Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Journal of Sensors
Volume 2015, Article ID 921250, 6 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/921250

Research Article
Lifetime Optimization of a Multiple Sink Wireless Sensor
Network through Energy Balancing

Tapan Kumar Jain, Davinder Singh Saini, and Sunil Vidya Bhooshan
Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Jaypee University of Information Technology, Waknaghat,
Solan 173215, India
Correspondence should be addressed to Tapan Kumar Jain; [email protected]

Received 12 October 2014; Accepted 10 March 2015

Academic Editor: Christos Riziotis

Copyright © 2015 Tapan Kumar Jain et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.

The wireless sensor network consists of small limited energy sensors which are connected to one or more sinks. The maximum
energy consumption takes place in communicating the data from the nodes to the sink. Multiple sink WSN has an edge over the
single sink WSN where very less energy is utilized in sending the data to the sink, as the number of hops is reduced. If the energy
consumed by a node is balanced between the other nodes, the lifetime of the network is considerably increased. The network lifetime
optimization is achieved by restructuring the network by modifying the neighbor nodes of a sink. Only those nodes are connected
to a sink which makes the total energy of the sink less than the threshold. This energy balancing through network restructuring
optimizes the network lifetime. This paper depicts this fact through simulations done in MATLAB.

1. Introduction WSN so as to reduce the energy consumption and increase

the network lifetime. This energy balancing through network
A wireless sensor network (WSN) consists of small low restructuring optimizes the network lifetime. The number of
energy sensing nodes capable of sensing a phenomenon and not connected nodes are also quite less. The implementation
sending the data to the sink. The basic aim while structuring a is done in MATLAB. The implementation results prove the
WSN is to minimize the energy consumption and maximize aforesaid statements.
the network lifetime. In a single sink WSN, the nodes need
to send the data through multiple hops. In a large WSN,
it becomes quite inefficient in terms of power consumption 2. Related Work
while gathering all information in a single sink [1]. Maximum In a WSN, the fundamental question is to have the data routed
energy consumption takes place in communicating the data over single hop or multiple hops. This question is answered
from the nodes to the sink [2, 3]. To minimize the energy by considering the answer to the question that the data needs
consumption while sending the data to the sink, multiple to be sent over a longer or a shorter hop. Short-hop routing
sinks are used. As there are multiple sinks, the distance from leads to reduced energy consumption and higher signal-to-
the node to the sink reduces; thus, there is no need of multiple interference ratios [6]. The less but longer hops lead to more
hops. Multiple sinks reduce the distance the sensed data energy consumption but less signal to interference ratio (SIR).
needs to travel and hence correspondingly reduce the energy Research paper [7] has proved that single-hop transmission
consumption considerably [4]. Another disadvantage of a is more efficient, when power consumption of real wireless
single sink WSN is that of energy imbalance between the sensor node’s transceivers ia taken into account.
nodes close to the sink and the ones which are far off [5]. The So, this leads to four types of networks:
network is restructured by modifying the number of nodes
connected to a sink. The current research work proposes (1) single hop single sink routing (SH-SS),
an algorithm for network restructuring in a multiple sink (2) single hop multiple sink routing (SH-MS),
 9161, 2015, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2015/921250, Wiley Online Library on [24/02/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 Journal of Sensors

