See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329317560

Energy Efficient Localization in Wireless Sensor Networks Using Computational

Intelligence

Article · October 2018

DOI: 10.1109/HONET.2018.8551332

CITATIONS READS
10 371

3 authors, including:

Zeeshan Najam Khan Haider Rizvi

MNSUET Multan National University of Sciences and Technology
55 PUBLICATIONS 222 CITATIONS 7 PUBLICATIONS 25 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Haider Rizvi on 30 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Energy Efficient Localization in Wireless Sensor
Networks Using Computational Intelligence
Junaid Akram Zeeshan Najam Haider Rizwi
RCMS, NUST SEECS, NUST RCMS, NUST
Islamabad, Pakistan Islamabad, Pakistan Islamabad, Pakistan
jakram.mscse15@rcms.nust.edu.pk zeeshan.najam@seecs.edu.pk hani-rizvi@hotmail.com

Abstract—Wireless Sensor Networks consist of many sensing relaxations to the localization problem regarding the nodes
devices which are distributed inside of a given area. Each sensor ordering, anchor nodes distribution, or global information
node consists of multiple heterogeneous components such as sharing were also discussed in [5] and [6].
power supply, CPU, memory, and a transceiver. Since the location
of sensors is needed in most of the WSNs, Trilateration-based Trilateration-based localization (TBL) and Multilateration-
localization (TBL) has been used to locate the sensors in the based localization (MBL) techniques are among the well-
network. This study formulates the concern on how wireless known and most used methods for localization. In this study,
sensor networks can take advantage of the computational intel- the various performance aspects of the TBL algorithm are
ligent techniques using both single and multi-objective particle examined through the application of single and multi-objective
swarm optimization (PSO) with an overall aim of concurrently
minimizing the required time for localization, minimizing energy variants of particle swarm optimization (PSO). We imple-
consumed during localization, and maximizing the number of mented two version of PSO in this study to allow nodes to
nodes fully localized through the adjustment of wireless sensor vary the transmission power level when broadcasting messages
transmission ranges while using TBL process. A parameter-study during localization. Trade-offs between multiple objectives
of the applied PSO variants is performed, leading to results that (the number of transmitted messages, number of localized
show algorithmic improvements of up to 21% in the evaluated
objectives. nodes, power consumption and the time needed to localize
Index Terms—Wireless Sensor Networks, Trilateration, Local- as many nodes as possible) are studied.
ization, Particle Swarm Optimization The paper present the results of two implemented versions
of the particle swarm optimization and clearly show the
I. I NTRODUCTION performance of them while trying to optimize the WSN work.
Wireless sensor networks (WSN) consist of many sensing The key novelty of this paper is the optimization of the
devices which are distributed inside of a given area. Sensors in power consumption of the whole network without the need to
the network carry out different tasks such as recording weather cluster or build any small sensor islands such as in [7]. This
conditions, sensing motion, or recording sounds in addition to study takes advantage of the functionalities of toady’s WSNs
many other tasks. In WSNs, sensors cooperate with each other nodes to enhance the performance of the whole network, the
to formulate a fully connected network to allow information ZigBee technology of transceivers in wireless nodes made
sharing between the network nodes. Such networks have that possible by allowing us to use multiple transmission
many applications both for civilian and military purposes, the power levels, where the different variants of PSO were used
position of sensing devices that record the humidity of a place to programmically change the transmission level after the
or the position of a military vehicle in a war zone are two evaluation of the designed fitness functions.
examples of such applications where knowing the location of
the information source is very important. II. L ITERATURE R EVIEW
Wireless sensor nodes in WSNs may be positioned perma-
nently or dynamically in a field depending on the localization WSNs consist of many sensing devices which are distributed
protocol and nodes functionalities as thoroughly discussed in inside of a given area. Sensors in the network carry out
[1]. For permanent localization scenarios, knowing the location different tasks such as recording weather conditions, sensing
of the sensor is not a problem throughout the life time of the motion, or recording sounds in addition to many other tasks
network; but in dynamic networks, localizing nodes can be [8]. In WSNs, sensors cooperate with each other to formulate a
time and power consuming and, in some scenarios, a lack fully connected network to allow information sharing between
of accuracy may occur. To solve problems of localization the network nodes. The collected information can also be
accuracy and increase the number of localized nodes in a sent to a command and control center for processing and
time critical localization scenarios, meta-heuristic solutions decision making. Such networks have many applications both
and novel range-based iterative localization algorithms have for civilian and military purposes, yet finding the actual
previously been proposed in [2], [3] and [4]. Additionally, to location of a single sensor in any type of WSN is important.
allow mapping localization solutions into real world scenarios For example, it can be used in military applications to detect
infiltration and target tracking or for environmental monitoring [14]. On the other hand, the Atmel AT86RF230 transceiver,
and forest fire control. as the CC2420, allow varying the output power but not only
between 8 levels, instead, between 16 discrete levels ranging
A. WSN Localization from 3 dBm to 17:2 dBm. Having more output power levels
Each sensor node consists of multiple heterogeneous allow minimum length of intervals than what the CC2420 can
components such as power supply, CPU, memory, and a provide.
transceiver. Since the location of sensors is needed in most Previous studies took advantage of such functionalities and
of the WSNs, sensors can be equipped with an additional tried to optimize the power consumption by varying the output
