See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265926657

A Minimum Hop Routing Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks A Minimum

Hop Routing Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks

Article

CITATIONS READS

3 303

3 authors, including:

Shao-Shan Chiang Kuang-Chiung Chang

Lunghwa University of Science and Technology Lunghwa University of Science and Technology
26 PUBLICATIONS   911 CITATIONS    135 PUBLICATIONS   2,482 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Shao-Shan Chiang on 30 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A Minimum Hop Routing Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks

A Minimum Hop Routing Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks

Shao-Shan Chiang1 Chih-Hung Huang2 Kuang-Chiung Chang1

1
Department of Electrical Engineering
2
Department of Information Management
Lunghwa University of Science and Technology

Abstract
A wireless sensor network is a data communication system that consists of from several
to thousands of tiny wireless sensor nodes. These battery-powered sensor nodes cooperate
with each other to accomplish data transmission. A variety of wireless sensor networks have
been developed for different applications in the recent years. In this paper, a data routing
protocol designed for wireless sensor networks is proposed. Due to the lifetime of such a
network depends entirely on the lifetime of the battery, the proposed routing protocol
chooses hop counts and battery power levels as metrics in order to conserve as much energy
as possible, both in computations and data communications. In addition, when some of the
nodes run out of battery power, the routing protocol could effectively adapt the change and
find an alternative path. Simulation results demonstrate the robustness and the
energy-efficiency of the proposed routing protocol.

Keywords: wireless sensor network, routing protocol, multihop relay, energy-efficiency.

