Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Performance Analysis of a Compression Scheme for Highly Dense Cluster-Based Wireless Sensor Network

By Sofiane Moad, Mario E. Rivero-Angeles, Nizar Bouabdallah, Bruno Sericola and Yassine Hadjadj Aoul

Submitted: November 24th 2011Reviewed: April 19th 2012Published: July 18th 2012

DOI: 10.5772/48370

Downloaded: 1875

1. Introduction

Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) consist of spatially distributed autonomous devices, called sensors, that communicate in a wireless manner. Sensors cooperate together to monitor physical or environmental conditions such as temperature, sound, vibration or pressure [1]. This technology has been originally developed for military applications such as battlefield surveillance [2]. Recently, WSNs have been deployed in many other civilian application areas. It includes environment applications such as fire detection in forest monitoring and health-care applications like monitoring the patient status.

Sensor nodes are expected to be of tiny size. Therefore, the size of every sensor's components, such as the power source, processing and data storing memory, are expected to be also very limited. In addition of the physical characteristics, a large number of sensors are often deployed in hostile environments, where the human intervention is difficult if not impossible, for example inside a volcano. Hence, in these networks it is not practical to perform maintenance operations, such as changing batteries on deployed sensor nodes. This requires sensors to be able to self-organize, self-configure and should optimize the energy consumption to maximize the network's lifetime. The network lifetime in WSNs refers to the period of time from the deployment of the sensor nodes to the instant when the network is considered unusable [3].

In terms of energy consumption, sensors consume energy for three main reasons: data sensing, data processing and wireless data communicating. Wireless communication refers to data transmission and reception. Among these three operations, the most power-consuming task is data transmission. Approximatively 80% of power consumed in each sensor node is used to transmit data [4]. One field of research, aimed at extending the lifetime for WSNs, is data compression. In general, by applying a suitable compression scheme, power consumption can be reduced during the transmission and processing stages thus extending network lifetime. Also, by reducing the data packet size, less bandwidth is required to send and receive data [4]. In addition, to further enhance energy efficiency, cluster-based communication schemes are widely used in WSNs [5]. In view of this, we propose to take advantage of both data compression and clustering in order to further reduce energy consumption in the network. Indeed, the compression and clustering strategies are not supposed to work independently but rather the network design has to consider both simultaneously. Therefore, by enabling both compression and clustering schemes in WSNs, energy consumption would be greatly enhanced.

In this chapter, we propose a complete analysis of a new Compression Cluster-based scheme in a Spatially-Correlated Region (CC_SCR) for event-driven applications in WSNs. As WSNs are typically densely-deployed over a sensor field [6], sensor nodes are typically very close to each other. Contrary to continuous monitoring applications, in Event Detection-Driven (EDD) applications, active nodes are concentrated in a relatively small area. Therefore, readings from these nodes are expected to be quite similar. Building on this, we propose a clustering scheme that exploits the spatial correlation of sensed data among the nodes to reduce the size of the data packets that will be sent. Specifically, in the proposed scheme, Cluster Members (CMs) send only the differences between their readings and a reference data which corresponds to the value sensed by the selected Cluster Head (CH). As such, one of the proposal's main issue is to select as CH the node that reduce the average packet size in the cluster. Note that, in this chapter, we complement our previous work published in [7] with several simulation results and analytical analysis.

The main contributions to this chapter are:

  1. The CC_SCRcompression cluster-based protocol for WSNs is proposed. It exploits the spatial correlation of the sensed data in order to reduce energy consumption.

  2. An analytical energy consumption model for comparison to both classical and single hop schemes is developed.

  3. The CC_SCRis implemented in TinyOS [8] for simulation analysis, in order to prove the potential benefits of CC_SCRin future applications of real WSNs deployments.

The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows. Section  presents a background of research related to this work, while Section  exposes the network model. Section  shows the analytical results regarding the energy consumption and network lifetime, while Section  shows the simulation results. Finally, the chapter concludes in Section  with a summary of the main advantages of the proposed scheme.


2. Related work

We review some of the related works regarding the compression and the clustering schemes in Subsections  and , respectively.

