Routing Strategies for Wireless Sensor Networks

Raul Aquino-Santos1, Luis Villasenor-Gonzalez2, Jaime Sanchez2, Jose Rosario

Gallardo2
1
Faculty of Telematics, University of Colima
28040, Av. Universidad 333, Colima, Colima, Mexico
2
CICESE, Research Centre
22860, Carretera Tijuana-Ensenada, k. 113
Emsenada, B.C.N., Mexico
aquinor@ucoljnx; {luisvi, jasan, [email protected]}

Abstract. This paper evaluates three routing strategies for wireless sensor
networks: source, shortest path, and hierarchical-geographical, which are the
three most commonly employed by wireless ad-hoc and sensor networks
algorithms. Source routing was selected because it does not require costly
topology maintenance, while shortest path routing was chosen because of its
simple discovery routing approach and hierarchical-geographical routing was
elected because it uses location information via Global Positioning System
(GPS). The performance of these three routing strategies is evaluated by
simulation using OPNET, in terms of latency, End to End Delay (EED), packet
delivery ratio, routing overhead, overhead and routing load.

Keywords: Wireless sensor networks, multi-hop networks, unicast routing,

hierarchical and flat routing mechanisms.

1 Introduction
Recent advances in micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) technology have
made the deployment of wireless sensor nodes a reality [1] [2], in part, because they
are small, inexpensive and energy efficient. Each node of a sensor network consists of
three basic subsystems: a sensor subsystem to monitor local environment parameters,
a processing subsystem to give computation support to the node, and a
communication subsystem to provide wireless communications to exchange
information with neighboring nodes. Because each individual sensor node can only
cover a relatively limited area, it needs to be connected with other nodes in a
coordinated manner to form a sensor network (SN), which can provide large amounts
of detailed information about a given geographic area. Consequently, a wireless
sensor network (WSN) can be described as a collection of intercommunicated
wireless sensor nodes which coordinate to perform a specific action. Unlike
traditional wireless networks, WSNs depend on dense deployment and coordination to
carry out their task. Wireless sensor nodes measure conditions in the environment
surrounding them and then transform these measurements into signals that can be

Please use the following format when citing this chapter:

Aquino-Santos, R., Villasenor-Gonzalez, L., Sanchez, J., Gallardo, J. R., 2007, in IFIP International Federation for
Information Processing, Volume 248, Wireless Sensor and Actor Networks, eds. L. Orozco-Barbosa, Olivares, T.,
Casado, R., Bermudez, A., (Boston: Springer), pp. 191-202.
192 Raul Aquino-Santos, Luis Villaseflor-Gonzalez, Jaime Sanchez, JosS Rosario Gallardo

processed to reveal specific information about phenomena located within a coverage

area around these sensor nodes.
WSNs have a variety of applications. Examples include environmental monitoring -
which involves monitoring air, soil and water, condition-based maintenance, habitat
monitoring (determining the plant and animal species population and behavior),
seismic detection, military surveillance, inventory tracking, smart spaces, etc. [3][4].
Despite their many diverse applications, WSNs pose a number of unique technical
challenges due to the following factors: fault tolerance (robustness), scalability,
production costs, operating environment, sensor network topology, hardware
constraint, transmission media and power consumption.
To date, the ZigBee Alliance is developing a communication standard for WSNs to
support low-cost, low-power consumption, two-way wireless communications.
Solutions adopting the ZigBee standard will be embedded in consumer electronics,
home and building automation, industrial controls, PC peripherals, medical sensor
applications, toys and games [5].
Sensor networks are generally deployed into an unplanned infrastructure where
there is no a priori knowledge of their specific location. The resulting problem of
estimating the spatial coordinates of the node is referred to as location. Most of the
proposed localization methods today depend on recursive trilateration/multilateration
techniques [6].
In WSNs, obtaining data is sometimes more important than knowing the specific Id
of the originating node. Because the data collected by many sensors in WSNs is
typically based on a common phenomenon, there is a high probability that this data
has some degree of redundancy. Data redundancy needs to be exploited by the routing
protocol to optimize energy and bandwidth utilization.
Many researchers are currently engaged in developing strategies to meet these many
diverse requirements. This paper focuses on a performance analysis of three basic
routing strategies which are commonly used in routing protocols in wireless ad-hoc
and sensor networks. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2
considers various routing protocols that deal with state-of-the-art routing techniques
for wireless sensor networks. Section 3 provides an explanation of the scenario
simulated and finally, Section 4 summarizes our work and proposes future research.

