| Literature DB >> 26927104 |
Sidrah Yousaf1, Nadeem Javaid2, Umar Qasim3, Nabil Alrajeh4, Zahoor Ali Khan5,6, Mansoor Ahmed7.
Abstract
In this study, we analyse incremental cooperative communication for wireless body area networks (WBANs) with different numbers of relays. Energy efficiency (EE) and the packet error rate (PER) are investigated for different schemes. We propose a new cooperative communication scheme with three-stage relaying and compare it to existing schemes. Our proposed scheme provides reliable communication with less PER at the cost of surplus energy consumption. Analytical expressions for the EE of the proposed three-stage cooperative communication scheme are also derived, taking into account the effect of PER. Later on, the proposed three-stage incremental cooperation is implemented in a network layer protocol; enhanced incremental cooperative critical data transmission in emergencies for static WBANs (EInCo-CEStat). Extensive simulations are conducted to validate the proposed scheme. Results of incremental relay-based cooperative communication protocols are compared to two existing cooperative routing protocols: cooperative critical data transmission in emergencies for static WBANs (Co-CEStat) and InCo-CEStat. It is observed from the simulation results that incremental relay-based cooperation is more energy efficient than the existing conventional cooperation protocol, Co-CEStat. The results also reveal that EInCo-CEStat proves to be more reliable with less PER and higher throughput than both of the counterpart protocols. However, InCo-CEStat has less throughput with a greater stability period and network lifetime. Due to the availability of more redundant links, EInCo-CEStat achieves a reduced packet drop rate at the cost of increased energy consumption.Entities:
Keywords: energy consumption; incremental cooperative communication; relaying; reliability; routing; wireless body area networks
Year: 2016 PMID: 26927104 PMCID: PMC4813859 DOI: 10.3390/s16030284
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Comparison of the state-of-the-art work. RLNC, Random Linear Network Coding; CEH, cooperative energy harvesting; HTC, harvest-then-cooperate; MDTED, modified double-threshold energy detection.
| Technique | Feature | Domain | Flaws/Deficiencies | Results Achieved |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI) [ | Cooperative routing, Consideration of QoS and energy consumption, Use of Motivated Reinforcement Learning (MRL) algorithm | WSNs, Wildfire monitoring, Shadowing effect of trees | Greater percentage of delayed packets, More average delay to sink, Restricted to a single sink | Better energy consumption, More Network lifetime |
| Cloud-assisted Random Network Coding (CRNC-MAC) [ | Utilization of cloud computing to enhance the performance of the cooperative scheme based on network coding | WBANs, Cloud assisted | Latency in cloud communication and bad channel conditions decrease throughput | Enhanced throughput and energy efficiency in error-prone channels |
| Human Energy Harvesting (HEH-MAC) [ | Human energy harvesting protocol, polling and probabilistic contention | WBANs, Hybrid polling MAC protocol | No comparison with other MAC protocols, no analytical performance evaluation | improved energy efficiency and delay |
| Random Linear Network Coded-Aided Cooperative Compressed Sensing (RLNC-ACCS) [ | compressed sensing and distributed cooperation for reliable data transmission | WBANs, cooperative compressed sensing | Less throughput in error-prone channels | Increased energy efficiency of sensor nodes |
| CEH-MAC [ | Exploits energy harvesting information for communication | WBANs, Cooperative MAC scheme that exploits energy harvesting information | No network channel coding and analytical performance evaluation | Improved energy efficiency and network throughput |
| HTC [ | Scheme for High SNR radio, Energy-harvesting | WSNs, Cooperation-based networks | SNRs of the source-AP link and all source-relay-AP links mutually correlated, essentially different from conventional cooperative networks with independent link SNRs | Impacts of time allocation, relay number and relay position, on the throughput |
