Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12083-019-00821-4

An improved congestion-aware routing mechanism in sensor

networks using fuzzy rule sets
G. Sangeetha 1 & M. Vijayalakshmi 1 & Sannasi Ganapathy 2 & A. Kannan 3

Received: 15 March 2019 / Accepted: 23 September 2019

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
Congestion-free routing of packets across a Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) is an important issue to be addressed for quick
response applications such as disaster management, healthcare systems, traffic control, etc. The existing routing algorithms have
been developed by mainly considering hop-count leading to a gap in addressing congestion problem in the routing process.
Congestion during routing leads to increase in packet drops, increased energy consumption and delay in delivery of packets at the
sink node. Therefore, it is necessary to propose an optimal congestion aware routing mechanism that considers network param-
eters such as congestion level and energy dissipation in addition to hop count factor. Hence in this paper, a traffic prudent
framework called Congestion Aware Routing using Fuzzy Rule sets (CARF) has been proposed for handling excess traffic
conditions by identifying the non-localized node paths, there after adding them to the existing localized node paths and selecting a
more reliable and a congestion alleviated path to sink node using fuzzy rule prediction. This results in reducing packet drops and
increasing energy utilization. The proposed framework CARF is organized into two operational segments namely 1) Multiple
Path Identification by positioning non-localized nodes and 2) Congestion Mitigated routing of data packets to sink node. First
operation employs the Positioning of a Non-Localized node algorithm that is used to compute the unknown coordinates of a
sensor node thereby utilizing them to form more packet transmission paths in addition to the existing paths. The Point In Which
Side (PIWS) hop count-based geometric method is utilized here for finding non-localized nodes in the sensor network. Second
operation uses an Enhanced Fuzzy-based Congestion Mitigation (ECFM) algorithm for estimation of congestion level in nodes
using fuzzy rule sets by considering incoming data packets per second, bandwidth size and path reliability. This CARF frame-
work has been simulated using NS-2 testbed. Depending on the two major network characteristics such as path reliability and
congestion level, a network path is chosen for routing data packets. From the experiments conducted in this work, it is proved that
the proposed CARF mainly alleviates congestion, besides reducing energy cost and interference such as shadowing and
attenuation.

Keywords CARF . Path reliability . Congestion level . ECFM . Energy cost . Interference

* G. Sangeetha
sangeetha.g@auist.net; sangcse10@gmail.com 1 Introduction

M. Vijayalakshmi Congestion prediction [3] in a Wireless Sensor Network

vijim@annauniv.edu (WSN) enables to efficiently route the packets to sink with
Sannasi Ganapathy minimal energy exhaustion. The amount of traffic is estimated
sganapathy@vit.ac.in prior in each node to follow a non-collision path to sink.
A. Kannan Excessive traffic occurs in a network due to sudden occur-
kannan.a@vit.ac.in rence of event triggers that may generate more packets to be
transferred to sink than usual. Event triggers are emergency
1
Department of Information Science and Technology, CEG, Anna situations that occur due to earthquakes, landslides and other
University, Chennai 600025, India
alert conditions. The main characteristics of an effective net-
2
School of Computing Science and Engineering, VIT University, work performing traffic estimation are to reduce packet drop
Chennai 600127, India
when routing packets to sink, apart from other factors includ-
3
School of Computer Science and Engineering, VIT University, ing negligible energy usage and delay [11].
Vellore 632 014, India

