Nature Inspired Optimization for Sustainable Wireless Sensor Networks - Review

International Journal of Distributed

Sensor Networks
2020, Vol. 16(8)
Evolution of wireless sensor network Ó The Author(s) 2020
DOI: 10.1177/1550147720949138
design from technology centric to user journals.sagepub.com/home/dsn

centric: An architectural perspective

Akhilendra Pratap Singh1, Ashish Kr Luhach2 , Xiao-Zhi Gao3,

Sandeep Kumar4 and Diptendu Sinha Roy1

Abstract
Wireless sensor networks form the crux of a wide range of automated applications that are gaining popularity with
every passing day. The journey of wireless sensor networks has seen simple sensory monitoring to sensing-processing-
actuation based end-to-end applications to the design and deployment of highly sophisticated service-oriented use cases.
This highly disruptive field has seen rapid transformations to gain insights and assess the relative merits. Demerits of
competing design strategies, it very important to know the evolutionary milestones this technology has undergone in
achieving the state-of-the-art in this area. In this article, a systematic review is carried out that captures the evolution of
architectural designs and developments in wireless sensor network–based applications. This review delves into the rela-
tive pros and cons of various epochs in developments and delineates the future areas of research in wireless sensor net-
work design paradigm.

Keywords
Wireless sensor network, service-oriented architecture, two-tier communication architecture, three-tier communica-
tion architecture, multitier communication architecture, unified layered communication architecture

Date received: 17 October 2019; accepted: 2 July 2020

Handling Editor: Yanjiao Chen

Introduction signal is used to perform the communication between

Wireless sensor networks (WSNs) comprise a large
number of sensor nodes which are generally used for
various applications, such as target tracking, pressure
monitoring, health monitoring, fire detection, and so
on. The sensor nodes consist of transducers, radio
transceiver, and wireless interfaces that are used to
gather data from the environment. These inexpensive,
small sensors form the network with group effort to
perform the tasks as per their needs. To measure the
change or property of environment, various kinds of
sensor nodes such as biosensors and thermal, mechani-
cal, magnetic, optical, and chemical sensors can be con-
nected with node.1 As sensor nodes consist of limited
battery life, memory, processing power, and are
installed at remote places (difficult to access), radio
the source and the base station. In general, WSN has
little or no infrastructure and broadly can be categor-
ized as structured and unstructured sensor networks.2
In structured WSN, nodes are deployed in a pre-
planned manner in which a few nodes may be placed at
specific locations for better coverage. The network and
1
National Institute of Technology Meghalaya, Shillong, India
2
The PNG University of Technology, Lae, Papua New Guinea
3
School of Computing, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland
4
Amity University, Jaipur, India
Corresponding author:
Ashish Kr Luhach, The PNG University of Technology, Lae 411, Papua
New Guinea.
Email: ashish.kumar@pnguot.ac.pg

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work
without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks
cost maintenance of these nodes are lower than those
of unstructured networks. In unstructured WSNs,
nodes are densely and randomly arranged in the field.
After the deployment, nodes need to be unattended to
perform their tasks like monitoring, gathering, and
transmitting data from the environment. In unstruc-
tured sensor networks, connectivity, failure detection,
and network management are tedious task because of
random deployment.3 In unstructured WSNs, network
issues and connectivity failures are the norm primarily
due to random deployments. Thus, ensuring network
connectivity, failure detection, and network manage-
ment are non-trivial tasks. This is unlike structured
WSNs. To achieve a high level of coverage and connec-
tivity, mobile nodes may be used in unstructured net-
work. Nowadays, sensor nodes can be deployed on the
field, under field, and underwater. With respect to
deployment area, sensor networks may face different
constraints and challenges.
Based on the deployment technique and its applica-
tion, the WSNs can also be classified into five types,
namely, multimedia WSNs, mobile WSNs,2,4 under-
ground WSNs, terrestrial WSNs, and underwater
WSNs. Multimedia WSN comprises low-cost sensors
that are equipped with microphones and camera. These
multimedia nodes are used to track events such as audio,
video, and image. Such nodes communicate over wireless
channel to gather, process, correlate, and compress the
data. For guaranteed coverage, multimedia sensor nodes
are arranged in a preplanned manner. Challenging issues
in multimedia sensor network include energy consump-
tion, data processing, quality of service (QoS) provision,
data compression, high bandwidth requirement, cross-
layer design (CLD) requirements, and so on. QoS provi-
sioning is a challenging issue due to variable link capac-
ity in multimedia WSNs. Mobile WSN comprises a
number of mobile sensors that interact with the environ-
ment. The node has functionality to sense, compute, and
communicate with other nodes. Unlike static nodes,
these nodes have the ability to organize and reposition
itself in the network. The collected data may be trans-
ferred within the coverage range of sensor nodes. Some
issues with mobile WSNs include navigation and control,
energy, deployment, maintenance, self-organization and
localization, and so on. Underground WSNs comprise
sensor nodes which are deployed in an underground
mine or in a cave to observe underground conditions. In
such networks, a few additional sink nodes may be
placed on the surface (above the ground) to transmit the
information from nodes to the base station. The deploy-
ment planning must be done more carefully than terres-
trial networks because of loss of signal, energy,
attenuation, and cost. To improve the energy level of
node and network lifetime, many efficient communica-
tion protocols have been suggested for use for communi-
cation. To build the terrestrial WSNs, a number of low-
cost sensor nodes, ranging from a hundred to thousand,
may be deployed either in an ad hoc or predetermined
manner, in the specific region. In ad hoc manner, nodes
may be deployed randomly in the specific region. In a
predetermined manner, nodes can be deployed with vari-
ous methods such as grid deployment, two-dimensional
(2D) deployment, and three-dimensional (3D) deploy-
ment. In such networks, energy consumption can be
minimized by optimal routing, short-range communica-
tions, and redundant data elimination among others.
Underwater WSN consists of sensor nodes and vehicles
which are sparsely deployed under the water. In such
networks, sensor nodes are more costly than terrestrial
WSNs. Underwater vehicles are used to collect data
from the deployed sensor nodes. In general, acoustic
waves are used for underwater communication. In
underwater environment, the primary issues faced are
propagation delay, limited bandwidth, and signal fading.
Some other limitations of underwater WSNs are energy,
self-configurability, adaptability, and node failure due to
ocean environment. In this article, we have carried out a
detailed study of application-based architectural
approaches. We have categorized the approaches into
communication perspective, traditional layered architec-
ture, cross-layer architecture, conventional cross-layer,
complex cross-layer, unified layered architecture,
middleware-based architecture, and service-oriented
architecture (SOA) for WSNs. We have discussed the
advantages and disadvantages of various approaches
systematically. This article provides a roadmap toward
architectural framework development using SOA for
application. The remainder of this article is organized as
follows. Section ‘‘WSN and its communication architec-
tural frameworks’’ shows the various approaches for
WSN architecture design, section ‘‘Evolution of architec-
tural design and development: application perspective’’
presented the evolution of architectural design and devel-
opment: application perspective, section ‘‘Cross-layer
architecture’’ shows the cross-layer architectural design
and systematic comparison of various approaches, sec-
tion ‘‘Middleware approaches for WSN’’ presented mid-
dleware approaches for WSNs, section ‘‘Leveraging
SOA for WSN’’ presented leveraging SOA for WSNs,
section ‘‘Lack of common framework and reusability’’
shows the lack of common framework and reusability,
and section ‘‘Service-oriented middleware for WSN’’ pre-
sented service-oriented middleware approaches for
WSNs.
WSN and its communication architectural
frameworks
WSN is a collection of numerous autonomous linked
sensor nodes that work together to sense changes in the
environment such as vibration, humidity, temperature,
Singh et al.
Figure 1. Architecture of the WSN.
noise level, pressure, and so on.5,6 WSNs can also be
used for detection of mobility and location of an object
like a vehicle. Basic communication architecture is
depicted in Figure 1. In general, WSN has no common
architecture which may be applied to all its different
taxonomy categories due to different constraints and
issues.4,7 Therefore, various WSN architectures have
been proposed by various designers as per the applica-
tion needs.8
Existing architectures of WSN can be classified as
follows: data-centric architectures, hierarchical archi-
tectures, location-based architectures, mobility-based
architectures, QoS-based architectures, network flow
architectures, multipath-based architectures, and
heterogeneity-based architectures.
Data-centric architecture can be described as ran-
dom deployment of large sensor nodes where nodes
interact with each other without global network ID. In
the absence of global ID, it is difficult to select the spe-
cific node for query. Therefore, generally, data can be
transferred via every node in the region which is ineffi-
cient in terms of energy consumption. In Sensor
Protocols for Information via Negotiation (SPIN),
routing protocol has been given to minimize the prob-
lem of redundant data and energy consumption.9
Many other methods have also been proposed in for
direct diffusion. The aim of this type of architecture is
transmission of data by the use of the most efficient
route. To achieve scalability in the sensor network,
data-centric architecture is not suitable. Taking into
consideration, hierarchical architecture is useful to
achieve scalability in a large area network. In hierarchi-
cal architecture, the sensor node builds the group with
a cluster head. To bring about communication between
cluster heads and in the same cluster, cluster head form
intercluster and intracluster. Cluster heads collect the
data from the sensor nodes and send the data to the
base station using multihop routing mechanism.
Various approaches have been set to support the hier-
archical architecture such as low-energy adaptive clus-
tering hierarchy (LEACH) and so on.10 The aim of this
architecture is to maintain power consumption in a
large network. In location-based architecture, the rout-
ing algorithms depend on the location of sensors to
send and receive the packets. Sensors may obtain their
3
location using different mechanisms like Global
Positioning System (GPS) receivers, triangulation, or
by placing the sensors at known locations. Various
algorithms have been proposed to reduce the power
consumption in data routing. Example algorithms
include trajectory-based forwarding (TBF),11 an anchor
location service (ALS),12 and so on. Mobility-based
architecture assumes that the sensors (sink, intermedi-
ate, and source) may change their locations dynami-
cally with respect to time. The routing and connectivity
is difficult in the mobility-based architecture. To make
the network connected, sensor requires more energy
than static network. Therefore, with few assumptions
(nodes may move in stationary network), various meth-
ods have been suggested such as source encrypted
authenticated data (SEAD),13 data MULEs (mobile
data collector),11 and so on. The QoS architecture can
be defined based on the requirements such as reliabil-
ity, delay, energy, and so on. This architecture is
required to send and receive the data as per predefined
parameters. QoS architecture is a complex architecture
due to maintenance overhead. The process of optimiza-
tion across the sensor link is known as network flow-
based architecture. The links may be defined based on
different parameters like latency of data transfer,
power consumption, and delay between two sensor
nodes. The goal of this kind of architecture is to find
the optimum route with predefined parameters.
