vnr: void node removal routing protocol for underwater

IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, VOL.18 No.12, December 2018

162

Manuscript received December 5, 2018 Manuscript revised December 20, 2018

VNR: Void Node Removal Routing Protocol for Underwater Wireless Sensor Network

Mukhtiar Ahmed1, Sajida Parveen2, Nazar Hussain3, Nadeem Naeem4, Rajab Malookani5

Quaid-e-Awam University of Engineering, Science and Technology Nawabshah, Sindh, Pakistan1,2,3,4,5

Summary The research in underwater wireless sensor network is the main attractive area for the researchers due to its more valuable applications like: assisted navigation, disaster preventions, underwater biological life, searching of gold, oil/gas, minerals, diamond etc. The designing of routing to extract such kind of valuable information is one of the challenging tasks. The design of routing protocol faces 3D deployment, water pressure, water current, efficient route development, topology control, depth control, and many more issues. Beyond these issues the underwater obstacles or shadow zones during data forwarding route is also the challenging issue. During the data forwarding route if any shadow zone occurs the special mechanism is needed to overcome this issue. This research article focuses the Void Node Removal Routing (VNR) to resolve the shadow zones issue in efficient way. Void node can be occurs due to shadow zones/underwater obstacle or may be depletion of the energy, the removal of void node through VNR focuses the alternate route selection mechanism. For performance analysis the NS2.30 with AquaSim simulator is used. The performance of the VNR is compared with GEDAR and VHGOR through data success ratio. Key words: depth; V-shape; quick-hull; zones; node-mobility

1. Introduction

The water on surface is 3 times more than earth. Underwater research needs more attentions due to earth because of its majority numbers of applications [1-3]. In underwater environment the radio frequency signaling or optical signaling cannot perform well, the source of communication in underwater environment is only the acoustic channel [2, 4-6]. In underwater environment the 3D node deployment is not so easy because nodes become sparse or dense due to water pressure and uncontrolled node mobility [7-9]. The water depth from sea surface to seabed is also uncontrollable due to long distance (approx.. 15 Kms). The majority number of protocols is designed only on limited interest area. It is also complicated to develop a route in 15 kms long distance [10]. The underwater obstacles are also one of the challenging tasks during the data forwarding routes. The overview existing literature review is mentioned in section 2. This research article focuses the design of Void Node Removal Routing (VNR). VNR removes the void nodes in efficient way and

the detailed description of the VNR is mentioned in section 3.

2. Related Work

In underwater environment, the design of routing faces the many challenges during forwarding of the data, the one of the challenge is underwater shadow zones or underwater obstacles [11-13]. When forwarder node comes under shadow zones or may be forwarder node loses their energy then that node will become the void node. The majority of the researchers have designed the many routing protocols to remove the void node during data forwarding path; some of related routing protocols are discussed here in this section.

Vector- Based Void Avoidance (VBVA)

VBVA is described in [14] removes the void regions through vector-shift and back-pressure mechanisms. In VBVA the void node can detected through small and large advances within the pipe, if a large advance is listen by neighbor node then that will announce for the forwarder node becomes void. After declaration of void node the vector-shift mechanism is adapted through back-pressure for alternate route selection during the vector pipe. It is observed from the VBVA the complicated vector-shift and back-pressures mechanisms are time consuming and cannot perform well, when network becomes sparse.

Hydraulic Pressure Based Any Cast Routing (HydroCast)

This routing protocol is described in [15] and removes the void nodes through greedy based algorithm during data forwarding mechanism. It is seen that no any proper algorithm is used by HydroCast to resolve the problem for removal of void node in efficient way.

Depth Controlled Routing (DCR)

DCR protocol is described in [16] removes the void node through centralized algorithm. DCR locates the nodes during data forwarding, if any node becomes void, the

IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, VOL.18 No.12, December 2018 163

centralized algorithm will find the new depth and alternate route for packets forwarding. It is observed from the DCR that the interest is limited and performance of the DCR is measured only in limited area, if the distance and area increases the centralized algorithm will remain unable to perform well.

