(IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 23
Vol. 2, No. 10, 2010
Accumulation Point Model: Towards Robust and
Reliable Deployment
Yong Lin, Zhengyi Le and Fillia Makedon
416 Yates Street, P.O. Box 19015, Arlington, TX 76019, USA
ylin, zyle, makedon@uta.edu
Abstract: The reliability and fault tolerance problems are very
important for long strip barrier coverage sensor networks. The
Random Point Model and the Independent Belt Model are
prevalent deployment models for barrier coverage. In this paper,
we propose an economical, robust and reliable deployment
model, called Accumulation Point Model (APM). Given the
same length of barrier and the same nodes activation rate, the
number of sensors required by APM is only 1/[t(1 -θ)] times
that of random point model. Our analysis indicates that the
network failure probability of the APM is lower than the other
two models. In our network simulation, the network lifetime of
APM is much higher than random point model. Compared with
independent belt model, APM exhibits good failure tolerance.
This paper also presents a light weight accumulation point
protocol for building the network and scheduling the sleep cycle.
This is a localized algorithm for k-barrier coverage.
Keywords: sensor networks, barrier coverage, fault tolerance,
sensor deployment.
1. Introduction
Barrier coverage sensor networks are deployed in a belt
region to detect traversing targets. When barrier areas are
very long, the deployment problem becomes more
prominent. Sensor networks are usually composed of
thousands of relatively economical, energy constraint and
hence failure-prone sensors [9][10]. How to guarantee the
reliability and robustness is an important issue of sensor
network quality of service (QoS). Most of the applications
require the sensor network to be reliable and robust. For
example, for a barrier sensor network deployed in a military
field or a country border, it is highly expected that the belt
be strong enough and resist to failure.
Current solutions for the reliability and fault tolerance
ability of sensor networks focus on increasing the node
density [10]. This idea is originated from area coverage. In a
large plane, it is hard to deploy sensors precisely in a
regular geometric shape due to the deployment cost. So the
stochastic deployment is often used instead of deterministic
deployment. Random point model is a kind of stochastic
deployment. It works on the following assumptions: (1)
when the node density reaches a threshold, the coverage and
connection can be guaranteed, and (2) if we increase the
node density further, the sensor network can be robust and
failure proof. Since barrier coverage considers a narrow
strip region, it is different from area coverage.
Node failure is a major concern in barrier coverage. In
area coverage, if a node fails, there might be a blind spot,
but the entire system can still work. However, in barrier
coverage, the field of interest (FoI) is a long strip area, if a
sensor node fails, it is possible to disconnect the
communication link and break the monitoring belt. This
will be a serious malfunction.
In this paper, we address the reliability and fault tolerance
problems of barrier coverage by proposing an asymptotic
regular deployment model, called Accumulation Point
Model (APM). Barrier coverage considers a long strip
region, not a plane like area coverage. This makes the
deterministic deployment possible. Summarized from
previous literature, there are two models to deploy sensors in
barrier coverage: Random Point Model (RPM) and
Independent Belt Model (IBM). RPM is to deploy sensors
randomly in FoI. While IBM is a regular deployment model,
it separates the belts into two sets, the working belts set and
the backup belts set. With the same length of barrier and the
same node activation rate, our APM requires 1/[t(1-θ)]
times the number of sensors compared with RPM, where θ is
the overlap factor denoting the overlap degree, t is used by
activation rate k/t for k-barrier coverage. Our theoretical
analysis proves the failure probabilities of RPM and IBM
are higher than APM. The simulation results indicate that
the network lifetime of APM is the best of the three
deployment models. If we use poor quality sensors, the
network lifetime decreases a little in APM. RPM is also
robust for poor quality sensors, but its absolute network
lifetime is only 1/4 times that of APM. IBM works well for
good quality sensors, but it gets extremely bad when we use
sensors that have a high failure rate. APM has a high
performance to price ratio compared with other models.
The concepts of barrier belt and barrier graph are
introduced to make a precise description of barrier coverage.
In a barrier graph, the sensor nodes are divided into a
barrier brother set and a barrier neighbor set. The barrier
graph of APM is a result of three types of eliminations of the
redundant nodes. This can be seen as an application of the
relative neighborhood graph (RNG(G)) [4] on barrier
coverage. APM is made up of multiple accumulation points,
k
denoted as At . Every accumulation point contains t
sensors, k of them active. By this structure, we build strong
k-barrier coverage [11].
