ISSN:2229-6093
Patel Bhoomika D et al, Int.J.Computer Technology & Applications,Vol 6 (5),847-851
Hierarchical routing protocols in wireless sensor network
Patel Bhoomika D.
Department of computer engineering
SVM institute of technology
Bharuch 392-001, Gujarat, India
bhoomico16@gmail.com
Abstract: Sensor is a small device for communication
and computation by capturing information regarding
temperature, humidity, pressure etc Wireless sensor
network lies of single sensor or nodes that corporate to
execute certain task and these nodes use wireless
communication to enable their coactions. These sensor nodes
have a limited transmission range; processing; storage
capacity and energy resources like computation with limited
efficiency. Due to these constraints, network lifetime plays
vital role in the functionality of any wireless sensor network.
To increase a network lifetime of network, it is required to
analyze routing protocols because the transmission of
information from one node to another, consumes maximum
resources. There are main seven categories: Location-based
Protocols, Data-centric Protocols, Hierarchical Protocols,
Mobility-based Protocols, Multipath-based Protocols,
Heterogeneity-based Protocols, QoS-based protocols. Among
all these routing protocols, hierarchical routing protocols used
in most of the recent WSNs. In this paper we study the recent
hierarchical routing protocol for WSNs. The goal of this study
is to analyze and compare the performance of different
hierarchical routing protocols for wireless sensor networks.
The study will help researchers and developers to use different
routing algorithm in different scenarios.
Keywords: wireless sensor network, hierarchical routing
protocol.
I. INTRODUCTION
Wireless sensor network is most important technologies in
recent years. In past years it has received big attention from
both academic and industry in the world. A WSN typically lies
of a huge number of low-cost, low-power, and multifunctional
wireless sensor nodes, with sense, wireless communications
and computation abilities [21]. WSN has a many application
like a monitoring, environment, military surveillance, and
industrial process control. In some WSN application, the
distribution of sensor node is acted in ad hoc style less certain
planning and engineering. Once the sensor node has been
distributed, it must be able to automatically create itself into a
wireless communication network.
Because of the strict energy constraints of huge
number of thickly deployed sensor nodes, it needs a group of
network protocols to execute a variety of network control and
organization functions such as synchronization, node
localization, and network security [21]. When some routing
protocols are applied on WSN then energy-constrained of
IJCTA | Sept-Oct 2015
Available online@www.ijcta.com
Patel Ashish D.
Department of computer engineering
SVM institute of technology
Bharuch 392-001, Gujarat, India
ashishpatel.svmit@gmail.com
some networks have become a shortcomings. Ex, in a flooding
mechanism given node have been broadcast data and control
packet that has been received to the relief of the nodes in the
network. This process continues till the destination node is
reached, and this mechanism doesnt take into report energy
constraint by WSNs.
The idea how to effectively path the collected data
between nodes are the primary topic in WSNs since of the low
powered sensor nodes. Supported on all routing technique and
features in WSNs, there are huge number of routing protocol
are existing. The balance of this paper is discussing some
routing protocol and Hierarchical Protocols are describe in
detail, also analyze some proposed scheme of protocols.
Section 2 shows routing challenges that routing protocols must
face in wireless sensor networks. Section 3 discusses the
hierarchical routing protocols. In section 4, analyze some
proposed scheme are discuss and Section 5 concludes the
survey.
II. ROUTING CHALLENGES IN WIRELESS
SENSOR NETWORKS[23]
Node deployment: It is depending on application have an
effect on the routing protocol. The operations are two types:
deterministic, in that sensor are physically placed data is
routed through pre-determined paths and randomized, in that
sensor node are dotted at random creating an infrastructure in
ad hoc way.
Data Reporting Model: It is depends on application have an
effects are time critical. It has four categories: time driven,
event driven, query driven, and hybrid. Routing protocols are
highly work by data processing model to observe an energy
consumption and route stability.
Fault Tolerance: In WSNs some sensor nodes are blocked
because of some internally damage or economical
interference. That blocked node effect network so network not
work properly. If the many nodes fails than routing protocols
offer new configuration links and routes to the data collection
BS.
Scalability: If any hardware or protocols have been added
relative capacity than effectiveness are increases than it must
be scalable.
Power consumption: Requirement such as long life time of
sensor networks and restricted storage capacity of sensor
nodes has directed to search a new scope to alleviate power
Consumption. Means increase the network lifetime of
protocols.
847

