Source-linked AI summary
TSEP: Threshold-sensitive Stable Election Protocol for WSNs
A. Kashaf, N. Javaid, Z. A. Khan, I. A. Khan
TL;DR
WSNs need routing protocols that extend network lifetime because deployed nodes have limited, generally nonreplaceable batteries. The paper proposes TSEP, combining reactive threshold-based transmission with three energy-heterogeneity levels, and evaluates it against several protocols in a temperature-sensing application. Simulations report greater stability period and network lifetime for TSEP than the compared protocols, with throughput reflecting both heterogeneity and threshold sensitivity.
Problem
WSNs must operate without human involvement while their deployed nodes consume energy during sensing, transmission, and reception, motivating protocols that extend network life.
Method
TSEP combines reactive threshold-based transmission with three levels of node-energy heterogeneity and threshold-based cluster-head selection.
Results
TSEP achieves greater stability period and network lifetime than SEP, LEACH, ESEP, and TEEN in the reported simulations.
Takeaways & Limitations
Threshold sensitivity reduces transmissions, while three-level heterogeneity increases throughput relative to SEP, LEACH, and TEEN but not compared with ESEP.
Abstract
from arXiv · showhide
Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) are expected to find wide applicability and increasing deployment in near future. In this paper, we propose a new protocol, Threshold Sensitive Stable Election Protocol (TSEP), which is reactive protocol using three levels of heterogeneity. Reactive networks, as opposed to proactive networks, respond immediately to changes in relevant parameters of interest. We evaluate performance of our protocol for a simple temperature sensing application and compare results of protocol with some other protocols LEACH, DEEC, SEP, ESEP and TEEN. And from simulation results it is observed that protocol outperforms concerning life time of sensing nodes used.
I. INTRODUCTION
WSNs use small, energy-constrained nodes whose batteries generally cannot be replaced after deployment, making network lifetime a central design concern. Routing protocols differ in whether they transmit continuously or only after sensed changes, while clustering can reduce energy consumption.
- Wireless sensors monitor physical or environmental conditions and transmit sensed information to a sink.
- Because deployed nodes cannot practically have their batteries replaced or recharged, WSN protocols focus on extending network life.
- Proactive Routing Protocols: Proactive protocols continuously sense and transmit data, making them suitable when regular reporting is required.
- Reactive Routing Protocols: Reactive protocols continue sensing but transmit when a drastic change occurs, making them suitable for time-critical applications.
- Clustering reduces sensor energy consumption by organizing nodes around elected cluster heads and scheduling transmissions in repeated frames.
- Direct transmission consumes less energy for nodes near the sink, while distant nodes die more quickly.
II. BACKGROUND
The background describes energy-aware routing approaches that manage transmission power and node organization to influence which nodes deplete their energy first.
- Clustering procedures are used to control energy consumption in sensor networks.
- Minimum Transmission Energy routes data along paths requiring the least transmission power, shifting earlier energy loss toward nodes near the sink.
A. Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy (LEACH)
LEACH is a proactive, probabilistic clustering protocol for homogeneous, energy-constrained WSNs. It rotates cluster-head selection and uses scheduled transmissions, but has limitations in large areas and fixed attributes.
- LEACH is a proactive routing protocol that forms clusters among randomly dispersed nodes.
- Nodes probabilistically elect themselves as cluster heads so each node becomes a cluster head once during an epoch of 1/P.
- LEACH assumes homogeneous nodes constrained in energy and aggregates cluster data before forwarding it to the sink or base station.
- Cluster heads broadcast TDMA schedules, and member nodes transmit to them during assigned time slots before the frame repeats.
- LEACH is considered unsuitable for large areas because of energy constraints, and selected attributes cannot be changed.
B. Stable Election Protocol (SEP)
SEP extends clustering with two energy-heterogeneity levels, assigning advanced nodes extra energy and differentiated cluster-head probabilities. The paper reports gains in stability, network lifetime, and throughput.
- SEP introduces two-level heterogeneity by giving a fraction m of nodes an additional energy factor α, creating advanced nodes.
- Normal and advanced nodes use different probabilities of becoming cluster heads, based on the optimal probability popt.
- SEP forms clusters probabilistically, with nodes transmitting sensed data to associated cluster heads for forwarding to the base station.
- The paper states that SEP increases stability period and network lifetime through advanced nodes, while two-level heterogeneity also increases throughput.
