A Hybrid Approach for Energy Efficiency in Wireless Sensor

Networks: Integrating Genetic Algorithms and Bacterial Foraging

Optimization

S.no Title Citation

1 Bio-Mimic Optimization Adnan, M., Razzaque, M., Ahmed, I., & Isnin, I. (2013).
Bio-Mimic Optimization Strategies in wireless sensor
Strategies in Wireless Sensor Networks: a survey. Sensors, 14(1), 299–345.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s140100299
Networks: A Survey - PMC Parenthetical (Adnan et al., 2013)
Narrative Adnan et al. (2013)

2 Pitchaimanickam, B. et al. (2013). Bacteria Foraging

Hybrid Bacteria Foraging Algorithm-based Clustering in WSNs. IEEE ICoAC. DOI:
Algorithm With PSO and DE 10.1109/ICoAC.2013.6921949
Heinzelman, W. B. et al. (2002). Application-Specific
Algorithm for Optimal Cluster Protocol for WSNs. IEEE Transactions. DOI:
Head Selection in Wireless 10.1109/TWC.2002.804190
Kennedy, J., & Eberhart, R. (1995). Particle Swarm
Sensor Networks Optimization. IEEE ICNN. DOI:
10.1109/ICNN.1995.488968

3 Energy-Efficient Routing C. Cirstea, "Energy efficient routing

protocols for Wireless Sensor
Protocols for Wireless Networks: A survey," 2011 IEEE 17th
Sensor Networks: A Survey International Symposium for Design
and Technology in Electronic
Packaging (SIITME), Timisoara,
Romania, 2011, pp. 277-282, doi:
10.1109/SIITME.2011.6102735.
keywords: {Wireless sensor
networks;Routing
protocols;Routing;Base
stations;Energy consumption;Energy
efficiency;wireless sensor
networks;energy efficiency;routing
protocols}
 GAEER: Genetic Algorithm Based Energy Efficient

Routing Protocol In Wireless Sensor Network. (2020).

In INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC &

4 Genetic Algorithm-based TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH (Vol. 9, Issue 06, pp.
Approaches for Energy- 538–539) [Journal-article]. https://www.ijstr.org
Efficient Routing in Wireless
Sensor Networks

5 Energy-Efficient Hybrid Yadav, R., Sreedevi, I., &

Optimization Algorithms for Gupta, D. (2022). Bio-Inspired
Wireless Sensor Network
Hybrid Optimization Algorithms

for Energy Efficient wireless

sensor Networks: A

Comprehensive review.

Electronics, 11(10), 1545.

https://doi.org/10.3390/electroni

cs11101545

Reference 1:Bio-Mimic Optimization Strategies in Wireless

Sensor Networks: A Survey - PMC
Md Akhtaruzzaman Adnan 1,*, Mohammd Abdur Razzaque 1, Ishtiaque Ahmed 2,
Ismail Fauzi Isnin 1

With the advancements in Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) technology, wireless

sensor networks (WSNs) have gained worldwide attention in recent years. A large number of
applications including medical care, habitat monitoring, precision agriculture, military target
tracking and surveillance, natural disaster relief, hazardous environment exploration and
monitoring are all using this technology. Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) are critically
resource-constrained by their limited power supply, memory, processing performance and
communication bandwidth [1]. Due to their limited power supply, energy consumption is a key
issue in the design of protocols and algorithms for WSNs. Hence, most existing works (e.g.,
clustering, lifetime prolonging) in the WSN area are dealing with energy efficiency. Typically,
this energy consumption minimization or efficiency is not a trivial task, as in most cases number
of conflicting issues need to be considered (e.g., lifetime, coverage). Optimization is very helpful
in making the appropriate tradeoffs between these conflicting issues to get the best possible
results [2].
So, from the optimization point of view of WSNs, the right choice of the optimizer or algorithm
for WSN problems is very important. The algorithm chosen for an optimization task will largely
depend on the nature of the algorithm, the type of the problem, the desired quality of solutions,
the available resources, time constraints, etc. The nature of an optimizer may determine if it is
appropriate for a particular type of problem. For instance, derivative-based algorithms such as
hill-climbing are not appropriate for optimization problems whose objective is discontinuous. On
the contrary, the type of problem we are trying to solve also can play role in determining which
algorithm to choose. If the objective function of the problem is highly nonlinear and multimodal,
the classical algorithms are not appropriate, as they are local search algorithms. Most WSNs
suffer from huge resource constraints, and most of the problems that are to be optimized are NP-
hard problems, so the cost of simulators or mathematical programming engines used for linear,
nonlinear and quadratic programming make them unattractive. As the problem size increases, the
computational complexity of conventional methods grows exponentially. This is the main
inspiration for choosing bio-mimetic algorithms (global optimizers) such as PSO, GA, ACO, CS,
etc.

Reference 2: Hybrid Bacteria Foraging Algorithm With PSO and DE

Algorithm for Optimal Cluster Head Selection in Wireless Sensor Networks

AUTHOR : Pitchaimanickam Bose, Kalasalingam Academy of Research and Education, India

Published in:
International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence, Volume 16, Issue 1

ABSTRACT:
Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) play a crucial role in various applications such as
environmental monitoring, healthcare, and industrial automation. However, energy efficiency
and network lifetime remain significant challenges due to the limited battery power of sensor
nodes. This paper presents a hybrid optimization approach that integrates Bacterial Foraging
Algorithm (BFA), Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), and Differential Evolution (DE) to
optimize cluster head selection in WSNs. The LEACH-C protocol is enhanced using this
hybrid approach to improve network lifetime, reduce energy consumption, and maintain a
balance among sensor nodes. The results show that the proposed BFPSODE method improves
alive node count by 66%–77% compared to conventional algorithms such as BFA, FA, and
BFPSO.

