IEEE INTERNET OF THINGS JOURNAL, VOL. 9, NO.
20, 15 OCTOBER 2022
D2CRP: A Novel Distributed 2-Hop Cluster
Routing Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks
Chao Chen , Li-Chun Wang , Fellow, IEEE, and Chih-Min Yu , Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—Typically, wireless sensor networks (WSNs) use
limited-capacity batteries that cannot be recharged or replaced.
In general, designing an energy-efficient routing protocol has a
significant impact on prolonging the network lifetime. In this arti-
cle, a novel distributed 2-hop cluster-routing protocol (D2CRP)
is introduced to achieve energy efficiency in WSNs. In the clus-
ter formation phase, each node obtains the information of its
neighbor nodes within the 2-hop range to form the 2-hop clus-
ter in a fully distributed manner. The transmission distance and
residual energy are jointly considered to determine the energy-
efficient cluster head (CH) in each 2-hop cluster. After the CH is
generated, each member node can transmit packets to its 1-hop
neighbor or the CH directly. To reduce the overall transmission
distance for intercluster communication, multiple chains can be
formed among CHs via their adjacent CHs that are closer to the
base station (BS). As a result, energy-efficient intracluster and
intercluster routing can be achieved for packet transmission. In
addition, the optimal cluster number of 2-hop clustering is for-
mulated and derived to minimize the energy consumption for
both intracluster and intercluster communications. Simulation
results show that the optimal cluster number of D2CRP can be
achieved and D2CRP is effectively improved on the performances
of network lifetime, energy consumption, and packet transmission
than the other four state-of-the-art competitive routing protocols,
including low-energy adaptive clustering hierarchy (LEACH), R-
LEACH, power-efficient gathering in sensor information system
(PEGASIS), and two-tier distributed fuzzy logic-based protocol
(TTDFP).
Index Terms—2-hop cluster, energy efficient, Internet of Things
(IoT), routing protocol, wireless sensor network (WSN).
Manuscript received 13 October 2021; revised 28 December 2021; accepted
19 January 2022. Date of publication 1 February 2022; date of current ver-
sion 7 October 2022. This work was supported in part by the Center for Open
Intelligent Connectivity from The Featured Areas Research Center Program
within the framework of the Higher Education Sprout Project by the Ministry
of Education (MOE) in Taiwan and in part by the Higher Education Sprout
Project of the National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University and Ministry of
Education (MOE), Taiwan. The work of Li-Chun Wang was supported in part
by the Ministry of Science and Technology under Grant MOST 110-2634-
F-A49-006 and Grant MOST 110-2221-E-A49-039-MY3, Taiwan. The work
of Chih-Min Yu was supported in part by the Natural Science Foundation
of Fujian Province, China, under Grant 2020J01089; in part by the Major
Project Funding for Social Science Research of Fujian Province, China, under
Grant FJ2020MJDZ055; in part by the Fujian Key Laboratory of Spatial
Information Perception and Intelligent Processing, Fuzhou, China; and in part
by the Fujian University Engineering Research Center of Spatial Data Mining
and Application, Fuzhou, China. (Corresponding author: Chih-Min Yu.)
Chao Chen is with the Institute of Network Engineering, National
Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan (e-mail:
cchen.cs07g@nctu.edu.tw).
Li-Chun Wang is with the Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu 300,
Taiwan (e-mail: lichun@cc.nctu.edu.tw).
Chih-Min Yu is with the College of Artificial Intelligence, Yango University,
Fuzhou 350015, China (e-mail: hankycm7@gmail.com).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JIOT.2022.3148106
2327-4662 
c 2022 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: ASTON UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 29,2024 at 09:31:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
19575
I. I NTRODUCTION
HE Internet of Things (IoT) is a network consisting of
T devices that contain specific sensors to sense the moni-
toring region and transmit the collected data to the end users.
IoT is widely used in many scenarios, such as COVID-19 pre-
vention [1], healthcare [2], [3], environment surveillance [4],
smart building [5], indoor localization [6], and military battle-
field [7], [8]. Gartner reported that the worldwide IoT market
is near 6 billion devices in the year 2020 [9]. McKinsey [10]
estimated that IoT will be worth nearly U.S. $11,000 trillion by
2025. Furthermore, the emerging 6G wireless communication
and mobile edge computing (MEC) contribute to promising
growth in the demand for IoT devices [11]–[14].
Wireless sensor network (WSN) is a key technology of
IoT [15]. In a WSN, sensor nodes are deployed in a specific
region to sense information from the external environment and
are capable of establishing an ad hoc network [16]. According
to specific requirements, these nodes are equipped with corre-
sponding functional sensors to monitor various conditions in
the region, such as air pressure, temperature, etc. [17]. After
the data are collected and processed, sensor nodes send it to
the base station (BS) in a one-hop or multihop manner via
wireless communication. The BS or sink node performs fur-
ther data processing and sends data to the client or terminal
device via the Internet or satellite network.
Energy consumption has always been an important issue
of WSNs [18], which is determined by the characteristics of
variant WSNs. First, there are a considerable number of sensor
nodes deployed in a WSN and the monitoring environments
can be harsh and complex. Second, due to volume and cost
constraints, sensor nodes are generally fueled by equipped bat-
teries with limited energy capacity; and considering the harsh
monitoring environment, battery replacement is almost impos-
sible. When a node dies because of energy exhaustion, there
will be two consequences: it directly leads to data loss of this
dead node, which affects the accuracy of data collection in
this area; the topology of the network changes, which affects
the network stability. Furthermore, the primary objective of
WSN is data collection. Although different application sce-
narios have different requirements for network performance
(QoS, security, etc.), extending the network lifetime for col-
lecting more data is a fundamental and critical requirement
for all WSNs. Therefore, achieving a good balance of network
energy consumption, improving energy utilization, and extend-
ing the network lifetime have always been hot topics for WSN
researchers.
19576
Recent research on WSNs has come up with various ideas to
reduce energy consumption. Designing energy-efficient rout-
ing protocols is a major challenge of these researches [18].
Clustering is used to divide the network into a hierarchical-
based structure. Also, data acquisition and transmission power
control are performed in each cluster. Based on the clus-
ter structure, the network can maintain a longer lifetime by
scheduling the duty cycle between sensor nodes in the cluster.
Except for achieving energy-efficient in the scheduling pro-
cess, the structure can also reduce the energy consumption
while transmitting data, because the member node only needs
to communicate with the cluster head (CH) node and no longer
needs to communicate with the farther BS. Chain structure is
another approach for dividing the network. In chain-based pro-
tocols, the nodes are arranged to form a multiple chains-like
topology. Each chain has a chain head node that gathers data
from other nodes in the same chain, and the chain head node
finally forwards the data to the BS.
To achieve energy-efficient and energy-balanced WSNs, a
novel distributed 2-hop cluster-routing protocol (D2CRP) is
proposed. With the introduction of new energy-related factors
for CH competition and the optimal cluster number for the
2-hop network configuration, the energy balance for network
transmission can be attained. To the best of the authors’ knowl-
edge, this work is the first one to deal with the 2-hop cluster
formation for both intracluster and intercluster communica-
tions. The main contributions of this article are concluded as
follows.
1) In cluster formation, a distributed 2-hop clustering
approach is designed to optimize the transmission dis-
tance and balance the energy consumption for CH
competition and packet transmission.
2) To achieve energy-efficient transmissions in a cluster,
a distributed intracluster-routing approach is performed
that employs 1-hop neighbor nodes as relays for trans-
mitting data in each 2-hop cluster.
3) For energy-efficient intercluster communication from
each CH to the BS, a distributed intercluster-routing
approach is used for connecting the CH nodes and trans-
mitting data to the BS in a chain-based manner to reduce
the transmission distance of each CH.
4) To minimize the energy consumption of network trans-
mission, the optimal cluster number of 2-hop clus-
ters is formulated and derived. This optimal topol-
ogy configuration achieves better performance than the
other four competitive protocols, including low energy
adaptive clustering hierarchy (LEACH), R-LEACH,
power-efficient gathering in sensor information system
(PEGASIS), and two-tier distributed fuzzy logic-based
protocol (TTDFP).
The remainder of this article is organized as follows.
Section II introduces related works in WSN routing pro-
tocols. In Section III, the network model and radio model
are examined. Section IV presents the main design crite-
ria for the D2CRP, including the 2-hop cluster formation,
CH determination, and the transmission scheme. Section V
presents the intracluster routing of D2CRP by considering
the possible cases of energy consumption for the intracluster
Authorized licensed use limited to: ASTON UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 29,2024 at 09:31:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE INTERNET OF THINGS JOURNAL, VOL. 9, NO. 20, 15 OCTOBER 2022
communication. Section VI describes the intercluster-routing
algorithm and determines the optimal cluster number of 2-hop
network configuration. In Section VII, computer simulation is
conducted to demonstrate the comparisons with other methods,
including the performances of the network lifetime, energy
consumption, and raw packets to BS. Lastly, we present
conclusion and future work in Section VIII.
II. R ELATED W ORK
In the past two decades, a number of cluster-based and
chain-based routing protocols have been explored for the pur-
pose of achieving effective energy consumption in WSNs.
LEACH is the first work to introduce the concept of cluster-
ing into WSN routing and is an energy-efficient hierarchical
routing protocol designed for WSNs [19]. The LEACH proto-
col randomly selects the CH nodes in a round-robin approach
and balances the network energy consumption through sensor
nodes taking turns being the CH nodes. The common sensor
node chooses one cluster to join based on the signal strength
received from the CH nodes. The CH nodes act as a gateway
for the communication between common nodes of the cluster
and the BS for data transmission. The limitation of LEACH is
that the randomly selected CH node may not be able to handle
the node management and data processing tasks of the entire
cluster, especially the node with low residual energy acting as
the CH node will accelerate its energy exhaustion [20].
The hybrid energy-efficient distributed (HEED) clustering
algorithm elects the CH nodes according to two designed
parameters periodically [21]. The first parameter is the resid-
ual energy level of each node, and the second parameter is
the average minimum reachability power (AMRP). The HEED
protocol first elects candidate CH node by comparing the resid-
ual energy; if the coverage of the two candidate CH nodes
overlaps with each other, then the AMRP of the two candidates
is compared for electing the final CH node. Common sensor
nodes will choose the CH node with the smallest AMRP within
their own communication range to associate. The HEED is
proposed based on the LEACH, which overcomes the draw-
backs caused by the random selection of CH nodes in LEACH.
The CH nodes elected with the residual energy can handle
the task of the entire cluster without prematurely exhausting
energy. However, the HEED algorithm is highly complex, and
too many iterations will result in a long time of cluster setup
and thus increase the data transmission delay [22].
Lindsey and Raghavendra [23] proposed PEGASIS proto-
col. This protocol uses a chain structure to connect sensor
nodes, which is different from the cluster structure and data
transmission approach of LEACH. The basic idea of PEGASIS
is to use a greedy algorithm for node selection, making
locally optimal decisions, and finally forming a long chain
structure [24]. In the communication stage, each node only
communicates with its nearest neighbor node. Except for
the chain tail node, all other nodes merge the data sent by
previous-hop nodes with their own data and then transmit the
data to their next-hop nodes. Finally, a node is selected as the
chain head node to transmit data to the BS. The chain head
node is selected in a round-robin manner, which enables the
CHEN et al.: D2CRP: NOVEL DISTRIBUTED 2-HOP CLUSTER ROUTING PROTOCOL FOR WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS 19577

