Assuring K-coverage in the presence of mobility and wear-out failures in wireless sensor networks

  • Authors:
  • Jayakrishnan V. Iyer;Heeyeol Yu;Hogil Kim;Eun Jung Kim;Ki Hwan Yum;Pyeong-Soo Mah

  • Affiliations:
  • Department of Computer Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.;Department of Computer Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.;Department of Computer Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.;Department of Computer Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.;Department of Computer Science, University of Texas, San Antonio, TX, USA.;Embedded S/W Development Division, ETRI, Daejeon, Korea

  • Venue:
  • International Journal of Sensor Networks
  • Year:
  • 2009

Quantified Score

Hi-index 0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Along with energy conservation, it has been a critical issue tomaintain a desired degree of coverage in Wireless Sensor Networks(WSNs). In this paper, we consider more realistic WSN environmentswhere the sensor nodes are moving around, which can disappear dueto wear-out failures. By enhancing a variant of random waypointmodel (Li et al., 2005), we propose Mobility Resilient CoverageControl (MRCC) to assure K-coverage in the presence of mobility.Our basic goals are (1) to elaborate the probability of breakingK-coverage with moving-in and moving-out probabilities and (2) toissue wake-up calls to sleeping sensors to meet user requirement ofK-coverage even in the presence of mobility. Furthermore, to showthe impact of wear-out failures on the coverage achieved, we adopta lognormal distribution to depict the conditional probability offailures and observe the influence of reduced number of activenodes on coverage. Our experiments with Network Survivability– Double Link Failure show that MRCC achieves better coverageby 1.4% with 22% fewer active sensors than that of the existingCoverage Configuration Protocol (CCP). By taking reliability ofnodes into account, the performance drop with respect to coverageis 3.7% (for coverage 1) while the reduction in the number ofsensor nodes is 18.19% when compared with pure MRCC. Comparing CCPand MRCC with reliability, we observe a 3.4% reduction in coveragefor the average probabilistic case and 5.78% for the individualprobabilistic case, while achieving a 12.82% and 28.2% reduction innumber of nodes, respectively.