An energy-aware multi-sensor geo-fog paradigm for mission critical applications

  • Moumita Mishra
  • Sayan Kumar Roy
  • Anwesha Mukherjee
  • Debashis DeEmail author
  • Soumya K. Ghosh
  • Rajkumar Buyya
Original Research


Sensor cloud is an integral component for smart computing infrastructure. Cloud servers are largely used to store and process sensor data. For mission critical applications use of only wireless sensor network results in provisioning of service in a small area and the use of a long distant remote cloud servers increase delay that degrades the Quality of Service. Further, geospatial information differs over regions. Thus storing and processing the data of all regions inside the cloud data centres may not be efficient with respect to response time (latency), energy consumption etc., which are crucial factors for mission critical applications. To overcome these limitations, we propose multi-sensor geo-fog paradigm. We consider defense sector in our work as mission critical application. For energy optimized services with minimal delay fog computing has been used, where the intermediate devices process the data. The proposed paradigm will offer fast and energy-efficient processing of defense related sensor and geospatial data. A mathematical model of the paradigm is developed. The sensor and geospatial data processing and analysis take place inside the fog device. If abnormality is detected in the data or emergency situation occurs, then shortest path to the victim region is determined using intelligent K* heuristic search algorithm. The simulation results demonstrate that the proposed fog based network scenario reduces energy consumption, average jitter and average delay by 12–15%, 10–14% and 9–11% respectively than the cloud based network. The simulation results demonstrate that saving about 20% of resources increases the performance for priority user whereas the resource availability for the normal users is not compromised.


Energy Fog computing Heuristic search K* algorithm Geospatial Wireless sensor network 



This research work is partially supported by TEQIP-III, MAKAUT, West Bengal and Department of Science and Technology, Government of India through research project under Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, and Melbourne-Chindia Cloud Computing (MC3) Research Network.