(3) multiple hop single sink routing (MH-SS), upon their distance and the transmission energy. A node gets
(4) Multiple hop multiple sink routing (MH-MS). connected to a sink/s if its distance from the sink/s is less than
the transmitting range. In this way all the nodes are connected
The first scenario is the most elementary one with direct to one or many sinks. There may be some nodes which are not
transmission. The LEACH protocol, which is better than connected to any of the sinks as they are deployed quite far
the direct transmission, deals with single hop single sink from the network and are not within the transmission range
clustering protocol [8]. of any sink. Table 2 depicts this fact. In the next phase network
A lot of research is done for the third scenario [9–11]. restructuring is done. The energy consumed by every sink is
The modification of LEACH protocol is having multiple hops calculated and the sink with maximum energy consumption
instead of single hop [9]. Reference [10] compares the single is found out. The unique nodes connected to this sink are
and multiple hop routing. traced. A unique node is one which is connected to only that
In [3], a multihop protocol spends most of its energy for sink. All the other connected nodes apart from the unique
relaying data packets so the concept of multihop multisink nodes are then found out. Such nodes are then connected
WSN is discussed. The concept of particle swarm optimiza- to other sinks (within the transmission range), keeping in
tion is used. mind that the new energy consumption of that sinks does
The current research paper deals with the second sce- not cross the threshold. In this way the energy consumption
nario, that is, single hop multiple sink. The biggest disad- of the sink, which was earlier consuming maximum energy,
vantage of single sink is that certain sensors near the sink is reduced. This process is repeated for all the sinks in the
or on critical paths consume energy much faster than other increasing order of their energy consumptions. The end result
nodes [12]. Thus the current work uses the advantage of is a network which now consumes less energy overall.
having multiple sinks. Multiple sinks ensure shorter hops and
thus the 18 advantages as discussed in the paper [6] are also
3.1. System Model and Assumptions
achieved. Multiple hops are generally used to reduce the hop
distance [13]. But if multiple sinks are used, the hop distance (1) Sinks are randomly deployed and then they are fixed.
automatically reduces. Thus, the research deals with single Since random distribution is used, the complexity in
hop and thus avoids the drawbacks of having multiple hops. determining the position of the sink is removed.
Network lifetime (NL) is a critical metric in the design
(2) The nodes after random deployment are fixed.
of energy-constrained WSN [14]. The basic aim of the
researchers is to minimize the energy consumption and at (3) The density of nodes deployed is high such that the
the same time increase the network lifetime. The authors in data from a node reaches a sink in single hop.
the paper [15, 16] deal with mobile multiple sinks. Data dis- (4) The network is heterogeneous. The sinks have more
semination to multiple mobile sinks consumes a lot of energy power than the sensing nodes. The sinks have addi-
[17]. Many papers [3, 15] have concentrated on positioning tional computational capacity as well.
of the sink to have optimal energy consumption. The current
research work talks about the random deployment of the sink
3.2. Pseudocode
thus saving power in determining the position of the sink.
Then the network is restructured to have balanced energy (1) The sensor nodes and the sinks are randomly
consumption amongst all the sinks. deployed and after the deployment the nodes and
Table 1 summarizes the related work done in the field sinks are stationary. Combination of sink and sensor
of single/multiple hops, single/multiple sinks, and mov- nodes will make the network heterogeneous.
ing/stationary nodes.
(2) 𝑁 is the set of 𝑝 nodes deployed in the area to be
Network restructuring is changing the neighbor nodes
sensed in the given network:
connected to a sink depending upon the energy consumption
by that sink. 𝑁 = {𝑛1 , 𝑛2 , 𝑛3 , . . . , 𝑛𝑝 } . (1)
In the current research work the number of sensors con-
nected to any sink is changed if the energy consumption by (3) 𝑆 is the set of 𝑞 sinks deployed in the area to be sensed
the sink is more than the threshold. To have balanced energy in the given network:
consumption amongst all the nodes, the entire network is
restructured. 𝑆 = {𝑆1 , 𝑆2 , 𝑆3 , . . . , 𝑆𝑞 } . (2)
The rest of the paper is organized in sections. The next
section describes the proposed algorithm and its pseudocode. (4) Calculate the Euclidean distance from each sink to
Section 4 deals with the simulation results. Section 5 con- every node. 𝐷𝑆𝑖 is the set of distances of all the nodes
cludes and gives the outline for the future work. from the 𝑖th sink:
2 2
3. Proposed Algorithm 𝐷𝑖𝑗 = √ (𝑥𝑖 − 𝑥𝑗 ) + (𝑦𝑖 − 𝑦𝑗 )

The proposed work concentrates on multiple sink single hop 𝑖 = sink 𝐼𝐷 = 1, 2, . . . , 𝑞, 𝑗 = node 𝐼𝐷 = 1, 2, . . . , 𝑝; (3)
routing. The nodes and the sinks are randomly deployed. At
the first instance the nodes are connected to a sink depending 𝐷𝑆𝑖 = {𝐷𝑖1 , 𝐷𝑖2 , 𝐷𝑖3 , . . . , 𝐷𝑖𝑝 } .
 9161, 2015, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2015/921250, Wiley Online Library on [24/02/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Sensors 3

Table 1: Related work in multiple sinks in WSN.

