 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Exploiting sensor redistribution for eliminating the energy hole problem in mobile sensor networks
EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking volume 2012, Article number: 68 (2012)
Abstract
The use of mobile sensors is of great relevance to monitor hazardous applications where sensors cannot be deployed manually. Traditional algorithms primarily aim at maximizing network coverage rate, which leads to the creation of the "energy hole" in the region near the sink node. In this article, we are addressing the problem of redistributing mobile sensor nodes over an unattended target area. Driven by energy efficiency considerations, a pixelbased transmission scheme is developed to reduce extra overhead caused by frequent sensing and decision making. We derive the optimal node distribution and provide a theoretical explanation of balanced energy depletion for coronabased sensor network. In addition, we demonstrate that it can be extended to deal with uneven energy depletion due to the manytoone communications in multihop wireless sensor networks. Applying the optimal condition, we then propose a novel sensor redistribution algorithm to completely eliminate the energy hole problem in mobile sensor network. Extensive simulation results verify that the proposed solution outperforms others in terms of coverage rate, average moving distance, residual energy, and total energy consumption.
1. Introduction
Wireless sensor network (WSN) usually consists of a large number of static sensor nodes that are densely deployed for object monitoring and target tracking either inside the phenomenon or very close to it [1]. Sensor nodes are able to measure various parameters of the environment and transmit collected data to the sink node through multihop communication. Once the sink node received sensed data, it processes and forwards it to the users.
Nodes deployment is the first step in establishing a sensor network. In general, sensor nodes are typically battery powered and randomly deployed over a target area. Once deployed, they are left unattended. In many potential working environments, such as monitoring hazardous applications over disaster areas, deploying such a stationary sensor network cannot be performed manually or precisely. Thus, maintaining its sensing coverage could be a difficult task. As a result, it is necessary to make use of mobile sensors, which can autonomously discover and repair coverage holes.
How to optimize energy consumption to prolong network lifetime is one of the fundamental issues arising in WSN. To address this issue, much work has been done during recent years where mobility of sensors is taken advantage of to achieve desired distribution [2–8]. Typically, most of these works have addressed the redistribution of mobile sensors to achieve a uniform coverage of a certain density in the target area. If the sensor nodes are deployed uniformly, the sensors closer to the sink not only need to send their own sensed data, but also forward data collected by other sensors farther away from the sink node. In this case, those sensors near the sink node will consume more energy and die more quickly. Once those nodes are dead, no more data can be transmitted to the sink. As a result, the network would get disconnected, with up to 90% of the total initial energy left unused in a normal uniform distribution [9]. Exploiting redistribution of the nodes by using sensor mobility to balance the energy depletion is of great importance to prolong the network lifetime.
In this article, we investigate and try to eliminate the energy hole problem with nonuniform node distribution in mobile WSN. We first propose a new data transmission mechanism to reduce the redundant messages being sent. We also prove that based on this transmission mechanism, an energybalanced depletion among all the working sensors is possible when each corona has an appropriate node density. Then, the concept of the equivalent sensing radius is devised and a novel sensor distribution algorithm for mobile sensor networks is proposed to achieve balanced energy depletion based on genetic algorithm. Further, we conduct extensive simulations to validate the analysis and compare the performance of these algorithms. Simulation results show that when the network lifetime ends, the nodes in the target area almost use up their energy simultaneously, which can prolong the network lifetime effectively.
2. Related study
Sensor distribution is a critical issue because it affects the cost, connectivity, and detection capability of WSN. There has been some work on the sensor distribution to maintain full coverage as well as connectivity with optimal sensor movement for mobile sensor networks. In [4], the authors assume that there are virtual attractive and repulsive forces among sensors, and based on these virtual forces, sensors can spread throughout the environment with a uniform distribution to achieve the network coverage. In [6], the authors propose a Voronoi diagrambased distribution model, in which each sensor iteratively calculates its Voronoi polygon to detect its coverage holes and moves to a better position to enhance the coverage rate of the field. In [7], the authors investigate how to move sensors while still maintaining complete coverage of the field. In [8], the sensing field is divided into grids. And then, the sensors move from highdensity grids to lowdensity ones to construct a uniform topology. These algorithms all focused on finding a uniform distribution of sensor nodes, to improve the coverage performance for mobile sensor network. However, as the uniform distribution may lead to unbalanced energy depletion, the above approaches will cause prematurely the end of the network lifetime with a considerable amount of energy wasted.