I. Introduction wide range of civil and military applications,

Recent advances in micro fabrications
and wireless communications technology
have enabled the development of low-cost,
small-sized, low power-consuming,
multifunctional sensor nodes, which are
capable of communicating wirelessly in
short distances with each other. A wireless
sensor network could consist of from several
to thousands of these tiny wireless sensor
nodes, which can be added and removed
conveniently to the network whenever it is
necessary. It achieves the goals of low-cost
and flexibility of deployment. Wireless
sensor networks are being developed for a
such as health care [1], bridge monitoring
[2], and home automation [3].
In a wireless sensor network, a sensor
node cooperates with neighbor nodes to
accomplish data transmission. This is so
called the multihop relay. When such a
network is used in a specific application, it
usually scatters sensors in a specific area to
collect data. By means of a multihop relay
scheme, the collected data is transmitted to a
base station for further analysis or for
remote monitoring and controlling.
Therefore, a routing protocol is needed to
ensure the message delivery. Even if there
龍華科技大學學報第二十四期,2007.12
are node failures, a robust routing protocol
could dynamically adjust the transmission
path accordingly. There has been much
research in the field of network layer
protocols for wireless sensor networks, such
as flooding [4,5], directed diffusion [6],
sequential assignment routing [7],
gradient-based routing [8] to mention a few.
An important issue on wireless sensor
networks is to find an optimal routing path
to transmit the collected data from a source
node to the sink. Because wireless sensor
networks are different from one to another,
the optimal path could be defined in
different ways. For example, energy
dissipation, radio coverage range, and
number of nodes used are all possible
factors, or called metrics, to consider. When
deciding an optimal path, these metrics can
be taken into account separately or in any
combinations. As the number of the sensor
nodes increases, a management scheme to
choose from those metrics becomes more
important.
Figure 1. Routing metrics of the paths.
Assuming a data packet is to be
transmitted from source node A to
destination node F as shown in Fig. 1, where
Cij denotes the cost from node i to node j,
and Pi denotes the available power of node i.
There are three possible paths {A–B–F},
{A–B–D–F}, and {A–C–E–F}. By
summing the costs and counting the hops
along each route, the total cost of {A–B–F}
is 10 with two hops, the total cost of
{A–B–D–F} is 14 with three hops, and the
total cost of {A–C–E–F} is 8 with three
hops. Consequently, the optimal path from
node A to node F will be different
depending on the metric chosen. By
choosing the minimum hop counts as the
only metric, the route {A–B–F} is the
optimal one with only two hops. On the
other hand, by choosing the total cost as the
metric, {A–C–E–F} is optimal with a cost
of 8. Lastly, if we choose the maximum
available power as the metric, {A–B–D–F}
would be the optimal path because the total
available power along this path is maximal.
Energy-efficiency is one of the most
important metrics in the routing design for
wireless sensor networks because the battery
power of each sensor node is limited. There
are two strategies to deduce the energy
dissipation for the networks. One is to
control the variable-range transmission
power of the sensor nodes [9]. The other is
to develop energy-efficient routing protocols
based on common-range transmission, i.e.,
nodes broadcast using the same transmission
power level without any power control [4-8,
10].
In this paper, we present an
energy-efficient, scalable and robust routing
algorithm in the data link layer for wireless
sensor networks. Our approach is to flood a
special setup packet to establish a local
routing table for every node in the network
before data transmission actually takes place.
The routing table consists of parent, sibling,
and child nodes, together with their
 A Minimum Hop Routing Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks
identification numbers and energy levels,
within one hop distance. Based on the
routing table, each sensor node can
determine the best next-hop node, which has
the highest energy level, to relay the
message.
The rest of the paper is organized as
follows. Section II is a brief literature review
on this topic. Section III describes the
system model of the proposed routing
scheme in details. The system
implementations and experimental results
are discussed in Section IV. Some
conclusions are given in Section V.
II. Related Works
Classic flooding is an old technique that
can also be used for routing in sensor
networks [4,5]. When a sensor node detects
an event, it broadcasts the message to other
sensor nodes within its radio transmission
distance, which is called one hop. Again, all
the receiving nodes broadcast the message to
all of their neighbor nodes within one hop,