2. Related Work
The concept of barrier coverage first appeared in [7]. Kumar
et al. formalized the concept of k-barrier coverage as a
barrier of sensors, such that it can guarantee that any
penetration be detected by at least k distinct sensors [11].
Wang et al. consider the relationship of coverage and
connection [14], if RC >2RS, where RC is the communication
radius and RS is the sensing radius, k-coverage means k-
connection. In APM, we demonstrate that in k
At
accumulation belt, the connection degree is at least 3k-1.
A series of research has been taken to schedule sleep and
24
maximize the lifetime of sensor network. Most of them were
for area coverage, such as [6] and [8]. Only two algorithms
are proposed for barrier coverage [13]. It uses IBM and
RPM to address the sleep-wakeup problem for homogeneous
lifetime and heterogeneous lifetime.
Another important metric of sensor network in barrier
coverage is the fault tolerance. Many papers propose the use
high sensor density to provide redundancy [1][5][10][15]. It
is generally believed that sensors are relatively economical
and unreliable devices, therefore high density is required to
provide a reasonable level of fault tolerance. This high
density assumption belongs to RPM for both area coverage
and barrier coverage.
For barrier coverage, the centralized algorithms are
introduced in [11][13]. An L-zone localized algorithm is
provided in [2] for k-barrier coverage. Our APM uses a
localized algorithm based on accumulation points, a subset
of sensor nodes that locate closely together.
Weak barrier coverage and strong barrier coverage were
introduced in [11]. Weak barrier coverage assumes only
when the intruder does not know the traverse path will it be
detected with high probability. The QoS improvements are
discussed in [3][12]. In this paper, we assume the quality is
important and all of the assumptions are based on strong
barrier coverage.
3. Preliminary and Network Model
3.3 Barrier Belt and Barrier Graph
Assume the coverage of sensor is a unit disk with sensing
radius R. A Coverage Graph G = (V,E) indicates that for
the active sensor set V , for ∀u, v V , if the distance duv
<2R, then there is an edge euv E. There are two virtual
nodes s, t V, corresponding to the left and right
boundaries. Barrier Space is the field of interest for barrier
coverage. It is a long strip physical region with arbitrary
shape and deployed by the barrier sensors.
From above introduction, we can summarize the
properties of the barrier belt as
1) There is no loop in a barrier belt;
2) It is possible that there are crossing edges of two
distinct barrier belts in a barrier graph;
3) Except for the virtual terminal nodes {s, t}, there is no
shared node for two distinct barrier belts in a barrier graph.
Theorem 1. A sensor network barrier space is k-barrier
coverage iff ∃k barrier belts in the barrier graph.
Proof: If each crossing path is covered by k distinct sensors,
then it must be that these k distinct sensors belong to k not
(IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
Vol. 2, No. 10, 2010
intersected barrier belts.
3.4 Redundancy Elimination and Minimum Barrier
Belts
A barrier graph contains a set of sensors that are active for
barrier coverage. But what is more meaningful is a
minimum set of sensors to meet the QoS. The redundant
sensors need to be eliminated or scheduled to sleep.
To change a coverage graph to a barrier graph, first we have
to eliminate the round trip edges. We call this kind of
elimination to be Type I Elimination. There is a very special
kind of redundant node - the single edge node. If a node (not
including the virtual terminal nodes) has only one edge in a
coverage graph, then it has to be eliminated in a barrier
graph. This is called Type II Elimination. The result of type
I, II eliminations is a barrier belt. However, this barrier belt
is not the minimum barrier belt. So we need Type III
Elimination, by which we eliminate the redundant nodes, so
that we can use the minimum number of nodes to meet QoS
requirement. We get two reasons for type III elimination:
first, we can schedule the redundant nodes to sleep, so that if
an active node depletes, a redundant node can take its place;
second, the redundant nodes are also possible to be utilized
by other barrier belts.