The problem of uneven energy consumption in a large class of manytoone sensor networks was investigated by Li and Mohapatra [9] for the first time. Further, they proposed several approaches to mitigate this problem and inferred that simply increasing the number of nodes cannot prolong the system lifetime under a uniform distribution [10]. In [11], the authors propose a transmission range adjustment approach to tackle the unbalanced energy depletion. However, searching the optimal transmission ranges of sensors among all the coronas is an NPcomplete problem. In [12], the authors use mobile sensors to heal energy holes, but the cost of their approaches is considerably large. The mobile relays [13] and mobile sink [14] are also imported to avoid energy hole. However, as the nodes near the sink or relay nodes always changed over time, the energy imbalance is only mitigated and how to plan the optimal mobility trajectory is very difficult. In [15], the authors focus on variable node distribution density in order to mitigate the effects of the uneven energy depletion. However, associated with their routing strategy, the uneven energy depletion still exists. The authors in [16] also investigated the energy hole problem in WSN with nonuniform node distribution. With their theoretical analysis, when all the sensors have a constant data acquisition rate, the energybalanced depletion among the whole network is impossible. Nevertheless, nearly balanced energy depletion in the network is possible if the number of nodes increases in geometric progression from the outer coronas to the inner ones except the outermost one. Based on this strategy, the authors in [17] propose an autonomous sensor redeployment algorithm δPush&Pull to mitigate the sinkhole problem. However, as they assume that each sensor has a constant data acquisition rate, which may not be true for highly dense WSN and the uneven energy depletion still exists between the outermost corona and the inner coronas. In fact, we can prove that completely balanced energy depletion is achievable with the additional help of pixelbased transmission mechanism in this article.
The rest of the article is organized as follows. Section 3 describes the preliminary work and the network model for our discussion. Section 4 theoretically analyzes how to balance the energy depletion and computes the node density for each corona. A new nonuniform node distribution strategy is proposed for energybalanced depletion in Section 5. Section 6 presents the simulation results for our algorithms, and Section 7 concludes the article.
3. Preliminary work and network model
3.1. Network model and assumptions
In this section, we present our network model and make some basic assumptions about such a model. Assume that a set of N heterogeneous sensors are deployed in a circular area with radius d in order to monitor some physical phenomenon. Each sensor node has an ID, a fixed transmission range R_{ c }, and a fixed sensing range R_{ s }. All of the sensor nodes are aware of their position and can report the location where the information is sensed. The only sink node is located at the centre of the circle, as shown in Figure 1.
We divide the area into n adjacent coronas with the same width of R_{ c }. For clear presentation, the coronas from inside to outside are denoted as C_{1}, C_{2},..., C_{ i }, ..., C_{ n }. Obviously, the corona C_{ i } is composed of nodes whose distances to the sink are between (i  1)*R_{ c } and i*R_{ c }.
The network works in two phases: the first phase of node redistribution and the second phase of field monitoring and data gathering. During the second phase, each working sensor should send its sensing message to the sink node periodically. The corona survival lifetime is defined as the number of working rounds in which its sensors participate until the first sensor runs out of energy. With regard to the network survival lifetime, it can be calculated as the minimum survival time of its coronas.
We use a simplified power consumption model and do not mention any physical layer functionality or solution in MAC layer. In our model, the energy consumption is only dominated by communication costs, as opposed to sensing and processing costs. The initial energy of each sensor is set as ε > 0, and the sink node has no energy limitation. We further assume that a sensor consumes e_{1} units of energy when sending one bit while it depletes e_{2} units of energy when receiving one bit, where e_{1} > e_{2} > 0.
3.2. Coverage model
The target area A is digitized into m*n pixels and each pixel size is equal to 1. We refer to the set of sensor nodes which has been deployed in the target area as S = {s_{1}, s_{2}, ..., s_{ N }}. The coverage model of each sensor s_{ i } can be expressed as a circle with center of its coordinates (x_{ i }, y_{ i }) and radius r_{ i }. A random variable c_{ i } is introduced to describe the event that a pixel (x, y) is covered by the sensor s_{ i }. In hence, the probability of an event c_{ i }, denoted as P{c_{ i }}, is equal to the coverage probability P_{cov}(x, y, n_{ i }). This may degenerate to a twovalued function
That is to say, a pixel (x, y) is covered by a sensor s_{ i } if its distance to the circle center (x_{ i }, y_{ i }) is not larger than the radius r_{ i }. Since any random event c_{ i } is independent to the others, r_{ i } and r_{ j } are unrelated, i, j ∈ [1, N] and i ≠ j. Then, the following two relationships can be concluded,
where ${\stackrel{\u0304}{c}}_{i}$ is the complement of c_{ i }, denoting that s_{ i } fails to cover the pixel (x, y). It can be considered that the pixel (x, y) is covered if any node in the set covers it. So, the probability of the pixel (x, y) covered by the node set can be denoted as the union of c_{ i }
Finally, we define the coverage rate of the sensor set P_{cov}(S) as the proportion of the coverage area A_{ area }(C) to the total area A_{ s },
3.3. Pixelbased transmission mechanism
With traditional transmission mechanism, the sensing messages for redundant coverage area would be retransmitted by more than one sensor, causing a tremendous amount of energy to be wasted [15]. In order to save energy, a novel data transmission mechanism is deigned in this article.