Void-Aware Pressure Routing (VARP)

VARP routing protocol is proposed in [17], this routing protocol removes the void nodes through opportunist forwarding mechanism, soft-sate breadcrumb approach for mobile networks and V-Shape mechanism. VARP focuses the V-Shape through trap area by choosing the alternate route if void node occurs. V-Shape trap area cannot perform when network becomes sparse.

Geographic Depth Adjustment Routing (GEDAR)

GEDAR is elaborated in [18], this routing protocol removes the void nodes through depth adjustment topology controlling mechanism. GEDAR moves the void node through new selection of depth with greedy forwarding algorithm. The authors have used the buoyancy-based depth adjustment module in sensor node, the node has property to set itself the new depth adjustment during occurrence of the void node. During data forwarding, if void node occurs the GEDAR will use the new depth to route the packets. The authors of GEDAR have used the topology control and depth adjustment mechanism which are not effective in undersea environment because due to water pressure these both mechanisms become failure.

Void Handling Geo-opportunist Routing (VHGOR)

VHGOR is described in [19], this routing protocol removes the void nodes through quick-hull algorithm for concave or convex voids. For concave or convex voids the ACK is used for certain time period, if source node not receives the ACK within the assigned time, the source node will use alternate route for packets forwarding. Authors have defined the convex or concave the nature of the voids. VGHOR is also failure when network become sparse, because there is no any node mobility or water pressure based models are considered by authors. From the aforementioned routing protocols, it is quite clear that there is need to design and develop the efficient routing mechanism for removal of void regions or void nodes through some special mechanism.

3. Void node removal routing protocol

In UWSN the node may be void due to shadow zones (void regions) or due to the energy depletion. In existing

void node removal routing protocols, the authors have used different methods for the removal of void node which are adapted from terrestrial networks with some enhancement. In VNR protocol, there are four types of nodes are introduces. Sink nodes are the destination nodes and are deployed at the water surface and all the sink nodes communicate between each other through RF signaling. From sea-surface to seabed the different layers are developed and static courier nodes are deployed in different layers. On seabed level the source nodes are deployed and ordinary nodes are deployed in between seabed source nodes to last layer courier nodes (last layer towards top to bottom). The deployments of the nodes are shown in Fig.1.

Fig. 1 Deployment of nodes

In VNR protocol the data forwarding mechanism is shown in Fig.2.

Fig. 2 Data forwarding route selection

In VNR for route selection the Link Cost Function (LCF) is used, in LCF the link quality, residual energy, and hop count parameters are used. The source nodes and intermediate nodes are responsible to select the route for data forwarding with link quality, higher residual energy and shortest distance (hop counts). The LCF can be calculated through Equation (1).


(1) In Fig.3 originally the route developed for data forwarding is based on: Source K B Courier node with LCF 13.23, 14.6, and 15.25, node B become the void node due to obstacles or energy depletion. The void node may be created due to two conditions: Condition-1: In this condition if any node is continuously dropping the packets due to void region; then that node will be considered as the void node. All the neighbor nodes are set as OBSERVER nodes. Every OBSERVER node forwards the data packets through optimal path and wait for ACK signal, if ACK signal received by OBSERVER node means forwarding mechanism is successful, if OBSERVER node does not receive any ACK signal during forwarding mechanism then OBSERVER node will declare the V-Error for OBSERVER neighbor nodes. In Fig.1 node B is continuously dropping the packets that node is considered as a void node in this case the OBSERVER node K which observes the activity of node B through ACK and OBSERVER node K will generate the V-Error (Void-Error) message along the path between B and K for source node. Now source node will choose the alternate path to forward the data packets.

Fig. 3 Creation of void node through void region

The alternate path is shown in Fig.4. The alternate path is set between source to courier node as: Source → J → P→

C → Courier node. Flowchart in Fig.5 focuses the operation of void node for void region with RREQ/RREP call procedures.

Fig. 4 Alternate route selection due to void region node

Flowchart in Fig.5 focuses the operation of void node for void region with RREQ/RREP call procedures. Condition-2: This condition focuses the void node through energy depletion. When the energy level of the node reduces due to its threshold level; the node become void node and will generate the V-Error message to its neighbour nodes and neighbour nodes will forward the V-Error message towards source node. The example for creation of void node is defined in Fig.6; node B will become the void node due to its energy depletion from its threshold value and will generate the V-Error message for its neighbour nodes. The neighbour node K will forward the V-Error messages to N, J, and source node.

Fig. 5 RREQ/RREP for void region void node


Fig. 6 Void node due to energy depletion

Source node will re-initiate the new possible route for packets forwarding; the new developed route is mentioned in Fig. 7. The new route is: Source J P C Courier node.

Fig. 7 Alternate route due to void node with energy depletion

The creation of void node due to energy depletion is given in protocol which is mentioned in Fig.8 with RREQ and RREP call procedure.

4. Performance evaluation of VNR

This section presents the performance evaluations of VNR with data success ratio. The performance evaluation for data success ratio is measured on static and dynamic node mobility, increased rate of packets, and different sink nodes. In Fig.9 the data success ratio is defined with number of nodes on static nodes, node speed with 2 m/sec, and node speed with 4 m/sec. It is observed that when node move with different speeds with number of nodes the data success rate cannot highly be affected. It is also observed that on number of nodes 300 and number of node 350 the data success ratio almost remains same.

Fig.8: RREQ/RREP for energy depletion void node


The performance simulation parameters are shown in Table 1. The NS2.30 with AquaSim simulator is used for performance analysis.

Table 1. NS2.30 Simulation parameters Parameters Values

Network Size 1500m x 1500m No. of Nodes 350

Surface to bottom layer distance 250m Data Packet size 64 byte

Initial Energy 70 J MAC Protocol (Shin & Kim, 2008) 802.11-DYNAV

Routing Pipe in VBF 100 m Energy consumption for transmitting 2w

Energy consumption for receiving 0.75w Energy consumption for idle listening 8mw

Energy Threshold 20% of initial Transmission range 100 m to 150 m

Surface sink distance difference 100 m Number of layers 7

Number of courier nodes 49 Simulation time 1000 sec

Fig. 9 No of nodes verses data success ratio for node movement in VNR

In Fig.10 VNR is tested on different offer loads. The test conditions are 1 packets/sec, 3 packets/2 sec, and 2 packets/sec. Normally the network generates 1 packets/sec, but here the network is tested with 3 packets/2 sec, and 2 packets/sec. On different offer loads it is observed that when the number of nodes increases the data success ratio varies with small change. It is also observed that on different offer loads the data success ratio also varies small in sparse and dense networks.

Fig. 10 No. of nodes versus data success ratio for different offer loads for VNR

In Fig.11, the data success ratio is measured on 1 sink node, 3 sink nodes, and 7 sink nodes which are deployed on the water surface. It is observed that when the number of sink nodes increases the data success ratio is also be increases, this shows that the VNR performed well in sparse and dense network. In Fig.11, when the numbers of nodes increase the data success rate may also be increased with 1 sink, 3 sink nodes, and on 7 sink nodes. The data success ratio is based on data forwarded from bottom courier nodes to upper courier nodes and upper courier nodes are responsible to forward the data to the surface sink nodes which are deployed on the water surface. The VNR protocol works on the bottom level of the water. It is observed that when any node goes down due to void regions or due to energy depletion the data success ratio may not be affected because the selection of alternate path cannot takes the much more time to delay the data packets.

VNR performance analysis comparison with other protocols

In this section the performance analysis of VNR is compared with GEDAR proposed by and VHGOR proposed by. GEDAR protocol removes the void node through depth-adjustment topology control mechanism under which the distance between forwarder and void node is uncontrollable. VHGOR removes the void problem through quick-hull protocol which uses the complex mechanism with convex and concave types of voids.