TABLE I
energy consumption to be evenly distributed to each node. C OMPARISON OF R ELATED ROUTING P ROTOCOLS
However, PEGASIS requires each node to obtain all other
nodes’ location information for greedy selection, which is
difficult to obtain in practice. Besides, the residual energy
is not considered. As a result, the node with lower resid-
ual energy acting as the chain head nodes will die soon like
LEACH [25], [26].
An accurate distance-based transmission scheme (ADTS) is
proposed by Xin and Liu [27]. ADTS achieves the optimum of
transmission distance for different network regions. However,
it is only for strip-based WSNs. The improved unequal-
clustering and routing (IUCR) scheme proposed in [28] uses
unequal clustering to balance the energy consumption in the
network. The clusters closer to the BS are formed in small
size to mitigate the load of the CH nodes for transmitting data.
However, IUCR is only for circular networks. The R-LEACH
protocol in [18] considers the initial energy level, current resid-
ual energy level, and an optimal number of CH nodes when
executing the CH node competition. However, the transmis-
sion distance from the BS is not considered, which may cause
the nodes that are further away from the BS to die quickly.
The improved clustering and routing (ICR) scheme proposed
by Alharbi et al. [29] treated clustering and routing as a single
unified problem to achieve energy efficiency. For electing CH
nodes, ICR takes residual energy and node degree into account,
however, it misses the importance of the distance between the
CH node and the BS as R-LEACH does. A TTDFP is proposed
by Sert et al. [30]. TTDFP contains two tiers, in the first tier,
the CH node is elected by fuzzy logic based on the residual
energy, relative connectivity, and distance-to-BS. In the second does not require centralized control overhead. Also, this pro-
tier, the optimal path from the CH nodes to the BS is found tocol should consider several critical parameters, including the
by the fuzzy logic based on the energy efficiency and distance residual energy, transmission distance, and topology configu-
to the routing path. Sert and Yazıcı [31], [32] used the mod- ration to balance the energy consumption for both intracluster
ified clonal selection algorithm (CLONALG-M) to improve and intercluster communications. To summarize the related
the performance of rule-based fuzzy routing algorithms. This works, the comparison of these routing protocols is given in
modified algorithm is utilized for finding the closest form of Table I.
the output membership functions, which can improve the over-
all performance of fuzzy routing algorithms and extend the
III. S YSTEM M ODEL
network lifetime in WSNs. Wang et al. [15] proposed the
destination-oriented routing algorithm (DORA) which divides A. Network Model
a network into a multichain structure, and derives the optimal In this article, some assumptions of the network model are
transmission distance as well as the direction to the BS. The made as follows.
network lifetime is extended with shorter chain routing. The 1) The network region is a square,
√ the network diameter is
limitation of DORA is that it is based on centralized archi- M (so the side length is M/ 2); the BS is outside the
tecture and requires global network information to achieve region and located at a distance L from one side of the
energy-efficient optimization, which is hard to deploy in real square, as shown in Fig. 1.
scenarios. 2) The sensor nodes are uniformly distributed and ran-
Although many researchers have tried to propose various domly located in the network region, the quantity of
routing protocols aiming at extending the network lifetime, nodes is n. Each sensor node is labeled with a unique
each protocol has its own advantages and limitations. When ID i (i = 1, 2, . . . , n).
the routing algorithm meets the requirements of low com- 3) The sensor nodes are static and have processing, data
plexity and practical deployment, it may consider too few fusion, communication capabilities. The communication
parameters and thus the goal of reducing energy consumption range of each sensor node is a circular area with a
is not easy to achieve; or when considering multiple param- radius of R. In the simulation, the value of R is set
eters for optimal transmission routing, the algorithm requires to 10 m.
global network information, which limits the application sce- 4) All sensor nodes have the same level of initial energy
nario of the protocol. Thus, a routing protocol is required to and know their own real-time energy level, after the node
be developed that features a fully distributed architecture and is deployed, there is no energy supply.

Authorized licensed use limited to: ASTON UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 29,2024 at 09:31:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
19578 IEEE INTERNET OF THINGS JOURNAL, VOL. 9, NO. 20, 15 OCTOBER 2022

(a)

(b)

Fig. 3. Broadcast packet format. (a) Initial broadcast packet information.