After all the sensor nodes are redistributed, each sensor node needs to decide its working area for periodically field sensing and transmitting. In this article, we take intersection of each sensor's Voronoi polygon and its sensing disk as the sensing area, as shown in Figure 2. The Voronoi polygon is an important graph in computational geometry [18, 19], which can represent the proximity information of a set of geometric nodes. Since the interior pixels in a given polygon are closer to its sensor than to any other one, with the help of Voronoi polygon, it can guarantee that the sensing message for each pixel is sensed and transmitted only once.
To construct the Voronoi polygon, all the sensors should calculate the bisectors of their neighbors and themselves. These bisectors could form several polygons, and the smallest one encircling the sensor is the Voronoi polygon of this sensor. In our approach, as all the sensors keep stationary after redistribution, the Voronoi graph is constructed only when the process of nodes redistribution control has finished. Hence, the Voronoi diagram will remain unchanged until the end of network lifetime. Furthermore, in order to reduce the extra overhead caused by frequent sensing area decision and minimize the sensing time efficiently, each node should remember all of the sensing pixels after its Voronoi polygon is built. With these supports, the extra energy consumption caused by sensing area decision is similar to the typical Voronoi application in WSNs [6]. By the use of Voronoi polygon construction and pixel remembering, this is named as pixelbased transmission mechanism in this article.
Figure 2 shows the difference of our mechanism with traditional mechanism, where Figure 2a is the initial sensor deployment, and Figure 2b is the corresponding sensing area in each sensor's Voionoi diagram (with different colors). When traditional transmission mechanism is used, the number of messages transmitted by sensor S_{2} is 14 (the green area shown in Figure 2a). While the pixelbased transmission mechanism is used, the number of messages transmitted reduced to 10. To sum up, as the duplicate sensing message is sent only once by the use of pixelbased transmission mechanism, the total number of duplicated messages saved to transmit is 12.
4. Accessibility condition for energybalanced depletion
In our network model, nodes belonging to corona {C_{ i }i ≠ n} will forward both the data generated by themselves and the data generated by coronas {C_{ j }(i+1) ≤ j ≤ n}. While the nodes in the outermost corona C_{ n } need not forward any data. Assume that the sensors in each corona are distributed uniformly and there is no data aggregation at any forwarding nodes. Define the number of nodes deployed in corona C_{ i } is N_{ i } and the number of pixels in corona C_{ i } is A_{ i }. Based on the pixelbased transmission mechanism, the number of messages for corona C_{ i } to receive and forward is (A_{i+1}+ A_{i+2}+···+A_{ n }) and (A_{ i }+A_{i+1}+···+A_{ n }). As the sensing messages are transmitted per working round, the average energy consumption per working round of sensors in corona C_{ i } is
where e_{1} is the energy consumed in sending one bit message, and e_{2} is the energy consumed in receiving one bit message. Note that Equation (5) can be simplified as
where ρ_{ i } is the node density of corona C_{ i }.
Sensors in corona C_{ n } only need to send their own sensing messages, so the energy depletion of sensors in corona C_{ n } is
Thus, we can formulate ${\mathit{\u0112}}_{i}$ as follows
Ideally, when all the nodes deplete their energy with the same ratio, the network lifetime is prolonged and the energy efficiency is improved. In particular, there is no energy wasted and the network lifetime can be given by
Theorem 1: Perfect and maximum energy efficiency is possible when the node distribution density ρ_{ i } in corona C_{ i } satisfies
Proof: To use the deductive method, suppose Equation (10) is true, thus Equation (6) can be rewrote as follows
Owing to ${A}_{i}=\pi {R}_{c}^{2}\cdot \left(2i1\right)$, after basic transformations, we have
Since $\frac{d{\rho}_{i}}{di}=\frac{2i}{\left(2i1\right)}\frac{2\left({n}^{2}{i}^{2}\right)}{{\left(2i1\right)}^{2}}<0$ is a permanent establishment, we can get the following conclusion, ρ_{1} ≥ ρ_{2} ≥ ··· ≥ ρ_{ n }. This completes the proof of Theorem 1.
From Theorem 1, if all the sensors adopt the pixelbased data transmission mechanism, and the node density of each corona obeys a certain condition, the energybalanced depletion of the whole network can be achieved. In addition, we can draw a conclusion that ρ_{ i } only relates to ρ_{ n } and its corona number i.
