The line
represents the actual path traversed. The node IDs are shown along with the
nodes??™ power. The window angle, the transmission distance, and the distance
between checkpoints are input to the CAD tool system.
To test the algorithm, two metrics were considered: the success rate versus
node densities, and hop count versus checkpoint distances. The success rate
is extremely important to be certain that the algorithm is viable for a given
application node density. The checkpoint distances determine how well the
traversed path follows the designed trajectory, how many resizes occur, and
whether or not the algorithm will succeed. The simulation runs 1000 tests for
each node density per checkpoint distance. The area is 200 by 150 units and
the transmit distance is 56 units. This corresponds to the configuration that is
378
P0 P1
P1,2
P1,1
P2,2
P2,1
P2,1
P3,2
Q1
Q3
Q2
Q4
P6
P5
P4
P3 P2
Chapter 15 Information Forwarding and Tra?±c Engineering
used for the testbed of mica2 sensor nodes. In terms of physical distance, the
values are about 10 inches for the radio distance in an area 3 ft. by 2.3 ft. The
nodes were uniformly distributed over the area with the source and destination
at fixed positions. The same curve was used in each test.
Fig. 5. (a) Success vs. node count for various checkpoint distances. (b) Hops vs. node
count for k = 10.
In Figure 5(a), 1
k is the fraction of the radio range used as the distance
between checkpoints.
Pages:
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605