Figure 1. Redundancy Elimination and Minimum Barrier
Graph
Let us take Fig. 1 as an example, to show more details about
three types of elimination. First we get a coverage graph
from the coverage relationship of sensors. The edge set {eaf,
efb, ecd} ⊂ V . But as for a barrier graph, every node can
only has two edges to support the barrier. So in this barrier
graph, edges {eaf , efb, ecd} are eliminated. However, this is
only one barrier graph. There are several other barrier
graphs for this example; this leaves as an exercise for
readers. For this barrier graph Gb = (Vb,Eb). Since {eab, ecd}
are edges of the coverage graph, e and f are redundant
nodes. After the elimination of e, f, we get the final
minimum barrier graph. If a node is eliminated from the
minimum barrier graph, and it is not utilized by other
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 25
barrier belts, then it is a Backup Node in the belt. A backup
node keeps sleeping until one of the working nodes depletes
its energy or fails. A backup node is also called a sponsor
node. A Backup Belt is a redundant barrier belt in the
barrier region. It keeps sleep until one of the working belts
depletes or fails. If the minimum number of active sensors
that is required by a certain QoS is denoted as nk, the total
number of sensors deployed in the field of interest denoted
as nt, then the Activation Rate ρa = nk/nt. If a k-barrier
coverage degrades the QoS: leaving a barrier hole, or
breaking the communication link, such that the whole
system is no more k-barrier monitored. Suppose we cannot
find a backup node to take the place of a failed node, nor
can we find a backup belt to work instead of the failed
barrier belt, then we consider the k-Barrier Coverage Fails.
3.3.1 Overlap Factor and Minimum Pass-through
Distance
For ∀ edge ebc ∈ Vb in Gb, the overlap factor θ reflects a
overlap degree of the sensing area for node b and c. If we
link b, c by line bc (see Fig. 2). The intersection points for
bc with the circle of the sensing disk of b, c are A,B. Then
the overlap factor θ is
The θ cannot be 1, or else it conforms to type III
elimination. In barrier coverage, an important metric for
detection quality for an unauthorized traverse is the
Minimum Pass-through Path, and its distance is the
Minimum Pass-through Distance. In the minimum pass-
through path, a moving target has the least possibility to be
detected by sensors. So, the minimum pass-through distance
is an important QoS metric for a whole barrier.
Lemma 1. The minimum pass-through path for barrier
coverage is the intersection line of the sensing disks of
neighbor nodes.
Proof: From Fig. 2, we know the intersection line of the
sensing disks for b, c is CD. Suppose E is a point outside
both intersection regions of the sensing disks, and EN is
vertical
The area of CAF is A CAF = (2Rsin α)(2Rcos α)/2 =R2 sin
(π − 2α). The same, A EAF = R2 sin (π − 2β). Since α > β,
we get A CAF < A EAF . Also, A CAF =R ・ dCM, and A CAF
= R ・ dEN, so we have dEN > dCM. Then it is easy to know
that dCD = 2dCM is the minimum path to pass-through the
circle.
Theorem 2. For a barrier coverage system with an overlap
factor θ for any neighbor sensors, the minimum pass-
through
Vol. 2, No. 10, 2010
Figure 2. Overlap Factor and Minimum Pass-through
Distance
4. Categories of Barrier Deployment
Deterministic deployment is hard for area coverage due to a
large plane area. So, stochastic deployment is often used in
area coverage. While the barrier coverage concerns a long
strip region, we need to reconsider the deterministic and
stochastic deployment in barrier space. In this chapter, we
summarize two existing deployment models of barrier
coverage, and we propose a new model - the accumulation
point model. Let us discuss these models in more detail.
4.1 Random Point Model
Random Point Model (RPM) for barrier coverage is a sensor
network whose nodes distributed along a belt region
randomly, according to uniform distribution or Poisson
distribution, such that the sensors can be deployed equally at
any location of the belt region. In RPM, nodes are often
denoted by the node density λ. The model is based on the
assumption that the deployment of sensors in deterministic
geometric shape in a large area is not practical due to the
large amount of deployment cost. So we can deploy sensors
in FoI randomly. Given enough amount of sensors, and if
we do not care how many times we deploy the sensors, then
λ is expected to be the same in each point of FoI. When λ
reaches a certain threshold value, both coverage and
connection can be guaranteed. In RPM, we need to find out
the minimum set of sensors to support the whole system,
and put the other sensors sleep. When the coverage and
connection cannot meet, some of the sleeping sensors will
wake up to join the minimum serving set.
Theorem 3. For a k-barrier coverage system built in
random point model with an activation rate ρa = k/t, denote
as Rtk . There are nr sensors deployed in the barrier space
with width 2R, where R is the sensing radius of a sensor.
Then total barrier length lr ≤ 2Rnr/t2.
Proof: In RPM, if the density is high enough, then
sensors are deployed in the barrier space according to
uniform distribution. Each sensor will be deployed in a
square domain with edge
In the barrier space, to support the k-barrier coverage with
activation rate ρa = k/t, we need to have
So we get lr ≤ 2Rnr/t2.
