Wireless Netw (2016) 22:2071–2079
DOI 10.1007/s11276-015-1081-2
Cross layered adaptive rate optimised error control coding
for WSN
T. Sasikala1 • M. A. Bhagyaveni1 • V. Jawahar Senthil Kumar1
Published online: 12 October 2015
 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract One of the major issues in wireless sensor
network (WSN) is to reduce the energy consumption and
ensuring the reliability of data. Error control is significant
in WSN because of their severe energy constraints and the
low power communication requirements. Here, we propose
the cross layered adaptive rate optimized low-density par-
ity check codes for WSN. The proposed algorithm uses the
physical layer parameters such as coherence time of the
channel, BER and SNR also the routing layer parameter
such as demanded data rate to determine the rate of the
LDPC coder. The performance of the algorithm is evalu-
ated using parameters such as time taken for encoding the
message bits and decoding time per iteration for various
values of codeword length is analyzed. Besides the push
model is trained to calculate the quantity of energy
required for imparting and receiving n-bits using lAMPS-1
mote.
Keywords Cross layer  Wireless sensor network  Error
control code  Energy efficiency  Code rate  lAMPS-1
mote
& T. Sasikala
Sasi1504@gmail.com
M. A. Bhagyaveni
m.a.bhagyaveni@gmail.com
V. Jawahar Senthil Kumar
veerajawahar@annauniv.edu
1 such as turbo codes and LDPCs, it is found that LDPC
Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering,
College of Engineering, Guindy, Anna University,
Chennai 600025, India
1 Introduction
Wireless sensor network refers to a group of spatially
dispersed and dedicated sensors for monitoring and
recording the physical conditions of the environment and
organizing the collected data at a central location [1].
WSNs measure environmental conditions like temperature,
sound, pollution levels, humidity, wind speed and direc-
tion, pressure, etc. WSNs are composed of a large number
of sensor nodes that communicate with each other through
wireless transmission. Many feasible applications such as
industrial sensor network, volcano monitoring networks,
habitat monitoring, health monitoring, and home automa-
tion are proposed. The data transmitted from the sensor
nodes are vulnerable to corruption by errors in the wireless
channel. Therefore, it is necessary to provide a proper error
control scheme to reduce the bit error rate (BER).
2 Related work
In recent years, there have been several research efforts on
analysis of error control mechanisms in wireless multi-
media and wireless sensor networks [2–8]. The purpose of
using error control coding (ECC) in WSNs is its energy
efficiency. Low density parity check code has its rate less
advantage and while comparing it with fixed rate code it
attains Shannon’s limit [9]. ECC provides coding gain,
resulting in transmitter energy savings, at the cost of added
decoder power consumption. While comparing decoder
implementations for a range of ECC types, including block
codes, convolutional codes and iteratively decoded codes
codes performed better than all other codes [10]. LDPC
block codes performed better than conventional codes
123
2072
when the requirements of the battery are permissive [11].
The recent works have shown that for long block-lengths,
the best performing LDPC codes are irregular codes and
these codes can outperform turbo codes of the same block-
length and code-rate [12]. In [13] the authors present a
cross layer analysis of error control schemes considering
routing, medium access and physical layer. This paper
compares ARQ and FEC schemes in WSN and proves that
for more hops FEC schemes are better than ARQ scheme.
Low density parity check codes has its rate less advan-
tage and while comparing it with fixed rate codes it attains
Shannon’s limit and it is very useful where Channel State
Information (CSI) is not available [14].
Finally, at the end of the survey, it is found that most of
the work is in identifying energy efficient error control
codes for WSN and very few works referred to cross lay-
ered error control for WSN. According to the knowledge of
the authors it is reported that this work is one of the first of
its kind to use cross layered parameter to adaptively change
the rate of the rate less LDPC code and hence achieve the
desired performance.
3 Cross layered adaptive rate optimized LDPC
(CLARL)
The proposed CLARL block diagram is shown in Fig. 1.
LOW-DENSITY parity-check (LDPC) codes were origi-
nally invented and investigated by Gallager [15]. LDPC
codes are block codes with parity-check matrices that
contain only a very small number of non-zero entries,
hence the name ‘‘low density parity check’’ code.
3.1 Sensor data/sensor sink
These are the nodes in a sensor network, which are
responsible for converting the environmental variables to
measure electrical variables and serve the purpose of the
WSN. The sensed data is digitized using the ADC and
Fig. 1 Block diagram of the cross layered adaptive rate optimized
LDPC
123
Wireless Netw (2016) 22:2071–2079
processed by the controller before transmitting it by the
transceiver unit.
3.2 LDPC encoder
The LDPC encoder is implemented in the controller. The
Mac Kay’s method is used for encoding. The LDPC code is
encoded using the parity-check matrix directly by trans-
forming it into upper triangular form and using back sub-
stitution [15]. The encoding procedure for LDPC codes
consists of three parts: generation of the parity check
matrix, the pre-processing part (done only once per matrix)
and the encoding of given information bits.
• Generation of parity check matrix H.
• Pre-processing H matrix using row and column
permutations.
• Dividing the H^ matrix.
 
