What email address or phone number would you like to use to sign in to Docs.com?
If you already have an account that you use with Office or other Microsoft services, enter it here.
Or sign in with:
Signing in allows you to download and like content, and it provides the authors analytical data about your interactions with their content.
Embed code for: YogeshKumarFulara
Select a size
Performance Analysis of Wireless Sensor Network Protocol:
LEACH & EDEEC
Yogesh Kumar Fulara, Dr. Deepak Bagai
ME Student PEC University Chandigarh, Prof. Dept. ECE PEC University Chandigarh
Abstract— In recent times, wireless sensor networks (WSNs) routing protocols have been developing with more and more attention. Many different protocols have been introduced to enhance and improve the performance of WSNs. In between these protocols, homogeneous and heterogeneous routing protocols can improve the performance of the network significantly. In this paper I will analyze the two proposed protocols- LEACH and EDEEC. I mainly focus on, after how many rounds the first node dies and the number of packets send to base station by nodes, which is an important aspect to evaluate the monitoring ability of protocols. Through simulation work on Matlab, I analyze the performance of these two protocols.
Keywords — EDEEC, LEACH, Sensor Nodes, Wireless sensor networks.
In recent year wireless sensor networks have been introduced in many fields due to its flexibility, reliability and accuracy network structure which can monitor the remotely and harsh environment conditions and locations where human cannot reach. Meanwhile many recent researches related to WSNs focused his work on routing, deployment and coverage . Low cost tiny size sensor nodes having wireless capability, limited resource, low power consumption, battery constraints are the major areas of research characteristics of WSNs. So because of limited energy resources it is very important to work in energy saving techniques in order to enhance the WSNs life time.
Types of wireless sensor networks
Many researchers have done lots of work in the field of routing protocols and found the results that planed with hierarchy and clustering is promising in improving the scalability and enhancing the lifetime of WSNs. The routing protocols can be classified according to the type of networks. There are two types’ networks: Homogeneous and Heterogeneous in nature .
Homogeneous wireless sensor network in which each and every sensor nodes have same initial amount of energy. The protocols that are based on homogeneous networks are HEED (Hybrid Energy Efficient Distributed Clustering) , PEGASIS (Power Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information System) , LEACH (low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy) .
A Heterogeneous wireless sensor networks  in which sensor nodes have different initial amount of energy. In this network the nodes are deployed with some extra initial energy as compared to other nodes. The protocols that are based on heterogeneous networks are SEP (Stable Election Protocol) , DEEC (Distributed Energy Efficient Clustering), EDEEC (Enhanced Distributed Energy Efficient Clustering) , DDEEC (Developed Distributed Energy Efficient Clustering)  and EDDEEC (Enhanced Developed Distributed Energy Efficient Clustering) .
Types of heterogeneous networks: according energy level of the sensor nodes we classified the networks in three types.
Two level heterogeneous networks: In this networks sensor nodes are defined by normal nodes and advance nodes. The energy level of each normal node is and the energy level of advance node is. let there are N nodes in a network and Nm is total number of advance nodes where m is fraction of advance nodes then the total number of normal nodes is N(1-m). So the total power of the network is given by
It is clear from above equation that by the fraction of am times two level heterogeneous networks are more energy level than homogeneous networks.
Three level heterogeneous networks: In this networks sensor nodes are defined by the three energy levels of the networks i.e. normal node having energy level, Advance nodes having energy level. Where m fraction with a time more energy of total nodes are and Super nodes having energy level. Where mo fraction with b times more energy than normal nodes. So the total energy of the network is
Multilevel heterogeneous networks: In this networks sensor networks the energy of the networks is distributed over a closed set of [Eo, Eo(1+am)], where the lower level is defined by Eo and the maximum level with factor am. The total energy of the network is given by:
In remain part of this paper is organized as follows. In section 4, brief description of LEACH and EDDEEC protocol. In section 5, I will show the homogeneous and heterogeneous WSNs model in Matlab platform. In section 6, simulation of the protocol and the results are given. In section 7, we summarize the paper and give the future work.
Brief description of WSNs protocol: LEACH & EDDEEC
LEACH (Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy)  is the first hierarchy protocols. LEACH is self- organizing, adaptive clustering protocol that uses randomization to distributed the energy load evenly among the sensor network. In this, the nodes organize themselves into local cluster, with one node acting as the cluster head. If the cluster heads were chosen a priori and fixed throughout the system lifetime, as in conventional clustering algorithms, it is easy to see that the unlucky sensors chosen to be cluster-heads would die quickly, ending the useful lifetime of all nodes belonging to those clusters. Thus LEACH includes randomized rotation of the high-energy cluster-head position such that it rotates among the various sensors in order to not drain the battery of a single sensor. In addition, LEACH performs local data fusion to “compress” the amount of data being sent from the clusters to the base station, further reducing energy dissipation and enhancing system lifetime.
Sensors elect themselves to be local cluster-heads at any given time with a certain probability. These cluster head nodes broadcast their status to the other sensors in the network. Each sensor node determines to which cluster it wants to belong by choosing the cluster-head that requires the minimum communication energy. Once all the nodes are organized into clusters, each cluster-head creates a schedule for the nodes in its cluster. This allows the radio components of each non-cluster-head node to be turned off at all times except during it’s transmit time, thus minimizing the energy dissipated in the individual sensors. Once the cluster-head has all the data from the nodes in its cluster, the cluster-head node aggregates the data and then transmits the compressed data to the base station. Since the base station is far away in the scenario we are examining, this is a high energy transmission. However, since there are only a few cluster-heads, this only affects a small number of nodes.
As discussed previously, being a cluster-head drains the battery of that node. In order to spread this energy usage over multiple nodes, the cluster-head nodes are not fixed; rather, this position is self-elected at different time intervals. Thus a set C of nodes might elect themselves cluster-heads at time t1, but at time t1 + d a new set C1 of nodes elect themselves as cluster-heads. The decision to become a cluster-head depends on the amount of energy left at the node. In this way, nodes with more energy remaining will perform the energy-intensive functions of the network. Each node makes its decision about whether to be a cluster-head independently of the other nodes in the network and thus no extra negotiation is required to determine the cluster-heads. The system can determine, a priori, the optimal number of clusters to have in the system. This will depend on several parameters, such as the network topology and the relative costs of computation versus communication.
The operation of LEACH is broken up into rounds, where each round begins with a set-up phase, when the clusters are organized, followed by a steady-state phase, when data transfers to the base station occur. In order to minimize overhead, the steady-state phase is long compared to the set-up phase.
In this phase, when cluster head are being created, each node decides whether or not to become a cluster-head for the current round. This decision is based on the suggested percentage of the cluster heads for the network and the number of times the node n choosing a random number between 0 and 1. If the number is less than a threshold T(N), the node becomes a cluster-head for the current round. The threshold is defines as:
Where P= the probability of node to become cluster head, r=current round, G= set of nodes.
Every node that has selected itself a cluster head for the nth round broadcasts an advertisement message to the rest of nodes using CSMA MAC protocol.
Cluster Set-Up Phase:
After first phase, each node decide to which cluster it belongs and inform the cluster head that it will be a member of cluster head using same CSMA MAC protocol.
In this phase cluster head decides a TDMA schedule when node can transmit it information.
As the cluster formed and TDMA schedule is fixed data transmission can begin. Using this TDMA schedules we can minimize the energy in data transmission in WSNs. Because the node will transmit data only at scheduled time rather than every time.
Advantages OF the LEACH protocol:
It restricts most of the communication within the clusters, and therefore provides scalability in the network.
The cluster heads combine the data gathered by the nodes and due to this the traffic generated in the network is limited. Thus, a large-scale network without traffic burden could be deployed and improved energy efficiency in comparison to flat-topology could be attained.
In LEACH there is a Single-hop routing from node to cluster head, thus energy is saved.
Leach Protocol does not need location information of the nodes to build the clusters. Therefore, it is powerful and simple.
Leach is dynamic clustering and appropriate for applications where constant monitoring is required and data gathering occurs periodically to a centralised location.
Disadvantages of LEACH protocol:
It is very much depend on cluster heads and face robustness issues such as failure of the cluster heads.
Additional burden due to cluster head changes and calculations in every round leading to energy incompetence for dynamic clustering in large networks.
CHs directly communicate with sink in between there is no inter cluster communication, and for this high transmission power is needed. Therefore, it does not well suited for large- scale networks that require single-hop communication with sink.
CHs are not consistently distributed; CHs could be located at the edges of the cluster.
Selection of CH is random, in which energy consumption is not accounted.
Leach does not work well in the applications where large area is covered that requires multi-hop inter cluster communication.
Enhanced Distributed Energy Efficient Clustering (EDEEC)  method is used for heterogeneous WSNs. It is three level heterogeneous WSNs. It uses same scheme for cluster head choice base on initial, remaining energy of the nodes, radio dissipation and average energy of the network as in DEEC. At beginning of the round, each node makes a decision whether to become a cluster head or not for current round base on threshold. Heterogeneous wireless sensor network have more than two types of nodes so in EDEEC three level heterogeneity are used which contain normal, advance and super nodes and uses same probability of three types of nodes.
E(r) is the average energy at round r of the network, Ei(r) is residual energy at round r, m is fraction between node heterogeneity, Popt is the probability of optimum number of cluster head and a, b is boost a power for advance and super nodes.
Network simulation model
Deployment of nodes
Here in this paper, I have taken the two types of network model. In the first type of network model nodes are deployed having same energy level for homogeneous network as shown in Fig.1. In another type of network model different types of nodes having different energy level but the same sensing radius and communication radius are deployed in heterogeneous network as shown in Fig. 2 . There are three types of nodes deployed in network which are normal nodes, advance nodes and super nodes. They are shown in different colors and shapes. The difference between these three types of nodes is their initial energy level. In both of the network model the base station or sink node is assumed at the center and other nodes are deployed randomly in the network
Fig. 1 Random Deployment of Nodes for Leach
Fig. 2 Random Deployment of Nodes for EDEEC
In my study, I have used the radio energy dissipation model as shown in Fig. 3. The energy consumed by the radio is defined as :
Where L message size in bits, d= transmitted distance, = Total transmission energy, & transmission and free space energy, threshold distance which is equal to where
The receiver energy is defined as:
In this section, I presented the experimental setup which has been used in this research paper. Table: 1 contains the various variable and constant required to simulate this work. These parameters are standard values used as the benchmark for WSNs.
Various parameter for simulation work
Base station (x, y)
(50, 50) m
Number of Nodes (N)
Free space Energy (amplifier)
10 nJ/bit/ m^2
Multipath Energy (Amplifier)
A Energy factor between Normal nodes and super Nodes
B (Energy factor between normal Nodes and advance Nodes
Number of rounds
M (fraction of Advance Nodes)
X (fraction of Super Nodes)
Simulations are run to compare the performance of the protocols in two scenarios in terms of the round of the first node dies and packets send to the base station. The former one refers to the stable period of the network which is very important and the latter one refers to the monitoring ability which is also a critical factor in some WSNs applications. Furthermore, we put forward another two scenarios to compare the lifetime of the network.
Fig. 3, 4 shows that the round of the first node dies are decreasing with the increase in the life time of node. Because of changing the energy level of WSNs and the nodes have to consume large energy to transmit data to base station through cluster head in LEACH but in EDEEC node we minimizes the energy consume by transmitting data to its neighbors cluster head or node. I observe from the Fig. 4 that the performance of the EDEEC protocol is better than the LEACH protocol. Because for homogeneous all the nodes are in same energy level where as for the heterogeneous networks nodes have different energy states. From Fig. 3, I observed that in EDEEC protocol that the first nodes dies after the 1276
rounds which is far greater than the LEACH which is 1008 rounds. From Fig. 4, I also found that the loss of nodes energy decrease in EDEEC protocol with the slower rate than that of LEACH protocols.
In Fig. 5, the reason why the packets sent to sink are increasing is that the increasing number of sensing nodes creates more sensing data, and, at the same time, they elect more CHs to transmit these data packets to sink. We can also observe from Fig. 5 that EDEEC has better network monitoring quality than the LEACH algorithms.
Form Fig. 3, I observed that in homogeneous protocol LEACH the nodes dies in early time rather than that of heteregenous protocol EDEEC. This is because every normal nodes consume same energy in communication and data transmission and remains almost same and stable at the same level. But for heteregeneous network the total energy of the entire network (super nodes and advance nodes) increases, which causes the more cluster head formation and with more energy, more nodes can survive for a longer time, which makes them transmit more packets to base station.
Conclusion and future directions
Simulation results we can conclude that the characteristics of Heterogeneous WSNs algorithms are better than the Homogeneous WSNs in term of the first node dies and the number of packets sent to the base station. As mentioned above, these heterogeneous cluster-based protocols have the ability to manage the clusters and their member nodes and can better balance the energy consumption of the nodes in the whole network. Moreover, the multi hop path among Cluster Heads to base station is a very important concern to save energy during the data transmission. Our further work will mainly focus on how to further balance the energy consumption of every node by using the unequal clusters and on the moving heterogeneous sensor nodes. Furthermore, the energy whole problem is to be relieved in the network.
G. Han, H. Xu, T. Q. Duong, J. Jiang, and T. Hara, “Localization algorithms of wireless sensor networks: a survey”, Telecommunication Systems, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 2419–2436, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus.
N. Javaid, T.N. Khan, A. Iqbal, A. Akhtar, M. Ishfaq, “Enhanced Developed Distributed Energy-Efficient Clustering for Heterogeneous Wireless Sensor Networks.” Published by Elsevir B.V., on International Workshop on Body Area Networks (BASNet-2013), Procedia Computer Science 19 (2013), pp.914-919.
O. Younis and S. Fahmy, “ HEED : a Hybrid, Energy-Efficient Distributed Clustering Approach, vol. 3 no. 4, pp. 366-379, Dec. 2004.
S.Lindsey, C.S. Raghavenda, “ PEGASIS: Power efficient gathering in sensor information systems”, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, Montana, march 2002
W. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, H.Balakrishna, “An application specific protocol architecture for Wireless Microsensor Networks”. IEEE Transactions on wireless communication, vol., 1 no. 4, pp. 660-670, year 2002.
T.N. Qureshi, N.Javid, M.Malik, U. Qasim, A.A. Khan, “On performance evalutation of varients of DEEC in WSNs”, Broadband, Wireless Computing, Communication and Applications (BWCCA), 2012 seventh International Conference, vol. 1, pp. 162-169, 12-14 nov 2012.
G. Smaragdakis, I. Matta, Bestavros, “SEP: A Stable Election protocol for clustered heterogeneous wireless sensor networks”, in: second international workshop on sensor and actor network protocols and application, year 2004.
L. Qing, Q.Zhu, M. Wang, “Design of a distributed energy efficient clustering algorithm for heterogeneous wireless sensor network”, ELSEVIER, Computer Communications 29, pp. 2230-2237, year 2006.
Brahim Elbhir, Rachid saadane, Sanaa EL Fkihi, Driss Aboutajdine, “Developed Distributed energy-efficient clustering (DEEC) for heterogeneous wireless sensor networks”, in 5th international symposium on I/V Communications and Mobile Network (ISVC), year 2010.
Parul saini, Ajay kumar sharma, “E-DEEC Enhanced Distributed Energy Efficient Clustering Scheme for Heterogeneous WSN”, in 1st international conference on papallel, Distributed and Grid Computing (PDGC year 2010).
Ankita joshi and Lakshmi Priya.m, “A survey of Hierarchical Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network”, MES Journal of technology and Management, pp.67-71.
International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT)
Volume 1, Issue 3, March 2012
2lect more CHs to transmit these data packets to sink. We can also observe from Fig. 5 that EDEEC has better network monitoring quality than the LEACH algorithms.
Form Fig. 3, I observed that in homogeneous protocol LEACH the nodes dies in early time rather than that of heteregenous protocol EDEEC. This is because every normal nodes consume same energy in communication and data transmission and remains almost same and stable at the same level. But for heteregeneous network the total energy of the entire network (super nodes and advance nodes) increases, which causes the more cluster head formation and with more energy, more nodes can survive for a longer time, which makes them tran