If the length lr = l is given, then we know that the number
of sensors required to support k-barrier coverage under RPM
is
26
Figure 3. Barrier Coverage Sensor Network Deployment
Models
Figure 4. Barrier Graph and Coverage Graph
If a k-barrier coverage system is build under random
point model, there are nr sensors deployed in the barrier
space with width 2R, where R is the sensing radius of a
sensor. Denote the activation rate as ρa = k/t, then the
overlap factor θr for the neighbor nodes is
From Equ. (3), we get θr ≥ 1 − 1/t. When t > 2, θr > 1/2, we
know it will result in a type III elimination to schedule a
neighbor node to sleep.
4.2 Independent Belt Model
Independent Belt Model (IBM) for barrier coverage is a
sensor network whose nodes distributed along a belt region
according to several independent barrier belts: some are
active belts, in which all of the nodes are working, and
others are backup belts, in which all of the nodes are
sleeping. The assumption for IBM is that for the barrier
coverage system, we can deploy sensors belt by belt, and
make these belts work independently. Here we assume the
system has already been optimized by three types of
elimination. Each active belt uses the minimum number of
sensors.
4.3 Accumulation Point Model
4.3.1 Description of Model
Definition 3. Accumulation Point An accumulation point is
a subgraph Ga = (Va, Ea) of a sensor network barrier graph
Gb = (Vb,Eb), such that for ∀u Va, ∃v ∈ Vb such that
the distance duv < R iff v Va and the edge e uv ∉ E a .
(IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
Vol. 2, No. 10, 2010
Definition 4. Neighbor Point If Ga1, Ga2 are two
accumulation points of a sensor network barrier graph Gb =
(Vb,Eb), for ∀u Ga1, ∃v Ga2 such that euv Gb, then
we say Ga2 is a neighbor point of Ga1.
For a pair of neighbor points Ga1, Ga2, for ∀ node a
Ga1, node b Ga2, a is the Neighbor Node of b and vice
versa. For ∀a, c Ga1, c is the Brother Node of a and vice
versa. For each node, the barrier neighbors are separated
into barrier left neighbors and barrier right neighbors
according to local address information.
Accumulation Point Model (APM) for barrier coverage is
a sensor network whose nodes distributed along a belt
region according to a set of accumulation points {Ga1, Ga2,
..., Gan}. For any node b not in {s, t}, b Gai, i [1, n]. For
a long strip region, actually it is easier to deploy sensors in a
series of accumulation points rather than to deploy them
randomly.
Lemma 2. For any accumulation point Ga = (Va,Ea) in a
barrier graph Gb = (Vb, Eb), if node A, B Ga, A and B
cannot be within a same barrier belt.
Proof: Use type III elimination if A, B are in the same
belt.
Lemma 3. For a long strip barrier coverage system that has
an arbitrary shape, if it is based on accumulation point
model, for any accumulation point Ga, it has and only has
two neighbors.
Proof: Use type I, II elimination for more neighbors.
Theorem 4. If a barrier coverage system is based on accu-
A barrier belt has two virtual terminal nodes, so the number
of vertices equals to the number of accumulation points plus
2, the number of edges equals to the number of
accumulation points plus 1.
4.3.2 Accumulation Degree and Accumulation
Deduction
Definition 5. Accumulation Degree An accumulation
degree is a metric that indicates how well the nodes are
accumulated. We denote it as Akt , 0 ≤ k ≤ t. Here t is the
total number of nodes in an accumulation point, and k is the
number of active nodes required to meet the quality of
service.
Specifically, A00 =ø, i.e. there is no sensor at all. A0t
indicates that this accumulation point is a backup point. If
we use A0t to describe a barrier belt, then it will be a backup
belt.
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 27
Observation 1. For a barrier coverage system in a barrier
space, if it is constructed by n Akt accumulation points, then
the activation rate ρa = k/t.
Definition 6. Accumulation Deduction An accumulation
deduction is a decomposition and combination of an
accumulation degree, to make a conversion of a high
accumulation degree to lower accumulation degrees and
vice versa, denoted as
Let us look at an example: A35 = A23 + A12 = 3 A11 + 2 A10 .