Hops Sinks Mobility of Sink Network

Authors (year) papers
sink positioning restructuring
Singh et al., 2014 [17] Multiple Multiple Yes No No
Lee et al., 2009 [16] Multiple Multiple Yes Yes No
Jain et al., 2014 [4] Single Multiple No Yes No
Shah-Mansouri et al., 2009 [1] Single Multiple Yes Yes No
Jain, 2012 [18] Multiple Single No Yes No
Heinzelman et al., 2000 [8] Single Single No No No
Farooq et al., 2010 [9],
Koutsopoulos and Stanczak, 2012 Multiple Single No No No
[10], Li, 2005 [11], Fedor and Collier,
2007 [13]
Dandekar and Deshmukh, 2013 [3] Multiple Multiple No No No

Table 2: Simulations parameters values. the 𝑗th node where 𝑛𝑗 ∈ Nb𝑖 , and 𝑘 is the constant for
first order radio energy model [8].
Notation Meaning
N 50, 100 (10) Calculate the 𝐸max = maximum(𝐸𝑖 ), where 𝑖 = 1 to 𝑞,
and find the maximum energy consumed by any sink
𝐸0 Initial node energy (1 J)
𝑆𝑖 .
𝐸max Max energy consumed by the sink
𝑛𝑖 Node ID of 𝑖th node (11) If (𝐸0 > 𝐸max ),
𝐴 (0, 0) to (500, 500) = 250000 m2 {
𝑅𝑠 Point sensor
𝑅𝑡 150 m no need to optimize the network
𝐸𝑟 𝐸0 − 𝐸processing -𝐸𝐷𝐴 − 𝐸sensing iteration = 0;
0.5 J initially till it reaches 0.1 J set the 𝐸0 below the 𝐸max
𝐸th
(changes after iterations) repeat step (10)
𝑆 10, number of sinks
}
(12) else
So it will form a [𝑞, 𝑝] order distance matrix (𝐷)
which will contain the distances of all the sinks from (a) Calculate the unique nodes connected to a sink.
all the nodes. The distance between the nodes is A unique node to a sink is the one which is not
calculated using a method based on RSSI [19]. connected to any other sink.
(5) The threshold energy of the sink is 𝐸0 . 𝑈𝑖 is the set of unique nodes for 𝑆𝑖
(6) The transmission range of a node is 𝑇𝑥 . 𝑈𝑖 ∈ Nb𝑖
𝑈𝑖 = {𝑛1 , 𝑛2 , 𝑛3 , . . . , 𝑛𝑖 } ∈ Nb𝑖 & ∉ Nb𝑗 Where
(7) The neighboring nodes of every sink are calculated
𝑗 = 1, 2, 3, . . . , 𝑞 and 𝑖 ≠ 𝑗
based on the transmitting range. Nb𝑖 is the set of all
the neighboring nodes of 𝑖th sink (𝑆𝑖 ): Based on the above step and (7) we can easily
calculate the nodes, having connectivity with
Nb𝑖 ⊆ 𝑁, where {Nb𝑖 | 𝐷𝑖𝑗 < 𝑇𝑥 ∈ 𝑗, 𝑗 ∈ 𝑁} . (4) more than one sink. MC𝑖 is the multiple con-
necting nodes set having the connection with
(8) A new connection matrix (𝐶) is formed based on 𝐷. A multiple sinks.
flag is set for every element where the distance from (b) MC𝑖 nodes of the 𝑖th sink are arranged into the
node to sink is less than the transmission range 𝑇𝑥 . descending order of the distance from the 𝑖th
Thus 𝐶 is in the binary form. sink.
(9) The energy consumed by 𝑖th sink 𝐸𝑖 is calculated by (c) Select the nodes having the minimum distance
from the 𝑖th sink and disconnect the connection
|Nb𝑖 | of remaining nodes those are far from the 𝑖th
𝐸𝑖 = 𝑘 ∑ 𝐷𝑖𝑗 2 , (5) sink, and update the overall connection matrix
𝑗=1 𝐶 based on the distance matrix 𝐷.