Patel Bhoomika D et al, Int.J.Computer Technology & Applications,Vol 6 (5),847-851
Data aggregation: Main aim of this is gather and aggregate
data as of different sources with the help of different functions
like a suppression, min-max, average to get energy efficient
and traffic optimization in routing protocol so that network
lifetime is improved.
Connectivity: High node density in sensor networks prevents
them from being totally remote from each other. So, sensor
nodes are expected to be extremely connected. This, yet may
not prevent the network topology to being variable and the
network size from being decrease because of sensor node
failures. Possibly random distribution of nodes that is depends
on connectivity.
III. HIERARCHICAL PROTOCOLS
These protocols are energy efficient communications protocol
and that is utilize by the sensor to information their sensed
data to the base station (sink). Main goal of these protocols is
to efficiency hold the energy consumption of sensor node with
relating them in multi-hop communication inside a specific
cluster and through executing data aggregation and fusion
ready to reduce the number of transmitted message to the base
station (sink).
Low-energy adaptive clustering hierarchy (LEACH): It is
very energy efficient routing protocol. In this protocol each
WSNs are divided into cluster, and every cluster consists of a
cluster head (CH) and number of cluster relationship, multiple
cluster heads form the high-level network. In terms of
operation, a HRP consists of two stages: In the first stage is
the set-up, when the sensor nodes are organized to form
hierarchical structural design either in a cluster based or chain-
based manner or, In the second stage is the steady state, when
data are routed from sensor nodes to the BS. The hierarchical
structural design of a cluster-based can be set up by using
distributed algorithm or centralized algorithm [5]. LEACH is
totally distributed and no needs a global knowledge of
network. It reduces energy consumption by (a) insignificant
the communication rate between sensors and their cluster
heads and (b) turning off non-head nodes as much as possible
[20]. LEACH utilize a one hop routing where every node can
transmit directly to the cluster-head and a sink because of this
reason LEACH is not capable for to distributed in large area.
Itis closes in a finite number of iterations, but not surely about
good CH deployment and guess uniform energy consumption
for CHs.
There are some drawbacks of LEACH; so much research has
been done to make LEACH perform better. Some of
researches are: E-LEACH, TL-LEACH, M-LEACH, LEACH-
C and V-LEACH.
E-LEACH: It is abbreviation of ENERGY-LEACH and it is
improves the cluster head selection procedure of LEACH
protocol. Primarily all nodes have the same probability to be
CH, but in next round of iteration, the node with high residual
energy will be chosen as CH rather than those with less
energy. This protocol provides life span of network and
energy saving compared to LEACH protocol.
IJCTA | Sept-Oct 2015
Available online@www.ijcta.com
ISSN:2229-6093
LEACH-C: It is abbreviation of CENTRALIZED LEACH.
LEACH has no information and knowledge about the number
of cluster head and the location cluster members. LEACH-C
improves the LEACH By BS is responsible for forming
clusters for each round by running centralized cluster
formation algorithm by getting remaining energy and position
of each sensor node.
LEACH-B: It is abbreviation of BALANCED-LEACH.
LEACH does not consider the energy for the selection of CH.
LEACH-B use decentralized algorithms for the CH by
evaluating the energy need for the path between itself and
destination.
LEACH-MOBILE: It is support mobility, involves the
mobility of non -cluster head nodes and cluster head during
the setup and steady state phase.
LEACH-A: It is abbreviation of ADVANCED LEACH.
LEACH protocol work in homogeneous network and does not
support reliability. LEACH-A, a heterogeneous energy
protocol and its purpose is energy saving and reliable data
transfer. It achieves the minimum nodes failure probability
and for extending the time interval before the death of the first
node which can be referred to as stability period.
V-LEACH: It is abbreviation of VERSION OF LEACH. In
LEACH, cluster head has no sufficient energy to transmit data
or collected cluster member to the BS. To overcome this
problem V LEACH is introduced. In V-LEACH, There is a
vice-CH that takes the role of the CH when the CH dies.
Cluster nodes data will always reach the BS. There is not
necessary for electing a new CH when CH dies each time.
This will extend the overall network life time
Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems
(PEGASIS): It is an extension of LEACH protocol, that kind
of a chain from sensor nodes so that each node transmits and
receives from a neighbor and only single node is selected from
that chain to transmit to the base station (sink) [21]. Data is
gained and moves from node to node, combined and finally
send to the base station. That chain can be performed in
greedy style. PESASIS reject cluster formation and use only
one node to transmit to the sink (base station) alternatively
using more than one node. In PEGASIS routing protocol, the
structure phase assumes that all the sensors have global
knowledge about the network like a mainly, the positions of
the sensors and use a greedy approach. If a sensor fails or dies
due to low battery power, then chain is structured utilizing the
similar greedy approach by bypassing the failed sensor [21].
At every round, a particularly select sensor node from the
chain will deliver the aggregate data to the BS, so reducing the
per energy spending compared to LEACH.
Hybrid, Energy-Efficient Distributed Clustering (HEED):
HEED widens the LEACH protocol with balance energy and
node degree as a metric for cluster selection to achieve power
balancing. It executes in multi-hop networks, using an
adaptive transmission power in the inter-clustering
communication. HEED was planned with four primary aims
that are (i) prolonging network lifetime by spreading energy
848
 ISSN:2229-6093

