# Enhanced Secure Technique for Detecting Cyber Attacks Using Artificial Intelligence and Optimal IoT

Authors: Anand Kumar; Mohammed Rahmath; Yeligeti Raju; Sridhar Reddy Vulapula; Boppuru Rudra Prathap; Mohamed M. Hassan; Mohamed A. Mohamed; Simon Atuah Asakipaam
Journal: Security and Communication Networks
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

The Internet of Things (IoT) is a broad term that refers to the collection of information about all of the items that are linked to the Internet. It supervises and controls the functions from a distance, without the need for human interaction. It has the ability to react to the environment either immediately or via its previous experiences. In a similar vein, robots may learn from their experiences in the environment that is relevant to their applications and respond appropriately without the need for human interaction. A greater number of sensors are being distributed across the environment in order to collect and evaluate the essential information. They are gaining ground in a variety of industries, ranging from the industrial environment to the smart home. Sensors are assisting in the monitoring and collection of data from all of the real-time devices that are reliant on all of the different types of fundamental necessities to the most advanced settings available. This research study was primarily concerned with increasing the efficiency of the sensing and network layers of the Internet of Things to increase cyber security. Due to the fact that sensors are resource-constrained devices, it is vital to provide a method for reacting, analysing, and transmitting data collected from the sensors to the base station as efficient as possible. Resource requirements, such as energy, computational power, and storage, vary depending on the kind of sensing devices and communication technologies that are utilised to link real-world objects together. Sensor networks' physical and media access control layers, as well as their applications in diverse geographical and temporal domains, are distinct from one another. Transmission coverage range, energy consumption, and communication technologies differ depending on the application requirements, ranging from low constraints to high resource enrich gadgets. This has a direct impact on the performance of the massive Internet of Things environment, as well as the overall network lifetime of the environment. Identifying and communicating matching items in a massively dispersed Internet of Things environment is critical in terms of spatial identification and communication.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

The increased capacity for the computing powers of the IoT devices has increased the adaptability of these devices for agricultural purposes to a greater extent. The improvement in computing capacity is due to other enhancements in technology, such as edge or fog computing. The detailed survey carried out by Yu et al. [1] has clearly listed the benefits of adopting edge-based computing for agricultural IoT solutions. Following similar directions, many other researchers have also demonstrated various use of IoT devices for agricultural purposes. The work by Pan and McElhannon [2] is one such example. Nonetheless, many parallel research attempts have listed many challenges for these adaptations. The work by Safara et al. [3] have clearly listed few challenges such as:(i)
Low capacity of the battery resulting in less sustainable application frameworks. This problem can be solved by deploying the IoT devices optimally to reduce the additional burden on the clusters and cluster heads.(ii)
Low coverage due to the lesser bandwidth for communication. Once again, the optimal placement of the devices can manage the challenge of coverage.(iii)
Finally, the remote manageability of such frameworks is highly challenging due to the additional cost of cloud-based storage and processing solutions. This problem demands a different approach and can be solved by deploying an additional layer for data management on the IoT network stack.Hence, clearly these abovementioned factors are the recent research demand and must be addressed. This work proposed a framework for optimal IoT device placements and proposes a novel structure for effective data collection and management, to solve all these problems.The rest of the work is organized such as in Section2, the recent research attempts are analyzed critically to identify the research gaps. Section 3 is dedicated to understand the fundamental principles of device placements and manageability. Section 4 discussed the problem after the initial analysis carried out in the previous sections. The solution to the identified problems can be seen in Section 5. Based on the proposed solution, the deployable algorithms and the framework can be understood from Section 6. The obtained results as outcomes from the deployed framework can be seen in Section 7 with a comparative analysis in Section 8 and the conclusion of this research can be identified in Section 9.


