Jeevan N 4BB08EC024
Jyoti N Dindalkoppa 4BB09EC017 Namratha B Gowda 4BB09EC025 Shruthi Bhat S 4BB09EC041
Under the Guidance of
K S SHIVAPRAKASHA BE, MTech, (Ph D) Associate Professor
Electronics and Communication Engineering Dept.
Contents
Objectives Introduction Methodology Literature Survey Expected Results Paper communicated Reference Gantt Chart 2Objectives
To improve the life span of the nodes by
implementing energy efficiency metrics.
To decrease wastage of energy while selecting or
changing the clusters or Cluster Heads.
To implement the code for choosing the cluster head
by the base station to increase the energy efficiency.
Analyze and compare the new protocol with the
existing LEACH protocol.
Introduction
Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs)
are made of a numerous number of sensor nodes and one or more base stations.
Routing in WSNs has been
categorized into proactive and reactive protocols.
A sensor network can be
hierarchical or cluster-based
hierarchical model.
Contd…
Low-Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy (LEACH)
is a clustering based protocol to collect data from wireless network.
The main idea of LEACH protocol is that all nodes
are chosen to be the cluster heads periodically.
Cluster heads transmit the data collected to base
station.
LEACH minimizes energy dissipation in sensor
networks.
Methodology
The energy consumption can be reduced by allowing
only a portion of the nodes, which are called cluster heads.
The data is aggregated by the cluster head and is
transmitted to the base station.
The main idea of our protocol is that all nodes are chosen to be the cluster heads periodically.
Contd…
Cluster heads are selected by the base station.
Nodes join associate themselves with the closest
cluster head.
The re-formation of the clusters and cluster heads are
also done by the base station.
We analyse our protocol using Network Simulator
(NS2).
Literature Survey
Routing protocols is classified as location based and
hierarchical protocols.
Location based protocols: GAF, GEAR.
GEAR: This protocol uses energy aware neighbor
selection to route a packet towards the destination.[2]
GAF: The sensing area where nodes are distributed is
divided into small virtual grids.[3]
Contd…
Drawback: The leader node does not do any
aggregation or fusion as in the case of hierarchical protocols.
Hierarchical protocols: LEACH, PEGASIS.
LEACH: Low-Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy
(LEACH) is a clustering based protocol.[4]
This protocol chooses the cluster heads periodically
which aggregates the data and transmit to the base station.[5]
Contd...
PEGASIS: It is a near optimal chain-based protocol that isan improvement over LEACH.
The key idea in PEGASIS is to form a chain among the sensor nodes so that each node will receive from and transmit to a close neighbor.
The advantage of cluster-based network is that the overall cost of the network is reduced.
We are implementing our protocol using NS2
Contd…
• NS2(Network Simulator-2): A package of tools that
simulates behavior of networks.
• It Define Network topology, load, output files in
Tcl Script.
• Internally, NS2 instantiates C++ classes based on
the tcl scripts.
• Output is in form of trace files
Expected Result
To ensure better energy efficiency routing than the existing LEACH protocol using energy efficient metric.
Paper Communicated
A survey paper, “Energy Efficient Routing Protocols
for Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey” has got communicated to International Journal on ERS journal.
References
[1] K S Shivaprakasha, Muralidhar Kulkarni, Energy Efficient Routing Protocols
for Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey, International Review on Computers and Software (IRECOS), November 2011 Issue, Volume 6, No 6.
[2] Yu, Yan, Ramesh Govindan, and Deborah Estrin. Geographical and Energy Aware Routing: A Recursive Data Dissemination Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks. Technical report ucla/csd-tr-01-0023, UCLA Computer Science Department, 2001.
[3] Roychowdhury, Sinchan, and Chiranjib Patra. Geographic Adaptive Fidelity and Geographic Energy Aware Routing in Ad Hoc Routing, Special issue of IJCCT (2010).
[4]Wendi Rabiner Heinzelman, Anantha Chandrakasan, and Hari Balakrishnan, Energy-Efficient Communication Protocol for Wireless Microsensor Networks, Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences – 2000.
[5]Stephanie Lindsey, Cauligi S. Raghavendra, PEGASIS: Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems, Aerospace Conference Proceedings, Volume 3. IEEE, 2002.
SN Activity No . o f Da y s Re q u ire d % o f C o m p let io n 01 -10 -2012 03 -10 -2012 18 -10 -2012 19 -10 -2012 01 -01 -2013 03 -02 -2013 04 -03 -2013 12 -03 -2013 20 -03 -2013 26 -03 -2013 30 -03 -2013 05 -04 -2013 10 -04 -2013 13 -04 -2013 16 -04 -2013 18 -04 -2013 20 -04 -2013 22 -04 -2013 24 -04 -2013 26 -04 -2013 30 -04 -2013 01 -05 -2013 03 -05 -2013 05 -05 -2013 08 -05 -2013 10 -05 -2013
1 Project Guidelines/ Start Project Work 1 1%
2 First meeting with the Guide 3 4%
3 Topic selection 4 8%
4 Writing Synopsis 4 12%
5 Corrections from the Guide 1 13%
6 Synopsis submission 2 15%
7 Literature survey 15 21%
8 Synopsis seminar- (First seminar) 1 22%
9 Studying LEACH protocol 2 24%
10 NS2 installation 1 25%
11 Learning NS2 3 28%
12 Code writing practice 2 30%
13 Implementation of some coding in NS2 1 31%
14 Preparing code steps 10 41%
15 Coding the main aim 15 55%
16 Progress seminar report 2 57%
17 Meeting with Guide 1
18 Correction from Guide 1 58%
19 Progress seminar report final 1 59%
20 Meeting with guide/coordinator 1
21 Discussion with HOD 1 60%
22 Completion of coding 12 69%
23 Testing, debugging and result analysis
8 75%
24 Interfacing if any 3 77%
25 Meeting with guide 1
26 Paper on the project 2 79%
27 Meeting with guide 1
28 Final seminar by students 1 80%
29 Project Demo 1 81%
30 Communicating paper to a journal 2 83%
31 Send paper to a conference 2 85%
32 At least two participation in a project exhibition and technical fest 2 87%
33 Project report draft 8 92%
34 Meeting with guide 1
35 Correction from the guide 1 93%
36 Project report final draft 3 95%
37 Meeting with guide/coordinator 1 96%
38 Meeting with HOD 1 97%
39 Project report submission 3 99%
40 Outcome as a journal 100% Total working days 124
Gantt chart (Bar Chart) for Final Year Project Work