The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows. The next section is devoted to the DiLCO protocol description. Section \ref{ch4:sec:03} gives the primary points based coverage problem formulation which is used to schedule the activation of sensors. Section \ref{ch4:sec:04} shows the simulation results obtained using the discrete event simulator OMNeT++ \cite{ref158}. They fully demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed approach. Finally, we give concluding remarks in section \ref{ch4:sec:05}.
-
+\vfill
\section{Description of the DiLCO Protocol}
\label{ch4:sec:02}
An outline of the protocol implementation is given by Algorithm~\ref{alg:DiLCO} which describes the execution of a period by a node (denoted by $s_j$ for a sensor node indexed by $j$). In the beginning, a node checks whether it has enough energy to stay active during the next sensing phase (i.e., the remaining energy $RE_j$ $\geq$ $E_{th}$ (the amount of energy required to be alive during one period)). If yes, it exchanges information with all the other nodes belonging to the same subregion: it collects from each node its position coordinates, remaining energy ($RE_j$), ID, and the number of one-hop neighbors still alive. Once the first phase is completed, the nodes of a subregion choose a leader to take the decision based on the criteria described in section \ref{ch4:sec:02:03:02}.
%the following criteria with decreasing importance: larger number of neighbors, larger remaining energy, and then in case of equality, larger index.
-After that, if the sensor node is leader, it will execute the integer program algorithm (see Section~\ref{ch4:sec:03}) which provides a set of sensors planned to be active in the next sensing phase. As leader, it will send an ActiveSleep packet to each sensor in the same subregion to indicate it if it has to be active or not. Alternately, if the sensor is not the leader, it will wait for the ActiveSleep packet to know its state for the coming sensing phase. \textcolor{blue}{The flow chart of DiLCO protocol that executed in each sensor node is presented in \ref{flow4}.}
+After that, if the sensor node is leader, it will execute the integer program algorithm (see Section~\ref{ch4:sec:03}) which provides a set of sensors planned to be active in the next sensing phase. As leader, it will send an ActiveSleep packet to each sensor in the same subregion to indicate it if it has to be active or not. Alternately, if the sensor is not the leader, it will wait for the ActiveSleep packet to know its state for the coming sensing phase. The flowchart of DiLCO protocol executed in each sensor node is presented in Figure \ref{flow4}.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.50]{Figures/ch4/Algo1.png} % 70mm
-\caption{The flow chart of DiLCO protocol.}
+\caption{The flowchart of DiLCO protocol.}
\label{flow4}
\end{figure}
\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. \\ \\% \\ \\ \\
+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. % \\ \\ \\
\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.
+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.
\end{enumerate}
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.
+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 Active Sensors Ratio}}
%\subsubsection{Active Sensors Ratio}
\label{Figures/ch4/R2/SR}
\end{figure}
-When the number of primary points is increased, the percentage of the stopped simulation runs per period is increased. The reason behind the increase is the increasing number of dead sensors when the primary points increase. Model-5 is better than other models because it conserves more energy by turning on less sensors during the sensing phase and in the same time it preserves a good coverage for a larger number of periods in comparison with other models. Model~5 seems to be more suitable to be used in wireless sensor networks. \\
+When the number of primary points is increased, the percentage of the stopped simulation runs per period is increased. The reason behind the increase is the increasing number of dead sensors when the primary points increase. Model-5 is better than other models because it conserves more energy by turning on less sensors during the sensing phase and in the same time it preserves a good coverage for a larger number of periods in comparison with other models. Model~5 seems to be more suitable to be used in wireless sensor networks. \\\\\\\\
\item {{\bf Energy Consumption}}
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. \\ \\
+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.
\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.
