Emre Sahin , Orhan Dagdeviren , Mustafa Alper Akkas
{"title":"Energy-efficient hierarchical cluster-based routing strategies for Internet of Nano-Things: Algorithms design and experimental evaluations","authors":"Emre Sahin , Orhan Dagdeviren , Mustafa Alper Akkas","doi":"10.1016/j.adhoc.2024.103673","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Nanodevices (NDs), which are only a few nanometers (nm) in size, need to communicate with each other to perform complex operations. In nanonetworks, this communication typically involves multiple hops, requiring efficient routing protocols. Existing protocols are not well suited for nanonetworks due to their high resource consumption and setup overhead. In this paper, we propose three novel routing protocols for nanodevices. Non-Back Flooding Routing (NBFR) and Layer-Based Flooding Routing (LBFR) aim to reduce unnecessary packet transmission by utilizing distance and layer information based on received signal power. On the other hand, Tree-Based Forwarding Routing (TBFR) is a unicast-based approach that aims to transmit the packet to the destination using the shortest and most reliable path possible through a tree structure. The performance of these proposed methods is compared to well-known methods in terms of packet transmission, energy consumption, end-to-end delay, and setup overhead. TBFR achieved a packet transmission success of 92.95% in topology with the highest density of nanorouters (NRs), while it reached up to 99.57% for fewer nanorouters. Moreover, its end-to-end delay values are much lower than those of multi-path routing protocols. It also consumed one-fifth of the energy compared to its most challenging multi-path competitor, NBFR, regarding packet transmission success. However, for dense nanosensor (NS) topologies, NBFR and LBFR achieved higher packet transmission rates of 87.04% and 86.66%, respectively. Furthermore, in addition to achieving low end-to-end delays, the energy consumption of NBFR is very close to that of TBFR. In summary, the tests show that TBFR is more suitable for communication among nanorouters due to the requirement of building the tree structure, which results in a slightly higher setup overhead. In contrast, NBFR and LBFR are more suitable for communication between nanosensors because of their simplicity and low setup overhead. But, it should be noted that NBFR requires a larger header than the other alternatives.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55555,"journal":{"name":"Ad Hoc Networks","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ad Hoc Networks","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570870524002841","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Nanodevices (NDs), which are only a few nanometers (nm) in size, need to communicate with each other to perform complex operations. In nanonetworks, this communication typically involves multiple hops, requiring efficient routing protocols. Existing protocols are not well suited for nanonetworks due to their high resource consumption and setup overhead. In this paper, we propose three novel routing protocols for nanodevices. Non-Back Flooding Routing (NBFR) and Layer-Based Flooding Routing (LBFR) aim to reduce unnecessary packet transmission by utilizing distance and layer information based on received signal power. On the other hand, Tree-Based Forwarding Routing (TBFR) is a unicast-based approach that aims to transmit the packet to the destination using the shortest and most reliable path possible through a tree structure. The performance of these proposed methods is compared to well-known methods in terms of packet transmission, energy consumption, end-to-end delay, and setup overhead. TBFR achieved a packet transmission success of 92.95% in topology with the highest density of nanorouters (NRs), while it reached up to 99.57% for fewer nanorouters. Moreover, its end-to-end delay values are much lower than those of multi-path routing protocols. It also consumed one-fifth of the energy compared to its most challenging multi-path competitor, NBFR, regarding packet transmission success. However, for dense nanosensor (NS) topologies, NBFR and LBFR achieved higher packet transmission rates of 87.04% and 86.66%, respectively. Furthermore, in addition to achieving low end-to-end delays, the energy consumption of NBFR is very close to that of TBFR. In summary, the tests show that TBFR is more suitable for communication among nanorouters due to the requirement of building the tree structure, which results in a slightly higher setup overhead. In contrast, NBFR and LBFR are more suitable for communication between nanosensors because of their simplicity and low setup overhead. But, it should be noted that NBFR requires a larger header than the other alternatives.
期刊介绍:
The Ad Hoc Networks is an international and archival journal providing a publication vehicle for complete coverage of all topics of interest to those involved in ad hoc and sensor networking areas. The Ad Hoc Networks considers original, high quality and unpublished contributions addressing all aspects of ad hoc and sensor networks. Specific areas of interest include, but are not limited to:
Mobile and Wireless Ad Hoc Networks
Sensor Networks
Wireless Local and Personal Area Networks
Home Networks
Ad Hoc Networks of Autonomous Intelligent Systems
Novel Architectures for Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks
Self-organizing Network Architectures and Protocols
Transport Layer Protocols
Routing protocols (unicast, multicast, geocast, etc.)
Media Access Control Techniques
Error Control Schemes
Power-Aware, Low-Power and Energy-Efficient Designs
Synchronization and Scheduling Issues
Mobility Management
Mobility-Tolerant Communication Protocols
Location Tracking and Location-based Services
Resource and Information Management
Security and Fault-Tolerance Issues
Hardware and Software Platforms, Systems, and Testbeds
Experimental and Prototype Results
Quality-of-Service Issues
Cross-Layer Interactions
Scalability Issues
Performance Analysis and Simulation of Protocols.