Fig. 11 Data success ratio with different sink nodes for VNR

Comparison of VNR with GEDAR

In Fig. 12, the data success ratio VNR and GEDAR is shown. The data success ratio of GEDAR is reduced as compare to VNR. VNR protocol is based on the multiple sink nodes which are deployed on the water surface and the use of powerful courier nodes which enhances the data success ratio. The optimal route selection mechanism of VNR through OBSERVER node, V-Error acknowledgement mechanism removes the void node route in efficient way. The re-intestate route with LCF selects the new optimal route enhance the performance of VNR in terms of data success ratio. On other hand the data


success ratio of GEDAR is reduced as compare to VNR because GEDAR removes the void node through depth-adjustment topology control mechanism. The topology control mechanism with depth-adjustment in underwater environment is not so easy due to underwater pressure, water temperature, water current and environmental conditions of water. In GEDAR the simulation performance is measured only with transmission range of 250m from surface to bottom of the sea; in real scenario such kind of transmission range is not the ideal. The distance from top to seabed is almost 17 kms; the depth-adjustment control mechanism proposed by GEDAR cannot control the distance. It is also observed from the simulation results of the GEDAR that if distance between void node and forwarder node increases the performance in data success ratio of GEDAR becomes decrease.

Fig. 12 No of nodes versus data success ratio of VNR over GEDAR

Comparison of VNR with VHGOR

In Fig.13, the data success ratio of VNR and VHGOR is shown, the data success ratio of VNR is higher than VHGOR because in VNR the data success ratio is based on the powerful courier nodes. In VNR the powerful courier nodes have high energy and high power as compare to the ordinary sensor nodes and courier nodes are fixed on different water layers. In VNR the route selection mechanism also uses the LCF which is based on link quality, residual energy level of the sensor node and, the minimum hop count; these three combined parameters generating the LCF and RREQ and RREP is based on LCF which selects the optimal route and source nodes are responsible to forward the data on LCF based route to the courier nodes. In VNR, the void node removal mechanism is based on removal of void node from void regions and from low energy values through alternate path mechanism. When data packets are received by courier nodes the courier nodes further forward the data packets towards upper level courier nodes with utilization of the maximum power levels (p1, p2,…,pn-1) and in this way the data will be received on the sink nodes which are deployed at the water surface. On other hand VHGOR removes the void nodes with quick-hull mechanism which removes the convex and concave void problems. VHGOR has not

defined the water depth from top to bottom of the sea which shows that the depth controlling mechanism is beyond the approach of VGHOR. If VHGOR is unable to handle the depth it shows that the node mobility in underwater environment is also uncontrollable; so VHGOR is unable to control the void node in underwater environment and ultimately this will affect the data success ratio.

Fig.13: No of nodes versus data success ratio of VNR over VHGOR

5. Conclusion

This research article focuses the design of Void Node Removal (VNR) routing protocol. The design of proposed routing protocol removes the void node form active data forwarding path in efficient way. The data forwarding mechanism refers the multipath route development mechanism through selection of LCF route from source to layer-7 courier nodes. If node becomes void due to underwater obstacles or due to energy depletion the alternate route selection mechanism is adapted for forwarding the packets from source to sink node through use of courier nodes and ordinary nodes. The performance of VNR is compared with GEDAR and VHGOR and from simulation performance the VNR performs well as compare to GEDAR and VHGOR. Reference [1] M. Ahmed, M. Salleh, and M. I. Channa, "CBE2R:

clustered-based energy efficient routing protocol for underwater wireless sensor network," International Journal of Electronics, vol. 105, pp. 1916-1930, 2018.

[2] P. Gjanci, C. Petrioli, S. Basagni, C. A. Phillips, L. Bölöni, and D. Turgut, "Path finding for maximum value of information in multi-modal underwater wireless sensor networks," IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 17, pp. 404-418, 2018.

