2004 IEEE International Conference on Communications (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37577) 2004
DOI: 10.1109/icc.2004.1313223
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Homogeneous vs heterogeneous clustered sensor networks: a comparative study

Abstract: We present a cost based comparative study of homogeneous and heterogeneous clustered sensor networks. We focus on the case where the base station is remotely located and the sensor nodes are not mobile. Since we are concerned with the overall network dimensioning problem, we take into account the manufacturing cost of the hardware as well as the battery energy of the nodes. A homogeneous sensor network consists of identical nodes, while a heterogeneous sensor network consists of two or more types of nodes (org… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
159
0
2

Year Published

2005
2005
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 308 publications
(161 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
159
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Starting with equal energy levels, each node picks a probability value to decide whether to act as a CH, based on the number of times it has recently claimed the CH role. An improved version of LEACH, called M-LEACH, is proposed in [11], in which nodes in a cluster deliver data to the CH over multihop paths and can thus achieve energy savings. Similarly, k-hop forwarding from cluster members towards the CH is included in [9] with simpler sensors that have a fixed radius rather than an adjustable one.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Starting with equal energy levels, each node picks a probability value to decide whether to act as a CH, based on the number of times it has recently claimed the CH role. An improved version of LEACH, called M-LEACH, is proposed in [11], in which nodes in a cluster deliver data to the CH over multihop paths and can thus achieve energy savings. Similarly, k-hop forwarding from cluster members towards the CH is included in [9] with simpler sensors that have a fixed radius rather than an adjustable one.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whereh is the probability that the cluster-head is close enough to the sink to directly transmit packets. This probability can be calculated by using the nodes distribution in the rings given in [17].h…”
Section: Optimal Clusteringmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cluster-heads do not extend their transmission range to transmit packets directly to the sink node and, therefore, has the same radius r as member nodes. We adapt the multi-hop model proposed by [17] to route packets from cluster-head to the sink. In the model, a circle is divided into concentric rings with the thickness r. The energy spent to relay the packet from outside ring towards inside ring is l(2E elec + amp r 2 ).…”
Section: Optimal Clusteringmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…LEACH protocol is the first to propose clustering routing protocol of wireless sensor networks [1][2][3]. LEACH algorithm can guarantee the probability of each node as a cluster head node in the network, making nodes relatively balanced energy consumption.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%