2012 Second International Conference on Advanced Computing & Communication Technologies

Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey

Deepak Goyal
Assistant professor
Vaish college of Engineering, Rohtak, India
Email id: dipaksgoyal@yahoo.co.in

Malay Ranjan Tripathy

Professor
Amity University, Noida, India

Abstract
Extensive usage of wireless sensor network (WSN) is the
reason of development of many routing protocols. Recent
advances in WSN now witness the increased interest in the
potential use in applications like Military, Environmental,
Health (Scanning), Space Exploration, Vehicular
Movement, Mechanical stress levels on attached objects,
disaster management, combat field reconnaissance etc.
Sensors are expected to be remotely deployed in
unattended environments. Routing as one key
technologies of wireless sensor network has now become
a hot research because the applications of WSN is
everywhere, it is impossible that there is a routing
protocol suitable for all applications. In this paper, the
various routing protocol are classified and described. The
growing interest in WSN and the continual emergence of
new architectural techniques inspired surveying the
characteristics, applications and communication protocols
for such a technical area.

The WSN is built of nodes - from a few to several

hundreds or even thousands, where each node is
connected to one (or sometimes several) sensors.
Each such sensor network node has typically several
parts: a radio transceiver with an internal antenna or
connection
to
an
external
antenna,
a
microcontroller, an electronic circuit for interfacing
with the sensors and an energy source, usually a
battery[2]. A sensor node might vary in size from
that of a shoebox down to the size of a grain of dust,
although functioning "motes" of genuine
microscopic dimensions have yet to be created. The
cost of sensor nodes is similarly variable, ranging
from hundreds of dollars to a few pennies,
depending on the complexity of the individual sensor
nodes. Size and cost constraints on sensor nodes
result in corresponding constraints on resources
such as energy, memory, computational speed and
communications bandwidth. The topology of the
WSNs can vary from a simple star network to an
advanced multi-hop wireless mesh network. The
propagation technique between the hops of the
network can be routing or flooding [3].

1
Introduction
Large number of heterogeneous Sensor devices
spread over a large field. Wireless sensing and Data
Networking Group of sensors linked by wireless
media to perform distributed sensing tasks. A sensor
Network is the group of sensors attached to
transducers intends to monitor the conditions at
diverse locations. The Sensors are meant to measure
the physical or environmental changes. The sensor
commonly measure pressure, Chemical reactions,
sound intensity and temperature etc [1]. A Wireless
Sensor Network (WSN) consists of spatially
distributed autonomous sensors to monitor physical
or environmental conditions, such as temperature,
sound, vibration, pressure, motion or pollutants and
to cooperatively pass their data through the network
to a main location. The more modern networks are
bi-directional, enabling also to control the activity of
the sensors. The development of wireless sensor
networks was motivated by military applications
such as battlefield surveillance; today such networks
are used in many industrial and civilian application
areas, including industrial process monitoring and
control, machine health monitoring, environment
and habitat monitoring, healthcare applications,
home automation, and traffic control.

978-0-7695-4640-7/12 $26.00 2012 IEEE

DOI 10.1109/ACCT.2012.98

2
Sensor Network and Nodes
Network Channels: User nodes or gateways and
onward transmission to other network [4] [5].
Sensor channels: Communicates among sensor
nodes and targets.
Sensor Network has three types of Nodes
Sensor Nodes: Monitor immediate environment
Target Nodes: Generates various stimuli for
sensor nodes.
User Nodes: Client and Administration of Sensor
Networks.
3
Routing Protocols in WSN
Location-based Protocols:-MECN, SMECN, GAF,
GEAR, Span, TBF, BVGF, GeRaF
Data-centric Protocols: - SPIN, Directed Diffusion,
Rumor Routing, COUGAR, ACQUIRE, EAD
Hierarchical Protocols:-LEACH, PEGASIS, HEED,
TEEN, APTEEN
Multipath-based Protocols: - Disjoint Paths, Braided
paths, N-to-1 Multipath Discovery
478
474

QoS-based protocols: - SAR, SPEED, Energy-aware

routing

locations. Location information for sensor nodes is

required for sensor networks by most of the routing
protocols to calculate the distance between two
particular nodes so that energy consumption can be
estimated.

3.1
Location-based Protocols
In location-based protocols as described in table 1,
sensor nodes are addressed by means of their
Protocol

Description (Location-based Protocols) (table 1)

Advantages

Geographic
Adaptive
Fidelity
(GAF)
Geographic
and EnergyAware
Routing
(GEAR):
Span

This is an energy-aware routing protocol in WSNs because it favors

energy conservation. Based on an energy model that considers
energy consumption due to the reception and transmission of
packets [6].
Energy-efficient routing protocol proposed for routing queries to
target regions in a sensor field, sensors are aware of their residual
energy as well as the locations and residual energy of each of their
neighbors[7].

Energy conservation

Recursive geographic
forwarding algorithm to
disseminate the packet
inside the target region

Lifetime
depletion

Its goal is to reduce energy consumption. Span helps sensors to join a

forwarding backbone topology as coordinators that will forward
packets on behalf of other sensors between any source and
destination

Interfacing or power
saving

Single point
of failure

TrajectoryBased
Forwarding
(TBF):

Requires a sufficiently dense network and the presence of a

coordinate system [8]. For example, a GPS, so that the sensors can
position themselves and estimate distance to their neighbors.
indicate the path on a hop-by-hop basis

It can be used for

implementing
networking functions,
For example, flooding,
discovery, and network
management.

Costly to
implement

Bounded
Voronoi
Greedy
Forwarding
[BVGF]

Greedy geographic routing, a sensor will always forward a packet to

the neighbor that has the shortest distance to the destination. The
sensors eligible for acting as the next hops are the ones whose
Voronoi regions are traversed by the segment line joining the source
and the destination.

Shortest distance can

be calculated using
Euclidian distance

suffer from
battery
power
Depletion.

Geographic
Random
Forwarding
(GeRaF)

Geographic routing where a sensor acting as relay is not known a

priori by a sender. There is no guarantee that a sender will always be
able to forward the message toward its ultimate destination, that is,
the sink. Best-effort forwarding RTS/ a CTS message mechanism are
employed [9].
Achieving minimum energy for randomly deployed ad hoc networks,
computes an optimal spanning tree rooted at the sink, called
minimum power topology, which contains only the minimum power
paths from each sensor to the sink [10].

Backoff time increases

the reliability.

User
involvement
in
each
stage
is
required
Application
specific
Fault
tolerant

A routing protocol proposed to improve MECN, in which a minimal

graph is characterized with regard to the minimum energy property.
This property implies that of sensors.

A minimum energyefficient path between

nodes

Minimum
Energy
Communicat
ion Network
(MECN)
Small
MinimumEnergy
Communicat
ion Network
(SMECN)

3.2
Data Centric Protocols
In data-centric protocols as described in table 2 ,
when the source sensors send their data to the sink,
intermediate sensors can perform some form of
aggregation on the data originating from multiple

Self-configuring
Optimal spanning
Fault tolerant

Disadvantag
es
Processing
overhead

No. of
broadcast
messages is
large

source sensors and send the aggregated data toward

the sink. This process can result in energy savings
because of less transmission required to send the
data from the sources to the sink.

