%\subsubsection{The percentage of stopped simulation runs}
Figure~\ref{Figures/ch4/R1/SR} illustrates the percentage of stopped simulation runs per period for 150 deployed nodes. DiLCO-2 is the approach which stops first because it applies the optimization on only two subregions and the high energy consumption accelerate the network disconnection. Thus, as explained previously, in case of DiLCO-16 and DiLCO-32 which have many subregions, the optimization effectively continues as long as a subnetwork in a subregion is still connected. This longer partial coverage optimization participates in extending the network lifetime.
-\begin{figure}[h!]
+\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R1/SR.pdf}
\caption{Percentage of stopped simulation runs for 150 deployed nodes }
\item {{\bf Energy Consumption}}
%\subsubsection{The Energy Consumption}
-We measure the energy consumed by the sensors during the communication, listening, computation, active, and sleep modes for different network densities and compare it for different subregions. Figures~\ref{Figures/ch4/R1/EC95} and ~\ref{Figures/ch4/R1/EC50} illustrate the energy consumption for different network sizes for $Lifetime_{95}$ and $Lifetime_{50}$. The results show that DiLCO-16 and DiLCO-32 are the most competitive from the energy consumption point of view. The other approaches have a high energy consumption due to the energy consumed during the different modes of the sensor node.
+We measure the energy consumed by the sensors during the communication, listening, computation, active, and sleep modes for different network densities and compare it for different subregions. Figures~\ref{Figures/ch4/R1/EC}(a) and~\ref{Figures/ch4/R1/EC}(b) illustrate the energy consumption for different network sizes for $Lifetime_{95}$ and $Lifetime_{50}$. The results show that DiLCO-16 and DiLCO-32 are the most competitive from the energy consumption point of view. The other approaches have a high energy consumption due to the energy consumed during the different modes of the sensor node.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
-\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R1/EC95.pdf}
-\caption{Energy Consumption for $Lifetime_{95}$}
-\label{Figures/ch4/R1/EC95}
-\end{figure}
-
-As shown in Figures~\ref{Figures/ch4/R1/EC95} and ~\ref{Figures/ch4/R1/EC50}, DiLCO-2 consumes more energy than the other versions of DiLCO, especially for large sizes of network. This is easy to understand since the bigger the number of sensors involved in the integer program, the larger the computation time to solve the optimization problem, as well as the higher energy consumed during the communication.
-\begin{figure}[h!]
+ %\begin{multicols}{1}
\centering
-\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R1/EC50.pdf}
-\caption{Energy Consumption for $Lifetime_{50}$}
-\label{Figures/ch4/R1/EC50}
-\end{figure}
-In fact, the distribution of the computation over many subregions greatly reduces the number of communications, the time of listening and computation.
+\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R1/EC95.pdf}\\~ ~ ~ ~ ~(a) \\
+%\vfill
+\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R1/EC50.pdf}\\~ ~ ~ ~ ~(b)
+
+%\end{multicols}
+\caption{Energy consumption for (a) $Lifetime_{95}$ and (b) $Lifetime_{50}$}
+\label{Figures/ch4/R1/EC}
+\end{figure}
+
+As shown in Figures~\ref{Figures/ch4/R1/EC}(a) and~\ref{Figures/ch4/R1/EC}(b), DiLCO-2 consumes more energy than the other versions of DiLCO, especially for large sizes of network. This is easy to understand since the bigger the number of sensors involved in the integer program, the larger the computation time to solve the optimization problem, as well as the higher energy consumed during the communication. In fact, the distribution of the computation over many subregions greatly reduces the number of communications, the time of listening and computation.
\item {{\bf Execution Time}}
%\subsubsection{Execution Time}
-In this experiment, the execution time of the distributed optimization approach has been studied. Figure~\ref{Figures/ch4/R1/T} gives the average execution times in seconds for the decision phase (solving of the optimization problem) during one period. They are given for the different approaches and various numbers of sensors. The original execution time is computed as described in section \ref{ch4:sec:04:04}.