When congestion forecasting [12, 15] is followed in a net-
work, the employment of relay nodes can be minimized. The
amount of energy utilized in relay nodes can be brought down
to increase the lifetime of network. Apart from these nodes,
the energy span of individual nodes gradually increases con-
tributing to degradation in network lifetime. There is a pre-
estimated route that can send data packets without loss to
reach sink. The existing congestion predicted routing [22]
algorithms employ non-fuzzy estimations. Moreover, three
broad data flow actions namely congestion mitigation, con-
gestion avoidance and reliable data transport are followed to
eliminate traffic overloading across the network [21].
Congestion mitigation [23, 24] comprises of congestion de-
tection, notification and their corresponding remedial moves.
Traffic avoidance action includes designing protocols to per-
form traffic control, resource control, Medium Access Control
(MAC) layer improvement and building learning automatons
to pre-analyze the incoming traffic patterns. Reliable data de-
livery [13] comprises of assured routing of data packets in
hop-by-hop or end-to-end manner [28]. All the above
discussed mechanisms suggest an estimated value to take de-
cision in case of node congestion. Fuzzy based congestion
prediction routing algorithms are proficient in comparison
with traditional congestion predicted algorithms due to their
robust design of flexible rule sets. They provide a wide space
of selecting an optimal route decision is better and which is
least good.
In Fuzzy based congestion predicted routing [17, 20], the
reasoning process during data transport is simpler that con-
sumes less computational power in network. This increases
network lifespan as energy usage is conserved. Fuzzy based
adaptive congestion control [16] accounts for buffer occupan-
cy, traffic rate and participants as inputs for identifying and
alleviating congestion. There are no fuzzy rules regarding path
reliability across routes to sink in the existing fuzzy algo-
rithms. In Priority based congestion control mechanism [19],
congestion score and buffer occupancy were the two inputs
used in decision making of data transmission rate. However,
the strength of a path is implicitly required to trace a mostly
accurate route from node to sink. If path sturdiness increases, a
well-formed route can be used for routing packets to sink
without packet drops or delays thereby growing network per-
formance. When congestion cleared routing takes place, there
is minimal traffic involved routing contributing to decreased
hotspot problem. Many researchers have focussed on param-
eter inputs such as traffic rate and buffer occupancy to decide
upon next hop for node, but have not taken into account the
path strength as a parameter to improve the network durability
to transmit packets to sink.
In order to solve the problems of energy draining and more
packet drop when routing data to sink during congestion oc-
currence [25], we propose a new technique called Congestion-
Aware Routing using Fuzzy rule sets (CARF) in this paper.
Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl.
There are three steps involved in CARF mechanism that in-
cludes the discovery of neighbouring nodes, foreseeing path
reliability and congestion prediction. The Positioning of non-
localized nodes algorithm enables estimation of unknown co-
ordinate nodes using number of hops. Path reliability is cal-
culated using fuzzy rules formed using neighbour distance
from sink and path energy as parameters. Reliability of a
node’s neighbouring path decides on the selection of a greater
durable path to destination without traffic intensity. This path
reliability is used to estimate traffic level in nodes and minimal
traffic passable node is selected for routing. The proposed
CARF framework saves considerable energy consumption,
supports for reduction of hotspot problem and grows average
lifetime of nodes. The major contributions of the proposed
work include:
& Positioning of non-localized nodes using a simple hop-
based geometric algorithm and to create more paths in
addition to existing ones for routing packets to sink with-
out traffic overloading.
& Designing fuzzy inference rule sets for finding path reli-
ability to calculate path strength among neighbouring
routes.
& Retaining energy by pre-estimation of congestion level in
nodes using fuzzy rule sets to achieve extended network
operation.
& Enabling less activation of relay nodes and anchor nodes
in the network to conserve energy.
The remaining part of the paper is structured as follows:
Section 2 presents the existing works in detail. In Section 3, an
outline of proposed framework is presented. Route identifica-
tion and congestion mitigated routing operations are discussed
in Section 4 and 5. Section 6 represents the performance study
and proposed approach is concluded in Section 7.
2 Related works
Previously many researchers have contributed many tech-
niques related to congestion control in WSNs. Gharajeh
et al. proposed a Dynamic Three Dimensional (3D) Fuzzy
Routing Based on Traffic Probability (DFRTP) in WSNs [1].
In this technique, distance and number of neighbors were
considered as the input parameters, yielding traffic probability
as the output parameter. A 3D localization is done by
installing an external 3D accelerometer on well caliber nodes.
The main idea is to route packets from source to sink nodes by
hop-by-hop delivery using fuzzy decision rules. DFRTP pro-
vides greater network lifetime and packet delivery ration com-
pared to the other heuristic methods. However, determining
geographical coordinates using an external accelerometer is
not much reliable.
Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl.
Congestion elimination in WSNs can be done in two ways:
First solution is to detect congestion, send implicit or explicit
notifications and perform the removal process by incorporat-
ing traffic control algorithms [2, 3]. The second solution is to
carry out congestion avoidance technique that aims at
predetermining a traffic block-free path to route the packets
from source to sink nodes [2]. The methods to avoid conges-
tion include usage of exponential back-off protocols, priority
node-level assignments and resource controlled allocation in
the sensor network. Jiang et al. devised a localization algo-
rithm called Based on the Hops for LArge-Scale WSNs
(BHLA), where the unknown coordinate nodes can commu-
nicate with known anchor nodes under unknown communica-
tion range [4]. The distance measure of an anchor node to an
unknown node is changed into hops via flooding. The unique
coordinate information contained in an area was found using
the Point In Which Side (PIWS) method and intersection be-
tween communication radius of both anchor and unknown
nodes. The goal of this algorithm is to find out the geograph-
ical point locations of unknown nodes in unrecognized posi-
tions. BHLA algorithm is range-free, crops down node energy
cost, reduces time delay, thereby removing interference. The
correctness of positioning points can be verified by enhancing
PIWS phase.
Chen et al. [5] presented a Range-free Localization based
on Anisotropy of Nodes (RLAN) to trace node positions un-
der varying magnitude across various directions. RLAN in-
creases localization accuracy compared to other range-free
localization methods. Moreover, other effective distance esti-
mation methods other than Euclidean distance can be tested to
find out the average hop distance. Annie et al. [6] presented a
predictive rate reservation schemes such as rate reduction
(RR), rate regulation (RG) and split protocol (SP). Time delay
is a major factor to be considered for the reservation schemes
and more dynamic methodology for choosing more neighbor
nodes. As a result of reviewing the above techniques, a new
routing scheme to route the Clear-to-Send (CTS) and Request
to Send (RTS) data packets in data-link layer by
predetermining congestion at each node using hop-by-hop
movement. The RTS/CTS communication methods are used
in IEEE 802.11 protocol to lower window frame interference
and collision due to unseen nodes.
A Fuzzy Temporal Congestion Prediction (FTCP) model
was designed to route the data packets along a least congested
path [7]. The congestion-aware framework includes two
phases: Congestion Prediction and Localization phases. The
temporal fuzzy rules are mapped across these two phases.
Hatamian et al. [8] proposed a fuzzy rate controller with a
congestion aware routing method that assigns a priority for
the data packets. Integration of fuzzy logic and greedy ap-
proach decreases packet drop and average energy usage in
nodes. More upstream traffic has to be tested for delay in a
distributed environment. Sara et al. [9] listed a type-2 fuzzy
logic algorithm to compute traffic congestion in network and
provides a considerable Quality of Service (QoS) to manage
traffic rate in WSN. This method prolongs network lifespan
and decreases packet loss across the network. A more real-
time implementation of the methodology is required to study
the traffic distribution. Ghaffari et al. [10] outlined an energy
effective routing mechanism using A-star algorithm. The
above stated EERP algorithm assures minimal hop count
and higher link quality. A considerable delay is involved dur-
ing A* search that increases complexity even for lighter pack-
et transfer.
Munir et al. [14] devised a congestion evaluation method
using QoS management and control block that is implemented
at node and sink levels using fuzzy method. This technique
supports network variations, sorts traffic and minimizes pack-
et drop for priority based event-driven data traffic. The effect
of increasing congestion related parameters and its effect on
wide QoS (Quality of Service) architecture need to be
analysed. Saurabh et al. [16] proposed a Fuzzy Based
Adaptive Congestion Control (FBACC) that provides a fuzzy
congestion estimation considering factors such as buffer oc-
cupancy, participants and traffic rate. This method conserves
retransmission energy due to minimal packet loss using traffic
adaption. The learning activity about incoming data rate and
participants in the network consumes more time delay and
causes traffic within nodes. Jilani et al. [18] framed a
Hierarchical Tree Based Congestion Control using Fuzzy
Logic (HTCCFL) for heterogeneous traffic flow in WSN
using fuzzy technique using packet service ratio, number of
competitors and buffer occupancy. Energy consumption is
reduced by dynamic rate adaptation or source selects an alter-
nate path from hierarchical tree to control congestion. The
exact selection on the usage of rate adjustment and alternate
path choosing from tree formation is ambiguous. Majid et al.
[19] designed a priority-based congestion control mechanism
using fuzzy rules in WSNs. Congestion score and buffer oc-
cupation are given as inputs to fuzzy rate controller to regulate
data transmission to sink. There is significant minimization of
packet loss rate and delay. Less number of traffic parameters is
involved in decision making of traffic free route to sink node.
In the past, many researchers worked in areas of energy
aware routing [29–34], fuzzy based route selection methods
for effective routing and congestion aware routing techniques
[35–38] for effective routing in WSN. Damaso et al. [39]
proposed a reliability model considering battery power as
the key factor. Blocks and models were used to express the
sensor reliability elements using energy factor. Deif et al. [40]
modeled the sensor nodes based on three modes namely on,
relay and off states. An energy-based search algorithm to dis-
cover sensor node combinations based on modes was pro-
posed to yield a complete path to sink. Mostafaei et al. [41]
devised a Distributed Learning Automaton (DLA) to select a
set of smallest number of nodes to achieve end-to-end
 Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl.

