Power Efficient Data Gathering and Aggregation

in Wireless Sensor Networks

ur Tan and Ibrahim Korpeoglu
Huseyin Ozg
Department of Computer Engineering, Bilkent University
06800 Ankara, Turkey
E-mail:{hozgur,korpe}@cs.bilkent.edu.tr
Abstract Recent developments in processor, memory and
radio technology have enabled wireless sensor networks which are
deployed to collect useful information from an area of interest.
The sensed data must be gathered and transmitted to a base
station where it is further processed for end-user queries. Since
the network consists of low-cost nodes with limited battery power,
power efficient methods must be employed for data gathering and
aggregation in order to achieve long network lifetimes.
In an environment where in a round of communication each
of the sensor nodes has data to send to a base station, it is
important to minimize the total energy consumed by the system
in a round so that the system lifetime is maximized. With the
use of data fusion and aggregation techniques, while minimizing
the total energy per round, if power consumption per node can
be balanced as well, a near optimal data gathering and routing
scheme can be achieved in terms of network lifetime.
So far, besides the conventional protocol of direct transmission,
two elegant protocols called LEACH and PEGASIS have been
proposed to maximize the lifetime of a sensor network. In this
paper, we propose two new algorithms under name PEDAP
(Power Efficient Data gathering and Aggregation Protocol),
which are near optimal minimum spanning tree based routing
schemes, where one of them is the power-aware version of the
other. Our simulation results show that our algorithms perform
well both in systems where base station is far away from and
where it is in the center of the field. PEDAP achieves between 4x
to 20x improvement in network lifetime compared with LEACH,
and about three times improvement compared with PEGASIS.

I. I NTRODUCTION
With the introduction of low-cost processor, memory, and
radio technologies, it becomes possible to build inexpensive
wireless micro-sensor nodes. Although these sensors are not so
powerful compared to their expensive macro-sensor counterparts, by using hundreds or thousands of them it is possible to
build a high quality, fault-tolerant sensor network. These networks can be used to collect useful information from an area
of interest, especially where the physical environment is so
harsh that the macro-sensor counterparts cannot be deployed.
They have a wide range of applications, from military to civil,
that may be realized by using different type of sensor devices
with different capabilities for different kinds of environments
[1].
The main constraint of sensor nodes is their very low finite
battery energy, which limits the lifetime and the quality of
the network. For that reason, the protocols running on sensor
networks must consume the resources of the nodes efficiently
in order to achieve a longer network lifetime. There is an ongoing research on power management issues in order to reduce
the power consumption when the nodes become idle [2]. When
power efficient communication is considered, it is important to

maximize the nodes lifetimes, reduce bandwidth requirements

by using local collaboration among the nodes, and tolerate
node failures, besides delivering the data efficiently.
There are several power efficient protocols defined for
wireless ad-hoc networks ([3], [4]). When sensor networks are
considered, Chang and Tassiulas ([5], [6]) give data routing
algorithms which maximizes the system lifetime where only
some of the nodes have data to send and where there can be
more than one base station. In another work by Bhardwaj et
al. [7], the upper bounds on the lifetime of sensor networks
are derived. There are also different protocols proposed in the
literature ([8], [9], [10]) to maximize the lifetime of the system
under different circumstances.
Since data generated in a sensor network is too much for an
end-user to process, methods for combining data into a small
set of meaningful information is required. A simple way of
doing that is aggregating (sum, average, min, max, count)
the data originating from different nodes. A more elegant
solution is data fusion which can be defined as combination
of several unreliable data measurements to produce a more
accurate signal by enhancing the common signal and reducing
the uncorrelated noise [11]. These approaches have been used
by different protocols ([11], [12]) so far, because of the fact
that they improve the performance of a sensor network in an
order of magnitude by reducing the amount of data transmitted
in the system.
There are various models for sensor networks. In this work
we mainly consider a sensor network environment where:
Each node periodically senses its nearby environment and
would like to send its data to a base station located at a
fixed point.
Sensor nodes are homogeneous and energy constrained.
Sensor nodes and base station are stationary.
Data fusion or aggregation is used to reduce the number
of messages in the network. We assume that combining
n packets of size k results in one packet of size k instead
of size nk.
The aim is efficient transmission of all the data to the base
station so that the lifetime of the network is maximized in
terms of rounds, where a round is defined as the process of
gathering all the data from sensor nodes to the base station,
regardless of how much time it takes.
Direct transmission is a simple approach for this problem
in which each node transmits its own data directly to the
base station. However, if the base station is far away, the
cost of sending data to it become too large and the nodes
will die quickly. In order to solve this problem, two elegant

