sensors

Article
An Energy-Efficient Clustering Routing Protocol for
Wireless Sensor Networks Based on AGNES with
Balanced Energy Consumption Optimization
Zhidong Zhao 1,2, *, Kaida Xu 3, *, Guohua Hui 4 and Liqin Hu 5
1 Hangdian Smart City Research Center of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou Dianzi University,
Hangzhou 310018, China
2 College of Electronics and Information, Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou 310018, China
3 School of Communication Engineering, Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou 310018, China
4 Key Laboratory of Forestry Intelligent Monitoring and Information Technology of Zhejiang Province,
School of Information Engineering, Zhejiang A & F University, Linan 311300, China;
[email protected]
5 Department of Construction Engineering, Zhejiang College of Construction, Hangzhou 311231, China;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected] (Z.Z.); [email protected] (K.X.); Tel.: +86-135-8804-5453 (Z.Z.);
+86-135-8802-6150 (K.X.)




Received: 23 October 2018; Accepted: 11 November 2018; Published: 14 November 2018


Abstract: To further prolong the lifetime of wireless sensor network (WSN), researchers from various
countries have proposed many clustering routing protocols. However, the total network energy
consumption of most protocols is not well minimized and balanced. To alleviate this problem, this
paper proposes an energy-efficient clustering routing protocol in WSNs. To begin with, this paper
introduces a new network structure model and combines the original energy consumption model to
construct a new method to determine the optimal number of clusters for the total energy consumption
minimization. Based on the balanced energy consumption, then we optimize the AGglomerative
NESting (AGNES) algorithm, including: (1) introduction of distance variance, (2) the dual-cluster
heads (D-CHs) division of the energy balance strategy, and (3) the node dormancy mechanism.
In addition, the CHs priority function is constructed based on the residual energy and position of the
node. Finally, we simulated this protocol in homogeneous networks (the initial energy = 0.4 J, 0.6 J
and 0.8 J) and heterogeneous networks (the initial energy = 0.4–0.8 J). Simulation results show that
our proposed protocol can reduce the network energy consumption decay rate, prolong the network
lifetime, and improve the network throughput in the above two networks.

Keywords: wireless sensor network; AGglomerative NESting; dual-cluster heads; dormancy;

throughput; lifetime

1. Introduction
As a symbol of the 4th generation of sensor networks, wireless sensor network (WSN) is a
distributed self-organizing network that integrates data acquisition, processing and communication
functions. It has a wide range of applications in many important fields, such as agriculture,
transportation, and military. Usually, the nodes are powered by limited batteries, so the purpose of
extending the lifetime of WSN can be achieved by reducing the energy consumption.
As an effective scheme to save energy consumption of WSN, a reasonable clustering routing
protocol is generally divided into three phases: cluster setup phase, cluster heads (CHs) election phase,
and data transmission phase. In the cluster setup phase, the sensor node groups in the detection area

Sensors 2018, 18, 3938; doi:10.3390/s18113938 www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2018, 18, 3938 2 of 27

form clusters of different sizes. Based on a certain electoral mechanism, some nodes are selected as
the CHs and the remaining nodes act as the member nodes in the CHs election phase. Finally, in the
data transmission phase, the member nodes are responsible for collecting environmental information
and then transmitting it to the CHs. After the aggregation and data fusion, the CHs send it to
the base station (BS). The latter transmits it to the control center (CC) via satellite, Internet, or a
mobile communication network, eventually the center personnel make decisions based on current
environmental information. Figure 1 shows a typical WSN logical hierarchy diagram.
In recent years, researchers in various countries have proposed various kinds of clustering
protocols for WSNs. There are several classical protocols, such as LEACH (Low-Energy Adaptive
Cluster Hierarchical) [1,2], SEP (Stable Election Protocol) [3], DEEC (Distributed Energy-Efficient
Clustering) [4], and HEED (Hybrid Energy Efficient Distribution) [5].
A new group-based cluster-based hierarchical partitioning scheme that minimizes the number
of hops in a cluster is proposed in [6] and a hybrid clustering method combining static and dynamic
clustering is proposed in [7]. Elhabyan, R., W. Shi and M. St-Hilaire [8] propose multi-objective
evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs) to obtain the optimal network configuration. A Chain Based
Cluster Cooperative Protocol (CBCCP) is proposed in [9] and Markov model is considered in [10].
Wang, Q. et al. [11] propose a new network structure model, then according to the original energy
consumption model [12], the formula for determining the optimal cluster number of WSN in the region
is proposed.
In addition, the proposed protocol introduces some common algorithms, such as ant colony
optimization (ACO) [13,14], particle swarm optimization (PSO) [15,16], principal component analysis
(PCA) [17], harmony search algorithm (HSA) [18,19], spectral partitioning [11] and so on.
It is not difficult to find that the protocols have been improved in the following aspects:
(1) intra-cluster data transmission path [20], (2) inter-cluster data transmission path, (3) data
transmission amount compression [21], (4) implementation of mobile BS or relay node [22], (5) data
security consideration [23], (6) increase in the number of sink nodes [24], (7) CHs selection mechanism
optimization [21,25,26].
As the WSN works continuously, the nodes will eventually die due to the continuous loss of
energy. The problems faced by energy consumption in WSN mainly include two aspects: (1) The
large total energy consumption; (2) The unbalanced energy consumption. (1) will cause the average
energy consumption of the nodes in the network to be too large, resulting in a decline in the overall
performance of WSN. (2) will cause a large difference in the death time of the node groups in WSN,
which will adversely affect the stability of the network and the efficiency of information transmission.
From the perspective of efficient energy and balanced energy consumption, this paper proposes an
energy-efficient clustering routing protocol in WSNs. The basic premise is as follows: To minimize
the total energy consumption of WSN, we propose a new network structure model and derive the
optimal number of clusters according to the former and the original energy consumption model [12].
The clusters generated by traditional clustering routing protocols tend to be of different sizes, resulting
in unbalanced energy consumption (i.e., the energy consumption of CHs in large clusters is often much
larger than that in small clusters.). To alleviate this problem, based on the distance, the variance is
introduced to reduce the difference in the distance between the nodes within the clusters in the cluster
setup phase. Then in the CHs election phase, we implement the D-CHs division of the energy balance
strategy and the node dormancy mechanism for the large cluster area before and after the death of the
first node, respectively. In terms of optimal CHs election, we take the position of the node into account
apart from the residual energy, which is obviously different from traditional protocols considering
only the residual energy.
The main innovative points of this paper include the following:

• The optimal number of clusters is derived to minimize the total energy consumption of WSN.
• Variance introduction, the D-CHs division of the energy balance strategy and the node dormancy
mechanism are necessary to enable the energy consumption balance.
Sensors 2018, 18, 3938 3 of 27

Sensors 2018, 18, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 27

• A new CHs priority function can ensure the nodes with better positions and adequate residual
• A new CHs priority function can ensure the nodes with better positions and adequate residual
energy could have higher probabilities to be CHs.
energy could have higher probabilities to be CHs.
•• The new clustering routing protocol achieves good network performance, including lifetime,
The new clustering routing protocol achieves good network performance, including lifetime,
energy consumption, and throughput.
energy consumption, and throughput.
As
As for
for the
the communication technology, the
communication technology, previous Bluetooth
the previous Bluetooth [27][27] has
has high
high system
system complexity,
complexity,
short
short transmission distance, and large power consumption, which is not popular in WSN. In
transmission distance, and large power consumption, which is not popular in WSN. In contrast,
contrast,
ZigBee has a wide range of applications in WSN due to its simplicity, low power
ZigBee has a wide range of applications in WSN due to its simplicity, low power consumption, consumption, low cost,
low
and long-distance transmission.
cost, and long-distance transmission.
In 2016, Bluetooth
In 2016, Bluetooth 55[28,29]
[28,29]came
cameintointobeing.
being.Compared
Compared with
with thethe previous
previous Bluetooth
Bluetooth version,
version, its
its maximum
maximum transmission
transmission distance
distance is is increased
increased 3 3times,
times,thethepower
powerisis greatly
greatly reduced,
reduced, and
and the
the
transmission
transmission raterate isissignificantly
significantlyimproved.
improved.InInaddition,
addition,it itwill
willincrease
increase the
themaximum
maximum data capacity
data to
capacity
255 bytes, while ZigBee has only 100 bytes in this aspect. Thus, Bluetooth 5 is gradually
to 255 bytes, while ZigBee has only 100 bytes in this aspect. Thus, Bluetooth 5 is gradually becoming becoming a
new
a new generation of Internet
generation of Things
of Internet communication
of Things technology.
communication In this paper,
technology. we choose
In this paper, Bluetooth
we choose 5
as the communication technology of WSN.
Bluetooth 5 as the communication technology of WSN.

