Performance Evaluation of DV-HOP and Amorphous Algorithms based on Localization Schemes in Wireless Sensor Networks

TELKOMNIKA, Vol.16, No.3, June 2018, pp. 1150~1157
ISSN: 1693-6930, accredited A by DIKTI, Decree No: 58/DIKTI/Kep/2013
DOI: 10.12928/TELKOMNIKA.v16i3.8560  1150
Received September 10, 2017; Revised January 9, 2018; Accepted April 2, 2018
Performance Evaluation of DV-HOP and Amorphous
Algorithms based on Localization Schemes in Wireless
Sensor Networks
Doan Perdana, Adi Nugroho, Favian Dewanta
School of Electrical Engineering, Telkom University, Bandung, Indonesia
*Corresponding author, e-mail: doanperdana@telkomuniversity.ac.id, adinugrohoittelkom@gmail.com,
favian@ telkomuniversity.ac.id
Abstract
In the field of high-risk observation,the nodes in Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) are distributed
randomly.The result from sensing becomes meaningless ifit is not known from where the originating node
is. Therefore, a sensor node positioning scheme, known as the localization scheme, is required. The
localization scheme consists of distance estimation and position computing. Thus, this research used
connectivity as distance estimation within range free algorithm DV-Hop and Amorphous,and then trilateral
algorithm for computing the position. Besides that, distance estimation using the connectivity between
nodes is not needed for the additional hardware ranging as required by a range-based localization
scheme.In this research compared the localization algorithm based on range free localization, which are
DV-Hop algorithm and Amorphous algorithm. The simulation result shows that the amorphous algorithm
have achieved 13.60% and 24.538% lower than dv-hop algorithm for each parameter error localizationand
energy consumption. On node density variations, dv-hop algorithm gained a localization error that is
26.95% lower than amorphous algorithm, but for energy consumption parameter, amorphous gained
14.227% lower than dv-hop algorithm. In the communication range variation scenario, dv-hop algorithm
gained a localization error that is50.282% lower than amorphous. However, for energy consumption
parameter, amorphous algorithm gained 12.35%. lower than dv-hop algorithm.
Keywords:WSN, DV-HOP algorithm,amorphous algorithm,localization error,trilateral,energy
consumption
Copyright © 2018 Universitas Ahmad Dahlan. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In this research, we discussed about the Wireless Sensor Network Localization, with
focus on performance analysis using DV-Hop and Amorphous algorithm. The DV-hop
algorithm [1] is the basic scheme and consists of three stages. First, the use of directional
classic distance by changing the protocol so all distances of nodes in the network to the anchor
can be obtained, and in this case the distance will be represented within a hop. Each node in
the table consists of {Xi, Yi, hi} and changes the update table in accordance their neighbor
nodes. The second stage, each anchor node determines the distance to the other anchor node.
Meanwhile, the amorphous algorithm is generally like DV-Hop algorithm that is used to calculate
the distance between two nodes but the difference is that amorphous algorithm calculates the
hop distances between the anchor nodes and unknown nodes. For computing the position, the
author used Trilateral algorithm to determine the position of the sensor node. The main reason
for using range free method in the application is because the range free method requires little
energy consumption, is low cost, and is suitable to be applied to a wide area as well as in the
field of high-risk observation.
The nodes are static and the effect of range communication and the number of anchor
nodes, the influence of the number of unknown nodes and a range communication to the
parameters of performance such as error position, energy consumption, and time position were
tested. The hypothesis was that the parameters of DV-hop algorithm performance is better than
Amorphous algorithm.

