- freely available
Sensors 2008, 8(8), 4529-4559; doi:10.3390/s8074529
2. Related Works
2.1. Application Layer Related Works
2.2. Transport Layer Related Works
2.3. Routing Protocol Related Works
3. Overall Design Architecture
3.1. Video Compression Sub-Application Layer Protocol for WVSN
3.2. Real-Time and Reliable Transport Layer Protocol for WVSN
3.3. Routing Protocol and Innovative Dropping Scheme in Network Layer for WVSN
4. Video Compression Sub-Application Layer Protocol for WVSN
4.1.1. M-Frames Compression
- Step 1:
- Step 2:
- Step 3:
- In this phase that is called quantization phase; the less important DCT coefficients are wiped out using quantization matrix. To do this, each of the coefficients in the 8×8 DCT matrix (T) is divided by the corresponding standard quantization matrix elements (Z) . The quality coefficient can be used to adjust compression ratio to get the expected video frame quality. Figure 3 exemplifies this step.
- Step 4:
- The elements of each block are partitioned into 13 levels as it is shown in Figure 4.a. This structure is formed in order of importance of DCT quantized coefficients in each block. Also, this scheme facilitates linearization which happens in the next step. Each level has a priority that is assigned to it using the Algorithm.1 in Figure 4.b.In Figure 4.b, N defines the number of priority levels that are chosen for transmission. This value is selected by the user with regards to the constraints and specified application. It determines the amount of sent pixels, thus, N has a direct influence on video quality and energy consumption. Since Level-1 (L1) contains a DC component and two major low frequency AC components (as shown in Figure 4.a), it has a higher priority and, as is shown in Figure 4.b, PM(1) is dedicated to it. Thus, it is necessary to send the data packets with priority PM(1) to the Sink in a more reliable way. To achieve full reliability, all communication stack layers cooperate with each other. PM(N) is the lowest priority because the most of elements in this level are zero DCT coefficients. Data packets with priority level PM(N) are discarded immediately because they have not great effects on video quality. PM(2) to PM(N-1) are assigned to the other levels from 2 to N-1, respectively. Data packets with these priority levels are transmitted using semi-reliable policies. These policies have used different probabilities for transmitting data packets. Policies and the way in which probabilities are assigned to each level are described in Sections 6.2.
- Step 5:
- The 64 elements of each block are linearized and run-length encoding is applied to the result. ZigZag transform is used to linearize block elements.
4.2.1. D-Frames Compression
- Step 1:
- D-Frame is generated as explained above. Each D-Frame is divided into 8×8 blocks.
- Step 2:
- The number of zero elements of each blockij (BZPij) is computed by using function F(Blockij). The maximum number of BZP is 64, which is divided into N equal parts with ZP(k) and ZP(k+1) as boundaries. A level is assigned to each block of Figure 5.a, using Algorithm.2 presented in Figure 5.b.Then a priority is assigned to each leveled block using following relation:D-Frame packets with priority level (1) (PD(1)) are very important and have the maximum number of dissimilar pixels. They should be delivered to the base-station (Sink). Therefore, M-MPEG uses highly reliable schemes to transmit this type of packets (More details are presented in next sections).It is not necessary to transmit the packets with priority PD(N) because these types of packets have minimum number of dissimilar pixels and their transmission does not important effect in video quality. The PD(2) to PD(N-1) are delivered to the Sink by using semi-reliable policies. In these policies, each source or relay node in communication transmits the packets to the next hop employing their probabilities. Probability assignment is described in Section 6.2.
- Step 3:
- In this step, run-length coding and then Huffman coding are applied to packets. Finally, packets with different priority levels are transmitted to lower layers of communication protocol stack.
4.3. M-Frame Transmission in Dynamic Periods
5. Real-Time and Reliable Transport Layer Protocol for WVSN
Negotiation with Network Layer phase
- Priority level (1) of M-Frame: In this case, if the Number of Retransmissions (NoR) is less than a threshold, another RTS is retransmitted for current priority level to the network layer. Otherwise if NoR passes the threshold; VSN goes to sleep-mode.
- Other priority levels of M-Frame: Whole data of current priority level is discarded, and if any other priority level exists in this frame, another RTS is sent for next priority level. In the case that, no other priority level exists, RTS is sent for the first priority level of the next frame. In other cases transmission continues in accordance with the received CTS.
- D-Frame: Regardless of priority level, whenever NCTS is received for priority level of D-Frame the entire frame is dropped and negotiation is started for next video frame.
Data Transmission phase
6. Network Layer for WVSN
6.1. New Energy-Efficient and Single-Path Routing Protocol for WVSN
6.1.1. Routing protocol for Sender-Mode of VSN
Parent Selection phase
Remote Negotiation phase
- Receiving PANMT: In this case, a PCTS is forwarded to transport layer to notify it and routing continues from Preparing Data for Remote Transmission phase.
- Receiving NANMT: Both Pa-T and Pr-T are updated by receiving NANMT. Priority field of selected parent in Pa-T is updated with value of priority level field of NANMT. Pr-T also changes; all cells with the ID of selected parent are set to zero. Also, NCTS is sent to transport layer and routing proceeds from Parent Selection phase.
- Timeout: When selected parent does not respond to NMT in a specified time interval, the timer times out; then Pa-T and Pr-T become updated. Selected parent is eliminated from PaT and also all cells of Pr-T which contain the ID of this parent are revalued to zero. Moreover, NCTS is forwarded to transport layer and routing starts from Parent Selection phase.
Preparing Data for Remote Transmission phase
6.1.2. Routing protocol for Receiver-Mode of VSN
Checking for Proper Parent phase
Receiving Data phase
6.2. Dropping Scheme
6.2.1. Energy Aware Dropping
6.2.2. Random Early Dropping
A. Energy level based packet selection
B. Hierarchical level based packet selection
7.1. Selecting Quality Coefficient
7.2. Selecting Maximum Priority Level
7.3. Analyzing Energy Efficiency and Video Quality for Different Environments
7.4. Effect of Random Early Dropping Method on Energy and Video Quality
7.5 Comparing EQV-Architecture with Other Protocols
- Gürses, E.; Akan, Ö.B. Multimedia communication in wireless sensor networks. Annales des Télécommunications 2005, 60(7-8), 872–900. [Google Scholar]
- Akyildiz, I.F.; Melodia, T.; Chowdhury, K.R. A survey on wireless multimedia sensor networks. Computer Networks 2007, 51(4), 921–960. [Google Scholar]
- Maniezzo, D.; Yao, K.; Mazzini, G. Energetic Trade-Off Between Communication and Computation Resource in Multimedia Surveillance Sensor Network. Proceedings International Workshop on Mobile and Wireless Communications Network; 2002; pp. 373–376. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, F.; Kumar, S. Multimedia query with QoS considerations for wireless sensor networks in telemedicine. Proceedings of Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers – International Conference on Internet Multimedia Management Systems, Orlando, Florida, USA; September 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Reeves, A.A. Remote Monitoring of patients suffering from early symptoms of Dementia. International Workshop on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Campbell, J.; Gibbons, P.B.; Nath, S.; Pillai, P.; Seshan, S.; Sukthankar, R. IrisNet: an Internet-scale architecture for multimedia sensors. Proceedings of the ACM Multimedia Conference 2005, 81–88. [Google Scholar]
- Guha, A.; Pavan, A.; Liu, J.C.L.; Roberts, B.A. Controlling the Process with Distributed Multimedi. IEEE Multimedia. 1995, 2, 20–29. [Google Scholar]
- Mishra, S.; Reisslein, M.; Xue, G. A Survey of Multimedia Streaming in Wireless Sensor Networks. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Soro, S.; Heinzelman, W.B. On the Coverage Problem in Video-based Wireless Sensor Networks. 2nd International Conference on Broadband Networks; 2005; pp. 932–939. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, C.; Yang, Y. Battery-Aware Routing for Streaming Data Transmissions in Wireless Sensor Networks. MONET 2006, 11(5), 757–767. [Google Scholar]
- Chow, K.Y.; Lui, K.S.; Lam, E.Y. Efficient On-Demand Image Transmission in Visual Sensor Network. EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing 2007, 11 pages. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, H.; Abouzeid, A.A. Error resilient image transport in wireless sensor networks. Computer Networks 2006, 50(15), 2873–2887. [Google Scholar]
- Lecuire, V.; Duran-Faundez, C.; Krommenacker, N. Energy-Efficient Transmission of Wavelet-Based Images in Wireless Sensor Networks. EURASIP Journal on Image and Video Processing 2007, 11 pages. [Google Scholar]
- Patricio, M.A.; Carbó, J.; Pérez, O.; García, J.; Molina, J.M. Multi-Agent Framework in Visual Sensor Networks. EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing 2007, 21 pages. [Google Scholar]
- Perillo, M.; Heinzelman, W. Sensor management policies to provide application QoS. Elsevier Ad Hoc Networks 2003, 1(2–3), 235–246. [Google Scholar]
- Boulis, A.; Srivastava, M. Node-level energy management for sensor networks in the presence of multiple applications. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications (PerCom); 2003; pp. 41–49. [Google Scholar]
- Video Coding for Low Bit Rate Communication; ITU-T Recommendation H.263.
- Advanced Video Coding for Generic Audiovisual Services; ITU-T Recommendation H.264.
- Xiong, Z.; Liveris, A.D.; Cheng, S. Distributed source coding for sensor networks. IEEE Signal Processing 2004, 80–94. [Google Scholar]
- Girod, B.; Aaron, A.; Rane, S.; Rebollo-Monedero, D. Distributed video coding. Proc. IEEE 2005, 93(1), 71–83. [Google Scholar]
- Iyer, Y.G.; Gandham, S.; Venkatesan, S. STCP: A Generic Transport Layer Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks. Proceedings IEEE ICCCN 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Dunkels, A.; Alonso, J.; Voigt, T.; Ritter, H. Distributed TCP Caching for Wireless Sensor Networks. Proceedings of the Mediterranean Ad Hoc Networking Workshop 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Wan, C.Y.; Eisenman, S.B.; Campbell, A.T. CODA: Congestion detection and avoidance in sensor networks. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys); 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Mao, S.; Bushmitch, D.; Narayanan, S.; Panwar, S.S. MRTP: a multiflow real-time transport protocol for Ad Hoc networks. IEEE Trans. Multimedia 2006, 8(2), 356–369. [Google Scholar]
- Stann, F.; Heidemann, J. RMST: Reliable Data Transport in Sensor Networks. Proc. IEEE SNPA 2003, 03. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, H.; Arora, A.; Choi, Y.; Gouda, M.G. Reliable Bursty Convergecast in Wireless Sensor Networks. Proc. ACM Mobihoc 2005, 05. [Google Scholar]
- Hull, B.; Jamieson, K.; Balakrishnan, H. Mitigating Congestion in Wireless Sensor Networks. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys) 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Savidge, L.; Lee, H.; Aghajan, H.; Goldsmith, A. QoS-based geographic routing for event-driven image sensor networks. Proceedings of IEEE/CreateNet International Workshop on Broadband Advanced Sensor Networks (BaseNets) 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Akkaya, K.; Younis, M. An energy-aware QoS routing protocol for wireless sensor networks. Proceedings of International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops (ICSDSW); 2003. [Google Scholar]
- He, T.; Stankovic, J.A.; Lu, C.; Abdelzaher, T.F. A spatiotemporal communication protocol for wireless sensor networks. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distr. 2005, 16(10), 995–1006. [Google Scholar]
- Felemban, E.; Lee, C.G.; Ekici, E. MMSPEED: Multipath multi-SPEED protocol for QoS guarantee of reliability and timeliness in wireless sensor networks. IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput. 2006, 5(6), 738–754. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, J.; Lin, R.; Li, Y.; Sun, Y. LQER: A Link Quality Estimation based Routing for Wireless Sensor Networks. Sensors 2008, 8, 1025–1038. [Google Scholar]
- Suh, C.; Mir, Z.H.; Ko, Y.B. Design and Implementation of Enhanced IEEE 802.15.4 for Supporting Multimedia Service in Wireless Sensor Networks. Elsevier Computer Networks 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Gonzalez, R.C.; Woods, R.E.; Eddins, S.L. Digital Image Processing Using MATLAB (DIPUM); Prentice Hall, 2004; Chapter 8; pp. 282–333. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Y.J.; Oraintara, S.; Nguyen, T.Q. Video Compression Using Integer DCT. Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP); 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Lettieri, P.; Schurgers, C.; Srivastava, M.B. Adaptive Link Layer Strategies for Energy-Efficient Wireless Networking. Wireless Networks 1999, 5(5), 339–355. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, B.; Ngoh, L.H.; Lee, B.S.; Fu, C.P. HDA: A hierarchical data aggregation scheme for sensor networks. Computer Communications 2006, 29(9), 1292–1299. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, W.; Liang, Z.; Hou, Z.; Tan, M. A Power Efficient Routing Protocol for Wireless Sensor Network. IEEE International Conference on SunEOl Networking, Sensing and Control, London, UK, 15- 17 April 2007.
- Fonda, J.W.; Zawodniok, M.; Jagannathan, S.; Watkins, S.E. Development and Implementation of Optimized Energy-Delay Sub-Network Routing Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks. IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control, Munich, Germany, 4-6 October 2006.
- Aghdasi, H.S.; Abbaspour, M. ET-MAC: An Energy-Efficient and High Throughput MAC Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks. Communication Networks and Services Research Conference (CNSR 2008); 2008; pp. 526–532. [Google Scholar]
- Chipcon Corporation. CC2420 lowpower 2.4 GHz transceiver. 2006. Available online in: http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/cc2420.html.
- Netravali, A.N.; Haskell, B.G. Digital Pictures: Representation, Compression, and Standards, 2nd Ed. ed; Plenum Publishing Corporation: New York, NY, 1995. [Google Scholar]
|Bit Rate||250 kbps|
|Listen Power||60 mJ/sec|
|Receive Power||63 mJ/sec|
|Transmission Power||57 mJ/sec|
|Number of Transmitted Pixels||3||6||10||15||21||28||36||43||49||54||58||61|
|Transmitted Data with Dropping Scheme (MB)||39.12||79.51||114.85||146.54||175.45||202.21|
|Transmitted Data without Dropping Scheme (MB)||44.88||95.99||144.50||190.72||234.88||277.17|
© 2008 by the authors; licensee Molecular Diversity Preservation International, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).