+In this experiment, the execution time of the distributed optimization approach has been studied. Figure~\ref{Figures/ch4/R1/T} gives the average execution times in seconds for the decision phase (solving of the optimization problem) during one period. They are given for the different approaches and various numbers of sensors. The original execution time is computed as described in section \ref{ch4:sec:04:04}. \\ \\ \\ \\
-We can see from Figure~\ref{Figures/ch4/R1/T} that DiLCO-32 has very low execution times in comparison with other DiLCO versions because it is distributed on larger number of small subregions. Conversely, DiLCO-2 requires to solve an optimization problem considering half the nodes in each subregion and thus presents high execution times. Overall, to be able to deal with very large networks, a distributed method is clearly required.
-\begin{figure}[h!]
+
+\begin{figure}[h!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R1/T.pdf}
\caption{Execution Time (in seconds)}
\label{Figures/ch4/R1/T}
\end{figure}
-
+We can see from Figure~\ref{Figures/ch4/R1/T} that DiLCO-32 has very low execution times in comparison with other DiLCO versions because it is distributed on larger number of small subregions. Conversely, DiLCO-2 requires to solve an optimization problem considering half the nodes in each subregion and thus presents high execution times. Overall, to be able to deal with very large networks, a distributed method is clearly required.
\item {{\bf Network Lifetime}}
%\subsubsection{The Network Lifetime}
-In Figure~\ref{Figures/ch4/R1/LT95} and \ref{Figures/ch4/R1/LT50}, network lifetime, $Lifetime_{95}$ and $Lifetime_{50}$ respectively, are illustrated for different network sizes.
+In Figures~\ref{Figures/ch4/R1/LT}(a) and \ref{Figures/ch4/R1/LT}(b), network lifetime, $Lifetime_{95}$ and $Lifetime_{50}$ respectively, are illustrated for different network sizes.
+
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
-\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R1/LT95.pdf}
-\caption{Network Lifetime for $Lifetime_{95}$}
-\label{Figures/ch4/R1/LT95}
-\end{figure}
-For DiLCO-2 protocol, execution times quickly become unsuitable for a sensor network, and the energy consumed during the communication, seems to be huge because it is distributed over only two subregions.
+\centering
+\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R1/LT95.pdf}\\~ ~ ~ ~ ~(a) \\
-As highlighted by figures~\ref{Figures/ch4/R1/LT95} and \ref{Figures/ch4/R1/LT50}, the network lifetime obviously increases when the size of the network increases. The network lifetime also increases with the number of subregions, but only up to a given number. Thus we can see that DiLCO-16 leads to the larger lifetime improvement and not DiLCO-32. In fact, DilCO-32 protocol puts in active mode a larger number of sensor nodes especially near the borders of the subdivisions. It means that distributing the protocol in each node and subdividing the sensing field into many subregions, which are managed independently and simultaneously, is a relevant way to maximize the lifetime of a network.
+\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R1/LT50.pdf}\\~ ~ ~ ~ ~(b)
+
+\caption{Network lifetime for (a) $Lifetime_{95}$ and (b) $Lifetime_{50}$}
+ \label{Figures/ch4/R1/LT}
+\end{figure}
+
+For DiLCO-2 protocol, execution times quickly become unsuitable for a sensor network, and the energy consumed during the communication, seems to be huge because it is distributed over only two subregions. As highlighted by Figures~\ref{Figures/ch4/R1/LT}(a) and \ref{Figures/ch4/R1/LT}(b), the network lifetime obviously increases when the size of the network increases. The network lifetime also increases with the number of subregions, but only up to a given number. Thus we can see that DiLCO-16 leads to the larger lifetime improvement and not DiLCO-32. In fact, DilCO-32 protocol puts in active mode a larger number of sensor nodes especially near the borders of the subdivisions. It means that distributing the protocol in each node and subdividing the sensing field into many subregions, which are managed independently and simultaneously, is a relevant way to maximize the lifetime of a network.
-\begin{figure}[h!]