reliability. From the research works done so far, QoS parameter area and this is the reason for detecting the non-localized nodes.
Path energy on a wider basis was used to calculate reliable paths to The above framework involves two primary algorithms namely
sink. Addition of neighbour distance parameter measures the Positioning of Non-Localized nodes and Enhanced Fuzzy-based
shorter distant node that can be traversed without energy loss. Congestion Mitigation (ECFM). The first algorithm constructs
Thus, the neighbour distance and path energy parameters are more multiple paths including the paths discovered with unknown co-
sufficient to estimate path reliability across network paths. Ullah ordinate nodes thereby preventing sensor battery dying by even
et al. [29] describes an efficient routing metric for smart meter distribution of data traffic. This algorithm adopts the functioning of
networks to be deployed in smart cities. This proposed metric traditional DV-Hop (Distance-Vector) and PIWS range-free local-
considers the residual energy and queue utilization of neighboring ization methods for positioning unknown coordinate nodes in sen-
nodes. This metric enables congestion-aware routing for smart sor environment. The latter algorithm applies fuzzy rules for esti-
meter networks or Advanced metering infrastructure (AMI). mating path reliability across network edges and determining con-
Song et al. [30] represented a unified modeling scheme called gestion level in all neighbouring node paths to suggest an ideal
generalized logical sphere (GLS) that can be mainly applied for path to be followed to reach sink.
space-terrestrial networks. The features including load balancing, The output obtained is a crisp number indicating conges-
smart routing, cognitive healing and hierarchical shielding of GLS tion level within a node along the routing path to sink.
were discussed. Therefore, a less traffic jammed path is chosen to achieve
However, the existing approaches discussed above consider good packet delivery and limit energy consumption.
only the energy at nodes. Congestion aware routing cannot be
performed effectively by utilizing only the node residual energy 3.2 Design of Fuzzy Inference Rule sets for estimation
parameter. Hence, it is necessary to propose a new routing mech- Path Reliability and Congestion Level.
anism that considers hop-count, congestion level, energy of nodes
and path energy in order to improve the overall network Fuzzy rule sets are framed for computing both path reliability and
performance. congestion level values in the proposed framework. The proposed
CARF design adopts Mamdani fuzzy inference process to provide
optimal decisions. The technique consists of four steps:
3 The proposed CARF framework
a) Fuzzifying input variables.
When the number of incoming packets gradually increases than b) Valuation of IF-THEN rules.
the restricted buffer size of a node while routing data to reach sink, c) Dissemination of rule outputs.
congestion occurs. The amount of data traffic shoots up due to d) Defuzzification output as a crisp number.
occurrence of sudden event triggers resulting in data jamming [26,
27]. This causes a greater packet drop that needs to be checked and Determination of path reliability and congestion level pre-
repaired using a congestion prediction algorithm. Apart from se- diction is performed using a fusion of both triangular and
vere packet loss, traffic collision can also result in energy drain and trapezoidal membership functions. Triangular membership
end-to-end delays that affect the entire network. There is a consid- function is calculated using Eq. 1.
erable degradation in network throughput that prevents sensitive
data from not reaching sink. Our goal is to construct a fuzzy set 8
>
> 0; x≤ a
model for predicting data traffic in prior for the sensor nodes to >
> x−a
frame a reliable route path for transferring packets to sink node. < ; a ≤ x≤ b
TriangularMFðx; a; b; cÞ b−a
¼ c–x ð1Þ
>
> ; b ≤ x≤ c
>
>
3.1 Key Methodology of CARF : c−b
0; c ≤x
The presented paper proposes a congestion-free routing frame- Trapezoidal membership function is computed by Eq. 2.
work for data transmission from source to sink nodes in WSNs.
The devised Congestion-Aware Routing Mechanism using Fuzzy
sets (CARF) consists of operations such as situating non-localized TrapezoidalMFðx; a1; b1; c1Þ
nodes, by which more paths for even traffic distribution could be 8
>
>
0; x≤ a1
constructed and there after predicting an optimal congestion elim- >
> x–a1
>
inated path to sink by pre-estimation of incoming traffic congestion < b1–a1 ; a1≤ x ≤ b1
>
level in network nodes. Here, the non- localized or unknown nodes ¼ 1; b1≤ x ≤ c1 ð2Þ
>
> d1−x
refer to the unrevealed node vertices hidden in sensor network. >
> ; c1≤ x ≤ d1
>
>
The point where the event trigger has occurred is important to be : d 1–c1
0; d 1≤ x
known as there are a large number of sensor nodes in deployed
Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl.
The Centre of mass is used here as the defuzzification tech-
nique. The defuzzified single valued output is given in Eq. 3.
p
∑ xi ρ ð xi Þ
i¼1
Z¼ p ð3Þ
∑ ρ ð xi Þ
i¼1
where xi denotes each candidate in the output universe of
discourse, ρ(xi) is the defines degree of membership of xi
and p is the count of candidates. These valuations complete
finding resultant fuzzy values to decide the selection of route
path to sink node.
4 Multiple PATH identification operation
Finding multiple paths in CARF framework is composed of
finding non-localized nodes and constructing paths after lo-
cating the unknown nodes in sensor deployed area as shown
in Fig. 1. New network paths along localized nodes are in-
cluded to the existing paths to provide additional routing
packets to destination. A simpler manual localization method
is carried on based on PIWS [4] calculation. Consider the
anchor and non-localized nodes for distance estimation phase
as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. If there are three a-level coor-
dinates, then N1 is given as N1 = {(ax11,ay11), (ax12, ay12),
(ax13,ay13). For node b-level coordinate set with four points
(b1,b2,b3,b4), N2 = {(bx21,by21), (bx22,by22), (bx23,by23),
(bx24,by24)}. For c-level coordinate set with more than four
points N3 = {(cx31, cy31),…,(cx36,cy36)}. In this way, area of
node coordinates is divided and superpositioned.
Algorithm 1: Working steps in Positioning of Non-Localized
nodes.
Step 1: Segregating information:
Assume a0 collects minimum number of hops from an-
chor nodes a1, a2 and a3 using flooding. This procedure
records Location information and NodeID.
Location = {1,1,1} (number of hops).
NodeID = {a1,a2,a3}.
Step 2: Partitioning area:
Involves coordinate information. If hop value = 1 then,
Coordinate information, N1 = ((x11,y11), (x12,y12), …..,
(x1a,y1a)).
If hop value>3, calculate area using PIWS method.
i) Select an anchor node in N1 in random and set as a base
point (x11,y11).
ii) Form coordinate sets, determine area covered by PIWS.
Form overlapping area between coordinates.
Step 3: Overlap the detected area by finding cartesian prod-
uct of coordinate sets N(n-1)xN(n).
Step 4: Calculate Centre of Gravity (COG). Position of a
non-localized node = COG(Overlap area). If overlapping not
satisfied, replace basis coordinate with another anchor co-
ordinate within same hop range. Repeat step 3.
Step 5: For hop value = n, calculate location point LP = (x-
x1)(y2-y1) - (y-y1)(x2-x1) using PIWS to find overlap area.
Traverse steps 1 to 4.
The unknown coordinate positions are located to find out
all possible efficient paths to sink using Algorithm 1. For
example in the dividing area, if the sensor network has only
2 hops, then 1 hop area has 2 anchor nodes and 2 hop area has
3 anchor nodes. This implies 2 coordinate sets: {(ax11,by21)},
{((ax11,by11), (ax22,by22)), ((ax11,by11), (ax23,by23))} and
{(ax12,by21)}, {((ax12,by21), (ax22,by22)), ((ax12,by12), (ax23,-
by23))}. The centre of gravity of overlapped area by nodes
constitutes the location of an unknown node. The above ap-
proach allows to determine the nearer, middle and farther
nodes.
Consider ‘n’ number of hops with ‘an’ anchor nodes having
node coordinate points to be x and y. The unknown coordinate
node can be found in sensor region using the following
moves. Divide the sensor area to find the coordinate sets and
collect their information. For example, assume 4- hop value,
the coordination information set, N 4 = {(x4(1) ,y4(1)), (x-
4(2),y4(2)),….,(x4a(n), y4a(n))}, where a(n) denotes n number
of anchor nodes in 4- hop area. Hence, for n-hop value, un-
known coordinate information is collected utilizing a general-
ized computation set Nn = {(xh1(a1),yh1(a1)),(xh2(a + 1),yh2(a +
1)),….,(xh(n)a(n),yh(n)a(n))}, where h(n) represents n-hop area.
Calculate overlapped area covered by anchor nodes and basis
node with respect to non-localized node using PIWS geomet-
ric method. Select a closer basis anchor (another localized
anchor) node in addition to two anchor nodes for finding un-
known node. Three bisector lines are used to evenly separate
the connected path of anchor nodes that are closer to unknown
node. To find the point where the unknown node is located, a
basic geometrical determination is utilized. Assume two
points of anchor nodes to be A1(x1,y1) and A2(x2,y2), the
location on which side the point (unknown node) is lying
can be found using the calculation, LP = (x-x1)(y2-y1) - (y-
y1)(x2-x1), where LP denotes point location. If LP < 0, point
lies on left side, LP > 0 point lies on right and LP = 0 marks
point exactly lying on line. This way overlapping area can
surround the unknown node more accurately.
The overlapped region has to be computed to yield the
unknown node. The intersection between communication
ranges of anchor nodes placed within range of non-
positioned node implies required node region that is to be
 Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl.