2.1. Compression schemes

In the literature, there has been an increased interest in studying compression algorithms for WSNs. On the other hand, many of these compression algorithms have been proposed for classical networks, which are not suitable to be deployed in the WSNs context [9], [10]. The main reason is the limited memory size of sensor nodes, for example, the size of bzip2 is 219KBand the size of LZO is 220KB. Another reason is the limited processor speed of sensor nodes which is around 4-8MHz. Thus, embedding classical data compression schemes in these tiny nodes is very difficult and it is necessary to design a low-complexity and small-size data-compression algorithm for sensors. We review in the following some of these compression techniques. A more detailed description of compression methods can be found in [11].

One compression algorithm for WSNs is the coding-by-ordering data-compression technique [12]. In this algorithm, when data is combined at an aggregation node, some of these data are implicitly transmitted. The main idea behind this technique is to replace the data transmission of certain nodes by the order in which the aggregated packets are placed by the aggregator. For example, consider five nodes (n1, n2, n3, n4, n5) that send data to their aggregator node, naand suppose that data value of each node can be any integer from a range of 0 to 23. When the aggregator node receives a value from each node n1, n2, n3, n4, n5, the order of transmission of first four nodes n1, n2, n3, n4determines the value of n5implicitly. Indeed, there are 4!=24possible ways of ordering these data packets.

The pipelined in-network compression algorithm is discussed in [13]. The main idea behind this technique is to combine data in order to make them smaller than the original size. After the aggregator collects data from differents nodes, it is stored for a certain amount of time. Data packets are then combined into one packet to minimize data transmission. For example, consider that each data packet has the following form: <data value, node ID, timestamp>. Then, the compressed data packet has the following form: <shared prefix, suffix list, node ID list, timestamp list>. The shared prefixfield, i.e. the most significant bits, is the same for all the measured values. The suffix list field expresses the list of measured values excluding the shared prefixpart. The node ID listis the list of node identifiers and the timestamp listis the list of timestamps. One advantage of this simple compression scheme is that the shared prefix system can be used for both node IDand timestampfields. By doing so, more data compression can be achieved.

The distributed compression scheme proposed in [14] uses a side information to encode a source information. For example, if there are two data sources: Xand Y, which are correlated and chosen from a discrete alphabet, then Xcan be compressed at the theoretical rate of its conditional entropy H(X|Y). The receiving node maintains the cosets and can decode Xknowing Y's codevector, and with partial information from the source X.

The main advantage of the CC_SCRalgorithm, compared to those previously mentioned is that CC_SCRtakes into account the physical characteristics of the sensed data in order to compress data and also considers clustering communication in order to reduce energy consumption.

2.2. Clustering schemes

In addition to the compression techniques, there has been an increased interest in studying energy efficient clustering algorithms and extensive clustering algorithms have been proposed for WSNs. Hereafter, we briefly review the most relevant energy efficient clustering algorithms. For more details, the reader can review [15][16][5], and  [17].

Hybrid Energy-Efficient Distributed clustering (HEED) [18] protocol operates in two main phases: the set-up phase where clusters are formed and the steady phase where the sensor nodes transmit their data using the Time Division Medium Access (TDMA) frames. HEED set-up phase operates in three sub-phases. The first sub-phase is the initializing. Nodes exchange hellomessages to discover their neighborhoods. The second sub-phase consists of a competition process. The third sub-phase is the finalizing and it allows nodes to join their corresponding CH based on the connectivity degree.

Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems (PEGASIS) [19] steady phase consists of a formation of chains instead of clusters. In the chain formation, the Base Station (BS) and sensor nodes are connected via a chain using a greedy algorithm. One of the nodes, in the chain, is selected by turns to represent the head. In data gathering phase, each node delivers the sensing data to the nearest neighbor node until the data reach the head node which aggregates and delivers the sensing data to the BS.

In [20], the authors proposed an Energy Efficient Clustering Scheme (EECS) protocol. In this protocol, CH candidates compete for the ability to elevate to a CH with a certain probability. This competition involves candidates broadcasting their residual energy to neighboring candidates. If a given node does not find a node with more residual energy, it becomes a CH.

