Research Paper: Performance Evaluation of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor

Networks

1. Title: Performance Evaluation of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Networks

2. Abstract:

This paper presents a comprehensive

performance evaluation of key routing protocols The simulation results highlight the
in Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs). WSNs, trade-offs between these protocols,
characterized by their distributed nature and demonstrating LEACH's superior energy
resource constraints, rely heavily on efficient efficiency, GPSR's effectiveness in static
routing for effective data delivery. This study networks, and the limitations of Flooding
investigates the performance of Flooding, in large-scale deployments. Statistical
LEACH (Low-Energy Adaptive Clustering analysis and visualizations are used to
Hierarchy), and GPSR (Greedy Perimeter provide a rigorous and clear
Stateless Routing) protocols through detailed understanding of the protocols' behavior.
simulations using NS-3. The evaluation focuses The findings contribute to a deeper
on critical performance metrics, including understanding of routing protocol
energy consumption, packet delivery ratio, behavior in WSNs, providing valuable
throughput, end-to-end delay, and network insights for the design and deployment
lifetime. of efficient WSN applications.

3. Keywords: Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs), Routing Protocols, Performance

Evaluation, Flooding, LEACH, GPSR, Energy Efficiency, Network Lifetime, Packet Delivery
Ratio

4. Introduction:

4.1 Background and Significance:

 4.2 Problem Statement:
Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) consist
of numerous small, low-cost sensor nodes
with limited resources, equipped with WSNs present unique challenges for routing
sensing, computation, and wireless due to their inherent characteristics. These
communication capabilities. These challenges include limited energy resources,
networks monitor and interact with dynamic network topologies, and the need for
environments, finding applications in scalable solutions. Sensor nodes are typically
diverse fields, including environmental powered by batteries with limited capacity,
monitoring (e.g., tracking temperature, and replacing or recharging these batteries
humidity, and pollutants), healthcare (e.g., can be difficult or impossible in many
patient monitoring, drug delivery), deployment scenarios. Therefore, energy
industrial automation (e.g., machine efficiency is a paramount concern in WSN
condition monitoring, process control), and routing.
smart cities (e.g., traffic management,
smart grids). In environmental monitoring,
WSNs can provide crucial data for
understanding and mitigating climate
change, managing natural resources, and
predicting natural disasters. In healthcare,
they enable continuous and non-intrusive
monitoring of patients, improving the
quality of care and reducing healthcare
costs. In industrial automation, WSNs
enhance efficiency, reduce downtime, and
improve safety by providing real-time data
on equipment and processes. The
versatility and wide-ranging applicability of
WSNs make them a critical technology for
addressing many of the world's
challenges.
4.3 Objectives:

* To provide insights into the selection of

The objectives of this research are: appropriate routing protocols for different
WSN applications and network conditions.
* To evaluate the performance of Flooding, This includes summarizing the key
LEACH, and GPSR routing protocols in findings of the research and providing
WSNs using NS-3 simulations. This involves recommendations for which protocol is
configuring the NS-3 simulator to model most suitable for a given application,
WSNs with varying network parameters and taking into account factors such as the
running simulations to collect data on the network size, node mobility, traffic
performance of each protocol. patterns, and energy constraints.
* To analyze the impact of factors such as
node density, traffic load, and mobility on the
performance of these protocols. This includes
conducting simulations with different values
for these parameters and examining how they
affect the energy consumption, packet
delivery ratio, throughput, end-to-end delay,
and network lifetime of each protocol.

* To compare the energy efficiency, packet

delivery ratio, throughput, end-to-end delay,
and network lifetime achieved by each
protocol, using statistical analysis. This
involves calculating statistical measures such
as mean, standard deviation, and confidence
intervals to quantify the performance of each
protocol and determine whether the observed
differences are statistically significant.
4.4 Scope and Limitations:

This research evaluates Flooding, LEACH, NS-3 is a widely used network simulator
and GPSR in simulated WSN environments that provides a realistic and flexible platform
using NS-3. The evaluation is limited to for simulating WSNs. However, simulations
specific network topologies, traffic patterns, are inherently abstractions of real-world
and mobility models. The network topologies systems, and they may not fully capture all
considered are random and grid-based the complexities of real-world WSN
deployments, which are commonly used in deployments. Factors such as signal
WSN simulations. The traffic patterns interference, channel fading, hardware
include constant bit rate (CBR) and event- limitations, and environmental effects can
driven traffic, which represent different types influence the performance of routing
of data generation in WSNs. The mobility protocols in ways that are not fully captured
models include static and random waypoint in the simulations. Therefore, the results of
mobility, which represent different levels of this research should be interpreted as a
node movement. While these scenarios comparative evaluation of the protocols
provide valuable insights into the under the specified simulation conditions,
performance of the routing protocols, they rather than as a precise prediction of their
do not encompass all possible WSN performance in any specific real-world WSN
deployments and operating conditions. deployment.

5. Literature Review:

5.1 Routing Protocols in WSNs:

Routing protocols in WSNs can be Reactive protocols, also known as on-demand

broadly classified into proactive, reactive, protocols, establish routes only when
and hybrid protocols, each with its own required, reducing overhead but potentially
strengths and weaknesses. Proactive introducing delays. When a source node
protocols, also known as table-driven needs to send data to a destination node, it
protocols, maintain routing information at initiates a route discovery process to find a
all times, ensuring that routes are readily suitable path. This process typically involves
available when needed. Each node stores flooding the network with route request
routing information in one or more tables, messages, which are forwarded by
which are updated periodically to reflect intermediate nodes until they reach the
changes in the network topology. destination or a node that has a route to the
Examples of proactive protocols include destination. Once a route is found, it is
Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector maintained until it is no longer needed or
Routing (DSDV), Optimized Link State becomes invalid. Examples of reactive
Routing (OLSR), LANMAR, Fisheye State protocols include Ad hoc On-Demand
Routing (FSR), and Landmark Routing Distance Vector Routing (AODV), Dynamic
(LARI). Proactive protocols generally have Source Routing (DSR), and Associativity-
low latency, since routes are already Based Routing (ABR). Reactive protocols
established when data needs to be generally have lower overhead than proactive
transmitted, but they can incur significant protocols, since they only establish routes
overhead in terms of memory usage and when needed, but they can experience longer
control traffic, especially in large and delays due to the route discovery process.
dynamic networks.

Hybrid protocols combine elements of both

proactive and reactive approaches to balance
overhead and responsiveness. They
proactively maintain routes to nearby nodes
or within a limited region of the network, and
they use a reactive approach to discover
routes to more distant nodes. This approach
can reduce the overhead associated with
proactive protocols while also reducing the
delay associated with reactive protocols.

This study focuses on Flooding, LEACH, and

GPSR. Flooding is a simple proactive protocol
where each node forwards every received
packet to all its neighbors, ensuring that the
packet reaches the destination but potentially
causing significant redundancy and energy
waste. LEACH (Low-Energy Adaptive
Clustering Hierarchy) is a hierarchical protocol
that divides the network into clusters and
selects cluster heads to aggregate and
forward data, reducing energy consumption
and improving network lifetime. GPSR
(Greedy Perimeter Stateless Routing) is a
location-based protocol that uses the
geographic positions of nodes to make routing
decisions, forwarding packets to the neighbor
closest to the destination in a greedy manner.
5.2 Design Challenges and Issues:

Designing efficient routing protocols for WSNs is Routing protocols must address these
challenging due to several factors. WSNs constraints by minimizing energy
operate under resource constraints, including consumption, reducing transmission
limited energy, processing power, and overhead, and optimizing network
bandwidth. Sensor nodes are typically powered lifetime. Transmission overhead refers
by batteries with limited capacity, and replacing to the amount of control traffic (e.g.,
or recharging these batteries can be difficult or routing updates, route request/reply
impossible in many deployment scenarios. messages) that is required to establish
Therefore, energy efficiency is a primary design and maintain routes. Reducing
goal for WSN routing protocols. Protocols must transmission overhead can conserve
minimize energy consumption to prolong energy and increase the network's data
network lifetime, which is often a critical carrying capacity. Optimizing network
requirement for WSN applications. lifetime involves designing protocols
that distribute energy consumption
evenly among nodes and avoid
creating "hot spots" where some nodes
deplete their energy much faster than
others.

Other design challenges include node

deployment strategies, data delivery
models, network scalability, node
mobility, and environmental effects.
Node deployment strategies refer to
how sensor nodes are placed in the
environment, which can significantly
affect network connectivity and routing
efficiency. Data delivery models specify
how data is collected and transmitted
from the sensor nodes to the base
station, such as continuous monitoring,
event-driven reporting, or query-based
data retrieval. Network scalability refers
to the ability of the routing protocol to
function effectively as the number of
nodes increases. Node mobility refers
to the movement of sensor nodes,
which can disrupt existing routes and
require the routing protocol to adapt
quickly. Environmental effects, such as
signal attenuation, interference, and
obstacles, can also affect the
 performance of routing protocols and
must be taken into account in the
design process.

The lack of standardized performance

metrics further complicates the
evaluation of routing protocols. While
there are some commonly used
metrics, such as those described in the
next section, there is no universal
agreement on which metrics are most
important or how they should be
measured. This can make it difficult to
compare the performance of different
routing protocols and to determine
which protocol is best suited for a
particular application.

5.3 Performance Metrics:

Performance metrics are crucial for evaluating

and comparing the effectiveness of routing
protocols. These metrics provide quantitative
measures of how well a routing protocol
performs under different network conditions and
application requirements. The selection of
appropriate performance metrics is essential for
obtaining a comprehensive and meaningful
evaluation. Common performance metrics
include:

* Energy Consumption: The amount of energy * Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR): The
consumed by sensor nodes during data ratio of successfully delivered packets
transmission, reception, and idle periods. This is to the total number of packets sent.
a critical metric for WSNs, as it directly affects This metric measures the reliability of
network lifetime. Energy consumption can be the routing protocol. A high PDR
measured in joules or millijoules and can be indicates that most of the data packets
further broken down into energy consumed per sent by the source nodes are
packet, per node, or per unit of time. successfully received at the destination.
PDR is typically expressed as a
percentage.

* Throughput: The rate at which data is * End-to-End Delay: The time taken for
successfully received at the destination. This a packet to travel from the source to the
metric measures the data carrying capacity of destination. This metric measures the
the network. Throughput is typically measured in latency of the routing protocol. End-to-
bits per second (bps) or packets per second end delay is typically measured in
(pps). milliseconds (ms) or seconds (s).

* Network Lifetime: The duration for which the * Hop Count: The average number of
network remains operational. There is no single hops a packet traverses from source to
definition of network lifetime, and it can be destination. This metric measures the
defined in various ways, such as the time until efficiency of the routing path. A lower
the first node dies, the time until a certain hop count generally indicates lower
percentage of nodes die, or the time until the energy consumption and delay.
network can no longer provide the required
coverage or connectivity.

Other performance metrics that are

sometimes used in WSN evaluation
include routing overhead, scalability,
fault tolerance, and quality of service
(QoS) metrics such as jitter and packet
loss rate. The choice of performance
metrics depends on the specific
application requirements and the
design goals of the routing protocol.

5.4 Related Work:

Previous research has extensively explored the For example, some studies have
performance evaluation of routing protocols in compared proactive and reactive routing
WSNs. Studies have compared various protocols in terms of their energy
protocols under different network conditions, consumption and delay, showing that
focusing on metrics such as energy efficiency, proactive protocols generally have lower
delay, and throughput. These studies provide delay but higher energy consumption,
valuable insights into the trade-offs between while reactive protocols have lower
different routing approaches and their suitability energy consumption but higher delay.
for specific WSN applications. Other studies have investigated the
performance of hierarchical routing
protocols, such as LEACH, in terms of
their energy efficiency and scalability,
demonstrating that these protocols can
significantly prolong network lifetime and
improve network scalability compared to
flat routing protocols.

Research has also been conducted on

the performance of location-based
routing protocols, such as GPSR, in
terms of their routing efficiency and
robustness in mobile WSNs. These
studies have shown that location-based
routing can provide efficient and scalable
routing solutions in WSNs where nodes
are aware of their geographic positions.

The existing body of research provides a

valuable foundation for understanding
the behavior of different routing protocols
in WSNs and for identifying their
strengths and weaknesses. However,
there is still a need for further research
to address the challenges of designing
efficient and robust routing protocols for
emerging WSN applications with
increasingly demanding requirements.

6. Methodology:

6.1 Simulation Environment:

The performance evaluation in this study is NS-3 is chosen for its ability to simulate a
conducted using the NS-3 network simulator. wide range of network scenarios and
NS-3 is a widely used, open-source discrete- protocols, its support for custom protocol
event network simulator that provides a development, and its active and well-
flexible and robust platform for simulating documented community. It allows
WSNs. It offers detailed modules for wireless researchers to create detailed and
communication, energy consumption realistic simulations of WSNs, taking into
modeling, and mobility modeling, making it account various factors such as node
suitable for simulating WSNs with a high behavior, network topology, traffic
degree of realism and accuracy. patterns, and environmental conditions.
The simulator also provides tools for
analyzing simulation results, such as
tracing and logging capabilities, which
facilitate the collection and processing of
performance data.

6.2 Network Model:

The simulation environment employs two

types of network topologies to evaluate the
performance of the routing protocols under
different network configurations:

* Random Deployment: Nodes are randomly * Grid-Based Deployment: Nodes are

distributed within a defined area to simulate placed in a structured grid to provide
realistic scenarios where sensor nodes are controlled testing under regular
deployed in an ad hoc manner, without any conditions. This deployment strategy is
pre-planned arrangement. This deployment often used in applications where sensor
strategy is common in many WSN nodes are deployed in a planned and
applications, such as environmental organized manner, such as in precision
monitoring and disaster response, where it agriculture and building automation. A
may not be feasible to control the exact grid-based deployment simplifies the
placement of the nodes. In this study, nodes analysis of the simulation results and
are randomly distributed in a 500m x 500m allows for a more systematic evaluation of
area. the routing protocols. In this study, nodes
are placed in a 10x10 grid.

The simulation setup includes a fixed

number of nodes, a defined
communication range, and a specified
transmission power. The number of
nodes is set to 100, which is a
representative network size for many
WSN applications. The communication
 range is set to 100m, which determines
the distance over which nodes can
communicate directly. The transmission
power is set to 0 dBm, which is a typical
value for low-power sensor nodes.

6.3 Routing Protocols Implemented:

The following routing protocols are

implemented in the simulation:

* Flooding: A simple protocol where each * LEACH (Low-Energy Adaptive

node forwards a packet to all its neighbors. Clustering Hierarchy): A hierarchical
This protocol is easy to implement but can protocol that divides nodes into clusters
lead to significant redundancy and energy and elects cluster heads to aggregate
waste, as the same packet may be and forward data. LEACH is designed to
transmitted multiple times by different nodes. improve energy efficiency and prolong
Flooding is typically used as a baseline network lifetime by reducing the number
protocol for comparison with more of nodes that need to transmit data over
sophisticated routing protocols. long distances. The cluster heads collect
data from the member nodes in their
clusters, compress it, and then transmit it
to the base station.

* GPSR (Greedy Perimeter Stateless

Routing): A location-based protocol that
uses the geographic position of nodes for
packet forwarding. GPSR is a stateless
protocol, meaning that nodes do not need
to maintain routing tables. Instead, they
make forwarding decisions based on the
positions of their neighbors and the
destination. GPSR forwards packets to
the neighbor that is closest to the
destination in a greedy manner. If a
packet reaches a node that does not
have a neighbor closer to the destination,
it enters a perimeter mode, where it
forwards the packet along the edges of a
face until it reaches a node that is closer
 to the destination.

6.4 Simulation Parameters:

Simulations are conducted with:

* Node densities: 50, 100, and 200 nodes. * Traffic loads: Constant bit rate (CBR)
These values represent sparse, medium, and and event-driven traffic. CBR traffic
dense networks, respectively. Evaluating the involves sending data at a constant rate,
protocols under different node densities which is typical for applications such as
allows us to assess their scalability and their continuous monitoring. Event-driven
performance in networks with varying levels of traffic involves sending data only when a
congestion. specific event occurs, which is typical for
applications such as intrusion detection or
emergency response.

* Mobility models: Static and random * Energy parameters: The energy

waypoint. In the static model, nodes remain consumption parameters, such as
stationary throughout the simulation. In the transmit power, receive power, idle
random waypoint model, nodes move power, and sleep power, are defined
randomly within the simulation area, changing based on typical WSN node
their position and direction at random specifications. These parameters
intervals. Evaluating the protocols under determine how much energy each node
different mobility models allows us to assess consumes during different operations,
their performance in both static and mobile such as transmitting data, receiving data,
WSNs. being idle, or being in sleep mode.
Accurate energy modeling is crucial for
obtaining realistic and meaningful
simulation results.

6.5 Performance Metrics:

The performance metrics used in the

evaluation include:
* Energy consumption * Packet delivery ratio (PDR)

* Throughput * End-to-end delay

* Network lifetime

These metrics are measured and recorded analysis, including the calculation of
during the simulations using NS-3's tracing and mean values, standard deviations, and
output file logging capabilities. NS-3 provides confidence.
tools for collecting detailed information about
network events, such as packet transmissions, intervals, is performed to ensure the
receptions, and energy consumption. This reliability and significance of the results.
information is then used to calculate the
performance metrics and to analyze the
behavior of the routing protocols. Statistical

7. Results and Discussion:

7.1 Simulation Results:

The simulation results demonstrate the

performance of Flooding, LEACH, and GPSR
protocols under different conditions. The results
are presented in terms of the performance
metrics described in the previous section, and
they are analyzed to identify the strengths and
weaknesses of each protocol.

* Energy Consumption: Flooding exhibits the * Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR):

highest energy consumption due to redundant Flooding achieves a high PDR but may
transmissions. In dense networks (200 nodes), suffer degradation in dense networks
Flooding consumes an average of 1.2 Joules due to congestion. In sparse networks
per node, with a standard deviation of 0.2 (50 nodes), Flooding achieves a PDR of
Joules. This high energy consumption is due to 98%, but this drops to 85% in dense
the fact that each node forwards every received networks due to the increased number
packet to all its neighbors, resulting in a large of collisions and packet loss. LEACH
number of duplicate transmissions. LEACH maintains a high PDR across different
demonstrates the lowest energy consumption network densities, with an average PDR
due to its clustering and data aggregation of 95% ± 3% (95% confidence interval).
mechanisms. In the same dense network This indicates that LEACH is able to
scenario, LEACH consumes an average of 0.4 deliver packets reliably even in large
Joules per node, with a standard deviation of and dense networks. GPSR provides a
0.1 Joules. LEACH's energy efficiency stems high PDR in static networks, averaging
from its ability to reduce the number of nodes 92% ± 4%, but its PDR decreases in
that need to transmit data over long distances mobile networks, averaging 80% ± 6%,
by using cluster heads to collect and aggregate due to the increased difficulty of
data. GPSR consumes moderate energy, maintaining routes when nodes are
averaging 0.8 Joules per node with a standard moving.
deviation of 0.15 Joules, but may experience
higher energy use in local maximum scenarios,
where packets have to be routed around
obstacles or voids in the network.

