| Literature DB >> 34960535 |
Syed Kamran Haider1,2, Aimin Jiang1, Ahmad Almogren3, Ateeq Ur Rehman1,4, Abbas Ahmed2, Wali Ullah Khan5, Habib Hamam6,7,8.
Abstract
Wireless sensor networks (WSNs) are one of the fundamental infrastructures for Internet of Things (IoTs) technology. Efficient energy consumption is one of the greatest challenges in WSNs because of its resource-constrained sensor nodes (SNs). Clustering techniques can significantly help resolve this issue and extend the network's lifespan. In clustering, WSN is divided into various clusters, and a cluster head (CH) is selected in each cluster. The selection of appropriate CHs highly influences the clustering technique, and poor cluster structures lead toward the early death of WSNs. In this paper, we propose an energy-efficient clustering and cluster head selection technique for next-generation wireless sensor networks (NG-WSNs). The proposed clustering approach is based on the midpoint technique, considering residual energy and distance among nodes. It distributes the sensors uniformly creating balanced clusters, and uses multihop communication for distant CHs to the base station (BS). We consider a four-layer hierarchical network composed of SNs, CHs, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), and BS. The UAV brings the advantage of flexibility and mobility; it shortens the communication range of sensors, which leads to an extended lifetime. Finally, a simulated annealing algorithm is applied for the optimal trajectory of the UAV according to the ground sensor network. The experimental results show that the proposed approach outperforms with respect to energy efficiency and network lifetime when compared with state-of-the-art techniques from recent literature.Entities:
Keywords: UAV flight path modeling; cluster balanced structure; clustering; next-generation wireless sensor network
Year: 2021 PMID: 34960535 PMCID: PMC8706630 DOI: 10.3390/s21248445
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Unbalanced cluster formation by using K-means clustering technique.
Figure 2Stepwise contribution to the proposed method.
Symbols and notations.
| Symbol/Notation | Details |
|---|---|
|
| Distance between CH to BS |
|
| Parametric values for the free space |
|
| Parametric values for the multipath |
|
| Optimal number of clusters |
|
| Side length of the sensing area |
|
| Number of SNs in the sensing area |
|
| Message length in bits |
|
| Distance for transmitting k bits |
|
| Threshold |
|
| Transmit power by the electronic circuit to send k-bit of data |
|
| Energy required to receive the |
|
| Threshold energy level |
|
| Total SNs in the cluster |
|
| CHs unable to communicate or send data directly to the UAV |
|
| Distance between each elected CH and UAV |
|
| Current temperature |
|
| Distance between two cluster heads |
Figure 3Midpoint point algorithm; IDs are based on the distances from the centroid.
Simulation parameters.
| Parameter | Value | Unit |
|---|---|---|
| network size | 100 × 100 | m2 |
| base station location | (0, 0) | |
| number of clusters ( | 4, 5 | |
| number of sensor nodes (N) | 100 | |
|
| 50 | nJ/bit |
|
| 0.0013 | pJ/bit/m4 |
|
| 10 | pJ/bit/m2 |
| 5 | nJ/bit/signal | |
| initial energy of node | 1 | Joule |
| data packet | 3200 | bits |
|
| 85–100 | m |
| Dthreshold | 88 | m |
| DICH |
|
Figure 4Midpoint point algorithm; IDs are based on the distances from the centroid. (a) K-means clustering approach, (b) Park’s clustering approach.
Figure 5Clusterwise results for dBs = 100, 4 clusters. (a) Park’s approach, (b) Proposed approach.