except the node from which they receive the
message. This process is recursively
performed until the message reaches the sink
node, which is a designated node directly
linked to the base station or until a
maximum number of hops for the message
is reached. This routing method has several
deficiencies such as implosion, overlap, and
resource blindness [5].
A directed data dissemination paradigm
is proposed in [6], where the sink node
sends out an interest, which is a task
description, to all sensors by a diffusion or a
flooding mechanism. Each receiving node
then stores the interest in its cache if no
matching entry exists in the cache already.
The interest entry contains a timestamp and
several gradient fields. The timestamp marks
the time when the last matching interest was
received, and the gradient, up to one per
neighbor, indicates the neighbor node from
which the interest was received. As the
interest diffuses throughout the entire sensor
network, the gradients from the source back
to the sink node are set up. Then, any data
matching the interest is sent back toward the
sink node through paths that the gradients
describe.
The sequential assignment routing
(SAR) algorithm creates multiple trees, or
multiple paths from each node to the sink
node, in a wireless sensor network, where
the root of each tree is a one-hop neighbor
from the sink node [7]. Each tree grows
from every root node by successively
branching to neighbors with higher hop
distances while avoiding nodes with very
low quality of service (QoS) and energy
resources. At the end of this tree-building
procedure, most nodes belong to multiple
trees. This allows a sensor node to choose a
tree to relay its data back to the sink node.
There are two parameters, energy resources
and additive QoS, associated with each path
back to the sink node. The SAR algorithm
selects the path based on the two parameters
of each path. As a result, each sensor node
would select the most energy-efficient path
to route the data back to the sink node.
The authors in [8] proposed a variant of
directed diffusion, called gradient-based
routing (GBR). The key idea in GBR is to
memorize the number of hops when an
interest is diffused through the whole
龍華科技大學學報第二十四期,2007.12
network. As such, each node can calculate a
parameter called the height of the node,
which is the minimum number of hops to
reach the base station. The difference
between the heights of a node and its
neighbor is considered as the gradient on
that link. Then the data packet is forwarded
to a link with the largest gradient. To avoid
overusing a particular node, when the node’s
energy drops below a certain threshold, it
increases its height so that other sensors are
discouraged from sending data to that node.
Note that when broadcasts are transmitted at
the same power level, a minimum hop
routing is equivalent to a minimum energy
routing [5].
The authors in [10] proposed a
single-path with repair routing (SWR)
scheme. The SWR scheme uses a
flood-based path setup approach to establish
a routing table for each sensor node in the
network. The routing table contains the hop
count from the current sensor node to the
sink node, parent nodes, and hop counts of
the parent nodes. Rather than searching
multiple paths for delivering data packets to
the sink node, SWR searches a single
optimal path with repair, in which data is
forwarded along a pre-established path to
save energy, and a high delivery ratio is
achieved by path repair whenever a broken
link during delivery is detected. In the SWR
scheme, a sensor node can skip over path
break by only using the already existing
routing information in its neighborhood.
III. System Model
Our system model consists of a base
station, a sink node, and a number of
wireless sensor nodes, as shown in Fig. 2.
The base station can be located in any
convenient place within or far from the field.
The sink node is a specially designed sensor
node that has more memory than other
sensor nodes and is connected to the base
station through a wired or wireless link. The
sensor nodes are densely distributed in the
field so that the radio coverage of any sensor
node covers at least one other node. While
in the network communications, the sink
node takes commands from the base station
and transmits them to other sensor nodes
wirelessly. On the other hand, the sink node
also collects data from other nodes and
delivers them to the base station. All the
sensor nodes are battery-powered except the
sink node, because the sink node is the most
frequently used node in this sensor network.
When deployed, the transmission power of
each sensor node is regulated so that its
radio coverage is fixed, despite the decay of
battery power, until the battery is exhausted.
It is required that every sensor node, with a
unique identification number (ID), can
monitor its own battery power level.
sink node
base station
Figure 2. The system model.
There are two phases in the proposed
routing method: the routing table
 A Minimum Hop Routing Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks

establishment phase and the data routing sending node, “hop” represents the hop
phase. As soon as the sensor network is count between the sending node and the sink
activated, it gets into the routing table node, and “energylevel” is the battery
establishment phase in which the flooding energy level of the sending node. For the
[4,5] technique is applied to establish a local setup packet broadcasted by sink node, the
routing table for each sensor node. The hop count value is set to 0 and the
routing tables will be used in the data “energylevel” value is set to a very large
routing phase and will be updated only when value.
the network topology changes, i.e. when any
sensor fails or a new sensor is added. The
data routing phase consists of three
processes: data routing, table updating, and
command routing. In the data routing phase,
as an event is detected, the data packets can
be transmitted only to the designated nodes
and then to the sink node based on the
routing tables. On the other hand, the sink
node takes commands from the base station (a)

and forwards to the specific nodes or floods

to all sensor nodes. In any case at the data
routing phase, the energy consumption is
very low.
In the following, the algorithms to
establish and to update the routing tables are
described, followed by the algorithms to
route data and command packets.

3.1. The Establishment of Routing Tables
In the sensor network initialization, the
base station requests the sink node to start a
routing table establishment process for the
entire network. Then, the sink node
broadcasts a setup packet to all sensor nodes
within its transmission range. The format of
the setup packet is defined as
“Setup.ID.hop.energylevel”, where the
“Setup” indicates that it is a setup packet
and should be flooded throughout the entire
network, “ID” is the ID number of the
(b)
Figure 3. (a) The setup packet sent from the
sink node. (b) The setup packet is flooded one
hop away.
After receiving the setup packet, all the
receiving nodes within one hop from the
sink node set their hop counts with
increment 1, as shown in Fig. 3(a), and mark
the sink node as their parent node by
recording its hop count, ID number and
energy level on their routing tables. Then,
each node with hop count l, called a relaying
龍華科技大學學報第二十四期,2007.12
node, in turn broadcasts a newly constructed
setup packet, as also shown in Fig. 3(b). The
new setup packet has the same format as that
was sent by the sink node, but with the
relaying node’s ID number and energy level
instead, and the hop count is now set to 1.
This broadcasting process repeats
hop-by-hop until all the nodes in the
network have been notified.
As also shown in Fig. 3(b), the setup
packets, either sent by the sink node or any
of the relaying nodes, may be received by
any other sensor nodes within one hop. On
the other hand, every sensor node may
receive more than one setup packet from its
neighbor nodes.
Figure 4. Flowchart of the routing table
establishment.
The flowchart in Fig. 4 demonstrates
the workflow of a sensor node receiving a
setup packet. The following algorithm
describes the establishment of the routing
table for sensor node j when receiving a
setup packet from sensor node i, where hop(i)
denotes the hop count of sensor node i.
Routing table establishment algorithm
IF hop(j) = empty
Set hop(j) = hop(i) + 1.
Record node i into the parent list.
Transmit a new setup packet.
ELSE
IF hop(j) > hop(i)
Record node i into the parent list.
ELSEIF hop(j) = hop(i)
Record node i into the sibling list.
ELSE
Record node i into the child list.
END
END
Referring to Fig. 3(b), nodes F, G and H
record node A as their parent node, and node
E records both nodes A and B as its parent
nodes. Also, the sink node records nodes A,
B, C, and D as its child nodes, and both
nodes B and D record node A as a sibling
node while nodes A, C and D record node B
as a sibling node.
Flooding the setup packet in this way
may cause several problems such as
collision and incorrect setting of the hop
count. If several nodes broadcast the packet
at the same time, they will collide to each
other. To prevent collisions, all nodes
receiving the setup packet for the first time
 A Minimum Hop Routing Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks

have to wait for a fixed time plus a random 3.2. Deletion and Addition of Sensor
time, like the back-off algorithm used in Nodes
Ethernet, before relaying the setup packet. When the battery power of a sensor
The duration of the fixed time is node falls below a predetermined level, it
proportional to the hop count value in the sends a delete packet to all the sensor nodes
first received packet. The design of the fixed listed in its routing table. In this situation,
time may lengthen the time needed to each receiving node simply deletes the
establish the routing tables. However, it can dying-out node from its routing table. The
prevent the receiving sensor node from deletion of a dead node is part of the node
setting its hop count to a higher value than it updating process illustrated in Fig. 5.
should be. In other words, once a receiving
node has set its hop count, it is impossible to
receive any setup packet that has smaller
hop count value. To further reduce the
amount of setup packets flooded in the
entire network, every sensor node only
relays the setup packet once.
A routing table consists of three rows. All
the parent, sibling and child nodes, together
with their ID numbers and energy levels, are
put at the bottom, middle and upper row,
respectively. As a result, the memory
capacity needed for the sensor node is very
low because only a local routing table needs
to be stored. Besides, searching for an
optimal path for data routing is merely by
looking up the local routing table stored,
therefore the demand of calculation ability is
relatively low, compared to other classical Figure 5. The node updating sub-process.
methods. The correctness of routing table
can be easily verified when the routing table As time goes by, sensor nodes will
establishment phase is completed. The hop gradually be energy-exhausted and be
count values of all the parent, sibling and deleted from the routing tables one after
child nodes should be three consecutive another. Once the number of deleted nodes
numbers. If it is not true, this sensor node increases so that the sensor network
resets the current routing table and acts as a becomes disconnected, new sensor nodes
newly added node to establish its routing must be added on in order to maintain the
table (see the next subsection). connectivity of the network. The procedures
of the new sensor node and its neighbor
龍華科技大學學報第二十四期,2007.12
nodes in the node addition process are
shown respectively in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6.
Figure 6. Workflow of the new sensor node in
the node addition process.
When a new sensor node appears in the
network, it has to establish its own routing
table and updates routing tables of the
sensor nodes within its one hop distance.
The new sensor node broadcasts an add
packet in the format “Add.ID.energylevel”,
where the “Add” indicates it is an add
packet and should be answered, to notify the
sensor nodes within one hop, as node N
shown in Fig. 7. Every receiving node
replies an ACK packet with its hop count,
energy level and ID number destined to the
new sensor node after a random time delay.
Waiting for a predefined time interval to
ensure that all receiving sensor nodes have
responded, the new sensor node N generates
its routing table according to the following
criteria.
Routing table establishment algorithm for
a newly added sensor node
Receive ACK packets from all its neighbor
node i, for i = 1, 2, …, m.
Set hop(N) = min{hop(i), i = 1, 2, …, m}+1.
Sort the responding nodes.
FOR i = 1 to m
IF hop(i) < hop(N)
Record node i into the parent list
ELSEIF hop(i) = hop(N)
Record node i into the sibling list
ELSE
Record node i into the child list
END
END
Broadcast an update packet.
Figure 7. Sensor node addition procedure.
In Fig. 7, for example, node N sets its
hop count as 2 and marks the nodes with
hop count 1 as its parent nodes, the nodes
with hop count 2 as its sibling nodes, and the
nodes with hop count 3 as its child nodes.
The correctness of the routing table created
by this addition procedure need also be
verified. If it is correct, the new sensor node
broadcasts an update packet in the format
“Update.ID.hop.energylevel”, where its hop
 A Minimum Hop Routing Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks
count, energy level and ID number are sent
to all sensor nodes listed in the routing table.
The receiving sensor nodes append the new
sensor node into their routing tables
according to its hop count.
3.3. The Data Routing Scheme
The data routing scheme is developed to
ensure the data delivery based on the routing
tables. When a sensor node detects an event,
the collected data must be sent back to the
sink node and then to the base station by the
relay scheme. Since processing and
transmitting data packets both consume
energy, the purpose of the proposed data
routing scheme is not only to find a path to
the sink node, but also to conserve as much
battery energy as possible. Besides, to
extend the lifetime of the wireless sensor
network, it also needs to consider how to
avoid overuse of certain nodes in data
packet delivery process.
The proposed routing algorithm
determines an optimal path to the sink node
by choosing the hop count and the energy
level as the metrics. When several paths
exist, the sensor node with the most energy
should be chosen as the next recipient to
relay data packets. Every data packet has a
field specifying the designated recipient’s ID.
All nodes other than the designated recipient
would ignore the packet when receiving it.
Beside the designated recipient field, the
data packet also contains fields of the energy
level, ID number, and event description of
the sending node. Not only process and relay
the data packet, the designated recipient but
also must acknowledge the reception by
replying an ACK packet with its energy
level to ensure the delivery of the data
packet and to update the energy information
in the routing table. The algorithm to select
the next relay node in an energy-based
manner is described as follows, and the
workflow is shown in Fig. 8.
Data routing algorithm
IF a data packet is received
Reply an ACK packet back.
ELSEIF an NAK packet is received
Delete the replying node from the
routing table.
END
IF parent nodes are available
Forward the data packet to the
parent node with the highest energy.
ELSEIF sibling nodes are available
Forward the data packet to the
sibling node with the highest
energy.
ELSE
Reply an NAK packet back.
Broadcast a delete packet.
END
The node or path failure detection
mechanism is different from the mechanism
in [10] where the sensor node broadcasts a
packet to all the neighbor nodes for help.
The sensor node in the proposed method
makes its own decision to opt a neighbor
node for an alternative path. Once a node or
path failure occurs, the failed node will be
removed from the routing tables of all its
neighbor nodes. It means the neighbor nodes
will not try to use the node or path to deliver
packets in order to conserve energy. The
method provided here not only guarantees
龍華科技大學學報第二十四期,2007.12

data packet delivery but also saves energy. node receives the same ComALL from
different parent nodes, it only relays the
Listening
command once.
Sending a command to a designated
Receive packet
node may use ComALL with the ID of the
Reply the routing
Yes
Is an ENQ sensor node in it to tell who should respond.
table packet?
However, this mechanism requires the
No
Update the routing
Yes
Is an ACK participation of all the nodes in the network,
table packet?
No
which may unnecessarily consume battery
Is a data Yes power. Alternatively, the sink node could
packet?
No build a global routing table showing the
No Is an NAK Reply ACK to the
Other process
packet? sending node
entire tree structure of the network. The
Yes global routing table can be established by
Delete the
sending node from
sending an ENQ (enquiry) packet which is a
the routing table
ComALL command to ask every sensor
node to reply its routing table to the sink
Is there any Yes
parent node? node. The procedure of generating the
No
No Is there any
global routing table is similar to the data
sibling node?
routing process, as shown in Fig. 8.
Yes

