3.8 Proceedings Paper

Data-driven Bottom-up Cluster-tree Formation based on the IEEE 802.15.4/ZigBee Protocols

出版社

IEEE
DOI: 10.1109/IECON48115.2021.9589465

关键词

cluster-tree; data-based WSNs; bottom-up

资金

  1. PQ UFPI [04/2020/PROPESQI/PRPG/UFPI]
  2. FAPEPI/MCT/CNPq/CT-INFRA [007/2018]
  3. project PrInt CAPES-UFSC Automation 4.0
  4. CNPq/Brazil [443711/2018-6]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) are fundamental for implementing IoT solutions and supporting Industry 4.0 applications, with characteristics such as high scalability, synchronized communication, and low power consumption. The network topology plays a key role in the design of WSNs, and utilizing a Bottom-Up Formation mechanism can reduce communication delays and improve success rates.
Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) have become a fundamental technology for implementing Internet of Things (IoT) solutions and supporting Industry 4.0 applications. This technology presents as main characteristics: high scalability, synchronized communication, and low power consumption. The network topological formation is a key factor in the design of WSNs, as the structure resulting from this process dictates the operation mode in which the network should handle such issues. For this, standards such as IEEE 802.15.4 and ZigBee have composed an adequate protocol stack, providing support for complex network topologies, such as cluster-tree. The objective of this work is to implement cluster-tree topology formation mechanisms driven by the data generated of sensor nodes, called the Bottom-Up Formation (BUF). The underlying idea is to select cluster-heads and build clusters following a bottom-up approach, aiming to define homogeneous tree branches in order to prioritize different data traffic. The results demonstrate that, compared to a state-of-the-art approach, the proposed mechanisms can reduce communication delays by up to 63%, achieve communication success rates of up to 99%, and extend the nodes' lifetime.

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

3.8
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