ITSI Transactions on Electrical and Electronics Engineering (ITSI-TEEE)
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Analysis of ZigBee Mesh Networks under Nodes Failure by varying channel sensing duration
1Jashan Preet Kaur, 2Jarnail Singh, 3Ashu Gupta BFCET, India
Email: 1[email protected], 2[email protected] Abstract— ZigBee is a specification for a suite of high level
communication protocols based on IEEE 802.15.4 standard .The ZigBee protocol defines three types of wireless nodes – Personal Area Network (PAN) coordinator, ZigBee end devices and ZigBee routers. The ZigBee protocol can operate in three network topologies: Star, Tree and Mesh.
In this research the performance of Mesh is analyzed with the failure of ZigBee End Devices, ZigBee coordinator and ZigBee routers. The effect of node failure, router failure and coordinator failure is analyzed by varying channel sensing duration from one to three seconds. The result is compared in terms of Data Traffic received, data traffic sent, delay, management traffic received and throughput.
The simulation is carried out by using Opnet 14.5 modeler.
Keywords— ZigBee, WSN, Topology, IEEE 802.15.4, OPNET.
I. INTRODUCTION
A wireless sensor network is a special Ad-Hoc network comprises spatially distributed autonomous device using sensor are distributed randomly in wide area. WSN can be generally described as a collection of sensor nodes organized into a cooperative network that can sense and control the environment enabling interaction between persons or embedded computers and the surrounding environment [6, 7]. A typical sensor node contains three C’s are collection, computation and communication unit based on the request of sink, gathered information will be transmitted using wireless network [8].
A new protocol IEEE 802.15.4 was released for low power and low cost wireless networking for residential and industrial environments in December 2003. The ZigBee Alliance released its first specification in December 2004, based upon the physical and medium access control layer of IEEE 802.15.4 protocol [11].
ZigBee is a high level communication protocol used to create personal area networks (PAN) built from small, low-power digital radios. ZigBee devices transmit data in range of 10-75 meters, that depends on the RF environment and the transmitter power consumed to transmit data, it works in the unlicensed band worldwide (868 MHz, 915MHz or 2.4GHz). Its defined data rates are 20kbps at 868MHz, 40kbps at 915MHz and250kbps at 2.4GHz [1].
The name ZigBee is come from the domestic honeybee which uses a zigzag type of dance to communicate
important information to other hive members [3]. WSN are used in many fields like Area monitoring ,Environmental/Earth monitoring , Air quality monitoring, Forest fire detection Natural disaster prevention ,Agriculture ,Greenhouse monitoring ,Structural monitoring and Smart home monitoring [5].
IEEE 802.15.4 protocol generally defines three types of nodes: [4].
A. Coordinator: The main network coordinator identifies its PAN and can be connected to other nodes. In addition, it proposes global synchronization services to other nodes in the network through transmission of beacon frames that contained the identification of PAN and other relevant information.
B. Routers: It has the same functionality as PAN coordinator, except that it does not create its PAN.
Router is connected to the PAN coordinator and provides services for local synchronization of the nodes in its range.
C. ZigBee end device: It is a node with no coordinated functionalities. To be able to synchronize with the other nodes in the network, it is connected as a secondary node with the PAN coordinator. In the IEEE 802.15.4 2003 standard, the first two types of nodes are defined as Full Function Devices – FFD, which means that they implement all the functionalities of the IEEE 802.15.4 protocol [4].
II. LITERATURE SURVEY
In 2012 Abdul Aziz [1] investigated performance of a ZigBee based wireless sensor network in two scenarios one with a static sink and other with random sink mobility for various topologies. So a simple random mobility scheme was introduced in which sink moves randomly through whole network. They also investigated end-to-end delay of packets and throughput for identical network conditions in both the cases.
In 2013 M.Hussnain [2] evaluated WSNs applications in agriculture and compared different IEEE 802.15.4/ZigBee topologies. Multiple network scenarios were simulated to study the performance of WSNs topologies in terms of throughput, network load and end-to-end delay. So the results concluded that WSNs
have better throughput and network usage when tree topology is used. WSNs with tree topology show an increase of 11% and 57% in throughput as compare to Mesh and Grid topologies respectively. Tree topology also has 35% and 80% more network load than Mesh and Grid topologies respectively.