C. Enhanced Stable Election Protocol (ESEP)
ESEP extends SEP with three node-energy classes—normal, intermediate, and advanced—and selects cluster heads according to each class’s election probability.
- ESEP introduces normal, intermediate, and advanced nodes with progressively different energy levels.Intermediate nodes have more energy than normal nodes but less than advanced nodes.
D. Threshold Sensitive Energy Efficient sensor Network protocol (TEEN)
TEEN is a reactive, threshold-sensitive protocol for time-critical applications. It transmits after hard and soft threshold conditions, reducing transmissions and improving reported network longevity and stability.
- TEEN is a reactive protocol designed for time-critical applications, transmitting when a severe field change occurs.
- TEEN uses hard and soft thresholds to determine when sensed data is transmitted.The hard threshold triggers initial transmission; subsequent transmission requires a sufficient difference from the previously saved value.
- TEEN reduces energy consumption and throughput while improving network life and stability period compared with the discussed protocols.
- SEP and ESEP improve stability period and network lifetime but their increased throughput can decrease network lifetime.The paper presents TSEP as addressing the trade-off among energy efficiency, accuracy, and response time.
III. PROPOSED PROTOCOL
TSEP combines reactive threshold-based transmission with three-level heterogeneity. Its design reduces unnecessary transmissions while retaining configurable sensing and reporting, although threshold-based silence can hide node failure or needed continuous data.
- III. PROPOSED PROTOCOL: TSEP is a reactive routing protocol with three levels of heterogeneity.Transmission occurs only when a specific threshold is reached because transmission consumes more energy than sensing.
- III. PROPOSED PROTOCOL: TSEP divides nodes into normal, intermediate, and advanced energy levels.
- III. PROPOSED PROTOCOL: The total node energy is expressed as nEo(1 + mα + bµ) for the three-level heterogeneous network.
- III. PROPOSED PROTOCOL: Nodes use energy-based probabilities and threshold formulas to determine cluster-head election.Each node becomes a cluster head when its random value is less than its applicable threshold.
- III. PROPOSED PROTOCOL: TSEP maintains the same average number of cluster heads as LEACH, SEP, and ESEP while reducing energy dissipation through energy heterogeneity.
- III. PROPOSED PROTOCOL: At cluster change, the protocol refreshes report time, attributes, and soft-threshold settings, allowing application-dependent configuration.
- III. PROPOSED PROTOCOL: Nodes continuously sense but transmit only after hard-threshold or soft-threshold conditions are met.The soft threshold suppresses transmissions caused by small changes after the sensed value is stored.
- III. PROPOSED PROTOCOL: If thresholds are not reached, users receive no information, and node deaths may remain undetected; continuous-data applications are therefore unsuitable.
IV. SIMULATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS
MATLAB simulations compare TSEP with SEP, ESEP, LEACH, and TEEN using energy, longevity, node-status, and throughput metrics across heterogeneous network settings. TSEP shows longer stability and network lifetime, while three-level heterogeneity raises throughput and threshold sensitivity reduces it relative to ESEP.
- Simulation setup and metrics: The simulations compare TSEP with SEP, ESEP, LEACH, and TEEN on energy dissipation and network longevity.The evaluation uses MATLAB and examines stability, instability, alive and dead nodes, and throughput.
- Simulation setup and metrics: The experiments use 100 randomly placed nodes with the base station at the region center, varying α and m while keeping b = 0.3.The cases are α = 1, m = 0.1 and α = 3, m = 0.2; p_opt = 0.1 determines cluster-head probabilities.
- Results: TSEP and TEEN have better throughput results than the other protocols, but TSEP throughput is lower than ESEP because threshold sensitivity reduces transmission.ESEP and TSEP retain higher throughput than SEP, LEACH, and TEEN due to three-level heterogeneity, while threshold-based transmission lowers the rate.
- Results: TSEP has greater stability period and network lifetime than the other compared protocols, with nodes dying more slowly because transmission occurs only at the hard threshold.The reported comparisons use alive nodes, dead nodes, and packets sent from cluster heads to the base station.
V. CONCLUSIONS
TSEP is a reactive routing protocol with three energy levels and threshold-based cluster-head selection, proposed to extend network stability and lifetime.
- TSEP uses three energy levels and threshold-based cluster-head selection in a reactive routing protocol.
- The authors report that TSEP increases stability period and network life compared with SEP, LEACH, ESEP, and TEEN.