Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
Geography-informed Energy Conservation for Ad Hoc Routing Ya Xu, John Heidemann, Deborah Estrin ISI & UCLA Presented by: Cristian Borcea
2
Motivation reduce the energy consumption in ad hoc wireless networks increase the network lifetime
3
Solution identifies equivalent nodes for routing based on location information turns off unnecessary nodes
4
Assumptions dense node deployment many nodes can hear each other each node knows its location GPS... but better other methods
5
Energy Model listen:receive:transmit energy consumption 1:1.05:1.4 or 1:1.2:1.7 recall from last week listen:receive:transmit times are 1:3:40 duty cycle > 22% ==> more than 50% of energy spent in listening energy dissipation in idle state cannot be ignored
6
Effects of turning radio off in the idle state
7
Determining Node Equivalence the physical space is divided into equal size squares based on nominal radio range any two nodes in adjacent squares can communicate with each other the nodes within a square are equivalent
8
Geographical Adaptive Fidelity ( GAF ) Routing nodes in the same grid coordinate each other who will sleep and for how long runs over any ad hoc routing protocol load balancing energy usage all nodes remain up for us long as possible
9
GAF state transitions
10
Node Ranking node(active) > node(discovery) enat1>enat2 ==> node(enat1)> node(enat2) enat = estimated node active time node ids break the ties
11
Adapting to Mobility each node estimates the time when it expects the leave the grid: engt includes this estimation in the discovery message other nodes sleep for min(enat, engt) GAF-ma ( mobility adaptation ), GAF-b ( basic scheme )
12
Simulation ns2 + cmu's extension for 802.11 AODV vs GAF/AODV DSR vs GAF/DSR 50 transit nodes ( "routers" ) 10 traffic nodes ( sources & sinks ) Traffic: CBR Nominal radio range: 250
13
Energy model - values used in simulation WaveLAN (pre-802.11, 1995) 2Mb/s listen:receive:transmit 1:1.2:1.6W 0.025 when sleeping 802.11 wireless LAN 0.75:1.5:1.9W 802.11 cards 0.83:1:1.4W
14
Network Lifetime
15
GAF energy savings mean energy consumption per node (E0-Et)/(n*t) E0 initial total energy for n nodes Et total energy after time t results: GAF+AODV is 40% better than AODV for both GAF-b, GAF-ma
16
GAF-b vs GAF-ma
17
Data Delivery Ratio
18
Average Delay
19
Network lifetime: GAF vs AODV
20
Network Lifetime vs Node Density
21
Conclusions GAF increases the network lifetime does not decrease the performance substantially
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.