4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

TADP: Enabling temporal and distantial priority scheduling for on-demand charging architecture in wireless rechargeable sensor Networks

期刊

JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE
卷 70, 期 -, 页码 26-38

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.sysarc.2016.04.005

关键词

Wireless rechargeable sensor networks; Charging scheduling; Temporal & distantial priority charging; scheduling; Preemption; On-demand charging architecture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recently, adopting mobile energy chargers to replenish the energy supply of sensor nodes in wireless sensor networks has gained increasing attentions from the research community. The utilization of the mobile energy chargers provides a more reliable energy supply than systems harvesting dynamic energy from the surrounding environment Wireless power transfer technique provides a new alternative for solving the limited power capacity problem for so many popular mobile wireless devices, and makes wireless rechargeable sensor networks (WRSNs) promising. However, mainly due to the underestimate of the unbalanced influences of spatial and temporal constraints posed by charging requests, traditional scheduling strategies for on-demand WRSNs architecture achieve rather low charging request throughput or successful rate, posing as a major bottleneck for further improvements. In this paper, we propose a Temporal & Distantial Priority charging scheduling algorithm (TADP), which takes both the distance between nodes and the mobile charger and the arrival time of charging requests into consideration, and quantizes these two factors step by step. TADP forms a mixed priority queue which directs mobile charger to replenish the energy for nodes. At last extensive simulations are conducted to demonstrate the advantages of TADP. Simulation results reveal that TADP can achieve better scheduling performance in guaranteeing the scheduling success of the high-priority tasks and improving stability of the system. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.6
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