TELKOMNIKA ISSN: 1693-6930 
Performance Evaluation of DV-HOP and Amorphous Algorithms based on... (Doan Perdana)
1151
2. Related Works
There are numbers of sensor nodes deployed an observation area. Some have position
information (because it has a GPS or placed manually) while other nodes’ positions have to be
determined by using localization techniques. The position that is determined is relatively
between nodes or other objects that are involved around it. Today, many localization schemes
depend on a few anchor deployed in sensor networks.
Anchor is a sensor node that knows its own position (via GPS or other manual
configuration) and act as a reference for other nodes whose position is unknown because their
position can spread. Here, the authors want to provide an additional reference. There are some
algorithms that can estimate range free distance. Those algorithms are dv-hop algorithm and
amorphous algorithm. A trilateral algorithm is used to estimate its position. However, do not
forget the critical issue in WSN which is the lifetime of the sensor that is limited by power [2].
Therefore, the author added performance parameters of energy consumption that is used to
determine the better performing algorithm from dv hop and amorphous which can then be used
as a reference for further research, especially into consideration the algorithm that want to be
improved [3-4].
3. Methodology
In this chapter, the analysis of simulation results using simulator NS2.34 will be
discussed. The analysis is aimed to find out the performance of the DV-Hop algorithm and
Amorphous algorithm. In this research, there were several scenarios:
a. Variation of anchor node scheme. The number of anchor nodes will be varied 5% to
25% with an increment of 5% for all nodes.
b. Variation of node density scheme. Number of nodes will be varied from 100 nodes to
500 nodes with an increment of 100 nodes.
c. Variation of range communication scheme. A value of range communication will be
varied from 200 meters to 400 meters with an increment of 50 meters.
3.1. Amorphous algorithm
In amorphous algorithm, to calculate hop distance successfully, the anchor nodes have
to find out three distances with applying maximum likelihood estimation to determine its position
or go through three sided measurements [5-6]:
a. Calculated the minimum hop from the Unknown Node to the Beacon Node. With the
flooding method, messages from beacon nodes can be sent to the unknown nodes.
(1)
Based on [5-6], eqn. (1) describes the calculation of the minimum hop from the node 𝑖 to 𝑘.
(𝑖,) represents the minimum hop between the unknown node 𝑖 and beacon node 𝑘;
meanwhile ℎ(𝑗,𝑘) describes the hop of unknown node 𝑗 to the beacon node 𝑘; ℎ(𝑖,𝑘)
represents the calculating hop value of unknown node 𝑖 to the beacon node 𝑘; moreover
nbrs(𝑖) describes the number neighbor nodes around the unknown node 𝑖.
b. Calculated the distance between the Unknown Node to the Beacon Node.
(2)
where 𝑟 represents the wireless range of the node and 𝑛 local describes the network
average connectivity.
c. Use the trilateral algorithm to estimate the position. Trilateral algorithm calculates node
position using the line intersection of three anchor circles.

 ISSN: 1693-6930
TELKOMNIKA Vol. 16, No. 3, June 2018: 1150–1157
1152
Figure 1. Model of Estimate Position Using Trilateral Algorithm [7]
To estimate a position using trilateration, unknown nodes have to know the position and
distance of the three anchor nodes. The distance can be calculated using the following formula:
(3)
Where (x, y) is the position of the nodes that will be counted, (xi, yi) is reference node position to
the i node, and (di) is the distance from the anchor node to the unknown node. From the
formula, there are three quadratic equations with two unknown, which in theory can be resolved
into an equation. equation 4 can be linearized by subtracting the last equation from the first
equation n-1, and can be formulated in linear multiplication system, which is AX=b, where:
(4)
x = ( )
3.2. DV-Hop Algorithm
DV-hop algorithm can estimate the average distance for every hop, which is then used
to correct the entire network [8]. The average hop-size for each anchor node can be calculated
with the following formula:
(5)
Where m represents as anchor node; hij represent as the number of hop between i and j. (xi, yi)
(xj, yj) are the coordinates of the anchor i and anchor j. Then, each anchor node notify the value
of hop size in the network. When an unknown node receives the information of hop size, the
estimated distance between unknown nodes and anchor nodes can be calculated as follows:
(6)
Figure 2 shows that the position of unknown nodes can be identified by the
computational position algorithm, which is one is trilateral algorithm. The following is a
representation of the DV-hop algorithm.