Examples of architecture are minimum cost forward-
ing, maximum lifetime routing, and maximum lifetime
for data gathering and aggregation. In this architecture,
sink and source node can be connected through differ-
ent paths. The multipath-based architectural method is
useful in the distribution of the data payload on differ-
ent paths as well as for real-time data streaming where
more reliability is required. Some methods have been
presented in Lou.14 The aim of such architecture is
power efficiency and reliability. Heterogeneity-based
architecture may be defined based on different kinds of
tasks and types of sensors such as sensing, communica-
tion, battery-operated nodes and nodes with power
consumption, and so on. Various architecture comes
into this category such as energy efficient heteroge-
neous cluster (EEHC) and so on.15 The goal of this
architecture is the best use of available nodes as
resource.
WSN is an application-centric network designed as
per constraints and requirements of an application such
as communication services, energy, routing, security,
lifetime of network, QoS, and so on. Therefore, various
sensor network communication architectures have been
suggested.16–18 From the application perspective, the
communication architecture of WSNs is broadly cate-
gorized in to four categories, namely, (1) traditional
architecture, (2) layered architecture, (3) cross-layer,
and (4) unified layer. The traditional architecture has
4 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks
also been classified into two-tier architecture,19 three-
tier architecture,20 and multitier architecture.21 The
layered architecture consists of five layers and three
cross-planes. Cross-layer architecture follows the con-
cept of layered architecture but divides the layers in the
form of services and interfaces. The design of service
and interface follows the conventional22 and complex
approach.23 Unified layer is a layer-less approach to
provide service in communication.24,25 In this
approach, all the service will be on the same plane and
there will be proper interaction with interfaces. So, the
services can be accessible as per the need without unne-
cessary communication between the layers.
The design and development of general architectural
solution for WSNs is not trivial due to constraints such
as application, energy, and network and deployment.
Therefore, to design and develop the architecture for
WSNs, architectural characteristics needs to be fol-
lowed which also describes the challenges of it. The
general characteristics of architecture are as follows:
 Scalability: Scalability supports increases in net-
work size without affecting the network perfor-
mance. Efficient architecture should be capable
enough to maintain the performance level as net-
work size increases.
 Flexibility: Flexibility is one of the important
characteristics for any architecture. It can be
described as coupling and decoupling of services
without affecting the network. In WSNs,
researchers and developers have proposed various
solutions based on requirements and existing ser-
vice. So coupling of those services should be
allowed for any application with the performance
level and also decoupling to improve perfor-
mance. Therefore, architecture should be flexible
enough to support different available services.
 Dynamic network organization: In the WSN,
network topology changes dynamically due to
reason such as interference, node mobility,
device failure, and so on. The architecture
should be capable enough to maintain the net-
work with dynamicity. Traditional architectures
are enriched with the static service such as band-
width, processing power, topology, and so on,
but in WSNs, these are dynamic. In general, the
architecture should have capability to maintain
these resources to make the network functional.
In WSNs, nodes require their locations in the
network with the different methods which may
not be possible in architecture without applica-
tion knowledge and parameters. So any architec-
ture should support resource and service
discovery in dynamic network.
 Real-world integration: Real-world integration
is important to design and develop the architec-
ture. Time and space are most important factors
because WSN applications deal with real-world
events. So, to maintain data consistency, the
architecture should be capable to provide real-
world services and their integration with the
network.
 QoS: This can be described as per the perspec-
tive of researchers. In WSN perspective, QoS
can be described in terms of network and appli-
cation specific. Initially, application-specific
(localization) QoS parameters such as node
deployment, reliability, accuracy, and so on were
used. Presently, the network-specific parameters
like power consumption, bandwidth, and so on
are more common ones. In traditional architec-
ture, QoS parameters have been used for wired
network which is not suitable for WSNs because
of wireless connection limited power and topol-
ogy dynamicity. Therefore, any architecture
should maintain the QoS parameters to meet the
application requirements.
 Application knowledge: Application knowledge
provides the way to design and develop new
architectural solutions for applications. In WSN
perspective, detailed knowledge of sensor net-
work applications helps to develop the architec-
ture for the specific application. It helps service
providers to map communication requirements
to network. Most of the architectures are appli-
cation specific, but in general, architecture
should support an extensive range of
applications.
 Heterogeneity: Heterogeneity support is an
important characteristic of any architecture
because it forms the bridge to fill technological
gap. It provides the interface between different
components, programming models, and hard-
ware. Therefore, architectural solutions should
support heterogeneity. In WSNs, the aim of the
software framework is to make sensor network
functional as per the applications. To consider
the various requirements in WSNs like QoS, net-
work requirements, performance, and deploy-
ment efficiency, software architecture is
needed.26–29
WSN applications have been increasing every day
along with dynamic requirements; therefore, to adapt
the changes and requirements, software architecture
should be flexible to incorporate the changes. Various
SOA-based software architectural solutions have been
suggested to build the WSN applications.30–33
Singh et al.
Evolution of architectural design and
development: application perspective
In this section, we discuss detailed design and develop-
ment of application-based architectures. The review of
existing communication architectural developments for
WSNs and their adaptability as per the application’s
need is done.34 The architectural development for
WSNs is categorized as follows: tiered architectures,
layered architectures, cross-layer architectures, and
SOA-based middleware architectures.35 Since WSN is
an application-based network, it is convenient to
describe the architectures as per the need of applica-
tions and their limitations. In this section, a brief litera-
ture survey on various perspectives of technological
developments of WSNs at the architectural level is
presented.36
Two-tier architecture
Two-tier WSN architecture consists of application
nodes, gateway, and sensor nodes, depicted in
Figure 2.17 The application node and sensor nodes
communicate with each other within the same cluster.
In this architecture, sensor nodes collect data from the
environment and application node sends the data to
the cluster head. The cluster head communicates with
other cluster heads to send the collected data to the
gateway or base station. Due to the fault in the trans-
mitter, data may not be collected from the cluster head.
Therefore, communication link is required to recollect
the data from other cluster heads.
Three-tier architecture
Two-tier architectures are not suitable to send the data
when coverage area is increased. If large sensor nodes
are deployed for observation, then midrange communi-
cation module will be required to connect the local sen-
sor nodes to the central station to cover the large area.
To this end, a three-tiered architecture was proposed by
Han20 and shown in Figure 3. This architecture
Figure 2. Two-tiered sensor network architecture.
5
supports the long-range communication network
(LRCN), midrange network (MRN), and linear wire-
less sensor network (LWSN). The LRCN is capable to
send the data to server using the Internet. Multirobot
sensor network system can transmit the data up to
16 Km. The LWSN is suitable for short-range devices
(up to 100 m) and is generally used for communication
from sensor nodes to the gateway.
Multitier-tier architecture
Meena et al.21 have proposed the distributed multitier
clustering approach for WSNs to improve the perfor-
mance of network in terms of lifetime. In this approach,
authors have proposed multilevel cluster heads. The
higher level cluster head is responsible to transmit the
data to the base station.
Communication architecture of WSNs is broadly
categorized as layered architecture, cross-layer architec-
ture, and unified layered architecture.
Layered architecture
The layered communication architecture is also known
as the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) model.
Most common architecture of WSNs follows the OSI
model. In layered communication architecture, both
sink and source nodes transmit the data. The commu-
nication architecture consists of five layers (i.e. applica-
tion layer, transport layer, network layer, data link
layer, and physical layer) and three cross-planes (i.e.
power management plane, mobility management plane,
and task management plane).37,38 The power manage-
ment plane deals with the power consumption of the
node, the mobility management plane identifies the
mobility of node and maintains the information of
neighboring nodes, and the task management plane is
used to schedule the sensing task in the given area
(Figure 4).4,39 As per the need of sensing task, different
software may be developed and employed in the appli-
cation layer.
6 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks
Figure 3. Block diagram for the three-tier WSN monitoring system.
Figure 4. Layered communication architecture.
 Physical layer: The physical layer provides the
interface to transmit the bit stream over the
physical channel. The main task is frequency
generation, detection, and selection. Pertaining
to this layer, the standard of IEEE 802.15.4 is
described for WSNs with low power consump-
tion, cost, data rate, complexity, and communi-
cation range to increase the battery life.40 It also
deals with designing of mechanical and electrical
interfaces.
 Data link layer: It is responsible for the medium
access, multiplexing of data stream, frame detec-
tion, and error control. This layer ensures the
reliable connection among point-to-point and
point-to-multipoint communications. In the con-
text of WSNs, this layer performs some basic
tasks, namely, energy efficiency, maximization
of the throughput, self-organizing capability by
hop-to-hop communication, and efficient shar-
ing of communication resources between sensor
nodes as per the requirement of applications.
The traditional medium access control (MAC)
layer is suitable for infrastructure-based net-
works but cannot be used for WSNs.
 Network layer: In the context of WSNs, the net-
work layer is designed under some basic assump-
tions such as (1) sensors location awareness, (2)
attribute-based addressing, (3) sensor network’s
data-centric nature, (4) power consumption, and
(5) data aggregation. To save power, this layer
follows various routing mechanisms, such as
minimum energy route, minimum hop route,
maximum power available route, and
maximum–minimum power available route. It is
also responsible to connect the external network.
 Transport layer: Since WSN is application-
specific network and different applications can
Singh et al. 7

have different needs, the transport layer should

be application specific. For example, downward
demands are more reliability than upward. The
designing of the transport layer protocol is a
challenging task because of inherent constraints
like limited power and memory.41 The storage of
a large amount of data and acknowledgment in
the sensor node turns out to be costly in terms
of power.42 Therefore, communication in the
network is divided into User Datagram Protocol
(UDP) and Transmission Control Protocol
(TCP)/Internet Protocol (IP) for sensor net-
works and the Internet, respectively.