The main difference between the aforementioned clustering algorithms and the CC_SCRalgorithm is that nodes use the physical characteristic of the sensed data to elects CHs. The benefits of our proposed scheme is that nodes use the compression scheme to reduce the energy consumption.

In this chapter, we combine the benefits of using both the clustering and the compression techniques to reduce the energy consumption in the network. Indeed our proposal scheme takes into account the characteristics of the physical surveilled event and also takes advantage of the energy unconstrained of the Base Station (BS) which participates into the CH selection. Specifically, our proposal scheme takes advantage of the fact that the nodes that sense a certain event are usually very close to each other (which entails a high correlation between sensed data) in order to reduce the size of data packets communicated through the network. The BS then selects an efficient CH that minimize the data transmission over the network. To the best of knowledge this is the first clustering protocol, that takes into consideration the physical characteristics of the environment to elect energy efficient clusters and therefore implement the compression scheme to reduce the energy consumption.

3. Network model

We consider an event-driven WSN consisting of Nsensors deployed over a vast field as in Figure . We denote the i-thsensor node as niand the corresponding sensor node set as {n1, n2,...,nN}. Some assumptions concerning the sensor nodes and the underlying network model are now presented:

  1. Nodes are uniformly distributed in an A×Aarea with (x,y)coordinates. Nodes are homogenous and all have the same capabilities. A unique identifier ID is assigned to each node.

  2. Sensor nodes and the sink node are all stationary after deployment.

  3. Nodes have two power controls to vary transmission power, which depends on the distance to the receiver [21]. Each node, ni, can reach any other node with a transmission range, Rc. The sink can be reached with a transmission range, Rt>Rc.

  4. CHs use the average operation as the aggregation technique in order to eliminate data redundancy.

We consider event detection driven wireless sensor applications. The center of the event is located in a random uniformly-distributed point with coordinates (xevent,yevent)within the network's area. The range of the event, i.e., the area range where sensors can detect the event, is R_eventmeters, where R_event[1,A]. We also suppose that an event has a duration of T_eventseconds. In addition, only sensor nodes within R_eventrange are considered as active nodes in the network and they are the only nodes performing as the source of the detected event. The rest of the nodes in the system are not considered in our analysis as they do not participate in data reporting. Additionally, in our model, only one event can be active inside the system area and the data value Cat the center of the event is constant, i.e., the stationary model in which the measured data do not change during the T_eventseconds that the event is active.

Figure 1.

Event-driven application in WSNs.

A cluster-based WSN is considered where only one CH is elected for each event. The clustering process is triggered whenever an event is sensed by the nodes inside the event area.

The spatial correlation of the data from the different active nodes has been modeled on previous works in the area according to the following models:

  1. Diffusion propriety [22].

  2. Data is jointly Gaussian, with the correlation being a function of the distance [23].

  3. Data is a function for their joint entropy [24].

  4. Correlation is calculated from realistic environmental monitoring and testbeds [25].

In this chapter, we use diffusion property to model spatially-correlated data [26]. The model considered in this chapter is the same as in [22] in which the data reading at a distance dfrom the center of the event is D=C/(d+1)α, where Cis a constant representing the value at the center of the event, and αis the diffusion parameter, which depends on the particular environment and phenomenon surveyed, e.g., for light α=2, heat =α1.

Figure  shows the data reading using the aforementioned model, with different values for α, and C=250. On one hand, when α1, we observe a relatively big difference between the value sensed at the center of the event and the values observed at distance dfar away from the center of the event. On the other hand, when α<1(α=0.1,0.01and 0.001), the data readings away from the center of the event are very similar. In our study, we are interested, specifically, in the types of event where data values are highly correlated.

Figure 2.

Variation in data reading with distance from the center of the event.

We use Henizelman's energy consumption model [27]. Specifically, the energy consumed to transmit a message at a distance dis given by


where szis the data packet size in bits, Eelecis the energy consumed due to the transmitter/receiver circuitry, Empis the energy consumed by the transmitter amplifier and d0=Efs/Empis the distance threshold between the transmitter and the receiver over which the multi-path fading channel model is used. The energy consumed to receive a message is Erx(sz)=sz×Eelec.

