| Literature DB >> 33092224 |
Maryam Shakeri1, Abolghasem Sadeghi-Niaraki1,2, Soo-Mi Choi2, S M Riazul Islam2.
Abstract
With the development of Internet of Things (IoT) applications, applying the potential and benefits of IoT technology in the health and environment services is increasing to improve the service quality using sensors and devices. This paper aims to apply GIS-based optimization algorithms for optimizing IoT-based network deployment through the use of wireless sensor networks (WSNs) and smart connected sensors for environmental and health applications. First, the WSN deployment research studies in health and environment applications are reviewed including fire monitoring, precise agriculture, telemonitoring, smart home, and hospital. Second, the WSN deployment process is modeled to optimize two conflict objectives, coverage and lifetime, by applying Minimum Spanning Tree (MST) routing protocol with minimum total network lengths. Third, the performance of the Bees Algorithm (BA) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithms are compared for the evaluation of GIS-based WSN deployment in health and environment applications. The algorithms were compared using convergence rate, constancy repeatability, and modeling complexity criteria. The results showed that the PSO algorithm converged to higher values of objective functions gradually while BA found better fitness values and was faster in the first iterations. The levels of stability and repeatability were high with 0.0150 of standard deviation for PSO and 0.0375 for BA. The PSO also had lower complexity than BA. Therefore, the PSO algorithm obtained better performance for IoT-based sensor network deployment.Entities:
Keywords: Bees Algorithm; IoT; Minimum Spanning Tree; PSO algorithm; coverage; health and environment applications; lifetime; wireless sensor network deployment
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33092224 PMCID: PMC7590066 DOI: 10.3390/s20205923
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The research methodology.
Figure 2Sensor nodes: Sensing range, communication range, and coverage.
Figure 3Bees Algorithm (BA) for Minimum Spanning Tree (MST)-based network deployment.
Figure 4Schematic example of Bee with n = 10.
Figure 5Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) for MST-based network deployment.
Calibration of the BA parameters using trial and error method.
| Run No. | Iteration Number |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Fitness Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 20 | 100 | 35 | 10 | 55 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0.711 |
| 2 | 20 | 100 | 35 | 10 | 55 | 12 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0.715 |
| 3 | 20 | 100 | 35 | 10 | 55 | 20 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0.721 |
| 4 | 20 | 100 | 35 | 10 | 55 | 12 | 12 | 5 | 5 | 0.713 |
| 5 | 20 | 100 | 35 | 10 | 55 | 12 | 20 | 5 | 5 | 0.740 |
| 6 | 20 | 100 | 35 | 10 | 55 | 12 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 0.742 |
| 7 | 20 | 100 | 35 | 10 | 55 | 12 | 20 | 12 | 5 | 0.718 |
| 8 | 20 | 100 | 35 | 10 | 55 | 12 | 20 | 20 | 5 | 0.699 |
| 9 | 20 | 100 | 35 | 10 | 55 | 12 | 20 | 12 | 10 | 0.719 |
| 10 | 20 | 100 | 35 | 10 | 55 | 12 | 20 | 10 | 12 | 0.715 |
| 11 | 20 | 100 | 35 | 10 | 55 | 12 | 20 | 10 | 10 | 0.726 |
| 12 | 20 | 100 | 40 | 5 | 55 | 12 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 0.693 |
| 13 | 20 | 100 | 30 | 15 | 55 | 12 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 0.697 |
| 14 | 20 | 100 | 40 | 10 | 50 | 12 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 0.715 |
| 15 | 20 | 50 | 17 | 5 | 28 | 12 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 0.729 |
| 16 | 20 | 50 | 20 | 5 | 25 | 12 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 0.712 |
| 17 | 20 | 100 | 35 | 10 | 55 | 12 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 0.724 |
| 18 | 50 | 100 | 35 | 10 | 55 | 12 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 0.731 |
| 19 | 70 | 100 | 35 | 10 | 55 | 12 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 0.739 |
| 20 | 100 | 100 | 35 | 10 | 55 | 12 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 0.755 (best) |
Calibration of the PSO parameters using trial and error method.
| Run No. | Iteration Number |
|
|
|
| Fitness Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 20 | 100 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.636 |
| 2 | 20 | 100 | 0.3 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 0.639 |
| 3 | 20 | 100 | 0.3 | 2 | 0.3 | 0.657 |
| 4 | 20 | 100 | 0.3 | 4 | 0.3 | 0.665 |
| 5 | 20 | 100 | 0.3 | 4 | 1.5 | 0.719 |
| 6 | 20 | 100 | 0.3 | 4 | 2 | 0.761 |
| 7 | 20 | 100 | 0.3 | 4 | 4 | 0.735 |
| 8 | 20 | 100 | 0.3 | 2 | 2 | 0.732 |
| 9 | 20 | 100 | 0.3 | 2.5 | 2 | 0.703 |
| 10 | 20 | 100 | 0.8 | 2 | 2 | 0.683 |
| 11 | 20 | 100 | 0.5 | 2 | 2 | 0.681 |
| 12 | 20 | 100 | 0.3 | 2 | 2 | 0.761 |
| 13 | 20 | 50 | 0.3 | 2 | 2 | 0.720 |
| 14 | 20 | 20 | 0.3 | 2 | 2 | 0.665 |
| 15 | 20 | 120 | 0.3 | 2 | 2 | 0.799 |
| 16 | 20 | 80 | 0.3 | 2 | 2 | 0.763 |
| 17 | 20 | 150 | 0.3 | 2 | 2 | 0.719 |
| 18 | 30 | 100 | 0.3 | 2 | 2 | 0.767 |
| 19 | 50 | 100 | 0.3 | 2 | 2 | 0.797 |
| 20 | 70 | 100 | 0.3 | 2 | 2 | 0.816 (best) |
Figure 6Convergence rate of two network deployment algorithms for 20 executions: (a) BA; (b) PSO.
Figure 7The average of the best values over 20 executions for two algorithms: (a) BA; (b) PSO.
Figure 8Constancy of two algorithms for IoT-based sensor network deployment algorithm in sequential executions: (a) BA; (b) PSO.