 Application layer: This layer provides the man-
agement level functionality as per the require-
ment of user and application. It also deals with Figure 5. Adaptive communication architecture.
the issues of time synchronization, task manage-
ment, security, and sensor node configuration
(i.e. status of node).43 Although various applica- The modular network layer has been brought out by
tion level services are already developed, it Chen et al.46 The main objective of the approach is to
remains a challenge to develop other application achieve code reusability and run time resource sharing.
level services to provide higher level of services. The suggested approach allows decomposition of the
Ramesh44 has proposed a protocol architecture network layer into smaller components which may be
for application-specific WSNs. However, the used by other protocol at run time. It maximizes the
composibilty and reusability of protocol module. As
proposed architecture has two basic problems,
mentioned by Dunkels,47 full TCP/IP is not suitable for
namely, interoperability between the system
WSNs due to the dependency in the adjacent interfaces.
components and lack of common framework to
WSN has memory constraints, but it requires too many
build new services. In WSNs, applications are
resources (memory usage and code size). Paek et al.48
custom built without standardization in commu-
suggested an architecture to resolve the problem of
nication protocols which implies that there may
existing programmed wireless communication system.
be no interoperability between the components
The author suggested application-specific research due
developed by different research communities.
to rapid increase in hardware and software platforms in
Further, there is no common architecture for the
sensor networks. Zhibo Pang et al.49 have presented
developer to develop services, and hence, they
design of real-time operating system architecture for
are forced to develop the service from scratch.
WSNs. A general purpose stack may not fulfill the need
With the common framework, a developer can
of application-specific sensor networks. The issues are
save the time. Various standard protocol archi-
(1) How many layers can there be in a protocol stack
tectures are suggested for communication in
for future sensor network? (2) How the network stack
WSNs which may include the composable frame-
will be tuned with application-specific sensor networks?
work and resource awareness. The architecture
And it is suggested that traditional protocol stack is not
includes the sensornet protocol (SP), which is the
suitable for wireless ad hoc sensor network (WASN).
linking interface between network layer and link
The reasons are irrelevance of some TCP/IP services,
layer to abstract the functionalities of link layer
like error control at both MAC and transport layer;
and offer the service to network layer (Figure 5).
flow control at the transport layer; inclusion of new ser-
Its major problem is adapting with the network
vices as per the application requirement; and energy
protocols to programmer.
optimization. These services may not be generic for
every application so the stack should be application
Jiawei et al.45 have presented adaptive communica- specific.
tion architecture for WSNs which resolves the problem Vehicular ad hoc network is application specific, so
of communication in heterogeneous networks. The it has different requirements for communication types,
architecture adapts a wide range of communication self-organizing, and management.50 To meet these
mechanisms from the transport layer to the MAC layer requirements, existing structure of the protocol is not
without changing the protocols or applications. The suitable to incorporate these requirements. Therefore,
adaptive communication architecture supports sensor staircase stack suggested incorporating the require-
network, MAC, and link layer protocols. ments as per the application shown in Figure 6. This
8 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks
Figure 6. Staircase architecture.
architecture is useful for data collection with collabora-
tive nature.
In Pang et al.,49 the proposed approach of sensor
stack is used to adapt to the dynamic changes in the
network. Traditional layered architecture is not feasible
to add the service in between layers due to strong cou-
pling and interface dependency. Therefore, Kumar
et al. proposed an information exchange service (IES)
as a service broker and its integration with sensor stack
architecture (Figure 7). Sensor stack provides the func-
tionality of sharing the data of node through the bulle-
tin board. The sensor stack is not flexible enough to
employ in the network.
Pros and cons of traditional communication
architecture
Traditional communication architectures are generally
used for networking framework in which services are
implemented at each layer. Every layer has its own
functionality to interact with its adjacent layers using
different services and procedure calls. It minimizes the
complexity by dividing the communication services in
fine chunks. The layers are strictly coupled and placed
Figure 7. Sensor stack architecture.
adjacent to each other so communication among non-
adjacent layers is not possible without any modifica-
tion. With an increasing number of applications in
wireless network, developers have to be ready to handle
future requirements and new technologies.
Cross-layer architecture
Traditional layered communication architectures like
the OSI model splits the networking task into layers
and defines the services provided by each layers. The
architecture prevents direct communication among the
non-adjacent layers, and adjacent layers are restricted
to produce calls and response. To design the communi-
cation protocol, the designer may design the protocol
either with the rules or by violating the rules of tradi-
tional architecture.51–54 By violating the rules, the
designer can give solutions for direct communication
between non-adjacent layers using shared variables.
Such violation of traditional architecture is CLD with
reference to layered architecture (Figure 8).
CLD was a new paradigm of network architecture
which included functionalities of dependent layers and
supported optimization.13 The basic principle to design
the cross-layer was crossing the defined boundaries of
well-defined architecture, thus expanding opportunities
beyond layer boundaries. In this research area, reliable
and efficient wireless communication was the focus,
and many authors have proposed design approaches of
cross-layer architecture.
The authors have categorized the the CLD approach
based on the criteria11 such as interaction between the
physical and link layer and interaction of the physical
and link layer with the upper layer (Figure 9). The
CLD was initiated from the traditional layer approach
and was later transformed into a layer-less approach.
Such approaches are classified as follows:
 Conventional CLD approach
 Complex CLD approach
Singh et al.
Figure 8. Architectural design of crosstalk.
Figure 9. Cross-layer optimization interface.
Conventional CLD approaches
In this approach, traditional layered architecture is
designed and maintained for the communication
between adjacent layers with well-defined interfaces.
The communication can be either from upward to
downward or vice versa. Upward interaction may be a
feedback technique to improve the system perfor-
mance.55 Few prioritized message can be transferred
downward. These approaches had to strike only for a
9
few message exchanges. To maintain cross-layer, the
approach is classified as direct communication between
layers, shared database across the layers, and new
abstraction as shown in Figure 10.
 Direct communication between layers: In this
approach, layers can directly share the informa-
tion with each other at run time as shown in
Figure 11. This approach is applicable only
when the application needs to share the informa-
tion at run time. Wang and Ali Abu-Rgheff56
have given an approach of cross-layer signaling
shortcut (CLASS). The CLASS is flexible and
efficient to propagate messages with standard
layered architecture. This architecture has inter-
nal and external signaling scheme as depicted in
Figure 11. It has some advantages such as low
overhead and propagation latency and the dis-
advantage that at each layer, additional code
blocks slow down the execution which also
affects the performance.
Sheikh and Mahmoud57 had proposed cross-layer
technique to improve the performance of routing tech-
nique (Figure 12). This approach focuses on path selec-
tion, channel selection, and allocation of transmission
power for smart routing in the WSN. For smart rout-
ing decision, direct signaling is used to share the infor-
mation between the protocol layers with no delay. The
upward communication is used to share information
like the energy level, data processing, and sensing range
between the physical and application layer. The MAC
layer informs the application layer about the quality of
link, and the network layer shares the information
about the network path. The downward communica-
tion shares the information about the next hop, power,
and bandwidth as per the application. This architec-
tural technique provides the way to think the
application-based routing.
 Shared database across the layers: In traditional
layered architecture, there is no common data-
base which can be shared during the run time
between all the layers. More delay and energy
consumption results between non-adjacent layers
due to unknown processed information at spe-
cific layers. Therefore, shared database approach
is required between the layers. Su and Lim58
have proposed a common repository to all the
layers as an optimization agent (OA; Figure 13).
The OA stores information such as the node
energy level, ID number, hop count, link status,
and so on. With the OA layers, one can access
the available information from the repository.
The available information is the feedback for all
the layers. It is flexible enough to optimize the
10
Figure 10. Architecture of shared database.
Figure 11. Cross-layer signaling shortcut.
information sharing without redesigning the pro-
tocol, which increases the energy consumption,
but increases power consumption due to the
application programming interface (API).55,59,60
Figure 12. Cross-layer architecture.
International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks
M. Hefeida et al.61 had proposed a CLD for WSNs
known as cross-layer application-aware paradigm
(CLAP) shown in Figure 10. This approach allows all
the layers to share their local information among other
layers. The application layer is able to change the data
of the other layers. All the communication is managed
by the information layer (I-layer) and does not permit
the involvement of any other layer in the communica-
tion without its requirements. Merlin et al.62 had pro-
posed repository-based architecture to store the
information which may be required for all the layers
(Figure 14). This proposed architecture maintains the
principle of traditional layered architecture to ensure
that all functions will be performed at each layer for
the communication. The cross-layer optimization inter-
face (CLOI) maintains the information about incoming
and outgoing packets.
 New abstraction: It is the new way to organize
any protocol for the rich interaction using build-
ing blocks (BBs). It provides flexibility during
the run and design time. Lou et al.14 have
Singh et al.
Figure 13. Cross-layer optimization framework.
Figure 14. Cross-layer optimization architecture.
proposed SOA-based WSNs (Figure 15) to
enhance the lifetime of network using on/off
scheduling at the MAC layer and availability of
service at the application layer.
It comprises three layers: service sublayer, service
composition query sublayer, and service composition
sublayer. The service sublayer collects the information
from the sensor in the overlay network, the query sub-
layer makes the query for the required information, and
the composition sublayer finds the information from
the other two layers.
Pros and cons of conventional approach.
 Pros
It gives the complete view of traditional layered
communication architecture for wireless and
wired medium.
11
Figure 15. System model for conventional cross-layer design.
It gives the flexibility to add the new interface in
traditional architecture.
In this approach, information can be shared by
either direct or indirect signaling mechanism.
All the information about the layers can be
shared by the common repository.
It minimizes the communication overhead
among the layers if there is no role of adjacent
layer in the communication.
 Cons
Cross-layer feedback would be difficult to
update.
Additional code block reduces the throughput of
the layers.
It needs special mechanism to avoid the failure
of common repository.
