Energy Efficient Routing Algorithms for Application to Agro-Food Wireless Sensor Networks

1
Energy Efficient Routing Algorithms for
Application to Agro-Food Wireless Sensor Networks
Francesco Chiti, Andrea De Cristofaro, Romano
Fantacci , Daniele Tarchi, Giovanni Collodi,
Gianni Giorgetti, Antonio Manes? Dipartimento
di Elettronica e Telecomunicazioni,
?Dipartimento di Energetica, Consorzio
MIDRA Università di Firenze -Via di S. Marta, 3 -
50139 Firenze, Italy chiti_at_lenst.det.unfi.it,
collodi_at_ing.unifi.it, fantacci_at_lenst.det.unfi.it,
g.giorgetti_at_ing.unifi.it, antonio.manes_at_unifi.it,
tarchi_at_lenst.det.unifi.it
2
Contents

1. WSN features
2. Routing protocols
3. Proposed approach
4. Performance analysis
5. Conclusions

3
Research involvements
GoodFood EU Integrated Project

• Development of novel solutions for the safety and
  quality assurance, along the food chain within
  the agro-food industry.
• Work Package 7 aims at investigating integrated
  solutions according to the AmI concepts, allowing
  full interconnection and communication of
  multi-sensing systems.

NEWCOM EU NoE

• Project A is addressed to Ad Hoc and Sensor
  networks with regards to
• Cross-layer design of sensor networks
• Simulation models and architectures for
  cross-layered sensor networks.

4
Definition

1. WSN features

Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) is composed of a
large number of sensor nodes (N) that are densely
deployed either inside the investigated
phenomenon or very close to it.
5
WSN Applications

1. WSN features

• Military, Environmental, Health, Home, Space
  Exploration, Chemical Processing, Disaster Relief

Sensor types

• Seismic, Low sampling rate magnetic, Thermal,
  Visual, Infrared, Acoustic, Radar

Sensor tasks

• Temperature, Humidity, Lightning Condition,
  Pressure, Soil Makeup, Noise Levels
• Vehicular, Movement, Presence or Absence of
  certain types of objects, Mechanical stress
  levels on attached Objects, current
  characteristics (Speed, Direction, Size) of an
  object

6
WSN implementation (HW SW)

1. WSN features

Functional blocks
Network Nodes
Gateway
7
Multi-Hop WSN

1. WSN features

Theorem (Stojmenovic, Xu Lin) Let be the source
and the gateway at distance d and the needed
transmitted power satisfies This is minimized
if Otherwise, the overall requested energy
can be minimized by choosing equally spaced n-1
relay nodes such that n is the integer closer to
8
Multi-Hop WSN

1. WSN features

Communication paradigm
9
Multi-Hop WSN

1. WSN features

• Flexibility
• Adaptability
• Re-configurability
• Robustness
• Scalability

• Energy-awareness
• Power saving
• Untethered
• No nw planning
• Random deployment
• Self-organization
• Re-configuration
• Cooperative approach
• Distributed procedures
• Data processing

10
Protocol design

1. Routing protocols

• Ad Hoc protocol are often unsuitable because
• Number of sensor nodes can be several order of
  magnitude higher
• Sensor nodes are densely deployed and are prone
  to failures
• The topology of a sensor network changes very
  frequently due to node mobility and node failure
• Sensor nodes are power, computational capacities
  and memory limited
• May not have global ID like IP address
• Need tight integration with sensing tasks
• Specific cross-layer protocols design with an
  across layers information passing and
  functionalities adaptation to channel and load
  variations

11
Network layer

1. Routing protocols

• This layer is in charge of discovering the best
  path between a couple of nodes (Sender and
  Destination), relaying on the following
  characteristics
• Sensor networks are mostly data centric
• An ideal sensor network has attribute based
  addressing and location awareness
• Data aggregation may be joined with a
  collaborative effort
• Power efficiency is always a key factor

12
Network layer

1. Routing protocols

• Metrics considered to develop energy efficient
  routing algorithms
• Power Available (PA) at each node
• Energy (?) needed to send a packet over a link
• Resorting to these, there 4 possible approaches
  to choose the proper path
• Maximum PA Route (PAs summation)
• Minimum Energy Route (? summation)
• Minimum Hop Route (number of hops)
• Maximum Minimum PA Route (minimum of maximum PA)

13

1. Routing protocols

Network layer
Flooding Each node forwards the packets to all
the neighbor nodes within its transmission range
14

1. Routing protocols

Network layer
Gossiping Each node sends a packet only to one
neighbor node chosen according to a suited
criterion (random or metric based)
15
Network layer

1. Proposed approach

• Dynamic table driven and link state
• Each idle node periodically broadcasts an HELLO
  message with fields
• SOURCEID unique hardware identifier
• NUMHOPS number of hops to reach the sink
• COORDINATES location with respect to the
  gateway
• AVAILABLE ENERGY i.e., the energy that is still
  available to transmit and process the packets.