(b) Updated broadcast packet information.

given in (1) and (2), respectively


kEelec + kεfs d2 , d ≤ d0
ETx (k, d) = (1)
kEelec + kεmp d4 , d > d0
ERx (k) = kEelec (2)
where Eelec denotes the per bit energy dissipation that is used
for running the transmitter and receiver electronic circuits.
εfs and εmp represent the transmitter amplifier for free-space
fading and multipath fading, respectively. d0 is the distance
Fig. 1. Considered network model.
threshold between the two fading models and the calculation
of d0 is given as follows:


εfs 10 pJ/bit/m2
d0 = = = 87 m. (3)
εmp 0.0013 pJ/bit/m4
When d ≤ d0 , it means that the transmission follows the
free-space fading model, and vice versa, adopts the multipath-
fading model.

IV. D ESIGN OF D2CRP

A. Gathering 2-Hop Neighborhood Information
To form 2-hop clusters in a distributed manner, each node
needs an approach to obtain the information of its neighbor
nodes within the 2-hop range; meanwhile, as we consider dis-
Fig. 2. Radio energy model.
tance factor and energy factor when electing CHs, we design
a broadcasting/listening scheme for the node to collect the
distance-from-BS and residual energy information of all its
5) The sensor node can measure the distance between the 1-hop neighbor nodes as well as 2-hop neighbor nodes. It is
node itself and its neighbor nodes or the BS based on assumed that each node is marked with a unique identification
the received signal strength. number, and the designed packet format is shown in Fig. 3.
6) The sensor node can adjust the transmission power in For any node i, when a new round starts, the initial broadcast
order to meet the needs of different communication packet information contains its Self ID (i), distance from the
distances. BS measured by RSSI (DBSi ), and current residual energy
7) The energy supply, processing, and storage capabilities level (REi ), as shown in Fig. 3(a). If a node i receives packets
of the BS are unlimited, the BS is able to cover the from another node j within its communication range (R), it
entire network region. means node j is a (1-hop) neighbor node of node i. Node
8) According
 to (3), the distance threshold j broadcasts its own information (Self ID: j, DBSj , REj ) as
d0 (= (εfs /εmp ) = 87 m) is much larger than node i does. After listening to the broadcast packet from node
the maximum transmission distance, so we only j, node j’s information is attached into its own packet by node
consider the free-space fading amplifier model. i, so the updated broadcast packet contains node i’s as well as
node j’s information, as shown in Fig. 3(b).
By using this approach, the packet broadcasting by node i
B. Radio Energy Model contains the information of node i and all its (1-hop) neigh-
In this article, the typical first order radio model is used [33], bors. If node i detects node k’s information from the broadcast
as shown in Fig. 2. The required energy for transmitting (ETx ) packets from node j and, meanwhile, node i does not receive
and receiving (ERx ) k bits packet over the distance of d is any packet from node k directly, it means node k is outside

Authorized licensed use limited to: ASTON UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 29,2024 at 09:31:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
CHEN et al.: D2CRP: NOVEL DISTRIBUTED 2-HOP CLUSTER ROUTING PROTOCOL FOR WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS
node i’s 1-hop range but within 2-hop range (node k is a 1-hop
neighbor node of node j), and node k is a 2-hop neighbor node
of node i. As a result, each node can finally obtain the residual
energy level as well as the distance-from-BS information of
all its (1-hop) neighbor nodes and 2-hop neighbor nodes.
B. Distance Factor
After gathering the distance-from-BS and residual energy
level information of all the neighboring nodes in a 2-hop
neighborhood, the CH nodes are elected based on our designed
distance factor and energy factor. According to the radio
energy model mentioned in Section III-B, when nodes transmit
data of the same amount, except for the influence of environ-
mental factors, the energy consumption is mainly affected by
the distance between the transmitter and the receiver. As a
result, considering the transmission distance is an important
design factor for CH node election.
For any node i, the measured distance from the BS is DBSi .
Since each node has the distance-from-BS information of all
its neighboring nodes in 2-hop range, we define a normalized
distance factor i , as shown in the following:
DBSi
i =  
2HopNeig
max DBSi
2HopNeig
where DBSi denotes the set of the distance between
node i and the BS, the distance between the BS and each
1-hop neighbor node of node i, as well as the distance
between the BS and each 2-hop neighbor node of node i;
2HopNeig
max{DBSi } denotes the maximum value in the set of
2HopNeig
DBSi , which means the maximum distance from BS in
node i’s 2-hop neighborhood.
C. Energy Factor
Although the initial energy of each sensor node is the same,
as the network data transmission processing, each node con-
sumes variant energy with different locations. When a node’s
energy is exhausted in advance, it will lose the ability to work
and exit the network, becoming a dead node. In some cases,
nodes closer to the BS may be assigned more communica-
tion and processing tasks than those farther from the BS. The
nodes within the area are called hot spot nodes. Since hot spot
nodes undertake more processing and communication tasks,
their energy consumption rate is higher than the nodes in
other areas, so it may cause the nodes in the area to exit the
network prematurely due to the exhaustion of energy, caus-
ing the hot spot cannot be monitored, forming an energy hole
problem, which reduces the quality of service in WSNs [34].
Therefore, the election of CH nodes should take the residual
energy factor of nodes into consideration to ensure that nodes
can evenly bear the network task load and balance the distri-
bution of energy consumption. This is also an effective way
for improving the lifetime of WSNs.
For any node i, its current residual energy is REi . Since each
node has the residual energy information of all its neighboring
nodes in the 2-hop range, we define the normalized energy
Authorized licensed use limited to: ASTON UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 29,2024 at 09:31:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
19579
factor ξi as shown in the following:
REi
ξi =   (5)
2HopNeig
max REi
where REi 2HopNeig is a set of the residual energy of node i, this
set contains the residual energy of the 1-hop neighbor node and
2HopNeig
the 2-hop neighbor node of node i; max{REi } repre-
sents the maximum value in the set REi 2HopNeig , which means
the maximum residual energy in node i’s 2-hop neighborhood.
D. Threshold Function
By considering the distance factor and energy factor, we
improve the LEACH’s threshold function into the following:
⎧
⎨ p
1
· ξii , i ∈ G
T(i) = 1−p r mod p (6)
⎩ 0, i∈/G
where p is the ratio of CH nodes to all the nodes. If there are
n nodes in the network, there will be np CH nodes in total,
and it can be concluded that the network will be divided into
np clusters (the optimal number of 2-hop cluster is derived
in Section VI-D). r is the number of rounds that the network
runs at this time, and the elements in the set G are the nodes
(4)
that have not successfully campaigned for CH nodes in the
latest rmod(1/p) round. ξi is the energy factor, and i is the
distance factor.
With the modified threshold function, the CH nodes are
elected in the same way as LEACH. For each node, it decides
whether or not to become a CH node for the current round.
This decision is made by the node i generating a random num-
ber ηi between 0 and 1. If ηi is smaller than T(i), node i
becomes a CH node for the current round; otherwise, node i
remains as a common node.
It can be observed from (6): if the distance from a sensor
node to the BS is greater, its distance factor i is greater cor-
respondingly, and the smaller the value of T(i), the smaller
the probability that this node will be elected as a CH node;
meanwhile, if the residual energy level of a node is smaller, its
energy factor ξi is smaller correspondingly, and the smaller the
value of T(i), the smaller the probability that this node may
be elected as a CH node. In summary, the nodes farther from
the BS and the nodes with less residual energy level have a
lower probability of being elected as CH nodes. This modifi-
cation solves the shortcoming of randomly electing CH nodes
in LEACH without considering the nodes’ energy conditions
while designing an energy-efficient routing protocol.
E. Cluster Formation
Once the CH nodes are elected for the current run-
ning round, they broadcast the CH election announcement
information in their communication range. For a common
node in the communication range (1-hop neighbor node), if
it receives announcements from multiple CH nodes, it checks
the distance between the node itself and the CH nodes based
on the strength of the received broadcast signal. Then, the clos-
est CH node is associated to join its cluster. After that, the CH
node broadcasts the TDMA time slot schedule to the 1-hop
19580 IEEE INTERNET OF THINGS JOURNAL, VOL. 9, NO. 20, 15 OCTOBER 2022