It is difficult to ensure the correctness of algo-
rithm due to multiple layer optimizations.11
Complex CLD approaches
The basic principle in the conventional CLD approach
is to integrate and merge the functionality of two or
more layers. Energy requirements for sensor network
applications may vary as per data aggregation and
computation power capabilities. Therefore, to increase
the lifetime of network, energy-efficient hybrid algo-
rithm has been suggested by Kaur and Mahajan.63 Li
et al.23 have proposed a framework to minimize the
energy consumption with the QoS requirements shown
in Figure 16. The data link layer, physical layer, and
requirements of the application layer are combined into
a single framework. It is implemented over the clus-
tered network in which the level of transmission and
modulation can be changed. In the cluster, the cluster
head and node adopt the modulation scheme adaptive
12
Figure 16. System architecture complex cross-layer design.
Figure 17. Triangular cross-layer architecture.
code positioning module (ACPM) and binary phase
shift keying, respectively. With experimental QoS para-
meters, power consumption, end-to-end delay, and
packet loss have been analyzed.
Lin and Li64 have proposed triangulation cross-layer
architecture for WSNs. In this architecture, the author
presents ways to merge and minimize the layers as per
the functionality shown in Figure 17.
In triangular cross-layer architecture (TCLA), three
layers, that is, application, session, and presentation,
are merged into application module (AppM). Network
module (NetM) comprises transport and network layers
and linking module (LinkM) combines the physical and
data link layer. AppM deals with application-related
aspects; NetM is responsible for congestion control,
routing, and resource allocation; and LinkM handles
International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks
Figure 18. Low energy self-organizing protocol design.
the transmission-related aspects. Each module has its
own agent to exchange information.
Song and Hatinakos65 have proposed a target track-
ing protocol for the densely deployed WSN. In this
approach, the MAC and application layer perform
direct communication as shown in low energy self-
organizing protocol design (Figure 18). CLD can be
achieved by the elimination of the transport and net-
work layer. It also deals with QoS parameters like error
and energy consumption in target tracking application
(Figure 19).
Pros and cons of complex design approach.
 Pros
This approach increases the life span of the net-
work and fulfills the requirements of QoS.
It provides flexibility and adaptability for the
heterogeneous hardware and applications.
It reduces the overhead of information exchange
across the layers.
It shows the way to merge two or more layers
and also allows the unidirectional or bidirec-
tional communication in non-adjacent layers.
 Cons
The architectures are application specific and
not general.
Improper merging of layers reduces maintain-
ability and might interfere with communication
at other layers.
In this approach, debugging is difficult.
This approach is more error prone.
No standard rules to merge two or more layers.
Singh et al.
Figure 19. Architectural component of TinyCubus.
Table 1. Traditional versus cross-layer approach.
S. No. Traditional layer approach
1 It prevents the interoperability between homogeneous
systems and restricts the functionality to specific layers.
2 In this approach, optimization may not be achieved due to
the strict coupling between the layers.
3 This approach is technology specific and not application
specific.
4 Modification in the layered architecture is difficult, change
in one layer leads to change in consecutive layers.
5 In this approach, layers have no provision to make the
decision jointly with the direct communication among
non-adjacent layers.
Comparison between traditional and cross-layer
approach
Unified layered architecture. WSNs are application-
specific networks which may be applied in the indus-
trial or civilian field as per the requirement, for exam-
ple, pervasive computing.66 In a sensor network, nodes
can be deployed for different purposes like pressure
monitoring, object tracking, temperature monitoring,
data collection, and so on. For the communication, tra-
ditional and cross-layer architectural approaches have
been given by different research communities (Table 1).
13
Cross-layer approach
In this approach, optimization can be achieved at every
layer to improve the performance of network and
network lifetime.
Existing interlayer dependencies motivate cross-layer.
Cross-layer approach is application and technology
specific.
Interface can be added between the layers as per the
application requirements.
Cross-layer approach helps to do self-configuration of the
nodes.
Traditional and wireless (IEEE 802) architectural
approaches are not suitable for WSNs due to the spe-
cific characteristic that differentiates them from wired
and wireless networks67 (Figure 20).
WSN has constraints such as network lifetime,
energy, transmission range, and so on. By taking into
consideration the constraints, the authors have pro-
posed unified layered architectures for WSNs.26Unified
layered approach is a layer-less technique as shown in
Figure 21. The benefit of unified architecture is that it
allows the integration of different services which are
developed for different tasks in different environments
14
Figure 20. Chip-level augmentation of IEEE 802.15.4 PHY.
Figure 21. Unified layered architecture.
by different research communities. The unified layered
architecture is useful from the perspective of technol-
ogy development in WSNs. Various researchers have
given the approaches for different applications using
the unified layer.
Unified layered approaches for WSNs. In the unified
layered approach, users can communicate and manage
the network using the application layer.26 It provides
ways for the developers to develop the application with-
out knowing the underlying characteristic of WSNs.
Vuran and Akyildiz68 have developed a cross-layer pro-
tocol for WSNs. The entire traditional layers have been
replaced by a single layer, and all the functionalities of
International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks
Figure 22. Packet flow diagram for the UPS framework.
traditional layers are included in it. This architecture
ensures reliable communication with minimum energy
consumption. Chen Hsiang Feng et al.24 have presented
unified protocol stack for WSNs for the integration of
different protocols in one stack. The block diagram is
depicted in Figure 22. This architecture includes the
group of interfaces, which makes seamless communica-
tion between the same and different layers. Jinman
Jung et al.69 have developed a unified framework for
protocol simulation on the sensor operating system. It
can be used for end-user device and local sensor net-
work. The user can monitor and collect the data from
the sensor node using the interface.
Middleware approaches for WSNs
With advancement of technology (in microelectronics
and wireless communication), WSN offers a wide range
of applications. The application development and inte-
gration with real-world environment is not an easy
task. Therefore, middleware is required for the develop-
ment of large-scale distributed applications. The advan-
tages of the middleware include (1) simplification of
complex application development; (2) it provides the
interface for the abstraction, reusability, communica-
tion between components, and integration; (3) it hides
the implementation details of the underlying heteroge-
neous platform, communication details, and distribu-
tion.70 The development of middleware is not an easy
task due to various constraints like integration with
real world, hardware, heterogeneity, scalability, net-
work optimization, application knowledge, and so
on.71 Various designs and approaches have been sug-
gested as a middleware for WSNs. Some middleware
approaches shall be be presented in this section. In
Singh et al.
Coronato,72 a service-oriented middleware architecture
Uranus has been suggested as a platform to integrate
biomedical sensors for health monitoring application.
The application correctness and recovery is tested at
run time with a case study.
Alshinina and Elleithy73 presented a middleware vir-
tual machine, namely Mate, for the communication for
WSNs that can be applied in the reprogrammable net-
works. Reprogramming for WSNs needs more energy
than the deployment in the unmanned area. Mate is an
interface that executes complex programs in short
which reduces the energy cost to transmit the program.
This approach gives the new paradigm to upload the
program with parameter correction of the program as
per need. Mate is developed on TinyOS which is
designed for WSNs to execute the operations at the
middleware level. To build the WSN functions, after
deployment, it uses the byte code which is divided into
24 instructional capsules. Sending and receiving cap-
sules are useful to deploy ad hoc routing and data
aggregation. The application of this approach is to
break large programs into many capsules, and these
capsules can be executed in the network. Virtual
machines consist of logger, scheduler, network, and
hardware. To communicate, a synchronous model is
used because it enables developers to develop the
application-level programs in a simple way. The goal of
Mate is to handle sensor networks which have a
dynamic nature. This is an architecture and code which
is required to develop applications. Marcello Cinque
et al.74 have discussed the need of resiliency in WSN
applications for the adoption of protocols and plat-
forms. The authors presented the simulation, assess-
ments, and critical analysis in various categories.
Alessandro Testa et al.75 have proposed an approach
to analyze the effect of undesired events over reliability
constraint. Effect of this type of event must be identi-
fied before the development and deployment of appli-
cations. In this approach, a heuristic method is used to
do the analysis using event calculus, and also, it is use-
ful for the system designer to check the reliability level
of applications. As a case study, a static methodology
had been suggested for checking the correctness of the
designed model.76
Internet of Things (IoT) applications are increasing
rapidly to solve the real-life problems such as monitor-
ing of health, traffic, surveillance, and so on. To collect
the data from various sources, IoT networks use sensor
devices. Therefore, various issues are also involved in
IoT network such as energy constraint, lifetime of net-
work, security, resource management, and so on. IoT
network consists of heterogeneous type of devices to
collect the data from the sources. Energy and heteroge-
neity are major issues in the IoT-enabled network.
Various solutions have been suggested to deal with het-
erogeneity and energy efficient issues, but all are
15
Figure 23. Service-oriented architecture.
technology centric.35,77,78 So user-centric middleware
technique has been suggested to solve the issue of het-
erogeneity using three modules, that is, data collection,
interface, and heterogeneous network. In previous stud-
ies,79–81 resource management has been investigated
with TinyOS, FreeRTOS, and Contiki which are popu-
lar operating system for various parameters like mem-
ory, process, energy, and communication management.
In Tanganelli and Curado,82 security method is sug-
gested for the IoT data, and DC-Net is implemented
over the real-time sensor nodes to achieve the high-level
confidentiality. In this approach, a reliable data collec-
tion and propagation method has been suggested using
a cloud- and fog-based identification system. In addi-
tion to this, DC-NET is implemented over the con-
strained devices. And for securing the IoT devices,
various private communication methods have been dis-
cussed. Recently, context-aware computing for IoT
management has been gaining popularity.83
Leveraging SOA for WSNs
There has been a lot of developments in service-oriented
computing paradigm using services as the central ele-
ment of the design. One of the major goals of any tech-
nology is to provide services to the users, and such
approach was proposed by Kim et al.84 and Alshinina
and Elleithy,85 known as SOA; SOA has evolved in the
last decades with specific details with many successful
implementations. SOA is defined as an architectural
framework having three fundamental roles, namely,
service providers, service consumers, and service broker
(Figure 23). Some researchers86,87 have detailed the
architectural concepts, design, and technologies of
SOA.
In SOA, resources are packaged as self-defined, self-
contained modules termed as services to provide stan-
dard business functionalities. Various researchers have
contributed to provide some specific characteristics of
services which are described in a standard service
description language (SDL). The services have a pub-
lished interface and can communicate with each other.
16
In further developments, the services have been
described as the combination of one or more BBs.
These BBs associated with a workflow that can serve
the particular purpose in the given application domain.