1. Introduction
WSNs consist of spatially distributed autonomous sensor nodes that collect and transmit data
to a base station (BS). Since these nodes operate on limited battery power, extending network
lifespan is a key challenge. Clustering methods help conserve energy by reducing direct
transmissions to the BS, but inefficient cluster head selection leads to excessive energy
depletion.

Traditional protocols like LEACH-C use random selection, which often results in suboptimal
CHs, causing uneven energy consumption. This paper proposes a hybrid optimization
technique (BFPSODE) that leverages bio-inspired algorithms to enhance CH selection,
thereby improving network lifetime and energy efficiency.

2. Hybrid Optimization Approach

The proposed BFPSODE approach combines:

2.1 Bacterial Foraging Algorithm (BFA)

● Mimics bacterial movement to search for optimal CH positions.

● Strengths: Adaptive optimization based on nutrient availability (energy levels).
● Limitations: Slow convergence to optimal solutions.

2.2 Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)

● Fast identification of potential CHs by modeling particle movement in a swarm.

 ● Strengths: Quick convergence and efficient initial CH selection.
● Limitations: May get stuck in local optima.

2.3 Differential Evolution (DE)

● Fine-tunes CH positions using mutation, recombination, and selection.

● Strengths: Ensures load balancing and energy efficiency.

2.4 BFPSODE Algorithm Implementation

1. PSO selects CH candidates based on node energy levels and distance from BS.
2. BFA refines CH positions through adaptive bacterial movement strategies.
3. DE optimizes CH distribution, ensuring a balanced network load.

This hybrid approach enhances CH selection, reduces energy wastage, and prolongs the
network’s lifespan.

3. Experimental Setup & Results

3.1 Simulation Setup

● Network area: 100 × 100 m²

● Nodes: 100
● Base station: Located at (50,175)
● Energy per node: 1J – 5J
● Simulation tool: NS-2.27
● Performance metrics: Alive nodes, Energy consumption, Network lifetime (First Node
Dead - FND / Last Node Dead - LND).

3.2 Key Findings

1. Network Lifetime Improvement

○ BFPSODE extended FND to 910s (vs. FA: 600s, BFPSO: 700s).

○ LND increased to 1820s, outperforming other algorithms.
2. Energy Consumption

○ BFPSODE reduced energy consumption by 28.5% compared to LEACH-C and

PLEACH.
○ Efficient CH selection led to more balanced energy usage.
3. Node Survival

○ After 1000s, BFPSODE retained 92 alive nodes (vs. FA: 42, BFA: 12).
○ Nodes lasted significantly longer due to optimized CH selection.
4. Conclusion
This study introduced a hybrid optimization framework (BFPSODE) to enhance CH selection
in WSNs. The results confirm that BFPSODE significantly improves energy efficiency and
network lifetime compared to traditional clustering techniques. By combining PSO’s speed,
BFA’s adaptive behavior, and DE’s fine-tuning ability, the proposed method optimizes
energy consumption and extends network operation.

Future Work

● Testing in large-scale WSN environments.

● Adapting the model for mobile base stations and heterogeneous networks.
● Exploring additional bio-inspired optimization techniques.

References:
1. Nayyar, A., & Nguyen, N. G. (2018). Introduction to swarm intelligence. Advances in
Swarm Intelligence for Optimizing Problems in Computer Science, pp. 53-78.

2. Nayyar, A., & Singh, R. (2015). A comprehensive review of simulation tools for
wireless sensor networks (WSNs). Journal of Wireless Networking and
Communications, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 19–47.

3. Passino, K. M. (2002). Biomimicry of bacterial foraging for distributed optimization

and control. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 52–67. DOI:
10.1109/MCS.2002.1004010.

4. Pitchaimanickam, B., & Radhakrishnan, S. (2013). Bacteria foraging algorithm-

based clustering in wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 2013 Fifth
International Conference on Advanced Computing (ICoAC), pp. 190-195. IEEE. DOI:
10.1109/ICoAC.2013.6921949.

5. Qin, A. K., Huang, V. L., & Suganthan, P. N. (2008). Differential evolution algorithm
with strategy adaptation for global numerical optimization. IEEE Transactions on
Evolutionary Computation, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 398–417. DOI:
10.1109/TEVC.2008.927706.

6. Panda, S., Yegireddy, N. K., & Mohapatra, S. K. (2013). Hybrid BFOA–PSO

approach for coordinated design of PSS and SSSC-based controller considering time
delays. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 49, pp. 221–
233. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijepes.2013.01.006.
7. Panag, T. S., & Dhillon, J. S. (2021). Predator–prey optimization based clustering
algorithm for wireless sensor networks. Neural Computing & Applications, vol. 33, no.
17, pp. 1–21. DOI: 10.1007/s00521-020-05639-3.

8. Singh, S., Kumar, S., Nayyar, A., Al-Turjman, F., & Mostarda, L. (2020). Proficient
QoS-based target coverage problem in wireless sensor networks. IEEE Access:
Practical Innovations, Open Solutions, vol. 8, pp. 74315–74325. DOI:
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2986493.

9. Heinzelman, W. B., Chandrakasan, A. P., & Balakrishnan, H. (2002). An

application-specific protocol architecture for wireless microsensor networks. IEEE
Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 660–670. DOI:
10.1109/TWC.2002.804190.

10. Wang, X., Ma, J., & Wang, S. (2009). Parallel energy-efficient coverage optimization
with maximum entropy clustering in wireless sensor networks. Journal of Parallel and
Distributed Computing, vol. 69, no. 10, pp. 838–847. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpdc.2009.04.012.