TABLE II
N OTATIONS T HROUGH T HIS A RTICLE Algorithm 1: Cluster Formation of D2CRP
input : Node information
output: Cluster formation
forall ele ∈ SN do
broadcast(ID, DBSele , REele );
1Hop
Ni .add(1 hop neighbor node);
2Hop
Ni .add(2 hop neighbor node);
2HopNeig 1Hop 2Hop
Ni ⇐ ni ∪ Ni ∪ Ni ;
2HopNeig
forall ele ∈ Ni do
listen(DBSele , REele );
2HopNeig
DBSi .add(DBSele );
2HopNeig
REi .add(REele );
2HopNeig
i ⇐ DBSi / max{DBSi };
2HopNeig
ξi ⇐ REi / max{REi };
if ni ∈ G then
T(i) ⇐ ξi /i ∗ p/(1 − p(r mod 1/p);
G.delete(ni );
else
T(i) ⇐ 0;
if ni s random number < T(i) then
CH.add(ni );
broadcast(CH announcement);
else
listen(CH announcement);
neighbor nodes, the 1-hop neighbor nodes transmit data to the 1Hop 1Hop
if ele ∈ Ni \ (Ni ∩ CH) then
CH node in different time slots for the purpose of avoiding join the closest cluster;
collisions. relay broadcast (CH announcement);
Once the 1-hop neighbor nodes become cluster member 2Hop 2Hop
else if ele ∈ Ni \ (Ni ∩ CH) then
nodes, they also broadcast the information of the CH node join the cluster which the closest 1 hop neighbor node joins;
and themselves in their communication range. When a 2-hop start data transmission
neighbor node (of the CH node) receives announcements from r ⇐r+1
multiple 1-hop neighbor nodes, it checks the distance between
the node itself and the 1-hop neighbor nodes based on the
strength of the received broadcast signal and then chooses the
maximum number of iterations is max , the total commu-
closest 1-hop neighbor node to join the cluster. Then, the 1-hop
nication overhead of the clustering algorithm in D2CRP is
neighbor node broadcasts the TDMA time slot schedule to the
O(mn2 max ) [35], [36].
2-hop neighbor nodes, then the 2-hop neighbor nodes transmit
data to the 1-hop neighbor node in different time slots to avoid
collisions. As a result, the transmission distance for all nodes V. I NTRACLUSTER ROUTING
including the CH node in a cluster can be effectively reduced. Based on the considered network model and 2-hop cluster-
ing, the network is divided into multiple circular clusters, as
shown in Fig. 4. Each cluster contains one CH node, multiple
F. Clustering Algorithm 1-hop neighbor nodes, and multiple 2-hop neighbor nodes. For
each 2-hop neighbor node, it chooses the closest (based on the
We summarize the designed clustering algorithm in distance measured by RSSI) 1-hop neighbor node as the next
Algorithm 1. To describe the algorithm, some variables are forwarder and transmits the collected data to the next-hop node
defined beforehand in Table II. in its own time slot. The chosen 1-hop neighbor node acts as
As there are n nodes in the network, during the process a relay between the 2-hop neighbor node and the CH node, it
of CH node election, each node needs to broadcast its own merges the data received from the 2-hop neighbor node with
information. As a result, O(n) packets are broadcast. Because its own collected data and then transmits the fused data to the
m CH nodes are elected, for each CH node, it needs to broad- CH node in its own time slot. Through the relaying mecha-
cast the CH announcement information. As a result, O(m) nism, the data of all the intracluster 1-hop neighbor nodes and
packets are broadcast, then the non-CH nodes need to compare 2-hop neighbor nodes are aggregated to the CH node.
the distance after receiving the CH announcement information,
the communication overhead of each iteration of the cluster-
ing algorithm is O(mn). In addition, each node also broadcasts A. Node Distribution
the information of its 1-hop neighbor nodes after receiving Assume the number of 2-hop clusters is m, for uniformly
the information from its neighbor nodes. The communica- distributed clusters, each cluster contains (n/m) nodes. As each
tion overhead of this process is O(n). Assuming that the cluster only has one CH node, the total number of the 1-hop

Authorized licensed use limited to: ASTON UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 29,2024 at 09:31:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
CHEN et al.: D2CRP: NOVEL DISTRIBUTED 2-HOP CLUSTER ROUTING PROTOCOL FOR WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS 19581

C. Energy Consumption of Intracluster Transmission

In this article, the main power effect is concerned for the
energy consumed by the communication module in each sen-
sor. Based on the radio energy model [(1) and (2)], the energy
consumed by the communication module mainly depends on
the transmission distance and the amount of data. In each
2-hop cluster, the energy consumption of communication can
be generally divided into four cases. We assume the max-
imum transmission distance is no more than d0 (3), when
transmitting/receiving k bits data.
1) Case 1: The energy consumption of transmitting data to
the 1-hop neighbor nodes for the 2-hop neighbor nodes,
is given as follows:
E2HopTx1Hop = n2Hop · ETx (k, d)
Fig. 4. Intracluster routing.  
3 n M2
= − 1 k Eelec + εfs . (12)
4 m 8π m
neighbor nodes as well as the 2-hop neighbor nodes in each 2) Case 2: The energy consumption of receiving data from
cluster is (n/m) − 1. the 2-hop neighbor nodes for the 1-hop neighbor nodes,
According to the proportion of occupied area, the number is given as follows:
of all the 1-hop neighbor nodes is shown as follows:
E1HopRx2Hop = n1Hop · 3 · ERx (k)
π R2 n 3 n
n1Hop = · −1 = − 1 kEelec . (13)
π(2R)2 m 4 m
1 n 3) Case 3: The energy consumption of transmitting fused
= −1 . (7)
4 m data to CH node for 1-hop neighbor nodes, is given as
follows:
The number of all the 2-hop neighbor nodes is shown as
follows: E1HopTxCH = n1Hop · ETx (k, d)
 
n 1 n M2
n2Hop = − 1 − n1Hop = − 1 k Eelec + εfs . (14)
m 4 m 8π m
3 n
= −1 . (8) 4) Case 4: The energy consumption of receiving fused data
4 m from 1-hop neighbor nodes for CH node, is given as
The average number of the 2-hop neighbor nodes that each follows:
1-hop neighbor node is responsible for relay broadcasting and
ECHRx1Hop = n1Hop · ERx (k)
the value is 3 (n2Hop /n1Hop ). 1 n
= − 1 kEelec . (15)
4 m
B. Intracluster Transmission Distance The energy consumption of transmission in each 2-hop
Based on the approach in [37], we first assume a 2-hop clus- cluster is given as follows:
ter as a larger 1-hop cluster. From the perspective of the whole
EIntra = E2HopTx1Hop + E1HopRx2Hop + E1HopTxCH
network, the expectation of distance square between the CH
node and the 2-hop neighbor nodes is given as follows [37]: + ECHRx1Hop . (16)
 M2
E d2 = . (9) VI. I NTERCLUSTER ROUTING
2π m After gathering data from the associated cluster member
Then, we consider the 2-hop cluster as an observation area, nodes, each CH node merges the data and then transmits the
the expectation of distance square between the CH node and fused data to the BS in some way. In LEACH-like routing
the 1-hop neighbor nodes is given as follows: protocols, all the CH nodes transmit the data directly to the
BS. This single-hop manner may consume considerable energy
 M2
E d2 = . (10) if the CH node is far away from the BS.
8π m Aiming at improving the energy efficiency of transmitting
As a result, the expectation of distance square between the data to the BS, we propose a distributed 2-hop intercluster-
1-hop neighbor nodes and the 2-hop neighbor nodes is given routing algorithm to interconnect CH nodes based on the ideas
as follows: of the PEGASIS protocol. We assume that within each CH
node’s 2-hop range, there are other CH nodes. Through the
 M2
E (d)2 = . (11) received packets from the nodes in the 2-hop range, each sen-
8π m sor node has the knowledge of the distance-to-BS information

Authorized licensed use limited to: ASTON UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 29,2024 at 09:31:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
19582 IEEE INTERNET OF THINGS JOURNAL, VOL. 9, NO. 20, 15 OCTOBER 2022

(a) (b)

Fig. 6. Distribution and transmission distance of CH nodes. (a) CH sends

data to BS directly. (b) CH sends data to BS via three possible forwarders.