Initially, SOA was designed, developed, and imple-
mented for the web services to facilitate web developers
with defined standards in terms of language, protocol,
and common repository. However, SOA in general has
services which can be web services but services can also
be other than web services. Papazoglou88 presented an
SOA with a more general connotation, with many ver-
sions and manifestations of integrating enterprise busi-
ness processes with extended SOA. The extended SOA
added more functionality to the existing SOA, namely,
service composition to make service with a combination
of different modules and service management to ensure
the correctness of services, levels of service agreement,
and service orchestration.
In 2008, Bernd Reuther and Dirk Henrici89 have
introduced an SOA-based communication model as a
solution for adaptability of improved protocol in appli-
cations without modifications. The communication
model is composed of the service user, service broker,
service provider, API, and an adapter. SOA-based com-
munication models hide functionality of framework
from the users and incorporate local requirements at
run time for service selection. The goal of the model is
to provide available network services from the stack
with the help of service broker and service providers.
SOA-based design
The SOA-based design methodology is based on the
SOA that follows the agile development standard for
WSNs.90 This methodology is specifically suitable for
designing and implementing automated complex
WSNs. SOA consists of software components which
are used to perform the tasks or services. Various SOA-
based architectures have been presented in previous
studies.90–92 SOA is the platform for development of
IoT applications as well. IoT application fulfills the
requirements by the composed services. In the composi-
tion process, various energy-constrained devices may be
involved to provide the complete service. In Du et al.,93
an energy optimization solution has been suggested to
fulfill the multirequirements. SOA has characteristics,
namely, loosely coupled, location transparency, and
technology neutral which is required to build flexible
architecture.
Design issues of WSN communication architecture
WSN consists of various components, such as low-cost
sensors, software, hardware platforms, operating sys-
tems, and so on that build the WSN functionalities as
per applications. These components are developed by
International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks
different developers and research communities with dif-
ferent assumptions and application requirements. All
the components may not be compatible for communi-
cation due to some issues. Some of them are discussed
as follows:
 Heterogeneity: In early days, the WSN consisted
of homogeneous sensor which performed the
same functions of computation, communication,
and energy dissipation. But at present, it has
changed to application-specific networks due to
its applicability in different areas. Therefore, a
network can consist of different kinds of nodes
as per the requirements of the application. For
example, some networks may be a combination
of various kinds of nodes that can perform dif-
ferent tasks like pressure and temperature moni-
toring, motion detection, and image capturing.
To execute such tasks, nodes require services,
interfaces, and programming APIâã ˜ äs to cre-
ate compatibility between communication proto-
cols, hardware, and operating systems, which is
a tedious and time-consuming task.
 Adoption of new protocols: In WSNs, the applica-
tion requirements has been increasing in the
form of service to improve the performance of
the networks, and accordingly, communication
services have also been increasing. In recent sce-
narios, researchers and developers have been
focusing on the area of communication proto-
cols to improve the performance of network.
Existing communication architectures are not
flexible enough to couple with new applications.
Therefore, flexibility is needed to support the
advancement of communication services.
Adoption of new protocols is an issue with the
existing communication architecture.
 Interoperability: In the recent scenarios, different
service providers and vendors provide solutions
in WSNs as a service, like software, hardware,
and operating systems. The developments of
these services are developed to fulfill the need of
applications and users in different language plat-
forms. Therefore, interaction among the services
is difficult because of interoperability.
Interoperability is an issue to make all the ser-
vice functional with all modules.
 Integration with other network: The integration
with other networks (e.g. Internet) is required to
monitor and collect data of the environment. It
is a difficult and time-consuming task due to
availability of different services in different net-
works. Therefore, common well-defined inter-
face and services (TCP/IP in Internet and UDP
in WSN) are needed to make the network com-
patible and functional.
Singh et al.
 Security: The security module improves the con-
fidentiality, integrity, and authentication in
WSNs during data transmission, gathering, and
accessing. The WSN consists of nodes having
low computation power, storage, and energy.
Implementing encryption methods on nodes
requires extra processing power, transfer of extra
bit, and also increased delay in the network. As
a technological solution, the traditional architec-
ture is enriched with security module at all the
layers for all applications. The security mechan-
ism in all the layers leads to performance degra-
dation and also increases the burden on some
applications and users where security is not
required. It is a challenge for researchers and
developers to rethink from the user perspective.
The security and its use may be an optional solu-
tion in communication architecture for the
applications.
 Adoption of new services: In view of technology-
centric development, the innovation and devel-
opment technology oriented to provide services
for different domains such as WSNs, ubiquitous
computing, and so on. The goal of the develop-
ment is to facilitate the users as per their needs
and feedback. Therefore, the developers and
researchers focus or in future may give the solu-
tion to fulfill the need.94 Hence, the design of
communication architecture should be flexible
enough to couple the existing and future coming
services.
 Reliability: In WSNs, reliability is an important
parameter for some applications that can be
considered as network reliability, protocol relia-
bility, and data reliability. Few works have been
done in designing of reliable delivery protocols,
and most of the work is application specific
where traditional WSN applications suffer from
data losses. However, for a range of applica-
tions, reliability is needed, where data losses
makes the data ineffective. So, reliable commu-
nication architecture is required for application
(emergency event) where the status of node and
data is important.
Lack of common framework and
reusability
Numerous applications have been developed using
WSNs for geographical monitoring, motion detection,
and radiation detection. Development of application-
specific WSNs increases the development of protocols.
These developments have created a new challenge, that
is, a lack of common framework where a developer can
develop new services. Almost all the applications are
17
customized protocols for communication without stan-
dardization as per the requirements and proficiency of
researchers.44 In WSNs, no common architectural
framework exists on which the developers can develop
the required services and are forced to develop service
from the scratch for applications. The network setup in
WSNs does not need an infrastructure. It is applicable
in unmanned area or where human cannot reach and
manage the activity of the environment. The cost of
implementation is low. The WSN provides reliable and
low-power nodes that work for long time to monitor
the event. However, the speed of data transmission is
slower than that of the wired network. Such an archi-
tecture is less secure due to accessibility of all the infor-
mation by intruders at any point of time. The structure
of WSNs is more complex compared to wired net-
works. It may be affected by various parameters of sur-
rounding environments, such as signal attenuation,
walls, distance, and so on.
Service-oriented computing paradigm for WSNs
The WSN executes tasks in dynamic and distributed
environment as per application requirement. Therefore,
with the requirements heterogeneity of network like
hardware and software components, devices and proto-
cols are also increasing to fulfill the requirements.95 To
consider this heterogeneity, the application develop-
ment is a challenging task for the network engineer
without knowing the network details. For the sensor
network application development, some parameters
need to be considered, that is, reusability, scalability,
reliability, security, integration, QoS, and so on. The
middleware layer has been suggested as a solution to
incorporate the current and future requirements needed
to develop new generation WSN application. Various
approaches have been given on middleware to develop
and execute the applications as per needs. Moreover,
all the middleware approaches provide functionality to
configure the software and data aggregation. For some
instance, middleware needs more functionality, like
interoperability mechanism on different levels and
adaptability of dynamic network. Future WSN is envi-
sioned as a combination of services such as sensing,
communication, and so on, which will be provided by
different providers to different applications.73 In the
emerging scenario, the new architectural approaches
are needed to incorporate the requirements, logics on
different planes, and acceptability of dynamic behavior
of the network as per need of application. The new
architectural design consists of loose coupling, inter-
faces, and level of abstraction which builds WSNs inde-
pendent from application. The service-oriented
computing paradigm is the most prominent approach
to develop the WSN for current and future applica-
tions. The service-oriented approach has some basic
18
characteristics such as loose coupling, flexibility, intero-
perability, and availability which provides the easy
development environment for providers.73 The combi-
nation of WSNs and service-oriented approach pro-
vides a method of unified services with WSN
components for users and flexible model of program-
ming to develop the scalable WSN applications.
Motivation for employing SOA-based WSNs
WSN has appeared as a new paradigm for the informa-
tion collection with the collaborative efforts from sen-
sor nodes. Nowadays, the applicability of this network
has been increased due to requirement of less infrastruc-
ture and readability in an unmanned area. Therefore, a
number of users and requirements are also increasing in
the area of WSNs. These requirements are fulfilled with
developed architectural solutions with the technology-
centric approach. Based on this approach, many solu-
tions have been given to the users as per the require-
ments of applications. These architectural solutions are
forcing and putting the overhead to the users and appli-
cations due to a lack of flexibility. In the present sce-
nario, the user and application demand flexibility in
terms of service development, reusability of codes, ser-
vice selection, and composition from the pool as per the
application requirements due to dynamic requirements
and customization. As a case, the user has to select the
best service from the service planes as per the applica-
tion and network requirements for the deployment and
location identification of sensor nodes. Existing
technology-centric approaches do not support this kind
of activity. Therefore, it motivates us to think about the
solution of WSN communication architecture that
should be based on the user perspectives for ease of
modification or enhancement, flexible enough to incor-
porate the current and future requirements, interoper-
ability between service (developed from different
organizations of research communities), reusability of
codes, automatic service selection, and composition.
For the development of user-centric communication
architecture of WSNs, we have followed the service-
oriented paradigm.
Service-oriented middleware for WSNs
In WSNs, researchers are using the SOA for different
aspects, like application development, design of sensor
network, and so on.96,97 The WSN is applicable for
various kinds of applications such as habitat monitor-
ing, environmental monitoring, structural monitoring,
and so on. Different kinds of applications compel the
developer to develop device software as per the require-
ments (energy, memory, and resources). One of the key
requirements is power, which may not be the same for
all the applications. Therefore, the developer has to
International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks
come with a design methodology to fulfill the need of
applications. For example, IoT-based applications have
various requirements, such as data accuracy, data secu-
rity, resource constraints, and so on. In Siris et al.,98
different implementation test beds are used to measure
the humidity, ozone, and temperature using the feder-
ated interoperable semantic IoT (FIESTA-IoT/cloud
testbeds and applications) platform. The deviation in
accuracy and energy cost and privacy method has been
discussed. Kandris et al.99 have given agile develop-
ment software methodology for the software develop-
ment. In WSNs, the design of application and network
protocol stack fulfills the need of users, but however
designed solutions are not acceptable as per the need,
then a new solution should be developed using the
SOA.
