Source-linked AI summary
Z-SEP: Zonal-Stable Election Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks
S. Faisal, N. Javaid, A. Javaid, M. A. Khan, S. H. Bouk, Z. A. Khan
TL;DR
Energy-efficient routing is a concern in WSNs, and SEP is described as inefficient in using higher-energy nodes. Z-SEP combines direct transmission and clustering in energy-based zones; simulations report improved stability and throughput over LEACH and SEP.
Problem
SEP's random deployment of normal and advance nodes can leave many normal nodes far from the base station, increasing their transmission energy and reducing stability and throughput.
Source: §2 · p. 2Method
Z-SEP divides the field into zones, with normal nodes in Zone 0 transmitting directly and advance nodes in two head zones using clustering.
Source: §4.1 · p. 2, §4.2 · p. 3, §7 · p. 9Results
Z-SEP's stability period was 1584 rounds versus 899 for LEACH and 1150 for SEP, and its throughput was 2.26×10^5 packets versus 2.44×10^4 for LEACH and 4.02×10^4 for SEP.
Source: §6 · p. 8Takeaways & Limitations
The paper reports that changing node deployment across zones increased stability by approximately 50% and increased throughput compared with LEACH and SEP.
Source: §7 · p. 9Z-SEP is described for two-level heterogeneity, with a fraction m of n nodes equipped with α times more energy than normal nodes.
Source: §4.1 · p. 2
Abstract
from arXiv · showhide
Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) are comprised of thousands of sensor nodes, with restricted energy, that co-operate to accomplish a sensing task. Various routing Protocols are designed for transmission in WSNs. In this paper, we proposed a hybrid routing protocol: Zonal-Stable Election Protocol (Z-SEP) for heterogeneous WSNs. In this protocol, some nodes transmit data directly to base station while some use clustering technique to send data to base station as in SEP. We implemented Z-SEP and compared it with traditional Low Energy adaptive clustering hierarchy (LEACH) and SEP. Simulation results showed that Z-SEP enhanced the stability period and throughput than existing protocols like LEACH and SEP.
1. INTRODUCTION
The introduction frames energy-efficient routing as important for WSNs and reviews limitations of LEACH and SEP in heterogeneous settings. It proposes a hybrid protocol and reports improved stability, network lifetime, and throughput.
1. INTRODUCTION
- WSNs use sensor nodes to sense and process data and communicate it, with protocols requiring self-organization for accurate and efficient operation.Source: §1 · p. 1
- Clock-driven, event-driven, and query-driven communication all raise energy-efficiency concerns tied to extending sensing time and network lifetime.Source: §1 · p. 1
- LEACH gives all nodes the same cluster-head probability and performs poorly in heterogeneous networks, while SEP weights probability by energy but does not efficiently use higher-energy nodes.Source: §1 · p. 1
- Z-SEP combines direct transmission to the base station with clustering to transmit data.Some nodes send data directly, while others use a clustering algorithm.Source: §1 · p. 1
- The paper reports that its hybrid approach enhances stability period, network lifetime, and throughput.Source: §1 · p. 2
2. RELATED WORK AND MOTIVATION
The section reviews routing protocols and motivates Z-SEP by describing how random deployment can make SEP inefficient when many normal nodes are far from the base station. It proposes placing normal nodes near the base station for direct transmission and using clustering for higher-energy advance nodes farther away.
2. RELATED WORK AND MOTIVATION
- E-SEP adds an intermediate-energy node level, while DEEC forms cluster heads using residual node energy and average network energy.Source: §2 · p. 2
- TEEN uses hard and soft thresholds to reduce transmissions in time-critical applications, although it was proposed for homogeneous networks.Source: §2 · p. 2
- SEP may consume more energy when most randomly deployed normal nodes are far from the base station, shortening stability and reducing throughput.Source: §2 · p. 2
- Z-SEP places normal nodes near the base station for direct transmission and uses clustering only for higher-energy advance nodes farther away.Source: §2 · p. 2
3. TERMINOLOGIES USED
The section defines measures of network stability, instability, throughput, and lifetime, alongside terms for cluster-head eligibility and data aggregation.
3. TERMINOLOGIES USED
- Stability period runs from network start until the first sensor node dies, while instability period runs from the first node's death until the last node dies.Source: §3 · p. 2
- Throughput is the total rate of data sent over the network, including cluster-head-to-base-station and node-to-base-station transmissions.Source: §3 · p. 2
- Network lifetime runs from network start until the last alive node dies; an epoch is the number of rounds before a node becomes eligible for cluster head.Source: §3 · p. 2
- Data aggregation suppresses redundant messages from sensors observing common phenomena, and signal-processing suppression is called data fusion.Source: §3 · p. 2
4. PROPOSED Z-SEP
Z-SEP extends SEP with a hybrid of direct transmission and cluster-head routing. It divides the network into zones and restricts clustering to advance nodes in the two head zones.
