X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/ThesisAli.git/blobdiff_plain/cbdc1a026db6e85adeaf006e192ef7cdcbba9ae2..823922b46fe128564f6ed32de2930828d6b74368:/CHAPITRE_06.tex

diff --git a/CHAPITRE_06.tex b/CHAPITRE_06.tex
index 8d03f54..dc74d83 100644
--- a/CHAPITRE_06.tex
+++ b/CHAPITRE_06.tex
@@ -361,7 +361,7 @@ With the performance metrics, described in section \ref{ch4:sec:04:04}, we evalu
 In  order to  assess and  analyze  the  performance  of  our protocol  we  have implemented PeCO protocol in  OMNeT++~\cite{ref158} simulator.  
 %Besides PeCO, three other protocols,  described in  the next paragraph,  will  be  evaluated for comparison purposes. 
 %The simulations were run  on a laptop DELL with an Intel Core~i3~2370~M (2.4~GHz) processor (2  cores) whose MIPS  (Million Instructions Per Second) rate  is equal to 35330. To  be consistent with the use  of a sensor node based on  Atmels AVR ATmega103L microcontroller (6~MHz) having  a MIPS rate equal to 6, the original execution time  on the laptop is  multiplied by 2944.2 $\left(\frac{35330}{2} \times  \frac{1}{6} \right)$.  The modeling  language for Mathematical Programming (AMPL)~\cite{AMPL} is  employed to generate the integer program instance  in a  standard format, which  is then read  and solved  by the optimization solver  GLPK (GNU  linear Programming Kit  available in  the public domain) \cite{glpk} through a Branch-and-Bound method.
-PeCO protocol is  compared with three other approaches. DESK \cite{DESK}, GAF~\cite{GAF}, and DiLCO~\cite{Idrees2} is  an improved version of a research work we presented in~\cite{ref159}, where DiLCO protocol is described in chapter 4. Let us notice that the PeCO and  the DiLCO protocols are  based on the  same framework. In  particular, the choice for the simulations of a partitioning in 16~subregions was chosen because it corresponds to the configuration producing the better results for DiLCO. The protocols are distinguished from one another by the formulation  of the integer program providing the set of sensors which have to be activated in each sensing phase. DiLCO protocol tries to satisfy the coverage of a set of primary points, whereas PeCO protocol objective is to reach a desired level of coverage for each sensor perimeter. In our experimentations, we chose a level of coverage equal to one ($l=1$).
+PeCO protocol is  compared with three other approaches. DESK \cite{DESK}, GAF~\cite{GAF}, and DiLCO~\cite{Idrees2} is  an improved version of a research work we presented in~\cite{ref159}, where DiLCO protocol is described in chapter 4. Let us notice that the PeCO and  the DiLCO protocols are  based on the  same scheme. In  particular, the choice for the simulations of a partitioning in 16~subregions was chosen because it corresponds to the configuration producing the better results for DiLCO. The protocols are distinguished from one another by the formulation  of the integer program providing the set of sensors which have to be activated in each sensing phase. DiLCO protocol tries to satisfy the coverage of a set of primary points, whereas PeCO protocol objective is to reach a desired level of coverage for each sensor perimeter. In our experimentations, we chose a level of coverage equal to one ($l=1$).
 
 
 