Further we will analyze the lifetime enhancement of the nonuniform distribution strategy to the traditional one. Note that the node density in nonuniform distribution satisfies Equation (10) and the initial conditions are the same. In the uniform distribution, the density ρ_{ i } is equal to ρ_{ n }. As the innermost corona C_{1} needs to forward all of the sensing messages in the whole network, it consumes the most energy. Thus, the maximum lifetime of network in uniform distribution is determined by the survival time C_{1}. The network lifetime can be calculated as
where ${\mathit{\u0112}}_{1}^{\prime}$ is the average energy depletion of C_{1} per unit time in uniform distribution. Using Equation (8), we can get the average energy depletion in C_{1} under energybalanced conditions as
Thus, the lifetime enhancement is
Therefore, the network lifetime of nonuniform distribution can be extended ρ_{ 1 }/ρ_{ n } times effectively compared with the traditional uniform distribution strategy.
5. Nonuniform node distribution optimization
In this article, the energybalanced node distribution is defined as the state when all the working sensors in the whole network use up their energy simultaneously. In this section, we first describe the concept of equivalent sensing radius. And then, the energybalanced node distribution problem is transformed into uniform distribution optimization problem with different sensing radius. Further, we give an NSGAIIbased node [20] redistribution approach to solve this problem.
5.1. Equivalent sensing radius
Definition 1 (equivalent sensing radius): it is defined as the sensing radius when the given distribution density ρ_{ i } is the lowest one to maintain network coverage.
As the hexagonal distribution is the optimal sensor distribution to cover the target area completely with the fewest sensors [21], we define Hex(i) as the hexagonal area covered by sensor s_{ i } with the sensing radius R_{ i }. It can be calculated as
And the minimum distribution density ρ_{ i } to fully cover the area is
Thus, the relationship of the equivalent sensing radius and the optimal distribution density ρ_{ i } is
Theorem 2: If the sensor selection algorithm uses the equivalent sensing radius R_{ i } according to the density ρ_{ i }, the network can achieve balanced energy depletion, where R_{ i } satisfies,
Proof: According to Equation (18), the minimum density ρ_{ i } to fully cover the corona C_{ i } with equivalent sensing radius R_{ i } can be calculated as
As the outermost corona only needs to send its own sensing messages, its sensing radius is equal to its sensing radius R_{ s }. Then the minimum density ρ_{ s } to fully cover the corona C_{ n } is
Substitute the above equation into Equation (10) and combine it with Equation (20), we have
After transformation, we have
This concludes the proof of Theorem 2.
Therefore, by introducing the equivalent sensing radius, this thorny issue can be transformed into a uniform distribution optimization problem with different sensing radius, which gives the chance of using present distribution algorithms. In this article, the node distribution algorithm is combined with our previous NSGAIIbased approach [22], in which we made major modifications to satisfy the condition defined in Equation (10).
The novel sensor distribution algorithm mainly contains two parts: movement control among different coronas and movement control in each corona. The first part aims at moving the nodes between the adjacent coronas so as to meet the needs of different sensor densities, while the second part aims to achieve an optimal node distribution.
5.2. Movement control among coronas
As the nodes are randomly deployed in the target area, this uncertainty may cause that the number of deployed nodes is greater or less than that the corona really needs. The movement control among coronas will satisfy the desired node density according to Equation (10) for each corona. Meanwhile, in order to avoid consuming too much energy in the moving process, the nodes are only allowed moving to the adjacent coronas. By using a stepwise manner, the whole moving process is shown as follows
Step 1: The sink or the cluster head counts sensors deployed for each corona. Set the number of sensors deployed in corona C_{ i } is deployedNumInC_{ i }.
Step 2. The sink or the cluster head computes the desired number of sensors desireNumInC_{ i } for each corona. It is calculated as desireNumInC_{ i } = ρ_{ i } * S_{ i }, where S_{ i } is the area of corona C_{ i }.
Step 3. From the outermost corona C_{ N } to the innermost corona C_{1}, the relationship between deployedNumInC_{ i } and desireNumInC_{ i } is determined sequentially, and then
Step 3.1. If deployedNumInC_{ i } > desireNumInC_{ i }, then deployedNumInC_{ i }  desireNumInC_{ i } nodes nearer to corona C_{i 1}are selected from C_{ i } to move straight to C_{i 1}. Based on such analysis, the number of sensors deployed in C_{i 1}can be updated as deployedNumInC_{i1}= deployedNumInC_{i1}+ (deployedNumInC_{ i }  desireNumInC_{ i });
Step 3.2. If deployedNumInC_{ i } < desireNumInC_{ i }, then desireNumInC_{ i }  deployedNumInC_{ i } nodes nearer to corona C_{ i } are selected from C_{i 1}to move straight to C_{ i }. Similarly, the number of sensors in C_{i 1}is updated as deployedNumInC_{i1}= deployedNumInC_{i1} (desireNumInC_{ i }  deployedNumInC_{ i }).