3.1. Classical clustering protocol

A classical clustering process is composed of two phases: the set-up phase and the steady-state phase, as depicted in Figure . When an event occurs in a random (uniformly-distributed) point of the network, nodes inside the event area wake up and start the clustering process. At the beginning of this phase, active nodes compete among each other to become a CH. Specifically, active nodes transmit their control packet to the sink node according to the specified random medium access protocol. In this chapter, CSMA control protocol is used, which is the default MAC protocol for the Mica platform. The control packet only comprises the node's ID and no data is transmitted at this point. The first node that successfully transmits this packet becomes the CH. All nodes involved in event-reporting immediately send their signaling message to the sink node. Therefore, the sink node selects the first node that successfully transmits a signaling message and then it broadcasts a signaling message over the network for a CH notification. Thus, the rest of the nodes become CMs. In the steady phase, CMs send their data in a scheduled fashion using a Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) protocol. Note that the CH assigns slots to its CMs to accomplish the successful data transmission. Then, the CH aggregates the data values received from its CMs with its own, and sends the resulting data to the sink node.

3.2. Proposed compression clustering protocol

The proposed clustering Compression Cluster-based scheme in Spatially-Correlated Regions (CC_SCR), process is also composed of the same two phases, namely: the set-up phase and the steady-state phase. As in classical protocol, the set-up phase happens whenever an event occurs in a region of the network. However, in CC_SCR, the active nodes send their first measured data value to the sink node, i.e., they no longer send just their control packet. Instead, active nodes send a data packet. The reason for this is that this sensed data is used in CH selection procedure. Indeed, this entails an extra energy consumption at the set-up phase, compared to classical protocol. However, this first data transmission allows important energy savings in the steady-state phase.

It is important to note that CC_SCRis best suited for environments where event conditions are fairly stable during of the duration of the event. This is due to the fact that the CH is chosen according to the first sensed data. Hence, if event conditions suffer a high variation, the originally-selected CH may no longer render acceptable energy savings. An example of such an application is a fire surveillance forest, in which, when a fire occurs in a region, the temperature remains stationary for the duration of the fire in the region. Another example includes target-tracking. In this kind of application, the target is the source of the measured data at sensor nodes, such as light or temperature. Here, the measured data remains the same whenever the target stays in the same place and hence the sensor nodes sense the same measured data during the presence of the target. Next, we describe the set-up and the steady-state phases of the proposed algorithm.

  1. In the set-up phase, after receiving the first data packets from all the active nodes, the sink node calculates the difference between the data from node niand those from node nj, ij. Next, these differences are summed over. We call this sum of the difference between data values Si. Then, the sink selects as CH the node which minimizes the total difference, calculated value Si, between each node niand node nj, ij. Finally, the sink broadcasts a control message to the active nodes in order to notify the node selected as CH. Therefore, the rest of the nodes consider themselves as CMs. Note that there is no need for the CMs to send any extra packets since the sink already knows which nodes are active.

  2. In the steady-state phase, the CMs send the difference between their sensed data and the CH's data value, which corresponds to a compressed value, called Δi, rather than the complete data packet, value_CMi. Therefore, Δi=|value_CMi-value_CH|represents the difference between the i-thCM's data value value_CMi, and the corresponding CH data value value_CH. In order to perform this compression, the CH sends its complete sample data value to the CMs at the beginning of each event occurrence. Therefore, CMs send only the Δito the CH. The main advantage of the proposed scheme is that the Sicalculation is made at the sink node, which is not energy or memory-constrained.

Figure 3.

System operation.

3.2.1. Example

To illustrate the protocol's operation, let us consider the following example as presented in Figure  (Figure  shows the case of a classical scheme). We consider five active nodes n1, n2, n3, n4and n5in the event region ewhich covers a region of range R_eventas in Figure . In this example, we consider temperature as the sensed measurement value. Nodes n1, n2, n3, n4and n5sense the value of 20, 22, 19, 20and 15, respectively, and they send the values to the sink. When the sink receives the data values, it calculates the Sivalue for each node ni. The node which has the smallest Siis considered as the CH.

(a) Proposed protocol.(b) Classical protocol.

Figure 4.

Example of the system operation.

The following calculation is done at the sink. For node n1:





The sink node calculates S1=|20-22|+|20-19|+|20-20|+|20-15|=8

For node n2:





The sink node calculates S2=|22-20|+|22-19|+|22-20|+|22-15|=14

For node n3:





The sink node calculates S3=|19-20|+|19-22|+|19-20|+|19-15|=9

The calculation for node n4is the same as node n1.

For node n5:





The sink calculates S5=|15-20|+|15-22|+|15-19|+|15-20|=21.

Finally, it selects either node n4or node n1as a CH. Both nodes minimize the total difference value measured. The other nodes become CMs. During the steady phase, CM nodes send their Δivalue to the CH rather than their complete value. In this example, n3sends the sample value of 2 rather than the complete sample value of 22. Note that the compression data sent in our scheme involves sending less coded bits compared to a complete data that is sent in the classical scheme. Therefore, considerable energy saving is achieved in our scheme, as can be seen in Sections  and . Note that this election algorithm can be achieved at nodes in a distributed manner. Distributed scheme here means that nodes first exchange data and then the calculations specified at the sink node will run at the level of individual nodes. However, in this scheme nodes will receive a considerable amount of data, which may complicate the election process as nodes have a limited local memory.

4. Analytical results

In this section, the mathematical model of classical, single hop and CC_SCRprotocols are described. The total energy consumed in the network, Etotal, for the duration of an event, can be calculated as follows:


where Ecompetingis the energy consumed during the cluster formation phase and Ereportingis the energy consumed during the steady-state phase. We calculate in the following 𝔼[Etotal]as the expected energy consumed through the network for a single hop protocol and for both the classical and CC_SCRprotocols.


4.1. Classical protocol

For classical protocol, where no data compression is enabled, we first calculate 𝔼[Ecompeting]. The energy consumed in the cluster formation phase is due to the signaling packet transmission of the active nodes in the event area directly to the sink plus the reception of the signaling packet from the sink to the active nodes, then:


where m=NπR_event2/A2is the expected number of active nodes in the range R_eventwhen the disk is totally included in the area A×Aand Nis the total number of nodes in the network. S=24bits is the size of signaling message, and

  1. m×Etx(S,Rt)is the energy consumed to send mcompeting messages to the sink.

  2. m×Erx(S)is the energy consumed by the resulting competing messages sent from the sink through the network.


where fixebits is the size of the full data packet, Nbris the number of packets sent during the steady phase, and

  1. Etx(S,Rc)is the energy consumed from a signaling message sent by the CH to its CMs in order to send their data.

  2. (m-1)×Erx(S)is the energy consumed by CMs to receive the signaling message.

  3. (m-1)×Etx(fixe,Rc)is the energy consumed by CMs to send data to the CH.

  4. (m-1)×Erx(fixe)is the energy consumed by the CH to receive data sent by the CMs.

  5. EDA×fixeis the energy consumed by the CH due to data aggregation.

  6. Etx(fixe,Rt)is the energy consumed by the CH to send the aggregated data to the sink.

In the simulation, we take fixe=32and Nbr=29.

4.2. Single hop protocol

In the single hop protocol, there is no energy consumed during the set-up phase. Nodes start sending data packets directly to the sink, then:



  1. Nbris the number of reports sent to the sink during T_eventsec.

  2. mis the number of nodes involved in data reporting.

  3. Etx(fixe,Rt)is the energy required to send a full data packet to the sink.

The interest of analyzing this case is to have an insight into the benefits of clustering schemes in event-driven WSNs.

4.3. CC_SCR

We now consider the case where the CC_SCRstrategy is enabled. It is to be noted that the proposed scheme, CC_SCR, behaves in the same manner in the cluster formation phase as classical protocol, with the important difference being that nodes transmit the data packet instead of the signaling packet, then:



  1. m×Etx(fixe,Rt)is the energy consumed to send mdata packets to the sink.

  2. m×Erx(S)is the energy consumed by the resulting compete message sent from the sink through the network.

In the steady-state phase, energy consumption is found as follows:



  1. Etx(fixe,Rc)is the energy consumed to send CH data packets to the CMs.

  2. (m-1)×Erx(fixe)is the energy consumed by CMs in order to receive data sent by the CH.