Due to diverse applications of sensor networks, this
is a tedious task to build applications of WSNs and
actuators.67 So to make the development easier for the
developer, a new framework, high level of abstraction,
or middleware is required. In 2011, Eduardo Cañete
et al.100 have introduced a Service-oriented Framework
for Wireless Sensor and Actor Networks (USEME) as
a framework to develop the real-time applications
which follows the principle of service-oriented and
component paradigm. The framework has three basic
elements—sensor node, port, and services. For the
development of service, high-level languages are sug-
gested because low-level language is difficult, time con-
suming, and is not reusable. The sensor nodes make
the complex service to do the task, for example, AC
actor needs humidity and temperature. The ports are
designed with three elements—synchronous command,
asynchronous command, and event to execute the pro-
gram. The service term is defined with the help of
required port and provided port to form the service
and interact with the service. The approach gives the
way to add, extend, and reuse the system. As per the
application requirements, developers may develop and
integrate the components in framework. In 2102,
Abangar et al.101 had suggested middleware perspective
to build the smart infrastructure using the WSN. They
also claimed that service-oriented framework is not
enough to make smart infrastructure, but with the mid-
dleware technology, development of new sensor-based
service can be easier.
In heterogeneous WSNs, heterogeneous of nodes
may be deployed to collect data from environment. The
communications among the heterogeneous nodes are
difficult due to interoperability. To solve the problem
of interoperability, SOA-based interface as a middle-
ware architecture has been proposed by Abangar
et al.101 Middleware facilitates the users to perform
query, storage, to or from the sensors. Smart mechan-
isms are used to decide whether data are required from
the storage or sensor. The architecture uses few features
Singh et al.
of SOA such as interoperability and reusability, and in
addition to this, it removes the overhead of XML data
format using binary encoding. Additional advantages
are minimum energy consumption and efficient data
delivery and query processing. Alkazemi and col-
leagues102 have also addressed the issue of heteroge-
neous sensor network in terms of data format and its
structure that may affect the network capability. To
develop middleware, it follows the principle of SOA
and business model management. The middleware
comprises the layer-independent modules, which makes
possible to achieve high degree of scalability and flexi-
bility for the architecture.71 The layers are service bus,
interface repository, synthesizer service, binding service,
data exchange service, encryption routing service, and
business process service. The middleware is flexible and
scalable for WSN applications but are not tested for
business process applications. To deal with the hetero-
geneous data, Levent Gürgen et al.103 have given the
service-oriented-based stremware architecture for the
management of data. The architecture is used to define
the different data in a generic way using the schema.
The architecture deployed between the senor and appli-
cation as a mediator adopter16 to collect the data from
the sensors using query service. The deployment follows
the hierarchical SOA104 to collect the heterogeneous
data from distributed sensors. The approach is useful
for kind of application where heterogeneous sensor
nodes like camera, pressure, and temperature sensors
are required to collect the data.
Amundson and colleagues91 have proposed an
object-centric, ambient-aware service-oriented sensor-
net programming framework (OASiS) which follows
the principle of SOA (Figure 24). The framework pro-
vides services in terms of discovery, binding, and
Figure 24. OASiS programming framework.
19
composition as per the constraints of the network to
develop the application for dynamic environment. In
the framework, the developer has no need to program
for each domain; he has to only use the library which is
developed by the domain expert. It comprises a node
manager, configuration manger, and service discovery
manager as the service to support the application. In
addition to this, the framework also addresses the
designing issue of networked sensors. The issues are
application specific and QoS requirements, that is, con-
straint management, mapping of application design in
real world, service discovery, configuration, and data
aggregation.
Mohammad Al-Rousan and Kullab19 have devel-
oped service-oriented-based solution (SI)2 to provide
standardized device access mechanism for the applica-
tions. The middleware architecture has been developed
based on dependent and independent layers. The mes-
sage handler and service manager are the two compo-
nents of the platform-dependent layer. The function of
the message handler is to transform the events from
platform dependent to independent form and converts
the services from platform dependent to independent
format which are on smart devices. The independent
layer consists of the three modules, namely, requester,
service mapper, and service repository.105 These mod-
ules are responsible for specific functions such as pro-
cessing the request, mapping the service required by a
smart item, and storage of the item, respectively. In
context-aware computing, service-oriented approach is
already adopted in the service awareness sphere using
rule-based reasoning for awareness and conventional
context awareness scheme may not work generally due
to heterogeneity of the device.106 Therefore, Bai Y
et al.107 have proposed service-oriented middleware to
20
solve the problem of heterogeneity (hardware device)
and to encourage the application development based
on the context in smart environments. The middleware
works as the bridge between the application layer
requirement as per the context and hardware layers.
For context-aware reasoning, it enables interaction
between many factors.
Moungla Caporuscio et al.108 have proposed middle-
ware architecture for ubiquitous computing. The aim
of the architecture is to connect devices and deploy web
services on a range of devices. The middleware architec-
ture consists of two layers, namely, web service–
oriented layer and multiradio networking layer. The
web service layer performs peer-to-peer connection and
includes the Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP)
messages for routing in the multiradio network. The
multiradio layer manages the addressing scheme of the
multiradio network. It gives a way to use the SOAP
API in pervasive computing like WSNs. Edgardo
Avils-Lpez and J. Antonio Garca-Macas92 have pro-
posed TinySOA for accessing the WSN using SOA-
based interface by the programmer’s preferred lan-
guage. With this approach, the developer can collect
data without knowing the technical detail of hardware
devices. This middleware can also be used to connect to
the Internet with sensor network to collect data. Chein
Liang-Fok et al.109 have proposed middleware architec-
ture, Servilla, to improve the flexibility and energy effi-
ciency using adaptive service mechanism. It is difficult
to use and program the WSN due to the limitation of
energy and high connectivity, but traditionally, it is
done with the energy level information of the service
provider. In addition to this, it is also platform inde-
pendent to support the heterogeneous network. By
optimizing the energy dissipation, the architecture also
increases the availability of services without forcing
developers and application services.
Conclusion
In this article, a detailed review has been carried out on
architectural design and development aspects of WSNs.
Application-oriented design of WSNs fails to cater to
the complexity of advanced WSN-based use cases that
demand automated and agile development. Cross-layer
architectural design paradigm with its various arche-
types for catering to different requirements has been
delineated, and finally, middleware-based WSN design
strategies have been deliberated. For handling increas-
ingly complex middleware designs in WSNs, different
facets of SOA-based designs and their salient features
have been presented herein. The article also points to a
few areas of SOA-based WSN design that can be stud-
ied as continuation of research in this area.
International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks
Thus far, various developments in middleware-based
WSN applications have been disscussed in detail with
SOA in vogue. The introduction of SOA has provided
great flexibilities in the design and development of
sophisticated WSN applications. With proliferation
and ease of services development, myriad services have
been developed and made available for public pooled
usages. Such a scenario, though very apt for next-
generation software development markets, poses seri-
ous impediments for practitioners to select best services
from the available pool. Besides, due to prohibitively
large number of alternatives available for a particular
service, appropriate service selection has been a very
pertinent problem. This may be looked upon in future
by employing evolutionary and other stochastic optimi-
zation techniques.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: The first author’s research was facilitated by IIIT
Allahabad, India, and NIT Meghalaya, India. The second
author received financial support from the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under Grant 51875113.
ORCID iD
Ashish Kr Luhach https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8759-0290
References
1. Obaidat M and Misra S. Principles of wireless sensor net-
works. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
2. Yick J, Mukherjee B and Ghosal D. Wireless sensor net-
work survey. Comput Netw 2008; 52(12): 2292–2330.
3. Carlos-Mancilla M, Lopez-Mellado E and Siller M.
Wireless sensor networks formation: approaches and
techniques. J Sens 2016; 2016: 2081902.
4. Kim B-S, Park H, Kim KH, et al. A survey on real-time
communications in wireless sensor networks. Wireless
Commun Mob Comput 2017; 2017: 1864847.
5. Javaid MA. Wireless sensor networks: software architec-
ture, 2014, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abst
ract_ id=2391872
6. Cui S, Cao Y, Sun G, et al. A new energy-aware wireless
sensor network evolution model based on complex net-
work. EURASIP J Wireless Commun Netw 2018;
2018(1): 218.
7. Karunarathne GGKWMSIR, Kulawansa KADT and
Firdhous MFM. Wireless communication technologies in
internet of things: a critical evaluation. In: 2018
Singh et al.
international conference on intelligent and innovative com-
puting applications (ICONIC), Plaine Magnien, Mauri-
tius, 6–7 December 2018, pp.1–5. New York: IEEE.
8. Bathla G and Randhawa R. ODA: optimal deployment
algorithm for wireless sensor network for coverage
enhancement. In: Proceedings of 3rd international confer-
ence on internet of things and connected technologies
(ICIoTCT), Jaipur, India, 26–27 March 2018, pp.26–27.
Elsevier (SSRN).
9. Ai Z-Y, Zhou Y-T and Song F. A smart collaborative
routing protocol for reliable data diffusion in IoT scenar-
ios. Sensors 2018; 18(6): 1926.
10. Behera TM, Samal UC and Mohapatra SK. Energy-effi-
cient modified leach protocol for IoT application. IET
Wireless Sens Syst 2018; 8(5): 223–228.
11. Shah RC, Roy S, Jain S, et al. Data MULEs: modeling a
three-tier architecture for sparse sensor networks. In: Pro-
ceedings of the First IEEE international workshop on sen-
sor network protocols and applications, Anchorage, AK,
11 May 2003. New York: IEEE.
12. Sliman JB, Song Y-O, Koubâa A, et al. A three-tiered
architecture for large-scale wireless hospital sensor net-
works. In: Workshop MobiHealthInf 2009 in conjunction
with BIOSTEC, 2009, p.64, https://hal.inria.fr/inria-
00435508/PDF/A_Three_Tiered_
Wireless_Hospital_Sensor_Network.pdf
13. Sohrabi K, Gao J, Ailawadhi V, et al. Protocols for self-
organization of a wireless sensor network. IEEE Person
Commun 2000; 7(5): 16–27.
14. Lou W. An efficient n-to-1 multipath routing protocol in
wireless sensor networks. In: IEEE international confer-
ence on mobile ad hoc and sensor systems conference,
Washington, DC, 7 November 2005, p.8. New York:
IEEE.
15. Kumar D, Aseri TC and Patel RB. EEHC: energy effi-
cient heterogeneous clustered scheme for wireless sensor
networks. Comput Commun 2009; 32(4): 662–667.
16. Samaras IK, Gialelis JV and Hassapis GD. Integrating
wireless sensor networks into enterprise information sys-
tems by using web services. In: Proceedings of the 3rd
international conference on sensor technologies and appli-
cations (SENSORCOMM’09), Athens, 18–23 June 2009,
pp.580–587. New York: IEEE.
17. Moeller R and Sleman A. Wireless networking services
for implementation of ambient intelligence at home. In:
Proceedings of the 7th international Caribbean conference
on devices, circuits and systems (ICCDCS), Cancun,
Mexico, 28–30 April 2008, pp.1–5. New York: IEEE.
18. Liao W, Dande B, Chang C, et al. MMQT: maximizing
the monitoring quality for targets based on probabilistic
sensing model in rechargeable wireless sensor networks.
IEEE Access 2020; 8:77073–77088.
19. Al-Rousan M and Kullab D. Real-time communications
for wireless sensor networks: a two-tiered architecture.
Int J Distrib Sens Netw 2009; 5(6): 806–823.
20. Han W. Three-tier wireless sensor network infrastructure
for environmental monitoring. PhD Thesis, Kansas State
University, Manhattan, KS, 2011.
21. Meena YK, Singh A and Chandel AS. Distributed multi-
tier energy-efficient clustering. Int J Comput Theory Eng
2012; 4(1): 1.
21
22. Rao S and Shama K. Cross layer protocols for multime-
dia transmission in wireless networks. Int J Comput Sci
Eng Surv 2012; 3(3): 15.
23. Li S, Kim JG, Han DH, et al. A survey of energy-efficient
communication protocols with QOS guarantees in wire-
less multimedia sensor networks. Sensors 2019; 19(1):
199.
24. Feng C-H, Demirkol I and Heinzelman WB. UPS: uni-
fied protocol stack for wireless sensor networks. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 6th annual international mobile and
ubiquitous systems: networking & services, MobiQuitous,
Toronto, ON, Canada, 13–16 July 2009. New York:
IEEE.
25. Feng C-H. Stack architectures and protocols for emerging
wireless networks. PhD Thesis, CiteSeer, University of
Rochester, Rochester, New York, 2013.
26. Yu D, Nanda P, Cao L, et al. TCTM: an evaluation
framework for architecture design on wireless sensor net-
works. Int J Sens Netw 2013; 14(3): 168–177.
27. Pau G, Ferrero R, Jennehag U, et al. Emerging applica-
tions through low-power wireless technologies for inter-
net of things. Int J Distrib Sens Netw 2019; 15:
155014771983569.
28. Zhu H, Zhang Z, Du J, et al. Detection of selective for-
warding attacks based on adaptive learning automata
and communication quality in wireless sensor networks.
Int J Distrib Sens Netw 2018; 14: 155014771881504.
29. Chang C, Chen S, Chang I, et al. Multirate data collec-
tion using mobile sink in wireless sensor networks. IEEE
Sens J 2020; 20: 8173–8185.
30. Kothari N, Nagaraja K, Raghunathan V, et al. Hermes:
a software architecture for visibility and control in wire-
less sensor network deployments. In: International confer-
ence on information processing in sensor networks
(IPSN’08), St. Louis, MO, 22–24 April 2008, pp.395–
406. New York: IEEE.
31. Kumar R and Reichert F. Towards a layer-less network
architecture—a case from wireless sensor networks. In:
Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on wireless
communication, vehicular technology, information theory
and aerospace & electronic systems technology (wireless
VITAE), Chennai, India, pp.28 February–3 March 2011,
pp.1–9. New York: IEEE.
32. Hsieh C-M, Samie F, Srouji MS, et al. Hardware/soft-
ware co-design for a wireless sensor network platform. In:
Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on hard-
ware/software codesign and system synthesis, New Delhi,
India, 12–17 October 2014, p.1. New York: ACM.
33. Chen B and Tomizuka M. OpenSHM: open architecture
design of structural health monitoring software in wire-
less sensor nodes. In: IEEE/ASME international confer-
ence on mechtronic and embedded systems and applications
(MESA), Beijing, China, 12–15 October 2008, pp.19–24.
New York: IEEE.
34. Aponte-Luis J, Gómez-Galán J, Gómez-Bravo F, et al.
An efficient wireless sensor network for industrial moni-
toring and control. Sensors 2018; 18(1): 182.
35. Mesmoudi Y, Lamnaour M, El Khamlichi Y, et al. A
middleware based on service oriented architecture for
heterogeneity issues within the internet of things
(MSOAH-IoT). J King Saud Univ Comput Inform Sci.
22
Epub ahead of print 23 November 2018. DOI: 10.1016/
j.jksuci.2018.11.011.
36. Hanif S, Khedr A, Al Aghbari Z, et al. Opportunistically
exploiting internet of things for wireless sensor network
routing in smart cities. J Sens Actuat Netw 2018; 7(4): 46.
37. Burhan M, Rehman R, Khan B, et al. IoT elements,
layered architectures and security issues: a comprehensive
survey. Sensors 2018; 18(9): 2796.
38. Singh H and Singh D. Concentric layered architecture for
multi-level clustering in large-scale wireless sensor net-
works. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference
on secure cyber computing and communication (ICSCCC),
Jalandhar, India, 15–17 December 2018, pp.467–471.
New York: IEEE.
39. Alkhatib AAA and Baicher GS. Wireless sensor network
architecture. In: 2012 international conference on com-
puter networks and communication systems (CNCS 2012),
2012, http://www.ipcsit.com/vol35/003-CNCS2012-N010.
pdf
40. Ahmed N, Rahman H and Hussain MI. A comparison of
802.11 ah and 802.15. 4 for IoT. ICT Express 2016; 2(3):
100–102.
41. Sethi P and Sarangi SR. Internet of things: architectures,
protocols, and applications. J Electric Comput Eng 2017;
2017: 9324035.
42. Zeng M, Huang X, Zheng B, et al. A heterogeneous
energy wireless sensor network clustering protocol. Wire-
less Commun Mobile Comput 2019; 2019: 7367281.
43. Awan KM, Shah PA, Iqbal K, et al. Underwater wireless
sensor networks: a review of recent issues and challenges.
Wireless Commun Mobile Comput 2019; 2019: 6470359.
44. Ramesh S. A protocol architecture for wireless sensor
networks. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM international
workshop on wireless sensor networks and applications
(WSNA), 2008, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/
download?doi=10.1.1.96.883&rep=rep1&type=pdf
45. Jiawei W, Xiuquan Q and Guoshun N. Dynamic and
adaptive multi-path routing algorithm based on software-
defined network. Int J Distrib Sens Netw 2018; 14(10):
155014771880568.
46. Chen G, Wang Y, Li H, et al. TinyNET: a lightweight,
modular, and unified network architecture for the inter-
net of things. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM
2019 conference posters and demos, Beijing, China, 19–23
August 2019, pp.9–11. New York: ACM.
47. Dunkels A. Full TCP/IP for 8-bit architectures. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 1st international conference on Mobile sys-
tems, applications and services, 2003, pp.85–98. New
York: ACM, http://dunkels.com/adam/mobisys2003.pdf
48. Paek J, Greenstein B, Gnawali O, et al. The tenet archi-
tecture for tiered sensor networks. ACM Trans Sens Netw
2010; 6(4): 1–44.
49. Pang Z, Yu K, Åkerberg J, et al. An RTOS-based architec-
ture for industrial wireless sensor network stacks with
multi-processor support. In: IEEE international conference
on industrial technology (ICIT), Cape Town, South Africa,
25–28 February 2013, pp.1216–1221. New York: IEEE.
International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks
50. Liang W, Li Z, Zhang H, et al. Vehicular ad hoc net-
works: architectures, research issues, methodologies, chal-
lenges, and trends. Int J Distrib Sens Netw 2015; 11(8):
745303.
51. Zhang Y and Cheng L. Cross-layer optimization for sen-
sor networks. Wireless Sens Netw 2013, https://pdfs.se-
manticscholar.org/e708/
85df31d5d9bc5b6c49dc2c16f67896bf1171.pdf
52. Sangappa, Gupta S and Keshavamurthy C. Cross layer
architecture based mobile WSN routing protocol for
inter-vehicular communication. In: Proceedings of the 3rd
international conference on computational intelligence &
communication technology (CICT), Ghaziabad, India, 9–
10 February 2017, pp.1–7. New York: IEEE.
53. Hasan MZ, Al-Turjman F and Al-Rizzo H. Analysis of
cross-layer design of quality-of service forward geo-
graphic wireless sensor network routing strategies in
green internet of things. IEEE Access 2018; 6:
20371–20389.
54. Devi P and Ravindra WS. Cross layer protocol for
bandwidth-hungry applications in IoT network. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 2nd international conference on inventive
communication and computational technologies
(ICICCT), Coimbatore, India, 20–21 April 2018, pp.79–
83. New York: IEEE.
55. Tan J, Liu A, Zhao M, et al. Cross-layer design for reduc-
ing delay and maximizing lifetime in industrial wireless
sensor networks. EURASIP J Wireless Commun Netw
2018; 2018(1): 50.
56. Wang Q and Ali Abu-Rgheff M. Cross-layer signalling
for next-generation wireless systems. In: Wireless commu-
nications and networking (WCNC 2003), New Orleans,
LA, 16–20 March 2003, vol. 2, pp.1084–1089. New York:
IEEE.
57. Sheikh OM and Mahmoud SA. Cross-layer design for
smart routing in wireless sensor networks. London:
INTECH Open Access Publisher, 2012.
58. Su W and Lim TL. Cross-layer design and optimisation
for wireless sensor networks. Int J Sens Netw 2009; 6(1):
3–12.
59. Fu B, Xiao Y, Deng HJ, et al. A survey of cross-layer
designs in wireless networks. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor
2013; 16(1): 110–126.
60. Ketshabetswe LK, Zungeru AM, Mangwala M, et al.
Communication protocols for wireless sensor networks: a
survey and comparison. Heliyon 2019; 5(5): e01591.
