X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/ThesisAli.git/blobdiff_plain/dc6cf8e426e52e11890b51d8cfbe8193285bea12..291b2f6b04186d20639b536c8e70f48d348ea251:/CHAPITRE_06.tex

diff --git a/CHAPITRE_06.tex b/CHAPITRE_06.tex
index f72a7ba..d97acc9 100644
--- a/CHAPITRE_06.tex
+++ b/CHAPITRE_06.tex
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
 %%       CHAPTER 06        %%
 %%                          %%
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
- \chapter{ Perimeter-based Coverage Optimization to Improve Lifetime in Wireless Sensor Networks}
+ \chapter{ Perimeter-based Coverage Optimization to Improve Lifetime in WSNs}
 \label{ch6}
 
 
@@ -190,47 +190,47 @@ protocol applied by a sensor node $s_j$ where $j$ is the node index in the WSN.
   %\emph{Initialize the sensor node and determine it's position and subregion} \; 
   
   \If{ $RE_k \geq E_{th}$ }{
-      \emph{$s_k.status$ = COMMUNICATION}\;
+      \emph{$s_j.status$ = COMMUNICATION}\;
       \emph{Send $INFO()$ packet to other nodes in subregion}\;
       \emph{Wait $INFO()$ packet from other nodes in subregion}\; 
       \emph{Update A.CurrentSize}\;
       \emph{LeaderID = Leader election}\;
-      \If{$ s_k.ID = LeaderID $}{
-         \emph{$s_k.status$ = COMPUTATION}\;
+      \If{$ s_j.ID = LeaderID $}{
+         \emph{$s_j.status$ = COMPUTATION}\;
          
-      \If{$ s_k.ID $ is Not previously selected as a Leader }{
+      \If{$ s_j.ID $ is Not previously selected as a Leader }{
           \emph{ Execute the perimeter coverage model}\;
          % \emph{ Determine the segment points using perimeter coverage model}\;
       }
       
-      \If{$ (s_k.ID $ is the same Previous Leader) And (A.CurrentSize = A.PreviousSize)}{
+      \If{$ (s_j.ID $ is the same Previous Leader) And (A.CurrentSize = A.PreviousSize)}{
       
       	 \emph{ Use the same previous cover set for current sensing stage}\;
       }
       \Else{
             \emph{Update $a^j_{ik}$; prepare data for IP~Algorithm}\;
-            \emph{$\left\{\left(X_{1},\dots,X_{l},\dots,X_{A}\right)\right\}$ = Execute Integer Program Algorithm($A$)}\;
+            \emph{$\left\{\left(X_{1},\dots,X_{k},\dots,X_{A}\right)\right\}$ = Execute Integer Program Algorithm($A$)}\;
             \emph{A.PreviousSize = A.CurrentSize}\;
            }
       
-        \emph{$s_k.status$ = COMMUNICATION}\;
-        \emph{Send $ActiveSleep()$ to each node $l$ in subregion}\;
-        \emph{Update $RE_k $}\;
+        \emph{$s_j.status$ = COMMUNICATION}\;
+        \emph{Send $ActiveSleep()$ to each node $k$ in subregion}\;
+        \emph{Update $RE_j $}\;
       }	  
       \Else{
-        \emph{$s_k.status$ = LISTENING}\;
+        \emph{$s_j.status$ = LISTENING}\;
         \emph{Wait $ActiveSleep()$ packet from the Leader}\;
-        \emph{Update $RE_k $}\;
+        \emph{Update $RE_j $}\;
       }  
   }
-  \Else { Exclude $s_k$ from entering in the current sensing stage}
-\caption{PeCO($s_k$)}
+  \Else { Exclude $s_j$ from entering in the current sensing stage}
+\caption{PeCO($s_j$)}
 \label{alg:PeCO}
 \end{algorithm}
 
 In this  algorithm, A.CurrentSize and A.PreviousSize  respectively represent the
 current number and  the previous number of living nodes in  the subnetwork of the
-subregion.  Initially, the sensor node checks its remaining energy $RE_k$, which
+subregion.  Initially, the sensor node checks its remaining energy $RE_j$, which
 must be greater than a threshold $E_{th}$ in order to participate in the current
 period.  Each  sensor node  determines its position  and its subregion  using an
 embedded  GPS or a  location discovery  algorithm. After  that, all  the sensors
@@ -485,9 +485,9 @@ is about twice longer with  PeCO 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
  time, and the lifetime with a coverage  of 50\% is far  longer than with
-95\%.
+95\%. 
 
-\begin{figure}[h!]
+\begin{figure} [p]
   \centering
   \begin{tabular}{@{}cr@{}}
     \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch6/R/LT95.eps} & \raisebox{4cm}{(a)} \\  
@@ -509,15 +509,15 @@ lower  coverage  ratios,  moreover  the   improvements  grow  with  the  network
 size. DiLCO is better  for coverage ratios near 100\%, but in  that case PeCO is
 not ineffective for the smallest network sizes.
 
-\begin{figure}[h!]
+\begin{figure} [p]
 \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch6/R/LTa.eps}
 \caption{Network lifetime for different coverage ratios.}
 \label{figLTALL}
-\end{figure} 
-
+\end{figure}
 
 
-\section{Conclusion}
+ %\FloatBarrier
+\section{Conclusion} 
 \label{ch6:sec:05}
 
 In this chapter, we have studied the problem of  Perimeter-based Coverage Optimization in