5.3. Movements control in each corona
According to Equation (19), the equivalent sensing radius is only related to corona number i. Therefore, the movement control in corona C_{ i } is similar to the traditional uniform node distribution problem. The main objective of movement control in each corona is to fully cover C_{ i } with minimum moving distance.
Define the sensor set in C_{ i } as Set_{ i } = {s_{i 1}, s_{i 2}, ..., s_{ in }}, the initial and final location of Set_{ i } are L_{iinitial}= {l_{i 1}, l_{i 2}, ..., l_{ in }} and ${L}_{i\mathsf{\text{final}}}=\left\{{l}_{i1}^{\prime},{l}_{i2}^{\prime},\dots ,{l}_{in}^{\prime}\right\}$. The movements control in C_{ i } can be described as the following Multiobjective Optimization Problem (MOP):
Remarks:

The objective function wants to maximize the network coverage rate while minimize the total moving distance of sensors.

The first constraint requires that the distances between the initial and final position of any sensor is not larger than d_{th}.

The second constraint requires that the new location for each sensor is still in the region of corona C_{ i }.
As discussed above, the goal of movement control in corona is to find the solutions giving the best tradeoff between the two conflict objectives, known as Pareto optimal. As NSGAII is recognized to be well qualified to tackle MOPs, we then propose a NSGAIIbased algorithm to find the best node distribution in each corona.
NSGAII works by evolving a set of solutions to a problem inspired by the genetic mechanisms of natural species evolution [23]. In order to tailor NSGAII for a particular problem, the individual representation and the corresponding recombination and mutation operator are inevitable.
Represent solutions for the problem is the first issue in an NSGAII application. Aiming at the problem of node distribution optimization in each corona, an effective coding scheme is applied to represent solutions based on node coordinate, as shown in Figure 3.
The implementation of recombination and mutation necessarily depends on the underlying genotypic representation. As the node coordinatebased representation is adopted, the traditional binary genetic operator cannot be used directly. Therefore, the simulated binary crossover operator (SBX) [24] is applied. Define the parents are ${\u0101}_{1}$ and ${\u0101}_{2}$, and the two children produced by SBX are ${\stackrel{\rightharpoonup}{c}}_{1}$ and ${\stackrel{\rightharpoonup}{c}}_{2}$. In hence, the gene ${C}_{l,i}\left({x}_{{c}_{1,i}},{y}_{{c}_{1,i}}\right)$ and ${C}_{2,i}\left({x}_{{c}_{2,i}},{y}_{{c}_{2,i}}\right)$ in children ${\stackrel{\rightharpoonup}{c}}_{1}$ and ${\stackrel{\rightharpoonup}{c}}_{1}$ are
where β is the upper limit of the integral corresponding to the probability distribution curve. The mutation operator is applied for each new child generated after recombination. In this article, the exponential mutation is adopted. If an element a_{ i } is selected to be mutated, its value changed as
where t is the generation number, L_{ i } and U_{ i } are, respectively, the lower and upper bounds of a_{ i }, which is defined by the second constraint in Equation (26). Note that δ(t, x) is an exponential function, and it is defined as
where u is a random number, T is the maximum number of generations, and η is an exponent determining the probability distribution.
Similar to the VFA [4], the execution of node distribution problem is designed to be executed on the sink or cluster node, which is expected to have more computational resources. In this way, it would save more computing power for each individual sensor. The sink or the cluster head uses our algorithm to find these appropriate locations, and the designated positions are sent back to the sensors. No movements are performed during the execution of the algorithm. The main procedure of our algorithm is described as follows.
Input: Initial sensor location $\left\{{\stackrel{\u0304}{X}}_{S\text{\_}initial},{\mathit{\u0232}}_{S\text{\_}initial}\right\}$ in corona C_{ i }
The number of generations T and the population size K
The recombination probability P_{ r };
The mutation probability P_{ m };
The reduction rate of controlled elitism ρ.
Output: new sensors' location $\left\{{\stackrel{\u0304}{X}}_{S},{\mathit{\u0232}}_{S}\right\}$ in corona C_{ i }
Step 1 (initialization):
Set t = 0, P' = ϕ;
Generate an initial population P randomly;
Calculate f_{1}(x) and f_{2}(x) for each individual by Equation (24);
Step 2 (Nondominated sorting):
P = P∪P';
Do fast nondominated sorting algorithm, resulting nondominated fronts (F_{ 1 }, F_{ 2, }..., F_{ R });
Step 3 (controlled elitism)
Set r = 1 and P = ϕ;
While P < K do

(1)
Calculate n_{ r } according to the controlled elitism scheme;

(2)
Sort F_{ r } in descending order using crowded comparison;

(3)
Put the first n_{ r } members of F_{ r } in P, i.e., P = P∪F_{ r }[1:n_{ r }];

(4)
r = r + 1.