√
Thus, the expectation of distance square for the m CH
Fig. 5. Intercluster routing. nodes is shown in the following:

E d 2 = L2 . (18)
(DBS) of each of its 1-hop neighbor nodes as well as each √
of its 2-hop neighbor nodes. For each CH node, it decides its For (m − m) CH √ nodes that are not in the row closest to
next hop based on the DBS information of other CH nodes the BS (2 ≤ RN ≤ m), if a CH node transmits data to a CH
in the 2-hop range: if another CH node is closer to the BS forwarder that are closer to the BS, there are three possible
(has a smaller value of DBS) when compared with itself, the situations, including the upward CH directly, left upward CH,
CH node uses the closer (to the BS) CH node as its next for- and right upward CH as shown in Fig. 6(b), then the expected
warder; otherwise, it sends the data to the BS directly. As a transmission distance from the CH node itself to the next-hop
result, multiple routing chains can be constructed from the far- CH node is as follows:
√
thest CH nodes to the BS, as shown in Fig. 5. Based on this 1 M 1 M/ 2 1 M
mechanism, for gathering data of the network in each round, E[d] = · √ + · √ + ·√
3 m 3 m 3 m
each elected CH node receives data from its 1-hop neighbor √
nodes and 2-hop neighbor nodes (by relaying) in the clus- 4+ 2 M
ter, fuses with its own data, transmits to the next hop (either = √ . (19)
6 m
another CH node or the BS) on the chain, and the data is
finally aggregated to the BS (terminal point of the chain). Therefore,
√ the expectation of distance square for the
(m − m) CH nodes is shown in the following:
A. CH Node Distribution √
 9 + 4 2 M2
Based on the assumption that nodes are uniformly dis- E d2 = . (20)
tributed and randomly located. For simplifying the derivation, 18m
here we assume that the distribution of the elected CH nodes
is completely uniform. As the number of clusters C. Energy Consumption of Intercluster Transmission
√ is√m, the
square WSN monitoring region is divided into m · m for For the energy consumption of interclusters data transmis-
small square regions, as shown in Fig. 6. From sion, because the BS has unlimited energy supply, the energy
√ the perspec-
tive of BS, we√divide these small squares into m rows, each consumption of the CH nodes is focused. The energy con-
row contains m√CH nodes and is marked with a row number sumption of the CH nodes can be concluded into three cases,
(RN, 1 ≤ RN ≤ m). The √ average
√ gap between two adjacent
and the maximum transmission distance is assumed no more
rows of CH nodes is ([M/ 2]/ m). than d0 (3), when transmitting/receiving k bits data.
1) Case 1: The energy consumption
√ of transmitting fused
B. Intercluster Transmission Distance data to the BS for all the m CH nodes in the row
√ closest to the BS (RN = 1), is given as follows:
For the m CH nodes in the row closest to the BS
√  
(RN = 1), they transmit data to the BS directly, as shown in ECHTxBS = m · ETx k, d
Fig. 6(a). Because the value of L is relatively large, we approx- √
imate the expectation of the transmission distance between = mk Eelec + εfs L2 . (21)
these nodes and the BS as L, as follows:
  2) Case 2: The energy consumption of transmitting√ fused
E d = L. (17) data to the next-hop CH nodes for all the (m − m) CH

Authorized licensed use limited to: ASTON UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 29,2024 at 09:31:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
CHEN et al.: D2CRP: NOVEL DISTRIBUTED 2-HOP CLUSTER ROUTING PROTOCOL FOR WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS 19583

√
nodes not in the row closest to the BS (2 ≤ RN ≤ m), Algorithm 2: Intracluster and Intercluster Routing of
is given as follows: D2CRP
 √  input : Cluster formation
ECHTxCH = m − m · ETx (k, d) output: Routing chain
⎛ √ ⎞ 2Hop 2Hop
 √  9 + 4 2 M2 forall ele ∈ Ni \ (Ni ∩ CH) do
= m − m k⎝Eelec + εfs ⎠. 1Hop
transmit data to the closest ele ∈ Ni
1Hop
\ (Ni ∩ CH);
18m
1Hop 1Hop
forall ele ∈ Ni \ (Ni ∩ CH) do
(22) receive data from ele ∈
2Hop 2Hop
Ni \ (Ni ∩ CH) it is responsible for;
3) Case 3: The energy consumption of receiving fused√
data fuse data;
from the previous-hop CH nodes for all the (m − m) transmit data to the closest ele ∈ CH;
√ nodes not in the row furthest to the BS (1 ≤ RN ≤
CH forall ele ∈ CH do
m − 1), is given as follows: receive data from cluster member nodes;
 √  receive data from previous-hop ele ∈ CH;
ECHRxCH = m − m · ERx (k) fuse data;
 √  if ele ∈ Ni
2HopNeig
∪ CH & DBSele
2HopNeig 2HopNeig
< DBSi
= m − m kEelec . (23)
then
transmit data to another ele ∈
The energy consumed for intercluster data transmission to CH closer to the BS in 2-hop range;
the BS over the whole network is given as follows: else
transmit directly to the BS;
EInter = ECHTxBS + ECHTxCH + ECHRxCH . (24)

D. Optimal Number of 2-Hop Clusters

According to (16) and (24), the total energy consumption E. Routing Algorithm
by m 2-hop clusters over the whole network is given below After the multiple chains are generated, the intercluster com-
munication for each CH node is achievable and the designed
ETotal = m · EIntra + EInter intracluster and intercluster-routing algorithm is presented in
 
M2 Algorithm 2.
= (n − m)k 2Eelec + εfs
8π m Here, the communication overhead for routing chain forma-
√ tion is presented as below. It is assumed that the maximum
+ mk Eelec + εfs L 2
number of hops for the elected CH nodes to transmit the col-
⎛ √ ⎞
9 + 4 2 M2 lected data to the BS is max , each CH node needs to compare
 √ 
+ m − m k⎝2Eelec + εfs ⎠. (25) the distances from other CH nodes to the BS to determine its
18m next forwarder. As a result, the communication overhead of
forming the transmission chain from the m CH nodes to the
It can be observed from (25) that when the number of all BS is O(m max ). Combined with the communication overhead
nodes n, the network diameter M, and the distance L from of the clustering algorithm, the total communication overhead
the BS to the monitoring area are all preset constants, the of the designed routing protocol is O(mn2 max + m max ).
total energy consumption is mainly affected by the number
of clusters m. Referring to the method used in [15], [27], and
[37], we let the first derivation of (25) equal to zero in order to VII. P ERFORMANCE E VALUATION
determine the optimal number of 2-hop clusters that minimizes In order to evaluate the proposed D2CRP, the MATLAB
the energy consumption of the network R2021a simulation tool is used to simulate the LEACH,
R-LEACH, PEGASIS, TTDFP, and the proposed D2CRP
∂ETotal
= 0. (26) protocols. Then, the experimental results are compared and
∂m analyzed from the perspective of network lifetime, network
The optimal number of 2-hop clusters m in D2CRP is given energy consumption, and raw packets to BS.
as follows: We choose the four protocols for comparison due to their
  high relevance to D2CRP. For CH election, D2CRP improves
∂ETotal
mOptimal
= m|m ∈ N, =0 . (27) LEACH’s threshold function by introducing the energy factor
∂m ξi and distance factor i ; for forming the clusters, LEACH’s
As there are n nodes in the network, the optimal probability 1-hop clusters are improved into 2-hop clusters. For inter-
of being elected as CH nodes in the network is (mOptimal /n), cluster transmission, D2CRP forms the transmission chains
thus the optimal value of p in the threshold function (6) is as PEGASIS does, but the chains are between the CHs and
redefined as follows: the BS (rather than the common nodes) and formed in a dis-
tributed manner (rather than the centralized manner). For CH
mOptimal election factors, R-LEACH considers the residual energy but
pOptimal = . (28)
n misses the distance-to-BS which also matters, we introduce