1153
Figure 2 Basic of DV-Hop Method Using Three Node Reference [1]
Table 1. Parameter of Simulation
Channel Type WirelessChannel
Propagation Type freespace
Interface Type WirelessPhy
Queue Type Queue/Droptail/PriQueue
Link Layer Type LL
Antenna OmniAntena
Queue Length 50
Netw orkarea 1000mx1000m
Number of nodes 300
Communication range (m) 300
Number of Anchor Nodes 60
Simulation time 3 second
TransmitPow er 0.0744 w att
Receive Pow er 0.0648 w att
Idle Pow er 0.0000052 w att
Initial Energy 13770 joules
4. Result and Discussion
4.1. Analyze the effect of anchor node variation towards localization error and total
energy consumption
As already described in previous chapters, the localization error is a comparison
between error position nodes (meter) with communication ranges (meters). The error position of
a node is position error of the estimated node to the real position of node in meters. The total
energy consumption is the total energy consumption of the entire node in seconds [9-10].
Table 2 shows that the localization error due to the effect of anchor variation mostly gets lower
for Amorphous Algorithm except for the ratio of beacons 15%, it got higher than the previous
data. However, the results for location error in DVHOP, the values gets fluctuates. Table 3
shows that the total energy consumption due to the effect of anchor node variation for both
algorithm gets higher in each number of nodes value with increment 100 nodes.
Table 2. The Effect of Anchor Node Variation Towards Location Error
Ratio of Beacons AMORPHOUS (Joules) DVHOP (Joules)
5% 2,468 2,836
10% 1,82 3,274
15% 1,943 1,393
20% 1,436 1,34
25% 1,307 1,544
Table 3. The Effect of Anchor Node Variation Towards Total Energy Consumption
Number of nodes AMORPHOUS (Joules) DVHOP (Joules)
100 3,608 13,334
200 24,346 37,292
300 53,761 59,182
400 57,46 60,847
500 59,012 61,98

 ISSN: 1693-6930
1154
(a) Localization Error (b) Energy Consumption
Figure 3. The Effect of Anchor Node Variation towards Localization Error
and Energy Consumption
Figure 3 shows that the number of anchor nodes with an increment of 5%, where the
number of nodes is 300 and the range of communication is 300m, the localization error got
lower but the energy consumption is gets higher. The localization error got lower because the
more anchor nodes there are in network, the larger the coverage of network, resulting more hop
counts to go through. As more hop counts go through, the localization error gets lower. If the
localization error gets lower, it means a better position accuracy of nodes. The energy
consumption got higher because there were more anchor nodes in network, resulting in more
computation position that needs energy. Besides that, anchor nodes consume more energy
than unknown nodes because anchors have GPS.
For the localization error, the Amorphous algorithm have 13.60% less errors than DV-
Hop algorithm because the DV-Hop algorithm is based on hop count when estimating position.
Less anchor nodes will make the coverage in a network smaller, causing hop counts to get
lower. Less hop counts cause the accuracy to worsen. However, the value of the two algorithms
equally experienced fluctuations because of other factors. Those factors are node density,
random signaling, and deployment of node. For Energy Consumption, the Amorphous algorithm
use 24.538% less energy than DV-Hop algorithm because the DV-Hop algorithm is always
updating its table in accordance to their neighbor.
4.2. Analyze the effect of node density variation towards Localization error and total
energy consumption
Table 4 shows that the Localization Error due to the effect of node density variation for
both algorithm gets higher in each proportion of beacons value with increment 5%. Table 5
shows that the total energy consumption due to the effect of node density variation for both
algorithm gets fluctuate in each number of nodes value with increment 100 nodes.
Table 2. The Effect of Node Density Variation Towards Localization Error
Proportion of beacons AMORPHOUS (Joules) DVHOP (Joules)
5% 21,645 53,368
10% 36,849 56,803
15% 49,715 58,393
20% 53,761 59,182
25% 55,028 59,814
Table 5. The Effect of Node Density Variation to Energy Consumption
Number of nodes AMORPHOUS (Joules) DVHOP (Joules)
100 2,427 1,513
200 1,399 1,026
300 1,436 1,34
400 2,171 1,614
500 1,165 0,788

