Energy-Aware Georouting with Guaranteed Delivery in Wireless Sensor Networks with Obstacles

  • Essia HamoudaEmail author
  • Nathalie Mitton
  • Bogdan Pavkovic
  • David Simplot-Ryl


We propose, end-to-end (EtE), a novel EtE localized routing protocol for wireless sensor networks that is energy-efficient and guarantees delivery. To forward a packet, a node s in graph G computes the cost of the energy weighted shortest path (SP) between s and each of its neighbors in the forward direction towards the destination which minimizes the ratio of the cost of the SP to the progress (reduction in distance towards the destination). It then sends the message to the first node on the SP from s to x: say node x′. Node x′ restarts the same greedy routing process until the destination is reached or an obstacle is encountered and the routing fails. To recover from the latter scenario, local minima trap, our algorithm invokes an energy-aware Face routing that guarantees delivery. Our work is the first to optimize energy consumption of Face routing. It works as follows. First, it builds a connected dominating set from graph G, second it computes its Gabriel graph to obtain the planar graph G′. Face routing is invoked and applied to G′ only to determine which edges to follow in the recovery process. On each edge, greedy routing is applied. This two-phase (greedy–Face) EtE routing process reiterates until the final destination is reached. Simulation results show that EtE outperforms several existing geographical routing on energy consumption metric and delivery rate. Moreover, we prove that the computed path length and the total energy of the path are constant factors of the optimal for dense networks.


Wireless Sensor Network Destination Node Receive Signal Strength Indicator Short Edge Unit Disk Graph 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research was partially supported by NSERC Canada, a grant from CPER Nord-Pas-de-Calais/FEDER TAC COMDOM, from an INRIA ARC program CARMA and from the French National Research Agency RNRT SVP (Supervise and Protect).


