Advertisement

Void Avoidance Node Deployment Strategy for Underwater Sensor Networks

  • Pradeep NazarethEmail author
  • B. R. ChandavarkarEmail author
Conference paper
  • 215 Downloads
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 141)

Abstract

Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks (UWSNs) play a major role in many aquatic applications. Underwater sensors were deployed over a given three-dimensional area. Dynamic and unpredictable nature of the underwater environment is resulting in void communications, interrupting the flow of data to the sink node. Sensor nodes, which are part of void communications are called void nodes, and in multi-hop communication nodes depend on void which are called trap. Any deployed node can become a void or trap not only after their deployment but also during their initial deployment. Most popularly used random deployment strategy in UWSNs always results in the many voids and traps. To countermeasure, the shortfall additional nodes are deployed, which may result in still worse condition. The first objective of this paper is highlighting void and trap node problems in random deployment strategy. In the second objective, we are proposing a systematic way of sensor node deployment that overcomes void and trap problems arising in random deployment in UWSNs. Through the MATLAB simulation drawbacks of random and benefits of systematic deployment strategies are demonstrated using a count of void & trap nodes, volume of the area covered, and count of retained void & traps.

References

  1. 1.
    Akyildiz, I.F., Pompili, D., Melodia, T.: Underwater acoustic sensor networks: research challenges. Ad Hoc Netw. 3, 257–279 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heidemann, J., Stojanovic, M., Zorzi, M.: Underwater sensor networks: applications, advances and challenges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. 370(1958), 158–175 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Akyildiz, I.F., Pompili, D., Melodia, T.: Challenges for efficient communication in underwater acoustic sensor networks. ACM Sigbed Rev. 1(2), 3–8 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pompili, D., Melodia, T.: hree-dimensional routing in underwater acoustic sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM International Workshop on Performance Evaluation of Wireless Ad Hoc, Sensor, and Ubiquitous Networks, pp. 214–221. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ghoreyshi, S.D., Shahrabi, A., Boutaleb, T.: Void-handling techniques for routing protocols in underwater sensor networks. Survey and challenges. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 19(2), 800–827 (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stojanovic, M., Preisig, J.: Underwater acoustic communication channels: Propagation models and statistical characterization. IEEE Commun. Mag. 47(1), 84–89 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Partan, J., Kurose, J., Levine, B.N.: A survey of practical issues in underwater networks. ACM SIGMOBILE Mob. Comput. Commun. Rev. 11(4), 23–33 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghoreyshi, S.M., Shahrabi, A., Boutaleb, T.: An underwater routing protocol with void detection and bypassing capability. In: 2017 IEEE 31st International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA), pp. 530–537. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chiang, T.-C., Chang, J.-L., Tsai, Y.-F., Li, S.-P.: Greedy geographical void routing for wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, no. 78, p. 1248. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (WASET) (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ding, Y., Li, N., Song, B., Yang, Y.: The mobile node deployment algorithm for underwater wireless sensor networks. In: 2017 Chinese Automation Congress (CAC), pp. 456–460. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Felamban, M., Shihada, B., Jamshaid, K.: Optimal node placement in underwater wireless sensor networks. In: 2013 IEEE 27th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA), pp. 492–499. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alam, S.M., Haas, Z.J.: Coverage and connectivity in three-dimensional networks. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual international conference on Mobile computing and networking, pp. 346–357. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Al-Karaki, J.N., Gawanmeh, A.: The optimal deployment, coverage, and connectivity problems in wireless sensor networks: revisited. IEEE Access 5, 18051–18065 (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Poe, W.Y., Schmitt, J.B.: Node deployment in large wireless sensor networks: coverage, energy consumption, and worst-case delay. In: Asian Internet Engineering Conference, pp. 77–84. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pompili, D., Melodia, T., Akyildiz, I.F.: Deployment analysis in underwater acoustic wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM international workshop on Underwater networks, pp. 48–55. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Coutinho, R.W.L., Boukerche, A., Vieira, L.F.M., Loureiro, A.A.F.: Geographic and opportunistic routing for underwater sensor networks. IEEE Trans. Comput. 65(2), 548–561 (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Coutinho, R.W.L., Boukerche, A., Vieira, L.F.M., Loureiro, A.A.F.: A novel void node recovery paradigm for long-term underwater sensor networks. Ad Hoc Netw. 34, 144–156 (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kheirabadi, M.T., Mohamad, M.M.: Greedy routing in underwater acoustic sensor networks: a survey. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 9(7), 701834 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wireless Information Networking Group (WiNG), Department of Computer Science and EngineeringNITK SurathkalMangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations