Energy-saving distributed monitoring-based firefly algorithm in wireless sensors networks

Coverage control represents an important research challenge during the design of wireless sensor networks (WSNs) in an energy-efficient way. It is an indicator used to assess network services performance. In order to provide network services quality guarantee, it is essential to ensure the network coverage with a minimum consumed energy to extend the lifespan of the network. In this paper, an Energy-saving Distributed Monitoring based Firefly Algorithm (EDiMoFA) Protocol in wireless sensor networks is proposed to ensure the coverage and to enhance the lifetime of WSNs. In the first phase, the sensing field is divided into smaller virtual regions using the concept divide-and conquer. The EDiMoFA protocol is distributed on every node in the resulted small regions in the second phase. The EDiMoFA protocol mixes three powerful approaches to work efficiently: virtual network division, dynamic distributed virtual region head selection in every region, wireless nodes scheduling-based Firefly Algorithm (FA) is performed by every chosen head of the virtual region. The EDiMoFA protocol is periodic. Every period is composed of two different phases: a steady-state phase and monitoring one. The network information exchange, virtual region head selection, and a wireless sensors scheduling optimization-based FA are achieved in the steady-state phase. In the monitoring phase, the best sensor devices schedule produced by the FA will take the responsibility for monitoring the sensing field in every virtual region. The produced sensors schedule ensures coverage at a low consumed energy cost. Simulation results, which are obtained using the OMNeT++ network simulator, prove that the EDiMoFA protocol can increase the wireless sensors' lifetime and produces enhanced coverage control performances in comparison with some recent existing works in the literature. The EDiMoFA protocol has, respectively, prolonged the network lifetime from 3.2% up to 21.8%, from 10.4% up to 86.4%, from 35.2% up to 68.4%, and from 1.6% up to 6.7% in comparison with the DiLCO, DESK, GAF, and PeCO protocols while maintaining the suitable level of coverage for the sensing field of interest.