| Literature DB >> 31314772 |
Adil Khan1, Mukhtaj Khan1, Sheeraz Ahmed2, Mohd Amiruddin Abd Rahman3, Mushtaq Khan4.
Abstract
Underwater sensor networks (UWSNs) are ad-hoc networks which are deployed at rivers, seas and oceans to explore and monitor the phenomena such as pollution control, seismic activities and petroleum mining etc. The sensor nodes of UWSNs have limited charging capabilities. UWSNs networks are generally operated under two deployment mechanisms i.e localization and non-localization based. However, in both the mechanisms, balanced energy utilization is a challenging issue. Inefficient usage of energy significantly affects stability period, packet delivery ratio, end-to-end delay, path loss and throughput of a network. To efficiently utilize and harvest energy, this paper present a novel scheme called EH-ARCUN (Energy Harvesting Analytical approach towards Reliability with Cooperation for UWSNs) based on cooperation with energy harvesting. The scheme employs Amplify-and-Forward (AF) technique at relay nodes for data forwarding and Fixed Combining Ratio (FCR) technique at destination node to select accurate signal. The proposed technique selects relay nodes among its neighbor nodes based on harvested energy level. Most cooperation-based UWSN routing techniques do not exhibit energy harvesting mechanism at the relay nodes. EH-ARCUN deploys piezoelectric energy harvesting at relay nodes to improve the working capabilities of sensors in UWSNs. The proposed scheme is an extension of our previously implemented routing scheme called ARCUN for UWSNs. Performance of the proposed scheme is compared with ARCUN and RACE (Reliability and Adaptive Cooperation for efficient Underwater sensor Networks) schemes in term of stability period, packet delivery ratio, network throughput and path loss. Extensive simulation results show that EH-ARCUN performs better than both previous schemes in terms of the considered parameters.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31314772 PMCID: PMC6636739 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219459
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Comparison of different routing schemes.
| Protocol | Routing Mechanism | Data forwarding at relay node | Data combining technique at destination node | Novelty | Disadvantage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Co-improved Hydrocast [ | Cooperative | AF | MRC | Introduction of greedy algorithms | High computation cost at source and relay nodes, increased end-to-end delay |
| Co-EEUWSN [ | Cooperative | AF | FRC | Linear cooperative path model | More data forwarding nodes, increased delay |
| ARCUN [ | Cooperative | AF | FRC | Cost function for link selection | Increased delay |
| RACE [ | Cooperative | AF | MRC | Cooperative diversity with one antenna | Increased energy consumption |
| RBCRP [ | Cooperative | AF | MRC | Bit Error Rate (BER) check at destination node, Mobile Sinks | High end-to-end delay because of mobile sinks |
| Co-MobiL [ | Cooperative | AF | MRC | AUVs equipped with GPS | Increase in end-to-end delay due to wait time for AUVs |
| SMIC [ | Cooperative | AF | MRC | Incremental cooperation | Low channel capacity |
Fig 1Remotely powered underwater acoustic sensor node [11].
Fig 2EH-ARCUN: One source and destination nodes pair with 2 energy harvesting relays.
Fig 3Stability period vs time.
Fig 4Packet delivery ratio vs time.
Fig 5End-to-end delay vs time.
Fig 6Path loss vs time.
Fig 7Network throughput vs time.