[3] J. Naveen, P. Alphonse, and S. Chinnasamy, "3D grid clustering scheme for wireless sensor networks," The Journal of Supercomputing, pp. 1-13, 2018.

[4] R. Gomathi and J. M. L. Manickam, "Energy Efficient Shortest Path Routing Protocol for Underwater Acoustic


Wireless Sensor Network," Wireless Personal Communications, vol. 98, pp. 843-856, 2018.

[5] N. Javaid, M. R. Jafri, Z. A. Khan, U. Qasim, T. A. Alghamdi, and M. Ali, "iAMCTD: Improved Adaptive Mobility of Courier Nodes in Threshold-Optimized DBR Protocol for Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks," International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, vol. 10, pp. 1-12, 2014.

[6] A. Wahid, S. Lee, D. Kim, and K. S. Lim, "MRP: A Localization-Free Multi-Layered Routing Protocol for Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks," Wireless Personal Communications, vol. 77, pp. 2997-3012, Aug 2014.

[7] A. Darehshoorzadeh and A. Boukerche, "Underwater sensor networks: a new challenge for opportunistic routing protocols," Communications Magazine, IEEE, vol. 53, pp. 98-107, 2015.

[8] B. Diao, Y. Xu, Z. An, F. Wang, and C. Li, "Improving Both Energy and Time Efficiency of Depth-Based Routing for Underwater Sensor Networks," International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, vol. 11, pp. 1-9, 2015.

[9] M. Ahmed and M. Salleh, "Localization schemes in Underwater Sensor Network (UWSN): A Survey," Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, vol. 1, pp. 119-125, 2015.

[10] M. Ahmed, M. Salleh, M. I. Channa, and M. F. Rohani, "RMEER: Reliable Multi-path Energy Efficient Routing Protocol for Underwater Wireless Sensor Network," International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE), vol. 8, 2018.

[11] B. Ali, A. Sher, N. Javaid, K. Aurangzeb, and S. I. Haider, "Retransmission Avoidance for Reliable Data Delivery in Underwater WSNs," Sensors, vol. 18, p. 149, 2018.

[12] N. Goyal, M. Dave, and A. K. Verma, "A novel fault detection and recovery technique for cluster ‐ based underwater wireless sensor networks," International Journal of Communication Systems, vol. 31, p. e3485, 2018.

[13] S. Gul, S. H. Jokhio, and I. A. Jokhio, "Light-weight depth-based routing for underwater wireless sensor network," in Advancements in Computational Sciences (ICACS), 2018 International Conference on, 2018, pp. 1-7.

[14] P. Xie, Z. Zhou, Z. Peng, J.-H. Cui, and Z. Shi, "Void avoidance in three-dimensional mobile underwater sensor networks," in Wireless Algorithms, Systems, and Applications, ed: Springer, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009, pp. 305-314.

[15] U. Lee, P. Wang, Y. Noh, F. Vieira, M. Gerla, and J.-H. Cui, "Pressure routing for underwater sensor networks," in INFOCOM, 2010 Proceedings IEEE, 2010, pp. 1-9.

[16] R. W. Coutinho, L. F. Vieira, and A. A. Loureiro, "DCR: Depth-Controlled routing protocol for underwater sensor networks," in Computers and Communications (ISCC), 2013 IEEE Symposium on, Split, Croatia, 2013, pp. 000453-000458.

[17] Y. Noh, U. Lee, P. Wang, B. S. C. Choi, and M. Gerla, "VAPR: void-aware pressure routing for underwater sensor networks," IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 12, pp. 895-908, 2013.

[18] R. W. Coutinho, A. Boukerche, L. F. Vieira, and A. A. Loureiro, "Geographic and opportunistic routing for underwater sensor networks," IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 65, pp. 548-561, 2016.

[19] N. Kanthimathi, "Void handling using Geo-Opportunistic Routing in underwater wireless sensor networks," Computers & Electrical Engineering, vol. 127, pp. 1-15, 2017.

vnr: void node removal routing protocol for underwater

Documents