Satellite
Internet
Mobile
Communication

Member Cluster BS Control Center

Node Head

Figure 1. A typical wireless sensor network (WSN) logical hierarchy diagram. BS: base station.
Figure 1. A typical wireless sensor network (WSN) logical hierarchy diagram. BS: base station.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2.1 introduces a new network structure
TheSection
model, rest of 2.2
thisdescribes
paper is organized
the originalasenergy
follows:consumption
Section 2.1 introduces
model, and a new network
Section structure
2.3 proposes a
model,
new Section
method for2.2determining
describes the original
the optimalenergy
numberconsumption
of clusters.model, and
Section Section 2.3the
3 describes proposes a new
details of the
method for
protocol. Thedetermining the optimal
simulation study number
is conducted of clusters.
in Section Section
4. Finally, 3 describes
Section the details
5 summarizes of the
the research
protocol.
and The simulation
prospects study is conducted in Section 4. Finally, Section 5 summarizes the research
for the future.
and prospects for the future.
2. Network Model and Optimal Cluster Number Calculation
2. Network Model and
In this section, OptimalaCluster
we propose Number
new network Calculation
structure model and quote the energy consumption
modelInproposed in [12],
this section, then suggest
we propose a newa new method
network to determine
structure the optimal
model and cluster
quote the energynumber.
consumption
model proposed in [12], then suggest a new method to determine the optimal cluster number.
2.1. Network Model
2.1. Network Model model used in this paper is a WSN model in which N sensor nodes are evenly
The network
arranged in a circular
The network modelarea
usedof in
diameter M. The
this paper BS in model
is a WSN the center of theNnetwork
in which area has
sensor nodes strong
are evenly
computing
arranged inpower. Because
a circular area the BS energyM.can
of diameter ThebeBS
self-replenished,
in the center ofthethe
energy loss area
network of thehas
BS strong
is not
considered in this work. On this basis, we can make the following assumptions about the
computing power. Because the BS energy can be self-replenished, the energy loss of the BS is notWSN:
considered in this work. On this basis, we can make the following assumptions about the WSN:
Sensors 2018, 18, 3938 4 of 27

(1) All sensor nodes are static, nodes transmit data to each other in single or multiple hops, and the
node energy cannot be supplemented.
(2) The idealized simulation environment does not consider the influence of natural factors such as
temperature, humidity, light, and wind on the sensor nodes.

2.2. Energy Consumption Model

This paper quotes the energy consumption model proposed in [12]. According to the actual
transmission distance from the CHs to the BS, the free space model and the multipath fading channel
model both need to be comprehensively analyzed, which is different from [12] considering only the
multipath fading channel model. Therefore, the expression of the total energy consumption of the
model will undergo some changes.
ET (e,d) indicates the energy consumed by the wireless transmitter to transmit a set of e bits of
information. The expression is as follows:
(  
e × Eelec + ε f s d2 , d < d0
ET (e, d) = (1)
e × Eelec + ε mp d4 ,


d ≥ d0

ER (e) indicates the energy required to receive the information of the e bit. The expression is
as follows:
ER (e) = e × Eelec (2)

In Equations (1) and (2), Eelec is the energy consumed per bit by the transmitter or receiving circuit
and d is the distance between the transmitter and the receiver. In Equation (2), when d < d0 , we use
the free space model and εfs acts as the energy factor per bit. Otherwise, the multipath fading channel
model is used, and εmp acts as the energy factor per bit. In addition, d0 is used as the distance threshold.
As long as it is input as an independent variable into the free space model and the multipath fading
channel model to establish an equation, the following expression can be obtained:
s
ε fs
d0 = (3)
ε mp

In each round of data transmission, the cluster member nodes are responsible for sensing
information from the environment, then transmitting it to the CH of the corresponding cluster.
Therefore, the calculation formula for the energy consumed by transmitting e bit information is
defined as follows:
Enon−CH = e · Eelec + e · ε f s d2toCH (4)

In Equation (4), dtoCH represents the distance from the cluster member node to the CH.
The CH receives information from the cluster member nodes in the cluster, then fuses the
information with that which it senses from the environment, eventually transmits the merged
information to the BS. In this paper, we assume that in each round of data transmission, the information
size obtained after processing by the CH is e bit. The energy consumed in the process is calculated
as follows:

eε f s d2toBS , dtoBS < d0

(
n n
ECH = ( − 1) · e · Eelec + · e · EDA + e · Eelec + (5)
k k eε mp d4toBS , dtoBS ≥ d0

In the above formula, the energy consumed consists of three parts: receiving energy consumption,
processing energy consumption, and transmitting energy consumption. In Equation (5), n is the
number of nodes surviving in the monitored area, k is the number of clusters to be divided, EDA is
the energy consumed by the CH to process each bit of data (including received data and sensed data),
and dtoBS is the distance between the CH and the BS.
Sensors 2018, 18, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 27

divided, EDA is the energy consumed by the CH to process each bit of data (including received data
and sensed data), and dtoBS is the distance between the CH and the BS.

Sensors 2018, 18, 3938 5 of 27

2.3. Optimal Number of Clusters
In general, the inter-cluster communication traffic in WSN increases as the number of clusters
2.3. Optimal
increases, and Number of Clusters communication traffic increases as the number of clusters decreases.
the intra-cluster
In addition,
In general, the the
network’s energy
inter-cluster consumption traffic
communication increases as communication
in WSN increases as the traffic
number increases. The
of clusters
determination of the optimal cluster number of the network is of great significance
increases, and the intra-cluster communication traffic increases as the number of clusters decreases. to the network’s
communication.
In addition, theInnetwork’s
this section, we will
energy determine the
consumption optimalas
increases number of clusters ktraffic
communication in combination
increases.
The determination of the optimal cluster number of the network is of great significance to theinnetwork’s
with the network structure model and energy consumption model described respectively Sections
2.1 and 2.2.
communication. In this section, we will determine the optimal number of clusters k in combination
with The monitoring
the network area in
structure this paper
model is a circle
and energy with a diameter
consumption of M. In real
model described life, the cluster
respectively areas2.1
in Sections of
WSN
and 2.2.must be irregular and inconsistent, and the nodes are randomly placed. If these three points
are both considered, area
The monitoring the proposed
in this paper model must with
is a circle be complex
a diameterandofnotM. universal.
In real life,So thelike the optimal
cluster areas of
numbers of clusters in [11,12], that in this paper is also used as a relatively
WSN must be irregular and inconsistent, and the nodes are randomly placed. If these three points are common reference
standard
both in the actual
considered, monitoring
the proposed model area.
must Tobederive
complextheandoptimal number of
not universal. Soclusters
like the more
optimal intuitively,
numbers
we construct an inline square in the circular region with a side length
of clusters in [11,12], that in this paper is also used as a relatively common reference standard of L. We assume that the
in the
clusters in the square are all circular in shape with a radius of R and
actual monitoring area. To derive the optimal number of clusters more intuitively, we construct an the cluster distribution is
uniformly distributed. Finally, after calculating the total circular cluster area
inline square in the circular region with a side length of L. We assume that the clusters in the square and the circular area to
establish
are the relationship,
all circular in shape with wea can
radiusobtain
of R theandrelationship between theistotal
the cluster distribution number
uniformly of clustersFinally,
distributed. k and
the number of circular clusters k 1.
after calculating the total circular cluster area and the circular area to establish the relationship, we can
obtainAstheshown in Figure
relationship 2, the monitoring
between the total number area in
of this paper
clusters is athe
k and large circle of
number with a diameter
circular clustersofk1M .
and the length of the embedded square is L. From this, we can derive the relationship
As shown in Figure 2, the monitoring area in this paper is a large circle with a diameter of M and between L and
M: length of the embedded square is L. From this, we can derive the relationship between L and M:
the

LL== 2M
√
2M/2 (6)
(6)
2

Figure 2. Monitoring area.

After the sensor network is divided into many clusters, the CH receives the information
transmitted byby the
the cluster
clustermember
membernodes,
nodes,and
andafter
after processing,
processing, eventually
eventually transmits
transmits it toit the
to the BS
BS for
for final data fusion. In the intra-cluster communication, as the distance between
final data fusion. In the intra-cluster communication, as the distance between the cluster the cluster member
node and the CH is not large, we adoptadopt the
the free
free space
space model.
model.
To
To understand
understandthe thenetwork
networkstructure model
structure moremore
model intuitively, FigureFigure
intuitively, 3 shows3 an example
shows dividing
an example
the cluster into 16 clusters. In the figure, the positive center position of the monitoring area
dividing the cluster into 16 clusters. In the figure, the positive center position of the monitoring is thearea
BS
indicated by I. A blue circle indicates a cluster. Consequently, we can obtain the expression of the
blue cluster number k1 as follows:
M2
k1 = (7)
8R2
Sensors 2018, 18, 3938 6 of 27

The area of the monitoring area Ssum is calculated as follows:

2
πM2

M
Ssum = π · = (8)
2 4

The inscribed square area Ssquare is calculated as follows:

√ !2
2 M2
Ssquare = M = (9)
2 2

One blue cluster area Scluster is calculated as follows:

√
√
2 πM2
Scluster = πR2 = π 2
2 M /2 k1 = (10)
8k1

The total area of the blue clusters Scluster_sum is calculated as follows:

πM2
Scluster_sum = k1 Scluster = (11)
8
According to Equations (8) and (11):

Ssum = 2Scluster_sum (12)

If the cluster is completely divided into clusters in the monitoring area, the total number of
clusters k is twice that of k1 , namely:
M2
k = 2k1 = (13)
4R2
The cluster member nodes obey the uniform distribution, and then the distribution function can
be expressed as follows:
8k1 4k
g(k) = = (14)
πM2 πM2
Calculate the expected squared distance of the cluster member nodes to the CH.

