Research Area:  Wireless Sensor Networks
In wireless sensor networks, the energy of sensors close to the sink within one-hop is prone to be exhausted since these sensors need to forward the data from other sensors to the sink and the energy of each sensor is limited. Once the energy of these sensors close to the sink within one-hop is exhausted, the data thus could not be sent to the sink. To address this issue, the general solution is to ensure that each sensor could consume energy to forward the data from other sensors to by using the mobile sink because the location of the mobile sink is dynamic. In this situation, each sensor may be close to the sink within one-hop. The energy consumption among all sensors thus could be balanced and the network lifespan also could be prolonged. To reduce more energy consumption of sensors by forwarding data to the sink, the one-hop data collection by mobile sink was proposed to claim the sink moved to the source sensor within one-hop to collect the data in this paper. Hence, only the source sensors send the data to the sink within one-hop and other sensors could not forward the data to the sink to save energy. In the one-hop data collection by mobile sink, the rendezvous point moving model (RPMM) and the minimum moving model (MMM) were common proposed to be used. However, the time and energy consumption for collecting data in RPMM and MMM may not be minimized with the large number of source sensors. While the source sensors increase, the mobile sink needs more time and energy to collect data. To address these issues, we proposed a one-hop data collection by four quadrants moving model, FQMM, to collect data in this paper. The implementation tool, such as simulator, was used by Java language with Java SDK to evaluate performance under our proposal and the comparing proposal. For the numerical results, the maximal moving hop count, MHC, in FQMM was 30% less than the maximal MHC in RPMM. The maximal MHC in FQMM was 36% less than the maximal MHC in MMM. The minimum MHC in FQMM was 22% less than the minimum MHC in RPMM. The minimum MHC in FQMM was 28% less than the minimum MHC in MMM. The average MHC in FQMM was 25% less than the average MHC in RPMM. The average MHC in FQMM was 31% less than the average MHC in MMM. The total energy consumption in FQMM was 55% less than that in RPMM. The total energy consumption in FQMM was 59% less than that in MMM. Since the number of source sensors is often large in the real condition, FQMM could be applied for the regarding applications of WSN with mobile sink.
Author(s) Name:  Yi-Chao Wu
Journal name:  Wireless Personal Communications
Publisher name:  Springer
Volume Information:  volume 116, pages 2855–2872 (2021)
Paper Link:   https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11277-020-07824-y