Design of a Proactive Distance Handover

Algorithm for WSN: A Case Study-Based

Approach

M. S. Saketh, N. S. Reddy and S. Dhar

Abstract Mobile applications are gaining substantial interests in recent years in

large-scale wireless sensor networks (WSN). To achieve uninterrupted functioning
of WSN, it is essential to initiate handover from current wireless node to another
suitable node. A proactive distance handover algorithm for WSN is presented in
this work. The algorithm is successfully validated considering the case studies of
different mobility pattern.

Keywords WSN
Handover
Mobility
Sensor node

1 Introduction

Wireless sensor network (WSN) is a combination of sensor nodes that are capable
of sensing various physical parameters, raw data processing within the network, and
delivering the processed results over the wireless ad hoc/multi-hop link [1]. Sensor
nodes, in a WSN, are capable of self-organizing themselves to maintain a network
without any manual intrusion. The nodes smaller in size and their ability to com-
municate wirelessly provide WSN the strategic advantage in scenarios when nodes
are to be deployed in inaccessible places or when wired systems are simply too
expensive. Similarly, deployment and maintenance of such networks may be pos-
sible without upsetting the normal operation of the structure or process they are
monitoring. Depending on the type of deployment, WSN applications are broadly
classified in two major categories (Fig. 1).

M. S. Saketh
N. S. Reddy
S. Dhar (&)

Electronics and Communication Engineering Department of Sikkim Manipal Institute
Technology, Sikkim Manipal University, Majitar, Rangpo, East Sikkim 737136, India
e-mail: sourav.dhar80@gmail.com

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018 447

R. Bera et al. (eds.), Advances in Communication, Devices and Networking,
Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering 462,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7901-6_49
448 M. S. Saketh et al.

Fig. 1 Classification of WSN applications based on mobility

1.1 Static Applications

This class of applications either does not require nodes to move or does have
occasional/minor modifications in the network topology. A WSN developed by
Mainwaring et al. [2] to collect information from temperature, barometric pressure,
humidity, and light sensors to monitor the actions of seabirds. Deployments of
sensors to monitor the structural integrity of infrastructures [3] and active volcanoes
by means of seismic and infrasonic sensors are examples of static deployment [4].
Some other popular applications include precision agriculture [5, 6] and mine safety
monitoring [7, 15].

1.2 Mobile Applications

Wireless sensor nodes are too deployed in scenarios which demand nodes to be
mobile; for example, biomedical sensor nodes that are put on to the body of a
patient [8] or nurses [9] for monitoring their activities. Workers can avoid dan-
gerous situations during disaster management [10] and oil extraction and refinery
plants [11] by carrying appropriate sensors. Sensor nodes are also employed for
reporting on events occurring during a mission [12]. Animal health and behavior in
outdoor environments being monitored is yet another well-known application of
sensor nodes [13]. The necessity of individual and herd-wide monitoring of cattle
arises due to the level of complications involved in the management of large farms.
Handover is essential in mobile WSN applications for seamless operation [14],
and hence, this issue is considered in this paper. The paper is organized as follows:
Sect. 2 details the need for handover in WSN, problem scenario and algorithm
design are discussed in Sect. 3, validation of algorithm is done with help of four
case studies in Sect. 4, and finally, the work has been concluded in Sect. 5.
Design of a Proactive Distance Handover … 449

2 Mobility: The Need for Handover

2.1 Weak Mobility

Depending on the application requirements, there are two types of nodes, static and
mobile, available in WSN. Any type of hardware failure or battery exhaustion can
cause nodes to leave a network. Similarly, fresh nodes may get added to the
network to compensate for the non-functional nodes. Such consistent changes in
network topology are referred as weak mobility [16].

2.2 Strong Mobility

On the contrary, the physical mobility of sensor nodes may be due to the intentional
movement of objects/persons or by external forces, is the primary characteristics of
strong mobility [16]. The repercussions of strong mobility are challenging to deal
with since they involve facing some tough challenges in design of protocols,
principally, at the network layer and at the link layer. The mobility of nodes may
cause worsening in the quality of an established connection, and hence to disrupt
the data transmission. Thus, the probability of packet retransmission as well as the
total energy consumption will be increased. Mobility may also cause recurrent route
changes those results in a substantial delay in delivery of packets and the enhanced
design complexity of protocols in the network layer. Nodes joining a certain net-
work need to wait for a specified time period since only specific time slots are
intended to accommodate mobility in MAC protocols based on scheduling.
Similarly, in contention-oriented MAC protocols, a mobile sensor node is autho-
rized to enter a network only after it receives a synchronization packet from a
sensor node which already exists in the network. Therefore, the mobile node has to
be idly listening in the network until the synchronization packet is received. In
contention-based MAC protocols, packet collision rate may also increase while in
schedule-based MAC protocols, schedule inconsistencies may arise due to incon-
sistencies in two-hop neighborhood once nodes enter or leave the network.

3 Problem Scenario

3.1 Mobility Scenario

Figure 2 shows a simple mobility scenario in a WSN, where two relay nodes
(RN) are linked with two sinks. A mobile node (MN) moving in a random path
sends information to the sinks through the RNs. Due to the random motion of MN,
the time-varying distances between MN and RNs are denoted by X1 ðtÞ and X2 ðtÞ
450 M. S. Saketh et al.

Fig. 2 Mobility scenario

Also, the MN has a fixed range or a threshold distance up to which it can com-
municate. Beyond the threshold distance, a link cannot be established.

3.2 Initial Link Establishment

Figure 3 shows that a link is established between MN and RN1 when RN1 is within
the communication range of MN. During this period, sensor data can be forwarded
from MN to RN1, which then forwards the data directly to sink1. As long as RN1 is
within the range of MN, they can communicate with each other, even in mobility
conditions. However, when RN1 is out of MN’s range, handover must be initiated.
When handover is initiated MN searches for other RNs in the vicinity. If there are
any, handover can be implemented successfully; else, there will be a link failure.

3.3 Link Handover

It can be seen from Fig. 4 that handover is initiated as MN moved away from RN1.
As RN2 is in the vicinity, i.e., X2 ðtÞ < (threshold distance), connection is handed
over from RN1 to RN2. When MN travels away from both RN1 and RN2 since
both the relay nodes are out of MN’s range, handover cannot be accomplished and
the link fails, as shown in Fig. 5.
Design of a Proactive Distance Handover … 451

Fig. 3 Link between MN and RN

Fig. 4 Link handover to RN2

3.4 Handover Algorithm Design

To handle the variations that are caused due to mobility, an algorithm that can
proficiently switch a node into and out of a network is essential. In view of distance
as the main factor impelling handover, a proactive distance handover algorithm has
been developed (Fig. 6) for a typical mobility scenario. An MN will initiate a link
establishment with an RN within the threshold distance. As the MN moves,
452 M. S. Saketh et al.

Fig. 5 Link failure

whenever the distance among communicating nodes goes beyond the threshold
distance, handover is initiated, depending upon availability of relay nodes.

4 Validation

4.1 Case Study I

Considering the mobility scenarios described in the previous section, four case
studies are done with specific fixed parameters and rules:
Threshold distance was chosen to be 25 m.
A handover index ðHOÞ variable was assumed such that:
When MN is linked with RN1, HO ¼ 10;
When MN is linked with RN2, HO ¼ 20;
When there is a link failure, HO ¼ 0;
In each case study, a different mobility pattern was tested for handover. For the
first case study, X1 ðtÞ and X2 ðtÞ were defined as follows:

X1 ðtÞ ¼ t2 ð1Þ

X2 ðtÞ ¼ sinðtÞ  t2 ð2Þ

In Fig. 7, the orange curve represents X1 ðtÞ, yellow curve represents X2 ðtÞ, and
black curve represents handover index ðHOÞ. When RN1 is within range, i.e.,
X1 ðtÞ\25, HO ¼ 10, when RN1 is out of range and RN2 is within range, i.e.,
X1 ðtÞ [ 25 and X2 ðtÞ\25, HO ¼ 10, when both RN1 and RN2 are out of range,
i.e., X1 ðtÞ [ 25 and X2 ðtÞ [ 25, HO ¼ 0.
Design of a Proactive Distance Handover … 453

Fig. 6 Distance handover algorithm in a WSN

4.2 Case Study II

For the second case study, X1 ðtÞ and X2 ðtÞ were defined as follows:

X1 ðtÞ ¼ t2  ðt  sinðtÞÞ ð3Þ

X2 ðtÞ ¼ absððtanðtÞÞ2 Þ ð4Þ

We can infer from Fig. 8 that whenever RN1 is within range, i.e., X1 ðtÞ\25
HO ¼ 10, when RN1 is out of range and RN2 is within range, i.e., X1 ðtÞ [ 25 and
X2 ðtÞ\25, HO ¼ 20, when both RN1 and RN2 are out of range, i.e., X1 ðtÞ [ 25
and X2 ðtÞ [ 25, HO ¼ 0.
454 M. S. Saketh et al.

Fig. 7 Handover in case I

Fig. 8 Handover in case II

Design of a Proactive Distance Handover … 455

4.3 Case Study III

For the third case study, X1 ðtÞ and X2 ðtÞ were defined as follows:


2
X1 ðtÞ ¼ þ 18  t ð5Þ
t1
 
X2 ðtÞ ¼ t2  ðt  sinðtÞÞ  sinðtÞ ð6Þ

We can see in Fig. 9 that and in the previous case studies that irrespective of the
mobility pattern, handover is being implemented successfully.

4.4 Case Study IV

For the fourth case study, X1 ðtÞ and X2 ðtÞ were defined as follows:
s

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

10
X1 ðtÞ ¼ ð7Þ
sin cðtÞ

X2 ðtÞ ¼ t2  ðt  sinðtÞÞ ð8Þ

Fig. 9 Handover in case III

456 M. S. Saketh et al.

Fig. 10 Handover in case IV

We can see in Fig. 10 that and in the previous case studies that irrespective of
the mobility pattern, handover is being implemented successfully.

5 Conclusion

The algorithm is simple, yet highly efficient and proactive for initiating distance
handover. However, the algorithm considers scenarios wherein a single or two relay
nodes are put into use. Furthermore, the algorithm can be improved by considering
a more complex network and applying optimization techniques to obtain a faster
and more efficient response.

References

1. Waltenegus Dargie and Christian Poellabauer. Fundamentals of Wireless Sensor Networks:

Theory and Practice. Wiley Publishing, 2010.
2. Alan Mainwaring, David Culler, Joseph Polastre, Robert Szewczyk, and John Anderson.
Wireless sensor networks for habitat monitoring. Proceedings of the 1st ACM international
workshop on Wireless sensor networks and applications, pages 88–97. ACM, 2002.
3. Sukun Kim, S. Pakzad, D. Culler, J. Demmel, G. Fenves, S. Glaser, and M. Turon. Health
monitoring of civil infrastructures using wireless sensor networks. 6th International
Symposium on Information Processing in Sensor Networks, pages 254–263, April 2007.
Design of a Proactive Distance Handover … 457

4. G. Werner-Allen, K. Lorincz, M. Ruiz, O. Marcillo, J. Johnson, J. Lees, and M. Welsh.

Deploying a wireless sensor network on an active volcano. IEEE Internet Computing, 10:18–
25, March 2006.
5. J. Burrell, T. Brooke, and R. Beckwith. Vineyard computing: sensor networks in agricultural
production. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 3:38–45, March 2004. 1.
6. Alberto Camilli, Carlos E., Antonio M. Saraiva, Andr R. Hirakawa, and Pedro L.P. Corra.
From wireless sensors to field mapping: Anatomy of an application for precision agriculture.
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, pages 25–36, August 2007.
7. Chehri, A., Farjow, W., Mouftah, H. T., & Fernando, X. (2011, May). Design of wireless
sensor network for mine safety monitoring. In Electrical and Computer Engineering
(CCECE), 2011 24th Canadian Conference on (pp. 001532–001535). IEEE.
8. S. Dagtas, Y. Natchetoi, and H. Wu. An integrated wireless sensing and mobile processing
architecture for assisted living and healthcare applications. Proceedings of the 1st
ACM SIGMOBILE international workshop on Systems and networking support for
healthcare and assisted living environments, pages 70–72, 2007.
9. Mingang Cheng, Masako Kanai-Pak, Noriaki Kuwahara, Hiromi Itoh Ozaku, Kiyoshi
Kogure, and Jun Ota. Dynamic scheduling based inpatient nursing support: applicability
evaluation by laboratory experiments. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM International Workshop
on Context-Awareness for Self-Managing Systems, pages 48–54, 2009.
10. Konrad Lorincz, David J. Malan, Thaddeus R. F. Fulford-Jones, Alan Nawoj, Antony Clavel,
Victor Shnayder, Geoffery Mainland, Matt Welsh, and Steve Moulton. Sensor networks for
emergency response: challenges and opportunities. IEEE Pervasive Com-puting, 3:16–23,
October 2004.
11. Xiaojuan Chao, Waltenegus Dargie, and Guan Lin. Energy model for H2S monitoring
wireless sensor network. Proceedings of the 2008 11th IEEE International Conference on
Computational Science and Engineering, pages 402–409, 2008.
12. Sang Hyuk Lee, Soobin Lee, Heecheol Song, and Hwang Soo Lee. Wireless sensor network
design for tactical military applications: remote large-scale environments. Proceedings of the
28th IEEE conference on Military communications, pages 911–917, 2009.
13. E. S. Nadimi, H. T. Sogaard, T. Bak, and F. W. Oudshoorn. Zigbee-based wireless sensor
networks for monitoring animal presence and pasture time in a strip of new grass. Comput.
Electron. Agric., 61(2):79–87, May 2008.
14. S. Dhar, A. Ray, R. Bera, “Cognitive vertical handover engine for vehicular communication”,
Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl., Springer, 2013, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 305–324.; https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12083-012-0171-5.
15. N. S. Reddy, M.S. Saketh, S. Dhar, “Review of sensor technology for mine safety monitoring
systems: A holistic approach”, IEEE First International Conference on Control, Measurement
and Instrumentation (CMI), 8–10 Jan. 2016, Kolkata, pp (429–434), https://doi.org/10.1109/
cmi.2016.7413784.
16. Muneeb Ali, Tashfeen Suleman, and Zartash Afzal Uzmi. MMAC: a mobility-adaptive,
collision-free MAC protocol for wireless sensor networks. 24th IEEE International
Performance, Computing, and Communications Conference, pages 401–407, April 2005.