These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: On the MAC/network/energy performance evaluation of Wireless Sensor Networks: Contrasting MPH, AODV, DSR and ZTR routing protocols.
    Author: Del-Valle-Soto C, Mex-Perera C, Orozco-Lugo A, Lara M, Galván-Tejada GM, Olmedo O.
    Journal: Sensors (Basel); 2014 Dec 02; 14(12):22811-47. PubMed ID: 25474377.
    Abstract:
    Wireless Sensor Networks deliver valuable information for long periods, then it is desirable to have optimum performance, reduced delays, low overhead, and reliable delivery of information. In this work, proposed metrics that influence energy consumption are used for a performance comparison among our proposed routing protocol, called Multi-Parent Hierarchical (MPH), the well-known protocols for sensor networks, Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), and Zigbee Tree Routing (ZTR), all of them working with the IEEE 802.15.4 MAC layer. Results show how some communication metrics affect performance, throughput, reliability and energy consumption. It can be concluded that MPH is an efficient protocol since it reaches the best performance against the other three protocols under evaluation, such as 19.3% reduction of packet retransmissions, 26.9% decrease of overhead, and 41.2% improvement on the capacity of the protocol for recovering the topology from failures with respect to AODV protocol. We implemented and tested MPH in a real network of 99 nodes during ten days and analyzed parameters as number of hops, connectivity and delay, in order to validate our Sensors 2014, 14 22812 simulator and obtain reliable results. Moreover, an energy model of CC2530 chip is proposed and used for simulations of the four aforementioned protocols, showing that MPH has 15.9% reduction of energy consumption with respect to AODV, 13.7% versus DSR, and 5% against ZTR.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]