  3. Etx(S,Rc)is the energy consumed from a signaling message sent by the CH to its CMs in order to send their data.

  4. (m-1)×Erx(S)is the energy consumed by CMs in order to receive the signaling message.

  5. (m-1)×Etx(S+log2(E[Δi]),Rc)is the energy consumed by the CMs to send the compressed data to the CH.

  6. (m-1)×Erx(S+log2(E[Δi]))is the energy consumed by the CH to receive the compressed data from the CMs.

  7. EDA×fixeis the energy consumed by the CH due to data aggregation.

  8. Etx(fixe,Rt)is the energy consumed by the CH to send the aggregated data to the sink.

where 𝔼[Δi]is the average data packet size which corresponds to the difference between the CMs' data and the CH's data. It is worth noting that when considering an uniform node distribution with a large N, the node that minimizes the distance in the R_eventregion will be located at the center of R_event. Therefore, to calculate 𝔼[Δi], let us first calculate the average distance between active nodes and the CH, 𝔼[dtoCH]. We denote by 𝒟the disk of radius R_event, i.e. 𝒟={(x,y)x2+y2R_event2}. Since active nodes are uniformly distributed in 𝒟, we have


We then calculate 𝔼[Δi], the average data difference between the data at the CM and the maximum value at the CH C, considering that the CH is located at the center of the cluster. Indeed, in a highly dense WSN, such the one considered in this work, it is reasonable to consider that the CH is located at the center of the cluster, i.e., very close to the event origin.


Note that the previous model is an approximation of reality, in which an ideal channel is considered, i.e., there is no consideration of packet loss. According to the previous models, Figure  and  show the average energy consumed in the network of N=1000for different values of Rtand Rc, respectively.

In Figure , we set Rc=100mand Nbr=29, and in Figure , we set Rt=150m, Nbr=29. These results show that the CC_SCRstrategy is suitable when Rtis less than around 180 meters and Rcis greater than around 50 meters.

Exceeding these thresholds makes the competing process of the proposed protocol very costly in energy due to the full data packet sent to the sink during the set-up phase. Remember that classical protocol only transmits a control packet in this phase. Therefore, CC_SCRhas the highest energy consumption when the distance from the cluster to the sink becomes considerable.

In addition, Figure  demonstrates that the single hop scheme achieves the greatest energy consumption as 1) its transmissions depend directly on Rt, and 2) it sends the full data packets. Figure  shows a steady energy consumption for the single hop scheme as it does not use a CH to shorten its transmission range, therefore all nodes use a costly direct-transmission Rt, which dramatically decreases network lifetime.

(a) Varying Rt.(b) Varying Rc.(c) Varying Nbr.

Figure 5.

Analytical results of the energy consumption.

Figure  shows the average energy consumed in the network when varying the Nbrparameter. Here, Rtand Rcare set to 300mand 100m, respectively. The results show that significative energy savings can be achieved when increasing the number of reports sent from the CMs to the CH. Building on from these observations, in Figure  we observe that the single hop scheme achieves the greatest energy consumption as its transmission depends directly on Nbr.

The point of intersections, Rt_inter, Rc_inter, and Nbr_interof Figure ,   and  , respectively, are calculated as follows.




where Δ=fixe-S-log2𝔼[Δi].

We conclude from Figure  and  that 1) using a clustering scheme saves more energy than a single hop scheme, and 2) the application depends on Rt(referring to how far the sink node is from the area-sensed field), Rc(referring to the size of the area field), and Nbr(referring to the number of data updating to the CH). More specifically, we conclude that for a fixed Rc, the higher Rtresults a poor performance of CC_SCRconcerning energy consumption. However, increasing Rcor Nbrgives CC_SCRa better performance compared to the classical scheme. In addition, we conclude that both CC_SCRand the classical scheme outperforms the single hop scheme.

In the following, we analyze the network lifetime. Based on [28], the general definition of the average network lifetime, lifetime, can be expressed as follows:


where 𝔼[E0_total]=m×E0is the average total residual energy in the area of R_eventrange, E0is the initial energy of a node and 𝔼[Etotal]is the average energy consumed per unit of time (i.e., during T_eventseconds).