Here we know for a 3-barrier coverage system, we can use
3 Observation 2. For barrier coverage in k A11 + ( t − k ) A10
A5 APM in one barrier space. If we put them into two
barrier spaces, we can use A23 and A12 APM. We can also
use the IBM 3 A11 + 2 A10 . Here we have 3 A11 working belts,
and 2 A10 backup belts.
4.3.3 Analysis of Barrier Length
The barrier length of IBM and APM follows the same
schema.
Theorem 5. For a barrier coverage deployed in Akt
accumulation point model, the total number of nodes na =
t・n, the overlap factor θ, then the barrier coverage length
la = 2R(1−θ)n.
If the length is given, la = l, then the number of nodes na
required is
From Equ. (3), it is easy to know that under the same
activation rate ρa = k/t, the same barrier length, the cost of
the RPM compared with the APM is
4.3.4 Permitted Deployment Area
Figure 5. Permitted Deploy Region for Accumulation Point
Model
Theorem 6. For a barrier coverage deployed in Akt
Accumulation point model with overlap factor θ, a
permitted deploy region is a cycle with radius r,
Proof: First, it is easy to know if θ ≥ 1/2, then from type
III elimination there will be a node be eliminated, so it must
be θ < 1/2. From Fig. 5, AB = 2Rθ. We know the minimal
distance between each pair of points in the neighboring
dotted
circles is dCD, from geometry dCD = 2R(1 − θ) − 2r ≥ R. And
the maximal distance is dEF = 2R(1 − θ) + 2r ≤ 2R. So, we
Vol. 2, No. 10, 2010
have r = min(Rθ, R(1 − 2θ)/2). Let Rθ ≥ R(1 − 2θ)/2,we
know the permitted deploy region is a circle with radius r,
then we can get Equ. (6).
5. Comparison of the Barrier models
5.1 Connection Degree
The connection degree for a sensor node A is the number of
active nodes within the communication distance of A. Here,
the node we are referring is a normal node, not including
the virtual terminal nodes. We assume the communication
distance Rc ≥2R.
independent belt model, the connection degree is at least 2.
Observation 3. For barrier coverage in Akt accumulation
point model, the connection degree is at least 3k − 1.
As for each internal node A, it has two sets of neighbors,
each set has k active nodes. Also A has k – 1 brothers.
Observation 4. For barrier coverage in Rtk random point
model, the connection degree is at least πk2/2.
Each node lies in a square (Equ. (2)). There are at least t
nodes in each cross path, k of them active. The nodes with
least connection degree are the border nodes. We have
(2R)2/2 (2R)2 = n/k2. So, we get n = πk2/2.
5.2 Network Lifetime
If we do not concern the different roles of sensors, we can
assume all sensors’ lifetime is independent and follow the
same distribution. Considering a sensor’s lifetime is mainly
determined by battery, we can use the normal distribution to
interpret the lifetime of a sensor node, with random variable
X to indicate a sensor node’s lifetime, the mean lifetime as
μ and variance σ, X ∼ N(μ, σ2).
The cumulative distribution function (cdf) is as follows:
We assume there is no node waste. The sleep state of a
node also need to consume a little energy, so when a
working node depletes, a backup node can only work for a
time interval of (1− )μ. So the lifetime of Akt follows a
normal distribution of
This can be rewritten as
Denote random variable Y as an accumulation point’s
lifetime, then
Next let’s compute the lifetime of a whole belt of Akt .
28
Assume there are n accumulation points in the belt. Denote
random variable Z as the lifetime of the belt. Then Fap,z(z)
={ the probability that Z ≤ z} = P(Z ≤ z). Denote py as the
probability of an accumulation point’s lifetime. Then
Theorem 7. The lifetime for a barrier in accumulation point
model is t (μ − Zασ)/k, 0 ≤ α ≤ 1. Zα is the z-value in
standard normal cumulative probability table.
Proof: Let us analyze the lower bound and upper bound
for the lifetime. Let P(Z ≥ z) = 1 − Fzp(z) = 1 − .
5.3 Network Failure
5.3.1 Independent Belt Model
There are t belts, k of them are active belts, and t −k of them
are backup belts, denoted as k A11 + ( t − k ) A10 . To ease the
analysis, in this evaluation method, we assume backup belts
are the same with working belts, i.e. they are active,
although they do not really work; if one of them fails, we put
it into the statistic. The output of this evaluation is a failure
probability and network living time. We do not use the
network living time as a real network lifetime, but the
failure probability we calculated here is a good
approximation of the real failure probability. Denote a
random variable Y as living time of a belt in IBM, and Fib(y)
= {the probability that Y ≤y} = P(Y ≤y). Denote px to be the
probability of living time for a node. Then
As for the whole barrier system of IBM, there are k active
belt, and t−k backup belt. We denote random variable Z as
the living time of the whole barrier system. Denote Fib,z(z) =
{the failure probability for Z ≤ z} = P(Z ≤ z). and py to be
the probability of living time for a belt, defined in Equ. (11).