-\centering
-\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R1/LT50.pdf}
-\caption{Network Lifetime for $Lifetime_{50}$}
-\label{Figures/ch4/R1/LT50}
-\end{figure}
\end{enumerate}
\item {{\bf Energy Consumption}}
%\subsubsection{The Energy Consumption}
-In this experiment, we study the effect of increasing the primary points to represent the area of the sensor on the energy consumed by the wireless sensor network for different network densities. Figures~\ref{Figures/ch4/R2/EC95} and ~\ref{Figures/ch4/R2/EC50} illustrate the energy consumption for different network sizes for $Lifetime_{95}$ and $Lifetime_{50}$.
+In this experiment, we study the effect of increasing the primary points to represent the area of the sensor on the energy consumed by the wireless sensor network for different network densities. Figures~\ref{Figures/ch4/R2/EC}(a) and~\ref{Figures/ch4/R2/EC}(b) illustrate the energy consumption for different network sizes for $Lifetime_{95}$ and $Lifetime_{50}$.
+
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
-\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R2/EC95.pdf}
-\caption{Energy Consumption with $Lifetime_{95}$}
-\label{Figures/ch4/R2/EC95}
-\end{figure}
-
-\begin{figure}[h!]
+ %\begin{multicols}{1}
\centering
-\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R2/EC50.pdf}
-\caption{Energy Consumption with $Lifetime_{50}$}
-\label{Figures/ch4/R2/EC50}
-\end{figure}
+\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R2/EC95.pdf}\\~ ~ ~ ~ ~(a) \\
+%\vfill
+\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R2/EC50.pdf}\\~ ~ ~ ~ ~(b)
+
+%\end{multicols}
+\caption{Energy consumption for (a) $Lifetime_{95}$ and (b) $Lifetime_{50}$}
+\label{Figures/ch4/R2/EC}
+\end{figure}
We see from the results presented in both figures that the energy consumed by the network for each period increases when the number of primary points increases. Indeed, the decision for the optimization process requires more time, which leads to consuming more energy during the listening mode. The results show that Model-5 is the most competitive from the energy consumption point of view and the coverage ratio point of view. The other models have a high energy consumption due to the increase in the primary points. In fact, Model-5 is a good candidate to be used by wireless sensor network because it preserves a good coverage ratio with a suitable energy consumption in comparison with other models.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R2/T.pdf}
-\caption{Execution Time(s) vs The Number of Sensors }
+\caption{Execution Time (in seconds)}
\label{Figures/ch4/R2/T}
\end{figure}
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/LT95} and \ref{Figures/ch4/R2/LT50}, the network lifetime obviously increases when the size of the network increases, with Model-5 that leads to the larger lifetime improvement. 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.
-
-\begin{figure}[h!]
-\centering
-\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R2/LT95.pdf}
-\caption{Network Lifetime for $Lifetime_{95}$}
-\label{Figures/ch4/R2/LT95}
-\end{figure}
+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. \\ \\
+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.
+
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
-\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R2/LT50.pdf}
-\caption{Network Lifetime for $Lifetime_{50}$}
-\label{Figures/ch4/R2/LT50}
-\end{figure}
+\centering
+\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R2/LT95.pdf}\\~ ~ ~ ~ ~(a) \\
+\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R2/LT50.pdf}\\~ ~ ~ ~ ~(b)
+
+\caption{Network lifetime for (a) $Lifetime_{95}$ and (b) $Lifetime_{50}$}
+ \label{Figures/ch4/R2/LT}
+\end{figure}
\end{enumerate}
%\subsubsection{Coverage Ratio}
The average coverage ratio for 150 deployed nodes is demonstrated in Figure~\ref{Figures/ch4/R3/CR}.
-
\parskip 0pt
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Coverage ratio for 150 deployed nodes}
\label{Figures/ch4/R3/CR}
\end{figure}
+DESK and GAF provide a little better coverage ratio with 99.99\% and 99.91\% against 98.4\% and 98.9\% produced by DiLCO-16 and DiLCO-32 for the lowest number of periods. \\ \\ \\
-DESK and GAF provide a little better coverage ratio with 99.99\% and 99.91\% against 98.4\% and 98.9\% produced by DiLCO-16 and DiLCO-32 for the lowest number of periods. This is due to the fact that DiLCO protocol versions put in sleep mode redundant sensors thanks to the optimization (which lightly decreases the coverage ratio), while there are more active nodes in the case of DESK and GAF.