475
479

protocol
SPIN: Sensor
Protocols for
Information
Negotiation

Directed
Diffusion

Rumor
Routing

Description (Data Centric Protocols) (table 2)

One of the most dominant forms of routing in the wireless sensor networks
[11].
Uses three types of messages:
ADV advertise data
REQ request for data
DATA data message, contains actual sensor data
SPIN1 and SPIN2
SPIN1: Three way handshaking protocol. ADV, REQ, DATA.
Each sensor node has resource manager, Keeps track of resource consumption
Applications probe the manager before any activity, Cut down activity to save
energy
SPIN2: Energy constraint. Adds energy-conservative heuristic to the SPIN1
protocol. Node initiates three stage protocols, only if it has enough energy to
complete it. If below energy threshold, node can still receive messages, cannot
send/recv DATA messages
Meets the main requirements of WSNs such as energy efficiency, scalability,
and robustness. Directed diffusion has several key elements namely data
naming, interests and gradients, data propagation, and reinforcement [12]. A
sensing task can be described by a list of attribute-value pairs. At the beginning
of the directed diffusion process, the sink specifies a low data rate for incoming
events. After that, the sink can reinforce one particular sensor to send events
with a higher data rate by resending the original interest message with a
smaller interval. Likewise, if a neighboring sensor receives this interest
message and finds that the sender's interest has a higher data rate than
before, and this data rate is higher than that of any existing gradient, it will
reinforce one or more of its neighbors.
Logical compromise between query floods and event flooding app schemes is
based on the concept of agent, which is a long-lived packet that traverses a
network and informs each sensor it encounters about the events that it has
learned during its network traverse. An agent will travel the network for a
certain number of hops and then die [13].

Cougar

A database approach to tasking sensor networks, provides a user and

application programs with declarative queries of the sensed data generated by
the source sensors [14].

EnergyAware DataCentric
Routing
(EAD):

Builds a virtual backbone composed of active sensors that are responsible for
in-network data processing and traffic relaying. In this protocol, a network is
represented by a broadcast tree spanning all sensors in the network and
rooted at the gateway, in which all leaf nodes radios are turned off while all
other nodes correspond to active sensors forming the backbone and thus their
radios are turned on. Specifically, EAD attempts to construct a broadcast tree
that approximates an optimal spanning tree with a minimum number of leaves,
thus reducing the size of the backbone formed by active sensors. EAD approach
is energy aware and helps extend the network lifetime.

476
480

advantages
Energy aware,
resource
aware and
resource
adaptive

disadvantages
Applies only to
lossless
networks
Not applicable
in mobile links

Achieves
synchronizatio
n in networks

More event
handling
More user
interacting

Efficient
protocol if the
number
of
queries
is
between the
two
intersection
points of the
curve
of
rumor routing
with those of
query flooding
and
event
flooding.
query proxy
provides
higher level
services
through
queries that
can be issued
from a
gateway node
Power saving,
Lifetime is
increased.

Cannot be
applied directly
to any
network, have
to be modified
ob base on the
application

Gateway
handling
required

3.3
Hierarchical Protocols
Many research projects in the last few years have
explored hierarchical clustering in WSN from
different perspectives as described in table 3.
Clustering is an energy-efficient communication
protocol that can be used by the sensors to report
their sensed data to the sink. In this section, we
describe a sample of layered protocols in which a
network is composed of several clumps (or clusters)

of sensors. The main aim of hierarchical routing is to

efficiently maintain the energy consumption of
sensor nodes by involving them in multi-hop
communication within a particular cluster and by
performing data aggregation and fusion in order to
decrease the number of transmitted messages to the
sink. Cluster formation is typically based on the
energy reserve of sensors and sensors proximity to
the
cluster
head.

Protocol

Description (Hierarchical Protocols) (table 3)

Advantages

Low-energy
adaptive
clustering
hierarchy
(LEACH)