Then
5.3.2 Accumulation Point Model
To compute the failure probability, we need to know the
living time of an accumulation point Akt . We use a random
variable Y to denote the living time of Akt . Then Fap,y(y) =
{the probability that Y ≤y}=P(Y ≤y). We denote px to be the
(IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
Vol. 2, No. 10, 2010
probability of a node’s lifetime defined in Equ. (7). Then
Assume there are n accumulation points in a belt, and
denote a random variable Z as living time for a belt. Then
Fap,z(z) = { the probability that Z ≤ z} = P(Z ≤ z). Denote py
to be the probability of an accumulation point’s living time
defined in Equ. (13). Then
5.3.3 Random Point Model
A belt with an active rate ρa =k/t is denoted as Rtk .
Compared with APM, which has n nodes in a belt, from
Equ. (5), RPM has nr = t(1−θ)n nodes in a belt. So we can
use the living time of 2 Akt // 22 APM barrier belts as an
approximation for the living time of RPM. We use a random
variable Z to denote the living time of 2 Akt // 22 . Then Frp,z(z)
= {the probability that Z ≤ z} = P(Z ≤ z). Denote pz as the
probability of Akt // 22 belt’s living time. There are t(1 − θ)n
nodes in a barrier belt. Then
6. Building the Accumulation Point k-Barrier
Coverage
If a barrier space is deployed with sensors in APM, we can
implement the building and scheduling algorithms locally
using an accumulation point protocol.
6.1 Building Process
Figure 6. After message “respond barrier edge”, the nodes
B,C become new heads
Assume the localization of each node is known, using GPS
or other localization algorithms. After the sensors are
deployed in the barrier space, each sensor denoted as A,
initializes a neighbor finding process. A broadcasts an “I am
here” message, including its location, sensor id, current
status (ready, work or sleep). From the definition of
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 29
Vol. 2, No. 10, 2010

accumulation point, we know that the neighbors and
brothers of A can receive the broadcasting message. After a
node B received A’s “I am here” message, B can compute
the distance dAB,
if dAB < R then
A is B’s brother;
else {dAB < 2R}
A is B’s neighbor;
else
discard this message;
end if
After this process, each sensor will construct a list of
brothers. Therefore, a sensor can learn the value of t in Akt
by itself. After the node find out the value of t, it will
broadcast a message “my accumulation point”, including the
list of its brothers. Usually, a neighbor node can receive the
“my accumulation point” message 2t times from its
neighbors. It simply separates the neighbors to be the left
neighbors and right neighbors. This finishes our neighbor
finding process.
When the system begins the building process, a node can
be chosen randomly to be the Seed. The seed is informed the
value of k in Akt . The seed selects k −1 brothers from its
brother list to be the Heads of the barrier belts. After a node
A is appointed to be the head, it backoffs a random time,
then broadcasts a “request barrier edge” message, if it can
get the responses from left and right neighbors in a waiting
time, we get to the next step, or else A will backoff another
time.
For the first free left neighbor B that is waiting for
command, if it heard A’s “request barrier edge” message,
and the first free right neighbor to be C. The B,C will send
A a “respond barrier edge” message. A finds out that B,C
are the first left and right neighbors to respond, it will reply
an “accept” message to B,C respectively. Then B,C become
A’s barrier neighbors. After this process, B,C become the
new barrier heads (see Fig. 6), and each of them will repeat
the above steps. But this time, B,C only need to receive one
“respond barrier edge” message before it hands off the role
of barrier head. After a node finds that there are k brothers
become the barrier heads, and it is still free, then it will be
scheduled to sleep.
6.2 Sleep Schedule
There is no need for an accumulation belt to use belt
switch. Even if multiple barrier spaces are considered, e.g.