Step 4 (Fitness assignment):
Assign fitness to each individual according to its position in P;
Step 5 (Reproduction)
Generate an offspring P' from P according to SBX and mutation operator;
Calculate f_{1}(x) and f_{2}(x) for each individual in P';
Step 6 (Termination):
t = t + 1;
if t ≥ T or the required f_{1}(x) and f_{2}(x) are met then terminate;
else go to Step 2.
The complexity of the fast nondominated sort is O(2N^{2}), the crowding distance assignment is O(2N logN) and the controlled elitism sorting is O(2N log(2N)). Thus, the overall complexity of the above algorithm is O(2N^{2}), where N is the number of sensors deployed in corona C_{ i }.
6. Simulation results
In this section, we will present a set of experiments designed to evaluate the performance of the proposed algorithm. Three metrics, including coverage rate, the total moving distance, and the network survival lifetime, are measured and compared with existing algorithms.
The initial energy reserve of each node ε is 10000 J, the values of e_{1} and e_{2} are given as follows: e_{1} = 0.5/10^{3} J/bit, e_{2} = 0.25/10^{3} J/bit [25]. The length of unit sensing data L is 1000 bits, the transmission range of the sensor nodes is 20, and the sensing radius of each sensor nodes is 8. The total number of working periods for each sensor is calculated as (ε  ε_{red})/[L*M_{ i }*e_{1} + L*N_{ i }*(e_{1} + e_{2})], where M_{ i } is the total number of pixels covered by sensor s_{ i }, N_{ i } is total number of messages forwarded by s_{ i }, and ε_{red} is the energy consumed in the process of node redistribution, which mainly composes of ε_{mov} (energy consumed in mechanical movement) and ε_{com} (energy consumed in communication). Here, the energy consumed in movement is normalized into communication. That is, with the same amount of energy consumed in 1 m movement, approximately 300 signal messages can be transmitted [26]. Thus, for any sensor s_{ i }, the energy consumed in redistribution ${\epsilon}_{\mathsf{\text{red}}}^{i}$ is
where d_{ i } is the total moving distance, L_{s} is the length of signal message (set as 100 in this article), p_{ i } is the total number of transmitted signal messages, and q_{ i } is the total number of received signal messages for redistribution control.
The sensing data forwarding strategy are similar to [16]. As it obeys an approximate uniform distribution in each corona, any node in corona C_{ i } can communicate with almost ρ_{i1}· A_{i1}/ρ_{ i } · A_{ i } nodes in the ring C_{i 1}directly. Among these candidate nodes, the node with most residual energy will be selected as the forwarding one.
At first, 64 potential sensors are deployed randomly in the circular area with radius 40, as shown in Figure 4a. The target area is divided into two coronas denoted as C_{1} and C_{2}. From Equation (19), the equivalent sensing radius of C_{1} to C_{2} is calculated as 3.41 and 8. The population size, the recombination rate, the mutation rate, and the reduction rate are set as 200, 0.9, 0.01, and 0.5, respectively [22]. We compare our algorithm with the VFA approach in terms of the coverage rate, the total moving distance and the network survival time.
The illustration of nondominated solutions obtained in the simulation is shown in Figure 4. Figure 4a is the initial distribution, and the sensor distribution after running 10 generations is shown in Figure 4b, in which the coverage rate is 80.53% and the total mobile distance is 1192. Obviously, much better solutions are obtained in subsequent generations. For instance, compare the solutions in 10th generation with those in 50th generation, the latter uses fewer sensors and achieves a higher coverage rate as shown in Figure 4c. And the solutions shown in Figure 4d are most close to hexagonal geometry generally acknowledged to be the optimal sensor distribution. It achieves the coverage rate of 92.43% with total moving distance being 1069. In addition, the number of working nodes distributed in corona C_{1} and C_{2} is 24 and 40, respectively, which is approximate to the energy balance accessibility condition.
In Figure 5, we compare the results of our algorithm with VFA in different number of iterations/generations. Observing the simulation results from the beginning to 200th generation in Figure 5, we can clearly see that our approach directs toward the global optimal solution. And after 100th generation, no better solutions can be found to dominate the suboptimal solution in our algorithm, which shows that it can converge rapidly to the optimal solution. However, it takes larger total moving distance by using nonuniform distribution strategy. This is mainly due to the smaller equivalent sensing radius in the inner corona. In order to achieve the desired coverage rate, more movement is needed. On the other hand, as our approach has much smaller sensing radius, it helps to mitigate the boundary effects. In conclusion, it gets much higher coverage rate than VFA approach.