Authorized licensed use limited to: ASTON UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 29,2024 at 09:31:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
19584
Fig. 7. Simulation scenario.
TABLE III
S IMULATION PARAMETER
both the two factors in D2CRP. TTDFP takes residual energy,
relative connectivity, and distance-to-BS into account, but it
uses 1-hop clusters.
A. Environment and Parameter Setting
The simulation scenario is that 100 sensor nodes are
deployed in a 100 m × 100 m square region, following uni-
form distribution and random location, and the BS is deployed
50 m outside the region with coordinates (50 m, 150 m),
as shown in Fig. 7. The detailed parameter settings of this
simulation scenario are shown in Table III.
B. Finding the Optimal Number of 2-Hop Clusters
According to the derived energy consumption model (25),
the relationship between the total network energy consumption
per-bit and the number of 2-hop clusters in the simulation
scenario is shown in Fig. 8.
It can be observed from Fig. 8 that as the number of 2-hop
clusters increases, the network energy consumption per-bit
decreases first and then increases. The reason is that when the
number of clusters is too small, it means the distribution of
CH nodes is too sparse and the member nodes need to transmit
the collected data very far to reach the CH node, resulting in
higher network energy consumption; on the other hand, when
Authorized licensed use limited to: ASTON UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 29,2024 at 09:31:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE INTERNET OF THINGS JOURNAL, VOL. 9, NO. 20, 15 OCTOBER 2022
Fig. 8. Finding the optimal number of 2-hop clusters.
Fig. 9. Comparison of network lifetime.
the number of clusters is too great, it means the distribution
of CH nodes is too dense, the CH node receives data from
fewer member node which leads to a lower fusion degree of
intercluster data aggregation, as a result, the network energy
consumption is higher. This curve reaches the minimum value
when the number of clusters is equal to 7. Therefore, in this
experimental scenario, the optimal number of 2-hop clusters
is 7, which means the probability of the nodes to be elected
as the CH node is 0.07.
C. Comparison of Network Lifetime
To demonstrate that the D2CRP protocol can effectively
slow down the death rate of nodes and extend the network
lifetime, we show the relationship between the number of alive
nodes and the number of running rounds of the five protocols
in Fig. 9. Additionally, the simulation results of the round of
first node death (FND), half node death (HND), and all node
death (AND) are presented in Table IV.
CHEN et al.: D2CRP: NOVEL DISTRIBUTED 2-HOP CLUSTER ROUTING PROTOCOL FOR WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS 19585

TABLE IV
C OMPARISON OF FND, HND, AND

It can be seen from Fig. 9 that the LEACH protocol is

the first to have the death nodes, followed by R-LEACH,
TTDFP, PEGASIS, and the proposed D2CRP. As the num-
ber of running rounds increases, the downward trend of the
D2CRP curve is relatively gentle, and the curves of LEACH,
R-LEACH, PEGASIS, and TTDFP are relatively steep. From
Table IV, we can observe that the overall network lifetime
(the round of AND) under D2CRP is approximately twice
that under LEACH, is about 38% longer than that under R- Fig. 10. Comparison of network energy consumption.
LEACH, is about 23% longer than that under PEGASIS, and
TABLE V
is about 2% longer than that under TTDFP. It is obvious that C OMPARISON OF AVERAGE N ETWORK E NERGY C ONSUMPTION R ATE
D2CRP has the best results in terms of these three indicators
since it has the lowest node death rate and thus the longest
network lifetime.
We analyze that the slow node death rate of D2CRP is
mainly due to the introduction of a new factor by taking into
account both the impacts of the residual energy and trans-
mission distance for the CH competition process. Because the
energy consumed by the CH nodes is more than that of mem-
ber nodes, the residual energy of those nodes that have been We analyze that the slow energy consumption rate of the
elected as CH nodes is usually lower after certain rounds. At network under the D2CRP protocol is mainly due to the use
this moment, the residual energy factor is becoming smaller, of 2-hop clustering and routing, and the introduction of the
and the probability of being elected as a CH node is rel- distance factor in the CH election process. For member nodes
atively smaller. On the other hand, those nodes with high (especially for 2-hop neighbor nodes), the use of node relay-
residual energy are more likely to be elected as CH nodes. ing to transmit data to the CH node within the cluster reduces
This approach achieves a well-balanced energy consumption the transmission distance to a certain extent, thereby reducing
distribution between the participating nodes, thus extending the energy consumed for transmitting data to the CH nodes.
the lifetime of each node. For CH nodes, because there are 1-hop neighbor nodes in
the cluster to help them receive and merge the data of 2-hop
D. Comparison of Network Energy Consumption neighbor nodes, the total amount of data received by CH nodes
can be effectively mitigated, thereby reducing the energy con-
The network energy consumption is used to measure the
sumed for receiving data from member nodes; meanwhile, as
performance of the routing protocols. Since the energy supply
the relaying mechanism similar to PEGASIS is adapted for
of the nodes is limited, the protocol performs better if less
intercluster communication, compared with the approach of
energy is consumed in the network after the same rounds. The
directly transmitting data to the BS, the transmission distance
network energy consumption comparison of the five protocols
between the BS and the CH nodes is also reduced to a cer-
is shown in Fig. 10.
tain extent, thus effectively improving the energy utilization
It can be observed from Fig. 10 that the LEACH protocol
for transmitting data to the BS.
is the first that completely exhausts the energy, following R-
LEACH, PEGASIS, TTDFP, and the proposed D2CRP. The
LEACH protocol consumes the most energy after the same E. Comparison of Raw Packets to BS
rounds, and the growth rate of its curve is the fastest. For The number of raw packets (before data fusion) sent to the
our proposed D2CRP protocol, the growth rate of its curve is BS can well represent the transmission efficiency of the WSN
the slowest. Although there are slight fluctuations in the mid- routing protocol. After the same time, the more raw pack-
dle rounds, the overall energy consumption curve is relatively ets sent to the BS, the more monitoring information collected
stable and slow. Table V shows the average network energy by the BS, and the higher the transmission efficiency of the
consumption rate of the five protocols. The rate of the D2CRP network. The comparison of raw packets to BS of the five
is about 52% slower than LEACH, is about 27% slower than protocols is shown in Fig. 11 and Table VI.
R-LEACH, is about 18% slower than PEGASIS, and is about It can be seen from Fig. 11 that at the beginning, as no
2% slower than TTDFP. node dies, the five protocols send the same raw packets to