where |Nb𝑖 | is the total number of neighbor nodes of (13) Repeat the steps (9)–(12) by recalculating the sink
𝑖th sink (𝑆𝑖 ) and 𝐷𝑖𝑗 is the distance of 𝑖th sink from energy with modified 𝐶. The iteration count is also
 9161, 2015, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2015/921250, Wiley Online Library on [24/02/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
4 Journal of Sensors

Table 3: Not connected nodes. 35

Not 𝐸max 𝐸min 𝐸avg Max nodes connected 30

Not connected nodes (%)

Sinks
connected to single sink
5 30 0.312 0.173 0.24 28 25
6 28 0.331 0.139 0.23 30 20
7 22 0.359 0.152 0.244 31
8 16 0.371 0.114 0.239 31 15

9 14 0.334 0.121 0.227 30 10

10 11 0.362 0.103 0.233 32
5
11 10 0.36 0.1 0.231 31 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
12 9 0.386 0.11 0.236 32 Total sinks (%)
13 10 0.363 0.101 0.23 30
Data points
14 9 0.368 0.104 0.226 31 Curve fitting
15 8 0.391 0.093 0.226 32
Figure 1: Node connected versus total sinks.

Table 4: After network restructuring.

Sinks 𝐸max 𝐸min 𝐸avg Max connected node changes with one sink to other sinks to reduce the load of the
sink and decrease the delay.
5 0.24 0.173 0.195 15
It is apparent from Table 3 that as we increase the sinks,
6 0.23 0.139 0.193 15 the number of not connected nodes decreases. But after
7 0.244 0.152 0.192 10 a certain point of time, the not-connected nodes more or
8 0.247 0.114 0.211 12 less remain the same. Since the sinks and the nodes are
9 0.288 0.121 0.21 11 randomly deployed, and the nodes are connected to the sink
10 0.274 0.103 0.2 12 with a single hop, there are not connected nodes because of
11 0.245 0.1 0.197 10 large transmission energy required outside the transmission
12 0.245 0.11 0.196 8 range 𝑅𝑡 (𝐸 𝛼 𝑑4 ) [8]. If we would have deployed the sinks
13 0.26 0.101 0.194 7 manually, the number of not-connected nodes would have
14 0.24 0.104 0.198 6
reduced considerably. The optimal number of sinks also
depends upon the network area to be covered by the sinks.
15 0.242 0.093 0.21 7
Figure 1 depicts the plot of total percentage of sinks versus
percentage of not-connected nodes. With the help of curve
Table 5 fitting tool of the 4th order polynomial, the suitable value is
0.12 sink/nodes. This proves that the optimal number of sinks
Sinks Not 𝐸max 𝐸min 𝐸avg Max nodes connected
connected to single sink
is 12 for 100 nodes.
Now, the network restructuring algorithm mentioned in
10 11 0.362 0.103 0.233 32 the Section 4 is applied to the data as depicted in Table 3.
Table 4 proves that, after restructuring, the network con-
sumes less energy. The number of connected nodes changes
increased. The steps are repeated until 𝐸max becomes as a result of which the total energy consumption by each
constant. sink reduces. As a result the total energy consumption of the
network reduces considerably, thus increasing the network
(14) Now the network is optimized and the routing is lifetime. The 𝐸min remains the same as only the 𝐸max is
started by the nodes. The lifetime of the network is reduced. Since the 𝐸max is decreased, the 𝐸avg is automatically
calculated by counting the number of rounds done by decreased. The maximum number of nodes connected to a
the network before the first node dies out. sink also reduces. Consider the scenario of no of sinks = 10.
In the initial phase, just after the deployment the parameters
4. Simulation Results are as in Table 5.
After applying the algorithm, that is, after energy bal-
The simulation of the abovementioned pseudocode was ancing through network restructuring, the values of the
performed in MATLAB. The simulation parameters are parameters change as depicted in the Table 6.
mentioned in Table 2. The 𝐸max has changed from 0.362 to 0.274. Now, we
The numbers of nodes are not connected to any sink consider one more scenario of changing the number of
as the number of sinks that increases in the network are sensing nodes. The observations are depicted in Table 7 and
depicted in Table 3. In the proposed work we have considered Figure 2.
the restructuring energy in terms of processing energy Thus it proves that the proposed algorithm is quite
(𝐸processing ). In the restructuring only the node connection effective for multiple sink, single hop WSN. After the network
 9161, 2015, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2015/921250, Wiley Online Library on [24/02/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Sensors 5