Choose the sibling Choose the parent

Reply NAK to the
node with the
sending node
highest energy
Broadcast a delete Forward packet to
packet the sibling node
Figure 8. The data routing process.
3.4. The Command Routing Scheme
There are two types of commands from
the sink node in the proposed scheme: one is
to all sensor nodes, namely, ComALL, and
the other is to a designated node. The
algorithm to deliver ComALL from the sink
node is similar to that of the routing table
establishment expect the command packet is
forwarded only to the child nodes in the
routing table. The delivery of ComALL
stops when the relaying node has no child
nodes. To reduce the amount of information
flooded in the network, when a relaying
According to the global routing table, the
node with the
highest energy sink node could find a path to the destination
and fill the path into the command packet.
Forward packet to
the parent node Due to the global routing table building
process is energy and time consuming, it is
not necessarily updated every time the sink
node sends a command. The node failure
detection mechanism in the data routing
algorithm could detect dead routes and
return the message to the sink node for
updating the global routing table.
IV. Simulation Results
We compare the energy-efficient
performance of the proposed method with
the classic flooding scheme and the SWR
scheme in this section. In this comparative
experiment, we used a simple abstract
energy model other than a particular one to
compute energy consumption in one data
 A Minimum Hop Routing Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks
packet delivery. It is well known that in
wireless sensor network communications,
idle listening or signal transmitting/receiving
consumes much more energy of a sensor
node than calculation of an optimal path or
memory accessing does. Therefore, in this
experiment, the energy consumption of
calculation and memory access is not
considered. This model assumed that, from a
pure energy/bit standpoint, the sensor nodes
spent 1.0 and 2.0 energy units respectively
for transmitting and receiving one data bit.
Thus, for a data packet of 1 Kbit long, the
energy for relaying (transmitting and
receiving) one data packet was 3000 energy
units.
Experiments were carried out using
random network topologies. In each network
topology, sensor nodes were randomly
scattered in a fixed 50 × 50 m2 deployed
area, and the sink node was located at the
lower left corner. The number of sensor
nodes changed from 50 to 100 with
increments of 10. Each sensor node had a
maximum transmission range of 10 m and a
detection range of 5 m. The maximum hop
count was set 8 for all the routing schemes.
Before data delivery, the routing table had
been set up at each sensor node. The energy
dissipated in the routing table establishment
process was not included in the total energy
consumption, because both of the proposed
method and SWR use a technique similar to
the classic flooding method to establish the
routing table. At the time between the end of
the routing table establishment and
beginning of the data delivery, for each test,
a 10% of the sensor nodes were randomly
selected as failure nodes, in order to test the
robustness of the proposed algorithm. To
make a fair comparison, in each test, each
scheme used exactly the same network
topologies where 20 nodes were randomly
selected as source nodes. Each source node
sent one data packet to the sink node, using
the three different schemes. The size of the
data packet was 1 Kbit, including header.
With 20 successful deliveries of the data
packet, the average energy consumption per
data packet delivery for the proposed
algorithm is shown in Fig. 9. In SWR, a
sending node will broadcast a call-for-help
