Green partial packet recovery in wireless sensor networks

Abstract

Abstract-Partial packet recovery is well known for increasing network throughput and reducing frame retransmissions. However, partial packet recovery methods in the literature are not energy-aware and hence they are not suitable for the battery powered wireless sensor motes. We propose Green-Frag, a novel adaptive partial packet recovery mechanism that is energy friendly. It can help prolonging the battery life of wireless sensor motes that are usually resource constrained. It dynamically partitions the frame into smaller blocks to avoid dropping the whole frame due to a single bit error. Also, Green-Frag is able to tolerate high interference and save energy by varying the transmit power based on channel quality and interference pattern. We experimentally evaluate the energy efficiency as well as goodput and delay of Green-Frag using our TelosB sensor mote testbed. We find that Green-Frag reduces energy consumption by 33% on average compared to the state of the art partial packet recovery scheme in the literature in the presence of Wi-Fi interference. In the worst case, this reduction in energy consumption comes at the cost of 10% reduction in goodput. Finally, Green-Frag reduces the latency by 22% on average compared to other static frame fragmentation schemes.

Partial packet in wireless networks: a review of error recovery approaches

“…USRP) that allow a modification in the PHY layer. Other protocols in [9,11,14,16,35,36] involve re-transmission process. Error recovery is performed by resending only the part of bit errors in partial packets.…”

Optimal Cross-Layer Design for Energy Efficient D2D Sharing Systems

“…This is aligned with the experimental results which shows that the frame length increases with the increase of the signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR). This reduces the overhead which is generated by adding multiple frame headers to small frames [31].…”

Interference-Robust Transmission in Wireless Sensor Networks

“…For comparison, we also consider the performance of seven schemes; an IEEE 802.15.4 baseline scheme at a transmission rate of 250 Kbps with a fixed payload size, DRACER, which adjusts a transmission rate with a fixed payload size [22], DPLC, which adjusts a payload size at a fixed transmission rate of 250 Kbps [23], DRACER with DPLC that adjusts the transmission rate and the payload size by using DRACER and DPLC, respectively, a streaming data link layer scheme, which is a static PPR scheme referred to as Seda [25], a hybrid frame fragmentation scheme, which is a dynamic PPR scheme referred to as HiFrag [27], and a green frame fragmentation scheme, which is a combination of HiFrag and transmit power adaptation, referred to as GreenFrag [28]. The proposed scheme and DRACER use one of four transmission rates, 250, 500, 1000 and 2000 Kbps, by adjusting the spreading factor with an appropriate coding set, while using the same spectrum bandwidth as conventional IEEE 802.15.4 [22,41,42].…”

“…The power consumption of GreenFrag is measured at various power levels [28]. It can be seen that the power consumption increases when the SNR decreases or the channel occupancy of the interference signal increases, which is mainly due to the increase of transmission failure.…”

“…They partition a data packet into a number of smaller blocks and acknowledge the transmission of multiple data packets by a single recovery frame including a block map, which describes the status of all blocks [25,26,27,28]. The transmitter should retransmit all of the packets when the recovery frame is not received [25] or wait until it receives the recovery frame, while the receiver retransmits the recovery frame until it receives data packets [26,27,28]. The PPR techniques may severely suffer from frequent loss of recovery frames in practical operation environments.…”