4. PROPOSED Z-SEP
- Z-SEP combines direct transmission with transmission through cluster heads as an extension of SEP.Normal nodes send directly to the base station, while nodes in the head zones use clustering.Source: §4 · p. 2, §4.2 · p. 3
4.1 Network Architecture:
- The network is divided into Zone 0 and Head zones 1 and 2 according to node energy and Y-coordinate.Normal nodes occupy Zone 0; advance nodes are split between the two head zones, positioned at the distant corners of the field.Source: §4.1 · pp. 2–3
4.2 Z-SEP Operation
- Normal nodes in Zone 0 send data directly to the base station, while advance nodes in Head zones 1 and 2 form clusters for transmission.Cluster heads collect and aggregate member data before forwarding it to the base station.Source: §4.2 · pp. 3–4
- Cluster heads are elected using a random draw against a node-specific threshold, with a separate probability and threshold for advance nodes.The cluster-head election probability for advance nodes follows SEP.Source: §4.2 · pp. 3–4
- Nodes join a cluster based on received signal strength, then send data to the cluster head in assigned TDMA slots.Cluster heads aggregate the received data and transmit it to the base station.Source: §4.2 · p. 4
- Normal nodes do not become cluster heads because their lower energy and the head's member-data reception load could shorten the stability period.The protocol confines cluster formation to advance nodes in the head zones.Source: §4.2 · pp. 3, 5
5. SIMULATIONS
The simulations use a 100 m × 100 m field with 100 zone-deployed nodes and a centrally placed base station. The setup includes two cluster heads per round and a first-order radio model.
- The simulation uses a 100 m × 100 m field, 100 nodes deployed in zones, a central base station, the first-order radio model, and MATLAB implementation.The paper says additional simulation settings are listed in Table 1.Source: §5 · p. 5
- Twenty percent of nodes are advanced, split evenly between Head zones 1 and 2, with one cluster head in each zone per round.With Popt = 0.1, the setup specifies two cluster heads per round.Source: §5 · p. 5
- Table 1 lists simulation parameters, including data-aggregation energy and transmission/receiving energy values.The supplied parameter passage also names short- and long-distance amplification energy.Source: Table 1 · p. 5, §5 · p. 6
6. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Simulations compare Z-SEP with LEACH and SEP under two heterogeneity settings. Z-SEP is reported to improve stability and throughput, while the alternate setting leaves its stability period almost unchanged.
6. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
- In Fig. 5, Z-SEP showed greater stability than LEACH and SEP; normal nodes in Zone 0 communicate directly with the base station, avoiding cluster-head receiving and aggregation costs.The passage attributes LEACH’s faster node deaths to its sensitivity to heterogeneity.Source: §6 · p. 6, Figure 5 · p. 6
- In Fig. 6, Z-SEP throughput was far better than LEACH and SEP because every normal node sends data directly to the base station, while only cluster heads do so in LEACH and SEP.Source: §6 · p. 7
- With m=0.1 and α=2, Z-SEP’s stability period was almost the same as for m=0.2 and α=1, while extra advanced-node energy increased network lifetime.The discussion says LEACH stability decreases because equal cluster-head chances can cause normal nodes to die sooner than advanced nodes.Source: §6 · pp. 7–8, Figure 7 · p. 7
- With m=0.1 and α=2, Z-SEP throughput remained greater than LEACH and SEP despite the increased advanced-node energy.Source: §6 · pp. 7–8, Figure 8 · p. 8
- Z-SEP reached 1584 stability rounds and 2.26×10^5 packets, versus SEP’s 1150 rounds/4.02×10^4 packets and LEACH’s 899 rounds/2.44×10^4 packets.The comparison reports averages; Table 2 and Table 3 cover the two settings.Source: §6 · p. 8, Table 2 · p. 8, Table 3 · p. 8
- Z-SEP’s network lifetime was 5966 rounds, versus 5583 for LEACH and 5078 for SEP; the discussion says it is lower than LEACH’s but higher than SEP’s.Source: §6 · p. 8, Table 2 · p. 8, Table 3 · p. 8
7. CONCLUSION
Z-SEP divides a two-level heterogeneous network into three zones, assigning direct base-station transmission to normal nodes and cluster-based transmission to advanced nodes. The paper reports an approximately 50% stability-period increase and higher throughput than LEACH and SEP.
7. CONCLUSION
- Z-SEP divides the field into Zone 0, Head Zone 1, and Head Zone 2 for a two-level heterogeneous network.Source: §7 · p. 9
- Normal nodes are placed only in Zone 0 and send data directly to the base station; advanced nodes are split between the two head zones and use clustering.Source: §7 · p. 9
- The paper reports an approximately 50% stability-period increase and higher throughput than LEACH and SEP.Source: §7 · p. 9