Fig. 1 Proposed CARF ECFM

framework
Fuzzy Fuzzy Inference
Inference Rule set for
Rule set for estimating Fuzzification
Path Congestion
Reliability Level
Defuzzification

Crisp-valued
Positioning of Congestion Level based
Non-Localized hop to next node
nodes

Optimal
congestion-free
Sensor path to sink node

Area

Unknown nodes Anchor Nodes

localized. A square geometric shape with respect to hop re- unknown, discard and fix a new basis anchor node and follow
gion is more preferable for intersection than a circle as it can the above listed procedure. This node position estimation is
possess equal sharp dimensions to separate specific area applied for n-hop regions in the deployed sensor area.
nodes. Depending on the hop area and number of anchor
nodes, the different combinations of known coordinate sets
taken for area computation. When the network has n hops,
then n coordinate sets are constructed with anchor nodes 5 Congestion mitigated routing
a(n) within hop area h(n). For instance, a network consists of
2-hop valued region, with 1-hop region having one anchor Congestion Mitigated packet routing in CARF requires the
node N1 = (x11,y11) and 2-hop region consisting of three an- estimation of both path reliability and congestion level among
chor nodes N2 = ((x21,y22),(x22,y22),(x23,y23)). Here traversing sensor nodes. The design of fuzzy rules is divided into two
hops from one region to another uses cartesian product be- sets. First fuzzy set is framed for path reliability and a second
tween N1 and N2 sets. This equals one coordinate set of fuzzy set for prediction of excess traffic in the network.
N (1)(2) = ((x 11 ,y 11 )(x 21 ,y 22 ), (x 11 ,y 11 )(x 22 ,y 22 ), (x 11 ,y 11 )
(x23,y23)). The unknown coordinate node position is known
by finding the COG pointed towards axle location. If position

2R
c1
a1
a0
b1 a a3 a2
a0 a1 a
a C
a 2
C

a
a
C
Unknown Nodes
3
Anchor Nodes Non-LocalizedNodes Anchor Nodes
Fig. 2 Sensor node region Fig. 3 Superposition of sector areas
Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl.

5.1 A. Fuzzy mapping for path reliability
Reliability is a network measure that is used to identify the
most optimal connected pathway for nodes to transmit packets
to destination node. We utilize a mesh sensor network that can
be visualized as an undirected graph ‘G’. Let N represent the
set of nodes performing a group reliable data transmission to
sink and ‘V’ is the set of all vertices in G. Then, the network G
is N-group connected, if all of the vertices of N is contained in
V belong to a single component of G. The main parameters
that are considered to output path reliability are neighbor node
distances and total energy across paths. The neighbor distance
is calculated using Euclidean measure considering all possible
proximate nodes from current node. The fuzzy relations for
stating path strength are listed below in Table 1.
The two remarkable IF-THEN rules to select path fitness
are given below and remaining rules follow these base
implications.
Case 1: If Neighbour_Distance is Far and Path_Energy is
Low then Path Reliability is Greater_low.
Case 2: If Neighbour_Distance is Near and Path_Energy
is High then Path Reliability is Greater_high.
Neighbor proximity and path residual energy are the major
parameters required to estimate the path strength to route
packets to sink without packet drop. A triangular membership
function is used for evaluation of path reliability.
Neighbor_Distance marks the average distance of neighbors
from sink and Path_Energy is the amount of residual energy
along neighbor edges. For example, consider values for
Neighbor_distance = 45, then occurrence position lies be-
tween Fair and Far distances. If the Path_Energy = 0.48, po-
sition lies in between medium and high ranges. The fuzzy
rules for above relation can be defined from Table 1 as given
below.
Rule 1: If Neighbor_Distance is fair and Path_Energy is
medium then Path_Reliability is medium.
Table 1 Fuzzy rule set to compute path reliability
Neighbour_Distance Path_Energy Path_Reliability
Near High Greater_high
Near Medium High
Near Low Certainly_high
Fair High Medium_high
Fair Medium Medium
Fair Low Medium_low
Far High Certainly_low
Far Medium Low
Far Low Greater_low
Rule 2: If Neighbor_Distance is fair and Path_Energy is
higher then Path_Reliability is medium_high.
Rule 3: If Neighbor_Distance is far and Path_Energy is
medium then Path_Reliability is low.
Rule 4: If Neighbor_Distance is far and Path_Energy is
higher then Path_Reliability is certainly_low.
In next phase, we evaluate congestion level using fuzzy
rules to enable nodes to select favorable route to sink without
any traffic collision.
5.2 B. Fuzzy mapping for congestion level estimation
Congestion Level is predicted in this part to decide on the
amount of traffic present across different routing paths to sink.
The denotations used for congestion_level prediction are
greater_high, high, certainly_high, medium_high, medium,
medium_low, certainly_low, low and greater_low.
Fuzzification is executed on the membership variables
data_rate, bandwidth_size and reliability_status. Data_rate
has linguistic terms namely higher, medium, lower flows
and bandwidth_size marking highly, medium and less occu-
pied threshold limits. Path hop status can be derived from the
previously determined path reliability that evaluates a well-
defined path to sink within N-node group. Initially, reliability
from a route to sink node is found using path reliability.
Table 3 lists the congestion level decision that is used by
individual nodes in a path to opt for a traffic-free route to sink.
This reduces burden of relay nodes by prior decision making
of choosing appropriate routes for transmitting data to sink.
There is an equal distribution of energy among all nodes in the
network instead of nodes dying near the base station. By con-
gestion level estimation, the energy spent on excess traffic
data exchanges can be prevented.
The range limits to trace congestion in individual nodes is
carried on using the following assumptions for fuzzy variable
extensions in Table 3. The output congestion state consists of
nine fuzzy values stating congestion level to be greater high,
high, less high, medium high, medium, medium low, less low,
low and more low. Taking into fuzzy combinations of data
rate, channel capacity and hop status the concentration of con-
gestion level is given from the above listed fuzzy rules. When
there is more congestion level in network, then the congested
Table 2 Fuzzy variable coordinates for Path Reliability selection
Neighbour_Distance Path_Energy
Fuzzy indices Input limits Fuzzy indices Input limits
Near 0–35 Low 0.0–0.35
Fair 30–60 Medium 0.25–0.65
Far 50–140 High 0.45–1
 Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl.

