2. Related Work
3. Problem Details
3.1. Problem Scenario
- Interaction with the IoT devices: The IT Platform should enable WSN to interact with IoT devices when they are available.
- Independent routing: The platform must allow WSN to continue delivering data to the sink using their normal routing protocol, if there is no IoT devices in the vicinity. This is important since WSN should not be fully dependent on IoT devices, as IoT devices are not a part of their network. Rather they are exploited opportunistically.
- Energy efficiency: By exploiting IoT devices, energy consumption in WSN is conserved.
- Network lifetime: The energy of WSN should be consumed in such a way that a few sensor nodes shouldn’t be drained quicker than rest of the network, rather all sensor nodes should be used in a balanced way. This means that along with energy conservation the time duration between first dieing node and the most dieing nodes (making network non-functional) shouldn’t be long.
- Data delivery: Typically when IoT devices are exploited, the amount of received packets should either be the same or should be increased as compared to routed only using WSN. Thus, packet loss could be minimized.
- IoT devices are Vehicles/cars/passengers;
- WSN is surrounded by IoT devices, but can function without them; and
- WSN nodes send their data to a single sink.
4. The Integration Platform
4.1. IoT Discovery and Negotiation in IT Platform
|Algorithm 1 getBestIoT|
|iots = //array of IoT objects|
iot.rssi = //received signal strength indicator value
iot.distance = //Maximum distance between two points minus distance of IoT from Sink
iot.speed = //Maximum allowed speed in which communication is possible minus speed of IoT
|2:||for each do //remove iot replies with less than threshold RSSI.|
|7:||best = iots|
|8:||for each do|
|9:||bestValue = 2 * best.rssi + best.speed + best.distance|
|10:||pValue = 2 * p.rssi + p.speed + p.distance|
|12:||best = p|
4.2. Sensor Activity Modes in WSN Layer
4.3. Sensor Selection By IoT
4.4. Traversing of Data Packets
|Algorithm 2 getBestSN|
|SN = //array of SN objects|
SN.rssi = //received signal strength indicator value
SN.distance = //Maximum distance between two points minus IoT’s distance from Sink
SN.energyLevel = //Remaining Energy of Sensor
|2:||for each do //remove SN replies with less than threshold RSSI.|
|7:||best = SN|
|8:||for each do|
|9:||bestValue = 2 * best.rssi + best.energyLevel + best.distance|
|10||pValue = 2 * p.rssi + p.energyLevel + p.distance|
|12:||best = p|
|Algorithm 3 IsDirectionToSink|
|previousX = //previous X position of IoT device|
previousY = //previous Y position of IoT device
currentX = //current X position of IoT device
currentY = //current X position of IoT device
sinkX = // X position of Sink
sinkY = // Y position of Sink
getDistance(x1,y1, x2,y2) // returns euclidean distance between two points
|2:||currentDistance = getDistance(currentX, currentY, sinkX, sinkY)|
|3:||previousDistance = getDistance(previousX, previousY, sinkX, sinkY)|
|5:||returnValue = True|
|7:||returnValue = False|
4.5. Gossip Protocol
|Algorithm 4 GossipAlgorithm|
|sendIoTExistMessageTo (P,m) = //sends message m to neighbor P|
isIoTRepliesEnough() = //returns True if no. of IoT replies is , else returns False
state = //represents the current state of node
|1:||proceduregossipAlgorithm() //Push method|
|2:||while true do|
|5:||m.age = −1|
|11:||procedureonIoTExistReceive(m) //Push Receiver method|
|18:||P = //random neighbor|
|20:||state = IOT|
4.6. Advantages of IT Platform
- Using IT Platform and IoT devices, there is no notable overhead on a sensor due to communication between the two layers.
- When the network gets disconnected due to nodes with depleted energy or any other reason, then packets can still reach the the Sink via IoT devices.
- Overall WSN communication load is reduced by exploiting the IoT devices. This is because the inter communication between the sensor nodes for multi-hop routing to the Sink is reduced.
- By allowing sensors nodes to sleep more, the idle listening is reduced and less energy is consumed.
- The platform does not require any extra computations, thus no additional computational overhead on sensors.
- There is no additional sensing load on the sensors of WSN.
5. Simulation Details and Results
5.1. Evaluation Metrics
- Energy consumed: Average energy consumed by all sensors is depicted using this metric. The simulator measures energy consumption by considering the amount of time sensor radio has been in receive or transfer mode . It is independent of data transfer or receive activity in a mode rather depends on duration the sensor is in specific mode. Table 2 displays the energy consumption of CC2420 Radio we simulated, in different modes .
- Network lifetime: This metric also depicts energy consumed, but shows the lifetime of the whole network. Using a conservative approach, the network is considered non-functional whenever the first node dies.
- Nodes Alive: Shows the percentage of sensor nodes alive at specific simulation time.
- Packet reception rate: This metric shows the rate of number of packets received by the sink as compared to the number of packets sent by each of the sensors. Any duplicate packet is discarded by the sink. The packet loss is there because, in all kinds of wireless communication, as we are using realistic simulation models (Section 5.2), it is common that there is some packet loss.
5.2. Simulation Environment
5.3. Simulation Setup
5.4. Simulation Results
Conflicts of Interest
|IoT||Internet of Things|
|WSN||Wireless Sensor Networks|
|IT Platform||Integration Platform|
|QoS||Quality of Service|
|MANETS||Mobile Adhoc NETworks|
|AODV||Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector|
|LPLR||Low Power Long Range|
- Friess, P. Internet of Things: Converging Technologies for Smart Environments and Integrated Ecosystems; River Publishers: Aalborg, Denmark, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Evans, D. The Internet of things: How the next evolution of the Internet is changing everything. CISCO White Paper 2011, 1, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Vermesan, O.; Friess, P.; Guillemin, P.; Gusmeroli, S.; Sundmaeker, H.; Bassi, A.; Jubert, I.S.; Mazura, M.; Harrison, M.; Eisenhauer, M.; et al. Internet of things strategic research roadmap. Internet Things-Glob. Technol. Soc. Trends 2011, 1, 9–52. [Google Scholar]
- Rawat, P.; Singh, K.D.; Chaouchi, H.; Bonnin, J.M. Wireless sensor networks: A survey on recent developments and potential synergies. J. Supercomput. 2014, 68, 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yick, J.; Mukherjee, B.; Ghosal, D. Wireless sensor network survey. Comput. Netw. 2008, 52, 2292–2330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zanella, A.; Bui, N.; Castellani, A.; Vangelista, L.; Zorzi, M. Internet of things for smart cities. IEEE Internet Things J. 2014, 1, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanchez, L.; Muñoz, L.; Galache, J.A.; Sotres, P.; Santana, J.R.; Gutierrez, V.; Ramdhany, R.; Gluhak, A.; Krco, S.; Theodoridis, E.; Pfisterer, D. SmartSantander: IoT experimentation over a Smart City testbed. Comput. Netw. 2014, 61, 217–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qureshi, K.N.; Abdullah, A.H. A survey on intelligent transportation systems. Middle-East J. Sci. Res. 2013, 15, 629–642. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, X.; Wang, B.; Ji, H. Wireless sensor network-based structural health monitoring system for highway bridges. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2013, 28, 193–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.Z.; Yang, T.; Xin, C.L. Electronic Toll Collection System Based on ZigBee_MCU. Adv. Mater. Res. 2013, 756, 2255–2259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patel, C.; Shah, D.; Patel, A. Automatic number plate recognition system (anpr): A survey. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 2013, 69, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chong, C.Y.; Kumar, S.P. Sensor networks: evolution, opportunities, and challenges. Proc. IEEE 2003, 91, 1247–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sara, G.S.; Sridharan, D. Routing in mobile wireless sensor network: A survey. Telecommun. Syst. 2014, 57, 51–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banerjee, T.; Chowdhury, K.; Agrawal, D.P. Tree based data aggregation in sensor networks using polynomial regression. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Information Fusion, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 25–28 July 2005; Volume 2, p. 8. [Google Scholar]
- Di Francesco, M.; Das, S.K.; Anastasi, G. Data collection in wireless sensor networks with mobile elements: A survey. ACM Trans. Sens. Netw. (TOSN) 2011, 8, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raza, U.; Kulkarni, K.P.; Sooriyabandara, M. Low power wide area networks: An overview. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2017, 19, 855–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Konstantin, M.; Petaejaejaervi, J.; Haenninen, T. Analysis of capacity and scalability of the LoRa low power wide area network technology. In Proceedings of the 22th European Wireless Conference, European Wireless, Oulu, Finland, 18–20 May 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Daji, Q.; Qiu, T.; Kim, H. Self-organizing and smart protocols for heterogeneous ad hoc networks in the Internet of Things. Ad Hoc Netw. Elsevier 2017, 55. [Google Scholar]
- Tie, Q.; Chen, N.; Li, K.; Qiao, D.; Fu, Z. Heterogeneous ad hoc networks: Architectures, advances and challenges. Ad Hoc Netw. Elsevier 2017, 55, 143–152. [Google Scholar]