\label{Figures/ch4/R3/ASR}
\end{figure}
-The results presented in Figure~\ref{Figures/ch4/R3/ASR} show the superiority of the proposed DiLCO-16 protocol and DiLCO-32 protocol, in comparison with the other approaches. DESK and GAF have, respectively, 37.5 \% and 44.5 \% active nodes, whereas DiLCO-16 and DiLCO-32 protocols compete perfectly with only 23.7 \% and 25.8 \% active nodes for the first 14 periods. Then as the number of periods increases DiLCO-16 and DiLCO-32 protocols have larger number of active nodes in comparison with DESK and GAF, especially from period $35^{th}$ because they give a better coverage ratio than other approaches. We see that DESK and GAF have less number of active nodes beginning at the periods $35^{th}$ and $32^{th}$ because there are many dead nodes due to the high energy consumption by the redundant nodes during the previous sensing phases. \\
+The results presented in Figure~\ref{Figures/ch4/R3/ASR} show the superiority of the proposed DiLCO-16 protocol and DiLCO-32 protocol, in comparison with the other approaches. DESK and GAF have, respectively, 37.5 \% and 44.5 \% active nodes, whereas DiLCO-16 and DiLCO-32 protocols compete perfectly with only 23.7 \% and 25.8 \% active nodes for the first 14 periods. \\\\\\\\\\\\Then as the number of periods increases DiLCO-16 and DiLCO-32 protocols have larger number of active nodes in comparison with DESK and GAF, especially from period $35^{th}$ because they give a better coverage ratio than other approaches. We see that DESK and GAF have less number of active nodes beginning at the periods $35^{th}$ and $32^{th}$ because there are many dead nodes due to the high energy consumption by the redundant nodes during the previous sensing phases.
\item {{\bf Stopped simulation runs}}
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.
-In fact, the distribution of computation over the subregions greatly reduces the number of communications and the time of listening, thanks to the partitioning of the initial network into several independent subnetworks.
-
+In fact, the distribution of computation over the subregions greatly reduces the number of communications and the time of listening, thanks to the partitioning of the initial network into several independent subnetworks. \\\\\\\\
\item {{\bf Network Lifetime}}
-%\subsubsection{The Network Lifetime}
-%In this experiment, we have observed the superiority of DiLCO-16 protocol and DiLCO-32 protocol against other two approaches in prolonging the network lifetime.
-
+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.
%In figures~\ref{Figures/ch4/R3/LT95} and \ref{Figures/ch4/R3/LT50}, network lifetime, $Lifetime95$ and $Lifetime50$ respectively, are illustrated for different network sizes.
-\begin{figure}[h!]
-\centering
+%%\begin{figure}[p!]
+%%\centering
% \begin{multicols}{0}
-\centering
-\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R3/LT95.eps}\\~ ~ ~ ~ ~(a) \\
+%%\centering
+%%\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R3/LT95.eps}\\~ ~ ~ ~ ~(a) \\
%\hfill
-\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R3/LT50.eps}\\~ ~ ~ ~ ~(b)
+%%\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}
+%%\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/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.
-
\end{enumerate}
\section{Conclusion}
A crucial problem in WSN is to schedule the sensing activities of the different nodes in order to ensure both coverage of the area of interest and longer network lifetime. The inherent limitations of sensor nodes, in energy provision, communication, and computing capacities, require protocols that optimize the use of the available resources to fulfill the sensing task. To address this problem, this chapter proposes a two-step approach. Firstly, the field of sensing
is divided into smaller subregions using the concept of divide-and-conquer method. Secondly, a distributed protocol called Distributed Lifetime Coverage Optimization is applied in each subregion to optimize the coverage and lifetime performances. In a subregion, our protocol consists in electing a leader node, which will then perform a sensor activity scheduling. The challenges include how to select the most efficient leader in each subregion and the best representative set of active nodes to ensure a high level of coverage. To assess the performance of our approach, we compared it with two other approaches using many performance metrics like coverage ratio or network lifetime. We have also studied the impact of the number of subregions chosen to subdivide the area of interest, considering different network sizes. The experiments show that increasing the number of subregions improves the lifetime. The more subregions there are, the more robust the network is against random disconnection resulting from dead nodes. However, for a given sensing field and network size there is an optimal number of subregions. Therefore, in case of our simulation context a subdivision in $16$~subregions seems to be the most relevant.
+\begin{figure}[p!]
+\centering
+% \begin{multicols}{0}
+\centering
+\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}