2 State-of-the-art of Routing Techniques for Wireless Sensor

Networks
Routing protocols for wireless sensor networks can be classified as data-centric,
hierarchical or location-based [7]. In these three categories, source, shortest path, and
hierarchical-geographical strategies play an important role to develop all of the
routing protocols.
 Routing Strategies for Wireless Sensor Networks 193

2.1 Data-centric protocols

In data-centric protocols, the sensor nodes broadcast an advertisement for the

available data and wait for a request from an interested sink. Flooding is a simple
technique that can be used to broadcast information in wireless sensor networks,
however it requires significant resources because each node receiving a message must
rebroadcast it, unless a maximum number of hops for the packet are reached, or the
destination of the packet is the node itself. Flooding is a reactive technique that does
not require costly topology maintenance or complex route discovery algorithms.
However, it does have several additional deficiencies such as: implosion, overlap and
resource blindness [8]. A derivation of flooding is gossiping, in which nodes do not
broadcast. Instead, they send the incoming packets to a randomly selected neighbor.
Sensor protocols for information via negotiation (SPIN) address the deficiencies of
classic flooding by providing negotiation and resource adaptation [9]. However, SPIN
data advertisement mechanism cannot, by itself, guarantee data delivery [10]. SPIN
employs a shortest path strategy based on three types of messages to communicate:

ADV- new data advertisement. When a SPIN node has data to share, it can
advertise this fact by transmitting an ADV message containing meta-data.
REQ - request for data. A SPIN node sends an REQ message when it wishes to
receive some actual data.
DATA - data message. DATA messages contain actual sensor data with a meta-data
header.

Unlike traditional networks, a sensor node does not necessarily require an identity
(e.g. an address). Instead, applications focus on the different data generated by the
sensors. Because data is identified by its attributes, applications request data by
matching certain attribute values. One of the most popular algorithms for data-centric
protocols is direct diffusion and it bases its routing strategy on shortest path [11]. A
sensor network based on direct diffusion exhibits the following properties: each
sensor node names data that it generates with one or more attributes, other nodes may
express interests based on these attributes, and network nodes propagate interests.
Interests establish gradients that direct the diffusion of data. In its simple form, a
gradient is a scalar quantity. Negative gradients inhibit the distribution of data along a
particular path, and positive gradients encourage the transmission of data along the
path.
The Energy-Aware Routing protocol is a destination-initiated reactive protocol that
increases the network lifetime using only one path at all times, it seems very similar
to source routing [12]. Rumor routing [13] is a variation of direct diffusion that is
mainly intended for applications where geographic routing is not feasible. Gradient-
based routing is another variant of direct diffusion [14]. The key idea of gradient-
based routing is to memorize the number of hops when the interest is diffused
throughout the network. Constraint Anisotropic Diffusion Routing (CADR) is a
general form of direct diffusion [15] and lastly, Active Query Forwarding in Sensor
Networks (ACQUIRE) [16] views the network as a distributed database, where
complex queries can be further divided into several sub queries.
194 Raul Aquino-Santos, Luis Villasefior-Gonzalez, Jaime Sanchez, Jose Rosario Gallardo

2.2 Hierarchical protocols

Hierarchical protocols are based on clusters because clusters can contribute to more
scalable behavior as the number of nodes increases, provide improved robustness, and
facilitate more efficient resource utilization for many distributed sensor coordination
tasks.
Low-Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy (LEACH) is a cluster-based protocol
that minimizes energy dissipation in sensor networks by randomly selecting sensor
nodes as cluster-heads [17]. Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information System
(PEGASIS) [18] is a near optimal chain-based protocol. The basic idea of the protocol
is to extend network lifetime by allowing nodes to communicate exclusively with
their closest neighbors, employing a turn-taking strategy to communicate with the
Base Station (BS). Threshold-sensitive Energy Efficient protocol (TEEN) [19] and
Adaptive Periodic TEEN (APTEEN) [20] have also been proposed for time-critical
applications. In TEEN, sensor nodes continuously sense the medium, but data
transmission is done less frequently. APTEEN, on the other hand, is a hybrid protocol
that changes the periodicity or threshold values used in the TEEN protocol, according
to user needs and the application type.