Patel Bhoomika D et al, Int.J.Computer Technology & Applications,Vol 6 (5),847-851

consumption, (ii) ending the clustering process within a stable
number of iterations, (iii) insignificant control overhead, and
(iv) producing well-distributed CHs and compact clusters [21].
In this protocol, the existing algorithm randomly chooses CHs
to a combination of two clustering arguments. The first
argument is their balance energy of each sensor node that is
used to probabilistically choose and first set of CHs and the
second argument is the intra-cluster communication cost as a
function of cluster density or node degree and that is used for
breaking ties. This protocol improve network lifetime compare
to LEACH clustering as LEACH particularly select CHs,
which effect in result faster death of some nodes. The last CHs
selected in HEED are well distributed crossways the network
and the communication cost is reduced [21].
Threshold Sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network
Protocol (TEEN): It is a hierarchical clustering protocol that
is groups sensors into clusters with every node conduct by a
CH. Each sensor inside a cluster reports their sensed data to
their CH. The CHs sends collective data to higher level CH till
the data reaches to the sink. Hence, TEEN is closer nodes
from clusters and this process goes on the next level till the BS
is reached. TEEN is useful for applications where the users
can control a trade-off between energy efficiency, data
accuracy, and response time dynamically [21].
This protocol is not capable for sensing application where
periodic reports are required so the user may not get any data
at all if the thresholds are not reached.
Adaptive Periodic Threshold Sensitive Energy Efficient
Sensor Network Protocol (APTEEN): This protocol is an
advance to TEEN to overcome its drawback and goal at
getting periodic collection and responding to time-critical
events. So APTEEN is a hybrid type protocol that permit the
sensor send to their sensed data randomly and response to any
quick change in the value of the sensed assign by reporting the
similar values to their CHs. Its architecture is same as TEEN,
that is uses the concept of concept hierarchical clustering for
energy efficient communication between source sensors and
the sink [21]. APTEEN supports three different query types
namely (i) historical query, to study past data values, (ii) one-
time query, to take a snapshot view of the network; and (iii)
persistent queries, to examine an event for a period of time.
APTEEN guarantees lower energy dissipation and a larger
number of sensors animate [22].

Table: 1
Hierarchical Protocols

parameter LEACH PAGSIS HEED TEEN APTEEN

Energy efficiency Very high Very high Good Good Good

Data Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
aggregation
Network Lifetime Very good Very good Good Good Good
Scalability No No Yes No No
Type of network Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed
Hope count Single hope Single hope multi hope Single hope Single hope
pros No require any Transmission Fully Decrees energy Demonstrates number
global distance are distributed, low transmission of flexibilities, count
information, reduce, power level computation, time interval and
powerful and threshold value for
simple, energy consumption.
cons Not capable for a Require global Suffer from Not suite when Complexity of cluster
large networks information of overhead so that user gets data on can occurs at different
nodes each iteration consistent basis, level
huge number of data must be
packets are disappeared.
broadcasts.

IJCTA | Sept-Oct 2015 849

Available online@www.ijcta.com

Patel Bhoomika D et al, Int.J.Computer Technology & Applications,Vol 6 (5),847-851
IV. RELATED WORK
The rising attention in wireless sensor networks and the
repeated appearance of new architectural techniques
motivated. Some existing efforts for surveying the
characteristics and applications in such a technical area. There
is no any communication, wireless links are defective, and
sensor node may be fail in this situation routing protocol face
energy saving needs. That survey is a good introductory for
readers attracted in the wide area. Some routing protocols of
WSNs are discussed; this survey and taxonomy does not mean
it must be given a complete scope of protocols. Our survey is
relatively showed and can give out for those have the interest
for the routing protocol in WSNs. Many routing algorithms
were executed for wireless networks in general. In recent past
year, many researchers have to introduce many different
protocols and may method for it. In which some protocols and
method are describe below:
Diwakar et al. [7] described EEHCRP(Energy-Efficient Hierarchical
Clustering Routing Protocol), a protocol for WSNs. EEHCRP
reduces the number of alive nodes and the energy consumption to
expand the network lifetime. In this what are the mathematical
formula are used that are for choosing the cluster head are provided.
The platform use for simulation is MATLAB.
Pal et al. [8] Improve LEACH protocol with the help of chain among
the sensor nodes and all the cluster as talk about in PEGASIS
protocol. With the help of this modified protocol each sensor nodes
take out the cluster head sends detect data to its nearest node, not the
cluster head. There is two modifications done in LEACH one is the
cluster head selection, and the other is forming chain among the
sensor nodes for each cluster.
Bansal et al. [9] does Comparison of two routing protocol LEACH
and PEGASIS. The evaluation is done on basis of different argument
like a total energy consumed, overheads, and sensors lifetime. In
LEACH, limited data processing occurs at specified nodes called
cluster-heads and lastly aggregated data is transmitted to the sink
node. While in PEGASIS, there is no data aggregation occurs.
Sensoria simulator is used for simulation.
Singh et al. [10] Survey on cluster based routing protocols in wireless
sensor networks and the merits and demerits of clustering method.
These protocols are introduces in three broad categories: block
cluster based, grid cluster based, chain cluster based. From the basis
of performance it is shown that protocols are useful to improvement
of wireless sensor network.
Pathak et al. [11] Evolution of two routing protocol APTEEN and
EX-APTEEN to improve performance of WSNs. APTEEN can be
used only its next neighbouring node back so its the drawback of
APTEEN, to overcome this drawback improve the EX-APTEEN. It
has a two phase: transfer phase and cluster setup phase. For
