1.
INTRODUCTION
I N WIRELESS sensor networks, nodes have limited energy resources and, consequently,
protocols designed for sensor networks should be energy-efficient. One recent technology
that allows energy saving is cooperative transmission. In cooperative transmission, multiple
nodes simultaneously receive, decode, and retransmit data packets. In this paper, as opposed
to previous works, we use a cooperative communication model with multiple nodes on both
ends of a hop and with each data packet being transmitted only once per hop. In our model of
cooperative transmission, every node on the path from the source node to the destination
node becomes a cluster head, with the task of recruiting other nodes in its neighborhood and
coordinating their transmissions. Consequently, the classical route from a source node to a
sink node is replaced with a multihop cooperative path, and the classical point-to-point
communication is replaced with many-to-many cooperative communication. The path can
then be described as “having a width,” where the “width” of a path at a particular hop is
determined by the number of nodes on each end of a hop. For the example in Fig. 1(a), the
width of each intermediate hop is 3. Of course, this “width” does not need to be uniform
along a path. Each hop on this path represents communication from many geographically
close nodes, called a sending cluster, to another cluster of nodes, termed a receiving cluster.
The nodes in each cluster cooperate in transmission of packets, which propagate along the
path from one cluster to the next. Our model of cooperative transmission for a single hop is
further depicted in Fig. 2(a). Every node in the receiving cluster receives from every node in
the sending cluster. Sending nodes are synchronized, and the power level of the received
signal at a receiving node is the sum of all the signal powers coming from all the sender
nodes. This reduces the likelihood of a packet being received in error. We assume that some
mechanism for error detection is incorporated into the packet format, so a node that does not
receive a packet correctly will not transmit on the next hop in the path. Our cooperative
transmission protocol consists of two phases. In the routing phase, the initial path between
the source and the sink nodes is discovered as an underlying “one-node-thick” path. Then,
the path undergoes a thickening process in the “recruiting-and-transmitting” phase. In this
phase, the nodes on the initial path become cluster heads, which recruit additional adjacent
nodes from their neighborhood. Due to the fact that the cluster heads recruit nodes from their
immediate neighborhood, the inter-clusters distances are significantly larger than the
distances between nodes in the same cluster. Recruiting is done dynamically and per packet
as the packet traverses the path. When a packet is received by a cluster head of the receiving
cluster, the cluster head initiates the recruiting by the next node on the “one-node-thick” path.
Once this recruiting is completed and the receiving cluster is established, the packet is
transmitted from the sending cluster to the newly established receiving cluster. During the
routing phase, where the “one-node-thick” path is discovered, information about the energy
required for transmission to neighboring nodes is computed. This information is then used for
cluster establishment in the “recruiting-and-transmitting” phase by selecting nodes with
lowest energy cost. Medium access control is done in the “recruiting-and-transmitting” phase
through exchanges of short control packets between the nodes on the “one-node-thick” path
and their neighbor nodes. A key advantage of cooperative transmission is the increase of the
received power at the receiving nodes. This decreases the probability of bit error and of
packet loss. Alternatively, the sender nodes can use smaller transmission power for the same
probability of bit error, thus reducing the energy consumption. One of the goals of this paper
is to study the energy savings achieved through cooperation. We also study the increase in
the reliability of packet delivery, given some level of cooperation among the nodes. Finally,
we also study the capacity of the cooperative transmission protocol. We compare our
cooperative transmission protocol with another cooperative protocol, called Cooperation
Along Non-cooperative path and with two other non-cooperative schemes: the “disjoint-
paths” and “one-path” schemes. The equivalent of the “one-node-thick” path is called in the
“non-cooperative path” between the source and the sink nodes and is found first. However,
instead of recruiting additional nodes, in CAN, the last predecessor nodes along the non-
cooperative path cooperate to transmit to the next node on the path, as depicted in Fig. 1(b).
In this figure, and the non-cooperative path is source–1–2–3–sink. The source node transmits
to node 1; then the source and node 1 transmit to node 2; then the source, node 1, and node 2
transmit to node 3. Finally, nodes 1, 2, and 3 transmit to the sink. Each hop in this protocol
consists of cooperative transmission of the last nodes on the path in order to send the packet
to the next node, as is illustrated in Fig. 2(b). In the disjoint-paths scheme, nodes form a
number of disjoint paths from source to sink. The same information is routed independently
along the different paths with no coordination between the nodes on the different paths. In
the one-path scheme, the “one-node-thick” path is discovered first. Then, each node on the
path transmits with power equal to the sum of transmission powers of all the cooperating
nodes in a cluster. The analytical and simulation results of our cooperative transmission
protocol are compared throughout the paper to the results of the CAN protocol, the disjoint-
paths scheme, and the one-path scheme. In summary, in this paper we introduce a new
protocol to facilitate cooperative transmission that minimizes the energy consumption and
increases the transmission reliability in comparison to the other three schemes. The operation
of our protocol is fully distributed in all its phases. We derive analytical models to evaluate
the performance of our protocol in terms of the end-to-end robustness to data loss, the energy
consumption, and the capacity. We use the analytical models to compare the performance of
our protocol against the other three schemes. Finally, we use simulations to extend our
analytical results and to evaluate the performance of our protocol in scenarios not covered by
our analytical models.