Table 3 Fuzzy rules to analyze congestion density in nodes

Data_Rate Bandwidth_Size PathHop_Status Congestion_Level

Higher_Flow Highly_occupied Weakly_connected Greater_high

Higher_Flow Medium_ocupied Passably_connected High
Higher_Flow Less_occupied Strongly_connected Certainly_high
Higher_Flow Highly_occupied Weakly_connected Medium_high
Higher_Flow Medium_occupied Passably_connected Medium
Higher_Flow Less_occupied Strongly_connected Medium_Low
Higher_Flow Highly_occupied Not_connected Certainly_Low
Higher_Flow Medium_occupied Weakly_connected Low
Higher_flow Less_occupied Strongly_connected Greater_Low
Medium_flow Highly_occupied Not_connected Greater_high
Medium_flow Medium_ocupied Weakly_connected High
Medium_flow Less_occupied Strongly_connected Certainly_high
Medium_flow Highly_occupied Not_connected Medium_high
Medium_flow Medium_ocupied Weakly_connected Medium
Medium_flow Less_occupied Strongly_connected Medium_Low
Medium_flow Highly_occupied Not_connected Certainly_Low
Medium_flow Medium_occupied Weakly_connected Low
Medium_flow Less_occupied Strongly_connected Greater_Low
Lower_flow Highly_occupied Not_connected Greater_high
Lower_flow Medium_occupied Weakly_connected High
Lower_flow Less_occupied Strongly_Connected Certainly_high
Lower_flow Highly_occupied Not_Connected Medium_high
Lower_flow Medium_occupied Weakly_connected Medium
Lower_flow Less_occupied Strongly_connected Medium_Low
Lower_flow Highly_occupied Not_connected Certainly_Low
Lower_flow Medium_occupied Weakly_connected Low
Lower_flow Less_occupied Strongly_connected Greater_Low

node and path will be avoided for future data transmission
until reaching normal traffic condition. Moreover, the conges-
tion information is broadcasted to all the nodes of the network
in order to make them to select routes without congestion.
An Enhanced Fuzzy-based Congestion Mitigation
(EFCM) algorithm is used for predicting the optimal route
to be taken from source to sink node during data trans-
port. If the congestion level involves low, certainly low
and greater low or medium high, medium and medium
low states, a normal operation of congestion-free routing
is carried on by transporting packets to sink. If congestion
level is greater high, high or certainly high efficiency
percentage is calculated per node by subtracting the num-
ber of retransmitted packets from packets transferred in
current node divided by the total packets transferred.
The total packet loss percentage is found from efficiency
at congested node. If packet loss is greater than 1/2th of
bandwidth size, then find nearest node using Euclidean
length to construct more number of node paths to sink
node.

Table 4 Fuzzy variable limits for Congestion Level decision

Data_Rate Bandwidth_Size PathHop_Status

Fuzzy Input Limits Fuzzy Input Limits Fuzzy Input Limits

indices Indices Indices

Higher_flow 145–200 Highly_Occupied 0.55–1 Weakly_connected 0.0–0.38

Medium_flow 44–160 Medium_Occupied 0.22–0.65 Passably_connected 0.30–0.75
Lower_flow 0–60 Low_occupied 0–0.35 Strongly_connected 0.5–1
Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl.

1
Table 5 Values for fuzzy candidate set
Low Medium High
Fuzzy variables Minimum crisp value Maximum crisp value
0.5
Neighbor_Distance 0 130
Path_Energy 0.0 1
0
Data_Rate 0 200
Bandwidth_Size 0 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

PathHop_Status 0 1 Fig. 5 Fuzzy membership functions for path energy

Step 9: For N c = U n , discover node positions using

Algorithm 2: Enhanced Fuzzy-based Congestion Mitigation
(ECFM) algorithm.
Nc: Current hop node in network.
Nn, Dn: List of ‘n’ neighbors for a node, distance between Nc
and neighbors.
NLn, An: Number of non-localized nodes and anchor
nodes in a network.
DR, BS, PHS, CL: Incoming Data Rate, Bandwidth Size,
Path Hop Status and Congestion level marking crisp fuzzy
values in nodes.
P L , P T, P RT: Total packet loss, transmitted and
retransmitted packets in nodes.
ni, mi: Network nodes in the Euclidean space.
Step 1: Determine min(Dn) from a set of n neighboring
nodes when Nc = An.
When Nc = NLn, find NLn by following steps in Algorithm 1.
Step 2: Compute path reliability and congestion level for
min(Dn) neighbor node using the above listed fuzzy rules in Table 2.
Step 3: Follow fuzzy rule sets and consider corresponding
CL in Table 3.
Step 4: Select Nn with maximum path reliability and minimum
congestion level CL for next hop from Nc to sink using fuzzy sets.
Step 5: Repeat steps 2 and 3 to find optimal node Nn until
sink is reached.
Step 6: If CL = GL||CL||L||ML||M||MH then continue with
normal operation using steps 1 to 5.
Step 7: For CL = CH||H||GH then compute packet loss in
current node during last transmission by determining the PL =
100- ((PT-PRT)/PT).
Step 8: If PL > 1/2(BS), node is under greater congestion.
Find next nearest node to sink node using Euclidean length
p
using d(n,m) = √ ∑ ðni −mi Þ2 in p-dimensional space. If PL <
i¼1
1/2BS, perform steps 1 to 5.
1 = max (min((0.48–0.25)/(0.45–0.25),(0.65–0.48)/(0.65–
Near 1 Fair Far
0.5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Fig. 4 Fuzzy membership functions for neighbor distance
Algorithm 1. Perform working steps 1 to 8.
The better reliable path for packet transfer is chosen by
following steps indexed in Algorithm 2. Table 4 gives the
input ranges for the fuzzy points used to predict congestion
intensity in nodes. The initial and end crisp values for all used
fuzzified variables is tabulated in Table 5.
5.3 C. A Test Case Evaluation for estimating
Congestion Level.
Consider a case where the value of Neighbor_distance is 45
and Path_Energy is 0.38. Using IF-THEN rules and variable
ranges given in Tables 1 and 2, output values are computed
and defuzzification is done to obtain crisp number values.
Figures 4, 5 and 6 project the membership functions for input
variables.
A triangular membership function is used when neighbor
distance is fair and trapezoidal function to find the neighbor
distance when far as follows. The same procedure is followed
for path energy.
The value A = 45 represents the fair neighbor distance from
sink then,
f(A; x,y,z) = max(min((A-x)/(y-x), (z-A)/(z-y)),0).
f(A; x,y,z) = max(min((45–30)/(50–45), (60–45)/(60–
50)),0) = 1.
If A = 65 is the far neighbor distance from sink then,
f(A; w,x,y,z) = max(min((A-w)/(x-w),1,(z–A)/(z-y)),0).
f(A; w,x,y,z) = max(min((65–50)/(85–65), 1,(141–65)/
(141–140)),0) = 0.75.
Similarly, to determine path energy a combination of both
triangular and trapezoidal membership functions are utilized.
When A = 0.48 represents medium path energy along the
edge node,
f(A;x,y,z) = f(0.48,0.25,0.45,0.65).
0.45)),0) = 0.85.
When A = 0.52 marks high path energy along edge net-
work node,
f(A;w,x,y,z) = f(0.52,0.45,0.65,1,1.1).
= max(min((0.52–0.45)/(0.65–0.45),1, (1.1–0.52)/(1.1–
120 140 1)),0) = 0.35.
Applying the above values to rules 1 to 4 mentioned earlier.
 Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl.

Fig. 6 Fuzzy membership 1

GL
functions for output path
reliability L CL ML M MH H CH GH
1
0.5

0.5
0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Rule1:Minimum value(1,0.85) = 0.85.
Rule2:Minimum value(1,0.35) = 0.35.
Rule3:Minimum value(0.75,0.35) = 0.35.
Rule4:Minimum value(0.75,0.35) = 0.35.
Choosing maximum of values from the above listed rules
gives 0.85. The crisp value ranges from 50 to 140. During the
defuzzification process, this value is substituted for calculat-
ing X that outputs Path_Reliability as 62.9. Fuzzy rules are
framed on individual nodes during packet transmission and
the greater path reliability score is selected to ensure better
way to sink. The same illustrated process is applied to find
congestion level along neighboring nodes. Fuzzification is
performed based on the rules g iven in Table 3.
Defuzzification is done to yield a crisp number range for con-
gestion level. The node having least congestion level value is
chosen among the neighbors. This procedure is repeated till
sink node is reached to route data. Neighbor distance is mea-
sured in meters and data flow rate is given in packets per
second. A trapezoidal membership function is used for predic-
tion of traffic across the transmission routes.
6 Simulation analysis
The proposed CARF algorithm has been evaluated using NS-
2 testbed. Simulation is performed by deploying a variable
Table 6 Simulation
parameters Parameters Values
number of nodes in an area of 200 m × 200 m with an initial
energy of 0.5 J. The number of nodes employed is varied
between 50 to 100 during start and succeeding rounds. The
experiment is carried out on 100 nodes for more than 500
rounds. Initially a performance comparison of Packet
Delivery Ratio (PDR), Network Lifetime (NL) and Time
Delay (TD) between three algorithms namely proposed
CARF, DFRTP and EERP is performed. Later, variations for
energy utilization and packet drop ratio are shown.
Table comparisons for average packet reachability and left
over energy between various techniques are illustrated. The
packet delivery ratios are distinguished between fuzzy and
non-fuzzy methods. Fuzzy algorithms included are proposed
CARF, Priority based Congestion Control, HTCCFL and
FBACC. Non-fuzzy algorithms included for correlation are
CARF, EERP, TADR, FACC and STCP (Table 6).
CARF technique is compared with the previous heuristic
routing methods such as EERP and DFRTP. Experimental
results are obtained comparing Packet Delivery Ratio
(PDR), Network Lifetime (NL) and Time Delay (TD) under
the exchange of data packets. The results obtained are tabu-
lated as shown in Fig. 7.
Figure 5 shows the overall energy utilized for 500 rounds
of packet transfer. Tables 1 and 2 describe the number of
successfully received packets in sink and retained nodes in
network for different techniques in contrast with the devised
method. The mean residual energy in sensor nodes is shown in
Fig. 8. The proposed mechanism has an average increase of 15
nodes in comparison with DFRTP and 28 nodes in relation

Simulation area 200 × 200 m2

No. of nodes 50–100 Performance Analysis
Transmission range 60 m 100
90
Bandwidth 5 Mbps 80
Percentile Ratio

Data packet size 512 bytes 70

60
Start energy 0.5 J 50 Proposed CARF
40
Maximum buffer size 10 packets/s DFRTP
30
Initial battery power 200 J 20 EERP
10
Number of sinks 1 0
Distribution scenario Uniform random PDR NL TD
Performance Metrics
Simulation time 200 s–1000s
Fig. 7 Comparison of performance level between various techniques
Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl.

Energy Consumption Table 8 Residual energy comparison between CARF and prevailing
80 methods for 500 s time span
70
Number of alive nodes

60 Initial Average remaining energy (J)

50
Energy (J)
Proposed CARF CARF Mohammed Ghaffari et al. Hatamian et al.
40
Mohammed et al. [1] et al. [1] [8] [10]
30
Ghaffari et al. [8]
20
Hatamian et al. [10] 1 0.75 0.40 0.10 0.8
10
0 2 1.20 0.85 0.19 0.11
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
3 1.82 1.39 0.42 0.25
Initial energy (J)
4 2.61 1.70 0.80 0.54
Fig. 8 Energy utilization among various data traffic control techniques
5 3.20 2.57 1.58 1.12

with EERP. There is a visible growth in the increased number

of nodes in CARF algorithm. Tables 7 and 8 illustrate the
mean number of packets reaching sink and remaining energy
in nodes in CARF and other algorithms. Initially, for 10 live
nodes data reachability in sink for CARF is 10,940 packets
compared to other algorithms [1, 8, 10] transmitting 10,058,
8770 and 7910 packets respectively. There is a scale increase
in our devised algorithm having 5338 packets more sink
reachability compared to DFRTP, 10638 packets in EERP
and 12,340 packets in priority based congestion control
methods. Thus CARF projects a steady increase in transfer-
ring packets with respect to node increase. In Table 8, there is
an extension of 2.08 J in CARF in relation with other algo-
rithms for 5 J energy run on simulation of 500 s time period.
At the end of 500 s time sequence, CARF tops the existing
algorithms with residual energy of 3.02 J.
Figure 9 shows the packet drop ratio showing the entire
loss distribution along network during variable transmission
rounds. There is a minimal loss ratio percentage of 25% in
CARF compared with other techniques [1, 8, 10] marking
40%, 58% and 70% loss ratios. A comparison of packet de-
livery ratios between fuzzy and non-fuzzy methods is de-
scribed in Fig. 10. The highly packet delivering algorithm is
shown as CARF with 92% successful transmission in both
fuzzy and non-fuzzy methods. At the lowest level, there is
Table 7 Average reachable packets in sink for CARF and existing
mechanisms
70% packet delivery ratio exhibited by HTCCFL among
fuzzy methods. On the other end, STCP projects 73% delivery
ratio between non-fuzzy methods.
Table 9 indicates the maximum and minimum time delay
range values between CARF, fuzzy and non-fuzzy based al-
gorithms. TADR has a lower delay period up to 1 s, succeeded
by CARF with 1.2 s. FACC has a greater delay of more than
3 s in relation with other congestion prediction mechanisms.
Figure 11 shows the network span for a sequence of 1000
rounds. Initially at 200 rounds, proposed algorithm has a net-
work lifetime of 98% compared to other fuzzy and non-fuzzy
techniques. In non-fuzzy methods, CARF has an increase of
4%, 9%, 13% and 18% in contrast with the existing EERP,
TADR, FACC and STCP algorithms. In fuzzy mechanisms,
CARF has a considerable shoot up of 7%, 16% and 19% in
relation with Priority based congestion control, HTCCFL and
FBACC algorithms.
When proposed CARF mechanism is compared with
ECRM [29] scheme for smarter grid based networks, the av-
erage power consumption required for data transmission to
receiver node as percentage ratio can be compared. The packet
receiving nodes are evaluated with receiver level percentage
ratios as seen in Fig. 12 indicating level of data loss in net-
work. When ECRM has 30 active nodes power consumed
gradually decreases to 1.01 mW when RX ratio is 100%
which is slightly greater than CARF operation resulting in
1 mW. For 60 working nodes, ECRM serves with slightly

No. of live Number of routed packets to sink

Packet Loss Ratio
80
nodes
70
Packet drop rate/s

CARF Mohammed Ghaffari Hatamian 60

et al. [1] et al. [8] et al. [10] 50
Proposed CARF
40
30
50 54,000 50,030 45,000 39,200 20
Mohammed et al. [1]

100 43,050 41,500 26,170 23,100 10 Ghaffari et al. [8]

0
150 39,085 36,000 18,200 14,600 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 Hatamian et al. [10]
200 27,040 21,540 13,800 9000 Time (s)

250 15,038 9700 4400 2702 Fig. 9 Overall packet fall distribution in congestion control
methodologies
 Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl.