2π RR
E[d2toCH ] = dθ g(k )ρ3 dρ
R
0 0
2π
R RR 4k 3 (15)
= dθ πM2
ρ dρ
0 0
2kR4
= M 2

The distances between some CHs and BS in the model may be larger than d0 , so it is necessary to
simultaneously refer to the free space model and the multipath fading channel model when considering
the energy consumption between clusters. Then the value range of the diameter M is greater than 2d0 .
According to Equation (5):

eε f s d2toBS ,
(
dtoBS < d0
f (dtoBS ) = (16)
eε mp d4toBS , dtoBS ≥ d0
Sensors 2018, 18, 3938 7 of 27

Then the expectation of f (dtoBS ) is calculated:

E[ f (dtoBS )] = E[ f (ρ, θ )]
M
2π
R R2
4
= πM2
f (ρ, θ )ρ dρdθ
0 0
M
 (17)
16e
Rd0 R2
= πM2
· π
2 ε fs ρ3 dρ + ε mp ρ5 dρ
0 d0
2eε f s d40 eε mp M4 4eε mp d60
= M2
+ 48 − 3M2

2ε f s d40 ε mp M4 4ε mp d60
Let A = + − (18)
M2 48 3M2
So E[ f (dtoBS )] = A · e (19)

Thus, the average energy consumed by a cluster in one round is

n n
Ecluster = ECH + ( − 1) Enon−CH ≈ ECH + Enon−CH (20)
k k
The energy consumed by all of the clusters in the region in one round is

2kR4
ESUM = kEcluster = kECH + nEnon−CH = ne( Eelec + EDA ) + kAe + neEelec + neε f s · M2
M2
(21)
= ne(2Eelec + EDA ) + kAe + 8k · neε f s

dESUM
Deriving for ESUM , let dk = 0, so we can obtain the optimal number of clusters
s
M2 nε f s
k= (22)
8A
Sensors 2018, 18, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 27

Figure 3.
Figure Network structure
3. Network structure model
model diagram
diagram (16
(16 clusters).
clusters).

3. The Clustering Protocol

The main steps of the clustering protocol in this paper are as follows:
(1) Calculate the number k of clusters required according to the calculation formula of the network
optimal cluster number introduced in Section 2.3.
(2) Through the AGNES (AGglomerative NESting) algorithm with balanced energy consumption
optimization, we can build the required k clusters.
(3) Implement the selection mechanism of the CH in each cluster, then we can implement the
Sensors 2018, 18, 3938 8 of 27

3. The Clustering Protocol

The main steps of the clustering protocol in this paper are as follows:

(1) Calculate the number k of clusters required according to the calculation formula of the network
optimal cluster number introduced in Section 2.3.
(2) Through the AGNES (AGglomerative NESting) algorithm with balanced energy consumption
optimization, we can build the required k clusters.
(3) Implement the selection mechanism of the CH in each cluster, then we can implement the D-CHs
division of the energy balance strategy and node dormancy mechanism for the large cluster area
before and after the death of the first node, respectively.
(4) Data transmission and energy update.

To minimize the total energy consumption and balance the energy consumption of the nodes in
the network, we perform the node death decision after each round of data transmission in the network
(once the node dies, return to Step 1; otherwise, return to Step 3). In addition, Steps 1, 2, and 3 are
collectively called the preparation phase of the protocol. Step 4 is called the stabilization phase of
the protocol.
Before entering the stabilization phase, each member of each cluster needs to send a set of control
message named as Node_Msg to its CH in the form of (Node_NO, Node_Status). The status is only
divided into work and dormancy. According to the received Node_Msg, the CH of each cluster allocates
a time slot for the member nodes of the cluster that need to work. Then every CH sends a set of control
message named as Schedule_Msg to its member nodes that need to work in the form of (Node NO.1,
Time Slot1; Node NO.2, Time Slot2; . . . . . . ). Once entering the stabilization phase, the nodes which have
received time slots send their sensed information to their associated CHs, and others are in dormancy.
As for the CHs, they are responsible for receiving and processing the information sent by the member
nodes and eventually transmitting it to the BS. The time slot allocation of the clustering protocol in
this paper is provided in Figure 4. A flowchart of the clustering protocol in this paper is presented in
Figure
Sensors5.
2018, 18, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 27

Preparation
Phase

Slot for Member Slot for Member

Slot for CH1 Slot for CH2
Node1 of CH1 Nodec1 of CH1
Time

Determination of k Clusters Setup Election of CHs

Figure4.4.The
Figure Thetime
timeslot
slotallocation
allocationofofthe
theclustering
clustering protocol.
protocol.

First_flag = 0

Determination of the
optimal number（k） of First_flag = 1
clusters
Data Transmission
Phase
k'=n Cluster
Setup Phase
Combine the two Yes Node death
clusters with Fmax occurred?

k'-- No

Yes
k'>k?
No
No
 Determination of k Clusters Setup Election of CHs
Sensors 2018, 18, 3938 9 of 27
Figure 4. The time slot allocation of the clustering protocol.

First_flag = 0

Determination of the
optimal number（k） of First_flag = 1
clusters
Data Transmission
Phase
k'=n Cluster
Setup Phase
Combine the two Yes Node death
clusters with Fmax occurred?

k'-- No

Yes
k'>k?
No
No
i=1
CHs Election Phase

Ci is a Large No Cluster Head

Cluster？ （CH）Election

Yes i++ i<k?

No P-CH and S-CH

First_flag = 1?
Election

Yes
Node Dormancy
Mechanism

Yes

Figure 5.
Figure Flowchart of
5. Flowchart of the
the clustering
clustering protocol,
protocol, including
including the
the determination
determination of k, cluster
of k, cluster setup,
setup, cluster
cluster
heads (CHs) election, and data transmission.
heads (CHs) election, and data transmission.

3.1. AGNES Algorithm

3.1. AGNES Algorithm
The AGNES (AGglomerative NESting) [30] algorithm is a hierarchical clustering algorithm. First,
The AGNES (AGglomerative NESting) [30] algorithm is a hierarchical clustering algorithm.
several objects are input, each one constitutes an initial cluster by itself. Then the two clusters with
First, several objects are input, each one constitutes an initial cluster by itself. Then the two clusters
the shortest distance are continuously merged into one cluster until the number of clusters obtained
with the shortest distance are continuously merged into one cluster until the number of clusters
reaches the number of clusters k satisfying the termination condition. Finally, the resulting k clusters
obtained reaches the number of clusters k satisfying the termination condition. Finally, the resulting
are the target clusters of our algorithm.
k clusters are the target clusters of our algorithm.
In this algorithm, each cluster equals a sample set, and the merger between clusters equals the
In this algorithm, each cluster equals a sample set, and the merger between clusters equals the
merger between sets. The merging standard is the distance between the two clusters, which usually
merger between sets. The merging standard is the distance between the two clusters, which usually
assumes three forms: (1) the longest distance, (2) the shortest distance, and (3) the average distance.
assumes three forms: (1) the longest distance, (2) the shortest distance, and (3) the average distance.
For example, given two clusters (Ci and Cj ), the distance between the two clusters can be obtained
from the following three equations:
The longest distance:
Dmax (Ci , Cj ) = max | p − q| (23)
p∈Ci ,q∈Cj

The shortest distance:

Dmin (Ci , Cj ) = min | p − q| (24)
p∈Ci ,q∈Cj
Sensors 2018, 18, 3938 10 of 27

The average distance:

1
Davg (Ci , Cj ) =
|Ci | Cj
∑ ∑ | p − q| (25)
p∈Ci q∈Cj

3.2. The AGNES Algorithm with Balanced Energy Consumption Optimization

To further improve the various indicators of WSN, we make balanced energy consumption
optimization for the AGNES algorithm:

(1) To reduce the difference in the distance set between the nodes in the two clusters: On the basis of
the original indicator that can be combined in two clusters (note: the average distance Davg is used
in this paper), the distance set variance δ2 is added, so the two merged clusters cannot only have
a shorter average distance, but also the distance difference between the nodes in the two clusters
tends to be smaller. Thus, the energy consumption of the cluster nodes is more uniform, which
can help effectively avoid the phenomenon that some cluster member nodes die prematurely due
to the jaggedness of the transmission distances during the communication process.
(2) The D-CHs division of the energy balance strategy in large clusters is implemented before the
death of the first node: The AGNES algorithm can obtain the k cluster needed, but it does not
limit the size of the cluster, so the resulting clusters may have different sizes. As a result, CHs in
large clusters tend to receive and process large amounts of cluster information, then the energy is
prematurely exhausted, which will have a very negative impact on network lifetime extension,
energy consumption reduction, and throughput increase. Based on this, we implement the D-CHs
division of energy balance strategy in the large cluster area before the death of the first node.
The strategy mainly includes the following: the secondary cluster head (S-CH) is responsible for
receiving the information sent by the cluster member nodes and the positive cluster head (P-CH)
is responsible for merging the former information with the self-sensing information and finally
transmitting it to the BS.
(3) The node dormancy mechanism in large clusters is implemented after the death of the first node
as follows: The data obtained by WSN needs to meet two requirements (large amount of data and
high data integrity). Before the first node dies, the network is in a stable period, and the energy of
the node group is enough, and many rounds of iterations can be performed. At this time, the data
in the network can well satisfy the above two requirements. The node dormancy mechanism will
cause data loss in some areas while causing energy consumption reduction. Therefore, the node
dormancy mechanism is not implemented at this time. But after the death of the first node,
it means that the energy of the node is greatly reduced, and the mortality rate is greatly improved.
Even if the node dormancy mechanism is not performed, the network coverage of the monitoring
area becomes smaller as the nodes die continuously. It will inevitably lead to a reduction in
data integrity. At this time, it is not practical to maintain data integrity as well as the stable
period. Therefore, our focus is on the improvement of data volume. By extending the network
life cycle, WSN will have a longer monitoring time for the region, and can obtain a larger amount
of information. The node dormancy mechanism can make the nodes which have relatively
low energy in the cluster and relatively long distance from the CHs be in dormancy, avoiding
its premature death, and reducing the energy load of the cluster head, thereby prolonging the
network life cycle, which just satisfies the actual needs of the period.

It’s worth emphasizing that the protocol in this paper must re-select the CHs at the end of each
round, which can help balance the energy consumption of the nodes and maintain the network
coverage in the area.

3.3. Cluster Setup

By adding the two cluster average distance Davg , and the variance δ2 of the distance set of
two clusters in the cluster setup process, we can construct a cluster setup factor. The two clusters
Sensors 2018, 18, 3938 11 of 27

corresponding to the largest cluster-merging factor can be merged until the number of clusters reaches
the pre-set number of clusters k. Compared to the original AGNES algorithm, the algorithm has smaller
distance difference between the nodes in the two clusters, and therefore the energy consumption of the
nodes is more uniform during data transmission. The detail procedure of this phase is given by the
pseudo-code in Algorithm 1.

Algorithm 1. Cluster Setup Algorithm

Inputs: (1) n objects
(2) k—number of clusters
Result: k clusters of different sizes
1: Each object constitutes an initial cluster;
2: Current cluster number k’ = n;
3: while (k’ > k)
4: for i = 1 → k’
5: for j = 1 → k’
6: if i ~= j
7: calculate the distance of the two nodes in the two clusters Ci and Cj ;
8: build a distance set D and obtain the distance mean Davg and the variance δ2 ;
9: calculate the clustering factor of clusters Ci and Cj

1
Fi,j ( Davg , δ2 ) =
Davg + 0.5δ2

10: end if
11: end for
12: end for
13: combine the two clusters corresponding to Fmax
14: k’–;
15: end while

3.4. CHs Election

This section is mainly divided into two parts: (1) CHs election in general clusters; and (2) CHs
election in large clusters.

3.4.1. CHs Election in General Clusters

In general, if a node in a cluster wants to be the CH of the cluster, the following three conditions
must be met:

(a) Compared to most other nodes, its location is closer to the center of the cluster.
(b) Compared to most other nodes, its distance from BS is relatively small.
(c) Compared to most other nodes, it owns more residual energy.

On this basis, we calculate the center position Cen (XC , YC ) of a cluster by the following formula:

∑ Xp
p∈C
XC = (26)
|C |

∑ Yp
p∈C
YC = (27)
|C |
where |C| represents the number of nodes in the cluster C.
Sensors 2018, 18, 3938 12 of 27

Then we construct an objective function for picking an appropriate node as the CH in cluster C.
  S (i ) · E
GCH S(i ) · E, ditoCen , ditoBS = (28)
αditoCen + βditoBS

In Equation (28), S(i).E represents the residual energy of node i; di toCen represents the distance
from node i to Cen; di toBS represents the distance from node i to the BS; and α and β are respectively
the routing factors of di toCen and di toBS , where α + β = 1. The larger the value of GCH of node i, the more
likely it is to be selected as the CH. Algorithm 2 shows us the CH election in a general cluster.

Algorithm 2. CH Election Algorithm (General Cluster)

Inputs: (1) nodes of cluster C
(2) size of cluster C: NO
(3) location of BS: (BS·x, BS·y)
Result: CH of Cluster C
1: calculate cluster center position Cen (XC , YC );
2: for i = 1 → NO
3: calculate the objective function of node i, Gi CH
4: end for
5: select the node with GCHmax as the CH of cluster C;

3.4.2. CHs Election in Large Clusters

For large clusters, before the death of the first node, we implement the D-CHs division of energy
balance strategy, which involves the selection of the positive cluster head (P-CH) and the secondary
cluster head (S-CH). The detail procedure is given by the pseudo-code in Algorithm 3. In this paper,
a cluster with CH energy consumption greater than 1.5 times the average CH energy consumption is
defined as a large cluster. According to the energy consumption formulas introduced in Sections 2.2
and 2.3, we can calculate the average energy consumption of the CH, ECH .

n n


ECH = k − 1 · e · Eelec + k · e · EDA + e · Eelec + E[ f (dtoBS )]
(29)
n
= k · e ( Eelec + EDA ) + A·e

We use x to represent the total number of nodes in the cluster, so we can use the following formula
to get the CH energy consumption E of the cluster.

E = ( x − 1)eEelec + xeEDA + eEelec + E[ f (dtoBS )]

(30)
= xe( Eelec + EDA ) + A · e

Next, we determine what the value of E is when the corresponding cluster can be defined as a
large cluster. Here, we assume that E is γ times as ECH . We compare the difference between the energy
consumption of the CH in the cluster and the average energy consumption of the CH in the case of
General CHs and D-CHs, respectively, to obtain the critical E value of a large cluster.
According to Figure 6, when γ is less than 1.5, the energy error of General CHs is less than D-CHs;
Once γ is more than 1.5, the energy error of D-CHs is less than General CHs, which means the effect of
D-CHs division of energy balance strategy is better than General CHs strategy. So, we determine the
value of γ is 1.5.
To compute E > 1.5 × ECH , it can be concluded that the number of nodes in the large cluster is
required to satisfy the condition:

n A
x > 1.5 + 0.5 (31)
k Eelec + EDA
 required to satisfy the condition:

n A
x > 1.5 + 0.5 (31)
k Eelec + EDA
Sensors 2018, 18, 3938 13 of 27

Algorithm 3. P-CH and S-CH Selection Algorithm (Large Cluster of Stable Period)
Algorithm(1)
Inputs: 3. P-CH
nodesand S-CH Selection
of cluster C Algorithm (Large Cluster of Stable Period)
(2) size of cluster
Inputs: (1) nodes of cluster C C: NO
(2)(3)
sizelocation ofC:
of cluster BS:NO(BS·x, BS·y)
Result: (3)P-CH and
location of S-CH
BS: (BSof
·x,cluster
BS·y) C
1: calculate cluster center position
Result: P-CH and S-CH of cluster C Cen (XC,YC);
for i = 1 →
1: calculate
2: NO center position Cen (XC ,YC );
cluster
2: for
3: i = 1 → NO
calculate the objective function of node I, GiCH;
i
3: end
4: for the objective function of node I, G CH ;
calculate
4: end
5: fortwo nodes with GCHmax and GCHsecond-max as the P-CH and S-CH of cluster C, respectively;
select
5: select two nodes with GCHmax and GCHsecond-max as the P-CH and S-CH of cluster C, respectively;

Figure6.6.AAcomparison
Figure comparisonofofenergy
energyerror
errorbetween
betweenGeneral
GeneralCHs
CHsand
anddual-cluster
dual-clusterheads
heads(D-CHs).
(D-CHs).

AsAsshown
shownininFigure
Figure7,7,the
theWSN
WSNconsists
consistsofof55clusters
clusters(2(2large
largeclusters
clustersand
and33general
generalclusters).
clusters).
Compared
Comparedtotothe thegeneral
generalcluster,
cluster,thethemember
membernodes nodes(white
(whitedots)
dots)ininthe
thelarge
largecluster
clustercollect
collect
environmental information and send it to the S-CH (yellow dots); the latter
environmental information and send it to the S-CH (yellow dots); the latter receives such receives such information
and the data fusion
information and theis performed
data fusioninisthe P-CH (green
performed in thedots).
P-CHThe finaldots).
(green information is sent
The final to the BSis(red
information sent
pentagram)
to the BS for
(red decision making.
pentagram) for
Sensors 2018, 18, x FOR PEER REVIEW decision making. 14 of 27

Figure7.7.WSN
Figure WSNclustering
clusteringtopology
topology(D-CHs
(D-CHsdivision
divisionofofenergy
energybalance
balancestrategy
strategyininlarge
largeclusters).
clusters).

3.5. Node Dormancy Mechanism

In general, the node dormancy mechanism is mainly divided into two categories: (1) randomly
select a certain proportion of nodes to be dormant based on their different locations and (2) select
nodes of different proportions to be dormant based on their distance to the CHs.
Sensors 2018, 18, 3938 14 of 27

3.5. Node Dormancy Mechanism

In general, the node dormancy mechanism is mainly divided into two categories: (1) randomly
select a certain proportion of nodes to be dormant based on their different locations and (2) select
nodes of different proportions to be dormant based on their distance to the CHs.
After the network enters the unstable period, the cluster member nodes in the large cluster area
have low energy and long transmission distance, so it is extremely easy for them to exhaust their
energy. The CH needs to receive and process a large amount of information, and once it dies, all of the
information in the cluster cannot be transmitted to the BS, so that valuable information may be lost.
Based on the residual energy of the cluster member nodes and their distances to the CHs, the
node dormancy mechanism proposed in this paper causes the member nodes with low energy and
long distances to the CH to become dormant, thus reducing the load on the CH and improving the
network throughput. Its steps are as follows:
First, set up dormancy factors Sdor for all of cluster member nodes, which is calculated as follows:
  S (i ) · E
Sdor S(i ) · E, ditoBS = i (32)
dtoBS

The smaller the Sdor of the node i, the higher the mortality rate of the node i and the higher the
dormancy probability.
Next, the node dormancy ratio P is determined.
 n
P = C ( j) · NO − /C ( j) · NO (33)
k
In Equation (33), C(j)·NO represents the total number of nodes in cluster j, n is the number of
currently surviving nodes, and k is the number of clusters established.
Finally, the dormancy factors of all of the cluster member nodes in the large cluster are sorted from
small to large, then the nodes corresponding to the pre-P dormancy factors are dormant. The detail
procedure is given by the pseudo-code in Algorithm 4.
To understand the node dormancy mechanism more intuitively, look at Figure 7 (A simple
example).
As shown in Figure 8, first, after the CH is determined in (1), the node dormancy mechanism
is implemented. Then the three dormant nodes are determined in (2). After several rounds of data
iterations, we determined a new CH and a dormant node in (3). After several further rounds of data
iterations, only two nodes survive in (4). After re-determining the CH and the last multiple rounds of
data iterations, all of the nodes of the cluster die.

Algorithm 4. Node Dormancy Algorithm (Large Cluster of Unstable Period)

Inputs: (1) nodes of cluster C
(2) size of cluster C: NO
(3) number of surviving nodes: n
(4) optimal number of clusters: k
Result: dormant nodes of cluster C
1: for i = 1 → NO
2: calculate the dormancy factor of node i, Si dor
3: end for
4: calculate node dormancy ratio, P
5: sort the dormancy factor set from small to large
6: put the nodes corresponding to the previous P dormancy factors into dormancy
 1: for i = 1 → NO
2: calculate the dormancy factor of node i, Sidor
3: end for
4: calculate node dormancy ratio, P
5: sort2018,
Sensors the 18,
dormancy
3938 factor set from small to large 15 of 27
6: put the nodes corresponding to the previous P dormancy factors into dormancy

Figure8.
Figure 8. Node
Node dormancy
dormancy diagram
diagramof
ofaacluster.
cluster.

4.
4. Simulation
Simulation Results
Results
In
In this
this section,
section, wewe evaluate
evaluate the the proposed
proposed protocol
protocol by by simulating
simulating using
using MATLAB
MATLAB 2016b 2016b
(MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA) on a desktop PC (Lenovo, made in Beijing,
(MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA) on a desktop PC (Lenovo, made in Beijing, China) with Intel(R) China) with Intel(R)
Core
Core(TM)(TM)i3-4170
i3-4170 CPUCPU @ 3.70GHz,
@ 3.70GHz, 4GB 4GBRAM.RAM.WhenWhenbuilding the network
building model, this
the network studythis
model, assumed
study
that all of the wireless sensor nodes are distributed in a circular area with a diameter
assumed that all of the wireless sensor nodes are distributed in a circular area with a diameter of of M, and the BSM,
is
located at the center of the area (0, 0). Specific parameters in the simulation are shown
and the BS is located at the center of the area (0, 0). Specific parameters in the simulation are shown in Table 1 (Note
that J in this
in Table paper
1 (Note stands
that forpaper
J in this Joule,stands
which for
is aJoule,
unit of energy).
which We mainly
is a unit compared
of energy). our proposed
We mainly compared
protocol to the original classic protocols from the two kinds of networks including
our proposed protocol to the original classic protocols from the two kinds of networks including the the homogeneous
and heterogeneous
homogeneous networks, and the
and heterogeneous four aspects
networks, and theincluding the death
four aspects round
including ofdeath
the the first node,
round of the
the
lifetime of the
first node, thenetwork,
lifetime of the trend
the of thethe
network, network
trend energy consumption,
of the network energyand the trend ofand
consumption, the the
network
trend
throughput
of the network withthroughput
the roundswithof iterations.
the rounds of iterations.

Table 1. Simulation parameters.

Parameter Value
Eelec 50 nJ/bit
EDA 5 nJ/bit/message
εfs 10 pJ/bit/m2
εmp 0.0013 pJ/bit/m4
The diameter of monitoring area, M 200 m
Initial number of nodes, N 100
Size of message, e 4000 bits
Initial energy 0.4~0.8 J

4.1. Determination of the Optimal Routing Factor

Based on the CHs priority function mentioned in Section 3.4, we can select the nodes with
better positions and more adequate residual energy as the CHs. To get the optimal routing factor α,
we conduct related simulations, including α is taken from 9 numbers between 0.1 and 0.9 and the
 Initial energy 0.4~0.8 J

4.1. Determination of the Optimal Routing Factor

Based on the CHs priority function mentioned in Section 3.4, we can select the nodes with better
positions
Sensors and
2018, 18, more
3938adequate residual energy as the CHs. To get the optimal routing factor16α,of we
27
conduct related simulations, including α is taken from 9 numbers between 0.1 and 0.9 and the
network lifetime is simulated and compared in homogeneous networks (initial energy = 0.6 J) and
network lifetime is simulated and compared in homogeneous networks (initial energy = 0.6 J) and
heterogeneous networks (the initial energy is evenly distributed at 0.4–0.8 J).
heterogeneous networks (the initial energy is evenly distributed at 0.4–0.8 J).
4.1.1.The
4.1.1. TheNetwork
NetworkLifetime
LifetimeComparison
ComparisonininHomogeneous
HomogeneousNetworks
Networks

InInSection
Section4.1.1,
4.1.1,we
wecompare
comparethethenetwork
networklifetime
lifetimeininhomogeneous
homogeneousnetworks
networkswith
withααtaking
takingfrom
from
9 numbers between 0.1 and 0.9. Figures 9 and 10, and Table 2 show us the related
9 numbers between 0.1 and 0.9. Figures 9 and 10, and Table 2 show us the related results. results.

Figure9.9.The
Figure Thenetwork
networklifetime comparison
lifetime
Sensors 2018, 18, x FOR PEER REVIEW
in in
comparison homogeneous networks
homogeneous (routing
networks factor
(routing = 0.1,
factor = 0.3,
0.1, 0.5,
0.3, 0.7
0.5,
17 of 27
and
0.7 0.9).
and 0.9).
Number of nodes alive

Figure10.
Figure 10.The
Thenetwork
networklifetime
lifetimecomparison
comparisonininhomogeneous
homogeneousnetworks
networks(routing
(routingfactor
factor==0.2,
0.2,0.4,
0.4,0.6
0.6
and0.8).
and 0.8).

Table 2. A comparison of the first and last node’s death round in homogeneous networks with
different routing factor α.

Routing Factor α The First Node’s Death Round The Last Node’s Death Round
0.1 875 2226
0.2 1018 2075
0.3 1158 1892
Sensors 2018, 18, 3938 17 of 27

Table 2. A comparison of the first and last node’s death round in homogeneous networks with different
routing factor α.

Routing Factor α The First Node’s Death Round The Last Node’s Death Round
0.1 875 2226
0.2 1018 2075
0.3 1158 1892
0.4 1254 1740
0.5 1285 1736
0.6 1271 1722
0.7 1280 1696
0.8 1279 1612
0.9 1200 1665

4.1.2. The Network Lifetime Comparison in Heterogeneous Networks

In Section 4.1.1, we compare the network lifetime in heterogeneous networks with α taking from
9 numbers between 0.1 and 0.9. Figures 11 and 12, and Table 3 show us the related results.

Table 3. A comparison of the first and last node’s death round in heterogeneous networks with different
routing factor α.

Routing Factor α The First Node’s Death Round The Last Node’s Death Round
0.1 875 2181
0.2 1051 1969
0.3 1064 1931
0.4 1066 1820
0.5 1055 1808
0.6 1035 1813
0.7 1036 1881
0.8 1037 1809
0.9PEER REVIEW
Sensors 2018, 18, x FOR 1038 1793 18 of 27
Number of nodes alive

Figure 11.The
Figure11. Thenetwork
networklifetime
lifetimecomparison
comparisonininheterogeneous
heterogeneousnetworks
networks(routing
(routingfactor
factor==0.1,
0.1,0.3,
0.3,0.5,
0.5,
0.7 and 0.9).
0.7 and 0.9).
live
 Figure 11. The network lifetime comparison in heterogeneous networks (routing factor = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5,
Sensors 2018, 18, 3938 18 of 27
0.7 and 0.9).

Number of nodes alive

Figure 12.The
Figure12. Thenetwork
networklifetime
lifetimecomparison
comparisonininheterogeneous
heterogeneousnetworks
networks(routing
(routingfactor
factor==0.2,
0.2,0.4,
0.4,0.6
0.6
and 0.8).
and 0.8).

4.1.3. The Optimal Routing Factor

4.1.3. The Optimal Routing Factor
Although the network has the longest lifetime in the case of α = 0.1 compared with other cases,
Although the network has the longest lifetime in the case of α = 0.1 compared with other cases,
its first node death time is too early, which means that the energy consumption distribution of the
its first node death time is too early, which means that the energy consumption distribution of the
nodes is rather uneven in this case. In homogeneous networks, the first node’s death round in the
nodes is rather uneven in this case. In homogeneous networks, the first node’s death round in the
case of α = 0.2 is 1018, it is too small. Although the first node’s death rounds in the case of α = 0.4–0.9
case of α = 0.2 is 1018, it is too small. Although the first node’s death rounds in the case of α = 0.4–0.9
are very close, the last node’s death round in the case of α = 0.4 is the largest among them. The first
are very close, the last node’s death round in the case of α = 0.4 is the largest among them. The first
node’s death round in the case of α = 0.3 is less than that in the case of α = 0.4, but the last node’s
node’s death round in the case of α = 0.3 is less than that in the case of α = 0.4, but the last node’s
death round in the case of α = 0.3 is more than that in the case of α = 0.4. Thus, the optimal routing
death round in the case of α = 0.3 is more than that in the case of α = 0.4. Thus, the optimal routing
factor α in homogeneous networks is 0.3 or 0.4.
factor α in homogeneous networks is 0.3 or 0.4.
In heterogeneous networks, the first node’s death rounds in the case of α = 0.2–0.9 are very close,
but the last node’s death rounds in the case of α = 0.2 and 0.3 are both the largest among them. Thus,
the optimal routing factor α in heterogeneous networks is 0.2 or 0.3.
In summary, we can determine the optimal routing factor (α = 0.3) in the protocol.

4.2. Comparison of the Death Round of the First Node

In WSNs, network performance tends to decline with the nodes’ death, and the network is in a
stable period before the first node dies. The death of the first node indicates that the network enters an
unstable period and its performance starts to decline. The clustering protocol in this paper balances
the energy consumption of the network by cyclically selecting the CHs and considers the remaining
energy and location of the node in the process of the CHs selection.
Figure 13 shows that in the homogeneous networks (0.4 J and 0.8 J), the round of the first node’s
death in the three protocols LEACH, SEP, and DEEC is not substantially different. In comparison,
our protocol has an advantage in delaying the round of the first node’s death. In the heterogeneous
networks (0.4–0.8 J), our protocol can still maintain good performance in this respect. At this time,
the DEEC performance is the best among the other three protocols, the LEACH performance is second,
and the SEP performance is poor. It is not difficult to understand that in heterogeneous networks,
the energy gap between nodes is large. But regardless of the energy of the nodes in the network,
the same probability that LEACH gives these nodes is elected as the CH. SEP only considers the
initial energy of the node that will cause the high-energy node to have less energy but maintain a high
probability of being selected as the CH after multiple rounds of iterations, so that it increases the death
 the DEEC performance is the best among the other three protocols, the LEACH performance is
second, and the SEP performance is poor. It is not difficult to understand that in heterogeneous
networks, the energy gap between nodes is large. But regardless of the energy of the nodes in the
network, the same probability that LEACH gives these nodes is elected as the CH. SEP only
considers the initial energy of the node that will cause the high-energy node to have less energy but
Sensors 2018, 18, 3938 19 of 27
maintain a high probability of being selected as the CH after multiple rounds of iterations, so that it
increases the death rate of the node and causes the first node to die the earliest. DEEC
comprehensively
rate of the node and causesanalyzesthethe
firstinitial
node energy and
to die the residual
earliest. energy
DEEC of the node, which
comprehensively analyzescanthe
ensure
initialthe
probability
energy that theenergy
and residual node withof thehigh initial
node, whichenergy
can is elected
ensure theasprobability
the CH canthatbe lowered
the nodeafter
withmultiple
high
initial energy is elected as the CH can be lowered after multiple rounds of data iterations, so that other to
rounds of data iterations, so that other nodes with high remaining energy have higher probability
be elected
nodes as the
with high CH. The energy
remaining commonality of theprobability
have higher three protocols
to beiselected
that they do not
as the CH.consider the location
The commonality
of of
thethe node,
three resulting
protocols is in some
that theynodes
do notwith much energy
consider and relatively
the location of the node,remote locations
resulting beingnodes
in some elected
as the CHs, thus causing unnecessary energy waste. Therefore, the protocol
with much energy and relatively remote locations being elected as the CHs, thus causing unnecessary in this paper considers
the energy
energy waste.and positionthe
Therefore, of protocol
the node,insothis thatpaper
the CH in one the
considers round tends
energy to position
and have more energy
of the node,and
better position, thus effectively extending the death round of the first node.
so that the CH in one round tends to have more energy and better position, thus effectively extending
the death round of the first node.

Figure The
13.13.
Figure round
The roundof of
thethe
first node’s
first death.
node’s LEACH:
death. LEACH:Low-Energy
Low-Energy Adaptive
Adaptive Cluster Hierarchical;
Cluster Hierarchical;
SEP: Stable
SEP: Election
Stable Protocol;
Election DEEC:
Protocol; Distributed
DEEC: Energy-Efficient
Distributed Clustering.
Energy-Efficient Clustering.

4.3. Comparison of the Network Lifetime

SEP considers the impact of the initial energy on the basis of LEACH. Yet in the homogeneous
networks, the initial energy of all of the nodes is the same, then SEP equals LEACH. As shown in
Figures 14 and 15, the numbers of surviving nodes with the rounds of SEP and LEACH are very close,
which is a good testimony to its efficacy. With the continuous rounds of iterations, the advantage of
DEEC gradually emerged. Compared to LEACH, DEEC extends the network lifetime by 8.93% and
12.37% in the two homogeneous networks, respectively. Compared to DEEC, the protocol in this paper
further extends the network lifetime by 25.89% and 24.36%, respectively.
As shown in Figure 16, in heterogeneous networks, compared to LEACH, the number of surviving
nodes in SEP is less than that in LEACH in the early period. SEP causes many nodes with high initial
energy to die in the early period, so it has more nodes with less initial energy in the network. During
the later period, the energy distribution of the nodes in SEP is more balanced so that it can maintain
a longer network lifetime. Considering the initial energy and residual energy of the node, DEEC
has advantages in heterogeneous networks compared to SEP and LEACH. Compared to LEACH,
SEP, and DEEC, the protocol in this paper leads to the survival of 86 nodes in the 1400th round,
thus ensuring that the protocol can carry more rounds of network communication, while LEACH, SEP,
and DEEC retain only 28, 32, and 33 nodes, respectively.
 networks, the initial energy of all of the nodes is the same, then SEP equals LEACH. As shown in
Figures 14 and 15, the numbers of surviving nodes with the rounds of SEP and LEACH are very
Figures 14 and 15, the numbers of surviving nodes with the rounds of SEP and LEACH are very
close, which is a good testimony to its efficacy. With the continuous rounds of iterations, the
close, which is a good testimony to its efficacy. With the continuous rounds of iterations, the
advantage of DEEC gradually emerged. Compared to LEACH, DEEC extends the network lifetime
advantage of DEEC gradually emerged. Compared to LEACH, DEEC extends the network lifetime
by 8.93% and 12.37% in the two homogeneous networks, respectively. Compared to DEEC, the
by 8.93% and 12.37% in the two homogeneous networks, respectively. Compared to DEEC, the
protocol
Sensors in 3938
2018, 18, this paper further extends the network lifetime by 25.89% and 24.36%, respectively.20 of 27
protocol in this paper further extends the network lifetime by 25.89% and 24.36%, respectively.

Numberofofnodes
Number alive
nodesalive

Figure 14. The number of surviving nodes varies with the round (initial energy = 0.4 J).
Figure
Figure 14.14.
TheThe numberofofsurviving
number survivingnodes
nodesvaries
varieswith
withthe
theround
round (initial
(initial energy
energy = 0.4
0.4 J).
J).

Sensors 2018, 18, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 27

Figure The
15.15.
Figure Thenumber
numberofofsurviving
survivingnodes
nodesvaries
varieswith
withthe
the round
round (initial
(initial energy == 0.8
0.8 J).
J).
Figure 15. The number of surviving nodes varies with the round (initial energy = 0.8 J).

As shown in Figure 16, in heterogeneous networks, compared to LEACH, the number of

As shown in Figure 16, in heterogeneous networks, compared to LEACH, the number of
surviving nodes in SEP is less than that in LEACH in the early period. SEP causes many nodes with
surviving nodes in SEP is less than that in LEACH in the early period. SEP causes many nodes with
high initial energy to die in the early period, so it has more nodes with less initial energy in the
high initial energy to die in the early period, so it has more nodes with less initial energy in the
network. During the later period, the energy distribution of the nodes in SEP is more balanced so
network. During the later period, the energy distribution of the nodes in SEP is more balanced so
that it can maintain a longer network lifetime. Considering the initial energy and residual energy of
that it can maintain a longer network lifetime. Considering the initial energy and residual energy of
the node, DEEC has advantages in heterogeneous networks compared to SEP and LEACH.
the node, DEEC has advantages in heterogeneous networks compared to SEP and LEACH.
Compared to LEACH, SEP, and DEEC, the protocol in this paper leads to the survival of 86 nodes in
Compared to LEACH, SEP, and DEEC, the protocol in this paper leads to the survival of 86 nodes in
the 1400th round, thus ensuring that the protocol can carry more rounds of network communication,
the 1400th round, thus ensuring that the protocol can carry more rounds of network communication,
while LEACH, SEP, and DEEC retain only 28, 32, and 33 nodes, respectively.
while LEACH, SEP, and DEEC retain only 28, 32, and 33 nodes, respectively.

Figure TheThe
16. 16.
Figure number of surviving
number nodesnodes
of surviving varies with
variesthewith
round
the(the initial
round energy
(the is evenly
initial energydistributed
is evenly
distributed
at 0.4–0.8 J). at 0.4–0.8 J).

4.4. Comparison of the Network Energy Consumption

In this paper, the energy consumption model proposed in [12] is referenced in determining the
optimal cluster number of the network, and a new optimal cluster number method is proposed
according to the specific network model. Then, for each round of data transmission, we determine
 Figure 16. The number of surviving nodes varies with the round (the initial energy is evenly
Sensors 2018, 18, 3938 21 of 27
distributed at 0.4–0.8 J).

4.4.Comparison
4.4. Comparisonofofthe
theNetwork
NetworkEnergy
EnergyConsumption
Consumption
Inthis
In this paper,
paper, the
the energy
energy consumption
consumption model
modelproposed
proposedinin[12]
[12]is is
referenced
referenced in in
determining
determining the
optimal cluster number of the network, and a new optimal cluster number
the optimal cluster number of the network, and a new optimal cluster number method is proposed method is proposed
accordingtotothe
according thespecific
specific network
network model.
model. Then,
Then, forfor each
each round
round of data
of data transmission,
transmission, we determine
we determine the
most suitable CH based on the remaining energy and positions of the nodes in the cluster. Ascluster.
the most suitable CH based on the remaining energy and positions of the nodes in the shown in As
shown in Figures 17–19, compared to the other three protocols, the number of clusters calculated
Figure 17, Figure 18, Figure 19, compared to the other three protocols, the number of clusters calculated by
thethe
by protocol
protocolininthis
thispaper
paperisissuperior,
superior,and
andthe
the CHs
CHs selection
selection mechanism
mechanism is is more
more reasonable,
reasonable,so soless
less
energy is consumed in the
energy is consumed in the network.network.

Sensors 2018, 18, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 27

Figure 17.The
Figure17. Theresidual
residualenergy
energyvaries
varieswith
withthe
theround
round(initial
(initialenergy
energy==0.4
0.4J).J).

Figure 18.The
Figure18. Theresidual
residualenergy
energyvaries
varieswith
withthe
theround
round(initial
(initialenergy
energy==0.8
0.8J).J).
Sensors 2018, 18, 3938 22 of 27
Figure 18. The residual energy varies with the round (initial energy = 0.8 J).

Figure
Figure19. Theresidual
19. The residual energy
energy varies
varies withwith the round
the round (the initial
(the initial energyenergy isdistributed
is evenly evenly distributed at
at 0.4–0.8 J).
0.4–0.8 J).
4.5. Comparison of the Network Throughput
4.5. Comparison of the Network Throughput
Network throughput is an important indicator that fundamentally reflects the performance of a
Network throughput is an important indicator that fundamentally reflects the performance of a
protocol. It refers to the number of packets in the network that are ultimately sent to the BS. The
protocol. It refers to the number of packets in the network that are ultimately sent to the BS. The cluster
cluster member nodes transmit the information sensed by itself to the CH in the form of packets, and
member nodes transmit the information sensed by itself to the CH in the form of packets, and the CH
the CH fuses this information with that sensed by itself, and finally sends the information to the BS
fuses this information with that sensed by itself, and finally sends the information to the BS in the
in the form of packets. During this period, if the energy of the CH is insufficient to receive, fuse, or
form of packets. During this period, if the energy of the CH is insufficient to receive, fuse, or transmit
transmit the information, all of the information of the cluster in this round cannot be transmitted to
the information, all of the information of the cluster in this round cannot be transmitted to the BS,
the BS, resulting in a decrease in network throughput.
resulting in a decrease in network throughput.
As shown in Figures 20–22, the protocol in this paper achieves a good improvement in the network
As shown in Figures 20–22, the protocol in this paper achieves a good improvement in the
throughput:
network throughput:
In the homogeneous networks with the initial energy of 0.4 J, the final throughputs of LEACH,
In the homogeneous networks with the initial energy of 0.4 J, the final throughputs of LEACH,
SEP, and DEEC are 5404, 5357, and 7072, respectively. In comparison, the protocol in this paper
SEP, and DEEC are 5404, 5357, and 7072, respectively. In comparison, the protocol in this paper
achieves 89.64%, 91.3%, and 44.9% in throughput improvement, respectively.
achieves 89.64%, 91.3%, and 44.9% in throughput improvement, respectively.
In the homogeneous networks with the initial energy of 0.8 J, the final throughputs of LEACH,
SEP, and DEEC are 10,099, 10,336, and 13,590, respectively. In comparison, the protocol in this paper
achieves 102.32%, 97.68%, and 50.35% in throughput improvement, respectively.
In the heterogeneous networks where the initial energy is evenly distributed at 0.4–0.8 J,
the final throughputs of LEACH, SEP, and DEEC are 8017, 10,591, and 12,426, respectively. In
comparison, the protocol in this paper achieves 104.79%, 55.02%, and 32.13% in throughput
improvement, respectively.
As indicated in Tables 4–8, as the best among the four clustering protocols, our protocol can
achieve a longer first node’s death round, longer network lifetime, lower energy consumption and
a higher amount of communication data than the others, which is of great significance for various
environmental monitoring applications.
 SEP, and DEEC are 10,099, 10,336, and 13,590, respectively. In comparison, the protocol in this paper
In the homogeneous networks with the initial energy of 0.8 J, the final throughputs of LEACH,
achieves 102.32%, 97.68%, and 50.35% in throughput improvement, respectively.
SEP, and DEEC are 10,099, 10,336, and 13,590, respectively. In comparison, the protocol in this paper
In the heterogeneous networks where the initial energy is evenly distributed at 0.4–0.8 J, the final
achieves 102.32%, 97.68%, and 50.35% in throughput improvement, respectively.
throughputs of LEACH, SEP,
In the heterogeneous and DEEC
networks arethe
where 8017, 10,591,
initial and
energy 12,426, distributed
is evenly respectively. In comparison,
at 0.4–0.8 J, the finalthe
protocol in this paper achieves 104.79%, 55.02%, and 32.13% in throughput improvement, respectively.
throughputs of LEACH, SEP, and DEEC are 8017, 10,591, and 12,426, respectively. In comparison, the
Sensors 2018, 18, 3938 23 of 27
protocol in this paper achieves 104.79%, 55.02%, and 32.13% in throughput improvement, respectively.

Figure 20. The network throughput varies with the round (initial energy = 0.4 J).
Figure
Figure 20. The
20. The network
network throughputvaries
throughput varies with
with the
theround
round(initial energy
(initial = 0.4
energy J). J).
= 0.4

Sensors 2018, 18, x FOR PEER

Figure 21.REVIEW
The network throughput varies with the round (initial energy = 0.8 J). 24 of 27
Figure
Figure 21.21.
TheThe networkthroughput
network throughputvaries
varieswith
with the
the round
round (initial
(initialenergy
energy==0.8
0.8J).J).

Figure
Figure 22. 22.
TheThe network
network throughputvaries
throughput varieswith
withthe
theround
round (the initial
initial energy
energyisisevenly
evenlydistributed
distributedat at
0.4–0.8
0.4–0.8 J). J).

As indicated in Tables 4–8, as the best among the four clustering protocols, our protocol can
achieve a longer first node’s death round, longer network lifetime, lower energy consumption and a
higher amount of communication data than the others, which is of great significance for various
environmental monitoring applications.
Sensors 2018, 18, 3938 24 of 27

Table 4. A performance comparison between the four clustering protocols in the homogeneous
networks (initial energy = 0.4 J).

Protocol Stable Time Unstable Time Network Lifetime Final Throughput

LEACH 654 275 929 5404
SEP 663 252 915 5357
DEEC 680 332 1012 7072
Our Protocol 767 507 1274 10,248

Table 5. A performance comparison between the four clustering protocols in the homogeneous
networks (initial energy = 0.8 J).

Protocol Stable Time Unstable Time Network Lifetime Final Throughput

LEACH 1320 499 1819 10,099
SEP 1345 470 1815 10,336
DEEC 1326 718 2044 13,590
Our Protocol 1548 994 2542 20,432

Table 6. A performance summary between the four clustering protocols in the homogeneous networks.

Node Energy Lifetime Stable time Throughput

Protocol CHs Election Metric
Distribution Ranking Ranking Ranking
LEACH Random Unbalanced 3rd 2nd 3rd
SEP Initial energy Unbalanced 3rd 2nd 3rd
Initial energy Comparative
DEEC 2nd 2nd 2nd
Residual energy balanced
Residual energy
Our Protocol Balanced 1st 1st 1st
Location of the node

Table 7. A performance comparison between the four clustering protocols in the homogeneous
networks (the initial energy is evenly distributed at 0.4–0.8 J).

Protocol Stable Time Unstable Time Network Lifetime Final Throughput

LEACH 746 865 1611 8017
SEP 674 1018 1692 10,591
DEEC 813 1058 1871 12,426
Our Protocol 1064 867 1931 16,418

Table 8. A performance comparison between the four clustering protocols in the

heterogeneous networks.

Node Energy Lifetime Stable time Throughput

Protocol CHs Election Metric
Distribution Ranking Ranking Ranking
LEACH Random Unbalanced 4th 3rd 4th
SEP Initial energy Unbalanced 3rd 4th 3rd
Initial energy Comparative
DEEC 2nd 2nd 2nd
Residual energy balanced
Residual energy
Our Protocol Balanced 1st 1st 1st
Location of the node