- Weyns, D.; Schumacher, M.; Ricci, A.; Viroli, M.; Holvoet, T. Environments in multiagent systems. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 2005, 20, 127–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pantazis, N.; Nikolidakis, S.A.; Vergados, D.D. Energy-efficient routing protocols in wireless sensor networks: A survey. IEEE Chic. Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2013, 15, 551–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, S.; Zhang, B.; Li, C.; Mouftah, H. Routing protocols for wireless sensor networks with mobile sinks: A survey. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2014, 52, 150–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yarvis, M.; Kushalnagar, N.; Singh, H.; Rangarajan, A.; Liu, Y.; Singh, S. Exploiting heterogeneity in sensor networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM 2005. 24th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, Miami, FL, USA, 13–17 March 2005; Volume 2, pp. 878–890. [Google Scholar]
- Machado, K.; Rosário, D.; Cerqueira, E.; Loureiro, A.A.; Neto, A.; de Souza, J.N. Routing protocol based on energy and link quality for Internet of things applications. Sensors 2013, 13, 1942–1964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Perkins, C.; Belding-Royer, E.; Das, S. Ad Hoc on-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing; No. RFC 3561; The Internet Society: Reston, VA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Park, S.H.; Cho, S.; Lee, J.R. Energy-efficient probabilistic routing algorithm for Internet of things. J. Appl. Math. 2014, 2014, 213106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ehsan, S.; Hamdaoui, B. A survey on energy-efficient routing techniques with QoS assurances for wireless multimedia sensor networks. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2012, 14, 265–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Fagih, A.E.; Al-Turjman, F.M.; Alsalih, W.M.; Hassanein, H.S. A priced public sensing framework for heterogeneous IoT architectures. IEEE Trans. Emerg. Top. Comput. 2013, 1, 133–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orsino, A.; Araniti, G.; Militano, L.; Alonso-Zarate, J.; Molinaro, A.; Iera, A. Energy efficient iot data collection in smart cities exploiting D2D communications. Sensors 2016, 16, 836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bello, O.; Zeadally, S. Intelligent device-to-device communication in the Internet of things. IEEE Syst. J. 2016, 10, 1172–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cardone, G.; Corradi, A.; Foschini, L. Cross-network opportunistic collection of urgent data in wireless sensor networks. Comput. J. 2011, 54, 1949–1962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jayaraman, P.P.; Zaslavsky, A.; Delsing, J. Sensor data collection using heterogeneous mobile devices. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Services, Istanbul, Turkey, 15–20 July 2007; pp. 161–164. [Google Scholar]
- Khalil, N.; Abid, M.R.; Benhaddou, D.; Gerndt, M. Wireless sensors networks for Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Ninth International Conference on Intelligent Sensors, Sensor Networks and Information Processing (ISSNIP), Singapore, 21–24 April 2014; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Jelasity, M. Gossip-based Protocols for Large-Scale Distributed Systems. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Castalia Manual. Available online: https://castalia.forge.nicta.com.au/index.php/en/documentation.html (accessed on 1 March 2018).
- Pediaditakis, D.; Tselishchev, Y.; Boulis, A. Performance and scalability evaluation of the Castalia wireless sensor network simulator. In Proceedings of the 3rd International ICST Conference on Simulation Tools and Techniques, ICST (Institute for Computer Sciences, Social-Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering), Torremolinos, Malaga, Spain, 15–19 March 2010; p. 53. [Google Scholar]
- Wan, D.; Mieyeville, F.; Navarro, D. Modeling energy consumption of wireless sensor networks by systemc. In Proceedings of the 2010 Fifth International Conference on Systems and Networks Communications, Nice, France, 22–27 August 2010. [Google Scholar]
- CC2420 Datasheet. Available online: http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/cc2420.pdf (accessed on 5 August 2018).
|send (helloIoT)||SN||IoT||Message to search IoT in vicinity|
|send (distance, speed)||IoT||SN||IoT reply message to SN|
|send (selectedOK)||SN||IoT||SN confirms IoT as selected candidate|
|send (OK)||IoT||SN||IoT reply OK to selection as approval to send data and waits for dataPacket.|
|send (dataPacket, synchTime)||SN||IoT||SN sends dataPacket along with synchTime of WSN|
|send (dataAck)||IoT||SN||Acknowledge message for data reception|
|send (dropHello)||IoT||SN||Hello message to find SN to drop dataPacket to WSN layer.|
|send (energy, RxSlot, location)||SN||IoT||Reply to dropHello message with SN’s energy level and location|
|send (selectedOK)||IoT||SN||IoT confirms SN as selected SN for sending data|
|send (OK)||SN||IoT||Reply OK to selection as approval to send dataPacket|
|send (dataPacket)||IoT||SN||IoT drops datapacket to selected SN|
|send (dataAck)||SN||IoT||Acknowledge message for data reception|
|Radio Off||0.04 mW|
|Radio Sleep||1.4 mW|
|Radio Receiver||62 mW|
|Radio Transmitter (0 dBm)||57.42 mW|
|Radio Transmitter (−5 dBm)||46.2 mW|
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).