Using the same parameter settings as in the energy consumption analysis described above, Figure , Figure  and Figure  show network lifetime for different values of Rt, Rcand Nbr, respectively. From Figure , we observe that CC_SCRoutperforms the classical scheme when Rtis lower than around 180m. The result of the single hop scheme, in Figure , shows that network lifetime decreases faster than in CC_SCRand in the classical schemes (Figure  shows the ratio gain of network lifetime).

From Figure , we observe that the more increase of Rt, the less network lifetime gain in CC_SCR, compared to the classical scheme. We also notice the steady network lifetime for the single hop scheme, but with a shorter value than for both the proposed and the classical schemes (Figure  shows the ratio gain of network lifetime).

From Figure , we observe that the higher the Nbr, the longer the network lifetime, concerning the CC_SCRstrategy compared to the classical scheme. We also observe that the network lifetime decreases faster in the single hop scheme, than compared to both CC_SCRand the classical schemes (Figure  shows the ratio gain of network lifetime).

(a) Varying Rt.(b) Varying Rc.(c) Varying Nbr.

Figure 6.

Analytical results of network lifetime.

(a) Varying Rt.(b) Varying Rc.(c) Varying Nbr.

Figure 7.

Ratio gain in network lifetime.

5. Simulation results

We use TinyOS [8] as a simulation tool. The parameters used for this set of results are presented in Table .

Signaling packet length S24bit
Data value at the center of the event C250
Initial energy per node E010J
T_event200 seconds
R_event60 m
Rc100 m
Rt400 m
Area A(100×100)m2

Table 1.

Simulation Parameters.

Figure  shows the average energy consumed in the network per unit of time for different concentrations of nodes. In this case, there are twenty simulated events. The results clearly demonstrate that our proposal outperforms the classical scheme. It can be seen that, as the number of nodes in the system increases, also the energy consumption increases. Indeed, when there is a high number of nodes in the network, there is also a high number of nodes that sense the event. Hence, the number of packet transmissions (both control and data packets) is much higher than in the case where just a few nodes are active per event. The main reason for the better performance of the proposed protocol is that only the difference, Δi, is transmitted rather than the complete data packet, during the steady-state. Note that this difference between classical and the proposed protocol increases concerning higher densities networks. The rationale behind this is that, in high density networks, nodes are closer to each other, which in turn entails a higher correlation degree among the sensed data. This in turn renders a smaller packet size. Conversely, in the classical scheme, since the packet size is fixed, a higher density network only increases the number of packets transmitted, consuming a lot of energy.

Figure 8.

Average energy consumed per unit of time vs number of nodes.

Figure  shows the average energy consumed over time for 60 nodes in the classical, CC_SCRprotocols, and also for one single hop to reach the sink. In order to explore the benefits of clustering architecture, a scenario where all nodes transmit directly to the sink is presented. For the proposed scheme, all active nodes transmit their initial packet to the sink in order to choose the reference node (note that in this case there is no CH). Then, the sink selects the node that minimizes the data difference, as explained in the previous section, and then transmits a control packet indicating the ID of the reference node. Then, for data transmission, active nodes only transmit their difference, Δi, directly to the sink. The results demonstrate clearly that CC_SCRconserves more energy compared to the classical scheme. Also, it is clear that the choice of clustering scheme offers more energy savings than the single hop scheme. The ratio gain presented in Figure  may reach up to 11 times more energy conservation than the classical scheme, and up to 119 times more energy conservation than the single hop scheme, which are considerable results.

Figure 9.

Average energy consumed over time.

Figure 10.

The ratio energy gain for each event occurrence.

Figure  shows the average energy consumed for different values of R_eventregion. When R_eventis varied, also the number of active nodes per event is modified accordingly. Figure  shows the number of active nodes per event. It can be seen that the average number of active nodes for both the classical and proposed scheme is approximately the same. Indeed, the proposed mechanism has no impact on the number of active nodes. Note that, by increasing the number of active nodes, energy consumption also increases. Observe, for instance, that energy consumption, when R_event=30meters, is less than the consumption when R_event=60 meters and 90 meters. In each scenario, we observe that, by enabling our compression scheme, energy consumption over the network is reduced, therefore extending network lifetime.