comparison used the Ns-2.35 simulator.
Quynh et al. [12] shows EL-LEACH (Energy and Load balance
LEACH) for get the energy efficiency and load balance. LEACH has
the drawback that dead nodes are more and it is also not applicable
where network deployed in larger regions so it take the more energy.
To overcome this drawback improves an EL-LEACH. From the
result it is prove the this protocol is better than the LEACH in
parameter better energy efficiency, load balance, network lifetime.
AMRI et al. [14] describes EMHR-FL used Fuzzy Logic Inference
System for the selection of next hop CH by taking in to some related
parameter like a level of CHs in battery, distance between CHs and
node density of CHs. Two method is improve: First method improve
IJCTA | Sept-Oct 2015
Available online@www.ijcta.com
ISSN:2229-6093
performance of classical EMHR for the total number of packet
received by BS and time of First Node Die (FND) and second method
take a suitable decision of next hop CH selection than classical
EMHR.
Ali et al.[15] survey For choosing the optimum number of cluster in
Deterministic Distributed nodes in WSNs in order to maximize its
lifetime. HRP is used on some Deterministic Distributions like a
uniform, circular, hexagonal and star distribution, to show how to
choose the optimal number of clusters. Network lifetime is using
clustering for all the examined distributions.
Jan et al. [16] Improve the life time of LEACH protocol for
efficiently using the limited energy available in sensor nodes. Main
approach is improves life time and to make better of data being
delivered at the base station in sensor network. For this sensor
network data delivered at the BS is not important but the quality of
the data most important.
Pandya et al. [17] implement MODLEACH (Modified LEACH)
utilizes three transmission power levels that is reduces energy
consumption in network and also it uses different cluster head
election algorithm in which node have remaining energy greater than
threshold it remain as cluster head for second round. And this
protocol introduces two techniques to robust network life time and
throughput, and three types of communication can happen in cluster
based network: Intra Cluster Communication, Inter Cluster
Communication, Cluster Head to Base Station Communication.
Gheorghe et al [18] shows By using simple genetic algorithm (SGA)
some objectives can be combined together and the optimization done
but in some case it slow focused and difficult for best fitness
function. To overcome this drawback multi-objective genetic
algorithm (MOGA) for the execution for a central BS and the results
send to the network nodes. It is determines the problem handle as
multi-objective with non-commensurable objectives. NS-2 is used for
the testing.
Mollanejad et al. [19] describe EHPR (novel Energy aware
Hierarchical Routing Protocol) for widen sensor network lifetime.
This protocol has two phases: In first phase cluster head is selected
and constructed cluster with the help of new parameter. And second
phase spanning routing tree constructed on cluster heads for sending
aggregated data to the base station.
V. CONCLUSIONS
In wireless sensor network routing are expanding lots of
attention in now a days. In this paper we analyzed the
hierarchical routing protocols that are: LEACH, PAGESIS,
HEED, TEEN, APTEEN. Also compare protocols in different
parameters and its pros and cons are discuss. LEACH is the
most energy efficient than the other. In term of scalable only
HEED is there and it is only using multi-hope count.
REFERENCES:
1. Akkaya, Kemal, and Mohamed Younis. "A survey on
routing protocols for wireless sensor networks." Ad
hoc networks 3.3 (2005): 325-349.
2. Patil, Mallanagouda, and Rajashekhar C. Biradar. "A
survey on routing protocols in wireless sensor
networks." Networks (ICON), 2012 18th IEEE
International Conference on. IEEE, 2012.
850

Patel Bhoomika D et al, Int.J.Computer Technology & Applications,Vol 6 (5),847-851
3. Sharma, Suraj, and Sanjay Kumar Jena. "A survey on
secure hierarchical routing protocols in wireless
sensor networks." Proceedings of the 2011
International Conference on Communication,
Computing & Security. ACM, 2011.
4. Xu, DaWei, and Jing Gao. "Comparison study to
hierarchical routing protocols in wireless sensor
networks." Procedia Environmental Sciences 10
(2011): 595-600.
5. Manap, Zahariah, et al. "A review on hierarchical
routing protocols for wireless sensor networks."
Wireless personal communications 72.2 (2013):
1077-1104.
6. Singhal, Vishakha, and Shrutika Suri. "Comparative
Study of Hierarchical Routing Protocols in Wireless
Sensor Networks." (2014): 142-147.
7. Meenakshi, Diwakar, and Sushil Kumar. "Energy
Efficient Hierarchical Clustering Routing Protocol
for Wireless Sensor Networks." Advances in
Computer Science and Information Technology.
Networks and Communications. Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, 2012. 409-420.
8. Pal, Subhajit, Debnath Bhattacharyya, and Tai-hoon
Kim. "Chain based hierarchical routing protocol for
wireless sensor networks." Security-Enriched Urban
Computing and Smart Grid (2010): 482-492.
9. Bansal, Parul, Poonam Kundu, and Prabhjot Kaur.
"Comparison of LEACH and PEGASIS Hierarchical
Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Networks." Int.
J. of Recent Trends in Engineering & Technology 11
(2014).
10. Singh, Santar Pal, and S. C. Sharma. "A Survey on
Cluster Based Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor
Networks." Procedia Computer Science 45 (2015):
687-695.
11. Pathak, Nikita, and Er Rupinder Kaur Gurm.
"COMPARISON OF APTEEN AND EX-APTEEN
ROUTING PROTOCOL OF CLUSTERING IN
WSN."
12. Quynh, Thu Ngo, Kieu-Ha Phung, and Hoan Vu
Quoc. "Improvement of energy consumption and load
balance for LEACH in Wireless Sensors Networks."
ICT Convergence (ICTC), 2012 International
Conference on. IEEE, 2012.
13. Rajeshwari, P., B. Shanthini, and Mini Prince.
"Hierarchical Energy Efficient Clustering Algorithm
for WSN." (2015).
14. Amri, Saber, Med Lassaad Kaddachi, and
Abdelbasset Trad. "Energy-Efficient Multi-hop
Hierarchical Routing Protocol using Fuzzy Logic
(EMHR-FL) for Wireless Sensor Networks."
Computer Applications and Information Systems
(WCCAIS), 2014 World Congress on. IEEE, 2014.
15. Ali, Najah Abu, and Omar Nasr. "WSN lifetime
prolongation for deterministic distributions using a
hierarchical routing protocol." AFRICON, 2013.
IEEE, 2013.
IJCTA | Sept-Oct 2015
Available online@www.ijcta.com
ISSN:2229-6093
16. Jan, Mian Ahmad, et al. "Enhancing lifetime and
quality of data in cluster-based hierarchical routing
protocol for wireless sensor network." High
Performance Computing and Communications &
2013 IEEE International Conference on Embedded
and Ubiquitous Computing (HPCC_EUC), 2013
IEEE 10th International Conference on. IEEE, 2013.
17. Pandya, Nikunj K., et al. "Design and Simulation of
Enhanced MODLEACH for Wireless Sensor
Network."
18. Huruiala, Petre-Cosmin, Andreea Urzica, and Laura
Gheorghe. "Hierarchical routing protocol based on
evolutionary algorithms for wireless sensor
networks." Roedunet International Conference
(RoEduNet), 2010 9th. IEEE, 2010.
19. Mollanejad, Amir, et al. "EHRP: Novel energy-aware
hierarchical routing protocol in wireless sensor
network." Ultra Modern Telecommunications and
Control Systems and Workshops (ICUMT), 2010
International Congress on. IEEE, 2010.
20. Wang, Lan, and Yang Xiao. "A survey of energy-
efficient scheduling mechanisms in sensor networks."
Mobile Networks and Applications 11.5 (2006): 723-
740.
21. Singh, Shio Kumar, M. P. Singh, and D. K. Singh.
"Routing protocols in wireless sensor networksA
survey." International Journal of Computer Science
& Engineering Survey (IJCSES) Vol 1 (2010): 63-83.
22. Manjeshwar, Arati, and Dharma P. Agrawal.
"APTEEN: A hybrid protocol for efficient routing
and comprehensive information retrieval in wireless
sensor networks." ipdps. IEEE, 2002.
23. Rathi, Neha, Jyoti Saraswat, and Partha Pratim
Bhattacharya. "A review on routing protocols for
application in wireless sensor networks." arXiv
preprint arXiv:1210.2940 (2012).
851