component such as a Geographic Positioning System (GPS) power as in [15], where the output power of nodes were varied
device. However, sensor nodes are spread in significantly large based on the distance between the communicated nodes after
quantities, therefore, it does not seem to be a cost-effective sharing the information using the Request to Send/Clear to
solution to equip all nodes with a GPS device. As a result, a Send mechanism. Additionally, in [16] a localization proto-
scheme other than GPS is needed to locate the sensors. col was proposed to optimize the power consumption after
Localization in WSNs is a challenging task due to the clustering nodes based on the used power levels. In most of
inherent characteristics of the network such as the constrained the simulations and studies done in literature, they tried to
resources of sensor nodes which lead to limited computational change the power level sequentially while observing the effect
and communication capabilities, and power limitations due of using different power levels, or assign power levels to nodes
to the use of batteries to power the nodes. Further, the randomly.
information regarding an entire network, including its topology Table 6.1 of the CC2420 data sheet [17] lists the five differ-
and technology, is often not available at a single node. Due ent modes in which the transceiver consumes different amount
to this lack of information, there is a requirement for the of power, the five modes are: Voltage regulator off(OFF);
localization protocol of a given network to be distributed. Power Down mode (PD); Idle mode (IDLE); Receive mode;
A wireless network can be formed by spreading sensors and finally, the Transmit mode. Depending on the localization
in a terrain manually or through an airplane depending on protocol, all of the other modes including the transmit mode
the terrain conditions. Additionally, nodes in WSNs may be will be affected by the steps and behavior of the localization
positioned permanently or dynamically in a field [1]. For procedure. For example, longer localization time means more
permanent localization scenarios, knowing the location of the power consumption due to the power consumed while in the
sensor is not a problem throughout the life time of the network, idle mode.
but in dynamic networks localizing nodes can be time and
power consuming and, in some scenarios, a lack of accuracy III. PARTICLE S WARM O PTIMIZATION
may occur. PSO is a meta-heuristic self-adaptive technique for load
To avoid high costs, two different types of nodes are used balancing. In PSO algorithm solutions are known as particle
within a typical WSN: Anchor and Blind nodes. Anchor nodes and population is known as the swarm. Each particle in PSO
are the ones aware of their positions through the use of the consists of fitness value through which fitness function is
aforementioned devices which allow the node to obtain its evaluated. Each particle has a particular position in the entire
position in the global coordinate system (using GPS), or by group. It is a population-based search algorithm inspired from
deploying the node in known positions in the local coordinate fish schooling and bird flocking. Every particle is aware of
system. Blind nodes then rely on the anchor nodes to estimate population around them. Particles learn from their neighboring
their positions in the respective coordinate system [1]. Trilat- particles and themselves. All versions of PSO algorithm start
eration and multilateration based localization (TBL and MBL) by creating a number of particles to form a swarm that travels
techniques are among the best known and most used methods in the problem space searching for an optimum solution. An
for localization. TBL and MBL allow blind nodes to localize objective function should be defined to examine every solution
themselves based on the difference in distance between the found by each particle throughout the traveling time. A particle
blind nodes and the neighbor anchor nodes [9]. in this method is considered as a position in D-dimensional
space, where each element can take a continuous value be-
B. Power Consumption in WSNs tween a fixed upper and lower bounds. Additionally, each
Wireless sensor nodes often use solar cells to extend the bat- particle has a D-dimensional velocity, where each element also
tery life in order to allow nodes to run for longer times. Other can take a bounded continuous value. Alternately, the elements
methods of extending battery life are the intelligent slowing of the positions matrix of the binary PSO can take the binary
of power consumption through a reduction in listening time value of 0 or 1, where the value of each element of the velocity
[10], increasing the sleep time [11], or modifying sampling matrix is in the range [0, 1].
rates [12]. Another method of accomplishing power reduction The individuals in PSO are a group of particles that move
is the use of multiple transmission ranges as is seen in the well- through a search space with a given velocity. At each iteration
known CC2420 ZigBee RF transceivers [13]. CC2420 allow the velocity and position of each particle is stochastically
nodes to transmit messages using eight discrete output power updated by combining the particle’s current solution, the
levels, as discussed in section 28 of the transceiver data sheet particle’s personal best solution or p̂i , and the global best
solution or ĝ over all particles. The required mathematics • To avoid filling up the leaders archive, a crowding
operating over a continuous space is listed in (1) to (5) where distance based on the non-dominated sorting genetic
ω is the inertial constant, c1 and c2 represent cognitive and algorithm-II (NSGA-II) is used to decide which particles
social constants that are usually ∼ 2, and r1 and r2 are must remain in the archive.
random numbers. mRange and xRange are the minimum • A mutation operator is applied to a portion of the swarm
and maximum transmission ranges respectively, and Ran is a to improve the exploration and search ability and to
random number between 0 and xRange. (1) to (3) are used avoid premature convergence. Using the mutation method
to update the velocity of the ith component of particle p, allowed us to give up using a simulated annealing method
where (4) and (5) are used to update the position of that same used to enhance the SOPSO performance by dynamically
component. varying the inertia weight value.

vi = ωvi + c1 r1 (p̂i − pi ) + c2 r2 (ĝ − pi ) (1) IV. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION

The method proposed in this study involves the use of
xRange − mRange single- and multi-objective PSO to choose the appropriate,
δ= (2)
2 discrete or continuous output power levels for each wireless
( sensor node, in order to optimize various single or combi-
mRange If vi < δ nations of objectives including localization time, messages
vi = (3)
δ Otherwise sent during localization, and power consumed. Appropriately,
the remainder of this section will examine the use of the
pi = Ran = vi (4) previously discussed three discrete power ranges and the
continuous transmission ranges in the variants of the designed
 PSO.
mRange If pi < mRange

In order to implement PSO, multiple objective functions
vi = xRange If pi > xRange (5) as well as a problem specific representation are defined in

pi If mRange ≤ pi ≤ xRange the following sections. Two variants of PSO are presented


Above equations indicate that the velocity of neighbors and including 1) A binary single objective PSO, 2) A binary multi-
the current velocity of the particle itself will contribute in objective PSO, and 3) A continuous multi-objective PSO.
deciding the next position of the particle. In order for a particle
A. Objective Functions
to keep up with the other particles during the search of a
solution, each particle adapts to the velocity of the swarm as As previously mentioned, the SOPSO and MOPSO algo-
a whole by learning from itself and its neighbor particles. Ad- rithms are used in order to intelligently adjust the various
ditionally, to improve the performance of the Single Objective discrete power ranges or the continuous transmission ranges
PSO (SOPSO), the inertia weight (ω) in (1) can be modified of each sensor node. Accordingly, a representation consisting
dynamically (instead of a constant value) using mechanisms of N dimensions is used in order to represent each sensor that
such as the simulated annealing to increase the probability is deployed in the field. Furthermore, the objective functions
of finding a near-optimal solution in fewer iterations and for messages sent, time required for localization, power con-
computing time. Multi-objective Problems (MOPs) are known sumption, and number of nodes localized are calculated as
to have many contradictory objectives where enhancing the follows:
result of one objective will have a negative impact on the other • Messages sent: Depending on the localization procedure
objectives involved. Multi-Objective PSO (MOPSO) attempts and communication mechanism between nodes, the num-
to effectively find a solution or a set of solutions that ensure ber of messages sent back and forth between nodes
a balance between all the involved objectives. The main will vary. However, in this study we assume that each
differences between the SOPSO and the MOPSO algorithms already localized node will broadcast once in order to
are: help other non-localized nodes achieve localization. Thus,
• MOPSO does not have a single global best solution, the the number of sent messages depends on the number of
of the SOPSO in (1), that all particles learn from when localized nodes.
they update their velocities in each iteration. Instead, • Time required: In the proposed method, one unit of time
MOPSO will have an archive of particles called leaders, is equivalent to one step in which sender nodes broadcast
where each leader is a potential solution of the problem. their locations and receivers receive the information.
So instead of having only one global best solution the The step ends by running the location estimation using
MOPSO will keep track of different solutions and use TBL method for each blind node that receives at least
them randomly to lead other particles to update their three messages from three different localized nodes. The
velocities in each iteration using (1). localization procedure is going to terminate when no any
• Dominance comparators are also implemented inside the new blind node was able to localize itself by the end of
MOPSO to help in finding a set of optimal solutions. each step.
 • Power consumption: The variance in this objective mainly
comes from the use of discrete and continuous transmis-
sion ranges, leading to various levels of power consump-
tion. The power consumption is measured based on the
power level or the transmission range each node uses to
broadcast its message. Accordingly, the power consump-
tion is the sum of each node’s power consumption as
chosen by PSO.

TABLE I: Binary PSO Positions Matrix

Range Min Mid Max

node1 0 1 0
node2 1 0 0
node3 0 0 1

• Number of nodes: Choosing which power range a node Fig. 1: Simulation Flow Chart
will use to transmit messages or the transmission range
of each node plays a significant role in the number
of localized nodes. Through use of this objective, the
proposed method maximizes the number of nodes capable
of localizing using the least amount of consumed power,
which means the least average transmission ranges of all
nodes.

B. Binary PSO Representation

In all versions of PSO, each particle represents a potential
solution of the localization problem. The variant of binary
PSO (the single and multi-objective implementations) used
in this study creates a random positions matrix where each
element in the matrix takes the value of 0 or 1. Each row of the
matrix represents a single node and consists of three columns
corresponding to the min, mid, and max power ranges. An
example of the matrix is shown in Table I. In this particular
example, nodes 1, 2, and 3 are assigned the mid, min, and max
power ranges. The velocity matrix of each particle also look
like the positions matrix but with continuous values ranges
between 0 and 1.

V. S IMULATIONS AND D ISCUSSION

Fig. 1 shows the flow chart of the simulation procedure. Fig. 2: Simulation Panels showing three different simulation
Note that in Step-2, the implemented Java code reads the scenarios using the (a) minimum, (b) medium, and (c)
positions of each node from a saved topology file, where each maximum output power levels. Lines between nodes
node’s types: anchor or blind node, in addition to the X and represents a 1-hop connection between nodes.
Y coordinates of the anchor nodes are saved. For this study a
random WSN topology file containing 240 nodes, 40 of which
are anchor nodes, are scattered among a field of 1000 × 1000 the lines between nodes represents the 1-hop connection based
meters. In Step-3, one of the two proposed PSO versions is on the chosen communication range.
used.Step-4 and Step-5 is part of the fitness function where As is listed in Table II, the first run used only minimum
each particle’s solution is examined by flooding the network power ranges for all the 240 nodes (Fig. 2-a) which allowed
and using the TBL localization method. each node to transmit to a distance up to 63.28 meters. The
localization procedure consumed 20.55 mW, which is the cost
A. Baseline Results of transmitting 41 messages from the 40 anchors and the only
Initially, the WSN topology was examined three times using one localized node by the anchors over 480 units of time. The
statically chosen power ranges. The networks created using second run used only medium range transmission (Fig. 2-b)
these initial configurations are shown in Fig. 2 where anchor which allowed each node to transmit to a distance up to 91.47
nodes are the red dots, normal nodes are the black dots, and meters. After flooding, 96 nodes were localized with the help
of the 40 anchor nodes and the localized nodes during 1,200 used will aid in decreasing the localization time, representing
units of time through 136 messages which consumed 171.21 a clear trade-off between these two objectives.
mW. In the last run (Fig. 2-c) all 200 nodes were localized
where all nodes used the maximum power range during 960 TABLE III: BSOPSO Parameters Value
units of time. The localization procedure consumed 758.95
Parameter Value
mW of power when using the maximum power range where Particles 100
each node was able to transmit to a distance up to 132.22 Iterations 200
meters. Min Tran Range 64
From these baseline scenarios, it is clearly shown that using Max Tran Range 132
C1 and C2 1.49445
only one kind of power range may cause a large reduction in Inertia Weight (ω) RIW
the number of localized nodes or consume excess energy to
localize more nodes. The solution found by using the maxi-
mum allowed transmission is considered as the best solution in
terms of the localization time and number of localized nodes.
Yet, for power consumption, the solution using maximum
transmission range is considered to be very poor. Note that
in this baseline scenario and in the non-continuous versions
of PSO the maximum allowed transmission range is 132.22
meters while in the continuous version the maximum is 132
meters.

TABLE II: Baseline Results using Multi Power Levels

Run1 Run2 Run3

Range Min Mid Max Fig. 3: Results from 50 Trials of BSOPSO with an objective
Transmission Ranges 63.28 91.47 132.22 of maximizing localizability.
Time 480 1200 960
Energy Consumption 20.55 171.21 758.95
Localized Nodes 41 136 240

B. Binary SOPSO Results

Driven by the baseline solutions, Binary SOPSO(BSOPSO)
was used to explore the potential methods of improving the
solutions to the presented problem. Accordingly, SOPSO was
applied using each objective function previously discussed.
The values of the SOPSO parameters are listed in Table III,
where a version of the random inertia weight proposed by [18]
was implemented to make sure that PSO will not stuck in the
local optima and improve the exploration ability by using a Fig. 4: Number of transmitted messages when using multiple
version of the simulated annealing method. discrete output power levels over 50 Trials of BSOPSO with
Fig. 3 shows 50 trials of simulating the WSN topology an objective of maximizing Localizability.
chosen, where the objective function was to maximize the
number of the localized nodes only. In this scenario, the
number of non-localized nodes ranged from 0 to 10 nodes, C. Binary MOPSO Results
which means that the worst solution PSO was able to find Binary MOPSO(BMOPSO) was used to overcome the low
was 5% worse in terms of the number of localized nodes. quality of solutions found by SOPSO when minimizing the
However, the power consumption was also reduced in addition time needed for localization as well as power consumption
to increasing the number of nodes localized. Yet, since the while maximizing the number of localized nodes. The values
main focus of the trials was to maximize the number of of the MOPSO parameters are listed in Table IV, where a
localized nodes, the total time required for localization was binary mutation method was implemented and a Fixed Inertia
worse, by 50% to 225%. Weight (FIW) was chosen based on experiments discussed in
An obvious conclusion would be that whenever the larger the parameter study section 4.5.
power ranges are used, the overall power consumption will The method was able to find a balance between all compet-
increase. Additionally, increasing the power ranges may in- ing objectives and give solutions that outperforms the baseline
crease the number of localized nodes. Fig. 4 suggests that a and the SOPSO methods as detailed in Fig. 5, where the
tremendous decrease in the number of lower power ranges results of 50 trials are shown. It was able to find a balance
between all of the competing objectives and, in some cases, work in terms of localizability in particular. However, our
it outperformed the two previous methods at all levels, (i.e. study can be mapped to real test beds using techniques such
localizing all nodes during the shortest time possible and with as the component based localization, nodes clustering, and
power consumption less than any other solutions found by the RTS/CTS methods, in addition to many others, as suggest by
methods before). [5] and [6].
During the 50 trials, 115 different, yet optimal, solutions
R EFERENCES
were found. Of these, 28 outperformed the baseline in terms of
power consumption while maintaining the same time and num- [1] K. M. Modieginyane, B. B. Letswamotse, R. Malekian, and A. M.
Abu-Mahfouz, “Software defined wireless sensor networks application
ber of localized nodes. The total power consumption ranged opportunities for efficient network management: A survey,” Computers
from 4% to 21% lower than the baseline measurements. In the & Electrical Engineering, vol. 66, pp. 274–287, 2018.
best case, the MOPSO method improved power consumption [2] S. K. Rout, A. K. Rath, P. K. Mohapatra, P. K. Jena, and A. Swain, “A
fuzzy optimization technique for energy efficient node localization in
by 29%, but was only capable of localizing 145 nodes — a wireless sensor network using dynamic trilateration method,” in Progress
clear trade-off. in Computing, Analytics and Networking. Springer, 2018, pp. 325–338.
[3] E. Tuba, M. Tuba, and M. Beko, “Two stage wireless sensor node
TABLE IV: BMOPSO Parameters Value localization using firefly algorithm,” in Smart Trends in Systems, Security
and Sustainability. Springer, 2018, pp. 113–120.
[4] S. Arora and S. Singh, “Node localization in wireless sensor networks
Parameter Value using butterfly optimization algorithm,” Arabian Journal for Science and
Particles 100 Engineering, vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 3325–3335, 2017.
Iterations 200 [5] T. Liu, X. Luo, and Z. Liang, “Enhanced sparse representation-based
Min Tran Range 64 device-free localization with radio tomography networks,” Journal of
Max Tran Range 132 Sensor and Actuator Networks, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 7, 2018.
Mutation Percentage 15% [6] X. Wang, Y. Liu, Z. Yang, K. Lu, and J. Luo, “Robust component-
Mutation Value Min Tran Range based localizationin sparse networks,” IEEE Transactions on Parallel
C1 and C2 1.49445 and Distributed Systems, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 1317–1327, 2014.
Inertia Weight (ω) RIW [7] W. Cheng, N. Zhang, X. Cheng, M. Song, and D. Chen, “Time-
bounded essential localization for wireless sensor networks,” IEEE/ACM
Transactions on Networking, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 400–412, 2013.
[8] C. Sivaranjani, A. Surendar, and T. Sakthevel, “Energy efficient de-
ployment of mobile node in wireless sensor networks ‘,” International
Journal of Communication and Computer Technologies, vol. 1, no. 20,
pp. 75–78, 2013.
[9] G. Han, J. Jiang, C. Zhang, T. Q. Duong, M. Guizani, and G. K.
Karagiannidis, “A survey on mobile anchor node assisted localization in
wireless sensor networks.” IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials,
vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 2220–2243, 2016.
[10] B. Martinez, M. Monton, I. Vilajosana, and J. D. Prades, “The power
of models: Modeling power consumption for iot devices,” IEEE Sensors
Journal, vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 5777–5789, 2015.
[11] J. J. Robles, S. Tromer, M. Quiroga, and R. Lehnert, “A low-power
scheme for localization in wireless sensor networks,” in Meeting of the
European Network of Universities and Companies in Information and
Communication Engineering. Springer, 2010, pp. 259–262.
[12] M. Z. A. Bhuiyan, G. Wang, J. Cao, and J. Wu, “Energy and bandwidth-
Fig. 5: Power consumption, localization time, and number of efficient wireless sensor networks for monitoring high-frequency events,”
localized nodes of a solution set containing 115 solutions in Sensor, Mesh and Ad Hoc Communications and Networks (SECON),
while using the BMOPSO method over 50 trials. 2013 10th Annual IEEE Communications Society Conference on. IEEE,
2013, pp. 194–202.
[13] W. Everywhere, “Wirelessly connecting everywhere,” Wireless Connec-
tivity, no. 2Q, pp. 1–72, 2013.
VI. C ONCLUSIONS [14] T. Instruments, “Cc2420: 2.4 ghz ieee 802.15. 4/zigbee-ready rf
transceiver,” 2006.
This paper has presented single-objective and multi- [15] H. Ren and M. Q.-H. Meng, “Power adaptive localization algorithm for
objective binary PSO-based solutions for the power con- wireless sensor networks using particle filter,” IEEE Transactions on
Vehicular Technology, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 2498–2508, 2009.
sumption of WSN during trilateration-based localization. The [16] K.-B. Chang, Y.-B. Kong, and G.-T. Park, “Clustering algorithm in wire-
overall performance of the TBL algorithm was evaluated and less sensor networks using transmit power control and soft computing,”
improved through the simultaneous optimization of various in Intelligent Control and Automation. Springer, 2006, pp. 171–175.
[17] T. Instruments, “Cc2420 datasheet,” Reference SWRS041B, 2007.
objective functions. Results clearly show that the use of [18] G. Yue-lin and D. Yu-hong, “A new particle swarm optimization
SOPSO and MOPSO to optimize the TBL algorithm in terms algorithm with random inertia weight and evolution strategy,” in Com-
of power consumption is effective, providing improvements putational Intelligence and Security Workshops, 2007. CISW 2007.
International Conference on. IEEE, 2007, pp. 199–203.
up to 21% only on the Transmit mode of transceivers. Also,
as shown by the study, using single global output power is
less stable in localizing nodes than using multiple levels and
using the maximum possible output level is not cost effective
solution to the stability of localization, therefore, PSO was
found to solve the problem without negatively affect the TBL

View publication stats