arXiv:1609.04735v1 [cs.NI] 15 Sep 2016

RALL — Routing-Aware Of Path Length, Link
Quality, And Traffic Load For Wireless Sensor
Networks
Vinícius N. Medeiros, Douglas V. Santana,
Bruno Silvestre, Vinicius da C. M. Borges
{viniciusnunesmedeiros, douglassantana}@inf.ufg.br
{brunoos, vinicius}@inf.ufg.br
Instituto de Informática – Universidade Federal de Goiás
Goiânia, GO – Brasil
15 September 2016
Abstract
Due to the enormous variety of application scenarios and ubiquity, Internet of Things (IoT) brought a new perspective of applications for the
current and future Internet. The Wireless Sensor Networks provide key
devices for developing the IoT communication paradigm, such as the sensors collecting various kind of information and the routing and MAC protocols. However, this type of network has strong power consumption and
transmission capacity restrictions (low speed wireless links and subject to
interference). In this context, it is necessary to develop solutions that enable a more efficient communication based on the optimized utilization of
the network resources. This papers aims to present a multi-objective routing algorithm, named Routing-Aware of path Length, Link quality, and
traffic Load (RALL), that seeks to balance three objectives: to minimize
bottlenecks, to minimize path length, and to avoid links with low quality. RALL results in good performance when taking into consideration
delivery rate, overhead, delay, and power consumption.

1

Introduction

The Internet has been employed more and more, and becoming an essential tool
for humans. Nowadays, not only people use this information and communication
technology, as well as machines employ it to communicate with each other, making measurement of various types of information. The Internet of Things (IoT)
paradigm allows these machines to communicate and feel the environment [3].

1

Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) play an important role within the IoT and
have gained increasing prominence as part of ubiquitous computing in various
environments, such as industry, smart cities, smart spaces, smart grids, health
monitoring environmental, real-time multimedia applications [3, 15, 2]. WSNs
consist of various nodes that generally have strong processing, battery, and
memory constraints. Typically, each node has only one radio interface (generally
802.15.4 CSMA/CA) with a fixed transmission rate (250 kbps) [20].
Usually, a flat model is employed to organize the network, where all the
nodes play the same role in sensing, processing, and (re)broadcast packets. The
information is forwarded (routed) node by node until it reaches the sink node,
where it is processed [1, 14, 17]. This paper will treat the routing optimization
problem based on three objectives: (i) minimize the path length (number of
hops), (ii) minimize the bottleneck, and (iii) minimize the interference in the
path. At the routing, each hop could increase the delay.
This article is organized as follows: In Section 2, we present a model for
the routing problem of multi-objective optimization. In Section 3, we describe
the proposed algorithm to determine a solution for the model. In Section 4,
we present the simulation results. In Section 5, we analyze the most relevant
related work on routing approaches for WSNs. The conclusion and future work
is carried out in Section 6.

2

System Model

WSNs consist of various sensors, distributed in an area, that enable data collection. Most of these sensors monitor or interact with the environment in which
they are. A node in particular, called sink, is designed to gather all the data
collected by the sensors. The sink node is attached to a machine with more
processing capacity (e.g. servers in cloud computing environment) so that collected data can be transformed into information and knowledge, to be used by
various applications.
WSNs are modeled as a graph G = (V, E), where V is the set of vertices
that represents the sensors, E is the set of communication links between two
network devices. The link esd ∈ E between s, d ∈ V exists only if the device s
accomplish a data transmission to the node d, i.e. the node d must be in the
transmission range of s. Some metrics can be employed for determining if a link
between two sensors can actually be used. Every sensor s ∈ V − {i}, where i
is the sink, is responsible for the origin of a data stream named fs ∈ F , where
F is defined as the set of all flows generated in the network. All flows of WSNs
have the sink node i as destination node.
The establishment of a path is demanded on the graph G so that the data
flow can reach the sink node. The selection of each flow path must follow some
objectives to ensure certain network characteristics, such as packet delivery rate,
energy consumption, delay, etc. A larger number of hops require the activation
of more links, that generates more use of the transmission medium and may
lead to more contention or interference as well as end-to-end delay [6].

2

Load balancing aims at distributing the flows over the network uniformly.
This prevents a small set of nodes to be used for the majority of the routes,
leading to a greater burden on those nodes. It is important to point out that the
nodes have limited resources, so that load can cause, for example, the reduction
of the network lifetime, due to a higher consumption of battery to forward
packets, as well as for packet loss, given the small amount of memory in the
nodes for packet storage [8].
The interference degrades the link quality [6]. It can be caused by the number of neighbors that are in communication range of each node and/or other
wireless networks that generally adopt communication standards using same
spectrum band. As nodes in a WSNs use this shared band, and they employ
only a radio interface and a single communication channel, more nodes in the
network result in higher level of interference. This implies a greater chance of
collision (requiring packet retransmission) because there is a greater probability
that the channel is busy. As a result, interference strongly impacts the effective transmission capacity. Thus, the routes that pass through nodes with a
greater degree of interference may suffer more delay in delivery and/or more
retransmission of packets, as well as may result in larger battery consumption.
It can be noticed interrelationships between these three objectives. The
increase in the number of hops in the path is a common consequence when a
routing solution seeks to minimize overload [6]. However, increasing path length
causes more nodes activation, in consequence more interference. It is important
to notice that not always shorter paths generate less interference in the WSN
as a whole. For instance, the shortest paths may suffer interference due to the
existence of neighbors or other wireless networks/devices that are in the same
range area of these paths.
Following we present the construction of an optimization model for the route
establishment on WSN with three objectives: minimizing the number of hops,
minimizing the network bottleneck on the links, and minimizing the use of low
quality links. These three objectives are described and modeled in the following
paragraphs.
Number of Hops Minimizing the number of hops in a required path can
reduce the end-to-end delay. A linear programming model is used to find the
shortest paths from f flows in F :

minimize


 X

asd






(1)



esd ∈E

Subject to :
X

avd −

d∈V

X

X

adv = 1, ∀v ∈ V, v 6= i

(2)

d∈V

asi = |F |, i = sink

(3)

s∈V

asd ≥ 0

(4)

3

Variable asd is defined as the sum of the flows using the edge esd on your
route. Constraint (2) ensures that every vertex can only generate a single flow
and constraint (3) ensures that the sink node can receive a number of flows equal
to the number of sensors in the network. The combination of restrictions (2) and
(3) ensures that loops are not created. The constraint (4) ensures non-negative
values for sum of flows on links in asd . The objective function (1) minimizes
the sum of the amount of all flows that pass through each edge esd ∈ E. Thus,
each flow is allocated to the shortest path and therefore the objective function
value is minimized.
Wireless Links with Low Quality The shortest paths may be more susceptible to high level of interference that increases the packet loss rate, since
the interference decreases the link quality. The quality of the wireless communication affects the overall network capacity. Wireless links that do not have
their quality degraded by factors, such as interference and noise, become a good
choice for use on routes to the sink node, while links that have poor data transmission capacity (i.e., high level of interference) should be avoided to improve
package delivery rate.
The LQI (Link Quality Indication) is a measurement provided by the IEEE
802.15.4 physical layer that can be used as a quality metric of the wireless
transmission between two sensors. LQI values are represented in a range from 0
to 255 [7]. In this paper, a link is considered weak or with low quality if the LQI
value is smaller than a certain threshold (T HLQI ), according to the following
condition:
(
0
, LQIsd ≥ T HLQI
(5)
lsd =
sd
)
, LQIsd < T HLQI
1 − ( TLQI
HLQI
LQIsd is the value of LQI regarding the wireless link between nodes s, d ∈ V .
The variable lsd is used in the proposed model to represent link quality values
that should be avoided (higher ones) or selected (lower ones). When lsd is zero,
it indicates that the link between the devices has an acceptable LQI, i.e. it has
a good quality. Otherwise, the value is normalized to the interval (1, 0) in order
to distinguish the links with lower quality, but that have a good chance of being
used, since they have a higher LQI.
The variable lsd is fundamental to minimize the use of links with low quality
on the paths. The objective function for this approach is constructed combining
the objective function (1) and taking into the number of hops (variable lsd ):
(
)
X
minimize
lsd · asd
(6)
esd ∈E

Network Bottleneck The distribution of flows in a WSNs, in a balanced
way, increases the network lifetime. On the other hand, an unfair distribution of
paths for flows creates agglomeration flows on the same node (i.e. bottleneck),

4

increasing the power consumption due to the increase of forwarded packets.
Since the sensors usually have strong restrictions relating to energy consumption, the question of minimizing bottlenecks is a very important feature for WSN
scenarios. Furthermore, smoothing out network bottleneck can improve traffic
performance.
The variable asd enables the objective function that is employed to minimize
the network bottleneck. Therefore, the objective function is a combination of
paths for each flow on the graph G, where the highest sum of the amount of
flows passing through a node s is minimal:
(

(
max

minimize

!)

)
X

asd

, ∀s ∈ V

(7)

d∈V

Multi-objective Model The model of the multi-objective optimization problem for the routing problem in WSNs uses three objectives (number of hops,
quality links, and network bottleneck):
(
)
X
minimize
asd
esd ∈E

(

)
X

minimize

lsd · asd

esd ∈E

(
minimize

(

max

)
X

asd

!)
, ∀s ∈ V

d∈V

Subject to:
X

avd −

d∈V

X

X

adv = 1, ∀v ∈ V, v 6= i

d∈V

asi = |F | − 1, i = sink

s∈V

asd ≥ 0
The objective functions (1), (6), and (7), when combined in a single model,
create a problem with conflicting solutions by having a set of optimal solutions
that are not dominated by each other, called the set of Pareto optimal. In other
words, the modeled objectives are conflicting each other because there is no
solution that is able to meet optimally all three objectives.
The conflict between the objectives that minimizes the amount of hops (1),
minimizes the amount of low-quality wireless links (6), and minimizes the network bottleneck (7) is evident since the objectives (1) and (6) group the paths
in order to select shortest paths or a link with better quality, objective function
(7) try to distribute the flows equally over the paths on the entire network,
therefore increasing the average path length and the use of links with low qual-

5

ity. The objective functions (1) and (6) are conflicting when the establishment
of shortest route demands links with lower quality.

3

RALL — Routing-Aware of path
Length, Link quality, and
traffic Load

In this section we describe the multi-objective algorithm, called Routing-Aware
of path Length, Link quality, and traffic Load (RALL) for the routing problem in
WSNs. RALL algorithm employs some techniques to simplify the complexity of
selecting the set of Pareto optimal solutions. For this reason, it uses an algorithm
for determining paths with lower cost (Dijkstra’s algorithm) so that each path
is calculated for a flow generated on an ordinary node. The values related to the
objective function are changed according to the nodes that had already their
specific route for the flows in order to achieve the balancing. Initially, it is carried
out the transformation of the model so that the objective functions of path
length minimization (1) and low quality links minimization (6) are combined in
a single objective.
When a solution of an objective function is not dominated for the other objective, it is necessary to establish a trade-off between the functions to determine
which solution can satisfy partially or completely the objectives. The weighted
sum method of the objective functions is usually applied to perform the combination of objectives. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a weight for each
objective function and perform a weighted sum of these values. This method
was chosen because it is well known for the problems of linear programming [10]:
(
!
!)
X
X
minimize wp ·
asd + wl ·
lsd · asd
=
esd ∈E

esd ∈E

(

)
X

(wp + wl · lsd ) · asd

(8)

esd ∈E

wp and wl are the weights for the objective function related to the number
of hops (1) and number of low quality links (6), respectively. As a requirement
to apply this approach, the decision variables of the objective functions must
be at the same scale or magnitude, it is not the case of the function (7). In the
presented model, the decision variable for the objectives is the number of flows
passing through the links (edges).
RALL algorithm begins by performing a combination of objective functions
path length minimization and low quality links minimization in a single objective
function, using the weighted sum (8). Next, RALL algorithm performs the
minimization of network bottleneck by updating the values of the objective

6

Algorithm 1: RALL (Routing-Aware of path Length, Link quality, and
traffic Load.)
1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

Algorithm RALL()
input :
G − (V, E)
Of − set of ordered flows
i − sink, i ∈ V
wp , wl − weights for objective functions
begin
E ← SumWeights (E,wp ,wl )
A←E
P ←∅
foreach fs ∈ Of do
ps ← M CP ath(s, i, G < V, A >)
A ← UpdateEdges(ps , E, A)
P ← P ∪ {ps }
end
end
return P
Procedure SumWeights()
input :
E − set of edges
wp , wl − weights for objective functions
begin
Enew ← ∅
foreach esd ∈ E do
enew
← pconst · wp + wl · lsd
sd
Enew ← Enew ∪ {enew
sd }
end
return Enew
end
Procedure UpdateEdges()
input :
E − set of edges
Ps − router of s to sink
A − set of edges
begin
foreach bjh ∈ Ps do
rjh ← E ∩ {b
Pjh }
amount ←
asd , ∀esd ∈ E, s = j
rjh ← ejh + amount, ejh ∈ E
A ← A ∪ {rjh }
end
return A
end

function. The algorithm 1 shows the RALL’s pseudo-code. It has a set of flows
as input that are used to generate the paths with lower cost.
On line 3, the weighted sum of objective functions is called. In this procedure, path length and low quality links are combined in a single vector cost.
The variable lsd is the normalized value of LQI for edge esd , using the constraint
shown by the equation (5). pconst is a constant used to establish the value for
each hop. The value of each link is updated according to this constant value. If
the chosen value for pconst is small in some interactions, the objective function
to determine the lowest number of hops is almost negligible, and the trade-off
will be impaired. This happens because the values that represent the bottleneck
in the objective function, on each iteration, are incremented. It is used the value

7

of pconst = |V |, and the values of variable lsd are normalized to have pconst as
the threshold value.
After the weighted sum is generated minimal cost path using M CP ath(sender,
receiver, GRAP H) for each flow fs , which is assigned to the variable ps (on line
7). The links that make up the minimum cost path PS will have their values
updated by adding the amount of flows that use the device s ∈ V — line 27 of
U pdateEdges(ps , E, A) procedure. Finally, the path is inserted into the solution
set P that will contain all routes to every flow.

4

Simulation Results

We conducted a simulation study to analyze the performance of proposed approach. A network with a single sink node and many sensor nodes are taken
into consideration in the simulated network. The sink node receives data from
the sensor nodes and it serves as a connection point to an external network. The
sensor nodes send the collected data and forward/relay packets on a single route
to the sink node. All nodes are static and they use asymmetric links. This section is organized as follows: the scenario configuration is outlined in sub-section
4.1. The evaluation and the simulation results are discussed in sub-section 4.2.

4.1

Scenario Configuration

We employ the Castalia module [5] of OMNeT++ simulator [18], which are
widely used to evaluate WSN. Table 1 shows the general parameters used in the
simulation and Table 2 presents node configuration based on [13].
The simulations were performed in scenarios varying the number of nodes,
i.e. 10 up to 50 nodes (Table 1). For every set of nodes, it was generated ten
topologies and four random seeds, resulting in a total of 40 runs for each set of
nodes. The positions of the nodes in a topologies were generated using a normal
distribution, limited in area, that guarantees none of the nodes would remain
isolated from the network (out of range from any other node).
Table 1: Simulation Parameters
Packet Generation Rates
5 packets/minute
Traffic generation model
Poisson
Topology Area
50x50
Number of nodes
10, 20, 30, 40, and 50
Interference Model
Additive 1
Weight values for path
50%
length function (wp )
Weight values for link
50%
quality function (wl )
1 Additive interference: it use the SINR values of the package, the receiver receives the
strongest signal of the two transmissions (if it is strong enough).

8

Table 2: Node Configuration
Initial Energy
100 J
TX Energy
20 mJ/pkt
RX Energy
10 mJ/pkt
MAC layer
T-MAC
Radio Model
CC2420
Transmission Power
-10dBm
Packet Size
127 bytes
Link Communication Asymmetric
The simulation was carried out in two phases. In the first phase, the neighborhood discovery was done by disseminating broadcast messages. These control
messages are also used to calculate the average LQI value of the link for each
neighbor so that the sink node has the complete network graph information.
Due to the fact that the processing capacity and energy of the sensors devices
are very restricted, the routing algorithm is performed in a centralized way in
the sink node.
Once in possession of the network global view, the proposed routing algorithm is executed to select the path to the sink for each sensor node. The second
simulation phase uses the routing table information to forward the packets. Each
node sends messages to the sink, which will extract some of the performance
metrics for analysis.

4.2

Results

Other routing algorithms were chosen to assist the performance assessment of
RALL, as following:
• BALAN CED − LQI: It is based on similar criteria of RALL, however, it
only employs the load balancing and link quality objective functions, and
it does not perform the combination of functions using the weighted sum.
• BP R: It is a heuristic with two objective functions, load balancing and
path length [11]. For each flow generated on the network, BPR seeks to
select the shorter route belonging to set of candidate paths that does not
increase the network bottleneck.
• P AT H: Traditional approach to determine the shortest path length (e.g.
Dijkstra’s algorithm).
• LQI: It aims to select routes that use fewer links with low quality. A link
is considered low quality when it does not satisfied the described condition
in (5).
The comparison of these approaches aims to provide better impact of the
different criteria in the traffic and network performance through the route selection.
9

Figure 1 shows the packet loss rate. We figure out that the BALAN CED −
LQI and RALL algorithms achieve lower levels of losses, especially in high
density network (i.e. 50 nodes). Therefore, the amount of data increases. This
can be justified by the Jain fairness index (well-known metric to evaluate load
balancing) shown in Figure 2, and by the fact that the two algorithms take
into consideration the link quality. Despite the fact that BALAN CED − LQI
slightly results in lower packet loss, the confidence interval (Figure 1) shows
that the performance of both approaches is very similar.

Figure 1: Packet loss rate.

Figure 2: Jain fairness index.
Figure 3 shows the average latency in data delivery of the simulated network
scenarios. It is worth noting that in the scenario with 10 nodes, most of packets
10

were delivered within the range of [0, 600)ms. The other intervals follow the
behavior of the first three ones. In fact, it occurs in all scenarios, thus we show
only the first four intervals: 20, 30, 40, and 50.

(a) 10 nodes

(b) 20 nodes

(c) 30 nodes

(d) 40 nodes

(e) 50 nodes

Figure 3: Latency for 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 nodes.
The greatest difference in latency between approaches can be noticed when
the number of nodes increases. Again, the BALAN CED − LQI and RALL
approaches are featured, however, RALL results in an significant improvement
of the latency, followed by P AT H. These results can be justified by analyzing
the average path length generated by each approach (Figure 4), where RALL
and P AT H reached the lowest values.
We also analyzed the average network lifetime, which was measured as from
the beginning of the second phase up to the first node of the network run out
the battery energy. In this analysis we used only BALAN CED − LQI and
RALL approaches, because they showed better performance for packet loss and
latency. Figure 5 illustrates the lifetime.
RALL approach achieves performance improvement when increasing the
number of nodes (i.e. 30, 40, and 50 nodes). In order to better understand this
behavior, we analyzed the packets exchanged by each algorithm. In Figure 6,
data packets are generated by the application layer and accounted in packet loss
by the sink. Control packets are accounted of the MAC layer, which uses the
T-MAC protocol. This protocol employs an adaptive method to avoid collision
11

Figure 4: Average path length.

Figure 5: Average network lifetime.
and to control the radio duty-cycle, in order to reduce the energy consumption.
It is important to stress out that BALAN CED − LQI has a slightly larger
number of data packets delivery to all scenarios. Moreover, BALAN CED−LQI
12

Figure 6: Average control overhead in MAC layer.
also requires a larger amount of control packets in the MAC layer. Each packet
has an energy cost for sending and receiving. This explains why the network
lifetime achieves the highest times by getting shortest paths (activating fewer
links).

5

Related Work

There are many works that seek to combine these objectives, some of them to
optimize routing in wireless networks, especially in WSNs. The most of these
works deal with one or two objectives described above. Wang and Zhang [19]
presented a protocol, called Interference Aware Multipath Routing (IAMR),
that selects paths spatially disjoint, adopting an interference model in which
interference range is twice greater than the transmission range. This model
may overestimate the interference level.
Radi et al. [16] proposed Low-Interference Energy-Efficient Multipath Routing Protocol (LIEMRO), which takes into account a load balancing multipath
approach and which also seeks to minimize interference through the use of ETX
routing metric. As it was described in the literature, ETX has limitations to
capture the interference in a more accurate way [4].
Minhas et al. [12] recommended an approach based on fuzzy logic for multiobjective optimization problem in routing that seeks to balance two objectives:
to maximize the network lifetime (analyzing the current and residual energy
levels of the nodes) and the delay between the ordinary node and the sink node

13

(taking into account of the number of hops).
Load balancing routing can provide both packet loss minimization and network lifetime maximization based on a uniform distribution of flows in the network. For this reason, routing approaches are proposed in wireless networks
to minimize bottlenecks and the average path length, such as Bottleneck, Path
Length and Routing heuristic overhead (BPR) [11].
Moghadam et al. [13] presented a heuristic, named Heuristic Load Distribution (HeLD), which aims to minimize the overhead communication and maximize the network lifetime by a load balancing routing based on a linear programming approach, and the use of a set of braided paths. Simulation results
showed that HeLD achieved less overhead and an increase in network lifetime,
however, packet delivery rate was lower and latency was not presented. This
can be partially justified by braided paths that can generate a high level of
interference.
Machado et al. [9] presented a heuristic for IoT environments called Routing
by Energy and Link quality (REL), which seeks to select paths that minimize
the number of hops, maximize network lifetime through the residual energy of
the nodes, and maximize the link quality of the in the selected paths based
on Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) metric. However, REL is quite
simple and it is limited to establish a balance among the three objectives.
None of the related work handles the three mentioned objectives. Most
of them use heuristics for routing solution. This paper propose a new multiobjective routing algorithm for WSNs. The algorithm seeks to achieve the tradeoff among load balancing, path length, and interference, i.e. aggregate flows in
the shortest paths to avoid overloaded links and with high level of interference.

6

Conclusions and Future Work

We propose a multi-objective routing algorithm (RALL) for IoT environments
in this paper. RALL seeks to minimize three objectives: bottlenecks, links with
high levels of interference, and long paths.
The results showed that RALL algorithm results in good levels of packet loss
rate (very similar to the main comparative approach), the lowest latency, and
longer average network lifetime, mainly in dense scenarios.
Although RALL does not reach the best results in all tests, it shows the
importance of the all employed criteria in order to offer an overall routing approach for IoT. The weakness of one criterion is smoothed out by the others as
well as the equilibrium of the criteria to provide a more efficient performance
for WSNs. We believe that the proposed algorithm is an interesting approach
to IoT environments that have different types of traffic and require routing approaches that seeks to balance conflicting objectives to improve delivery rate,
delay, and power consumption.
As future work, we intend to start further studies about the weights used in
the objective functions, for example, trying to make a best correlation between
the weights and types of topologies. Moreover, the RALL algorithm will be

14

implemented in testbeds for performing experiments in a real environment.

References
[1] Ian F. Akyildiz, Tommaso Melodia, and Kaushik R. Chowdhury. A survey
on wireless multimedia sensor networks. Comput. Netw., 51(4):921–960,
March 2007.
[2] Adwan Alanazi and Khaled Elleithy. Real-time QoS routing protocols
in wireless multimedia sensor networks: Study and analysis. Sensors,
15(9):22209, 2015.
[3] Luigi Atzori, Antonio Iera, and Giacomo Morabito. The internet of things:
A survey. Computer Networks, 54(15):2787 – 2805, 2010.
[4] Vinicius C. M. Borges, Marilia Curado, and Edmundo Monteiro. CrossLayer Routing Metrics for Mesh Networks: Current Status and Research
Directions. Computer Communications, 34(6):681 – 703, 2011.
[5] Athanassios Boulis. Castalia: A simulator for wireless sensor networks and
body area networks. NICTA: National ICT Australia, 2011.
[6] Eduardo Feo Flushing and Gianni A. Di Caro. A flow-based optimization
model for throughput-oriented relay node placement in wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied
Computing, SAC ’13, pages 632–639, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM.
[7] Carles Gomez, Antoni Boix, and Josep Paradells. Impact of LQI-Based
routing metrics on the performance of a one-to-one routing protocol for
IEEE 802.15.4 multihop networks. EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking, 2010(1):1–20, 2010.
[8] Jaewon Kang, Yanyong Zhang, and Badri Nath. End-to-end channel capacity measurement for congestion control in sensor networks. In Proceedings
of the 2nd International Workshop on Sensor and Actor Network Protocols
and Applications (SANPA’04), 2004.
[9] Kássio Machado, Denis Rosário, Eduardo Cerqueira, Antonio A. F.
Loureiro, Augusto Neto, and José Neuman de Souza. A routing protocol based on energy and link quality for internet of things applications.
Sensors, 13(2):1942, 2013.
[10] R. Timothy Marler and Jasbir S. Arora. The weighted sum method for
multi-objective optimization: new insights. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 41(6):853–862, 2009.
[11] Micael O. M. C. Mello, Vinicius C. M. Borges, Leizer de L. Pinto, and Kleber Vieira Cardoso. Load balancing routing for path length and overhead

15

controlling in wireless mesh networks. In IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications, ISCC 2014, Funchal, Madeira, Portugal, June
23-26, pages 1–6, 2014.
[12] Mahmood R. Minhas, Sathish Gopalakrishnan, and Victor C. M. Leung.
Multiobjective routing for simultaneously optimizing system lifetime and
source-to-sink delay in wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 2009
29th IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems
Workshops, ICDCSW ’09, pages 123–129, Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
IEEE Computer Society.
[13] Meisam Moghadam, Hassan Taheri, and Mehdi Karrari. Minimum cost
load balanced multipath routing protocol for low power and lossy networks.
Wireless Networks, 20(8):2469–2479, 2014.
[14] D. Niculescu. Communication paradigms for sensor networks. IEEE Communications Magazine, 43(3):116–122, March 2005.
[15] Luís Oliveira and Joel Rodrigues. Wireless sensor networks: a survey on
environmental monitoring. Journal of Communications, 6(2), 2011.
[16] M. Radi, B. Dezfouli, S. A. Razak, and K. A. Bakar. Liemro: A lowinterference energy-efficient multipath routing protocol for improving QoS
in event-based wireless sensor networks. In Sensor Technologies and Applications (SENSORCOMM), pages 551–557, July 2010.
[17] Marjan Radi, Behnam Dezfouli, Kamalrulnizam Abu Bakar, Shukor Abd
Razak, and Mohammad Ali Nematbakhsh. Interference-aware multipath
routing protocol for QoS improvement in event-driven wireless sensor networks. Tsinghua Science & Technology, 16(5):475 – 490, 2011.
[18] András Varga. The OMNeT++ discrete event simulation system. In Proceedings of the European simulation multiconference (ESM’2001), volume 9,
page 65, 2001.
[19] Z. Wang and J. Zhang. Interference aware multipath routing protocol for
wireless sensor networks. In IEEE GLOBECOM Workshops, pages 1696–
1700, Dec 2010.
[20] Jennifer Yick, Biswanath Mukherjee, and Dipak Ghosal. Wireless sensor
network survey. Computer Networks, 52(12):2292 – 2330, 2008.

16