120
location of sensor nodes also affects sensor communication.
Packet Delivery Percentile 100
If there is long-haul distance data transportation, there may be
80
certain packet drops if the sensor deployment area grows larg-
CARF
60
Priority based CC
er with a transmission range TX < 50 m and bandwidth size
40 HTCCFL along with path hop status has to be known accurately to
20
FBACC determine congestion level. However, CARF has to incorpo-
rate methods to check energy balancing and packet drops dur-
0
25 50 75 100 125 150 ing greater distant transmissions. CARF uses connected mesh
Number of rounds
or random topology to handle traffic conditions, yet can still
(a) utilize the efficiency of grid topology when there is increase
number of sensor nodes.
120
The total cost involved in computation of congestion alle-
Packet Delivery Percentile

100
viated routing is as follows. Assume w1, w2 and w3 are the
80
CARF weighted factors in network whose values are positive.
60 EERP Moreover, the routing cost ‘R’ is computed in this work using
40
TADR the formula.
FACC
20 STCP R ¼ ðw1*No:of Hops þ w2*Energy Consumed by routed Packets in nodes
0
þw3*Energy required for Communicating among nodesÞ=ðw1 þ w2 þ w3Þ
25 50 75 100 125 150
Number of rounds Based on the experiments conducted in this work, the
(b) values of w1, w2 and w3 have been fixed as 2, 1 and 1. The
Fig. 10 Comparison of packet delivery ratios in CARF and other a Fuzzy weights are chosen depending on specific congestion con-
and b Non-Fuzzy Techniques trolled routing application in proposed scenario. The cost is
optimized by choosing the optimal path in terms of distance
and the congestion level at nodes to get a minimum value of R.
lesser power consumption with 1.02 mW than CARF with
1.035 mW. Thus, both CARF and ECRM are subjected to
least variations in power utilization across the network. 7 Conclusion and future scope
The above listed resultant graphs and table readings evi-
dently shows that CARF performs better in terms of energy In this paper, a framework on Congestion Aware
utilization, packet delivery, data reachability and network life- Routing using Fuzzy rule set has been proposed for
time. When compared to the existing mechanisms, there is an optimal packet routing in WSNs. Pre-estimating traffic
acceptable delay variation when the number of transmission congestion level at each node and routing data packets
rounds increase. There are several parametric values in which to sink in hop-by-hop manner are the main advantages
CARF works efficiently and under certain conditions where of the proposed model. CARF reduces the maximum
the framework can still be improvised. The geographical work performed by relay nodes in case of overloaded
nodes and thereby increasing energy distribution in the
network. The proposed CARF design decreases packet
loss and time delay, thereby increasing network lifetime
Table 9 Variable delay limits for CARF and various algorithms for a compared to other fuzzy and heuristic methods used for
span of 800 rounds routing in WSNs. The proposed algorithm retains more
than 75% residual energy in the network at a minimum
Congestion prediction and alleviation algorithms Varying delay ranges
initial energy level of 1 J to enable routing of data to
(sec)
sink. There is a better packet delivery ratio of 92%
CARF 0–1.2 when CARF is compared with other fuzzy and non-
Priority based CC 0–1.5 fuzzy congestion prediction methods. The above find-
FBACC 0–1.4 ings deduce that CARF is a well-sustained algorithm
HTCCFL 0–4.9 in terms of good packet delivery and retains a maxi-
EERP Greater than 2.0 mum network lifetime when compared to the existing
TADR 0.1–1 methodologies. Future work includes the utilization of
FACC Greater than 3.0 other membership inference system with their types to
STCP 0–2.0, greater than 2.0 sketch the fuzzy rules and corresponding subsequent
variations can be observed. A more accurate localization
Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl.

Fig. 11 Network Lifetime 100

between CARF and a Non-fuzzy
methods b Fuzzy methods
80

Percentile value
CARF
60
EERP

40 TADR
FACC
20 STCP

0
200 400 600 800 1000
Number of rounds

(a)

100
90
80
70
Percentile value

60 CARF
50 Priority based CC
40
HTCCFL
30
FBACC
20
10
0
200 400 600 800 1000
Number of rounds

(b)

analytical informatics system can be framed to identify References

the correct nodes that form an optimal path to reroute
packets to sink by balancing excess traffic and reducing 1. Gharajeh MS, Khanmohammadi S (2016) DFRTP: dynamic 3D
fuzzy routing based on traffic probability in wireless sensor net-
routing delay. The functionalities of spherical distance-
works. IET Wireless Sens Syst 6(6):211–219
based load balancing and routing derived from extra 2. Kafi MA, Djenouri D, Ben-Othman J, Badache N (2014)
space and terrestrial GLS model [30] can be incorporat- Congestion control protocols in wireless sensor networks: a survey.
ed with the proposed work. IEEE Commun Surv Tutorials 16(3):1369–1390
3. Ghaffari A (2015) Congestion control mechanisms in wireless sen-
sor networks: a survey. Netw Comput Appl Elsevier 52:101–115
4. W. Jiang, P. Wan, Y. Wang, W. Su, D. Liang, “A localization algo-
1.4 rithm based on the hops for large-scale wireless sensor networks”,
1.35
Average Power Utilization (mW)

IEEE International Conference on Wireless Communication and

1.3 Sensor Network, pp. 217–221, 2014
ECRM N=30 5. Chen L, Pang L, Zhou B, Zhang J, Liu Z, Luo Q, Sun L (2015)
1.25
RLAN: range-free localisation based on anisotropy of nodes for
1.2 ECRM N=60 WSNs. Electron Lett 51(24):2066–2068
1.15 CARF N=30 6. Rajan AU, Raja SVK, Jeyasekar A, Lattanze AJ (2015) Energy-
1.1 CARF N=60 efficient predictive congestion control for wireless sensor networks.
IET Wireless Sensor Syst 5(3):115–123
1.05
7. Mukherjee S, Dasgupta P (2013) A fuzzy real-time temporal logic.
1 Int J Approx Reason Elsevier 54:1452–1470
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
8. Hatamian M, Bardmily MA, Asadboland M, Hatamian M, Barati H
Receiver (RX) %
(2016) Congestion-aware routing and fuzzy-based rate controller
Fig. 12 Mean power consumption percentage with RX value using node for wireless sensor networks. Radio Eng 25(1):114–123
populations of 30 and 60

9. S. Ghanavati, J. Abawajy, D. Izadi, "A fuzzy technique to control
congestion in WSN", Proceedings of International Joint Conference
on Neural Networks, Dallas, Texas, USA, August 4–9, pp. 1806–
1810, 2013
10. Ghaffari A (2014) An energy efficient routing protocol for wireless
sensor networks using A-star algorithm. J Appl Res Technol 12(4):
815–822
11. Ren F, He T, Das SK, Lin C (2011) Traffic-aware dynamic routing
to alleviate congestion in wireless sensor networks. IEEE Trans
Parallel Distrib Syst 22(9):1585–1599
12. Antoniou P, Pitsillides A, Blackwell T, Engelbrecht A, Michael L
(2013) Congestion control in wireless sensor networks based on
bird flocking behavior. J Comput Netw Elsevier 57:1167–1191
13. Y. G. Iyer, S. Gandham, S. Venkatesan, “STCP: a generic transport
layer protocol for wireless sensor networks”, IEEE, 14th
International Conference on Computer Communications and
Networks, ICCCN Proceedings, pp. 449–454, 2005
14. S. A. Munir, Y. W. Bin, R. Biao, M. Jian, “Fuzzy logic based
congestion estimation for QoS in wireless sensor network”, IEEE
Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC)
proceedings, pp. 4339–4344, 2007
15. Yin X, Zhou X, Huang R, Fang Y, Li S (2009) A fairness-aware
congestion control scheme in wireless sensor networks. IEEE Trans
Veh Technol 58(9):5225–5234
16. S. Jaiswal, A. Yadav, "Fuzzy based adaptive congestion control in
wireless sensor networks", Sixth International Conference on
Contemporary Computing (IC3), pp. 433–438, 2013
17. J. Wei, B. Fan, Y. Sun, "A Congestion Control Scheme Based on
Fuzzy Logic for Wireless Sensor Networks", 9th International
Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery, pp.
501–504, 2012
18. Sayyad J, Choudhari NK (2014) Hierarchical tree based congestion
control using fuzzy logic for heterogeneous traffic in WSN. Int J
Curr Eng Technol 4(6):4136–4143
19. M. Hatamian, H. Barati, "Priority-based Congestion Control
Mechanism for Wireless Sensor Networks using Fuzzy Logic",
6th International Conference on Computing, Communication and
Networking Technologies (ICCCNT), pp. , 2015
20. Rezaee AA, Pasandideh F (2018) A fuzzy congestion control pro-
tocol based on active queue management in wireless sensor net-
works with medical applications. Wirel Pers Commun 98:815–842
21. Sergiou C, Antoniou P, Vassiliou V A comprehensive survey of
congestion control protocols in wireless sensor networks. IEEE
Commun Surv Tutorials 16, 2014(4, Fourth Quarter):1839–1859
22. Chen S, Yang N (2006) Congestion avoidance based on lightweight
buffer management in sensor networks. IEEE Trans Parallel
Distrib Syst 17(9):934–946
23. Fang W, Chen J, Shu L, Chu T, Qian D (2010) Congestion avoid-
ance, detection and alleviation in wireless sensor networks. J
Zhejiang Univ Sci C (Comput Electron) 11(1):63–73
24. Karenos K, Kalogeraki V (2010) Traffic management in sensor
networks with a mobile sink. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst
21(10):1515–1530
25. Wei K, Guo S, Li X, Zeng D, Xu K (2016) Congestion control in
social-based sensor networks: a social network perspective. Peer
Peer Netw Appl Springer Science 9:681–691
Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl.
26. Huang X, Feng S, Zhuang H (2011) Jointly optimal congestion
control, channel allocation and power control in multi-channel
wireless multihop networks. J Comput Commun Elsevier 34:
1848–1857
27. Godoy PD, Cayssials RL, Garino CGG (2018) Communication
channel occupation and congestion in wireless sensor networks. J
Comput Electr Eng Elsevier:1–13
28. Sharma VK, Kumar M (2017) Adaptive congestion control scheme
in mobile ad-hoc networks. Peer-to-Peer Networking and
Applications, Springer Science 10:633–657
29. Ullah R, Faheem Y, Kim B (2017) Energy and congestion-aware
routing metric for smart grid AMI networks in smart city. IEEE
Access 5:13799–13810
30. Song F, Zhou Y, Chang L, Zhang H (2019) Modeling space-
terrestrial integrated networks with smart collaborative theory.
IEEE Netw 33(1):51–57
31. Kumar SM, Ganapathy S, Vijayalakshmi M, Kannan A (2017) An
intelligent secured and energy efficient routing algorithm for
MANETs. Wirel Pers Commun 96(2):1753–1769
32. Logambigai R, Ganapathy S, Kannan A (2018) Energy–efficient
grid–based routing algorithm using intelligent fuzzy rules for wire-
less sensor networks. Comput Electr Eng Elsevier 68:62–75
33. Wang Q, Lin D, Yang P, Zhang Z (2019) An energy-efficient com-
pressive sensing-based clustering routing protocol for WSNs. IEEE
Sens J 19(10):3950–3960
34. Dhand G, Tyagi SS (2019) SMEER: secure multi-tier energy effi-
cient routing protocol for hierarchical wireless sensor networks.
Wirel Pers Commun 105(1):17–35
35. Sangeetha G, Vijayalakshmi M, Ganapathy S, Kannan A (2018) A
heuristic path search for congestion control in WSN. Lect Notes
Netw Syst Springer 11:485–495
36. Robinson YH, Julie EG, Kumar R, Son LH (2019) Probability-
based cluster head selection and fuzzy multipath routing for
prolonging lifetime of wireless sensor networks. Peer Peer Netw
Appl:1–15
37. Preeth SKSL, Dhanalakshmi R, Kumar R, Mohamed Shakeel P
(2018) An adaptive fuzzy rule based energy efficient clustering
and immune-inspired routing protocol for WSN-assisted IoT sys-
tem. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput:1–13
38. Nisha UN, Basha AM (2018) Triangular fuzzy-based spectral clus-
tering for energy-efficient routing in wireless sensor network. J
Supercomput:1–26
39. Damaso A, Rosa N, Maciel P (2014) Reliability of wireless sensor
networks. Sensors MDPI 14:15760–15785
40. Deif D, Gadallah Y (2017) A comprehensive wireless sensor net-
work reliability metric for critical Internet of Things applications.
EURASIP J Wirel Commun Netw 145:1–18
41. Mostafaei H (2019) Energy-efficient algorithm for reliable routing
of wireless sensor networks. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 66(7):5567–
5575
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl.
Sangeetha Ganesan
has completed Masters from the
Department of Computer Science
and Engineering. She is currently
a research scholar in the
Department of Information
Science and Technology at Anna
University, Chennai. Her research
interests include wireless adhoc
and sensor networks, congestion
control and traffic analysis.
Vijayalakshmi Muthuswamy is
currently working as an
Associate Professor in the
Department of Information
Science and Technology in
College of Engineering, Guindy,
Anna University, Chennai. She
has completed PhD under the fac-
ulty of Information and
Communication Engineering in
Anna University, Chennai. Her
research interests include Mobile
Databases, Mobile Cloud
Computing and Machine
Learning.
Ganapathy Sannasi has com-
pleted his M.E. and PhD from
Anna University, Chennai.
Currently he is working as an
Assistant Professor (Senior) in
VIT University-Chennai
Campus. His areas of interest are
Artificial Intelligence, Wireless
Sensor Network, Data Mining,
and Recommendation systems.
Kannan Arputharaj is currently
working as a Professor in the
School of Computer Science and
Engineering, VIT, Vellore, India.
He has published more than 350
Papers in journals and Conference
Proceedings. His areas of Interest
are DBMS, AI and Networks.