1155
Figure 4. The Effect of Node Density Variation towards Localization Error
Figure 4 shows that as the number of nodes increment by100, where the composition of
anchor nodes is 20% of nodes and the range of communication is 300m, the localization error is
gets lower but the energy consumption gets higher. The localization error became lower
because there were more unknown nodes in network which results in more hop count and
neighbor nodes. More hop counts and neighbor nodes cause the localization error to get lower.
If the localization error is low it means better accuracy of node positions. The energy
consumption gets higher because there were more nodes in network which means more energy
is required to estimate the position of nodes.
For the localization error, the DV-Hop algorithm has 26.95% less errors than the
amorphous algorithm because the DV-Hop algorithm is based on hop count when estimating
positions. More nodes in the network will create a larger hop count causing the computation to
be more accurate. However, the value of the two algorithms equally experienced fluctuations
because of other factors including node density, random signaling, and deployment of node.
For the Energy Consumption, the Amorphous algorithm uses 14.227% less energy than the
DV-Hop algorithm because the DV-Hop algorithm is always updating its table in accordance to
their neighbor and the computation of the DV-Hop algorithm is more complex than the
Amorphous algorithm, which uses more energy.
4.3. Analyze the effect of range communication variation towards localization error and
total energy consumption
Table 6 shows that the localization error due to the effect of range communication
variation mostly gets lower for Amorphous except for the wireless range 350, it gets higher than
the previous data. However, the results for location error in DVHOP, the values gets fluctuate.
Table 7 shows that the total energy consumption due to the effect of range communication
variations for both algorithm gets higher in each number of wireless range value with increment
50 nodes.
Table 6. Analysis The Effect of Range Communication Variation to Localization Error
Wireless range AMORPHOUS (Joules) DVHOP (Joules)
200 5,578 1,421
250 1,515 1,312
300 1,436 1,34
350 1,713 0,694
400 1,265 0,954
Table 7. Analysis The Effect of Range Communication Variation towards Energy Consumption
Wireless range AMORPHOUS (Joules) DVHOP (Joules)
200 38,723 52,151
250 47,956 56,985
300 53,761 59,182
350 56,473 60,638
400 57,485 61,301

 ISSN: 1693-6930
1156
Figure 5. The Effect of Range Communication Variation towards Localization Error
Figure 5 shows that as the communication range increment by 50m, where the number
of nodes is 300 and the composition of anchor nodes is 20% of all nodes, the localization error
is decreases but the energy consumption increases. The localization error decreases as the
there is an increase in node communication range, resulting a larger network coverage and
more hop count to go through. More hop count going through means a lower localization error.
If the localization error low, it means a better accuracy of node position. The energy
consumption also increases because the increase in node communication range uses more
power.
For the localization error, the DV-Hop algorithm has 50.282% less errors than the
amorphous algorithm because the DV-Hop algorithm is based on hop counts when estimating
positions. A higher node communication range will increase hop count, increasing the accuracy
of the computing. However, the value of the two algorithms equally experienced fluctuations
because of other factors such as node density, random signaling, and deployment of node.
For the Energy Consumption, the Amorphous algorithm uses 12.35% less energy than the DV-
Hop algorithm because the DV-Hop algorithm is always updating its table in accordance to their
neighbors and the computation of the DV-Hop algorithm is also more complex than the
Amorphous algorithm, which requires more energy.
5. Conclusion
This research which was conducted to analyze the performance of DV-Hop algorithm
and Amorphous algorithm towards localization schemes with error localization parameters and
energy consumption resulted the effect of increasing the number of anchor nodes: the number
of nodes and the number of communication range for the Amorphous algorithm and the DV-Hop
algorithm show that value of localization error gets lower. If the localization error is low, it means
a better accuracy of node positions. However, value of energy consumption gets higher. In the
localization error parameter: For the scheme of increasing the number of anchor nodes, the
Amorphous algorithm have 13.60% less errors than the DV-Hop. When increasing the number
of nodes, the DV-Hop algorithm has 26.95% less errors than the amorphous algorithm. For the
increase of communication range scheme, the DV-Hop algorithm has 50.282% less errors than
the amorphous algorithm because of the DV-Hop algorithm itself. In the energy consumption
parameter: For the scheme of increasing the number of anchor nodes: the Amorphous algorithm
uses 24.538% less energy than the DV-Hop algorithm. When increasing of nodes, the
Amorphous algorithm uses 14.227% less energy than the DV-Hop algorithm. For the increase of
communication range scheme, the Amorphous algorithm uses 12.35% less energy than the DV-
Hop algorithm.

1157
References
[1] Nian-qiang,LI.A Range-Free Localization Scheme in Wireless Sensor Networks. IEEE International
Symposium on Knowledge Acquisition and Modeling Workshop. 2008: 525–528.
http://doi.org/10.1109/KAMW.2008.4810540.
[2] F Wang, L Shi, F Ren. Self-localization systems and algorithms for wireless sensor networks. Journal
of Software. 2005; 16(5): 857-868.
[3] http://prima.lecturer.pens.ac.id/riset.html available of 17 November 2015.
[4] Pradipta, Stefanus Enggar. Analisa Algoritma Leach Pada Jaringan Sensor Nirkabel. Bandung:
Institut Teknologi Telkom, 2008.
[5] Qiqian Huang, S. Selvakennedy Schholof Information Technologies, Madsen Bldg.F09. A Range
Free Localization Algorithm for Wireless Sensor Network. Proc. of 63rd IEEE Vehicular Technology
Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 7-10 May 2006.
[6] Fauzi, Feblia Ulfah. Analisis Penggunaan T-MAC Untuk Lapis Protokol MAC Pada Jaringan Sensor
Nirkabel. Bandung: Institut Teknologi Telkom. 2010.
[7] L Hu, D Evans. Localization for mobile sensor networks. in Proc. IEEE Mobicom 2004, Sept. 2004:
45–57.
[8] Zhao, L, Wen, X, Li, D. Amorphous Localization Algorithm Based on BP Artificial Neural Network,
2015.
[9] Kristalina, P. Fundamental Teknik Lokalisasi pada Jaringan Sensor Nirkabel (Fundamentals of
Localization Techniques on Wireless Sensor Networks). 2013.
[10] MAP Putra, D Perdana, RM Negara. Performance Analysis of Data Traffic Offload Scheme on Long-
Term Evolution and IEEE 802.11 ah. TELKOMNIKA (Telecommunication Computing Electronics and
Control. 2017; 15(4); 1659-1665.
[11] D Perdana, R Munadi, RC Manurung. Performance Evaluation of Gauss-Markov Mobility Model in
Hybrid LTE-VANET Networks. TELKOMNIKA (Telecommunication Computing Electronics and
Control. 2017, 2017; 15(2): 606-621.

Performance Evaluation of DV-HOP and Amorphous Algorithms based on Localization Schemes in Wireless Sensor Networks

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Similar to Performance Evaluation of DV-HOP and Amorphous Algorithms based on Localization Schemes in Wireless Sensor Networks (20)

More from TELKOMNIKA JOURNAL (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Performance Evaluation of DV-HOP and Amorphous Algorithms based on Localization Schemes in Wireless Sensor Networks