100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
The packet delivery ratio (%)
The numbers of sensor nodes
EDM
Proposed Protocol
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
The average energy consumption (mW)
The numbers of sensor nodes
EDM
Proposed Protocol
2345678
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
The end-to-end delay (s)
The numbers of multipath
EDM
Proposed Protocol
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 2: Simulation results in terms of data delivery ratio, average energy consumption, end-to-end delay.
shown in Fig. 2(b), we observe that the proposed
protocol consumes less energy than EDM when the
number of nodes is large although the proposed
protocol has more hop counts. It is because that the
receiving cost for redundant message at an
interference area significantly be increased as the
node density increases.
4.2 Impact of the Number of Multipath
In Fig. 2(c), we can observe that the end-to-end
delay of EDM rapidly increases as the number of
path increases. It means the case that many
individual paths are constructed within the narrow
area. Thus in the case, the queuing delay of each
node in this area may be significantly increased.
However, since the proposed protocol constructs
geographically separated paths, each node has low
queuing delay than EDM. Also, we observe that the
proposed protocol has more delay than EDM only
when there exist little number of multipath. It is
because that if the queuing delays of both EDM and
the proposed protocol is similar to each other, the
proposed protocol that has the more average hop
counts may take more delay times.
5 CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we introduce a radio-disjoint
geographic multipath scheme to effectively avoid
the interferences between each path via multiple
logical pipelines between a source and a sink pair.
By separating each pipeline, geographically
collision-free paths could be constructed. We have
studied the performance of the proposed protocol
relative to EDM, a representative node-disjoint
geographic multipath protocol. We observe the
proposed protocol shows better performance in the
packet delivery ratio and the end-to-end delay.
REFERENCES
Ganesan, D., Govindan, R., Shenker, S., and Estrin, D.,
2001. Highly-Resilient, Energy-Efficient Multipath
Routing in Wireless Sensor Networks, Mobile
Computing and Communications Review, Vol. 1, No.
2.
Jones, E. P. C., Karsten, M., and Ward, P. A. S., 2005.
Multipath Load Balancing in Multi-Hop Routing in
Wireless Sensor Networks, IEEE WiMob, pp. 158-166,
Oct.
Wang, L., Shu, Y., Dong, M., Zhang, L., and Yang, W.,
2001. Adoptive Multipath Source Routing in Ad Hoc
Networks, in Proc. of IEEE International Conference
on Communications (ICC), Jun.
Yang, W., Yang, X., Liu, G., and Yu, W., 2010. An
Interference Avoidance Multipath Routing Protocol
based on Greedy Forwarding in MANETs, in Proc. of
IEEE International Conf. Wireless Communications,
Networking and Information Security (WCNIS), Jun.
Oh, H. W., Jang, J. H., Moon, K. D., Park, S., Lee, E., and
Kim, S., 2010. An Explicit Disjoint Multipath
Algorithm for Cost Efficiency in Wireless Sensor
Networks, in Proc. of 21
st
IEEE International
Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio
Communications (PIMRC), pp. 1899-1904, Sep.
Bulusu, N., Heidemann, J., and Estrin, D., 2000. Gps-less
low cost outdoor localization for very small devices,
IEEE Personal Communications Magazine, vol.7, no.
5, pp.28-34, Oct.
Polastre, J., Szewczyk, R., and Culler, D., 2005. Telos:
Enabling Ultra-Low Power Wireless Research,” IEEE
IPSN, pp. 364-369, Apr.
PECCS 2012 - International Conference on Pervasive and Embedded Computing and Communication Systems
414