4.6 Article

Routing Protocol for Heterogeneous Wireless Sensor Networks Based on a Modified Grey Wolf Optimizer

期刊

SENSORS
卷 20, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s20030820

关键词

heterogeneous wireless sensor networks; grey wolf optimizer; network lifecycle; energy consumption

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [U1965102]
  2. Science and Technology Innovation Team for Talent Promotion Plan of Shaanxi Province [2019TD-028]
  3. Special Planned Project for Serving Local Areas of Education Department of Shaanxi Provincial Government [18JC029]
  4. Science and Technology Program of Xi'an [201806117YF05NC13-2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wireless sensor network (WSN) nodes are devices with limited power, and rational utilization of node energy and prolonging the network lifetime are the main objectives of the WSN's routing protocol. However, irrational considerations of heterogeneity of node energy will lead to an energy imbalance between nodes in heterogeneous WSNs (HWSNs). Therefore, in this paper, a routing protocol for HWSNs based on the modified grey wolf optimizer (HMGWO) is proposed. First, the protocol selects the appropriate initial clusters by defining different fitness functions for heterogeneous energy nodes; the nodes' fitness values are then calculated and treated as initial weights in the GWO. At the same time, the weights are dynamically updated according to the distance between the wolves and their prey and coefficient vectors to improve the GWO's optimization ability and ensure the selection of the optimal cluster heads (CHs). The experimental results indicate that the network lifecycle of the HMGWO protocol improves by 55.7%, 31.9%, 46.3%, and 27.0%, respectively, compared with the stable election protocol (SEP), distributed energy-efficient clustering algorithm (DEEC), modified SEP (M-SEP), and fitness-value-based improved GWO (FIGWO) protocols. In terms of the power consumption and network throughput, the HMGWO is also superior to other protocols.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据