protocols LEACH [11] and PEGASIS [12] are proposed. In

LEACH, the key idea is to reduce the number of nodes
communicating directly with the base station. The protocol
achieves this by forming a small number of clusters in a selforganizing manner, where each cluster-head collects the data
from nodes in its cluster, fuses and sends the result to the
base station. LEACH also uses randomization in cluster-head
selection and achieves up to 8x improvement compared to the
direct transmission approach. PEGASIS takes it further and
reduces the number of nodes communicating directly with the
base station to one by forming a chain passing through all
nodes where each node receives from and transmits to the
closest possible neighbor. The data is collected starting from
each endpoint of the chain until the randomized head-node is
reached. The data is fused each time it moves from node to
node. The designated head-node is responsible for transmitting
the final data to the base station. PEGASIS achieves a better
performance than LEACH by between 100% and 300% in
terms of network lifetime.
In this work, we propose a new minimum spanning treebased protocol called PEDAP (Power Efficient Data gathering and Aggregation Protocol) and its power-aware version.
PEDAP prolongs the lifetime of the last node in the system
while providing a good lifetime for the first node, whereas
its power-aware version provides near optimal lifetime for the
first node although slightly decreasing the lifetime of the last
node. Another advantage of our protocols is they improve the
lifetime of the system even if the base station is inside the
field, whereas LEACH and PEGASIS cannot.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section
2, we formulate our system model and the data gathering
problem. The PEDAP protocols are described in detail in
Section 3. Next, in Section 4 we present our simulation results
compared with other known algorithms. The feasibility of
implementation of our algorithms is discussed in Section 5.
Finally, we conclude the paper and present future research
directions in Section 6.

As mentioned in [11], the energy required for receiving a

message is not so low. Therefore, the routing protocols must
also minimize the number of receive and transmit operations
for a specific node while minimizing the transmit distances.
It is also important to note that the cost of one transmission
of a k-bit packet to the system is either:
Cij (k) = 2 Eelec k + Eamp k d2ij

(3)

Ci0 (k) =

(4)

or
Eelec k + Eamp k d2ib

where Cij is the cost of transmission between node i and

node j, Ci0 is the cost between node i and the base station,
dij is the distance between node i and node j, and dib is
the distance between node i and the base station. Since Ci0 is
smaller than Cij when the term with Eamp is much smaller
than the term with Eelec , for the overall system lifetime it can
be advantageous to increase the number of transmissions to
the base station.
The parameter values used in our work are the same as
those used in LEACH and PEGASIS, in order to see the level
of energy savings that our protocols can achieve.
B. Problem Statement

(1)
(2)

In this work, our main consideration is wireless sensor

networks where the sensors are randomly distributed over an
area of interest. The locations of sensors are fixed and the
base station knows them all a priori . The sensors are in direct
communication range of each other and can transmit to and
receive from the base station. The nodes periodically sense
the environment and have always data to send in each round
(period) of communication. The nodes aggregate or fuse the
data they receive from the others with their own data, and
produce only one packet regardless of how many packets they
receive.
The problem is to find a routing scheme to deliver data
packets collected from sensor nodes to the base station, which
maximizes the lifetime of the sensor network under the system
model given above. However, the definition of the lifetime
is not clear unless the kind of service the sensor network
provides is given. In applications where the time that all the
nodes operate together is important, since the quality of the
system will be dramatically decreased after first node death
lifetime is defined as the number of rounds until the first
sensor is drained of its energy. In another case, where the
nodes are densely deployed, the quality of the system is not
affected until a significant amount of nodes die, since adjacent
nodes record identical or related data. In this case, the lifetime
of the network is the time elapsed until half of the nodes
or some specified portion of the nodes die. In general, the
time in rounds where the last node depletes all of its energy
defines the lifetime of the overall sensor network. Taking these
different possible requirements under consideration, our work

It is also assumed that the radio channel is symmetric, which

means the cost of transmitting a message from A to B is the
same as the cost of transmitting a message from B to A.

This information can be entered manually to the base station, or the base
station can get the coordinates from the nodes if the nodes are equipped with
GPS, or alternatively techniques like triangulation can be used.

II. S YSTEM M ODEL AND P ROBLEM

A. Radio Model
Recently, there is a significant amount of work in the area of
building low-energy radios. In our work, we used the first order
radio model presented in [11]. In the specified radio model, the
energy dissipation of the radio in order to run the transmitter
or receiver circuitry is equal to Eelec = 50nJ/bit, and to run
the transmit amplifier it is equal to Eamp = 100pJ/bit/m2 . It
is also assumed an r2 energy loss due to channel transmission.
Therefore, the energy expended to transmit a k-bit packet to
a distance d and to receive that packet with this radio model
is:
ET x (k, d) =
ERx (k) =

Eelec k + Eamp k d2
Eelec k

Fig. 1.

Chain based routing scheme on a sample network.

gives timings of all deaths for all algorithms in detail and

leaves the decision which one to choose to system designers.
C. Energy Analysis for Data Routing
In [11], the energy dissipations in MTE (MinimumTransmission-Energy) routing and direct transmission are
compared and it is figured out that an ideal system must use
a hybrid of both when the base station is far away from the
nodes. The authors propose a two-level clustering hierarchy
based routing scheme, in which the number of nodes (clusterheads) that transmit data to the base station is reduced to
5%, while all of other nodes determine their closest gateway
(cluster-head) to the base station in order to send their data.
The cluster-heads are chosen randomly in order to make the
system lifetime longer. However, since this algorithm is purely
random, it is far from optimal.
In [12], authors noticed that in a close neighborhood, the
cost of running receive or transmit circuitry is larger than the
cost of running the amplifier circuitry for a single node. So
they propose a scheme where all nodes receive and transmit
only once over the edges of a chain passing through all nodes
and whose length is close to minimum. In each round, a
special node is selected randomly to send the fused data to
the base station. Thus, only one node communicates with the
base station. The algorithm works fine when the base station
is far away from the field in which case the cost of sending
data to the base station is almost the same for all nodes. In
that case, regardless of who sends data to the base station,
for a round of communication the algorithm tries to minimize
the energy consumed by each node, in turn maximizes the
lifetime of the nodes. Figure 1 shows a routing scheme that
[12] computes for a sample network.
However, when the base station is inside the field (close to
the center), both of the protocols perform poor. This is mainly
because they do not take the exact cost of sending data to base
station into account and make a decision according to that.
In addition to this, the approaches so far have not considered
minimizing the total energy consumed per-round in the system.
We believe that the main idea, in order to maximize the
network lifetime, should be to minimize the total energy
expended in the system in a round of communication, while
balancing the energy consumption among the nodes.
The first part of the idea can be realized optimally by
computing a minimum spanning tree over the sensor network

Fig. 2. Minimum spanning tree based routing scheme on a sample network.

with link costs Cij (given in Equation 3) among the nodes and
Ci0 (given in Equation 4) between the nodes and base station.
The data packets are then routed to the base station over the
edges of the computed minimum spanning tree. We call this
routing strategy as PEDAP (Power Efficient Data gathering
and Aggregation Protocol). Figure 2 illustrates the idea on a
sample network. Although PEDAP does not take the balancing
issue into account, it always achieves a good lifetime for the
last node. This is because, until the time the first node dies, the
minimum possible energy is expended from the whole system.
So the total remaining energy is optimum for the rest of the
nodes. This is true for each death, thus after each node death
the remaining energy in the system is maximum. So PEDAP
protocol achieves almost the optimum lifetime for the last node
in the system, while providing a good lifetime for the first
node.
In order to achieve the second part of the idea, balancing the
load (henceforth the energy consumption) among the nodes,
we can use the information about the remaining energy of each
node. When the base station is far away from the nodes, the
node that dies first is usually the one that sends aggregated and
fused data to the base station. So, a node with low remaining
energy would not want to send to the base station. That node
would like to expend its remaining energy by sending to a
nearby neighbor and thus try to maximize its lifetime. Also a
low-energy node would not like to receive many packets from
others, since receiving is a high cost operation too. Its tendency
would be only to send its data and not to receive anything from
others. In order to achieve these, a slight change in the cost
functions helps us. The new cost functions will be as follows:
2 Eelec k + Eamp k d2ij
(5)
ei
Eelec k + Eamp k d2ib
Ci0 (k) =
,
(6)
ei
where ei is the remaining energy of node i, which is normalized with respect to the maximum possible energy in the
battery (i.e. 0 ei 1).
As it can be noticed, now the cost of communication
between the nodes is not symmetric. According to Equation 5,
the cost of sending a message from a node i to its neighbors increases as the remaining energy of node i decreases. Although
this new formula usually does not change the selection of the
neighbor which a node sends, it postpones the inclusion of
Cij (k) =

that node in the spanning tree. The later a node is included

in the spanning tree, the fewer number of messages it will
receive. According to Equation 6, for a low-energy node the
cost of sending to the base station is increased, and thereby
the willingness to send to the base station for that node is
decreased. So, if the minimum spanning tree algorithm would
be executed periodically every certain number of rounds (such
as 100), a more power efficient routing scheme is found for the
next period, depending on the current situation (the nodes that
are alive and their energy levels). This is the idea behind the
power-aware version of PEDAP, which we will call PEDAPPA (Power Efficient Data gathering and Aggregation Protocol
- Power Aware).
III. PEDAP A LGORITHMS D ETAILS
The PEDAP protocols assume the locations of all nodes
are known by base station a priori. They are both centralized
algorithms where the base station is responsible for computing
the routing information. This is because, in systems where
some elements are resource limited whereas one or more
elements are powerful, it is desirable to give the computation
load to the more powerful elements of the system.
The routing information is computed using Prims minimum
spanning tree algorithm where base station is the root. The
algorithm works as follows: Initially, we put a node in the
tree which is the base station in our case. After that, in
each iteration we select the minimum weighted edge from
a vertex in the tree to a vertex not in the tree, and add that
edge to the tree. In our case this means that the vertex just
included in the tree will send its data through that edge. We
repeat this procedure until all nodes are added to the tree.
In Figure 2, the resulting routing paths are illustrated for a
sample network. The running time complexity of the algorithm
is O(n2 ) assuming there are n nodes in the network.
As seen, the base station is included in the network graph.
Thus, by computing a minimum spanning tree over this graph
with the cost functions given as above and by routing packets
according to that spanning tree, we achieve a minimum energy

consuming system. Besides knowing the locations of the

nodes, the base station can also estimate the remaining energy
levels of the nodes by using the given cost model, since it
knows how much energy a node spends in a round. After some
certain number of rounds passed (e.g.100) the base station recomputes the routing information excluding the dead nodes.
After each computation, the base station sends each node the
required information for that node (i.e. the nodes parent in the
tree in order to reach to the base station; the time slot number
when the node will send its data to its parent in a round; from
how many different neighbors the node will receive packets in
a round and when; etc.). So, the cost of setting-up the system
with the new routing information is equal to only the sum of
costs of running the receiver circuitry of each node. Therefore,
the set-up cost for periodically establishing the scheme is very
small compared to LEACH and PEGASIS.
For the two algorithms proposed in this work, the protocols
are the same. Only thing that must be changed is the cost
functions. So switching between the two proposed algorithms
requires only a small change in the base station and no changes
in sensor nodes. This makes our algorithms preferable when
different applications with different lifetime requirements will
be executed in the same sensor network from time to time.
IV. S IMULATION R ESULTS
In order to evaluate the performance of our algorithms, we
simulated five different routing schemes: Direct transmission,
LEACH, PEGASIS, PEDAP and PEDAP-PA, the later two
being our proposals. The simulations are done in C. We
generate networks of diameters 50 m and 100 m randomly,
each having 100 nodes. We repeated the simulations for the
same network twice: one with a distant base station, other
with a base station in the center. We located the base station
to point (0, 100) in simulations where it is distant. We
ran the simulations with different network sizes and different
initial energy levels. The aim was to determine the timings
of node deaths (in terms of rounds) until the last node dies.
Once a node dies, we consider it dead for the rest of the

3000

3000
direct
leach
pedap
pegasis
pedappa

2500

2500

2000
Time (rounds)

Time (rounds)

2000

1500

1500

1000

1000

500

500

direct
leach
pedap
pegasis
pedappa

10

20

30

40
50
60
Number of Node Deaths

70

80

90

100

Fig. 3. Timings of node deaths in a network of size 50 m x 50 m - The

base station is distant from the field.

10

20

30

40
50
60
Number of Node Deaths

70

80

90

100

Fig. 4. Timings of node deaths in a network of size 100 m x 100 m - The

base station is distant from the field.

5000

5000
direct
leach
pedap
pegasis
pedappa

4000

4000

3500

3500

3000

3000

2500

2500

2000

2000

1500

1500

1000

1000

500

500

10

direct
leach
pedap
pegasis
pedappa

4500

Time (rounds)

Time (rounds)

4500

20

30

40
50
60
Number of Node Death

70

80

90

100

10

20

30

40
50
60
Number of Node Deaths

70

80

90

100

Fig. 5. Timings of node deaths in a network of size 50 m x 50 m - The

base station is in the center.