packet when its next relay node fails. Every
sensor node receiving the packet must
respond in order that the sending node finds
an alternative path. In contract, in the
proposed method, the sending node can
decide an alternative path directly from its
own routing table. Therefore, the proposed
method is more energy-efficient than SWR.
Besides the energy saving, we see that, from
this figure, the proposed method is more
scalable.
Figure 9. Energy consumption of the proposed
method (real line), SWR (broken line) and the
classic flooding method (dashed line).
龍華科技大學學報第二十四期,2007.12
V. Conclusions
We have presented an energy-efficient
routing scheme in the data link layer for
wireless sensor networks. The time
complicity of the proposed protocol is not
discussed because it is beyond the scope of
this paper. In the proposed data routing
scheme, sensor nodes with more energy are
selected in data packet transmission relays.
Since the battery power of the network is
utilized efficiently and evenly among all the
sensor nodes, the lifetime of the wireless
sensor networks could be extended to its
optimum. When any data packet
transmission fails due to sensor node’s fault
or battery exhaustion, the proposed scheme
would quickly adapt the change by updating
the routing tables and resending the packet
via a new optimal path. Therefore, the
proposed scheme is robust, energy-efficient
and scalable.
References
[1] R.-G. Lee, C.-C. Lai, S.-S. Chiang,
H.-S. Liu, C.-C. Chen, and G.-Y. Hsieh,
“Design and implementation of a
mobile-care system over wireless
sensor network for home healthcare
applications,” Proceedings of the 28th
IEEE EMBS Annual International
Conference, pp. 6004-6007, 2006.
[2] R.-G. Lee, K.-C. Chen, C.-C. Lai, S.-S.
Chiang, H.-S. Liu, and M.-S. Wei, “A
backup routing with wireless sensor
network for bridge monitoring system,”
Measurement, vol. 40, pp. 55-63, 2007.
[3] H. Oh, H. Bahn, and K. J. Chae, “ An
energy-efficient sensor routing scheme
for home automation networks,” IEEE
Transactions on Consumer Electronics,
vol. 51, pp. 836-839, 2005.
[4] J. N. Al-Karaki and A. E. Kamal,
“Routing techniques in wireless sensor
networks: A survey,” IEEE Wireless
Communications, pp. 6-28, Dec. 2004.
[5] I. F. Akyildiz, S. Weilian, Y.
Sankarasubramaniam, and E. Cayirci,
“A survey on sensor networks,” IEEE
Communications Magazine, vol. 40, no.
8, pp. 102-114, 2002.
[6] C. Intanagonwiwat, R. Govindan, and
D. Estrin, “ Directed diffusion: A
scalable and robust communication
paradigm for sensor networks,”
Proceedings of the ACM Mobi-Com, pp.
56-67, 2000.
[7] K. Sohrabi, J. Gao, V. Ailawadhi, and
G. Pottie, “Protocols for
self-organization of a wireless sensor
network,” IEEE Personal
Communications, pp. 16-27, 2000.
[8] C. Schurgers and M. B. Srivastava,
“Energy efficient routing in wireless
sensor networks,” MILCOM Proc.
Communications for Network-Centric
Operations: Creating the Information
Force, pp. 357-361, 2001.
[9] J. Gomez and A. T. Campbell, “A case
for variable-range transmission power
control in wireless multihop networks,”
Proceedings of Infocom, pp. 1425-1436,
2004.
[10] D. Tian, N. D. Georganas, “Energy
efficient routing with guaranteed
delivery in wireless sensor networks,”
IEEE Wireless Communications and
Networking Conference, pp. 1923-1929,
2003.
 A Minimum Hop Routing Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks

無線感測網路之最小跳躍路由協定

江韶珊 1 黃志宏 2 張光瓊 1

1
龍華科技大學電機工程系

2
龍華科技大學資訊管理系

摘要

一個無線感測網路是由包括從數個到上千個極小的無線感測器結點所構成的一個資料
通信網路系統，這些由電池供應電力的感應器結點互相合作來完成資料傳輸。近年來，
各式各樣的無線感應網路已經被研發運用在許多不同的應用領域，因此本文提出一種
為無線感測網路設計的資料路由協定。由於這樣的網路壽命完全取決於電池的使用壽
命，本文所提出的路由協定採用跳躍數和電池電力作為計量標準以達到在資料計算和
通訊時儘可能保存最多的電池能量。此外，當某些結點用盡電池能量時，此路由協定
能有效地適應網路拓樸的變動並立即尋找另一個最佳傳遞路線。在本文中的模擬結果
也確實顯示出此路由協定的穩定性和節能性。

關鍵詞:無線感測網路，路由協定，多重跳躍傳遞，節能效益。

View publication stats