2. ABSTRACT
In cooperative networks, transmitting and receiving nodes recruit neighboring nodes to
assist in communication. We model a cooperative transmission link in wireless networks as a
transmitter cluster and a receiver cluster. We then propose a cooperative communication
protocol for establishment of these clusters and for cooperative transmission of data. We
derive the upper bound of the capacity of the protocol, and we analyze the end-to-end
robustness of the protocol to data-packet loss, along with the tradeoff between energy
consumption and error rate.The analysis results are used to compare the energy savings and
the end-to-end robustness of our protocol with two non-cooperative schemes, as well as to
another cooperative protocol published in the technical literature. The comparison results
show that, when nodes are positioned on a grid, there is a reduction in the probability of
packet delivery failure by two orders of magnitude for the values of parameters considered.
Up to 80% in energy savings can be achieved for a grid topology, while for random node
placement our cooperative protocol can save up to 40% in energy consumption relative to the
other protocols. The reduction in error rate and the energy savings translate into increased
lifetime of cooperative sensor networks.
2.1. EXISTING SYSTEM:
In WIRELESS sensor networks, nodes have limited energy resources and, consequently,
protocols designed for sensor networks should be energy-efficient. One recent technology that
allows energy saving is cooperative transmission. In cooperative transmission, multiple nodes
simultaneously receive, decode, and retransmit data packets. In previous works, we use a
cooperative communication model with multiple nodes on both ends of a hop and with each data
packet being transmitted only once per hop.
DISADVANTAGES:
Nodes having Limited Energy Resources
A sender takes much time to transfer the data to a destination.
2.2. PROPOSED SYSTEM:
In our model of cooperative transmission, every node on the path from the source node to
the destination node becomes a cluster head, with the task of recruiting other nodes in its
neighborhood and coordinating their transmissions. Consequently, the classical route from a
source node to a sink node is replaced with a multihop cooperative path, and the classical point-
to-point communication is replaced with many-to-many cooperative communication. The path
can then be described as “having a width,” where the “width” of a path at a particular hop is
determined by the number of nodes on each end of a hop.
Our cooperative transmission protocol consists of two phases. In the routing phase, the
initial path between the source and the sink nodes is discovered as an underlying “one-node-
thick” path. Then, the path undergoes a thickening process in the “recruiting-and-transmitting”
phase. In this phase, the nodes on the initial path become cluster heads, which recruit additional
adjacent nodes from their neighborhood.
ADVANTAGES:
Saves the node energy through cooperation.
Increases the reliability of packet delivery.
Data transmission between sources to destination is efficient and fast.
3. SYSTEM SPECIFICATION
3.1. SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS:
Front end : jdk6
Back end : Sql 2000
Operating system : win xp professional (service pack 2)
3.2. HARDWARE REQUIREMENTS:
Hard disk : 10 GB and above
Ram : 512 MB and above
Processor : Pentium 4 and above
3.3. SYSTEM ACHITECTURE
A
Source
Cluster Node 1
Data’s are splitted and
then send this available
path
Check Availability Check Availability B2
B1 B
Response to available Response to available
Data’s are splitted and then
send this available path
C1 Check Availability C Check Availability C2
Response to available Response to available
Data’s are sending this
available path
Cluster Node n D
Sink
3.4. DATA FLOW DIAGRAM
Select the file Calculate the shortest path
Source
Check the availability and response Send the data through the shortest path
Data’s are spilitted into packets and send these packets through this available path
This process is repeated until
the shortest path is completed
Receive the packets and arrange the
packets based on header id
Sink
3.5. UML DIAGRAMS
USECASE DIAGARAM
Use case diagrams overview the usage requirements for a system. They are useful for
presentations to management and/or project stakeholders, but for actual development you will
find that use cases provide significantly more value because they describe "the meat" of the
actual requirements.
Use cases. A use case describes a sequence of actions that provide something of
measurable value to an actor and is drawn as a horizontal ellipse
Select the file and calculate the shortest path
Send the data through this path
Check the availability and response
Intermediate Node
Data’s are spilitted into packets and send these packets through this available path
Sender
Receive the packets arrange it Receiver
CLASS DIAGRAM:
Class diagrams are the mainstay of object-oriented analysis and design. class diagrams
show the classes of the system, their interrelationships (including inheritance, aggregation, and
association), and the operations and attributes of the classes. Class diagrams are used for a wide
variety of purposes, including both conceptual/domain modeling and detailed design modeling.
SEQUENCE DIAGRAM
Sequence diagrams model the flow of logic within your system in a visual manner,
enabling you both to document and validate your logic, and are commonly used for both analysis
and design purposes. Sequence diagrams are the most popular UML artifact for dynamic
modeling, which focuses on identifying the behavior within your system.
