1 / 36

Improved Patient Monitoring with DARE: Energy-Efficient Multi-hop Sensor Networks

The DARE protocol (Distance Aware Relaying Energy-efficient) enhances the efficiency of Wireless Body Area Networks (WBAN) for patient monitoring. Addressing critical challenges such as energy consumption, network lifetime, stability, and throughput, DARE leverages multi-hop communication strategies. This paper discusses five innovative scenarios, simulation results, and compares DARE with M-ATTEMPT, demonstrating significant improvements in network performance. With a focus on reduced energy expenditure and increased data delivery efficiency, DARE aims to optimize health monitoring while minimizing communication delays.

fred
Télécharger la présentation

Improved Patient Monitoring with DARE: Energy-Efficient Multi-hop Sensor Networks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Distance Aware Relaying Energy-efficient:DAREto Monitor Patients in Multi-hopBody Area Sensor Networks Prepared by: AnumTauqir

  2. Outline • Overview • Problem Statement • Motivation • Brief Overview of M-ATTEMPT and DARE • DARE • DARE Scenarios • Communication Flow • Differences and Similarities • Simulation Results • Conclusion

  3. Overview

  4. In medical field: • WBAN makes use of the tiny sensors for detecting and monitoring different biological characteristics of a human body. • The sensors can either be: • in-vivo • wearable

  5. Problem Statement

  6. Majorconcerns for BANs: • minimizing energy consumption of the nodes • enhancing network lifetime • enhancing stability period of the network • maximizing throughput • minimizing delay

  7. Motivation

  8. Monitoring different organs of a human body for detecting an ailment or any disorder. • The proposed protocol DARE aims: • to improve the deficiencies in a BAN protocol of M-ATTEMPT namely, • minimum stability period • minimum network lifetime • high energy consumption • low throughput

  9. Brief Overview ofM-ATTEMPTandDARE

  10. M-ATTEMPT a heterogeneous protocol named as, Mobility-supporting Adaptive Threshold-based Thermal-aware Energy-efficient Multi-hop ProTocol • DARE a heterogeneous protocol named as, Distance Aware Relaying Energy-efficient Protocol to Monitor Patients in Multi-hop Body Area Sensor Networks

  11. DARE

  12. Network Topology • Ward dimensions - 40 x 20 ft2 • Five scenarios • Eight beds • Seven sensors measuring parameters • LOS communication

  13. Classification of Body Sensors

  14. Energy Model

  15. Equations Transmitter Energy Etx(k,d) = ETXelec * k + Eamp(n) * k * dn Receiver Energy Erx(k) = ERXelec * k

  16. Protocol’s Patient

  17. DARE Scenarios

  18. Scenario-1 The BSs on each patient carry information and transmit to their respective BR which, then aggregates and relay the received data to the sink located at the center of the ward. The communication flow is from BSs to BR to Sink.

  19. Scenario-2 Four sinks have been used that are separately deployed in the middle of the walls of the ward. The BSs of each patient, on sensing the vital sign transmit data to their respective BR. The BR checks for the nearest sink by calculating it’s distance with each sink. Whichever, sink is found nearest, the BR communicates with that particular sink. The communication flow is from BSs to BR to nearest Sink (Sink1 or Sink2 or Sink3 or Sink4).

  20. Scenario-3 MS is incorporated on each bed which, can be a PDA type device. The deployment of MS helps the BR to consume little energy as, BR transmits data over shorter distance. However, this scenario increases the delay in the network, as the data traverses through a long route towards the destination node, the Sink. Communication flow is from BSs to BR to MS to Sink.

  21. Scenario-4 It follows the same communication flow as sceanrio-1, however, now the sink is made mobile which, moves along the center of ward.

  22. Scenario-5 Multiple sinks move around the walls of the ward altogether. In this scenario also, each BR measures it’s distance with each sink. Whosoever is found close, the BR starts communicating with that sink. The communication flow is from BSs to BR to the nearest moving Sink (Sink1 or Sink2 or Sink3 or Sink4).

  23. Communication Flow

  24. Differences and Similarities DARE M-ATTEMPT

  25. Simulation Results

  26. Alive Nodes (BSs and Sensors) Number of remaining alive nodes (BSs) in the network

  27. Alive Nodes (BSs, BRs and Sensors) Number of remaining alive nodes (BSs + BRs) in the network

  28. Residual Energy Residual energy (BSs) of the network

  29. Packets Sent to Sink Number of packets sent to sink

  30. Throughput (%) Packet delivery ratio

  31. Conclusion

  32. DARE achieves: • increased network lifetime • increased stability period • From 23% (M-ATTEMPT) to 72% (DARE) • minimum energy consumption • increased throughput • Suitable for networks requiring: • no human intervention • huge data to transmit • However, M-ATTEMPT provides: • minimum propagation delay • Suitable for networks where: • critical data needs to be sent, urgently

  33. Comparison results between DARE and M-ATTEMPT

More Related