From: raphael couturier Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 19:55:41 +0000 (+0100) Subject: end of reading X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/LiCO.git/commitdiff_plain/b9b0f889622d304376ba7fa4f355e1eba7481ae9?ds=inline end of reading --- diff --git a/LiCO_Journal.tex b/LiCO_Journal.tex index 7e788d4..ad465b3 100644 --- a/LiCO_Journal.tex +++ b/LiCO_Journal.tex @@ -726,7 +726,7 @@ different node densities going from 100 to 300~nodes were performed considering each time 25~randomly generated networks. The nodes are deployed on a field of interest of $(50 \times 25)~m^2 $ in such a way that they cover the field with a high coverage ratio. Each node has an initial energy level, in Joules, which is -randomly drawn in the interval $[500-700]$. If it's energy provision reaches a +randomly drawn in the interval $[500-700]$. If its energy provision reaches a value below the threshold $E_{th}=36$~Joules, the minimum energy needed for a node to stay active during one period, it will no more participate in the coverage task. This value corresponds to the energy needed by the sensing phase, @@ -821,6 +821,7 @@ one, called DESK, is a fully distributed coverage algorithm proposed by \cite{ChinhVu}. The second one, called GAF~\cite{xu2001geography}, consists in dividing the monitoring area into fixed squares. Then, during the decision phase, in each square, one sensor is chosen to remain active during the sensing +%%RC can we download DILCO? phase. The last one, the DiLCO protocol~\cite{Idrees2}, is an improved version of a research work we presented in~\cite{idrees2014coverage}. Let us notice that LiCO and DiLCO protocols are based on the same framework. In particular, the @@ -920,7 +921,7 @@ different network sizes. As highlighted by these figures, the lifetime increases with the size of the network, and it is clearly the larger for DiLCO and LiCO protocols. For instance, for a network of 300~sensors and coverage ratio greater than 50\%, we can see on Figure~\ref{fig3LT}(b) that the lifetime -is about two times longer with LiCO compared to DESK protocol. The performance +is about twice longer with LiCO compared to DESK protocol. The performance difference is more obvious in Figure~\ref{fig3LT}(b) than in Figure~\ref{fig3LT}(a) because the gain induced by our protocols increases with the time, and the lifetime with a coverage of 50\% is far more longer than with @@ -964,7 +965,7 @@ not so bad for the smallest network sizes. \label{sec:Conclusion and Future Works} In this paper we have studied the problem of lifetime coverage optimization in -WSNs. We designed a new protocol, called Lifetime Coverage Optimization, which +WSNs. We have designed a new protocol, called Lifetime Coverage Optimization, which schedules nodes' activities (wake up and sleep stages) with the objective of maintaining a good coverage ratio while maximizing the network lifetime. This protocol is applied in a distributed way in regular subregions obtained after @@ -982,7 +983,7 @@ targets/points to be covered. %periods, each period consists of four stages: (i) Information Exchange, %(ii) Leader Election, (iii) a Decision based new optimization model in order to %select the nodes remaining active for the last stage, and (iv) Sensing. -We carried out several simulations to evaluate the proposed protocol. The +We have carried out several simulations to evaluate the proposed protocol. The simulation results show that LiCO is more energy-efficient than other approaches, with respect to lifetime, coverage ratio, active sensors ratio, and energy consumption. @@ -1000,8 +1001,8 @@ sensor-testbed to evaluate it in real world applications. \noindent As a Ph.D. student, Ali Kadhum IDREES would like to gratefully acknowledge the University of Babylon - IRAQ for financial support and Campus -France for the received support. This work has also been supported by the Labex -ACTION. +France for the received support. This work is also partially funded by the Labex ACTION program (contract ANR-11-LABX-01-01). + \ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff \newpage