2.3 Location-based protocols

In location-based routing, the forwarding decision by a node is primarily based on

the position of a packet's destination and the position of the node's immediate one-
hop neighbor. The position of the destination is contained in the header of the packet.
If a node has a more accurate position of the destination, it may choose to update the
position in the packet before forwarding it. The position of the neighbors is typically
learned through a one-hop broadcast beacon. These beacons are sent periodically by
all nodes and contain the position of the sending node.
We can distinguish three main packet-forwarding strategies for position-based
routing: greedy forwarding, restricted directional flooding, and hierarchical
approaches. For the first two, a node forwards a given packet to one (greedy
forwarding) or more (restricted directional flooding) one-hop neighbors that are
located closer to the destination than the forwarding node itself. The selection of the
neighbor in the greedy case depends on the optimization criteria of the algorithm. The
third forwarding strategy is to form a hierarchy in order to scale to a large number of
mobile nodes.
Minimum Energy Communication Network (MECN) [21] establishes and maintains
a minimum energy network for wireless networks by utilizing low-power geographic
positioning system (GPS). The main idea of MECN is to find the sub-network with
the smallest number of nodes that requires the least transmission power between any
two particular nodes (shortest path). The Small Minimum Energy Communication
Network (SMECN) [22] is an extension of MECN. The major drawback with MECN
is that it assumes every node can transmit to every other node, which is not always
possible. One advantage of SMECN is that it considers obstacles between pairs of
nodes. Geographic Adaptive Fidelity (GAF) [23] is an energy-aware location-based
 Routing Strategies for Wireless Sensor Networks 195

routing algorithm primarily designed for ad-hoc networks that can also be applied to
sensor networks. GAF conserves energy by turning off unnecessary nodes in the
network without affecting the level of routing fidelity. Finally, Geographic and
Energy Aware Routing [24] uses energy-awareness and geographically informed
neighbor selection heuristics to route a packet toward the destination region.

2.4 ZigBee Protocol

The IEEE 802.15.4-2003 standard defines the lower two layers: the physical (PHY)
layer and the medium access control (MAC) sub-layer. The ZigBee alliance builds on
this foundation by providing the network (NWK) layer and the framework for the
application layer, which includes the application support sub-layer (APS), the ZigBee
device objects (ZDO) and the manufacturer-defined application objects.
IEEE 802.15.4-2003 has two PHY layers that operate in two separate frequency
ranges: 868/915 MHz and 2.4 GHz. The 2.4 GHz mode specifies a Spread Spectrum
modulation technique with processing gain equal to 32. It handles a data rate of 250
kbps, with Offset-QPSK modulation, and a chip rate of 2 Mcps.
The 868/915 MHz mode specifies a DSSS modulation technique with data rates of
20/40 kbps and chip rates of 300/600 kcps. The digital modulation is BPSK and the
processing gain is equal to 15.
On the other hand, the MAC sub-layer controls access to the radio channel using a
CSMA-CA mechanism. Its responsibilities may also include transmitting beacon
frames, synchronizing transmissions and providing a reliable transmission
mechanism.
The responsibilities of the ZigBee NWK layer includes mechanisms used to join
and exit a network, in order to apply security to frames and to route frames to their
intended destinations based on shortest path strategy. In addition, the discovery and
maintenance of routes between devices transfer to the NWK layer. Also, the
discovery of one-hop neighbors and the storing of pertinent neighbor information are
done at the NWK layer. The NWK layer of a ZigBee coordinator is responsible for
starting a new network, when appropriate, and assigning addresses to newly
associated devices.
The responsibilities of the APS sub-layer include maintaining tables for binding,
which is the ability to match two devices together based by their services and their
needs, and forwarding messages between bound devices. The responsibilities of the
ZDO include defining the role of the device within the network, initiating and/or
responding to binding requests and establishing a secure relationship between
network devices. The ZDO is also responsible for discovering devices on the network
and determining which application services they provide.
196 Raul Aquino-Santos, Luis Villaseilor-Gonzalez, Jaime Sanchez, Jose Rosario Gallardo

3 Scenarios Simulated
The routing protocols described in section 2 make use of one, or a combination of the
following strategies: source, shortest path or hierarchical-geographical routing
strategies. The performance of these basic strategies is evaluated using the following
metrics:

• Route discovery time (Latency): is the time the sink has to wait before
actually receiving the first data packet.
• Average end-to-end delay of data packets: are all possible delays caused by
queuing, retransmission delays at the MAC and propagation and transfer
times.
• Packet delivery ratio: is the ratio of the number of data packets delivered to
the destination and the number of data packets sent by the transmitter. Data
packets may be dropped en route for several reasons: e.g. the next hop link is
broken when the data packet is ready to be transmitted or one or more
collisions have occurred.
• Routing load: is measured in terms of routing packets transmitted per data
packets transmitted. The latter includes only the data packets finally
delivered at the destination and not the ones that are dropped. The
transmission at each hop is counted once for both routing and data packets.
This provides an idea of network bandwidth consumed by routing packets
with respect to "useful" data packets.
• Routing overhead: is the total number of routing packets transmitted during
the simulation. For packets sent over multiple hops, each packet transmission
(hop) counts as one transmission.
• Overhead (packets): is the total number of routing packets generated divided
by the sum of total number of data packets transmitted and the total number
of routing packets

3.1 Basic Routing Strategies implemented

In source routing, each packet header carries the complete ordered list of nodes
through which the packet must pass. The key advantage of source routing is that
intermediate nodes do not need to maintain up-to-date routing information in order to
route the packets they forward, since the packets themselves already contain all the
routing information. This fact, coupled with the on-demand nature of the protocol,
eliminates the need for the periodic route advertisement and neighbor detection
packets present in other protocols such as the Energy Aware Routing.
In the shortest path strategy, when a node S needs a route to destination D, it
broadcasts a route request message to its neighbors, including the last known
sequence number for that destination. The route request is flooded in a controlled
manner through the network until it reaches a node that has a route to the destination.
 Routing Strategies for Wireless Sensor Networks 197

Each node that forwards the route request creates a reverse route for itself back to
node S. Examples are SPIN, Direct Diffusion, MECN, and the ZigBee standard.
When the route request reaches a node with a route to D, that node generates a route
reply containing the number of hops necessary to reach D and the sequence number
for D most recently seen by the node generating the reply. Importantly, each node that
forwards this reply back toward the originator of the route request (node S) creates a
forward route to D. The state created in each node remembers only the next hop and
not the entire route, as would be done in source routing.
Hierarchical-geographical strategy improves the traditional routing strategies based
on non-positional routing by making use of location information provided by GPS as
it minimizes flooding of its Location Request (LREQ) packets. Flooding, therefore, is
directive for traffic control by using only the selected nodes, called gateway nodes to
diffuse LREQ messages. The purpose of gateway nodes is to minimize thefloodingof
broadcast messages in the network by reducing duplicate retransmissions in the same
region.
Member nodes are converted into gateways when they receive messages from more
than one cluster-head. All the members of the cluster read and process the packet, but
do not retransmit the broadcast message. This technique significantly reduces the
number of retransmissions in a flooding or broadcast procedure in dense networks.
Therefore, only the gateway nodes retransmit packets between clusters (hierarchical
organization). Moreover, gateways only retransmit a packet from one gateway to
another in order to minimize unnecessary retransmissions, and only if the gateway
belongs to a different cluster-head.
We decided to evaluate source, shortest path and hierarchical-geographical routing
strategies since they represent the foundation of all of the above mentioned routing
protocols.
The simulator for evaluating the three routing strategies for our wireless sensor
network is implemented in OPNET 11.5, and the simulation models a network of 225
MICAz sensor nodes [2]. This configuration represents a typical scenario where
nodes are uniformly placed within an area of 1.5 km2.
We used a 2405- 2480 MHz frequency range and a 250 kbps data rate for our
simulation, with a MICAz sensor node separation of 75 m. This scenario represents a
typical wireless sensor network with one sink node acting as a gateway to
communicate the WSN with a separate network (Internet). In our scenario one sensor
node communicates with the sink, and the sensor node sends a packet every second
(constant bit rate).

3.2 Simulation Results

Figure 1 shows the latency between the sink and the source in milliseconds. Source
and shortest path routing strategies show a similar behavior. However, hierarchical-
geographical routing shows the poorest behavior due to the transmission of position
information via hello packets which produce more collision in the wireless medium,
in addition, the cluster formation mechanism also increase the latency.
198 Raul Aquino-Santos, Luis Villasefior-Gonzalez, Jaime Sanchez, Jos6 Rosario Gallardo

- Hierarchical and Geographical

i Shortest Path
Source Routing

1120

Distance from sink to source (m)

Fig. 1. Latency (milliseconds).

Figure 2 shows the End-to-End Delay (EED) between the sink and the source in
milliseconds. The hierarchical-geographical routing strategy shows the worst behavior
because the static nature of the wireless sensor nodes causes synchronization of the
packets. Synchronization arises from the simultaneous transmission of packets
between neighbors. As results, the frequent transmission of Hello packets produces
more collision with data packets.

- • - Hierarchical and Geographical

* Shortest Path
~kr Source Routing

X
/
E.50
O /
JU40- s

/-""*
+ -•-•"""
± * - jr:;:...„ ...» m
0
» . », : , r
Distance from sink to source (m)

Fig. 2. End-to-End Delay (milliseconds).

The three routing mechanisms show a similar behavior in terms of packet delivery
ratio because of their static nature, as illustrated in figure 3.
 Routing Strategies for Wireless Sensor Networks 199

100 i N H
- * • f —
90

tde ivery ra
•••*•• Shortest Path

••«•• Source Routing

• •*•• Hierarchical and geographical

Q.
60

50

Distance from sink to source (m)

Fig. 3. Packet delivery ratio.

Figure 4 shows the Routing Overhead between the sink and the source. Routing
overhead is the total number of routing packets transmitted during the simulation.
Again, the shortest path routing strategy performs the best and the hierarchical-
geographical strategy the worst. This is due to the Hello packets used for the cluster
formation mechanism.

• • __ZHJ; —^# ^

20000
- • - Hierarchical and Geographical
ts)

••»- Shortest Path

je -*~ Source Routing
Q.

n
01
Jk

O
$
> uting

cc 5000

0 m- , • ; m ~« *

Distance from sink to source (m)

Fig. 4. Routing Overhead (packets).

Figure 5 shows the overhead between the sink and the source. The shortest path
technique also has the best performance, with source routing and hierarchical-
geographical mechanism performing in a similar fashion.
200 Raul Aquino-Santos, Luis Villasefior-Gonzalez, Jaime Sanchez, Jose Rosario Gallardo

X-
A_ = £ = : * •
95
* - -A- .
90
8
(pac kets)
5

m ••• •• Hierarchical and Geographical

- * ••«•• Shortest Path
•a •-
z \ ••*•• Source Routing

•£70. \
°65^
^
60-

50

Distance from sink to source (m)

Fig. 5. Overhead (packets).

Figure 6 shows the Routing Load between the sink and the source. This metric
provides an idea of how much network bandwidth is consumed by routing packets in
relation to the useful data packets actually received. Once again, the shortest path
routing strategy has the best performance, and the hierarchical-geographical
mechanism the worst.

- • - Hierarchical and Gepgraphical

* Shortest Path
- * - Source Routing

Distance from sink to source (m)

Fig. 6. Routing Load (packets).

4 Conclusions and Future Work

In this paper, we have evaluated three basic routing strategies widely used in routing
protocols for wireless sensor networks. Source routing only improves shortest path
and hierarchical-geographical routing in terms of latency. The main disadvantage of
 Routing Strategies for Wireless Sensor Networks 201

source routing is that it lacks a number of hops metric, which can frequently result in
longer path selection. Shortest path behaves well in terms of EED, routing overhead,
overhead and routing load. Hierarchical-geographical routing performs the worst
because it must send hello packets in order to acquire and transmit location
information. This consideration makes hierarchical-geographical routing in wireless
sensor networks more weighty because it transmits hello packets more frequently,
requiring greater bandwidth and energy resources. However, despite these significant
disadvantages, hierarchical-geographical routing remains the routing option most
often used in health, military, agriculture, robotic, environmental and structural
monitoring. An important area of future research is to optimize hierarchical-
geographical routing algorithm to facilitate its use in large geographical areas
requiring dense sensor distribution.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the support received by the National Council of Science
and Technology (CONACYT) under project grant No. 48391.

