2017
DOI: 10.14569/ijacsa.2017.081043
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Area k-Coverage Optimization Protocol for Heterogeneous Dense Wireless Sensor Networks

Abstract: Abstract-Detecting redundant nodes and scheduling their activity is mandatory to prolong the lifetime of a densely-deployed wireless sensor network. Provided that the redundancy check and the scheduling phases both help to preserve the coverage ratio and guarantee energy efficiency. However, most of the solutions usually proposed in the literature, tend to allocate a large number of unnecessary neighbor (re)discovery time slots in the dutycycle of the active nodes. Such a shortcoming is detrimental to battery … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

1
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
(51 reference statements)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Also note that any area coverage redundancy check protocol found in the literature can be used to detect redundant nodes [14]. Although, we suggest the MRZ-based one we proposed in our previous works [51,52].…”
Section: • Relocation Sites Definitionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Also note that any area coverage redundancy check protocol found in the literature can be used to detect redundant nodes [14]. Although, we suggest the MRZ-based one we proposed in our previous works [51,52].…”
Section: • Relocation Sites Definitionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These errors are detrimental to hole full coverage. HORA and ZBFR provide better results (respectively between 95.2% and 95.6% and between 96.5% and 97%) because these schemes mainly consider redundant nodes when trying to eliminate a coverage hole; but these performances are mitigated by the fact that coverage redundancy check is a NP-complete problem [51,52] which requires approximate solutions that often lead to several false negative cases. The latter prevent efficient candidates mobility and hole full coverage.…”
Section: Average Elimination Ratiomentioning
confidence: 99%