On the lifetime of wireless sensor networks

By Isabel Dietrich, Falko Dressler. TOSN, 2009

938 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Network lifetime has become the key characteristic for evaluating sensor networks in an application-specific way. Especially the availability of nodes, the sensor coverage, and the connectivity have been included in discussions on network lifetime. Even quality of service measures can be reduced to lifetime considerations. A great number of algorithms and methods were proposed to increase the lifetime of a sensor network—while their evaluations were always based on a particular definition of network lifetime. Motivated by the great differences in existing definitions of sensor network lifetime that are used in relevant publications, we reviewed the state of the art in lifetime definitions, their differences, advantages, and limitations. This survey was the starting point for our work towards a generic definition of sensor network lifetime for use in analytic evaluations as well as in simulation models—focusing on a formal and concise definition of accumulated network lifetime and total network lifetime. Our definition incorporates the components of existing lifetime definitions, and introduces some additional measures. One new concept is the ability to express the service disruption tolerance of a network. Another new concept is the notion of time-integration: in many cases, it is sufficient if a requirement is fulfilled over a certain period of time, instead of at every point in time. In addition, we combine coverage and connectivity to form a single requirement called connected coverage. We show that connected coverage is different from requiring noncombined coverage and connectivity. Finally, our definition also supports the concept of graceful degradation by providing means of estimating the degree of compliance with the application requirements. We demonstrate the applicability of our definition based on the surveyed lifetime definitions as well as using some example scenarios to explain the various aspects influencing sensor network lifetime.

Subfields: Computer Networks and Communications

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2c896240f7e30c51c146bf0eaf9fdaf1ac6e2faf

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Computer Networks and Communications

Citations in the corpus

Energy-Efficient Cooperative Relaying over Fading Channels with Simple Relay Selection (2008, background): “In such networks, energy efficiency is critical as it affects network lifetime [4].”
QELAR: A Machine-Learning-Based Adaptive Routing Protocol for Energy-Efficient and Lifetime-Extended Underwater Sensor Networks (2010, neutral): “Ç”
A Survey of Network Lifetime Maximization Techniques in Wireless Sensor Networks (2017, methodology): “The NL in [8] was also deﬁned as the instant, when the ﬁrst data collection failure occurred.”
A survey on bio-inspired networking (2010, neutral): “to maximize the network lifetime [96].”
Energy-Efficient Cooperative Communication Based on Power Control and Selective Single-Relay in Wireless Sensor Networks (2008, methodology): “Simply speaking, the strategy is to find an optimal power control solution that maximizes the minimum residual energy among all the nodes during each packet transmission [20], which will be discussed as follows.”