61. Hefeida M, Shen M, Kshemkalyani A, et al. Cross-layer
protocols for WSNs: a simple design and simulation
paradigm. In: Proceedings of the 8th international Wire-
less communications and mobile computing conference
(IWCMC), Limassol, Cyprus, 27–31 August 2012,
pp.844–849. New York: IEEE.
62. Merlin CJ and Heinzelman WB. A first look at a cross-
layer facilitating architecture for wireless sensor net-
works. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE workshop on wire-
less mesh networks (WiMesh 2006), Reston, VA, 25–28
September 2006, pp.103–105. New York: IEEE.
Singh et al.
63. Kaur S and Mahajan R. Hybrid meta-heuristic optimiza-
tion based energy efficient protocol for wireless sensor
networks. Egypt Inform J 2018; 19(3): 145–150.
64. Lin D and Li S. TCLA: a triangular cross-layer architec-
ture for wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the
4th international conference on frontier of computer sci-
ence and technology (FCST’09), Shanghai, China, 17–19
December 2009, pp.272–278. New York: IEEE.
65. Song L and Hatzinakos D. Embedded wireless intercon-
nect for sensor networks: concept and example. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 4th annual IEEE consumer communications
and networking conference (CCNC07), Las Vegas, NV,
11–13 January 2007, pp.850–854. New York: IEEE.
66. Kannan AV. Hardware and software architecture of
wireless sensor networks. J Adv Comput Netw 2014; 2(3):
207–210.
67. Aslam Z, Qamar N, Khan N, et al. A survey of wireless
sensor network software architecture design issues. Int J
Comput Sci Telecommun 2012; 3: 60–63.
68. Vuran MC and Akyildiz IF. XLP: a cross-layer protocol
for efficient communication in wireless sensor networks.
IEEE Trans Mobile Comput 2010; 9(11): 1578–1591.
69. Jung J, Kim B and Hong J. Unified simulation frame-
work for protocol stacks in sensor operating systems. J
Inform Sci Eng 2012; 28(6): 1029–1043.
70. Luoto A and Systä K. IoT application deployment using
request-response pattern with MQTT. In: International
conference on web engineering, Rome, 5–8 June 2017,
pp.48–60. Berlin: Springer.
71. Ray PP. A survey on internet of things architectures. J
King Saud Univ Comput Inform Sci 2018; 30(3): 291–319.
72. Coronato A. Uranus: a middleware architecture for
dependable AAL and vital signs monitoring applications.
Sensors 2012; 12(3): 3145–3161.
73. Alshinina R and Elleithy K. Performance and challenges
of service-oriented architecture for wireless sensor net-
works. Sensors 2017; 17(3): 536.
74. Cinque M, Coronato A, Testa A, et al. A survey on resi-
liency assessment techniques for wireless sensor networks.
In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM international symposium
on Mobility management and wireless access, 2013, pp.73–
80, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2508222.2508235
75. Testa A, Cinque M, Coronato A, et al. Heuristic strategies
for assessing wireless sensor network resiliency: an event-
based formal approach. J Heuristics 2015; 21(2): 145–175.
76. Testa A, Coronato A, Cinque M, et al. Static verification
of wireless sensor networks with formal methods. In:
Proceedings of the 8th international conference on signal
image technology and internet based systems, Naples, 25–
29 November 2012, pp.587–594. New York: IEEE.
77. Maurya S and Mukherjee K. An energy efficient architec-
ture of IoT based on service oriented architecture (SOA).
Informatica 2019; 43(1): 1790.
78. Chang I-H, Keh H-C, Dande B, et al. Smart hat: design and
implementation of a wearable learning device for kids using
AI and IoTs techniques. J Int Technol 2020; 21(2): 593–604.
23
79. Musaddiq A, Zikria YB, Hahm O, et al. A survey on
resource management in IoT operating systems. IEEE
Access 2018; 6: 8459–8482.
80. Boulmaiz A, Doghmane N, Harize S, et al. The use of
WSN (wireless sensor network) in the surveillance of
endangered bird species. In: Neustein A (ed.) Advances in
ubiquitous computing. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2020,
pp.261–306.
81. Jaskani FH, Manzoor S, Amin MT, et al. An investiga-
tion on several operating systems for internet of things.
EAI Endors Trans Creat Technol 2019; 6(18): 160386.
82. Tanganelli G and Curado M. Reliability of internet of
things: smart objects and services. J Reliab Intell Environ
2019; 5(1): 1.
83. Roy DS, Behera RK, Hemant Kumar, Reddy K, et al. A
context-aware fog enabled scheme for real-time cross-ver-
tical IoT applications. IEEE Int Thing J 2018; 6(2):
2400–2412.
84. Kim B-S, Kim K-I, Shah B, et al. Wireless sensor net-
works for big data systems. Sensors 2019; 19(7): 1565.
85. Alshinina R and Elleithy K. A highly accurate machine
learning approach for developing wireless sensor network
middleware. In: 2018 wireless telecommunications sympo-
sium (WTS), Phoenix, AZ, 17–20 April 2018, pp.1–7.
New York: IEEE.
86. Lingaraj K, Biradar RV and Patil VC. Eagilla: an
enhanced mobile agent middleware for wireless sensor
networks. Alexandria Eng J 2018; 57(3): 1197–1204.
87. Al-Madani BM and Shahra EQ. An energy aware plate-
form for IoT indoor tracking based on RTPS. Proc Com-
put Sci 2018; 130: 188–195.
88. Papazoglou MP, Traverso P, Dustdar S, et al. Service-
oriented computing: a research roadmap. Int J Cooperat
Inform Syst 2008; 17(2): 223–255.
89. Reuther B and Henrici D. A model for service-oriented
communication systems. J Syst Architect 2008; 54(6):
594–606.
90. Meshkova E, Riihijarvi J, Oldewurtel F, et al. Service-
oriented design methodology for wireless sensor net-
works: a view through case studies. In: IEEE international
conference on sensor networks, ubiquitous and trustworthy
computing (SUTC’08), Taichung, Taiwan, 11–13 June
2008, pp.146–153. New York: IEEE.
91. Kushwaha M, Amundson I, Koutsoukos X, et al.
OASIS: a programming framework for service-oriented
sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international
conference on communication systems software and middle-
ware, Bangalore, India, 7–12 January 2007 pp.1–8.
New York: IEEE.
92. Avilés-López E and Garcı́a-Macı́as JA. TinySOA: a
service-oriented architecture for wireless sensor networks.
Serv Orient Comput Appl 2009; 3(2): 99–108.
93. Du C, Shao S, Qi F, et al. Multi-requests satisfied based
on energy optimization for the service composition in
wireless sensor network. Int J Distrib Sens Netw 2019;
15(9): 1550147719879049.
24
94. Singh AP, Vyas OP and Varma S. Flexible service
oriented network architecture for wireless sensor net-
works. Int J Comput Commun Contr 2014; 9(5):
610–622.
95. Delicato FC, Pires PF and Zomaya AY. Service-
oriented middleware: overview and illustrative example.
In: Ammari H (ed.) The art of wireless sensor networks.
Berlin: Springer, 2014, pp.675–693.
96. Lemos M, Rabêlo R, de Carvalho C, et al. An energy-
efficient approach to enhance virtual sensors provision-
ing in sensor clouds environments. Sensors 2018; 18(3):
689.
97. Sahni Y, Cao J and Liu X. MidSHM: a flexible middle-
ware for SHM application based on service oriented
architecture. In: IEEE symposium on service- oriented
system engineering (SOSE), Oxford, 29 March–2 April
2016, pp.126–135. New York: IEEE.
98. Siris VA, Fotiou N, Mertzianis A, et al. Smart
application-aware IoT data collection. J Reliab Intell
Environ 2019; 5(1): 17–28.
99. Kandris D, Nakas C, Vomvas D, et al. Applications of
wireless sensor networks: an up-to-date survey. Appl
Syst Innovat 2020; 3(1): 14.
100. Cañete E, Chen J, Dı́az M, et al. A service-oriented
approach to facilitate WSAN application development.
Ad Hoc Netw 2011; 9(3): 430–452.
101. Abangar H, Barnaghi P, Moessner K, et al. A service
oriented middleware architecture for wireless sensor net-
works. In: Proceedings of future network and mobile
summit conference, 2010, http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.
uk/Personal/P.Barnaghi/doc/FutureNetworkSummit_
Paper_ref_166_doc_3652.pdf
International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks
102. Naseer A, Alkazemi BY and Aldoobi HI. Component-
based model for heterogeneous nodes in wireless sen-
sor networks. Lecture Note Inform Theor 2015; 3(1):
25–30.
103. Gürgen L, Nyström-Persson J, Cherbal A, et al. Plug-
manage heterogeneous sensing devices. In: Proceedings
of the 6th international workshop on data management for
sensor networks, Lyon, 24 August 2009, p.3. New York:
ACM.
104. Khan ZH, Catalot DG and Thiriet JM. Hierarchical
wireless network architecture for distributed applica-
tions. In: Fifth international conference on wireless and
mobile communications (ICWMC’09), Cannes, 23–29
August 2009, pp.70–75. New York: IEEE.
105. Zhou Z, Zhao D, Liu L, et al. Energy-aware composi-
tion for wireless sensor networks as a service. Fut Gen-
erat Comput Syst 2018; 80:299–310.
106. Chen J, Tian Z, Cui X, et al. Trust architecture and rep-
utation evaluation for internet of things. J Amb Intell
Human Comput 2019; 10(8): 3099–3107.
107. Bai Y, Ji H, Han Q, et al. MidCASE: a service oriented
middleware enabling context awareness for smart envi-
ronment. In: Proceedings of the international conference
on multimedia and ubiquitous engineering, Seoul, South
Korea, 26–28 April 2007. New York: IEEE.
108. Caporuscio M, Raverdy P G, Moungla H, et al. ubi-
SOAP: a service oriented middleware for seamless net-
working. In: Proceedings of the 6th ICSOC, Sydney,
NSW, Australia, 1–5 December 2008. Berlin: Springer.
109. Fok C-L, Roman G-C and Lu C. Servilla: a flexible ser-
vice provisioning middleware for heterogeneous sensor
networks. Sci Comput Program 2012; 77(6):663–684.