In 2013 Divya Bharti proposed [9] that wireless sensor networks are one of the key enabling technologies in the next 10 years. Protocols for such networks should be highly flexible in order to adapt to topology changes due to node mobility. In this paper two different protocols were used for the performance analysis of mobility control scheme. They analyzed the performance of the protocols on the basis of different parameters like Throughput, Packet Delivery Ratio.
In 2013 Mumtaz M.Ali AL-Mukhtar [10] studied the nodes failures and their effect on the traffic in different scenarios for cluster-tree topology to certify the reliability of this communication network. The parameters: throughput, delay, data traffic sent, and data traffic received were measured during these scenarios.
These scenarios were performed taking into account the specific features and recommendations of the IEEE 802.15.4/ZigBee standard using OPNET Modeler 14.5.
Simulation results quantify the impact of a ZigBee device failure on the performance factors.
III. SIMULATION SETUP
In carrying out the performance of ZigBee mesh topology in the presence of node failure.
We have performed the following experiment.
Experiment 1: In this experiment ZigBee mesh network is deployed with ZigBee end device (ZED) failure, ZigBee router (ZR) failure and ZigBee coordinator (ZC) failure. The performance is analyzed by varying channel sensing duration from one to three seconds. The result is compared in terms of Data Traffic received, data traffic sent, delay, management traffic received and throughput.
The basic setup of each topology is implemented under OPNET 14.5. For the purpose of simulation, we used OPNET Modeler 14.5, which provides a leading environment for modeling and simulations. This simulation tool provides a comprehensive development environment to support modeling of communication networks and distributed systems. This version of OPNET simulator supports three types of topologies:
star, mesh and cluster-tree topology, where communication takes place between a central controller – PAN coordinator, routers and devices. Here only one ZigBee Coordinator (ZC) in each topology, four ZigBee
network and distributed systems. OPNET modeler provides better environment for simulation, data collection and data analysis [12].Table 1 shows various network layer parameters used.
Table.1. Coordinators network layer parameters.
Mac Layer Parameter Value Minimum value of the
back-off exponent in the CSMA/CA
3
Maximum no. of back-off in the CSMA/CA
4 Channel sensing duration (sec)
1,2,3 Physical Layer Parameter
Receiver Sensitivity (db) -85 Transmission band (Ghz) 2.4 Transmission Power (W) 0.05 Application Layer Parameter
Packet interval time/type (sec/constant)
1
Packet size/type 1024/constant
A. Mesh topology scenario
In this scenario, mesh topology is created using fifty ZigBee end devices, four ZigBee routers and one ZigBee coordinator. Fig 3.1 shows the screenshot of mesh topology
Fig 3.1: Mesh topology B. Scenario 1:ZigBee end device failure
In this mesh topology ZigBee end devices are failed and performance is analyzed with varying channel sensing duration from one to three seconds. The result is compared in terms of Data Traffic received, data traffic sent, delay, management traffic received and throughput.
Fig 3.2: ZigBee end device failure C. Scenario 2:ZigBee router failure
In this mesh topology ZigBee routers are failed and performance is analyzed with varying channel sensing duration from one to three seconds. The result is compared in terms of Data Traffic received, data traffic sent, delay, management traffic received and throughput
Fig 3.3: ZigBee router failure D. Scenario 3:ZigBee coordinator failure
In this mesh topology ZigBee coordinator is failed and performance is analyzed with varying channel sensing duration from one to three seconds. The result is compared in terms of Data Traffic received, data traffic sent, delay, management traffic received and throughput
Fig 3.4: ZigBee coordinator failure
IV. SIMULATION RESULTS
This chapter deals with results obtained by carrying out experiments. The work is carried out by using OPNET Modeler 14.5.The parameters used for comparing node failure, router failure and coordinator failure are Data Traffic received, data traffic sent, delay, management traffic received and throughput.
Experiment 1: In this experiment ZigBee mesh network is deployed with ZigBee end device (ZED) failure, ZigBee router (ZR) failure and ZigBee coordinator (ZC) failure. The performance is analyzed by varying channel sensing duration from one to three seconds. The result is compared in terms of Data Traffic received, data traffic sent, delay, management traffic received and throughput.
Step1: ZigBee mesh network is deployed with ZED failures.
Step 2: Scenario is created with ZED failure with channel sensing duration 1.Again the scenario is repeated with channel sensing duration 2 and 3.
Step 3: ZigBee mesh network is deployed with ZR failures.
Step 4: Scenario is created with ZR failure with channel sensing duration 1.Again the scenario is repeated with channel sensing duration 2 and 3.
Step 5: ZigBee mesh network is deployed with ZC failures.
Step 6: Scenario is created with ZC failure with channel sensing duration 1.Again the scenario is repeated with channel sensing duration 2 and 3.
A. Data traffic received: Represents the total traffic successfully received by the MAC from the physical layer in bits/sec. This includes retransmissions
Fig.4.1. Data traffic received for ZED fail Fig.4.1. shows the results for ZED failure. The result shows that when channel sensing duration is increased the data traffic received decreases.
Fig.4.2. Data traffic received for ZR fail Fig.4.2. shows that when the channel sensing duration is increased the data traffic received will decrease for ZigBee router failure.
The result for Data traffic received for coordinator fail is zero because when the coordinator is failed then there is no effect on data traffic received.
B. Data traffic sent (bits/sec): Traffic transmitted by all the 802.15.4 MACs in the network in bits/sec. While computing the size of the transmitted packets for this statistic, the physical layer and MAC headers of the packet are also included. This statistics include all the traffic that is sent by the MAC via CSMA-CA. It does not include any of the management or the control traffic, nor does it include ACKs.
Fig.4.3 shows the results for ZED failure. The result shows that when channel sensing duration is increased the data traffic sent decreases.
Fig.4.4. Data traffic sent for ZR fail
Fig.4.4. shows that when the channel sensing duration is increased the data traffic sent will decrease for ZigBee router failure.
The result for Data traffic sent for coordinator fail is zero because when the coordinator is failed then there is no effect on data traffic received.
C. Delay: Represents the end to end delay of all the packets received by the 802.15.4 MACs of all WPAN nodes in the network and forwarded to the higher layer.
Fig.4.5.Delay for ZED fail
Fig.4.5. shows that when the channel sensing duration is increased the delay will decrease for ZigBee end device failure.
Fig.4,6. shows that when the channel sensing duration is increased the delay will decrease for ZigBee router failure.
The result for Delay for coordinator fail is zero because when the coordinator is failed then there is no effect on delay
D. Management Traffic received: Total management traffic successfully received by the MAC of all the nodes from the physical layer in bits/sec.
Fig.4.7. Management traffic received for ZED fail Fig.4.7. shows that when the channel sensing duration is increased the Management traffic received for ZED fail will decrease.
Fig.4.8. Management traffic received for ZR fail Fig.4.8. shows that when the channel sensing duration is increased the Management traffic received for ZigBee router fail will decrease.
The result for Management traffic received for coordinator fail is zero because when the coordinator is failed then there is no effect on Management traffic received.
E. Throughput: Represents the total number of bits (in bits/sec) forwarded from 802.15.4 MAC to higher layers in all WPAN nodes of the network.
Fig.4.9 Throughput for ZED fail
Fig.4.9 shows the result of throughput for node failure.
The result shows that when channel sensing duration is increased the throughput decreases.
Fig.4.10. Throughput for ZR failure
Fig.4.10 shows the result of throughput for router failure. The result shows that when the channel sensing duration is increased, the throughput decreases.