| MDTED [ | Cooperative Spectrum Sensing Scheme, Location and Channel-information dependent | Cognitive WSNs, Cooperation-based networks | Based on a single authorization user, number of nodes are fixed, and the value still needs to be computed | Detection Accuracy, Improved collaborative sensing ability |
| Cooperative routing [ | Optimal power allocation according to posture information | WBANs | no consideration for end-to-end delay | Improved energy efficiency |
| Probabilistic analysis [ | Parametric model for health monitoring with probabilistic approach | WBANs | No realistic scenario, no consideration for end-to-end delay | Improved network lifetime |
| RE-ATTEMPT [ | Direct and multi-hop Communication | WBANs | No retransmission of failed data packets, low throughput | Energy Efficient and greater network lifetime |
| ZigBee-Based [ | Zigbee device for fall monitoring, utilizes anycast routing | WBANs | High energy consumption | Low transmission latency and control overhead, reliable data delivery |
| Power-efficient MAC protocol [ | wake-up table for normal communication, on demand external wake-up radio for emergency | WBANs | No QoS analysis, no multi-hop communication | Efficient in terms of power consumption and delay |
| CLNC-MAC [ | Cloud-based coordination by using the RLNC technique | WBANS, cloud-assisted scheme | Increased end-to-end delay, increased complexity | collision avoidance, reliable data delivery with energy efficiency |
| PEH-QoS [ | QoS-aware energy management, only a useful data sequence is transmitted | WBANs, Human energy harvesting WBAN | Higher energy consumption in ECG detection | Improved throughput, detection efficiency, end-to-end delay |
| Opportunistic relay protocol [ | Predefined relaying nodes for data transmission | WBANs | Delayed transmission and extra energy consumption in relaying | Improved packet delivery rate |
Figure 1Three-stage incremental cooperative communication.
Conditions for the failure of the three-stage relaying process.
| Error-Free Links | Failed Links | Remarks |
|---|---|---|
| No link | No communication; the packet is dropped | |
| No more available link | ||
Simulation parameters. NACK, non-ACK.
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Packet size | 500 bits |
| Overhead | 80 bits |
| ACK/NACK | 64 bits |
| Transmission power | −12 dBm |
| Data rate | 2 Mbps |
| 50 nJ/bit | |
| 50 nJ/bit |
Channel model parameters. NLOS, non-LOS.
| Parameters | NLOS | LOS |
|---|---|---|
| 10 | 10 | |
| PL( | 48.4 | 35.2 |
| n | 5.9 | 3.11 |
| 5 | 6.1 |
Figure 2Packet error rate (PER) analysis. (a) PER for on-body NLOS communication; (b) PER for on-body LOS communication.
Figure 3Energy efficiency (EE) analysis. (a) EE for on-body NLOS communication; (b) EE for on-body LOS communication.
Figure 4Network topology of incremental cooperative critical data transmission in emergencies for static WBANs (InCo-CEStat) and enhanced InCo-CEStat (EInCo-CEStat).
Figure 5Communication flow diagram of InCo-CEStat, EInCo-CEStat and Co-CEStat.
The coordinates of nodes deployed on the human body.
| Node No. | X-Axis (m) | Y-Axis (m) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.45 | 1.6 |
| 2 | 0.2 | 1.5 |
| 3 | 0.7 | 1.5 |
| 4 | 0.1 | 0.85 |
| 5 | 0.8 | 0.85 |
| 6 | 0.2 | 0.5 |
| 7 | 0.7 | 0.5 |
| 8 | 0.7 | 0.3 |
Simulation parameters for WBAN protocols.
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Number of nodes | 8 |
| Number of sink | 1 |
| Initial energy | Cooperative node: 0.3 J |
| Normal node: 0.15 J | |
| Offered load | 10,000 bits/node |
| Average wait time [ | 4 s/packet |
| BER threshold | 0.5 |
Figure 6Stability period and network lifetime.
Figure 7Number of packets received successfully at the sink.
Figure 8Number of packets dropped.
Figure 9Residual energy of the network.
Performance trade-offs made by the routing protocols.
| Protocol | Routing Technique | Advances Achieved | Price to Pay |
|---|---|---|---|
| Co-CEStat | Cooperation with two relays | High throughput. ( | Decreased stability period and network lifetime. ( |
| InCo-CEStat | Incremental cooperation with two relays | High energy efficiency. ( | More PER than EInCo-CEStat. ( |
| EInCo-CEStat | Incremental cooperation with three relays | Higher throughput than InCo-CEStat.( | Decreased stability period. ( |