4. MODULES DESCRIPTION
Network construction
Best path estimation
Routing phase
Sending and receiving cluster module
Packet Forwarding
NETWORK CONSTRUCTION
We construct a network topology to register the nodes. In the network, numerous nodes
are interconnected and exchange data or services directly with each other. All systems have
Connection with other systems. System details are maintained in the server system. It provides
connection to the node whenever there is a request from another node. It’s possible for a client to
get more than one connection to the server. Create packet with IP header, data, and packet
length. It receives the packets from source and analyzes the packet header.
BEST PATH ESTIMATION
Every node on the path from the source node to the destination node becomes a cluster
head, with the task of recruiting other nodes in its neighborhood and coordinating their
transmissions. Consequently, the classical route from a source node to a sink node is replaced
with a multihop cooperative path, and the classical point-to-point communication is replaced
with many-to-many cooperative communication. The path can then be described as “having a
width,” where the “width” of a path at a particular hop is determined by the number of nodes on
each end of a hop. Each hop on this path represents communication from many geographically
close nodes, called a sending cluster, to another cluster of nodes, termed a receiving cluster. The
nodes in each cluster cooperate in transmission of packets, which propagate along the path from
one cluster to the next.
ROUTING PHASE
The initial path between the source and the sink nodes is discovered as an underlying
“one-node-thick” path. Then, the path undergoes a thickening process in the recruiting-and-
transmitting phase. During the routing phase, where the “one-node-thick” path is discovered,
information about the energy required for transmission to neighboring nodes is computed
SENDING AND RECEIVING CLUSTER MODULE
In this phase, the nodes on the initial path become cluster heads, which recruit additional
adjacent nodes from their neighborhood. Due to the fact that the cluster heads recruit nodes from
their immediate neighborhood, the inter-clusters distances are significantly larger than the
distances between nodes in the same cluster. Recruiting is done dynamically and per packet as
the packet traverses the path. When a packet is received by a cluster head of the receiving
cluster, the cluster head initiates the recruiting by the next node on the “one-node-thick” path.
Once this recruiting is completed and the receiving cluster is established, the packet is
transmitted from the sending cluster to the newly established receiving cluster. Information about
the energy required for transmission to neighboring nodes is computed. Medium access control
is done in the “recruiting-and-transmitting” phase through exchanges of short control packets
between the nodes on the “one-node-thick” path and their neighbor nodes.
PACKET FORWARDING
Sender is forwarding the packets to receiver through the shortest path. And then Receiver
receives the packets and arranges it using packet id.
5. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we evaluated the performance of cooperative transmission, where nodes in a
sending cluster are synchronized to communicate a packet to nodes in a receiving cluster. In our
communication model, the power of the received signal at each node of the receiving cluster is a
sum of the powers of the transmitted independent signals of the nodes in the sending cluster. The
increased power of the received signal, vis-à-vis the traditional single-node-to-single-node
communication, leads to overall saving in network energy and to end-to-end robustness to data
loss. We proposed an energy-efficient cooperative protocol, and we analyzed the robustness of
the protocol to data packet loss. When the nodes are placed on a grid and as compared to the
disjoint-paths scheme, we showed that our cooperative protocol reduces the probability of failure
to deliver a packet to destination by a factor of up to 100, depending on the values of considered
parameters. Similarly, compared to the CAN protocol and to the one-path scheme, this reduction
amounts to a factor of up to 10 000. Our study also analyzed the capacity upper bound of our
protocol, showing improvement over the corresponding values of the other three protocols. The
total energy consumption was analytically computed, illustrating substantial energy savings. For
example, when nodes are positioned on a grid, the energy savings of our cooperative protocol
over the CAN protocol is up to 80%. The size of the clusters, should be relatively small, when
the inter-cluster distance is small, with the optimal value of increasing with . For scenarios that
are not covered by our theoretical analysis, we used simulation to evaluate and compare the
protocols. For random placement of nodes, the simulation results show that our cooperative
transmission protocol saves up to 20% of energy compared to the CAN protocol and up to 40%
of energy compared with the disjoint-paths and the one-path scheme. Overall, the study
demonstrates that the energy savings of our protocol, relative to the other schemes, do not
substantially decrease even when the data packet loss approaches 50%. Our protocol also
supports larger capacity and lower delay under high-load conditions, as compared to the CAN
protocol, the one-path scheme, and the disjoint-paths scheme.
6. REFERENCES
1. C. Chou, J. Yang, and D. Wang, “Cooperative MAC protocol with automatic
relay selection in distributed wireless networks,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Pervasive
Comput. Commun. Workshops, White Plains, NY, Mar. 2007, pp. 526–531.
2. J. Mirkovic, G. Orfanos, H. Reumerman, and D. Denteneer, “A MAC protocol for MIMO
based IEEE 802.11 wireless local area networks,” in Proc. IEEE WCNC, Hong Kong,
Mar. 2007, pp. 2131–2136.
3. A. Sendonaris, E. Erkip, and B. Aazhang, “User cooperation diversity—
Part I: System description,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 51, no. 11, pp. 1927–1938, Nov.
2003.
4. A. Sendonaris, E. Erkip, and B. Aazhang, “User cooperation diversity—
Part II: Implementation aspects and performance analysis,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol.
51, no. 11, pp. 1939–1948, Nov. 2003.