Figure 6 shows the comparisons of energy depletion in one working round. As each sensor remembers its sensing pixels, the energy depletion in working rounds does not include the energy consumed in constructing the Voronoi polygon. Here, nodes with smaller ID numbers belong to corona C_{2}, and those with larger ID are in corona C_{1}. The VFA algorithm are dedicated to achieve a uniform sensor distribution in the target area, so it has a larger distributed density in outer corona and a smaller distributed density in inner corona. As sensors in outer corona only need to transmit its own sensing messages and do not need to forward any other messages, it can consume less energy when the VFA method is used with more sensors in outer corona. Whereas in the inner coronas, those nodes have to receive and forward the messages from outer coronas, the VFA has higher energy depletion than nonuniform approach.
The residual energy of each node at the end of the lifetime is shown in Figure 7. Here, the pixelbased transmission mechanism is also applied in the VFA algorithm. From Figure 7, it is clear to see that the residual energy ratio in nonuniform strategy is much lower than the VFA algorithm. Moreover, the residual energy ratio of each node is nearly the same in nonuniform strategy. In contrast, to the VFA algorithm, while sensors in inner corona are dead, there is more than 85% energy unused in outmost corona. This is fit to the theoretical expectation and implies the effectiveness of our proposed strategy.
In order to further evaluate the performance of our algorithm, we compare it with VFA and δPush&Pull nonuniform redistribution approach in many cases. There are variable numbers of sensor nodes (varied from 64 to 2675) deployed in different size of target area (varied from 40 to 140). To get the optimal results, all the simulation results are obtained after the genetic algorithm executed more than 500 generations.
Figure 8 shows the comparison of energy consumed in sensor redistribution. As can be seen from Figure 8, when the field area enlarges and the number of nodes increases, our algorithm and δPush&Pull consumed much more energy in the sensor redistribution. This is mainly because that the inner coronas have more sensors deployed than the outer one in nonuniform sensor distribution strategies. The higher density of the inner coronas, the more movement is needed. In δPush&Pull approach, the number of nodes grows in geometric progression from the outer coronas to the inner ones except the outermost corona. Therefore, it has not only more nodes distributed in inner coronas, but also a higher sensor movement than our approach. Compared with nonuniform sensor redistribution, as VFA algorithm merely aims at fully covering the target area, its average moving distance decreases when the node density increases.
Figure 9 shows the comparison of network lifetime in different target area size. Although the uniform distribution aims at maximizing coverage rate with the least sensor movement, it does not consider the imbalance consumption of energy near the sink node. The uneven energy depletion will cause the energy hole and leads to degraded network. When the size of target area increases, the VFA algorithm has the shortest network lifetime, as shown in Figure 9. In addition, although δPush&Pull adopts a nonuniform node distribution, its network lifetime is not superior to VFA by adopting the pixelbased transmission mechanism, in which the traffic burden caused by constant data acquisition is reduced effectively. By importing the pixelbased transmission mechanism and satisfying the node density for energybalanced depletion condition, our approach has the smallest traffic burden in each working round, and achieves the longest network lifetime.
7. Conclusion and future work
In this article, we focus on the problem of sensor redistribution to eliminate energy hole in mobile sensor networks. We present a theoretical analysis of energy attenuation in nonuniform distribution strategy, and prove that when the pixelbased transmission mechanism is adopted, a full energy balance can be achieved through the rational node distribution density. Contributively, we propose a novel nonuniform distribution algorithm with the concept of equivalent sensing radius to achieve energybalanced depletion while minimizing sensor movement. Simulation results show that our algorithm achieves a better performance than the existing algorithms and can prolong the network lifetime effectively.
In the future, as our study requires that each node knows how to measure its current energy level, we plan to implement our approach in real systems and validate its efficiency in some potential applications such as topology control, distributed storage, and network health monitoring. We also intend to extend our approach to the probabilistic sensing models and 3D space.
References
 1.
Akyildiz IF, Weilian S, Sankarasubramaniam Y, Cayirci E: A survey on sensor networks. IEEE Commun Mag 2002, 40(8):102114. 10.1109/MCOM.2002.1024422
 2.
Basu P, Redi J: Movement control algorithms for realization of faulttolerant ad hoc robot networks. IEEE Netw 2004, 18(4):3644. 10.1109/MNET.2004.1316760
 3.
Heo N, Varshney PK: Energyefficient deployment of intelligent mobile sensor networks. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A: Syst Humans 2005, 35(1):7892. 10.1109/TSMCA.2004.838486
 4.
Zou Y, Chakrabarty K: Sensor deployment and target localization based on virtual forces. In Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM. Volume 2. San Francisco; 2003:12931303.