Fig. 6. Timings of node deaths in a network of size 100 m x 100 m - The

base station is in the center.

simulation. We re-computed the routing information every 100

rounds for all algorithms. This parameter is important for the
actual system performance. A small value leads better results
for all algorithms. However, in that case the set-up costs,
which are not included in the simulations, may dominate the
communication costs.
Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the timings of all deaths for
networks whose diameters are 50 m and 100 m respectively
and where the base station is far away from the field. As
seen, while LEACH and direct transmission perform far from
optimal, PEGASIS provides a good improvement in both
cases. However, PEDAP-PA further improves the lifetime of
the first node about 400%, while providing almost the same
lifetime for the last node, compared with PEGASIS. On the
other hand, compared again with PEGASIS, PEDAP improves
the lifetime of the last node about 25%, while providing almost
the same lifetime for the first node.

Figure 5 and 6 provide the same information, but in this

case the base station is located in the center of the field. Now,
both PEDAP and PEDAP-PA improve the lifetime of the last
node about two times compared with PEGASIS and LEACH.
The improved value is the same as it is in direct transmission,
which is optimum. As for the first node death time, both
PEDAP protocols improve it when compared with others.
However, PEDAP-PA achieves about two times improvement
over PEDAP. Therefore, we can conclude that PEDAP-PA is
the best performing algorithm for systems where base station
is in the center of the field. It gives the best lifetime for the
first node, while providing the optimum lifetime for the last.
However, if the nodes are not power-aware, PEDAP is a good
alternative for the same environment.
Table I and Table II summarize the results for two different
base station locations and for three different initial energy
levels in a network of diameter 100 m. In these tables, FND

TABLE I
T IMINGS OF NODE DEATHS . BASE STATION IS IN THE CENTER

TABLE II
T IMINGS OF NODE DEATHS . BASE STATION IS DISTANT FROM THE FIELD

Energy(J)

Protocol

FND

HND

LND

0.25

DIRECT
LEACH
PEGASIS
PEDAP
PEDAP-PA

596
297
439
1228
2177

1147
1247
2259
2334
2352

4836
2223
2667
4836
4836

0.50

DIRECT
LEACH
PEGASIS
PEDAP
PEDAP-PA

1192
1036
774
2455
4353

2293
2927
4496
4668
4688

9672
4362
5175
9672
9672

1.00

DIRECT
LEACH
PEGASIS
PEDAP
PEDAP-PA

2383
2627
1428
4910
8705

4586
5603
9036
9336
9378

19343
7747
10443
19343
19343

Energy(J)

Protocol

FND

HND

LND

0.25

DIRECT
LEACH
PEGASIS
PEDAP
PEDAP-PA

61
60
184
213
998

104
255
1856
2135
2103

223
632
2190
2674
2217

0.50

DIRECT
LEACH
PEGASIS
PEDAP
PEDAP-PA

121
123
1070
426
2897

208
661
3767
4271
4067

445
2134
4344
5337
4272

1.00

DIRECT
LEACH
PEGASIS
PEDAP
PEDAP-PA

242
351
1332
851
6899

416
1983
7309
8544
7763

889
3961
8536
10665
8438

and LND stand for the times at which the first and the last
node die. HND stands for the time at which half of the nodes
die. Note that the performance of LEACH is very close to
direct communication in all simulations. This is because we
recompute the routing information every 100 rounds, which
is a reasonable number. So, LEACH protocol consumes too
much energy until 100th round.
Also it is worth to note that doubling initial energy level
almost doubles the lifetimes in all protocols as expected. In
PEDAP-PA, however, when the initial energy is doubled, the
lifetime of first node increases about 2.5 times. We believe that
this is because PEDAP-PA finds more chance to recompute
the routing information with increasing initial energy. As
the number of re-computations increases, more energy saving
routing paths are achieved, since PEDAP-PA is power-aware
unlike others.
V. I MPLEMENTATION
In this section, we consider firstly the basic environment
for implementing our algorithms in a real-life situation. After
that, we discuss other environments where our algorithms are
also feasible to implement. First of all, for our algorithms to
work, every node should be able to communicate with base
station and with each other. The locations of nodes must be
known by the base station a priori, which can be done either
by manually entering coordinates, or by means of methods
such as triangulation, or by using GPS. We do not consider
the length of a round. This is reasonable for applications where
the measurements are taken infrequently such as periodic
measurements of average temperature in an area of interest.
We divided each round into stages whose length is equal
to the time to send a message multiplied by the maximum of
the in-degrees of the nodes in the minimum spanning tree. The
number of stages is determined by the depth of the tree. In the
first stage, all leaf nodes at maximum depth send their data
to their parents. The parents apply TDMA multiple access
scheme among their children. Each node sends its message
with its parents CDMA code, in order to prevent collisions
with the messages of other nodes sending to different parents
at the same time. In the next stages, the procedure climbs one
level up until it reaches the root, the base station. After 100
such rounds all nodes stop sending their data, and turn on their
receivers to get the information about the new routing paths
computed by the base station.
Our algorithms can also work in environments where all the
nodes and the base station are not in direct communication
range of each other. In this case, a distributed minimum
spanning tree algorithm [13] can work. However, this method
increases set-up cost dramatically. On the other hand, if
the base station can still transmit to all the nodes directly,
the scheme can be efficiently computed at the base station
assumming the visibility graph is given.
VI. C ONCLUSION AND F UTURE W ORK
In this work, we present PEDAP and PEDAP-PA, two power
efficient data gathering and aggregation protocols based on

minimum spanning tree routing scheme. We show through

simulations that our algorithms perform near optimal. PEDAP
outperforms previous approaches, LEACH and PEGASIS, by
constructing minimum energy consuming routing for each
round of communication. PEDAP-PA takes it further and tries
to balance the load among the nodes. Minimizing the total
energy of the system while distributing the load evenly to the
nodes has a great impact on system lifetime. This is confirmed
through simulations.
Our simulations show that if keeping all the nodes working
together is important, PEDAP-PA performs best among others,
regardless of the position of the base station. On the other
hand, if the lifetime of the last node is important or the nodes
are not power-aware, PEDAP is a good alternative.
It is worth to note that our algorithms also perform well
when the base station is inside the field. There have been no
approaches so far for this scenario except direct transmission.
Although the simulations done in C makes us strongly
believe that our algorithms will outperform others in a real
environment, we will extend the network simulator ns to
simulate PEDAP protocols in order to verify our results in
a closer to real environment.
R EFERENCES
[1] I. F. Akyildiz, W. Su, Y. Sankarasubramaniam, and E. Cayirci, Wireless
sensor networks: A survey, Computer Networks, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 393
422, 2002.
[2] A. Sinha and A. Chandrakasan, Dynamic power management in wireless sensor networks, Trans. Design and Test of Computers, vol. 18,
no. 2, pp. 6274, Mar./Apr. 2001.
[3] S. Singh, M. Woo, and C. S. Raghavendra, Power-aware routing in
mobile ad hoc networks, in Mobile Computing and Networking, 1998,
pp. 181190.
[4] I. Stojmenovic and X. Lin., Power-aware localized routing in wireless
networks, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems,
vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 11221133, 2001.
[5] J.-H. Chang and L. Tassiulas, Energy conserving routing in wireless
ad-hoc networks, in IEEE INFOCOM 2000, March 2000, pp. 2231.
[6] J. Chang and L. Tassiulas, Maximum lifetime routing in wireless
sensor networks, in Proceedings of Advanced Telecommunications and
Information Distribution Research Program, College Park, MD, 2000.
[7] M. Bhardwaj, A. Chandrakasan, and T. Garnett, Upper bounds on
the lifetime of sensor networks, in IEEE International Conference on
Communications, 2001, pp. 785790.
[8] C. Intanagonwiwat, R. Govindan, and D. Estrin, Directed diffusion: a
scalable and robust communication paradigm for sensor networks, in
Mobile Computing and Networking, 2000, pp. 5667.
[9] W. Heinzelman, J. Kulik, and H. Balakrishnan, Adaptive protocols for
information dissemination in wireless sensor networks, in MOBICOM,
1999, pp. 174185.
[10] K. Kalpakis, K. Dasgupta, and P. Namjoshi, Maximum lifetime data
gathering and aggregation in wireless sensor networks, in Proceedings
of the 2002 IEEE International Conference on Networking (ICN02),
August 2002, pp. 685696.
[11] W. R. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, and H. Balakrishnan, Energyefficient communication protocol for wireless microsensor networks,
in 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,,
2000, pp. 3005 3014.
[12] S. Lindsey and C. S. Raghavendra, Pegasis: Power-efficient gathering
in sensor information systems, in IEEE Aerospace Conference, March
2002.
[13] R. G. Gallager, P. A. Humblet, and P. M. Spira, A distributed algorithm
for minimum-weight spanning trees, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 6677, January 1983.