( A23 , A24 , A12 ). First, for this system, we can use A59 to
else {after a period pw, A cannot receive k messages
back}
A invokes the barrier building process;
end if
In the above algorithm, we use a wake-up query scheme
instead of an activate scheme. The activate scheme is
unpractical considering the current technique [8]; if a sensor
went to sleep, we cannot wake it up unless the sensor wake
up itself by a short period. In the wake up scheme, it is
possible that during the sleep period of a node, there is a
brother node depleted. And so it is possible to exist an
interval that the belt degrades to (k − 1)-barrier coverage.
Let’s denote the period from a node begin to report
depleting to the time it totally depletes as pd. If we set the
fixed sleep period ps = 2pd, and the random sleep delay dr
[0, 2pd], then even in the worst case, that is, t degrades to
k+1, only one brother node left as a backup node, the
maximum possible degraded monitoring interval max(ps +
dr − 2pd) = 2pd.
If we decrease ps, the maximum possible degraded
monitoring interval max(ps + dr − 2pd) can be decreased. For
k > 1, the wake-up time is not a problem for APM, since
node switch in each accumulation point is done locally, even
if one belt degrades a little time due to node switch, the
other belts are still working. While in IBM, unless we
assume nodes can be activated, or we use the wake-up
scheme and set dr to be very small, which will lose the
benefit of saving energy when sleeping, the barrier domino
phenomenon will be explicit during belt switch. RPM does
not need belt switch either, so its wake up scheme is the
same as that of APM.
Figure 7. Network Lifetime for Barrier Coverage
Deployment Models

implement it. If we have to use ( A23 , A24 , A12 ), since in each

accumulation point, we have already set up backup nodes,
we still do not need belt switch. Instead, we need node
switch to change the role of nodes in an accumulation point.
The following is a sleep scheduling algorithm:
A redundant node A sleeps for ps plus a random delay dr;
A wakes up and broadcasts a ”query status” message;
Any working brothers of A response a ”status
information”; if one message indicates that the node is
depleting then A
Figure 8. Network Energy Residue Rate for Barrier
invokes the node switch process;
Coverage Deployment Models
30
7. Simulation Results
To evaluate our analysis, we build a simulation platform
based on C++. We set the sensing radius R = 10m,
communication radius Rc = 30m. Sensors are deployed in a
belt region of 3000m, and for RPM and APM, the width of
the belt is 20m. As for IBM, the width is not fixed in order
to make sure different belt independent. The k is fixed to 3,
and t is a variable. The overlap factor θ = 0.1. The sensors’
mean lifetime μ = 400, the variance of lifetime σ = 20. We
deploy different number of sensors, so that the node
densities are different. Here the network energy residue rate
ρr is a metric to measure how much energy remained when
the barrier fails,
Fig. 7 indicates RPM needs more sensors to maintain a
certain network lifetime. When the number of sensors is
lower than 1800, the network lifetime of RPM is zero. This
is because RPM needs a high node density to work. After the
density reaches a threshold, RPM’s lifetime increase fast,
but it is still lower than IBM, while IBM’s network lifetime
is lower than APM. In this experiment, we optimize the
backup nodes and backup belts to sleep in order to save
energy and maximize the network lifetime. That is why the
network lifetime can be 3000 days for APM, nearly 9 years.
Figure 9. The Effect of Sensor Quality on Network Lifetime
The network energy residue rate in Fig. 8 is an indicator
for the performance to price ratio. Low network residue rate
indicates a High Performance to Price Ratio. APM’s residue
ratio is the least, which means its waste is the least of all
models. RPM has a higher residue rate than 50%. This
means when the network cannot meet the quality
requirement, only less than half of the whole energy
consumed. The graph also indicates that when more sensors
are deployed, the residue rate decreases as a tendency.
In the next experiment, we need to find out the network
failure resistance ability of different deployment models. We
fix the number of sensors to be 3000, and change the sensor
lifetime variance σ from 15 to 130 days, in order to indicate
we use sensors with poor quality. All the other parameters
are the same as the first experiment. We find out that IBM’s
lifetime deteriorates fast from 1800 to 0, even though the
number of sensors remains the same (Fig. 9). As for RPM,
although its lifetime is not long, only 390 at the beginning,
it does not decrease so sharply as that of IBM. APM’
lifetime is the longest. It only decreases a little when using
(IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
Vol. 2, No. 10, 2010
the low quality sensors. This indicates APM is a very robust
and reliable structure. Even if the quality of the sensors are
not good and vulnerable to all kinds of failures, we can still
maintain a good network service if we deploy sensors
according to APM.