  1. Ahmad M, Amin MB, Hussain S et al (2016) Health Fog: a novel framework for health and wellness applications. J Supercomput 72(10):3677–3695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aljazzar H, Leue S (2011) K*: a heuristic search algorithm for finding the k shortest paths. Artif Intell 175(18):2129–2154MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Alowolodu OD, Alese BK, Adetunmbi AO et al (2013) Elliptic curve cryptography for securing cloud computing applications. Int J Comput Appl 66(23):10–17Google Scholar
  4. Arslan H, Manguoglu M (2018) A parallel bio-inspired shortest path algorithm. Computing 101:969–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barik RK, Dubey H, Mankodiya K, Sasane SA, Misra C (2019) GeoFog4Health: a fog-based SDI framework for geospatial health big data analysis. J Ambient Intell Human Comput 10(2):551–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burmaoglu S, Saritas O, Yalcin H (2019) Defense 4.0: Internet of Things in military. In: Emerging technologies for economic development. Springer, Cham, pp 303–320Google Scholar
  7. Chi Y, Moon HJ, Hacigümüş H et al (2011) SLA-tree: a framework for efficiently supporting SLA-based decisions in cloud computing. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on extending database technology. ACM, pp 129–140Google Scholar
  8. Chiang M, Zhang T (2016) Fog and IoT: an overview of research opportunities. IEEE Internet Things J 3(6):854–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Das J, Dasgupta A, Ghosh SK et al (2019) A learning technique for VM allocation to resolve geospatial queries. In: Recent findings in intelligent computing techniques. Springer, Singapore, pp 577–584Google Scholar
  10. Dastjerdi AV, Buyya R (2016) Fog computing: helping the Internet of Things realize its potential. Computer 49(8):112–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Paola A, Ferraro P, Re GL, Morana M, Ortolani M (2019) A fog-based hybrid intelligent system for energy saving in smart buildings. J Ambient Intell Human Comput. Google Scholar
  12. Devarajan M, Subramaniyaswamy V, Vijayakumar V, Ravi L (2019) Fog-assisted personalized healthcare-support system for remote patients with diabetes. J Ambient Intell Human Comput. Google Scholar
  13. Gai K, Qiu M, Zhao H et al (2016) Dynamic energy-aware cloudlet-based mobile cloud computing model for green computing. J Netw Comput Appl 59:46–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guerrero C, Lera I, Juiz C (2019) A lightweight decentralized service placement policy for performance optimization in fog computing. J Ambient Intell Human Comput 10(6):2435–2452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gupta H, Dastjerdi AV, Ghosh SK et al (2017) iFogSim: a toolkit for modeling and simulation of resource management techniques in the Internet of Things, Edge and Fog computing environments. Softw Pract Exp 47(9):1275–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huang L, Li G, Wu J et al (2016) Software-defined QoS provisioning for fog computing advanced wireless sensor networks. In: SENSORS, 2016 IEEE. IEEE, pp 1–3Google Scholar
  17. Kertesz A, Pflanzner T, Gyimothy T (2018) A mobile IoT device simulator for IoT-Fog-Cloud systems. J Grid Comput. Google Scholar
  18. Kumari A, Tanwar S, Tyagi S et al (2018) Fog computing for Healthcare 4.0 environment: opportunities and challenges. Comput Electr Eng 72:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Limkar SV, Jha RK (2018) A novel method for parallel indexing of real time geospatial big data generated By IoT devices. Future Gener Comput Syst 97:433–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lin K, Xia F, Li C et al (2019) Emotion-aware system design for the battlefield environment. Inf Fusion 47:102–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Luan TH, Gao L, Li Z et al (2015) Fog computing: Focusing on mobile users at the edge. arXiv:1502.01815
  22. MacEachren AM, Robinson A, Hopper S et al (2005) Visualizing geospatial information uncertainty: what we know and what we need to know. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci 32(3):139–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Madria S, Kumar V, Dalvi R (2014) Sensor cloud: a cloud of virtual sensors. IEEE Softw 31(2):70–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meyer U, Sanders P (2003) Δ-stepping: a parallelizable shortest path algorithm. J Algorithms 49(1):114–152MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Michail HE, Kakarountas AP, Milidonis A et al (2004) Efficient implementation of the keyed-hash message authentication code (HMAC) using the SHA-1 hash function. In: Proceedings of the 2004 11th IEEE international conference on electronics, circuits and systems, 2004. ICECS 2004. IEEE, pp 567–570Google Scholar
  26. Misra S, Singh A, Chatterjee S et al (2016) Mils-cloud: a sensor-cloud-based architecture for the integration of military tri-services operations and decision making. IEEE Syst J 10(2):628–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Misra S, Chatterjee S, Obaidat MS (2017) On theoretical modeling of sensor cloud: a paradigm shift from wireless sensor network. IEEE Syst J 11(2):1084–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mnassri B, Ananou B, Ouladsine M (2009) Fault detection and diagnosis based on PCA and a new contribution plot. IFAC Proc Vol 42:834–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mukherjee A, De D, Roy DG (2016) A power and latency aware cloudlet selection strategy for multi-cloudlet environment. IEEE Trans Cloud Comput 7(1):141–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mukherjee A, Deb P, De D et al (2018) C2OF2N: a low power cooperative code offloading method for femtolet-based fog network. J Supercomput 74(6):2412–2448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mutlag AA, Ghani MKA, Arunkumar N et al (2019) Enabling technologies for fog computing in healthcare IoT systems. Future Gener Comput Syst 90:62–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Naito Y, Wang L (2016) Replacing SHA-2 with SHA-3 enhances generic security of HMAC. In: Cryptographers’ track at the RSA conference. Springer, Cham, pp 397–412Google Scholar
  33. Rahmani AM, Gia TN, Negash B et al (2018) Exploiting smart e-Health gateways at the edge of healthcare Internet-of-Things: a fog computing approach. Future Gener Comput Syst 78:641–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ramasamy M (2019) Design and implementation of cognitive radio sensor network for emergency communication using discrete wavelet packet transform technique. In: International conference on distributed computing and internet technology. Springer, Cham, pp 270–278Google Scholar
  35. Ravilla D, Putta CSR (2015) Implementation of HMAC-SHA256 algorithm for hybrid routing protocols in MANETs. In: 2015 International conference on electronic design, computer networks and automated verification (EDCAV). IEEE, pp 154-159Google Scholar
  36. Satyanarayanan M, Bahl V, Caceres R, Davies N (2009) The case for vm-based cloudlets in mobile computing. IEEE Pervasive Comput 8(4):14–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scalable Network Technologies (2018) QualNet - Network Simulation. Accessed Feb 2019
  38. Sen A, Madria S (2017) Risk assessment in a sensor cloud framework using attack graphs. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 10(6):942–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stark E, Hamburg M, Boneh D (2009) Symmetric cryptography in javascript. In: Computer security applications conference, pp 373–381Google Scholar
  40. Venticinque S, Amato A (2019) A methodology for deployment of IoT application in fog. J Ambient Intell Human Comput 10(5):1955–1976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang SL, Chen YL, Kuo AMH et al (2016) Design and evaluation of a cloud-based Mobile Health Information Recommendation system on wireless sensor networks. Comput Electr Eng 49:221–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Xiang Y, Balasubramanian B, Wang M et al (2013) Self-adaptive, deadline-aware resource control in cloud computing. In: 2013 IEEE 7th international conference on self-adaptation and self-organizing systems workshops (SASOW). IEEE, pp 41–46Google Scholar
  43. Xie YX, Chen X G, Zhao J (2011) Data fault detection for wireless sensor networks using multi-scale PCA method. In: 2011 2nd international conference on artificial intelligence, management science and electronic commerce (AIMSEC). IEEE, pp 7035–7038Google Scholar
  44. Yan L, Rong C, Zhao G (2009) Strengthen cloud computing security with federal identity management using hierarchical identity-based cryptography. In: IEEE international conference on cloud computing. Springer, Berlin, pp 167–177Google Scholar
  45. Yaqoob S, Ullah A, Akbar M, Imran M, Shoaib M (2019) Congestion avoidance through fog computing in internet of vehicles. J Ambient Intell Human Comput. Google Scholar
  46. Zhang Q, Cheng L, Boutaba R (2010) Cloud computing: state-of-the-art and research challenges. J Internet Serv Appl 1(1):7–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhang P, Zhou M, Fortino G (2018) Security and trust issues in Fog computing: a survey. Future Gener Comput Syst 88:16–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhu C, Leung VC, Wang K et al (2017) Multi-method data delivery for green sensor-cloud. IEEE Commun Mag 55(5):176–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre of Mobile Cloud Computing, Department of Computer Science and EngineeringMaulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology, West BengalKolkataIndia
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology (IIT) KharagpurKharagpurIndia
  3. 3.Department of PhysicsUniversity of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia
  4. 4.Cloud Computing and Distributed Systems (CLOUDS) Laboratory, School of Computing and Information SystemsThe University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations