| Literature DB >> 30274206 |
Jian Yan1, Yuhuai Peng2, Dawei Shen3, Xinxin Yan4, Qingxu Deng5.
Abstract
At present, sensor-based E-Healthcare systems are attracting more and more attention from academia and industry. E-Healthcare systems are usually a Wireless Body Area Network (WBANs), which can monitor or diagnose human health by placing miniaturized, low-power sensor nodes in or on patient's bodies to measure various physiological parameters. However, in this process, WBAN nodes usually use batteries, and especially for implantable flexible nodes, it is difficult to accomplish the battery replacement, so the energy that the node can carry is very limited, making the efficient use of energy the most important problem to consider when designing WBAN routing algorithms. By considering factors such as residual energy of node, the importance level of nodes, path cost and path energy difference ratios, this paper gives a definition of Optimal Path of Energy Consumption (OPEC) in WBANs, and designs the Optimal Energy Consumption routing based on Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) for WBANs (OEABC). A performance simulation is carried out to verify the effectiveness of the OEABC. Simulation results demonstrate that compared with the genetic algorithm and ant colony algorithm, the proposed OEABC has a better energy efficiency and faster convergence rate.Entities:
Keywords: Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm; E-Healthcare system; energy consumption; wireless body area networks
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30274206 PMCID: PMC6209954 DOI: 10.3390/s18103268
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Comparative Analysis of Different Routing Mechanisms.
| Routing Protocol | Routing Mechanism | Advantage | Disadvantage | Energy Consumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Star topology | Single Hop | Low delay | High energy consumption | High |
| AnyBody [ | Cluster-Based Multi Hop | Reliable, low load | More complex | Medium |
| HIT [ | Cluster-Based Multi Hop | Reliable, low load | More complex | Medium |
| WASP [ | Cross-Layer Multi Hop | Reliable, low load | Large network delay | Medium |
| CICADA [ | Cross-Layer Multi Hop | Reliable, low load | Large network delay | Medium |
| [ | Collaborative | Low packet loss rate and low network delay | Unable to adapt to frequent network topology changes | Low |
Figure 1Distributed sample of wireless body area network sensors.
Figure 2The network topology of Figure 1.
Figure 3Two paths of r0 and r1.
Figure 4The new paths r2 generated by r0.
Simulation Parameter Settings.
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Simulation area: | 100 m × 100 m |
| Energy model: | Generic radio energy model |
| Attenuation model: | Two ray |
| Signal transmission range: | 10 m |
| Signal interference range: | 20 m |
| Packet size: | 512 Byte |
| Output queue type: | First-In First-Out (FIFO) |
| Channel capacity: | 1 Mbit/s |
| Cache capacity: | 50 packets |
The stage of initialization with five paths.
| No. | Path |
|
|
| Fitness |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.57 | 0.63 | 26 | 46.97 | |
| 2 | 0.49 | 0.56 | 29 | 45.26 | |
| 3 | 0.67 | 0.48 | 31 | 57.43 | |
| 4 | 0.68 | 0.45 | 22 | 58.42 | |
| 5 | 0.49 | 0.44 | 19 | 49.13 |
The stage of worker bees.
| No. | Path |
|
|
| Fitness |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.63 | 0.61 | 23 | 50.19 | |
| 2 | 0.49 | 0.56 | 29 | 45.26 | |
| 3 | 0.67 | 0.48 | 31 | 57.43 | |
| 4 | 0.69 | 0.43 | 20 | 59.76 | |
| 5 | 0.49 | 0.44 | 19 | 49.13 |
The stage of onlookers.
| No. | Path |
|
|
| Fitness |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.63 | 0.61 | 23 | 50.19 | |
| 2 | 0.51 | 0.56 | 29 | 46.26 | |
| 3 | 0.66 | 0.45 | 23 | 57.52 | |
| 4 | 0.69 | 0.43 | 20 | 59.76 | |
| 5 | 0.49 | 0.44 | 19 | 49.13 |
Results after 50 iterations.
| No. | Path |
|
|
| Fitness |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.69 | 0.51 | 21 | 56.21 | |
| 2 | 0.51 | 0.42 | 27 | 52.01 | |
| 3 | 0.75 | 0.31 | 17 | 71.46 | |
| 4 | 0.73 | 0.33 | 18 | 68.60 | |
| 5 | 0.54 | 0.39 | 17 | 54.34 |
Figure 5The fitness of the path when the SN is different.
Figure 6The fitness of the path when the Limit is different.
Figure 7The fitness of the path when the number of Cycle is different.
The percentage for the appearance of optimal solution.
| Run Times | OEABC | Genetic Algorithm | Ant Colony Algorithm |
|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | 16.00% | 14.00% | 18.00% |
| 100 | 15.00% | 16.00% | 11.00% |
| 150 | 16.67% | 13.33% | 17.33% |
| Average | 15.89% | 14.44% | 15.44% |
Figure 8The convergence curve of the algorithm.
The convergence rate.
| Population Size | OEABC | Genetic Algorithm | Ant Colony Algorithm |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | 0.81 | 0.76 | 0.83 |
| 30 | 0.89 | 0.92 | 0.89 |
| 40 | 1.17 | 1.08 | 1.01 |
| Average | 0.96 | 0.92 | 0.91 |