8. Conclusions
Compared with existing models of barrier coverage -
Random Point Model and Independent Belt Model, the
Accumulation Point Model is an economical, robust and
reliable structure: its cost is the least, and the failure
resistance is the best. The Accumulation Point Model is a
long lived deployment model for sensor networks. Although
originated from barrier coverage, it is possible to use
Accumulation Point Model for area coverage. If we deploy
the accumulation points instead of single sensors, the fault
tolerance and network lifetime will definitely increase. This
will be more helpful than simply increase the node density.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported in part by the National Science
Foundation under award number CT-ISG 0716261.
References
[1] P. Balister, B. Bollobas, A. Sarkar, and S. Kumar.
Reliable density estimates for coverage and connectivity
in thin strips of finite length. In Proceedings of the 13th
annual ACM international conference on Mobile
computing and networking (MobiCom), pages 75–86,
NY, USA, 2007.
[2] Ai Chen, Santosh Kumar, and Ten H. Lai. Designing
localized algorithms for barrier coverage. In Proceedings
of the 13th annual ACM international conference on
Mobile computing and networking (MobiCom), pages
63–74, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM.
[3] Ai Chen, Ten H. Lai, and Dong Xuan. Measuring and
guaranteeing quality of barrier-coverage in wireless
sensor networks. In Proceedings of MobiHoc, pages 421–
430, NY, USA, 2008.
[4] X. Cheng, X. Huang, and Xiang yang Li. Applications
of computational geometry in wireless networks, 2003.
[5] Qunfeng Dong. Maximizing system lifetime in wireless
sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 4th international
symposium on Information processing in sensor
networks (IPSN), page 3, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2005.
IEEE Press.
[6] D.W.Gage. Command control for many-robot systems.
In AUVS-92, the Nineteenth Annual AUVS Technical
Symposium, pages 28–34. Unmanned Systems
Magazine, 1992.
[7] J.A. Fuemmeler and V.V. Veeravalli. Smart sleeping
policies for energy efficient tracking in sensor networks.
In IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, pages 2091–
2101, Washington, DC, USA, 2008. IEEE Computer
Society.
[8] Rajagopal Iyengar, Koushik Kar, and Suman Banerjee.
Lowcoordination topologies for redundancy in sensor
networks. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM international
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 31
Vol. 2, No. 10, 2010

symposium on Mobile ad hoc networking and computing

(MobiHoc), pages 332–342, NY, USA, 2005.
[9] S. Kumar, T.H. Lai, and A. Arora. Barrier coverage with
wireless sensors. Wirel. Netw., 13(6):817–834, 2007.
[10] Benyuan Liu, Olivier Dousse, Jie Wang, and Anwar
Saipulla. Strong barrier coverage of wireless sensor
networks. In MobiHoc ’08: Proceedings of the 9th ACM
international symposium on Mobile ad hoc networking
and computing, pages 411–420, New York, NY, USA,
2008. ACM.
[11] M. E. Posner S. Kumar, T. H. Lai and P. Sinha.
Optimal sleep wakeup algorithms for barriers of wireless
sensors. In Fourth International Conference on
Broadband Communications, Networks, and Systems,
Raleigh, NC, 2007.
[12] Xiaorui Wang, Guoliang Xing, Yuanfang Zhang,
Chenyang Lu, Robert Pless, and Christopher Gill.
Integrated coverage and connectivity configuration in
wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of SenSys,
pages 28–39, NY, USA, 2003.
[13] Jerry Zhao and Ramesh Govindan. Understanding
packet delivery performance in dense wireless sensor
networks. In Proceedings of SenSys, pages 1–13, NY,
USA, 2003.

Author’s Profile

Yong (Yates) Lin is a Ph.D.

candidate in University of Texas at
Arlington. He received his M.S.
degree in Computer Science at
University of Science and Technology
of China in 2003. His research
interests include sensor network,
pervasive computing, robotics,
artificial intelligence, machine
learning.

Zhengyi Le received my Ph.D.

majored in Computer Science at
Dartmouth College. She received my
B.S. degree in Computer Science at
Nanjing University, China. Her
research interests include computer
security & privacy, recommendation
systems, collaboration systems, P2P
and sensor networks.

Fillia Makedon received a doctorate

in computer science from
Northwestern University in 1982.
She joined the faculty of the
University of Texas at Arlington in
2006. Between 1991 and 2006 she
has been a professor of Computer
Science and Chair of the Master
Program at Dartmouth College, in
the Department of Computer Science.