40 MATLAB prove that network restructuring is beneficial in

35 reducing the maximum and average energy of the sinks. The
Maximum number of nodes

optimal number of sinks is also calculated using fourth order

connected to single sink

30 polynomial. The number of iterations used for simulation is

25 100. In 100 iterations the value of average energy (mean) is
0.2329 J and the standard deviation of mean is 0.0061 J. Since
20
the standard deviation is very small so this iteration count is
15 statistically valid.
10 In the future the authors wish to consider the scenario
of a mobile sinks WSN. In this case there would be single
5 hop routing with the sink moving randomly. This involves
0 complexity of finding out the position of the sinks. The
80 90 100 110 120 130 authors also wish to have sinks deployed at fixed positions
Number of nodes in the initial phase instead of random deployment. And then
Before nw restructuring
finally compare the results obtained in different scenarios
After nw restructuring with multiple sink moving/stationary with and without initial
sink positioning.
Figure 2: Maximum node connected to single sink.
Conflict of Interests
Table 6
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests
Sinks Not 𝐸max 𝐸min 𝐸avg Max nodes connected regarding the publication of this paper.
connected to single sink
10 11 0.274 0.103 0.2 12 Acknowledgment

Table 7: Maximum nodes connected to single sink.

The authors are sincerely thankful to the potential reviewers
for their valuable comments and suggestions to improve the
Maximum number of nodes connected quality of the paper.
No. of
to a single sink
nodes
Before the restructuring After the restructuring References
80 30 11
[1] V. Shah-Mansouri, A.-H. Mohsenian-Rad, and V. W. S. Wong,
90 30 11
“Lexicographically optimal routing for wireless sensor networks
100 32 12 with multiple sinks,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technol-
110 36 14 ogy, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 1490–1500, 2009.
120 35 13 [2] T. K. Jain, D. S. Saini, and S. V. Bhooshan, “Cluster head
130 40 14 selection in a homogeneous wireless sensor network ensuring
full connectivity with minimum isolated nodes,” Journal of
Sensors, vol. 2014, Article ID 724219, 8 pages, 2014.
[3] D. R. Dandekar and P. R. Deshmukh, “Energy balancing
restructuring, the maximum number of nodes connected multiple sink optimal deployment in multi-hop Wireless Sensor
to a sink reduces considerably. As a result of this energy Networks,” in Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Advance
balancing, the network lifetime is increased and the energy Computing Conference (IACC '13), pp. 408–412, Ghaziabad,
consumption is reduced. India, February 2013.
[4] T. K. Jain, D. S. Saini, and S. V. Bhooshan, “Increasing lifetime of
a wireless sensor network using multiple sinks,” in Proceedings
5. Conclusion and Future Work of the 11th International Conference on Information Technology:
New Generations (ITNG '14), pp. 616–619, Las Vegas, Nev, USA,
The proposed work performs network lifetime optimization
April 2014.
through energy balancing in a multiple sink single hop WSN.
[5] Z. Cheng, M. Perillo, and W. B. Heinzelman, “General network
The network restructuring balances the energy amongst lifetime and cost models for evaluating sensor network deploy-
the sinks, thereby increasing the network lifetime. In the ment strategies,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol.
proposed algorithm we have considered the network lifetime 7, no. 4, pp. 484–497, 2008.
with respect to the maximum and average energy consump- [6] M. Haenggi and D. Puccinelli, “Routing in Ad Hoc networks:
tion. The more the energy consumed, the less the network a case for long hops,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 43,
lifetime. The proposed restructuring algorithm reduces the no. 10, pp. 93–101, 2005.
maximum nodes connected to a sink. As a result the total [7] U. M. Pešović, J. J. Mohorko, K. Benkič, and Ž. F. Čučej, “Single-
energy consumed by the sink connected to the maximum hop vs. multi-hop—energy efficiency analysis in wireless sensor
nodes also decreases further resulting in increasing the networks,” in Proceedings of the 18th TAlAcommunic1tions Forum
total network lifetime. The implementation results shown in (TELFOR ’10), Belgrade, Serbia, November 2010.
 9161, 2015, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2015/921250, Wiley Online Library on [24/02/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
6 Journal of Sensors