A B T
• H^ =
C D E
where T—lower triangular matrix of size
(m - g) 9 (m - g), B—matrix of size (m - g 9 g), A—
matrix of size (m - g 9 k), C—matrix of size (g 9 k),
D—matrix of size (g 9 g), E—matrix of size
(g 9 m - g), The g rows of H left in C, D and E are called
gap of the approximate representation.
 
• Finding parity check bit vectors xp1 ; xp2
• Generation of encoded code word ð s xp1 xp2 Þ.
3.3 Adaptive rate optimizer
This module finds the rate of the LDPC code using cross
layered parameters such as channel sate information and
user defined QoS requirements. The ARO is a block at the
MAC layer as shown in Fig. 2. It takes the input from the
routing layer and physical layer to compute the LDPC code
rate.
Fig. 2 The adaptive rate optimizer
Wireless Netw (2016) 22:2071–2079
The ARO has two phases the channel study phase and
rate transfer phase. During the channel study phase the
ARO transmits test signals to its next node and collects the
SNR and BER information. From the received parameters
the ARO computes the coherence time Tc of the channel.
From the physical layer parameters and the demanded QoS
such as BER and data rate the ARO computes the coding
rate for the LDPC encoder as given in Table 1.
3.4 OQPSK modulator
The Offset Quadrature Phase Shift Keying (OQPSK)
modulator maps the input binary signals to an analog signal
for transmission.
3.5 Channel
The channel is the medium by which information is
transmitted from the transmitter to the receiver. In WSN,
this is a wireless channel. The addition of noise normally
occurs in the channel. In the simulations, the channel is
modeled as Additive White Gaussian Noise (AWGN)
channel. The resulting noise added to the system follows
the zero-mean normal distribution, with variance NO/2 and
NO is the single-sided noise power spectral density.
3.6 LDPC decoder
The decoder is implemented at the end-user receiving the
information. The Sum Product Algorithm (SPA) is used for
decoding. The decoding is a process that loops through
passing messages back and forth along the tanner graph
[16] till certain conditions are satisfied or a maximum
number of passes have occurred.
3.7 Retrieve message from codeword
This process retrieves the estimated message from the
estimated codeword.
4 LDPC decoding
The class of decoding algorithms used to decode LDPC
codes is collectively termed as message-passing algorithms
since their operation can be explained by the passing of
Table 1 The ARO output
Demanded data rate (kbps)
333
750
500
2073
messages along the edges of a Tanner graph. Each Tanner
graph node works in isolation, only having access to the
information contained in the messages on the edges con-
nected to it. The message-passing algorithms are also
known as iterative decoding algorithms as the messages
pass back and forth between the bits and check nodes
iteratively until a result is achieved (or the process halted).
A different message-passing algorithms are named for
the type of messages passed or for the type of operation
performed at the nodes. In some algorithms, such as bit-
flipping decoding, the messages are binary and in others,
such as belief propagation decoding [17], the messages are
probabilities which represent a level of belief about the
value of the codeword bits. It is often convenient to rep-
resent probability values as log likelihood ratios and when
this is done, belief propagation decoding is often called as
sum-product decoding since the use of log likelihood ratios
allows the calculations at the bit and check nodes to be
computed using sum and product operations.
4.1 SPA decoding algorithm for AWGN channel
step1 Bit nodes send a message to their connected check
nodes.
step2 Check nodes calculate a response to their con-
nected bit nodes using the messages received from step1.
step3 Bit nodes use the messages they get from the check
nodes to decide a bit at that position.
step4 Repeat steps 2 to exit or a certain number of
iterations are reached.
The codeword c = [0 0 1 0 1 1] is sent through an AWGN
with symbol energy over noise = 1. 25 (0.9691 dB) and
y = [1 0 1 0 1 1] is received. Since the channel is AWGN
the ri for the received code word y and the LLR is calcu-
lated by using
ri ¼ 4 Es =N0 yi
and the received signal is
y ¼ ½ 0:1 0:5 0:8 1:0 0:7 0:5 
The LLR calculated value is
r ¼ ½ 0:5 2:5 4:0 5:0 3:5 2:5 
For the purpose of illustration, we set the maximum
number of iterations to three and pass in H and r.
Demanded BER Received Eb/No (SNR) ARO output code rate
-3
10 \6 1/3
-3
10 [6.5 3/4
10-3 6 \ Eb/No \ 6.5 1/2
123
2074 Wireless Netw (2016) 22:2071–2079