Balanced cluster comparison (dBs = 100).
| Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | Cluster 4 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Obs. | Park’s | Proposed | Park’s | Proposed | Park’s | Proposed | Park’s | Proposed |
| 1 | 24 | 25 | 18 | 25 | 38 | 23 | 20 | 27 |
| 2 | 15 | 26 | 22 | 25 | 35 | 24 | 28 | 25 |
| 3 | 32 | 27 | 30 | 26 | 26 | 23 | 12 | 23 |
| 4 | 17 | 23 | 38 | 28 | 24 | 24 | 18 | 25 |
| 5 | 28 | 26 | 26 | 24 | 33 | 27 | 13 | 23 |
| 6 | 30 | 23 | 20 | 26 | 18 | 27 | 32 | 25 |
| 7 | 33 | 23 | 17 | 27 | 22 | 22 | 28 | 28 |
Figure 6CHs to BS and ground-located UAV communication model. (a) Park’s approach, (b) Proposed approach.
Figure 7Clusterwise results for dBs = 85, 5 clusters. (a) Park’s approach, (b) Proposed approach.
Balanced cluster comparison (dBs = 85).
| Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | Cluster 4 | Cluster 5 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Obs. | Park | Proposed | Park | Proposed | Park | Proposed | Park | Proposed | Park | Proposed |
| 1 | 13 | 19 | 17 | 21 | 25 | 24 | 33 | 17 | 12 | 17 |
| 2 | 23 | 21 | 24 | 17 | 19 | 22 | 15 | 21 | 19 | 17 |
| 3 | 18 | 19 | 26 | 20 | 18 | 21 | 26 | 20 | 12 | 20 |
| 4 | 17 | 21 | 32 | 18 | 17 | 18 | 16 | 20 | 18 | 21 |
| 5 | 10 | 20 | 30 | 24 | 14 | 23 | 24 | 17 | 22 | 16 |
| 6 | 28 | 19 | 12 | 21 | 23 | 16 | 16 | 22 | 21 | 22 |
| 7 | 15 | 17 | 25 | 23 | 18 | 17 | 17 | 22 | 25 | 20 |
Standard deviation from ideal cluster size.
| 4-Clusters | 5-Clusters | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Obs. | Park’s | Proposed | Park’s | Proposed |
| 1 | 1.55 | 0.281 | 1.80 | 0.510 |
| 2 | 1.49 | 0.142 | 0.722 | 0.373 |
| 3 | 1.435 | 0.425 | 1.3 | 0.142 |
| 4 | 1.67 | 0.373 | 1.34 | 0.199 |
| 5 | 1.68 | 0.448 | 1.5 | 0.706 |
| 6 | 1.21 | 0.373 | 1.242 | 0.510 |
| 7 | 1.22 | 0.635 | 0.937 | 0.509 |
|
| 1.465 | 0.382 | 1.264 | 0.421 |
Figure 8Network lifetime comparison.
Network lifetime comparison detailed analysis.
| Algorithm | Round 1st Node Dies | Round Half Nodes Dies | Round Last Node Dies |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proposed | 2450 | 3080 | 3700 |
| Mk-means | 2210 | 2790 | 3570 |
| Park’s approach | 2200 | 2750 | 3400 |
| BPK-means | 2100 | 2700 | 3500 |
| LEACH-B | 1900 | 2350 | 2950 |
Figure 9Energy consumption per round.
Network lifetime comparison.
| Algorithm | Number of Rounds |
|---|---|
| LEACH-B | 1800 |
| BPK-means | 1850 |
| Park’s approach | 2050 |
| mk-means | 2200 |
| Proposed | 2400 |
Comparison and summary of existing methods with our proposed method.
| Key Features | Mk-Means | BPK-Means | Park’s Approach | Proposed Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Based on | K-means method | K-means method | K-means method | Improved K-means with midpoint method approach |
| Initial selection of CHs | Randomly | Randomly | Randomly | Midpoint approach is used |
| Create balanced cluster structure | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
| Compute optimum list of CHs | No | Yes | No | Yes |
| Clustering considers minimal distance between the SN and CH | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| residual energy taken into account for the selection of CH | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
| Specified CH residual energy threshold level | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
| Uniformly distribution of CHs over the sensing region | No | No | No | Yes |
| Supports multihop communication between the CH and the UAV | No | No | No | Yes |
| prolong network lifetime | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
Figure 10UAV flight trajectory. (a) Nominated cluster head for communication, (b) UAV flying route for data gathering.