4.7 Review

Successors of PEGASIS protocol: A comprehensive survey

期刊

COMPUTER SCIENCE REVIEW
卷 39, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cosrev.2021.100368

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper provides a sophisticated survey of chain-based routing protocols in WSNs, discussing their importance in balancing power consumption, multi hop/single hop communication, and multi hop/multi hop communication. It outlines the benefits, shortcomings, and future research directions of these protocols based on data transmission methods and performance evaluation metrics.
Routing protocols as one of the key communication techniques that intend to enable and maintain robust communication routes in the network, play a significant part in boosting the performance of Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs). During the last 18 years, researchers proposed several diverse modifications of chain-based routing protocols in WSN as they are effective in balancing the WSN power-consumption. The first and most popular chain-based routing protocol is Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems (PEGASIS). We provide in this paper, a sophisticated survey of chain-based routing protocols in WSNs that are successors of PEGASIS in terms of Multi hop/Single hop Communication and Multi hop/Multi hop Communication. Initially, we give an outline of the challenges in designing WSN routing protocols, and subsequently a detailed survey focusing on chain-based routing protocols with details, benefits and key shortcomings of each technique is presented. Additionally, we discuss the properties of chain-based routing concept along with the used metrics for performance evaluation. The chain-based routing protocols are classified according to how data is transmitted from member nodes to the leader of chain and from the leaders to the Base Station (BS). Moreover, the applications of chain-based routing protocols and future directions for researchers are also highlighted. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据