Authorized licensed use limited to: ASTON UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 29,2024 at 09:31:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
19586
Fig. 11. Comparison of raw packets to BS.
TABLE VI
C OMPARISON OF T OTAL R AW PACKETS TO BS
the BS during the same operation rounds. At around 150
rounds, the difference begins to appear, and after 200 rounds,
the difference becomes significant. During the same time, the
amount of raw packets sent to the BS under LEACH is the
least, followed by R-LEACH, PEGASIS, TTDFP, and D2CRP.
The amount of raw packets under the LEACH protocol stops
growing around 430 rounds, while for R-LEACH, PEGASIS,
and TTDFP, the number is around 650, 740, and 890, respec-
tively, while D2CRP stops growing until around 900 rounds.
According to the results in Table VI, in the entire lifetime of
WSN, D2CRP has the largest amount of raw packets sent to
the BS and has increased by approximately 115%, 60%, 33%,
and 16% when compared to LEACH, R-LEACH, PEGASIS,
and TTDFP, respectively.
We analyze this mainly because the D2CRP protocol can
well balance the energy consumption between the nodes, mak-
ing the rate of death node slower, so that more nodes that
survive at the same time compared to the other four protocols,
thus the more raw packets are sent accordingly.
F. Scalability Study
For evaluating the performance of D2CRP in large-scale
scenarios, a scalability study is carried out. We change the
network region to a 1000 m × 1000 m square, and the coor-
dinator of BS to (500 m, 1050 m). Besides, the number of
deployed nodes is changed to 1000. For other parameter con-
figurations, it is the same as Table III. Under this scenario, the
network lifetime of D2CRP is investigated and compared with
Authorized licensed use limited to: ASTON UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 29,2024 at 09:31:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE INTERNET OF THINGS JOURNAL, VOL. 9, NO. 20, 15 OCTOBER 2022
Fig. 12. Scalability Study—Comparison of network lifetime.
TABLE VII
S CALABILITY S TUDY—C OMPARISON OF FND, HND, AND
that of TTDFP as well as D2CRP (1-hop variant of D2CRP).
The results are shown in Fig. 12 and Table VII.
From the simulation results, we can note that D2CRP still
has a relatively lower node death rate in such a large-scale
network. The 1-hop variant D1CRP has a better performance
than TTDFP in terms of FND, but later the death rate becomes
higher and dies out earlier than the other two protocols. The
overall network lifetime (AND) of D2CRP is about 37%
longer than that of D1CRP and is about 4% longer than that
of TTDFP.
VIII. C ONCLUSION AND F UTURE W ORK
In this article, a distributed 2-hop routing algorithm called
D2CRP is proposed for energy-efficient WSNs. In the clus-
ter formation, the transmission distance and residual energy
are jointly considered to determine the CH node in each
2-hop cluster. For intracluster and intercluster routing, the
transmission distance and the amount of transmitted data are
both reduced by using one-hop relay and CH chains. Each
node only needs to acquire the node information within the
2-hop range rather than the globe information. Thus, the
energy consumption is optimized from the perspective of the
network layer. Experimental results indicate that compared
with the LEACH, R-LEACH, PEGASIS, and TTDFP pro-
tocols, the proposed D2CRP effectively reduces the rate of
network energy consumption, increases the lifetime of the
network, achieves a more balanced distribution of energy con-
sumption, and is capable to send more raw packets to BS.
Additionally, the results show that D2CRP has good scalability
for large-scale WSNs.
CHEN et al.: D2CRP: NOVEL DISTRIBUTED 2-HOP CLUSTER ROUTING PROTOCOL FOR WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS
For future work, the proposed D2CRP can be evaluated
under scenarios with mobile nodes. Additionally, implement-
ing the routing protocol based on wide used standards, such
as ZigBee and Bluetooth should be investigated for practical
applications.
R EFERENCES
[1] N. Pathak, P. K. Deb, A. Mukherjee, and S. Misra, “IoT-to-the-rescue: A
survey of IoT solutions for COVID-19-like pandemics,” IEEE Internet
Things J., vol. 8, no. 17, pp. 13145–13164, Sep. 2021.
[2] M. N. Bhuiyan, M. M. Rahman, M. M. Billah, and D. Saha, “Internet of
Things (IoT): A review of its enabling technologies in healthcare appli-
cations, standards protocols, security and market opportunities,” IEEE
Internet Things J., vol. 8, no. 13, pp. 10474–10498, Jul. 2021.
[3] K. S. Awaisi, S. Hussain, M. Ahmed, A. A. Khan, and G. Ahmed,
“Leveraging IoT and fog computing in healthcare systems,” IEEE
Internet Things Mag., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 52–56, Jun. 2020.
[4] J. Shah and B. Mishra, “IoT-enabled low power environment monitoring
system for prediction of PM2.5,” Pervasive Mobile Comput., vol. 67,
Sep. 2020, Art. no. 101175.
[5] M. Dryjanski, M. Buczkowski, Y. Ould-Cheikh-Mouhamedou, and
A. Kliks, “Adoption of smart cities with a practical smart building
implementation,” IEEE Internet Things Mag., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 58–63,
Mar. 2020.
[6] Y. Cao, C. Chen, D. St-Onge, and G. Beltrame, “Distributed TDMA
for mobile UWB network localization,” IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 8,
no. 17, pp. 13449–13464, Sep. 2021.
[7] B. Bera, A. K. Das, S. Garg, M. J. Piran, and M. S. Hossain,
“Access control protocol for battlefield surveillance in drone-assisted
IoT environment,” IEEE Internet Things J., early access, Jan. 4, 2021,
doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2020.3049003.
[8] H. Peng, C. Chen, C.-C. Lai, L.-C. Wang, and Z. Han, “A predictive
on-demand placement of UAV base stations using echo state network,”
in Proc. IEEE/CIC Int. Conf. Commun. China (ICCC), 2019, pp. 36–41.
[9] “Gartner Says 5.8 Billion Enterprise and Automotive IoT Endpoints
Will Be in Use in 2020.” Gartner. [Online]. Available: https://www.
gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2019-08-29-gartner-says-5-8-
billion-enterprise-and-automotive-io (accessed Jun. 15, 2021).
[10] “Insights on the Internet of Things,” McKinsey. [Online]. Available:
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/internet-of-things/our-
insights (accessed May 3, 2021).
[11] V. Gupta and S. De, “An energy-efficient edge computing framework
for decentralized sensing in WSN-assisted IoT,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 4811–4827, Aug. 2021.
[12] C. Gong, F. Lin, X. Gong, and Y. Lu, “Intelligent Cooperative Edge
Computing in Internet of Things,” IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 7, no. 10,
pp. 9372–9382, Oct. 2020.
[13] F. Guo, F. R. Yu, H. Zhang, X. Li, H. Ji, and V. C. Leung, “Enabling
massive IoT toward 6G: A comprehensive survey,” IEEE Internet Things
J., vol. 8, no. 15, pp. 11891–11915, Aug. 2021.
[14] U. M. Malik, M. A. Javed, S. Zeadally, and S. Ul Islam, “Energy efficient
fog computing for 6G enabled massive IoT: Recent trends and future
opportunities,” IEEE Internet Things J., early access, Mar. 22, 2021,
doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2021.3068056.
[15] K. Wang, C.-M. Yu, and L.-C. Wang, “DORA: A destination oriented
routing algorithm for energy-balanced wireless sensor networks,” IEEE
Internet Things J., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 2080–2081, Feb. 2021.
[16] R. Krishnamurthi, A. Kumar, D. Gopinathan, A. Nayyar, and B. Qureshi,
“An overview of IoT sensor data processing, fusion, and analysis
techniques,” Sensors, vol. 20, no. 21, p. 6076, 2020.
[17] B. Montrucchio, E. Giusto, M. G. Vakili, S. Quer, R. Ferrero, and
C. Fornaro, “A densely-deployed, high sampling rate, open-source air
pollution monitoring WSN,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 69, no. 12,
pp. 15786–15799, Dec. 2020.
[18] T. M. Behera, S. K. Mohapatra, U. C. Samal, M. S. Khan,