Table.2. Comparative table in case of ZED fail Parameters
(ZED fail)
Channel sensing duration 1
Channel sensing duration 2
Channel sensing duration 3 Data traffic
received
44,442.5 38,401.8 37,302.7 Data traffic
sent
11,124.1 9612.8 9338.03 Delay 0.00608405 0.00607949 0.00608501 management
traffic received
1053.07 874.8 740.6
Throughput 9878.93 8536.64 8292.5 Table.3. Comparative table in case of ZR fail Parameters
(ZR fail)
Channel sensing duration 1
Channel sensing duration 2
Channel sensing duration 3 Data traffic
received
2.65795e+006 2.46479e+006 2.41068e+006 Data traffic
sent
87400.6 80533.6 80430.5
delay .0143362 .0143362 .0142983
management traffic received
49553.9 47174.7 42592.5
throughput 56688.8 52000 54000
V. CONCLUSION
In this work we provided a versatile analysis of the performance of Mesh under node failure, router failure and coordinator failure by varying channel sensing duration. In this work the nodes are placed randomly.
Simulation is carried out for 10 minutes.
ZigBee mesh network is deployed with ZigBee end device (ZED) failure, ZigBee router (ZR) failure and ZigBee coordinator (ZC) failure. The performance is analyzed by varying channel sensing duration from 1 to 3 seconds. The performance is measured using various parameters like Data traffic received, Data traffic sent, delay, management traffic received and throughput. The result shows with increase in channel sensing duration Data traffic received, Data traffic sent, delay, management traffic received and throughput decreases.
The result shows that when channel sensing duration is increased from one to three seconds the parametric values of Data traffic received, Data traffic sent, delay, management traffic received and throughput are decreased.
REFERENCES
[1] Abdul Aziz, M. Ali Qureshi, M. Umair Soorage, M. Noman Kashif, and M. Arsalan Hafeez,”
Evaluation of zigbee based wireless sensor network with static sink and random sink mobility”, International Journal of Computer and Electrical Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp 562- 566 August 2012.
[2] M. Hussnain, M. Sharjeel, S. R. Chaudhry, S. A.
Hussain, I. Raza and J. S. Mirza “Investigating multi-Topological ZigBee based wireless sensor network in precision agriculture” J. Basic. Appl.
Sci. Res., 3(2)195-201, 2013.
[3] Gurpreet Singh, Raghav Bhardwaj, Karamjeet Singh, Sahil Mehla,” ZigBee: A Review”, IJCST Vol. 3, Issue 1, pp 328-331 Jan. - March 2012.
[4] Boris Mihajlov and Mitko Bogdanoski,”
Overview and analysis of the performances of zigbee based wireless sensor networks”,
International Journal of Computer Applications Volume 29– No.12, pp 28-35 September 2011.
[5] Parneet Dhillon, Pooja Malhotra,” A Review paper on history, current trends and future of zigbee (IEEE 802.15.4) standard”, International Journal of Advances in Engineering Science and Technology, ISSN: 2319-1120.
[6] Stéphane Lohier et al., “Multichannel access for bandwidth improvement in IEEE 802.15.4 wireless Sensor networks”, IFIP/IEEE Wireless Days 2011 (IEEE WD'2011)
[7] Yu-Kai Huang et al., “A comprehensive analysis of low power operation for beacon-enabled IEEE 802.15.4 wireless networks” IEEE Transaction on Wireless Communications, VOL.
8, NO. 11, Nov (2009).
[8] Muthu Ramya.C et al, “Study on zigBee technology”,IEEE 2011.
[9] Bharti D., Behniwal M. and Sharma A.K.,
“Performance analysis and mobility management in wireless sensor network” International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering vol 3,No.7,pp.1333- 1342,2013.
[10] Mumtaz M.Ali AL-Mukhtar, Teeb Hussein Hadi”
Modeling the performance of zigbee cluster-tree wireless sensor networks in Presence of Failures”
Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Technology Research, Vol.3 No.3, September 2013, 116-126.
[11] Ran Peng, Sun Mao-heng and Zou You-min,”
ZigBee routing selection strategy based on data services and energy-balanced zigBee routing”, IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Services Computing,2006.
[12] Arora A. And Grover A. “ZigBee: Simulation and Investigation of Star and Mesh Topology by Varying Channel Sensing Duration”
International Journal of Computer Applications vol. 67, No. 9, pp. 44-50, 2013.
