Efficient Energy-Based Cluster Head Election and routing protocol

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.
Log in to save this article

Abstract

Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) comprise spatially distributed sensor nodes with limited energy and processing capabilities. Energy efficiency remains a critical concern in WSNs, as it directly impacts network stability and lifetime. Extensive research has demonstrated that clustering techniques enhance energy efficiency by improving communication reliability and extending operational longevity. In clustering, designated Cluster Heads (CHs) perform intra-cluster data aggregation and inter-cluster communication with other CHs or the sink node. This article introduces the Efficient Energy-Based Cluster Head Election (EECHE) protocol, which dynamically selects CHs based on two key criteria: residual energy and inter-CH distance. Re-clustering is initiated whenever these criteria are violated. Additionally, we propose the Efficient Energy-Based Routing (EEPR) protocol, which facilitates forwarding of aggregated data from Cluster Members (CMs) to the sink via candidate CHs. The optimal forwarding route is selected by evaluating both the shortest route and energy link stability, quantified through the longest expected route energy lifetime. By integrating these protocols with topology-aware constraints, the proposed approach achieves balanced energy distribution and maximizes the network performance. Mathematical analysis and simulation results demonstrate that the proposed protocols significantly enhance network performance—achieving higher throughput, lower delay, and improved packet delivery ratio—when compared to conventional protocols such as LEACH, ELEACH, Q-LEACH, and FL-QLEACH. The simulation results improves that the proposed work achieving 50% improvement in throughput, conserving 47% in energy, and reducing end-to-end-delay by 35%, all compared with LEACH protocol.

Article activity feed