5. Conclusions
To further improve the performance of WSNs and increase the application value of WSNs in
various scenarios, this paper proposes a new WSN clustering routing protocol. First, a new network
Sensors 2018, 18, 3938 25 of 27

structure model is introduced, then according to the original energy consumption model, a new
method for determining the optimal cluster number of the network is proposed to balance the energy
consumption within the cluster and between the clusters. Next, aiming at the shortcomings of the
original AGNES algorithm, this paper introduces the variance in the cluster setup phase to reduce the
difference in the distance between the nodes in the two clusters and implements the D-CHs division of
the energy balance strategy and the node dormancy mechanism before and after the death of the first
node, respectively. Finally, the CH priority function is constructed based on the residual energy and
position of the node and the CHs are selected repeatedly at the end of each round. The simulation
results show:
In homogeneous networks, the performance of LEACH and SEP is similar to each other. At this
time, the rounds of the first node’s death in the three protocols LEACH, SEP, and DEEC are not
substantially different. The protocol in this paper has increased by approximately 13–17% in the round
of the first node’s death. Compared to LEACH and SEP, the protocol in this paper has increased by
approximately 40% and 90–103% in network lifetime and network throughput, respectively; Compared
to DEEC, the protocol in this paper has increased by approximately 25% and 45–50% in network lifetime
and network throughput, respectively.
In heterogeneous networks, compared to LEACH, the advantages of SEP and DEEC are gradually
reflected. In the stable period, SEP causes many nodes with high initial energy to act as CHs frequently,
so the first node’s death round in SEP is less than that in LEACH. Different from the former two, DEEC
considers the residual energy of the nodes, so that the energy consumption of the nodes in the network
is relatively more balanced. Compared with LEACH and SEP, its overall network performance is
better. For the protocol in this paper, it takes into account the location and the remaining energy of the
node, so that the total energy consumption in the network is smaller and the energy consumption is
more balanced, and the network can survive more nodes after multiple iterations than the other three.
Especially in terms of network throughput, it has increased by approximately 32% than DEEC.
So, the protocol can achieve a certain improvement in terms of the round of the first node’s death,
network lifetime, network energy consumption, and network throughput.
However, there are some shortcomings in our protocol:
First, the scenario considered by the protocol is too idealistic. In reality, even if the node energy is
sufficient, transmission failure may occur due to the uncertainty of the natural environmental factors
in the information transmission process. We can later consider adding a probability model to simulate
the natural environment during the information transmission process.
Second, the protocol is applicable only to 2D scenarios. Typical 3D scenarios, such as underground
coal mines, underground pipe corridors, and indoor homes, in which, WSN must be arranged in three
dimensions. Therefore, in the future we will consider proposing a clustering routing protocol suitable
for 3D scenarios based on this protocol.
Last, the protocol proposed in this paper does not optimize the information transmission path.
Therefore, compared with some general low-latency protocols, its delay may be larger, which is not
suitable for some projects with higher real-time requirements. Therefore, in the future we will consider
optimizing the information transmission path through a relatively practical optimization algorithm.

Author Contributions: Z.Z., K.X. conducted the research, performed the simulations. Z.Z. led the research. G.H.,
L.H. supervised the work and proposed revised suggestions. All authors participated in the writing of the article.
Funding: This research was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. U1709212)
and Zhejiang Province Public Welfare Technology Application Research Project (Grant No. GF18F030010) and
Smart City Collaborative Innovation Center of Zhejiang Province.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sensors 2018, 18, 3938 26 of 27

References
1. Amodu, O.A.; Mahmood, R.A. Impact of the energy-based and location-based LEACH secondary cluster
aggregation on WSN lifetime. Wirel. Netw. 2018, 24, 1379–1402. [CrossRef]
2. Zaatouri, I.; Guiloufi, A.B.; Alyaoui, N.; Kachouri, A. A Comparative Study of the Energy Efficient Clustering
Protocols in Heterogeneous and Homogeneous Wireless Sensor Networks. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 2017, 97,
6453–6468. [CrossRef]
3. Cao, Y.; Zhang, L. Data fusion of heterogeneous network based on BP neural network and improved
SEP. In Proceedings of the 2017 9th International Conference on Advanced Infocomm Technology (ICAIT),
Chengdu, China, 22–24 November 2017; pp. 138–142.
4. Javaid, N.; Qureshi, T.N.; Khan, A.H.; Iqbal, A.; Akhtar, E.; Ishfaq, M. EDDEEC: Enhanced Developed
Distributed Energy-efficient Clustering for Heterogeneous Wireless Sensor Networks. Procedia Comput. Sci.
2013, 19, 914–919. [CrossRef]
5. Younis, O.; Fahmy, S. HEED: A hybrid, energy-efficient, distributed clustering approach for Ad hoc sensor
networks. IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. 2004, 3, 366–379. [CrossRef]
6. Lakhlef, H. A multi-level clustering scheme based on cliques and clusters for wireless sensor networks.
Comput. Electr. Eng. 2015, 48, 436–450. [CrossRef]
7. Bozorgi, S.M.; Shokouhi Rostami, A.; Hosseinabadi, A.A.R.; Balas, V.E. A new clustering protocol for energy
harvesting-wireless sensor networks. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2017, 64, 233–247. [CrossRef]
8. Elhabyan, R.; Shi, W.; St-Hilaire, M. A Pareto optimization-based approach to clustering and routing in
Wireless Sensor Networks. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2018, 114, 57–69. [CrossRef]
9. Rani, S.; Malhotra, J.; Talwar, R. Energy efficient chain based cooperative routing protocol for WSN. Appl. Soft
Comput. 2015, 35, 386–397. [CrossRef]
10. Saranya, V.; Shankar, S.; Kanagachidambaresan, G.R. Energy Efficient Clustering Scheme (EECS) for Wireless
Sensor Network with Mobile Sink. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 2018, 100, 1553–1567. [CrossRef]
11. Wang, Q.; Guo, S.; Hu, J.; Yang, Y. Spectral partitioning and fuzzy C-means based clustering algorithm for
big data wireless sensor networks. EURASIP J. Wirel. Commun. Netw. 2018, 54, 1–11. [CrossRef]
12. Heinzelman, W.B.; Chandrakasan, A.P.; Balakrishnan, H. An application-specific protocol architecturefor
wireless microsensor networks. IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. 2002, 1, 660–670. [CrossRef]
13. Xie, W.; Zhang, Q.; Sun, Z.; Zhang, F. A Clustering Routing Protocol for WSN Based on Type-2 Fuzzy Logic
and Ant Colony Optimization. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 2015, 84, 1165–1196. [CrossRef]
14. Arjunan, S.; Sujatha, P. Lifetime maximization of wireless sensor network using fuzzy based unequal
clustering and ACO based routing hybrid protocol. Appl. Intell. 2018, 48, 2229–2246. [CrossRef]
15. Azharuddin, M.; Jana, P.K. PSO-based approach for energy-efficient and energy-balanced routing and
clustering in wireless sensor networks. Soft Comput. 2017, 21, 6825–6839. [CrossRef]
16. Tam, N.T.; Hai, D.T.; Son, L.H.; Vinh, L.T. Improving lifetime and network connections of 3D wireless sensor
networks based on fuzzy clustering and particle swarm optimization. Wirel. Netw. 2018, 24, 1477–1490.
[CrossRef]
17. Chidean, M.I.; Morgado, E.; Del Arco, E.; Ramiro-Bargueno, J.; Caamano, A.J. Scalable Data-Coupled
Clustering for Large Scale WSN. IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. 2015, 14, 4681–4694. [CrossRef]
18. Lalwani, P.; Das, S.; Banka, H.; Kumar, C. CRHS: Clustering and routing in wireless sensor networks using
harmony search algorithm. Neural Comput. Appl. 2018, 30, 639–659. [CrossRef]
19. Alia, O.M.D. A dynamic harmony search-based fuzzy clustering protocol for energy-efficient wireless sensor
networks. Ann. Telecommun. 2018, 73, 353–365. [CrossRef]
20. Tyagi, S.; Tanwar, S.; Kumar, N.; Rodrigues, J.J.P.C. Cognitive radio-based clustering for opportunistic shared
spectrum access to enhance lifetime of wireless sensor network. Pervasive Mob. Comput. 2015, 22, 90–112.
[CrossRef]
21. Zahedi, A.; Arghavani, M.; Parandin, F.; Arghavani, A. Energy Efficient Reservation-Based Cluster Head
Selection in WSNs. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 2018, 100, 667–679. [CrossRef]
22. Sivakumar, B.; Sowmya, B. An Energy Efficient Clustering with Delay Reduction in Data Gathering
(EE-CDRDG) Using Mobile Sensor Node. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 2016, 90, 793–806. [CrossRef]
23. Mehmood, A.; Lloret, J.; Sendra, S. A secure and low-energy zone-based wireless sensor networks routing
protocol for pollution monitoring. Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput. 2016, 16, 2869–2883. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2018, 18, 3938 27 of 27

24. Xia, X.; Chen, Z.; Liu, H.; Wang, H.; Zeng, F. A Routing Protocol for Multisink Wireless Sensor Networks in
Underground Coalmine Tunnels. Sensors 2016, 16, 2032. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Dutt, S.; Agrawal, S.; Vig, R. Cluster-Head Restricted Energy Efficient Protocol (CREEP) for Routing in
Heterogeneous Wireless Sensor Networks. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 2018, 100, 1477–1497. [CrossRef]
26. Neamatollahi, P.; Naghibzadeh, M. Distributed unequal clustering algorithm in large-scale wireless sensor
networks using fuzzy logic. J. Supercomput. 2018, 74, 2329–2352. [CrossRef]
27. Khreasarn, K.; Hantrakul, K. Automatic gate using Bluetooth technology (Open the gate with the strength of
the Bluetooth signal on the smartphone). In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Digital
Arts, Media and Technology (ICDAMT), Phayao, Thailand, 25–28 February 2018; pp. 54–58.
28. Collotta, M.; Pau, G.; Talty, T.; Tonguz, O.K. Bluetooth 5: A Concrete Step Forward toward the IoT.
IEEE Commun. Mag. 2018, 56, 125–131. [CrossRef]
29. Wang, T.; Ogasawara, Y.; Tuda, Y.; Ta, T.T.; Oshiro, M.; Ihara, J.; Aruyama, T.; Hashimoto, T.; Sai, A.;
Tokairin, T. An 113DB-Link-Budget Bluetooth-5 SoC with an 8dBm 22%-Efficiency TX. In Proceedings of the
2018 IEEE Symposium on VLSI Circuits, Honolulu, HI, USA, 18–22 June 2018; pp. 25–26.
30. Zhou, Z. Machine Learning; Tsinghua University Press: Beijing, China, 2016.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).