X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/ThesisAli.git/blobdiff_plain/ff6e3dd14e4aed4f39ce28f773c82d8589d36c8b..00e1a4c411c07d09489772c40f87682af1425f48:/CHAPITRE_05.tex?ds=sidebyside

diff --git a/CHAPITRE_05.tex b/CHAPITRE_05.tex
old mode 100755
new mode 100644
index 6bb2bf5..714ecd7
--- a/CHAPITRE_05.tex
+++ b/CHAPITRE_05.tex
@@ -7,19 +7,6 @@
 \chapter{Multiround Distributed Lifetime Coverage Optimization Protocol in Wireless Sensor Networks}
 \label{ch5}
 
-\iffalse
-
-\section{Summary}
-\label{ch5:sec:01}
-Coverage and lifetime are two paramount problems in Wireless  Sensor Networks (WSNs). In this paper, a method called Multiround Distributed Lifetime Coverage
-Optimization  protocol (MuDiLCO)  is proposed  to maintain  the coverage  and to improve the lifetime in wireless sensor  networks. The area of interest is first
-divided  into subregions and  then the  MuDiLCO protocol  is distributed  on the sensor nodes in each subregion. The proposed MuDiLCO protocol works in periods
-during which sets of sensor nodes are scheduled to remain active for a number of rounds  during the  sensing phase,  to ensure coverage  so as  to maximize the
-lifetime of  WSN. The decision process is  carried out by a  leader node, which solves an  integer program to  produce the best  representative sets to  be used
-during the rounds  of the sensing phase. Compared  with some existing protocols, simulation  results based  on  multiple criteria  (energy consumption,  coverage
-ratio, and  so on) show that  the proposed protocol can  prolong efficiently the network lifetime and improve the coverage performance.
-
-\fi
 
 \section{Introduction}
 \label{ch5:sec:01}
@@ -103,7 +90,7 @@ The  energy consumption  and some other constraints  can easily  be  taken into
   \BlankLine
   %\emph{Initialize the sensor node and determine it's position and subregion} \; 
   
-  \If{ $RE_j \geq E_{R}$ }{
+  \If{ $RE_j \geq E_{th}$ }{
       \emph{$s_j.status$ = COMMUNICATION}\;
       \emph{Send $INFO()$ packet to other nodes in the subregion}\;
       \emph{Wait $INFO()$ packet from other nodes in the subregion}\; 
@@ -212,7 +199,7 @@ Subject to
 \end{equation}
 
 \begin{equation}
-  \sum_{t=1}^{T}  X_{t,j}   \leq  \lfloor {RE_{j}/E_{R}} \rfloor \hspace{6 mm} \forall j \in J, t = 1,\dots,T
+  \sum_{t=1}^{T}  X_{t,j}   \leq  \lfloor {RE_{j}/E_{th}} \rfloor \hspace{6 mm} \forall j \in J, t = 1,\dots,T
   \label{eq144} 
 \end{equation}
 
@@ -245,7 +232,7 @@ covered by at least  one sensor and, if it is not  always the case, overcoverage
 and undercoverage  variables help balancing the restriction  equations by taking
 positive values. The constraint  given by equation~(\ref{eq144}) guarantees that
 the sensor has enough energy ($RE_j$  corresponds to its remaining energy) to be
-alive during  the selected rounds knowing  that $E_{R}$ is the  amount of energy
+alive during  the selected rounds knowing  that $E_{th}$ is the  amount of energy
 required to be alive during one round.
 
 There  are two main  objectives.  First,  we limit  the overcoverage  of primary
@@ -268,8 +255,7 @@ large compared to $W_{\theta}$.
 \label{ch5:sec:04:01}
 We  conducted  a  series of  simulations  to  evaluate  the efficiency  and  the
 relevance  of our  approach,  using  the  discrete   event  simulator  OMNeT++
-\cite{ref158}. The simulation  parameters are summarized in Table~\ref{table3}.  Each experiment  for  a network  is  run over  25~different random topologies and  the results presented hereafter are  the average of these
-25 runs.
+\cite{ref158}. The simulation  parameters are summarized in Table~\ref{table3}.  Each experiment  for  a network  is  run over  25~different random topologies and  the results presented hereafter are  the average of these 25 runs.
 %Based on the results of our proposed work in~\cite{idrees2014coverage}, we found as the region of interest are divided into larger subregions as the network lifetime increased. In this simulation, the network are divided into 16 subregions. 
 We  performed  simulations for  five  different  densities  varying from  50  to
 250~nodes deployed  over  a  $50 \times  25~m^2  $  sensing field.  More
@@ -304,7 +290,7 @@ Network size &  50, 100, 150, 200 and 250~nodes   \\
 Initial energy  & 500-700~joules  \\  
 %\hline
 Sensing time for one round & 60 Minutes \\
-$E_{R}$ & 36 Joules\\
+$E_{th}$ & 36 Joules\\
 $R_s$ & 5~m   \\     
 %\hline
 $W_{\Theta}$ & 1   \\
@@ -331,7 +317,7 @@ it. Therefore, we have set the number of subregions to 16 rather than 32.
 
 We used the modeling language and the optimization solver which are mentioned in chapter 4, section \ref{ch4:sec:04:02}. In addition, we employed an energy consumption model, which is presented in chapter 4, section \ref{ch4:sec:04:03}. 
 
-%The initial energy of each node  is randomly set in the interval $[500;700]$.  A sensor node  will not participate in the  next round if its  remaining energy is less than  $E_{R}=36~\mbox{Joules}$, the minimum  energy needed for the  node to stay alive  during one round.  This value has  been computed by  multiplying the energy consumed in  active state (9.72 mW) by the time in second  for one round (3600 seconds). According to the  interval of initial energy, a sensor may be alive during at most 20 rounds.
+%The initial energy of each node  is randomly set in the interval $[500;700]$.  A sensor node  will not participate in the  next round if its  remaining energy is less than  $E_{th}=36~\mbox{Joules}$, the minimum  energy needed for the  node to stay alive  during one round.  This value has  been computed by  multiplying the energy consumed in  active state (9.72 mW) by the time in second  for one round (3600 seconds). According to the  interval of initial energy, a sensor may be alive during at most 20 rounds.
 
 \subsection{Metrics}
 \label{ch5:sec:04:02}