First and most popular energy-efficient hierarchical clustering algorithm for

WSNs that was proposed for reducing power consumption [15]. In LEACH, the
clustering task is rotated among the nodes, based on duration. Direct
communication is used by each cluster head (CH) to forward the data to the
base station (BS). It uses clusters to prolong the life of the wireless sensor
network. LEACH is based on an aggregation (or fusion) technique that
combines or aggregates the original data into a smaller size of data that carry
only meaningful information to all individual sensors. LEACH divides the a
network into several cluster of sensors, which are constructed by using
localized coordination and control not only to reduce the amount of data that
are transmitted to the sink, but also to make routing and data dissemination
more scalable and robust.
Power-Efficient GAthering in Sensor Information Systems (PEGASIS) is an
improvement of the LEACH protocol. Rather than forming multiple clusters,
PEGASIS forms chains from sensor nodes so that each node transmits and
receives from a neighbor and only one node is selected from that chain to
transmit to the base station (sink). Gathered data moves from node to node,
aggregated and eventually sent to the base station [16].
Hierarchical protocol designed to be responsive to sudden changes in the
sensed attributes such as temperature. Responsiveness is important for timecritical applications, in which the network operated in a reactive mode. TEEN
pursues a hierarchical approach along with the use of a data-centric
mechanism.

Avoids battery
depletion

PEGASIS

TEEN

APTEEN

HEED

Adaptive Threshold sensitive Energy Efficient sensor Network protocol

(APTEEN) aims at both capturing periodic data collections and reacting to timecritical events [17]. The architecture is same as in TEEN. When the base station
forms the clusters, the cluster heads broadcast the attributes, the threshold
values, and the transmission schedule to all nodes. Cluster heads also perform
data aggregation in order to save energy. APTEEN supports three different
query types: historical, to analyze past data values; one-time, to take a
snapshot view of the network; and persistent to monitor an event for a period
of time.
Hybrid, Energy-Efficient Distributed Clustering (HEED operates in multi-hop
networks, using an adaptive transmission power in the inter-clustering
communication. HEED was proposed with four primary goals namely (i)
prolonging network lifetime by distributing energy consumption, (ii)
terminating the clustering process within a constant number of iterations, (iii)
minimizing control overhead, and (iv) producing well-distributed CHs and
compact clusters.

477
481

Disadvanta
ges
Does not
guarantee
good CH
distribution
, assumes
uniform
energy
distribution
.

Avoids so
much
clustering,
Increases
lifetime twice.

Requires
dynamical
topology
adjustment

We can adjust
both hard and
soft threshold
values in order
to control the
number of
packet
transmissions.
APTEENs
performance is
between
LEACH and
TEEN in terms
of energy
dissipation and
network
lifetime.
using residual
energy and
node degree or
density as a
metric for
cluster
selection to
achieve power
balancing

not good
for
applications
where
periodic
reports are
needed

Not
suitable for
entire
needs of
WSN

3.4
Multipath-based Protocols
Considering data transmission between source
sensors and the sink, there are two routing
paradigms: single-path routing and multipath
routing. In single-path routing, each source sensor

sends its data to the sink via the shortest path. In

multipath routing, each source sensor finds the first
k shortest paths to the sink and divides its load
evenly among these paths. The protocols are as
described in table 4

Protocol

Description (Multipath-based Protocols) (Table 4)

Advantages

Disadvanta
ges

Disjoint
Paths

Protocol that helps finds a small number of

alternate paths that have no sensor in common with
each other and with the primary path. In sensordisjoint path routing, the primary path is best
available whereas the alternate paths are less
desirable as they have longer latency. The disjoint
makes those alternate paths independent of the
primary path [18].

If a failure occurs on the

primary path, it remains local
and does not affect any of
those alternate paths. The
sink can determine which of
its neighbors can provide it
with the highest quality data
characterized by the lowest
loss or lowest delay after the
network has been flooded
with some low-rate samples

more
resilient to
sensor
failures, they
can
be
potentially
longer than
the primary
path
and
thus
less
energy
efficient

Braided
Paths

Partially disjoint path from primary one after

relaxing the disjointedness constraint. To construct
the braided multipath, first primary path is
computed. Then, for each node (or sensor) on the
primary path, the best path from a source sensor to
the sink that does not include that node is
computed. Those best alternate paths are not
necessarily disjoint from the primary path and are
called idealized braided multipath

N-to-1
Multipath
Discovery

N-to-1 Multipath Discovery is based on the simple

flooding originated from the sink and is composed
of two phases, namely, branch aware flooding (or
phase1) and multipath extension of flooding [19].