M. Daneshmand, and A. H. Gandomi, “Residual energy-based cluster-
head selection in WSNs for IoT application,” IEEE Internet Things J.,
vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 5132–5139, Jun. 2019.
[19] W. R. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, and H. Balakrishnan, “Energy-
efficient communication protocol for wireless microsensor networks,”
in Proc. 33rd Annu. Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci., vol. 2, 2000, p. 10.
[20] I. Daanoune, B. Abdennaceur, and A. Ballouk, “A comprehensive sur-
vey on LEACH-based clustering routing protocols in wireless sensor
networks,” Ad Hoc Netw., vol. 114, Apr. 2021, Art. no. 102409.
Authorized licensed use limited to: ASTON UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 29,2024 at 09:31:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
19587
[21] O. Younis and S. Fahmy, “HEED: A hybrid, energy-efficient, distributed
clustering approach for ad hoc sensor networks,” IEEE Trans. Mobile
Comput., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 366–379, Oct.–Dec. 2004.
[22] Z. Ullah, “A survey on hybrid, energy efficient and distributed (HEED)
Based energy efficient clustering protocols for wireless sensor networks,”
Wireless Personal Commun., vol. 112, pp. 2685–2713 , Jan. 2020.
[23] S. Lindsey and C. S. Raghavendra, “PEGASIS: Power-efficient gathering
in sensor information systems,” in Proc. IEEE Aerosp. Conf., vol. 3,
2002, pp. 1–3.
[24] J. Kim, Y. Kim, and Y. Yoo, “Energy-efficient routing using genetic
algorithm in cluster-based wireless sensor networks,” in Proc. IEEE 90th
Veh. Technol. Conf. (VTC-Fall), 2019, pp. 1–5.
[25] L. Chan, K. G. Chavez, H. Rudolph, and A. Hourani, “Hierarchical
routing protocols for wireless sensor network: A compressive survey,”
Wireless Netw., vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 3291–3314, 2020.
[26] A. M. Khedr, A. Aziz, and W. Osamy, “Successors of PEGASIS pro-
tocol: A comprehensive survey,” Comput. Sci. Rev., vol. 39, Feb. 2021,
Art. no. 100368.
[27] H. Xin and X. Liu, “Energy-balanced transmission with accurate dis-
tances for strip-based wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 5,
pp. 16193–16204, 2017.
[28] M. A. Alharbi and M. Kolberg, “Improved unequal-clustering and rout-
ing protocol,” IEEE Sensors J., vol. 21, no. 20, pp. 23711–23721,
Oct. 2021.
[29] M. A. Alharbi, M. Kolberg, and M. Zeeshan, “Towards improved
clustering and routing protocol for wireless sensor networks,”
EURASIP J. Wireless Commun. Netw., vol. 46, pp. 1–31, 2021,
doi: 10.1186/s13638-021-01911-9.
[30] S. A. Sert, A. Alchihabi, and A. Yazici, “A two-tier distributed
fuzzy logic based protocol for efficient data aggregation in multihop
wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 26, no. 6,
pp. 3615–3629, Dec. 2018.
[31] S. A. Sert and A. Yazıcı, “Optimizing the performance of rule-based
fuzzy routing algorithms in wireless sensor networks,” in Proc. IEEE
Int. Conf. Fuzzy Syst. (FUZZ-IEEE), 2019, pp. 1–6.
[32] S. A. Sert and A. Yazici, “Increasing energy efficiency of rule-based
fuzzy clustering algorithms using CLONALG-M for wireless sensor
networks,” Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 109, Sep. 2021, Art. no. 107510.
[33] W. B. Heinzelman, A. P. Chandrakasan, and H. Balakrishnan, “An
application-specific protocol architecture for wireless microsensor
networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 660–670,
Oct. 2002.
[34] J. Ren, Y. Zhang, K. Zhang, A. Liu, J. Chen, and X. S. Shen, “Lifetime
and energy hole evolution analysis in data-gathering wireless sensor
networks,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 788–800,
Apr. 2016.
[35] C. Xu, Z. Xiong, G. Zhao, and S. Yu, “An energy-efficient region source
routing protocol for lifetime maximization in WSN,” IEEE Access,
vol. 7, pp. 135277–135289, 2019.
[36] C.-M. Yu, M.-L. Ku, and L.-C. Wang, “BMRHTA: Balanced multipath
routing and hybrid transmission approach for lifecycle maximization in
WSNs,” IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 728–742, Jan. 2022.
[37] S. Hussain and A. W. Matin, “Energy efficient hierarchical cluster-
based routing for wireless sensor networks,” Jodrey School Comput.
Sci., Acadia Univ. Wolfville, Wolfville, NS, Canada, Rep. TR-2005-011,
2005.
Chao Chen received the B.E. degree from the
School of Optical and Electronic Information,
Huazhong University of Science and Technology,
Wuhan, China, in 2017, and the M.S. degree from
the Institute of Network Engineering, National Yang
Ming Chiao Tung University (formerly, National
Chiao Tung University), Hsinchu, Taiwan, in 2021.
From January 2020 to June 2020, he was
a Research Intern with MIST Lab, École
Polytechnique de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
His research interests include networked systems,
wireless sensor networks, and software-defined networks.
19588
Li-Chun Wang (Fellow, IEEE) received the Ph.D.
degree from the Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA, USA, in 1996.
From 1996 to 2000, he was with AT&T
Laboratories, Florham Park, NJ, USA, where he was
a Senior Technical Staff Member with the Wireless
Communications Research Department. Since 2000,
he has been with the Department of Electrical
and Computer Engineering of National Chiao Tung
University, Hsinchu, Taiwan, where he is currently
co-appointed with the Department of Computer
Science and Information Engineering. He holds 26 U.S. patents, and has
published over 100 journal papers and 200 conference papers, and co-
edited a book, Key Technologies for 5G Wireless Systems, (Cambridge
University Press, 2017). His current research interests include software-
defined mobile networks, heterogeneous networks, and data-driven intelligent
wireless communications.
Dr. Wang was a recipient of the Distinguished Research Award of the
Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, in 2012 and 2017, and a
co-recipient of the IEEE Communications Society Asia–Pacific Board Best
Award in 2015, the Y. Z. Hsu Scientific Paper Award in 2013, and the IEEE
Jack Neubauer Best Paper Award in 1997.
Authorized licensed use limited to: ASTON UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 29,2024 at 09:31:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE INTERNET OF THINGS JOURNAL, VOL. 9, NO. 20, 15 OCTOBER 2022
Chih-Min Yu (Senior Member, IEEE) received
the B.S. degree in electrical engineering from the
Chung-Cheng Institute of Technology, Taoyuan City,
Taiwan, in 1989, and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in
telecommunication engineering from National Chiao
Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan, in 1997 and
2007, respectively.
He has been a Full Professor with the College
of Artificial Intelligence, Yango University, Fuzhou,
China, since March 2019. In 2020, he was a
Distinguished Professor of Minjiang Scholars in
Fujian Province. From 1989 to 2007, he was a Researcher with the
Chung-Shan Institute of Science and Technology, Taoyuan City, Taiwan.
From 2008 to 2009, he was an Assistant Professor with the Department of
Information and Communication Engineering, Asia University, Taichung City,
Taiwan. In August 2009, he joined the Faculty of Chung-Hua University,
Hsinchu, Taiwan, where was a Full Professor with the Department of
Electronics Engineering in 2018. His research interests include mobile com-
munication, ad hoc networks, wireless sensor networks, and Internet of Things
networks.
Dr. Yu was a recipient of the University-Level Outstanding Teaching Award
in 2014 and 2016, as well as the Outstanding Research Award in 2017 and
2019 at Chung-Hua University, and the Outstanding Talent Award of the
Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, in 2018; the First Prize of
the Natural Science Outstanding Academic Paper Award, Fuzhou City, and
the Third Prize of the Natural Science Outstanding Academic Paper Award,
Fujian Providence, China, in 2020. He is currently serving as an Associate
Editor for IEEE ACCESS.