| Literature DB >> 30959817 |
Yating Qu1, Guoqiang Zheng2,3, Huahong Ma4, Xintong Wang5, Baofeng Ji6, Honghai Wu7.
Abstract
The emergence of wireless body area network (WBAN) technology has brought hope and dawn to solve the problems of population aging, various chronic diseases, and medical facility shortage. The increasing demand for real-time applications in such networks, stimulates many research activities. Designing such a scheme of critical events while preserving the energy efficiency is a challenging task, due to the dynamic of the network topology, severe constraints on the power supply, and the limited computation power. The design of routing protocols becomes an essential part of WBANs and plays an important role in the communication stacks and has a significant impact on the network performance. In this paper, we briefly introduce WBAN and focus on the analysis of the routing protocol, classify, and compare the advantages and disadvantages of various routing protocols. Lastly, we put forward some problems and suggestions, which provides ideas for the follow-up routing design.Entities:
Keywords: cluster; energy efficiency; posture; routing classification; temperature; wireless body sensor networks
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30959817 PMCID: PMC6479667 DOI: 10.3390/s19071638
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Network architecture of a Wireless Body Area Network (WBAN).
Figure 2Applications of WBAN.
Comparison between WSN and WBAN.
| Problem | WSN | WBAN |
|---|---|---|
| range | environmental monitoring(m/km) | body range(cm/m) |
| number of nodes | hundreds | dozens |
| node size | no special requirements | the smaller the better |
| node task | single or scheduled tasks | many |
| data rate | homogeneous | heterogeneous |
| data loss | tolerable | intolerable |
| node placement | easily | difficult |
| biocompatibility | not considering | consider |
| node life | months/years | the longer the better |
| topological | unchanged | changed |
| node energy | limited, but replaceable | limited and irreplaceable |
| safety | low | very high |
| standard | IEEE 802.11.4 | IEEE 802.15.6 |
Figure 3Routing classification for wireless body area networks.
Figure 4Routing Node Arrangement Diagram of MHRP Protocol.
Figure 5Overall framework of the NCMD protocol.
Posture-based routing protocols comparison.
| Protocol | Goal | Characteristic | Complexity | Delay | Energy Efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MHRP (2017) | Dynamic environment Cardiac monitoring | A fault-tolerant system consists of two identical and independent sets of nodes | low | low | high |
| NCMD (2017) | Dynamic environment Topological fracture treatment | Opportunities to establish connections, Minimizing network management | high | low | high |
Figure 6Temperature-sensing routing.
Figure 7HELLO message format of ER-ATTEMPT protocol.
Figure 8TTRP protocol evaluation trustworthiness diagram of relay node Rj.
Comparison of temperature-based routing protocols.
| Protocol | Goal | Characteristic | Complexity | Delay | Energy Efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TARA (2005) | temperature | withdraw strategy to avoid high temperature nodes | low | high | low |
| ER-ATTEMPT (2014) | temperature | Considering temperature and hops | low | low | medium |
| TTRP (2017) | temperature | Considering temperature and trust | high | low | high |
| MTR (2017) | temperature | Considering temperature and mobility | high | medium | medium |
Figure 9Superframe structure of the Priority-Based Cross Layer Routing Protocol (PCLRP) protocol.
Figure 10CLRS Protocol Superframe Classification.
Figure 11Superframe structure of the ATT protocol.
Comparison of Cross-Layer Routing Protocols.
| Protocol | Cross Layer | Characteristic | Priority | Reliability | Delay | Energy Efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCLRP (2016) | MAC and network | Slot partitioning and routing customization | √ | medium | high | medium |
| CLDO (2017) | PHY, MAC and network | Finding the best power, relay and packet size | N/A | high | medium | high |
| CLRS (2018) | PHY and MAC | Improvement of retransmitting superframe | √ | N/A | high | N/A |
| [ | PHY, MAC and network | Link quality prediction and adaptive power control | √ | high | medium | low |
| AAT (2018) | PHY, MAC and network | Channel state estimation and adaptive power control | N/A | high | medium | high |
Cluster-based routing protocols comparison.
| Protocol | Sink Quantity | Characteristic | Communication Mode | Delay | Energy Efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DSCB (2017) | 2 | Next hop: | Emergency data: single hop | low | high |
| General data: multi-hop | |||||
| CRPBA (2018) | 2 | CH selection: | Emergency data: single hop | low | medium |
| General data: two hops |
Figure 12Modular diagram of the LRPD protocol.
Figure 13Modular diagram of the HDPR protocol.
Comparison of the Qos-based routing protocols.
| Protocol | Goal | Characteristic | Priority | Delay | Reliability | Energy Efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LRPD (2017) | optimization delay | Modularization | √ | low | N/A | medium |
| HDPR (2017) | Optimizing Delay, Reliability and Node Temperature | Modularization | √ | low | high | high |
Figure 14Node independent multipath routing.