Step 1: If the syndrome is zero, then algorithm halts.

Initialization M (j, i) = ri. Here M is the edge sent from bit If the syndrome is nonzero, then the algorithm continues
to check nodes. The 1-st bit is included in the 1-st and 3-rd by
checks and so M (1, 1) and M (3, 1) are initialized to r1.
Mðj; iÞ ¼ rðiÞ þ Eðj; iÞ
Step 2:
If I ¼ Imax then algorithm halts.
Check one includes the 1-st, 2-nd and 4-th bits and so
The flowchart for a SPA decoding algorithm for AWGN
the extrinsic probability from the 1-st check to the 1-st bit
channel is shown in Fig. 3.
depends on the probabilities of the 2-nd and 4-th bits. Here
E is the responded message from the check node.
0    1
1 þ tanh Mð1;2Þ
2  tanh Mð1;4Þ
2
5 Computational complexity
Eð1; 1Þ ¼ log@    A
Mð1;2Þ Mð1;4Þ
1  tanh 2  tanh 2 5.1 Encoding complexity
¼ 2:4217
The computation of Codeword = [s xp1 xp2] involves
Step 3: Eqs. 1 and 2. The encoding complexity of the Mackey’s
Repeating for all checks gives the extrinsic LLRs: method is evaluated and presented in Tables 2 and 3.
2 3
2:421 0:493 0 0:421 0 0 Xp1 ¼ F 1 W ð1Þ
6 0 3:026 2:181 0 2:300 0 7
E¼6 4 2:189
7
Xp2 ¼ T 1 ðz  B Xp1
T
0 0 0 0:4217 0:469 5 Þ ð2Þ
0 0 2:421 2:300 0 3:686
where, z ¼ AsT
 
To save space the extrinsic LLRs are given in matrix w ¼ C  ET 1 A sT
form where the (j, i)-the entry of E holds E (j, i). A ‘0’ entry
in E indicates that an LLR does not exist for that i and j. F ¼ D  ET 1 B
The overall complexity of determining xp1 is O (n ? g2)
Step 4:
and the overall complexity of determining xp2 is O (n).
To test the intrinsic and extrinsic probabilities each bit is
Hence the complexity of the LDPC encoding is of O (n).
combined. The 1-st bit has extrinsic LLRs from the 1-st and
However, the large block length results in large parity-
3-rd checks and an intrinsic LLR from the channel. The
total LLR for bit one is their sum:
L1 ¼ r1 þ Eð1; 1Þ þ Eð3; 1Þ ¼ 0:2676
Thus even though the LLR from the channel is negative,
indicating that the bit is a one, both extrinsic LLRs are
positive indicating that the bit is zero. The extrinsic LLRs
are strong enough that the total LLR is positive and so the
decision on bit one has effectively been changed.
Repeating for bits two to six gives:
L2 ¼ r2 þ Eð1; 2Þ þ Eð2; 2Þ ¼ 5:0334
L3 ¼ r3 þ Eð2; 3Þ þ Eð4; 3Þ ¼ 3:7676
L4 ¼ r4 þ Eð1; 4Þ þ Eð4; 4Þ ¼ 2:2783
L5 ¼ r5 þ Eð2; 5Þ þ Eð3; 5Þ ¼ 6:2217
L6 ¼ r6 þ Eð3; 6Þ þ Eð4; 6Þ ¼ 0:7173
The hard decision on the received bits is given by the
sign of the LLRs,
Z ¼ ½1 0 1 0 1 1
Step 5:
To check if z is a valid code word
Syndrome ¼ H  Z T ¼ ½ 1 0 1 0 Fig. 3 SPA decoding algorithm

123
Wireless Netw (2016) 22:2071–2079 2075

Table 2 Complexity of
Operation Comment Complexity
determining xp1
AsT Multiplication by sparse matrix O (n)
T 1 ½AsT  Multiplication by lower triangular matrix O (n)
E ½T 1 AsT  Multiplication by sparse matrix O (n)
T Multiplication by sparse matrix O (n)
Cs
E ½T 1 AsT  þ CsT Addition O (n)
F 1 ½E ½T 1 AsT  þ C  sT  Multiplication by dense g 9 g matrix O (g2)

Table 3 Complexity of
Operation Comment Complexity
determining xp2
AsT Multiplication by sparse matrix O (n)
BxTp1 Multiplication by sparse matrix O (n)
BxTp1 þ As T Addition O (n)
T 1 ½BxTp1 þ AsT  Multiplication by lower triangular matrix O (n)

check and generator matrices. The complexity of multi-
plying a codeword with a matrix depends on the amount of
1’s in the matrix.
In the normal way of computing, the sparse matrix H is
written in the form [pT I] via Gaussian elimination. The
generator matrix G is calculated as G = [I P]. The sub-
matrix P is generally not sparse, so that the encoding
complexity will be quite high. Since the complexity grows
at O (n2) even sparse matrices do not result in a good
performance if the block length gets very high. Whereas, in
the Mac Kay’s method of encoding the computational
complexity is O (n), this result in the linear time encoding
system. So, the encoding complexity is less than the normal
method of generating G matrix and hence the Elapsed time
is also less which results in less energy consumption.
5.2 Decoding complexity
For a parallel message-passing decoder, the decoding
complexity of LDPC codes is proportional to the product of
the number of decoding iterations and the number of
arithmetic operations performed per iteration. The com-
putational effort per iteration is proportional to the number
of edges E in the graph of the code, while the number of
messages passed per iteration is 2E. Thus, the overall
complexity is proportional to the total number of messages
passed in the iterative decoding process.
The variable-node update for the SPA can be performed
as follows. At each variable node of degree dv, we first
compute the sum of the dv extrinsic messages and the
channel message; this requires dv additions. To compute
the output message for some particular edge, we then
subtract the extrinsic message received over the same edge
from the computed sum. Thus, computing the m output
messages requires 2dv operations. To sum all variable
nodes, (E) operations are required. Similarly, to sum all
check nodes, (E) operations are needed.
The overall complexity of decoding one codeword is
therefore proportional to N 9 E. Where N is the number of
decoding iterations. For each code word encodes Rn infor-
mation bits, where R is the code rate and n is the block length,
the decoding complexity per information bit is O (N 9 E/Rn).
6 Results and discussion
The time taken for performing encoding and decoding of
the LDPC codes for various values of data size n is given in
Table 4.
From the table it is found that the time taken for
encoding is very less, it is in the order of milliseconds only,
whereas for that of decoding the time taken is of 18.7 s
when n is about 2 k bits.
6.1 Energy consumption
The energy required for transmitting n bits is given by
Eq. (3). The energy spent in receiving n bits is given by
Eq. (4). The energy spent for transmitting and receiving n
bits using lAMPS-1 mote is shown in Table 5.
Etx ¼ TstartPstart þ n=ðRÞðPtxElec þ ðaamp
þ bampPtxÞÞ ð3Þ
where, n—length of the codeword, R—nominal data rate
6.2 Energy consumed for receiving n bits
 
Erx ¼ TstartPstart þ n=R Pr xElec þ n EdecBit ð4Þ
From the obtained results, it is found that as the number
of bits increases the transmitting energy and reception

123
2076 Wireless Netw (2016) 22:2071–2079

Table 4 Performance of LDPC

Parameters n = 50 (ms) n = 100 (ms) n = 500 n = 1000 n = 2000
codes based on Elapsed time
Generation of H matrix 1.235 2.54 3.463 ms 4.32 ms 7.107 ms
Pre-processing step 6.399 12.32 58.546 ms 125.76 ms 305.9 ms
Encoding the message bits 0.584 1.213 3.958 ms 1.718 ms 1.377 ms
Total time for encoding 8.218 16.073 65.967 ms 131.79 ms 314.34 ms
Decoding time per iteration 18.171 77.852 1.065 s 4.18 s 18.74 s