 5.
Wang G, Cao G, Porta TL, Zhang W: Sensor relocation in mobile sensor networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM. Volume 4. Miami, FL, USA; 2005:23022312.
 6.
Wang PG, Cao G, Porta TL: Movementassisted sensor deployment. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing 2006, 5(6):640652.
 7.
Butler Z, Rus D: Eventbased motion control for mobile sensor networks. IEEE Pervasive Comput 2003, 2(4):3442. 10.1109/MPRV.2003.1251167
 8.
Wu J, Yang S: SMART: a scanbased movementassisted sensor deployment method in wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM. Volume 4. Miami, FL, USA; 2005:23132324.
 9.
Li J, Mohapatra P: An analytical model for the energy hole problem in manytoone sensor networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE 62nd Vehicular Technology Conf. (VTC'05). Dallas, Texas, USA; 2005:27212725.
 10.
Li J, Mohapatra P: Analytical modeling and mitigation techniques for the energy hole problems in sensor networks. Pervasive Mob. Comput 2007, 3(8):233254.
 11.
Song C, Liu M, Cao J, Zheng Y, Gong H, Chen G: Maximizing network lifetime based on transmission range adjustment in wireless sensor networks. Comput. Commun 2009, 32(11):13161325. 10.1016/j.comcom.2009.02.002
 12.
Shiue HY, Yu GJ, Sheu JP: Energy hole healing protocol for surveillance sensor networks. In Workshop on WASN. Taiwan, China; 2005.
 13.
Wang W, Srinivasan V, Chua K: Using mobile relays to prolong the lifetime of wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the ACM MobiCom'05. Cologne, Germany; 2005:270283.
 14.
Luo J, Hubaux JP: Joint mobility and routing for lifetime elongation in wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM'05. Volume 3. Miami, FL, USA; 2005:17351746.
 15.
Olariu S, Stojmenovic I: Design guidelines for maximizing lifetime and avoiding energy holes in sensor networks with uniform distribution and uniform reporting. In Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM. Barcelona, Catalunya, Spain; 2006:112.
 16.
Wu X, Chen G, Das SK: On the energy hole problem of nonuniform node distribution in wireless sensor networks. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst 2008, 19(5):710720.
 17.
Bartolini N, Calamoneri T, Massini A, Silvestri S: On adaptive density deployment to mitigate the sinkhole problem in mobile sensor networks. ACM/Springer Mob. Netw. Appl 2011, 16(1):134145. 10.1007/s1103601002475
 18.
Aurenhammer F: Voronoi diagrams: a survey of a fundamental geometric data structure. ACM Comput. Surv 1991, 23: 345405. 10.1145/116873.116880
 19.
Fortune S: Voronoi diagrams and delaunay triangulations, Computing in Euclidean Geometry. Edited by: DZ Du, F Hwang. World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore; 1992:193223.
 20.
Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T: A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGAII. IEEE Trans Evolution Comput 2002, 6(2):182197. 10.1109/4235.996017
 21.
Zhang H, Hou JC: Maintaining sensing coverage and connectivity in large sensor networks. Ad Hoc Wirel Netw 2005, 1(1):89124.
 22.
Jia J, Chen J, Chang G, Tan Z: Energy efficient coverage control in wireless sensor networks based on multiobjective genetic algorithm. Comput. Math. Appl 2009, 57(11):17561766. 10.1016/j.camwa.2008.10.036
 23.
Goldberg DE: Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning. AddisonWesley Longman Publishing Co., Boston, MA, USA; 1989.
 24.
Deb K, Agarwal RB RB: Simulated binary crossover for continuous search space. Complex Syst 1995, 9(2):115148.
 25.
Anastasi G, Conti M, Falchi A, Gregori E, Passarella A: Performance measurements of mote sensor networks. In Proceedings of the ACM MSWiM. Venice, Italy; 2004:174181.
 26.
Sibley GT, Rahimi MH, Sukhatme GS: Robomote: a tiny mobile robot platform for largescale sensor networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Int'l Conf. Robotics and Automation. Washington, DC, USA; 2002:11431148.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 60903159, 61173153, 61070162, 71071028, and 70931001; the Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education under Grant No. 20070145017; China Postdoctoral Science Foundation funded project under Grant No. 20110491508; the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under Grant Nos. N110404014 and N110318001.
Author information
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ original submitted files for images
Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Jia, J., Wu, X., Chen, J. et al. Exploiting sensor redistribution for eliminating the energy hole problem in mobile sensor networks. J Wireless Com Network 2012, 68 (2012) doi:10.1186/16871499201268
Received
Accepted
Published
DOI
Keywords
 Sensor Node
 Wireless Sensor Network
 Cluster Head
 Network Lifetime
 Sink Node