| Literature DB >> 29914125 |
Heng Xu1, Qiyue Li2, Jianping Wang3, Guojun Luo4, Chenghui Zhu5, Wei Sun6.
Abstract
With the long-term dependence of humans on ore-based energy, underground mines are utilized around the world, and underground mining is often dangerous. Therefore, many underground mines have established networks that manage and acquire information from sensor nodes deployed on miners and in other places. Since the power supplies of many mobile sensor nodes are batteries, green communication is an effective approach of reducing the energy consumption of a network and extending its longevity. To reduce the energy consumption of networks, all factors that negatively influence the lifetime should be considered. The degree constraint minimum spanning tree (DCMST) is introduced in this study to consider all the heterogeneous factors and assign weights for the next step of the evaluation. Then, a genetic algorithm (GA) is introduced to cluster sensor nodes in the network and balance energy consumption according to several heterogeneous factors and routing paths from DCMST. Based on a comparison of the simulation results, the optimization routing algorithm proposed in this study for use in green communication in underground mines can effectively reduce the network energy consumption and extend the lifetimes of networks.Entities:
Keywords: DCMST; GA; green communication; heterogeneous network; underground mine
Year: 2018 PMID: 29914125 PMCID: PMC6022054 DOI: 10.3390/s18061950
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1(a) Diagram of a node communication network in an underground mine. (b) Diagram after the DCMST is applied to the node communication network in an underground mine.
Average processing time of ORAGC with 500 rounds by increasing the number of nodes in the network.
| Number of Nodes | 10 MNs and 90 ONs | 15 MNs and 135 ONs | 20 MNs and 180 ONs | 25 MNs and 225 ONs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average processing time (/ms) | 468 | 1029 | 1697 | 2681 |
Figure 2(a) Residual energy in different rounds in scenario 1. (b) Residual energy in different rounds in scenario 2. (c) Residual energy in different rounds in scenario 3. (d) Residual energy in different rounds in scenario 4.
Figure 3(a) Energy consumption of the routing algorithms in scenario 1. (b) Energy consumption of the routing algorithms in scenario 2. (c) Energy consumption of the routing algorithms in scenario 3. (d) Energy consumption of the routing algorithms in scenario 4.
Running rounds when the first node fails of six algorithms in four different scenarios, and the improvement is given.
| Rounds When the First Node Fails (Rounds) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Techniques | Scenario 1 | Scenario 2 | Scenario 3 | Scenario 4 |
| ETLE | 730 | 580 | 640 | 520 |
| HEER | 1720 | 1520 | 1670 | 1450 |
| EEUC | 870 | 640 | 780 | 570 |
| ERP | 1310 | 1120 | 1220 | 990 |
| DCHGA | 1780 | 1560 | 1680 | 1510 |
| ORAGC | 1910 | 1690 | 1830 | 1640 |
| Improvement | 7.30% | 8.33% | 8.93% | 8.61% |
Running rounds when the last node fails of six algorithms in four different scenarios, and the improvement is given.
| Rounds When the Last Node Fails (Rounds) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Techniques | Scenario 1 | Scenario 2 | Scenario 3 | Scenario 4 |
| ETLE | 1520 | 1290 | 1440 | 1240 |
| HEER | 2850 | 2590 | 2740 | 2490 |
| EEUC | 2190 | 2010 | 2120 | 1900 |
| ERP | 3120 | 2930 | 3030 | 2780 |
| DCHGA | 12,850 | 9850 | 11,230 | 7230 |
| ORAGC | 14,780 | 11,130 | 12,380 | 8960 |
| Improvement | 15.02% | 12.99% | 10.24% | 23.93% |