+This is due to the fact that DiLCO protocol versions put in sleep mode redundant sensors thanks to the optimization (which lightly decreases the coverage ratio), while there are more active nodes in the case of DESK and GAF.
Moreover, when the number of periods increases, coverage ratio produced by DESK and GAF protocols decreases.
%This is due to dead nodes. However, DiLCO-16 protocol and DiLCO-32 protocol maintain almost a good coverage.
%\subsubsection{The Energy Consumption}
%In this experiment, we have studied the effect of the energy consumed by the wireless sensor network during the communication, computation, listening, active, and sleep modes for different network densities and compare it with other approaches.
-Figures~\ref{Figures/ch4/R3/EC95} and ~\ref{Figures/ch4/R3/EC50} illustrate the energy consumption for different network sizes for $Lifetime_{95}$ and $Lifetime_{50}$.
+Figures~\ref{Figures/ch4/R3/EC}(a) and~\ref{Figures/ch4/R3/EC}(b) illustrate the energy consumption for different network sizes for $Lifetime_{95}$ and $Lifetime_{50}$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
-\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R3/EC95.eps}
-\caption{Energy Consumption with $Lifetime_{95}$}
-\label{Figures/ch4/R3/EC95}
-\end{figure}
-
-\begin{figure}[h!]
+ %\begin{multicols}{1}
\centering
-\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R3/EC50.eps}
-\caption{Energy Consumption with $Lifetime_{50}$}
-\label{Figures/ch4/R3/EC50}
-\end{figure}
+\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R3/EC95.eps}\\~ ~ ~ ~ ~(a) \\
+%\vfill
+\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R3/EC50.eps}\\~ ~ ~ ~ ~(b)
+
+%\end{multicols}
+\caption{Energy consumption for (a) $Lifetime_{95}$ and (b) $Lifetime_{50}$}
+\label{Figures/ch4/R3/EC}
+\end{figure}
+
DiLCO-16 protocol and DiLCO-32 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.
%as well as the energy consumed during the different modes of sensor nodes.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
-\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R3/LT95.eps}
-\caption{Network Lifetime for $Lifetime_{95}$}
-\label{Figures/ch4/R3/LT95}
-\end{figure}
-
-
-\begin{figure}[h!]
+% \begin{multicols}{0}
\centering
-\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R3/LT50.eps}
-\caption{Network Lifetime for $Lifetime_{50}$}
-\label{Figures/ch4/R3/LT50}
-\end{figure}
+\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R3/LT95.eps}\\~ ~ ~ ~ ~(a) \\
+%\hfill
+\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R3/LT50.eps}\\~ ~ ~ ~ ~(b)
+
+%\end{multicols}
+\caption{Network lifetime for (a) $Lifetime_{95}$ and (b) $Lifetime_{50}$}
+ \label{Figures/ch4/R3/LT}
+\end{figure}
-As highlighted by figures~\ref{Figures/ch4/R3/LT95} and \ref{Figures/ch4/R3/LT50}, the network lifetime obviously increases when the size of the network increases, with DiLCO-16 protocol and DiLCO-32 protocol which lead to maximize the lifetime of the network compared with other approaches.
+As highlighted by Figures~\ref{Figures/ch4/R3/LT}(a) and \ref{Figures/ch4/R3/LT}(b), the network lifetime obviously increases when the size of the network increases, with DiLCO-16 protocol and DiLCO-32 protocol which lead to maximize the lifetime of the network compared with other approaches.
By choosing the best suited nodes, for each period, by optimizing the coverage and lifetime of the network to cover the area of interest and by letting the other ones sleep in order to be used later in next periods, DiLCO-16 protocol and DiLCO-32 protocol efficiently prolong the network lifetime.
Comparison shows that DiLCO-16 protocol and DiLCO-32 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.
%It also means that distributing the algorithm in each node and subdividing the sensing field into many subregions, which are managed independently and simultaneously, is the most relevant way to maximize the lifetime of a network.
