| Literature DB >> 30400248 |
Zeyu Sun1,2, Huihui Wang3, Baoluo Liu4, Chuanfeng Li5, Xiaoyan Pan6, Yalin Nie7.
Abstract
When the nodes in the network are deployed in the target area with an appropriate density, the effective aggregation and transmission of the data gathered in the monitoring area remain to be solved. The existing Compressed Sensing (CS) based on data aggregation schemes are accomplished in a centralized manner and the Sink node achieves the task of data aggregation. However, these existing schemes may suffer from load imbalance and coverage void issues. In order to address these problems, we propose a Compressed Sensing based on Fault-tolerant Correcting Data Aggregation (CS-FCDA) scheme to accurately reconstruct the compressed data. Therefore, the network communication overhead can be greatly reduced while maintaining the quality of the reconstructed data. Meanwhile, we adopt the node clustering mechanism to optimize and balance the network load. It is shown via simulation results, compared with other data aggregation schemes, that the proposed scheme shows obvious improvement in terms of the Fault-tolerant correcting capability and the network energy efficiency of the data reconstruction.Entities:
Keywords: compressed sensing; data aggregation; node clustering; sensor networks
Year: 2018 PMID: 30400248 PMCID: PMC6263422 DOI: 10.3390/s18113749
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 2Sensing network model with multi-hop nodes.
Figure 3Division of the time rounds.
Figure 4Calculation of network coverage area.
Parameters of the environment for the experiment.
| Parameter | Value | Parameter | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| radius of sensing ( | 10 m | data packet size | 80 B |
| Com-radius | 300 m | round time | 600 s |
| sensing angle (α) | π/2 |
| 50 nJ/bit |
| number of nodes (N) | 500 |
| 100 nJ/bit |
| node energy (E) | 5 J |
| 10 pJ/bit/m2 |
Figure 5Comparison on relative error ratio with data loss ratio. (a) Comparison on relative error ratio with data loss ratio (N = 100). (b) Comparison on relative error ratio with data loss ratio (N = 300). (c) Comparison on relative error ratio with data loss ratio (N = 500).
Figure 6Comparison on network lifetime. (a) Comparison on network lifetime when N = 100. (b) Comparison on network lifetime when N = 300. (c) Comparison on network lifetime when N = 500.
Figure 7Comparison between network running time and remaining energy. (a) Comparison between network running time and remaining energy (N = 100). (b) Comparison between network running time and remaining energy (N = 300). (c) Comparison between network running time and remaining energy (N = 500).
Figure 8Success probability for data transmission. (a) Comparison between network running time and data transmission success rate. (b) Comparison between network number of sensors and data transmission success rate.
Figure 9Comparison on network lifetime with different network clustering.