Links of each of the alternate

paths lie either on or
geographically close to the
primary path. Therefore, the
energy consumption on the
primary and alternate paths
seems to be comparable as
opposed to the scenario of
mutually ternate and primary
paths
An active per-hop packet
salvaging strategy can be
adopted to handle sensor
failures and enhance network
reliability

required transmission energy using that link. Finding

traffic distribution is a possible solution to the
routing problem in sensor networks and based on
that, comes the name maximum lifetime energy
routing. The solution to this problem maximizes the
feasible time the network lasts. In order to find out
the best link metric for the stated maximization
problem, two maximum residual energy path
algorithms are presented and simulated. The two
algorithms differ in their definition of link costs and
the incorporation of nodes residual energy.

3.5
Network flow and QoS-aware protocols
Although most of the routing protocols proposed for
sensor networks fit our classification, some pursue
somewhat different approach such as network flow
and QoS. In some approaches, route setup is
modeled and solved as a network flow problem.
QoS-aware protocols consider end to end delay
requirements while setting up the paths in the
sensor network.

Maximum lifetime energy routing presents an

interesting solution to the problem of routing in
sensor networks based on a network flow approach.
The main objective of the approach is to maximize
the network lifetime by carefully defining link cost as
a function of node remaining energy and the

Minimum cost forwarding protocol aims at finding

the minimum cost path in a large sensor network,
which will also be simple and scalable. The protocol
is not really flow-based, however since data flows

478
482

over the minimum cost path and the resources on

the nodes are updated after each flow, we have
included it in this section. The cost function for the
protocol captures the effect of delay, throughput
and energy consumption from any node to the sink.
There are two phases in the protocol. First phase is a
setup phase for setting the cost value in all nodes. It
starts from the sink and diffuses through the
network. Every node adjusts its cost value by adding
the cost of the node it received the message from
and the cost of the link. Such cost adjustment is not
done through flooding. Instead, a back-off based
algorithm is used in order to limit the number of
messages exchanged. The forwarding of message is
deferred for a preset duration to allow the message
with a minimum cost to arrive. Hence, the algorithm
finds optimal cost of all nodes to the sink by using
only one message at each node. Once these cost
fields are set, there will be no need to keep next hop
states for the nodes. This will ensure scalability. In
the second phase, the source broadcasts the data to
its neighbors. The nodes receiving the broadcast
message, adds its transmission cost (to sink) to the
cost of the packet. Then the node checks the
remaining cost in the packet. If the remaining cost of
the packet is not sufficient to reach the sink, the
packet is dropped. Otherwise the node forwards the
packet to its neighbors. The protocol does not
require any addresses and forwarding paths.
Simulation results show that the cost values for each
node obtained by the proposed protocol is same as
flooding. As a consequence, optimal forwarding is
achieved with minimum number of advertisement
messages. The average number of advertisement
messages in flooding could be reduced by a factor of
50 using the back off based algorithm with a proper
setting of the back off timer.

