Advertisement

PriNergy: a priority-based energy-efficient routing method for IoT systems

  • Fatemeh Safara
  • Alireza SouriEmail author
  • Thar Baker
  • Ismaeel Al Ridhawi
  • Moayad Aloqaily
Article
  • 8 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Deep Learning in IoT: Emerging Trends and Applications - 2019

Abstract

The Internet of Things (IoT) devices gather a plethora of data by sensing and monitoring the surrounding environment. Transmission of collected data from the IoT devices to the cloud through relay nodes is one of the many challenges that arise from IoT systems. Fault tolerance, security, energy consumption and load balancing are all examples of issues revolving around data transmissions. This paper focuses on energy consumption, where a priority-based and energy-efficient routing (PriNergy) method is proposed. The method is based on the routing protocol for low-power and lossy network (RPL) model, which determines routing through contents. Each network slot uses timing patterns when sending data to the destination, while considering network traffic, audio and image data. This technique increases the robustness of the routing protocol and ultimately prevents congestion. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed PriNergy method reduces overhead on the mesh, end-to-end delay and energy consumption. Moreover, it outperforms one of the most successful routing methods in an IoT environment, namely the quality of service RPL (QRPL).

Keywords

Internet of Things Priority-based routing Energy consumption Low-power and lossy networks 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Park S et al (2014) IoT routing architecture with autonomous systems of things. In: 2014 IEEE world forum on internet of things (WF-IoT). IEEEGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dhumane A et al (2019) Context awareness in IoT routing. In: 2018 Fourth International Conference on Computing Communication Control and Automation (ICCUBEA). IEEEGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kotb Y et al (2019) Cloud-based multi-agent cooperation for iot devices using workflow-nets. J Grid Comput 17:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Al Ridhawi I et al (2019) A profitable and energy-efficient cooperative fog solution for IoT services. IEEE Trans Ind InfGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Souri A et al (2019) A systematic review of IoT communication strategies for an efficient smart environment. Trans Emerg Telecommun Technol electronic version e3736Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kharrufa H, Al-Kashoash H, Kemp A (2019) RPL-based routing protocols in IoT applications: a review. IEEE Sens J 19:5952–5967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zikria YB et al (2018) A survey on routing protocols supported by the Contiki Internet of things operating system. Future Gener Comput Syst 82:200–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Souri A, Norouzi M (2019) A state-of-the-art survey on formal verification of the internet of things applications. J Serv Sci Res 11(1):47–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Musaddiq A, Zikria YB, Kim SW (2018) Energy-aware adaptive trickle timer algorithm for RPL-based routing in the internet of things. In: 2018 28th International Telecommunication Networks and Applications Conference (ITNAC). IEEEGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ganesh D, Patil KK, Suresh L (1997) Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co-management. Marine Policy 105(1):267–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yahiaoui S et al (2018) An energy efficient and QoS aware routing protocol for wireless sensor and actuator networks. AEU-Int J Electron Commun 83:193–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Raoof A, Matrawy A, Lung C-H (2018) Routing attacks and mitigation methods for RPL-based internet of things. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 21:1582–1606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Souri A, Navimipour NJ, Rahmani AM (2018) Formal verification approaches and standards in the cloud computing: a comprehensive and systematic review. Comput Stand Interfaces 58:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kumar M, Azad M, Agrawal N (2019) Comparative analysis of tree-based data aggregation protocols to maximize lifetime of wireless sensor networks. In: Pervasive computing: a networking perspective and future directions. Springer, pp 153–163Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ambigavathi M, Sridharan D (2018) Energy-aware data aggregation techniques in wireless sensor network. In: Advances in power systems and energy management. Springer, pp 165–173Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gilbert EPK et al (2018) Trust based data prediction, aggregation and reconstruction using compressed sensing for clustered wireless sensor networks. Comput Electr Eng 72:894–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Petrovic D et al (2003) Data funneling: routing with aggregation and compression for wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the First IEEE International Workshop on Sensor Network Protocols and Applications, 2003. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Karkazis P et al (2012) Design of primary and composite routing metrics for rpl-compliant wireless sensor networks. In: 2012 International Conference on Telecommunications and Multimedia (TEMU). IEEEGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang S et al (2018) CRPD: a novel clustering routing protocol for dynamic wireless sensor networks. Pers Ubiquit Comput 22(3):545–559. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8667(1998)010xxaaa0160:FIITDOxxbbb2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Aldabbas H (2018) LPBR: location prediction based routing protocol for mobile IoT systems. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Future Networks and Distributed Systems. ACMGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Han Z, Li Y, Li J (2018) A novel routing algorithm for IoT cloud based on hash offset tree. Future Gener Comput Syst 86:456–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baker T et al (2015) GreeDi: an energy efficient routing algorithm for big data on cloud. Ad Hoc Netw 35:83–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Baker T et al (2018) GreeAODV: an energy efficient routing protocol for vehicular ad hoc networks. In: Intelligent computing methodologies. Springer, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Baker T et al (2013) Energy efficient cloud computing environment via autonomic meta-director framework. In: 2013 Sixth International Conference on Developments in eSystems EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cai Y et al (2018) Software defined status aware routing in content-centric networking. In: 2018 International Conference on Information Networking (ICOIN). IEEEGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dhumane AV, Prasad RS (2019) Multi-objective fractional gravitational search algorithm for energy efficient routing in IoT. Wirel Netw 25(1):399–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Preeth SKSL et al (2018) An adaptive fuzzy rule based energy efficient clustering and immune-inspired routing protocol for WSN-assisted IoT system. J Ambient Intell Human Comput 1–13Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang Y, Wang Z (2018) Routing algorithm of energy efficient wireless sensor network based on partial energy level. Clust Comput 22:8629–8638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yuan P et al (2019) Markov decision process-based routing algorithm in hybrid Satellites/UAVs disruption-tolerant sensing networks. IET Commun 13:1415–1424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Umamaheswari S, Negi A (2017) Internet of things and RPL routing protocol: a study and evaluation. In: 2017 International Conference on Computer Communication and Informatics (ICCCI). IEEEGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gara F et al (2019) A new scheme for RPL to handle mobility in wireless sensor networks. Int J Ad Hoc Ubiquitous Comput 30(3):173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Issariyakul T, Hossain E (2009) Introduction to network simulator 2 (NS2). In: Introduction to network simulator NS2. Springer, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mohamed B, Mohamed F (2015) Qos routing rpl for low power and lossy networks. Int J Distrib Sens Netw 11(11):971545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Salameh HB, Otoum S, Derbas R, Aloqaily M, Al Ridhawi I, Jararweh Y (2020) Intelligent Jamming-aware Routing in Multi-hop IoT-based Opportunistic Cognitive Radio Networks, Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Aloqaily M, Al Ridhawi I, Salameh HB, Jararweh Y (2019) Data and Service Management in Densely Crowded Environments: Challenges. Opportunities, and Recent Developments, IEEE Communications Magazine 57(4):81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ridhawi IA, Aloqaily M, Boukerche A (2019) Comparing Fog Solutions for Energy Efficiency in Wireless Networks: Challenges and Opportunities. IEEE Wireless Communications 26(6):80–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Balasubramanian V, Otoum S, Aloqaily M, Al Ridhawi I, Jararweh Y ((2020)) Low-Latency Vehicular Edge: A Vehicular Infrastructure Model for 5G. Simul Model Pract Theory 98:101968CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Engineering, Islamshahr BranchIslamic Azad UniversityIslamshahrIran
  2. 2.Department of Computer Engineering, Science and Research BranchIslamic Azad UniversityTehranIran
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceLiverpool John Moores UniversityLiverpoolUK
  4. 4.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringKuwait College of Science and TechnologyKuwait CityKuwait
  5. 5.Al Ain University, UAE and xAnalyticst Inc.OttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations