update by ali

[ThesisAli.git] / CHAPITRE_04.tex

diff --git a/CHAPITRE_04.tex b/CHAPITRE_04.tex
index c634430a8365f1bdadfac2262a8252867ff0e4ad..5aa3d1981f07ec65c3371f4fbdebc06227b0b6b2 100644 (file)
--- a/CHAPITRE_04.tex
+++ b/CHAPITRE_04.tex
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ divided  into subregions using  a divide-and-conquer  algorithm and  an activity
 
 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}.
 
 
 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}
 
 \section{Description of the DiLCO Protocol}
 \label{ch4:sec:02}


@@ -191,12 +191,12 @@ Active  sensors  in the  period  will  execute  their sensing  task  to preserve
 
 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. 
 
 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
 
 \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} 
 
 \label{flow4}
 \end{figure} 
 


@@ -515,7 +515,7 @@ As shown in Figures~\ref{Figures/ch4/R1/EC}(a) and~\ref{Figures/ch4/R1/EC}(b), D
 \item {{\bf Execution Time}}
 %\subsubsection{Execution Time}
 
 \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.  % \\ \\ \\

 
 
 
 
 
 


@@ -545,7 +545,7 @@ In Figures~\ref{Figures/ch4/R1/LT}(a) and \ref{Figures/ch4/R1/LT}(b), network li
   \label{Figures/ch4/R1/LT}
 \end{figure}
 
   \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}
 
 
 \end{enumerate}


@@ -572,7 +572,7 @@ Figure~\ref{Figures/ch4/R2/CR} shows the average coverage ratio for 150 deployed
 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 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} 
 
 \item {{\bf Active Sensors Ratio}}
 %\subsubsection{Active Sensors Ratio} 


@@ -601,7 +601,7 @@ Figure~\ref{Figures/ch4/R2/SR} illustrates the percentage of stopped simulation
 \label{Figures/ch4/R2/SR}
 \end{figure} 
 
 \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}}
 
 
 \item {{\bf Energy Consumption}}


@@ -644,7 +644,7 @@ Moreover, Model-5 has more suitable execution times and coverage ratio that lead
 
 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. 
 
 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. 
  
 
 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. 
  


@@ -679,7 +679,7 @@ The average coverage ratio for 150 deployed nodes is demonstrated in Figure~\ref
 \caption{Coverage ratio for 150 deployed nodes}
 \label{Figures/ch4/R3/CR}
 \end{figure} 
 \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.
 


@@ -701,7 +701,7 @@ It is important to have as few active nodes as possible in each period, in  orde
 \label{Figures/ch4/R3/ASR}
 \end{figure} 
 
 \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}}
 
 
 \item {{\bf Stopped simulation runs}}


@@ -741,34 +741,30 @@ Figures~\ref{Figures/ch4/R3/EC}(a) and~\ref{Figures/ch4/R3/EC}(b) illustrate the
 
 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. 
 
 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}}
 
 \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.  
 
 %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}
 % \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 
 %\hfill 

-\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R3/LT50.eps}\\~ ~ ~ ~ ~(b)
+%%\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R3/LT50.eps}\\~ ~ ~ ~ ~(b)

 
 %\end{multicols} 
 
 %\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.
 
 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}
 \end{enumerate}
 
 \section{Conclusion}


@@ -776,4 +772,15 @@ Comparison shows that DiLCO-16 protocol and DiLCO-32 protocol, which use distrib
 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.
 
 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}