offers less power consumption than the minimumenergy metric algorithm, which focuses only the
energy consumption of each packet without
considering its priority. SAR maintains multiple paths
from nodes to sink. Although, this ensures faulttolerance and easy recovery, the protocol suffers
from the overhead of maintaining the tables and
states at each sensor node especially when the
number of nodes is huge.
SPEED: A QoS routing protocol for sensor networks
that provides soft real-time end-to-end guarantees.
The protocol requires each node to maintain
information about its neighbors and uses geographic
forwarding to find the paths. In addition, SPEED [21]
strive to ensure a certain speed for each packet in
the network so that each application can estimate
the end-to-end delay for the packets by dividing the
distance to the sink by the speed of the packet
before making the admission decision. Moreover,
SPEED can provide congestion avoidance when the
network is congested. The routing module in SPEED
is called Stateless Geographic Non-Deterministic
forwarding (SNFG) and works with four other
modules at the network layer, redrawn from The
Beacon exchange mechanism collects information
about the nodes and their location. Delay estimation
at each node is basically made by calculating the
elapsed time when an ACK is received from a
neighbor as a response to a transmitted data packet.
By looking at the delay values, SNGF selects the
node, which meets the speed requirement. If such a
node cannot be found, the relay ratio of the node is
checked. The Neighborhood Feedback Loop module
is responsible for providing the relay ratio which is
calculated by looking at the miss ratios of the
neighbors of a node (the nodes which could not
provide the desired speed) and is fed to the SNGF
module. If the relay ratio is less than a randomly
generated number between 0 and 1, the packet is
dropped. And finally, the backpressure-rerouting
module is used to prevent voids, when a node fails
to find a next hop node, and to eliminate congestion
by sending messages back to the source nodes so
that they will pursue new routes. When compared to
Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) and Ad-hoc ondemand vector routing (AODV), SPEED performs
better in terms of end-to-end delay and miss ratio.
Moreover, the total transmission energy is less due
to the simplicity of the routing algorithm, i.e. control
packet overhead is less, and to the even traffic
distribution. Such load balancing is achieved through
the SNGF mechanism of dispersing packets into a
large relay area. As explained earlier, similar energy

SAR: Sequential Assignment Routing (SAR) [20] is the

first protocol for sensor networks that includes the
notion of QoS in its routing decisions. It is a tabledriven multi-path approach striving to achieve
energy efficiency and fault tolerance. The SAR
protocol creates trees rooted at one-hop neighbors
of the sink by taking QoS metric, energy resource on
each path and priority level of each packet into
consideration. By using created trees, multiple paths
from sink to sensors are formed. One of these paths
is selected according to the energy resources and
QoS on the path. Failure recovery is done by
enforcing routing table consistency between
upstream and downstream nodes on each path. Any
local failure causes an automatic path restoration
procedure locally. Simulation results show that SAR

479
483

saving technique is used in GBR by spreading traffic

uniformly through the network. SPEED does not
consider any further energy metric in its routing
protocol. Therefore, for more realistic understanding
of SPEEDs energy consumption, there is a need for
comparing it to a routing protocol, which is energyaware.

[12] C. Intanagonwiwat, R. Govindan, and D. Estrin, "Directed

diffusion: A scalable and robust communication paradigm for
sensor networks", Proceedings ACM MobiCom'00, Boston, MA,
Aug. 2000, pp. 56-67.
[13] D. Braginsky and D. Estrin, "Rumor routing algorithm in
sensor networks", Proceedings ACM WSNA, in conjunction with
ACM MobiCom'02,Atlanta, GA, Sept. 2002, pp. 22-31.
[14] N. Sadagopan, B. Krishnamachari, and A. Helmy, "The
ACQUIRE mechanism for efficient querying in sensor networks",
Proceedings SNPA'03, Anchorage, AK, May 2003, pp. 149-155.
[15] W.R. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, and H. Balakrishnan,
Energy-efficient Communication Protocol for Wireless
Microsensor Networks, in IEEE Computer Society Proceedings of
the Thirty Third Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences (HICSS '00), Washington, DC, USA, Jan. 2000, vol. 8, pp.
8020.
[16] S. Lindsey and C.S. Raghavendra, PEGASIS: Power-efficient
Gathering in Sensor Information System, Proceedings IEEE
Aerospace Conference, vol. 3, Big Sky, MT, Mar. 2002, pp. 11251130.
[17] A. Manjeshwar and D. P. Agrawal, "APTEEN: A Hybrid
Protocol for Efficient Routing and Comprehensive Information
Retrieval in Wireless Sensor Networks", in the Proceedings of the
2nd International Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Computing
Issues in Wireless Networks and Mobile computing, San Francisco
CA, April 2001, pp. 2009-1015.
[18] S. Lindsey, C. S. Raghavendra, and K. M. Sivalingam, "Data
gathering in sensor networks using the energy delay metric",
Proceedings IPDPS'01, San Francisco, CA, Apr. 2001, pp. 20012008.
[19] M. Chu, H. Haussecker, and F. Zhao, "Scalable informationdriven sensor querying and routing for ad hoc heterogeneous
sensor networks", International Journal of High Performance
Computing Applications, vol. 16, no. 3, Feb. 2002, pp. 293-313.
[20] I. F. Akyildiz, W. Su, Y. Sankarasubramaniam, and E. Cayirci,
Wireless sensor networks: a survey, Computer Networks
(Elsevier) Journal, Vol. 38, no. 4, Mar. 2002, pp. 393-422.
[21] T. He et al., SPEED: A stateless protocol for real-time
communication in sensor networks, in the Proceedings of
International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems,
Providence, RI, May 2003.