  1. 1.
    P. Bose, P. Morin, I. Stojmenovic, and J. Urrutia, Routing with guaranteed delivery in ad hoc wireless networks, in Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Discrete Algorithms and Methods for Mobile Computing and Comm. (DIAL-M), Seattle, WA, USA, pp. 48–55, August 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. H. Elhafsi, N. Mitton, and D. Simplot-Ryl, Cost over progress based energy efficient routing over virtual coordinates in wireless sensor networks, in Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop: From Theory to Practice in Wireless Sensor Networks (t2pWSN 2007), Helsinki, Finland, 2007.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    I. Stojmenovic and X. Lin, Power-aware localized routing in wireless networks, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, Vol. 12, No. 11, pp. 1122–1133, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. H. Elhafsi and D. Simplot-Ryl, Flattening the gap between source-destination paths in energy efficient greedy georouting in wireless sensor networks, in 3nd International Conference on Mobile Ad-hoc and Sensor Networks MSN’07, December 2007.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    I. Stojmenovic and S. Datta, Power and cost aware localized routing with guaranteed delivery in wireless networks, Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 175–188, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Simplot-Ryl, I. Stojmenovic, and J. Wu, Energy efficient backbone construction, broadcasting, and area coverage in sensor networks, Handbook of Sensor Networks: Algorithms and Architectures. Wiley, pp. 343–379, 2005.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Y. Wang, W.-Z. Song, W. Wang, X.-Y. Li, and T. A. Dahlberg, Learn: localized energy aware restricted neighborhood routing for ad hoc networks, Sensor and Ad Hoc Communications and Networks, 2006. SECON06. 2006 3rd Annual IEEE Communications Society, Vol. 2, pp. 508–517.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. A. Sanchez and P. M. Ruiz, Exploiting local knowledge to enhance energy-efficient geographic routing, in 2nd International Conference on Mobile Ad-hoc and Sensor Networks MSN’06, pp. 567–578, December 2006.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. Frey and I. Stojmenovic, On delivery guarantees of face and combined greedy-face routing in ad hoc and sensor networks, in Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MOBICOM), Los Angeles, CA, USA, pp. 390–401, September 2006.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. Clark, C. Colbourn, and D. Johnson, Unit disk graphs, Discrete Mathematics, Vol. 86, No. 1–3, pp. 165–177, 1990.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Li, J. Jannotti, D. D. Couto, D. Karger, and R. Morris, A scalable location service for geographic ad hoc routing, in Proceedings of the Sixth ACM Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MOBICOM), Los Angeles, Boston, MA, USA, August 2000.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    I. Stojmenovic, Location updates for efficient routing in ad hoc networks,Handbook of Wireless Networks and Mobile Computing, pp. 451–471, 2002.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    V. Rodoplu and T. Meng, Minimizing energy mobile wireless networks, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas, Vol. 17, No. 8, pp. 1333–1347, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    F. Khadar and D. Simplot-Ryl, From theory to practice: topology control in wireless sensor networks. in Proceedings of the 10th ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing (MobiHoc), New Orleans, USA, 2009 (poster abstract).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. Finn, Routing and addressing problems in large metropolitan-scale, Internetworks, ISI Research Report ISU/RR-87-180, March 1987.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Li, L. Gewali, H. Selvaraj, and V. Muthukumar, Hybrid greedy/Face routing for ad-hoc sensor network, Digital System Design, Vol. 0, pp. 574–578, 2004.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. Toussaint, The relative neighborhood graph of a finite planar set, Pattern Recognition, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 261–268, 1980.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    I. Stojmenovic, Localized network layer protocols in sensor networks based on optimizing cost over progress ratio, IEEE Network, Vol. 20, pp. 21–27, January/February 2006.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Kuruvila, A. Nayak, and I. Stojmenovic, Progress and location based localized power aware routing for ah hoc sensor wireless networks, IJDSN, Vol. 2, pp. 147–159, 2006.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    F. Kuhn, R. Wattenhofer, Y. Zhang, and A. Zollinger, Geometric ad-hoc routing: of theory and practice, in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM International Symposium on The Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), pp. 63–72, 2003.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    H. Hwang, I. Hur, and H. Choo, GOAFR plus-ABC: geographic routing based on adaptive boundary circle in manets, in International Conference on Information Networking (ICOIN), pp. 1–3, 2009.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    F. Dai and J. Wu, An extended localized algorithm for connected dominating set formation in ad hoc wireless networks, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems (TPDS), 2004.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. Carle and D. Simplot-Ryl, Energy efficient area monitoring by sensor networks, IEEE Computer Magazine, Vol. 37, pp. 40–46, 2004.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    H. Kalosha, A. Nayak, S. Ruehrup, and I. Stojmenovic, Select and protest based beaconless georouting with guaranteed delivery in wireless sensor networks, in IEEE INFOCOM, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, April 13–18 2008 (to appear).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. Chawla, N. Goel, K. Kalaichelvan, A. Nayak, and I. Stojmenovic, Beaconless position-based routing with guaranteed delivery for wireless ad hoc and sensor networks, Acta Automatica Sinica, Vol. 32, No. 6, November 2006.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    A. Fraboulet, G. Chelius, and E. Fleury, Worldsens: development and prototyping tools for application specific wireless sensors networks, in IPSN’07 Track on Sensor Platforms, Tools and Design Methods (SPOTS), ACM, Cambridge, MA, USA, April 2007.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    E. Dijkstra, Solution of a problem in concurrent programming control, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 8, No. 9, September 1965.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Essia Hamouda
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nathalie Mitton
    • 2
  • Bogdan Pavkovic
    • 2
    • 3
  • David Simplot-Ryl
    • 2
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaRiversideUSA
  2. 2.INRIA Lille – Nord Europe, LIFL, Université Lille 1Villeneuve d’Ascq CédexFrance
  3. 3.Faculty of Technical SciencesUniversity of Novi SadNovi SadSerbia

Personalised recommendations