References
1. V. Rajaravivarma, Yi Yang, and Teng Yang. An Overview of Wireless Senor Network and
Applications. Proceeding of the 35th Southeastern Symposium on System Theory, pp. 432-
436, 2003.
2. http://www.xbow.com/ProductsAVireless_Sensor_Networks.htm
3. Stephan Olariu and Qingwen Xu. Information Assurance in Wireless Sensor Networks.
Proceedings of the 19th IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium,
pp. 236 -240, 2005.
4. Alan Mainwaring, Joseph Polastre, Robert Szewczyk, David Culler, John Anderson.
Wireless Sensor Networks for Habitat Monitoring. Proceeding of the 1st ACM International
workshop on wireless sensor Networks and applications, pp. 88-97, 2002.
5. ZIgBee Specification. ZigBee Document 053474r06, version 1.0. December 2004.
6. Nirupama Bulusu, John Heidemann, Deborah Strin. GPS-less Low Cost Outdoor
Localization For Very Small Devices. IEEE Personal Communication, vol. 7, issue 5, pp.
28-34, 2000.
7. A Reliable Routing Protocol Design for wireless sensor Networks. Yanjun Li, Jiming Chen,
Ruizhong Lin, Zhi Wang. International Conference on Mobile Ad-hoc and Sensor Systems,
2005.
8. I.F. Akyildiz, W. Su, Y. Sankarasubramaniam, E. Cayirci. Wireless sensor networks: a
survey. Computer Networks, pp. 393-422, 2002.
9. Wendi Rabiner Heinzelman, Joana Kulik, and Hari Balakrishnan. Adaptive Protocols for
Information Dissemination in Wireless Sensor Networks. Proceedings of the 5th annual
ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobil Computing and Networking (MOBICOM),
pp.174-185, 1999.
lO.Jamal N. Al-karaki, Ahmed E. Kamal. Routing Techniques in Wireless Sensor Networks: A
survey. IEEE Wireless Communications, pp. 6-28, 2004.
202 Raul Aquino-Santos, Luis Villaseflor-Gonzalez, Jaime Sanchez, Jose Rosario Gallardo

11.Deborah Estrin, Ramesh Govindan, John Heidemann, Satish Kumar. Next Century
Challenges: Scalable Coordination in Sensor Networks. Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE
International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, pp. 263-270, 1999.
12.Shah, R. C. Rabaey, J. M. Energy Aware Routing for low Ad Hoc Sensor Networks. IEEE
Wireless Comunications and Networks Conference, vol. 1, pp. 350-355, 2002.
13.David Braginsky, Deborah Estrin. Rumor Routing Algorithm for Sensor Netorks.
International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS-22), 2002.
14.Curt Schurgers, Mani B. Srivastava. Energy Efficient Routing in Wireless Sensor Networks.
Proceeding of the Communication for Network-centric operations: creating the information
force, 2001.
15.Maurice Chu, Horst Haussecker, and Feng Zhao. Scalable Information-Driven Sensor
Querying and Routing for ad hoc Heterogeneous Sensor Networks. International Journal of
High Performance Computing Applications, 2002.
16.Narayanan Sadagopan, Bhaskar Krishnamachari, and Ahmed Helmy. The ACQUIRE
Mechanism for Efficient Querying in Sensor Networks. Proceedings of the IEEE
International Workshop on Sensor Network Protocols and Applications (SNPA), in
conjunction with IEEE ICC, pp. 149-155, 2003.
17.Heinzelman, W. R. Chandrakasan, A. Balakrishnan, H. Energy-efficient communication
protocol for wireless microsensor networks. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, vol. 2, pp. 1-10, 2000.
18.Stephanie Lindsey and Cauligi S. Raghavendra. PEGASIS: Power-Efficient GAthering in
Sensor Information Systems. Proceeding of the IEEE Aerospace Conference, vol. 3, pp.
1125-1130,2002.
19.Arati Manjeshwar and Dharma P. Agrawal. TEEN: A Routing Protocol for Enhanced
Efficiency in Wireless Sensor Networks. Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium
on Parallel and Distributed Processing, pp. 2009-2015, 2001.
20.Arati Manjeshwar and Dharma P. Agrawal. APTEEN: A Hybrid Protocol for Efficient
Routing and Comprehensive Information Retrieval in Wireless Sensor Networks,
Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing,
pp.195-202,2002.
21.Volkan Rodoplu and Teresa H. Meng. Minimum Energy Mobile Wireless Networks. IEEE
Journal on selected areas in communications, vol. 17, issue 8, pp. 1333-1344, 1999.
22.Li Li, Joseph Y. Halpern. Minimum-Energy Mobile Wireless Networks Revisited. IEEE
International Conference on Communications, vol. 1, pp. 278-283, 2001.
23 .Ya Xu, John Heideman, and Deborah Estrin. Geography-informed Energy Conservation for
Ad-Hoc Routing. In proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile
Computing and Networking, pp. 70-84, 2001.
24.Yan Yu, Ramesh Govindan, Deborah Estrin. Geographic and Energy Aware Routing: a
recursive data dissemination protocol for wireless sensor networks. UCLA Computer
Science Department Technical Report UCLA/CSD-TR-01-0023, 2001.