[8] W. R. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, and H. Balakrish-

nan, “Energy-efficient communication protocol for wireless
microsensor networks,” in Proceedings of the 33rd Annual
Hawaii International Conference on System Siences (HICSS ’00),
p. 223, January 2000.
[9] M. O. Farooq, A. B. Dogar, and G. A. Shah, “MR-LEACH: multi-
hop routing with low energy adaptive clustering hierarchy,”
in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Sensor
Technologies and Applications (SENSORCOMM ’10), pp. 262–
268, July 2010.
[10] I. Koutsopoulos and S. Stanczak, “The impact of transmit
rate control on energy-efficient estimation in wireless sensor
networks,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol.
11, no. 9, pp. 3261–3271, 2012.
[11] B. Li, “End-to-end fair bandwidth allocation in multi-hop
wireless ad hoc networks,” in Proceedings of the 25th IEEE
International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems
(ICDCS ’05), pp. 471–480, IEEE, Columbus, Ohio, USA, June
2005.
[12] R. Thomas and P. K. Poonguzhali, “An energy efficient multi-
sink clustering algorithm for wireless sensors networks,” Inter-
national Journal of Advanced Engineering and Global Technol-
ogy, vol. 2, no. 4, 2014.
[13] S. Fedor and M. Collier, “On the problem of energy efficiency
of multi-hop vs one-hop routing in Wireless Sensor Networks,”
in Proceedings of the 21th International Conference on Advanced
Information Networking and Applications Workshops (AINAW
’07), pp. 380–385, May 2007.
[14] H. Wang, N. Agoulmine, M. Ma, and Y. Jin, “Network lifetime
optimization in wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Journal on
Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 1127–1137,
2010.
[15] P. Shrivastava and S. B. Pokle, “A multiple sink repositioning
technique to improve the energy efficiency of wireless sensor
networks,” in Proceedings of the 15th International Conference
on Advanced Computing Technologies (ICACT ’13), 4, p. 1,
Rajampet, India, September 2013.
[16] E. Lee, S. Park, F. Yu, and S.-H. Kim, “Exploiting mobility
for efficient data dissemination in Wireless Sensor Networks,”
Journal of Communications and Networks, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 337–
349, 2009.
[17] P. Singh, R. Kumar, and V. Kumar, “An energy efficient grid
based Data Dissemination routing mechanism to mobile sinks
in Wireless Sensor Network,” in Proceedings of the International
Conference on Issues and Challenges in Intelligent Computing
Techniques (ICICT ’14), pp. 401–409, February 2014.
[18] T. Jain, “Wireless environmental monitoring system (WEMS)
using data aggregation in a bidirectional hybrid protocol,” in
Information Systems, Technology and Management: 6th Interna-
tional Conference, ICISTM 2012, Grenoble, France, March 28–30,
2012, vol. 285 of Communications in Computer and Information
Science, pp. 414–420, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2012.
[19] J. Xu, W. Liu, F. Lang, Y. Zhang, and C. Wang, “Distance
measurement model based on RSSI in WSN,” Wireless Sensor
Network, vol. 2, no. 8, pp. 606–611, 2010.