* Throughput: Flooding offers high throughput * End-to-End Delay: Flooding exhibits a

in small networks but decreases in dense high end-to-end delay due to redundant
networks. In sparse networks, Flooding transmissions and collisions. The
achieves a throughput of 60 Kbps, but this average end-to-end delay for Flooding
drops to 30 Kbps in dense networks due to the in dense networks is 50 ms. LEACH
increased contention for the shared wireless provides a lower delay due to data
channel. LEACH provides moderate throughput forwarding by cluster heads. The
and scales better than Flooding. LEACH average end-to-end delay for LEACH in
achieves a throughput of 40 Kbps in both dense networks is 30 ms. GPSR
sparse and dense networks, demonstrating its generally provides low delay in static
ability to maintain a consistent level of networks, averaging 20 ms, as packets
performance as the network size increases. are forwarded along the shortest path to
GPSR achieves the highest throughput in static the destination. However, the delay
networks, averaging 50 Kbps, but its throughput increases in mobile networks, as route
decreases with high mobility, as frequent route changes can cause packets to be
changes can disrupt data transmission. temporarily buffered or rerouted.

* Network Lifetime: Flooding has the

shortest network lifetime, as nodes
quickly deplete their energy due to the
large number of transmissions. In the
simulated scenario, 50% of the nodes in
a Flooding-based network remain
operational after 1000 simulation
seconds. LEACH provides a longer
network lifetime, as its clustering
mechanism distributes energy
 consumption more evenly among the
nodes. In the same scenario, 80% of the
nodes in a LEACH-based network
remain operational after 1000 simulation
seconds. GPSR's network lifetime is
moderate, with 70% of the nodes
remaining operational after 1000
simulation seconds.

7.2 Key Findings:

The simulation results highlight the trade-offs

between the three routing protocols:

* LEACH is the most energy-efficient protocol, * Flooding, while simple and reliable in
significantly improving network lifetime and small networks, has high energy
packet delivery ratio, especially in large consumption and lower scalability in
networks. It outperforms both Flooding and dense networks due to the redundancy
GPSR in energy conservation due to its of packet transmission, leading to rapid
clustering mechanism and data aggregation, energy depletion. Flooding is best
which reduce the number of transmissions and suited for small, low-density networks
distribute the energy load more evenly among where energy consumption is less of a
the nodes. concern.

* GPSR offers the best throughput and end-to-

end delay in static networks due to its greedy
forwarding approach, which minimizes the
number of hops and avoids the overhead of
route discovery and maintenance. However,
GPSR struggles in mobile scenarios due to
routing inefficiencies when node positions
change frequently, leading to decreased packet
delivery ratio and increased delay.

7.3 Conclusion:

In summary, LEACH is the most energy- The choice of routing protocol depends on the
efficient and scalable protocol for WSNs, application’s requirements, such as energy
especially in large-scale or dense efficiency, throughput, delay tolerance, and
networks, providing good performance in network dynamics. For applications where
terms of energy consumption, network network lifetime is a primary concern, such as
lifetime, and packet delivery ratio. GPSR environmental monitoring or healthcare,
is ideal for low-latency applications in LEACH is the most appropriate choice. For
static or low-mobility networks, where its applications where low latency is critical, such
greedy forwarding approach can as real-time control or multimedia streaming,
minimize delay and maximize GPSR may be more suitable, provided that the
throughput. Flooding is best suited for network is relatively static. For small, low-
small, low-density networks where density networks where energy consumption is
energy consumption is less of a concern not a major concern, Flooding may be
and simplicity is more important. sufficient due to its simplicity.

Further research could investigate the

performance of these protocols in more
complex and realistic WSN scenarios, such as
those with heterogeneous node capabilities,
unreliable communication links, or dynamic
environmental conditions. Additionally, the
development of new routing protocols that
combine the strengths of different approaches
and address the limitations of existing
protocols remains an important area of
research.