16
Network layer

1. Proposed approach

• an HELLO reception makes the routing table to be
  updated and, hence, to select the best next hop
  by means of the following procedure
• entries with minimum NUMHOPS to the sink are
  chosen
• among the remaining nodes those with higher
  AVAILABLE ENERGY are the candidates
• finally, the node minimizing the Euclidean
  distance to the gateway is selected

17

1. Proposed approach

Protocol behavior
Dynamic Gossiping
18
Application scenario

1. Performance analysis

Field-trial of the University of Florences
Montepaldi farm for the Wine Chain monitoring
(wine production and ageing chain steps) Sensed
parameters air, ground, plants (leaf
temperature, stem growth, xylem flux and
pathogenic diseases), fermentation and ageing
issues
19
Simulation results

1. Performance analysis

• Reference metrics
• power consumption or, equivalently node lifetime
  especially for the most solicited nodes
  (connectivity)
• end-to-end throughput or delivering efficiency
• end-to-end packet delivering delay.
• Compared approaches
• basic flooding routing scheme
• a static gossiping proactive link state
  evaluation
• proposed dynamic gossiping.
• Utilization of Network Protocol Simulator
  (NePSing) a C framework for modeling
  time-discrete, asynchronous systems
• the NePSing Project, 2004. Online.
  Available http//nepsing.sourceforge.net

20
Power consumption

1. Performance analysis

• remarkable gain of the dynamic gossiping vs
  flooding scheme
• same behavior of the static and the dynamic
  gossiping
• Increasing signaling overhead (slightly worse
  performance) especially in an asymmetric network
  topology, i.e., in a rectangular-wise grid if
  compared with a square-wise.

21
Delivering efficiency

1. Performance analysis

• increasing end-to-end packet delivering of
  dynamic vs static gossiping
• worse delivering efficiency (throughput).

22
Network connectivity

1. Performance analysis

Static gossiping
Dynamic gossiping
Topology Node 1 Node 2 Node 3
6 6 105 35 105
9 4 42 21 182
Topology Node 1 Node 2 Node 3
6 6 82 76 85
9 4 86 70 89

• 50 reduction of power consumption for the most
  solicited nodes (1,2,3)
• lesser spatial variance of energy wasting
• lesser dependency with the topology.

23

1. Conlusions

• Pervasive use of AmI concepts in agriculture,
  relying on highly-integrated WSNs to create a
  sensitive and responsive environment
• Proposal of an energy efficient dynamic routing
  protocol
• Performance analysis
• signaling overhead, delay and throughput
• Power consumption
• Network life-time (connectivity).
• Further developments
• On-board implementation and testing
• Cross-layer integration with energy efficient
  Link Layer schemes (e.g., SMAC)
• Management of differentiated services.

Francesco Chiti, Andrea De Cristofaro, Romano
Fantacci, Daniele Tarchi, Giovanni Collodi,
Gianni Giorgetti and Antonio Manes, Energy
Efficient Routing Algorithms for Application to
Agro-Food Wireless Sensor Networks in Proc. of
IEEE ICC 2005.
24
Energy Efficient Routing Algorithms for
Application to Agro-Food Wireless Sensor Networks
Francesco Chiti, Andrea De Cristofaro, Romano
Fantacci , Daniele Tarchi, Giovanni Collodi,
Gianni Giorgetti, Antonio Manes? Dipartimento
di Elettronica e Telecomunicazioni,
?Dipartimento di Energetica, Consorzio
MIDRA Università di Firenze -Via di S. Marta, 3 -
50139 Firenze, Italy chiti_at_lenst.det.unfi.it,
collodi_at_ing.unifi.it, fantacci_at_lenst.det.unfi.it,
g.giorgetti_at_ing.unifi.it, antonio.manes_at_unifi.it,
tarchi_at_lenst.det.unifi.it
25
Network layer

1. Routing protocols

• Quality of Service oriented routing protocols
• Routes based on QoS requirements without periodic
  table updating (no need for routing tables )
• Flexibile, robust and modular
• One-to-one, many-to-one, one-to-many, and
  many-to-many communications
• Types of Streams
• Type 1 Time critical and loss sensitive
• Type 2 time critical but not loss sensitive data
• Type 3 loss sensitive data that is not time
  critical
• Type 4 neither time critical nor loss sensitive