Figure 11.

Average energy consumed while varying theR_eventregion.

Figure 12.

Number of active nodes for each event occurrence.

Figure  shows the average energy consumed for different values of T_eventperiod. Increasing T_eventalso increases the period of the steady-state phase and the number of data reported, thereby it can be seen as an increase in the energy consumption. That explains why the energy consumed by T_event=200seconds is less than that of T_event=300and 400 seconds. In each scenario, we observe that enabling our compression scheme reduces energy consumption over the network and thereby extends network lifetime. It is important to note that the proposed mechanism is particularly energy-efficient for high-event duration times. This is due to the fact that, as event duration increases, CMs in the classical scheme transmit many full-length packets while, in the proposed scheme, CMs also transmit many packets but with a much smaller length. This results in a slight increase in energy consumption for the proposed scheme while for the classical scheme there is a significant increase in energy consumption when the event duration increases.

Figure 13.

Average energy consumption vs number of rounds of lengthT_event.

Figure  shows the average energy consumption in CC_SCRwhen the aggregation technique is enabled at the CH, compared to the case where no aggregation is performed. The results clearly show that the aggregation technique conserves more energy (Figure  shows the ratio of the gain). The result is expected because when the CH aggregates the data of its CMs, the CH only transmits one single packet to the sink, unlike the case when no aggregation is used, where the CH transmits each data value received from the CMs.

Figure 14.

Energy consumed with aggregation and without aggregation.

Figure 15.

Ratio of energy consumed.


6. Conclusion and future work

In this chapter, we have proposed a novel clustering scheme, namely, CC_SCRprotocol, which uses a compression technique for event-driven applications in WSNs. The proposed clustering scheme is based on selecting the node that reduces the packet size among all the active nodes in the system. The sink selects the node which minimizes the total amount of data as a CH, therefore increasing the efficiency of the compression technique by sending only the difference, rather than the complete data value, to the CH. To analyze the performance of the proposed scheme compared to both single hop (i.e., direct transmission to the sink) and classical schemes, an approximate mathematical model for energy consumption was developed. In addition, we implemented the CC_SCRin TinyOS, and for different system parameters, simulation results conclude that, considering the spatial correlation in the communication of WSNs, achieves significant energy conservation compared to a classical clustering scheme. The ratio benefit may be up to 11 times that of the classical scheme. As such, the proposed scheme greatly extends network lifetime. In future work, we aim to investigate a generalization of the clustering scheme in order to consider a higher number of events that can occur simultaneously in within the network, as it is the case in some environment monitoring applications. These results can be verified and deployed in our testbed. We also aim to include a mobility aspect to a certain number of nodes in the network, and consider this propriety in the clustering process in order to achieve considerable energy savings.

© 2012 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite and reference

Link to this chapter Copy to clipboard

Cite this chapter Copy to clipboard

Sofiane Moad, Mario E. Rivero-Angeles, Nizar Bouabdallah, Bruno Sericola and Yassine Hadjadj Aoul (July 18th 2012). Performance Analysis of a Compression Scheme for Highly Dense Cluster-Based Wireless Sensor Network, Wireless Sensor Networks - Technology and Applications, Mohammad Matin, IntechOpen, DOI: 10.5772/48370. Available from:

chapter statistics

1875total chapter downloads

1Crossref citations

More statistics for editors and authors

Login to your personal dashboard for more detailed statistics on your publications.

Access personal reporting

Related Content

This Book

Next chapter

Monitoring Technologies in Mission-Critical Environment by Using Wireless Sensor Networks

By Yuanyuan Zeng, Kai Xiang and Deshi Li

Related Book

First chapter

Overview of Wireless Sensor Network

By M.A. Matin and M.M. Islam

We are IntechOpen, the world's leading publisher of Open Access books. Built by scientists, for scientists. Our readership spans scientists, professors, researchers, librarians, and students, as well as business professionals. We share our knowledge and peer-reveiwed research papers with libraries, scientific and engineering societies, and also work with corporate R&D departments and government entities.

More About Us