| Literature DB >> 30373314 |
Hameed Al-Mishmish1, Ahmed Akhayyat2,3, Hasliza A Rahim4, Dalal A Hammood5, R Badlishah Ahmad6, Qammer H Abbasi7.
Abstract
Wireless Body Area Networks (WBANs) are single-hop network systems, where sensors gather the body's vital signs and send them directly to master nodes (MNs). The sensors are distributed in or on the body. Therefore, body posture, clothing, muscle movement, body temperature, and climatic conditions generally influence the quality of the wireless link between sensors and the destination. Hence, in some cases, single hop transmission ('direct transmission') is not sufficient to deliver the signals to the destination. Therefore, we propose an emergency-based cooperative communication protocol for WBAN, named Critical Data-based Incremental Cooperative Communication (CD-ICC), based on the IEEE 802.15.6 CSMA standard but assuming a lognormal shadowing channel model. In this paper, a complete study of a system model is inspected in the terms of the channel path loss, the successful transmission probability, and the outage probability. Then a mathematical model is derived for the proposed protocol, end-to-end delay, duty cycle, and average power consumption. A new back-off time is proposed within CD-ICC, which ensures the best relays cooperate in a distributed manner. The design objective of the CD-ICC is to reduce the end-to-end delay, the duty cycle, and the average power transmission. The simulation and numerical results presented here show that, under general conditions, CD-ICC can enhance network performance compared to direct transmission mode (DTM) IEEE 802.15.6 CSMA and benchmarking. To this end, we have shown that the power saving when using CD-ICC is 37.5% with respect to DTM IEEE 802.15.6 CSMA and 10% with respect to MI-ICC.Entities:
Keywords: average power transmission; critical data index; duty cycle; end-to-end delay; incremental cooperative communication; outage and successful probability; wireless body area network
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30373314 PMCID: PMC6263708 DOI: 10.3390/s18113661
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Comparison of state of art work.
| Pub. Year [Ref. No.] | Proposed Protocol | Metrics (Problem Addressed) | Compared with | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 [ | ICC |
Energy efficiency Optimal packet size | Single hop |
MAC protocol not considered (IEEE 802.15.6). Duty cycle is not considered. e2e delay is not analysed. Best relay node selection is not considered. Nature of the gathered data is not considered. |
| 2015 [ | Packet size optimisation of ICC |
Outage probability Successful transmission probability Energy efficiency | Single hop |
MAC protocol not considered (IEEE 802.15.6) Duty cycle is not considered. e2e delay is not analysed. Best relay node selection is not considered Nature of the gathered data is not considered |
| 2015 [ | ICC |
Throughput Average power consumption Propagation delay | Dual hops |
MAC protocol not considered (IEEE 802.15.6) e2e delay is not analysed Best relay node selection is not considered It used TDMA which is unsuitable for WBAN Nature of the gathered data is not considered |
| 2015 [ | ICC |
Packet error rate Energy efficiency | Single hop |
MAC protocol not considered (IEEE 802.15.6) Duty cycle is not considered. e2e delay is not analysed Best relay node selection is not considered Nature of the gathered data is not considered |
| 2015 [ | Cooperative Energy Harvesting (CEH)-MAC |
Network throughput Average e2e delay Energy efficiency | Single hop-IEEE 802.15.6 standard |
e2e delay is not analysed Nature of the gathered data is not considered |
| 2016 [ | Incremental Cooperative Critical Data Transmission in Emergencies For Static WBAN (InCo-CEStat) |
Reliability Residual energy increases. Throughput | Co-CEStat and EInCo-CEStat |
MAC protocol not considered (IEEE 802.15.6) Duty cycle is not considered. The e2e delay is not analysed Best relay node selection is not considered |
| 2016 [ | Linear Acceleration based Transmission Power Decision Control (LA-TPDC) |
Energy consumption, Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), Bit error rate (BER), Packet delivery ratio (PDR) | TCC |
MAC protocol not considered (IEEE 802.15.6) The e2e delay is not analysed Best relay node selection is not considered It used TDMA which is unsuitable for WBAN Support critical data |
| 2018 [ | A mutual information (MI)-based ICC |
Network life time Residual energy Number of packets transmitted | Two-relay based, and ICC |
MAC protocol not considered (IEEE 802.15.6) Duty cycle is not considered. The e2e delay is not analyse Support critical data |
Figure 1(a) Network architecture of WBAN; (b) Cooperative communication in WBAN.
Threshold and probability of the Critical Data Index.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 7 | 1 | 0.15 |
| 1 | 7 | 0.857 | 0.2255 |
| 2 | 7 | 0.714 | 0.3126 |
| 3 | 7 | 0.571 | 0.4194 |
| 4 | 7 | 0.428 | 0.540 |
| 5 | 7 | 0.285 | 0.6869 |
| 6 | 7 | 0.142 | 0.8408 |
| 7 | 7 | 0.0 | 1.0 |
Figure 2(a) IEEE 802.15. Physical Protocol Data Unit frame structure; (b) IEEE 802.15. ACK packet.
Numerical parameters.
| Frequency band [MHz] | 402–405 (MICS) |
| Bandwidth [MHz] | 1 |
| Maximum transmission rate | 75.9 |
| Threshold transmission rate ( | 1 |
| Modulation | DPSK |
| Payload size [bits] | 2000 |
| Minimum contention windows | 16 |
| Maximum contention windows | 64 |
| SINR threshold ( | 0 |
| MAC header [bits] | 56 |
| MAC footer [bits] | 16 |
| PHY header [bits] | 32 |
| RF transceiver power on ( | 2 |
| Short interframe spacing time TpSIFS [µs] | 50 |
| Preamble [bits] | 88 |
| Slot time Ts [µs] | 125 |
| Delay time α [µs] | 1 |
| Maximum critical data index | 7 |
Figure 3Comparison of successful transmission probability of DTM and CD-ICC with normalized inter-node distance, is 3.5, is , and is .
Figure 4Successful transmission probability of CD-ICC with . In all cases, is , and is 3.5.
Figure 5Comparison of e2e delay of DTM and CD-ICC with normalized inter-node distance, . In all cases, the is 3.5, is and is .
Figure 6e2e delay of CD-ICC with . In all cases, is and is 3.5.
Figure 7Comparison of Duty cycle of DTM, MI-ICC [34] and CD-ICC with normalized inter-node distance, . In all cases, the is 3.5, is , is and is .
Figure 8Duty cycle of CD-ICC with . In all cases, is , is , is and is 3.
Figure 9Comparison of average power transmission of DTM, MI-ICC and CD-ICC with normalized inter-node distance, .
Figure 10Average power transmission of CD-ICC with . In all cases, is , is and is 3.