4
Conclusion
Routing in sensor networks has attracted a lot of
attention in the recent years and introduced unique
challenges compared to traditional data routing in
wired networks. In this paper, we have summarized
recent research results on data routing in sensor
networks and classified the approaches into four
main categories, namely location-based, datacentric, hierarchical and multipath. Few other
protocols followed the traditional network flow and
QoS modeling methodology. As our study reveals, it
is not possible to design a routing algorithm which
will have good performance under all scenarios and
for all applications. Although many routing protocols
have been proposed for sensor networks, many
issues still remain to be addressed.
References
[1] I. F. Akyildiz et al., Wireless sensor networks: a survey,
Computer Networks, Vol. 38, pp. 393- 422 March 2002.
[2] K. Sohrabi, et al., "Protocols for self-organization of a wireless
sensor network, IEEE Personal Communications, Vol. 7, No. 5, pp.
16-27, October 2000.
[3] L. Subramanian and R. H. Katz, "An Architecture for Building
Self Configurable Systems," in the Proceedings of IEEE/ACM
Workshop on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing, Boston,
MA, August 2000.
[4] F. Ye et al., A Two-tier Data Dissemination Model for Largescale Wireless Sensor Networks, in the Proceedings of
Mobicom02, Atlanta, GA, Septmeber, 2002
[5] W. Heinzelman, Application specific protocol architectures for
wireless networks, PhD Thesis, MIT, 2000.
[6] Y. X:u, J. Heidemann, and D. Estrin, "Geography-informed
energy conservation for ad-hoc routing", Proceedings ACM/IEEE
MobiCom'01, Rome, Italy, July 2001, pp. 70-84.
[7] Y. Yu, R. Govindan, and D. Estrin, "Geographical and energy
aware routing: A recursive data dissemination protocol for
wireless sensor networks", Technical Report UCLA/CSD-TR-010023, UCLA Computer Science Department, May 2001.
[8] B. Nath and D. Niculescu, "Routing on a curve", ACM
SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 33, no.1, Jan.
2003, pp. 155-160.
[9] M. Zorzi and R. R. Rao, "Geographic random forwarding
(GeRaF) for ad hoc and sensor networks: Mutlihop performance",
IEEE Transactions on mobile Computing, vol. 2, no. 4, Oct.-Dec.
2003, pp. 337-348.
[10] V. Rodoplu and T. H. Meng, "Minimum energy mobile
wireless networks", IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in
Communications, vol. 17, no. 8, Aug. 1999, pp. 1333-1344.
[11] W. R. Heinzelman, J. Kulik, and H. Balakrishnan, "Adaptive
protocols for information dissemination in wireless sensor
networks", Proceedings ACM MobiCom '99, Seattle, WA,
Aug.1999, pp. 174-185.

480
484