lifetime. PeCO -always outperforms DiLCO for the three lower coverage ratios, moreover the -improvements grow with the network size. \textcolor{blue}{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.} +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 +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. \begin{figure}[h!] @@ -1013,6 +1029,6 @@ received support. This work is also partially funded by the Labex ACTION program (contract ANR-11-LABX-01-01). \bibliographystyle{gENO} -\bibliography{biblio} % biblio +\bibliography{biblio} %articleeo \end{document} diff --git a/PeCO-EO/biblio.bib b/PeCO-EO/biblio.bib index 1ebdbe7..7a8191e 100644 --- a/PeCO-EO/biblio.bib +++ b/PeCO-EO/biblio.bib @@ -1082,3 +1082,14 @@ year = {2010} year={2014} } +@ARTICLE{1279193, +author={Kumagai, J.}, +journal={Spectrum, IEEE}, +title={Life of birds [wireless sensor network for bird study]}, +year={2004}, +volume={41}, +number={4}, +pages={42-49}, +month={April} +} + diff --git a/PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex b/PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex index 7141bae..c695a98 100644 --- a/PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex +++ b/PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ by Ali Kadhum Idrees, Karine Deschinkel, Michel Salomon and Raph\"ael Couturier Dear Editor and Reviewers, -Comments (here in red color) raised by the reviewer n°1 after a first revision have been carefully considered. Please find below our answers highlighted in green. We did our best to satisfy your requests. +Comments (here in red color) raised by the reviewer n\textsuperscript{o}1 after a first revision have been carefully considered. Please find below our answers highlighted in green. We did our best to satisfy your requests. %Journal: Engineering Optimization %Reviewer's Comment to the Author Manuscript id GENO-2015-0094 @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ Comments (here in red color) raised by the reviewer n°1 after a first revision -\noindent {\bf 3.} The communication and information sharing required to +\noindent {\textbf{3. \textsc{Reviewer's comment:} } } The communication and information sharing required to cooperate and make these decisions was not discussed.\\ \textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} The communication and information @@ -65,9 +65,9 @@ cooperate and make these decisions was not discussed.\\ \textcolor{red}{\textbf{\textsc{Reviewer's response:} I see at the end of page 8 the description of the INFO packet. However, you are not including any description of the position coordinates, remaining energy, sensor node ID, etc. in the write up. I suggest adding this into the write up to make the communication clear.}}\\ -\textcolor{green}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} Right, we have included more description about the INFO packet and the ActiveSleep packet into the write up at the end of section~3.}}\\ +\textcolor{green}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} Right, we have included more description about the INFO packet and the ActiveSleep packet at the end of section~3.}}\\ -\noindent {\bf 7.} The methodology is implemented in OMNeT++ (network simulator) +\noindent {\textbf{7. \textsc{Reviewer's comment:}}} The methodology is implemented in OMNeT++ (network simulator) and tested against 2 existing algorithms and a previously developed method by the authors. The simulation results are thorough and show that the proposed method improves the coverage and network lifetime compared with the 3 existing @@ -86,13 +86,13 @@ about the way you formulated the problem. The mathematical optimization model is contribution but it's less convincing since the results are slightly better if not the same for the two methodologies you have developed. Could you include some other measure that shows that the PeCO is better? Maybe include computation time or something that is as convincing as the energy -consumed per sensor.}} +consumed per sensor.}}\\ \textcolor{green}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} In fact, we defined in section 5.1 a new performance metric linked to the energy, called Energy Saving Ratio (ESR). We added a new section (5.2.3) in the result part related to this performance metric which shows that our PeCO protocol provides better energy saving compared with other approaches.}}\\ -\noindent {\bf 8.} Since this paper is attacking the coverage problem, I would +\noindent {8. \textbf{\textsc{Reviewer's comment:}}} Since this paper is attacking the coverage problem, I would like to see more information on the amount of coverage the algorithm is achieving. It seems that there is a tradeoff in this algorithm that allows the network to increase its lifetime but does not improve the coverage ratio. This @@ -112,10 +112,9 @@ sentence though, "DiLCO is better for coverage ratios near $100\%$, but in that you would want to have a coverage ratio of $50\%$? This seems like a very small ratio and as you increase it, DiLCO becomes the methodology that has the maximum network lifetime. If you don't include application examples, your statement "Indeed there are applications that do not require a -100$\%$ coverage of the area to be monitored." stronger. }} +100$\%$ coverage of the area to be monitored." stronger. }}\\ -\textcolor{green}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} Thank you so much to your suggestion for adjusting the sentence in the end of Section 5.2.5. (previously Section 5.2.4.), It is done. -For the applications, we added some applications examples in the end of the sentence "Indeed there are applications that do not require a 100$\%$ coverage of the area to be monitored." as well as we changed the figure 10 (previously figure 9) by adding DilCO/70 and PecO/70 instead of DilCO/50 and PeCO/50 }}\\ +\textcolor{green}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} Thank you so much for your suggestion, we modified the sentence at the end of Section 5.2.5. (previously Section 5.2.4.). As recommended, we added some applications examples. We also changed the figure 10 (previously figure 9) by replacing DilCO/50 and PecO/50 by DilCO/70 and PeCO/70.}}\\