Table 5 Energy consumption

Parameters n = 50 (lJ) n = 100 n = 500 n = 1000 (mJ) n = 2000 (mJ)
for transmitting and receiving
n-bits Etx 60 93 lJ 350 lJ 0.687 1.347
Erx 55 0.083 mJ 0.306 mJ 0.585 1.143

Fig. 4 The BER performance

of the LDPC ‘ rate code with
respect to other error correcting
algorithms

Fig. 5 Performance of LDPC 0

10
for various code rates Rate=1/2
Rate=3/4
Rate=1/3
uncoded

-1
10
BER

-2
10

-3
10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Eb/No (dB)

123
Wireless Netw (2016) 22:2071–2079 2077

energy increases form micro joules to mill joules. Also that
in the case of 1000 bits the receiving energy is more or less
equivalent to that of transmitting energy this is because the
receiver uses SPA decoder which does soft decoding and
the algorithm iterates till the required performance is
achieved.
6.3 Bit error rate performance evaluation
Figure 4 shows the BER performance of the LDPC ‘ rate
code with respect to other error correcting algorithms.
From the results, it is found that as the energy per bit
increases, the BER decreases for all the codes. It is also
found that bit error performance is better for rate LDPC
code compared to other code. At the Eb/No value of 6 dB
the LDPC is 14 % better than RS code and 98 % better
than the uncoded.
Figure 5 shows that the BER performance of the pro-
posed algorithm. From the results it is found that as the
energy per bit increases, the BER decreases in all the rates
of the code. It is also found that bit error performance is
better for rate 1/3 code compared to rate ’ by about 85 %
at the Eb/No value of 5 dB. This enhancement is at the cost
of increased redundancy of the LDPC code.
Figure 6 shows the output code rate of the ARO.
Depending upon the channel characteristics and the
demanded QoS of the user, the ARO adaptively selects a
code rate and maintains the selected code till the average
coherent time of the channel.
Figure 7 shows that the BER performance of the
CLARL with respect to time. The proposed algorithm
maintains the average BER at 10-3, even when the channel
condition changes. This is due to the adaptive nature of the

Fig. 6 The output of the 1

adaptive rate optimizer with
0.9
respect to time
0.8

0.7
ARO output

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (ms)

Fig. 7 BER performance of 0

10
CLARL CLARL
LDPC
uncoded

-1
10
BER

-2
10

-3
10

-4
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (ms)

123
2078
CLARL to change the code rate dynamically with respect
to cross layer parameters.
7 Conclusion
To attain energy efficiency in wireless sensor networks
(WSN), we proposed the cross layered adaptive rate opti-
mized LDPC as error control code for WSN. On imple-
mentation it is found that Mac Kay’s method for encoding
has a linear encoding complexity of the order of O (n). The
Sum Product Algorithm (SPA) for decoding has O (N 9 E/
Rn) complexity. Also, the energy consumption for trans-
mitting and receiving n-bits for lAMPS-1 mote are cal-
culated for various code lengths and it is found to be 0.687
and 0.585 mJ for n = 1000 respectively. The proposed
CLARL adaptive changes the coding rate of the LDPC
coder to maintain the required QoS performance. This
work can be enhanced further by fine tuning the optimizer
performance using optimization algorithms.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors of this paper declares that there is
no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.
References
1. Holger, K., & Willig, A. (2005). Protocols, and architectures for
wireless sensor networks. London: Wiley.
2. Vuran, M., & Akyildiz, I. (2006). Cross-layer analysis of error
control in wireless sensor networks. In 3rd annual IEEE com-
munications society on sensor and ad hoc communications and
networks (SECON) (Vol. 2, pp. 585–594).
3. Jong-Suk, A., Jong-Hyuk, Y., & Kang-Woo, L. (2007). Perfor-
mance and energy consumption analysis of with FEC codes over
wireless sensor networks. Journal of Communication and Net-
works, 9(3), 265–273.
4. Ahn, J. S., Lee, Y. S., Yoon, J. H., & Lee, K. W. (2006). Ana-
lyzing the effect of a block FEC algorithms symbol size on
energy consumption in wireless sensor networks. In H. Youn, M.
Kim, & H. Morikawa (Eds.), Ubiquitous computing systems,
lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 4239, pp. 440–453).
Berlin: Springer.
5. Wen, H., Lin, C., Ren, F., Yue, Y., & Huang, X. (2007).
Retransmission or redundancy: Transmission reliability in wire-
less sensor networks. In IEEE international conference on mobile
adhoc and sensor systems (pp. 1–7).
6. Chiasserini, C. F., & Magli, E. (2004). Energy-efficient coding
and error control for wireless video-surveillance networks.
Telecommunication Systems, 26, 369–387.
123
Wireless Netw (2016) 22:2071–2079
7. Liu, B., Ren, F., Lin, C., & Ouyang, Y. (2008). Performance
analysis of retransmission and redundancy schemes in sensor
networks. In IEEE international conference on communications
(pp. 4407–4413).
8. Tian, Z., Yuan, D., & Liang, Q. (2008). Energy efficiency anal-
ysis of error control schemes in wireless sensor networks. In
IEEE international conference on wireless communications and
mobile computing (pp. 401–405).
9. Bonello, N., Chen, S., & Hanzo, L. (2011). Low-density parity-
check codes and their rateless relatives. IEEE Communication
Survey and Tutorials, 13, 1.
10. Howard, S. L., Schlegel, C., & Iniewski, K. (2006). Error control
coding at low-power wireless sensor networks: When is ECC
energy-efficient? EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications
and Networking, 2006, 074812. doi:10.1155/WCN/2006/74812.
11. Hassan, N., Lentmaier, M., & Fettweis, G. P. (2012). Comparison
of LDPC block and LDPC convolutional codes based on their
decoding latency. In 7th international symposium on turbo codes
and related topics (IEEE digital library). August 27–31, 2012.
12. Awale, R. N., & Rathod, D. P. (2012). An efficient algorithm for
irregular Low Density Parity Check Code with reduced compu-
tational complexity and error floor. In International conference
on communication, information and computing technology
(ICCICT), Mumbai, India. October 19–20, 2012.
13. Vuran, M. C., & Akyildiz, I. F. (2009). Error control in wireless
sensor networks: A cross layer analysis. IEEE/ACM Transactions
on Networking, 17(4), 1186–1199.
14. Richardson, T. J., & Urbanke, R. L. (2001). Efficient encoding of
low density parity-check codes. IEEE Transactions on Informa-
tion Theory, 47, 2.
15. Gallager, R. G. (1963). Low-density parity-check codes. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
16. Tanner, R. (1981). A recursive approach to low complexity
codes. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, IT-27,
533–547.
17. Varshney, L. R. (2011). Performance of LDPC codes under faulty
iterative decoding. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 57,
7.
T. Sasikala is a research scholar
at the Department of Electronics
and Communication Engineer-
ing-Guindy, Anna University
Chennai. She received the
Bachelor of Engineering Degree
in Electronics and communica-
tion Engineering from Govern-
ment College of Engineering,
Salem, Madras University. She
did her post-graduation in
Applied Electronics from Col-
lege of Engineering-Guindy,
Anna University; Chennai. She
is doing her research in faculty
of Information and Communication Engineering, Anna University
Chennai.
Wireless Netw (2016) 22:2071–2079
Dr. M. A. Bhagyaveni gradu-
ated from Govt. of Technology,
Coimbatore, received the M.E.
degree in the field of optical
communication from Anna
University. She has obtained her
Ph.D. in the field of Ad hoc
Networks. She is presently
working as Professor in the
Department of Electronics and
Communication Engineering,
College of Engineering, Anna
University, Chennai. Her field
of interest includes Wireless
Communication, Digital Com-
munication, Sensor Networks and cloud Computing. She has com-
pleted one project for CVRDE, Avadi and pursuing one DST project.
Five scholars had got Ph.D. under her guidance and there are about
ten research scholar pursuing their Ph.D. She has got two best paper
awards in international/national conference. She has 35 publications
in National/International Journals and Conferences.
2079
V. Jawahar Senthil Kumar is
an Associate professor at the
Department of Electronics and
Communication Engineering,
College of Engineering,
Guindy, Anna University
Chennai. He received the
Bachelor of Engineering Degree
in Electrical and Electronics
Engineering from Hindustan
College of Engineering, Madras
University, Chennai. He did his
post-graduation in Applied
Electronics from Bharatiyar
University, Coimbatore and
Ph.D. Degree in Faculty of Information and Communication Engi-
neering from Anna University Chennai. He has contributed around 40
technical papers and in various journals and conferences. His main
research interests are in the field of parallel and distributed algo-
rithms, WSN, VLSI design, Network design and Management and
scientific computing.
123