## 2. Parallel Research Outcomes for Detecting Cyber Attacks Using Artificial Intelligence and Optimal IoT

Following the establishment of the background in the prior portion of this work, the subsequent research outputs from the parallel studies are reviewed more critically in this section.The majority of the findings of parallel research have revealed just one single solution point to make deployments more sustainable. This solution point involves adopting the edge or fog computing architecture in conjunction with the IoT framework. The work of Yu et al. [4] has stated this possibility numerous times with considerable arguments and evidence of this notion. It is one of the most notable results in this approach. In spite of this, while working on the design of the concept framework that was proposed, the crucial bottleneck of this implementation emerged as the trade-off between the optimization of costs and the sustainability of the deployment. In order to make a deployment sustainable, the costs cannot be increased, as was demonstrated in the research work that was discussed in parallel.The bulk of the outputs of the parallel research have focused on a single problem that needs to be addressed, as shown by the information that is included in the abstract of this study. Through the use of fibre optics as the link, the research that was carried out by Al Ridhawi et al. [5]. They had the goal of overcoming challenges that were related to both the connection and the range of the signal. The number of persons who agree with this work and those who disagree with it is, for all intents and purposes, the same. On the one hand, the effectiveness of the solution has gained a huge popularity for adaptation, as can be seen in the report by Sarkar et al. [6], and on the other hand, the nations that are primarily dependent on agriculture for per capita income are unable to deploy such expensive networking backbones for such purposes because of their limited financial resources. It is difficult to use this response as a standard for anything else because of the reasons stated above.The enormous amount of data is an aspect of this investigation that cannot be disregarded since it is tied to this inquiry. It is anticipated that the Internet of Things sensors that have been installed would capture a massive amount of data, which will, at some point in time, need migration to a centralised storage, preprocessing, analysis, and visualisation. The challenges that are associated with this task have been outlined in the work that was done by Kaur and Singh [7]. Additionally, the effect of these difficulties is outlined in a distinct body of work by the same author, Feng et al. along with other researchers [8]. The answer to this issue is also provided in the framework that has been offered, which includes an extra layer for data management. There is a possibility that this offered solution is not particularly original in terms of the thinking process, given that Guo et al. [9] have presented an application that is quite similar to this one. The implementation tactics have been supported and enhanced as a result of the work done by Yousefpour et al. [10]. However, the solution that was proposed by this parallel research attempt took into consideration the use of a virtualized layer of communication in order to accomplish this objective, and the proposed framework relies heavily on the protocol stack of the IoT network in order to accomplish this improvement.The IoT stack-oriented solutions can also be seen in parallel research works as showcased by Tomar and Shukla [11]. Nevertheless, these works showcasing similar approaches can be highly critical in terms of power management and building sustainable solutions or deployments. The work by Kaur et al. [12] have strongly criticised such approaches. Few researchers have claimed to achieve the optimal distribution of the power utilization. One such example can be observed in the work by Al-Salim et al. [13]. Nonetheless, this work criticises such claims due to the fact that, the optimal power distribution cannot really be achieved without a proper placement of the IoT devices. In another work by Al-Salim et al. [14], this critical direction can be found, which is a significant proof for continuing the research in this direction.In the similar direction, yet another work by Al-Quzweeni et al. [15] have demonstrated a periodic activation of the IoT devices to improve the duty cycle for increasing the sustainability. However, the work by Janarthanan et al. [16] claimed that the improvement over the routing algorithms can improve the sustainability by selectively deploying the cluster heads for the framework. These outcomes are the extension of the guidelines formulated by Al-Azez et al. [17]. Nonetheless, these solutions are primarily software driven solutions and without any improvement on the hardware devices. These solutions highly depend on other form of computing such as cloud, fog, or edge computing, which can increase the trade between cost and sustainability. Hence, this work directs the research towards more IoT driven solutions.Henceforth, with the knowledge of the parallel research outcomes, the fundamental strategy for IoT device placements for optimal coverage is presented in the next section of this work [18].


## 3. Fundamentals of Device Placements for Optimal Coverage

After the understanding of the parallel research outcomes, in this section of the work, the fundamental strategy for node placement is understood using mathematical models.The traditional method completely relies on the image processing for understanding the boundaries of the given area and further maps the available IoT devices to the edge conditions.Assuming that, the total information about the agricultural field is captured in form of an image, and the image information can be presented as I, which is a collection of pixel information,PX[][]. The pixel collection contains all individual information about the pixels and every pixel can be represented as PX[i][j].This fundamental assumption can be presented as follows:(1)I=PX.And, rightfully, for ann × m image,(2)PX=PX00,PX11,…PXn−1m−1.In order to calculate the boundaries, this process must take few steps as elaborated here.Step 1.
Firstly, the mean intensity, MI, of the pixels must be calculated as follows:(3)MI=∑i=0n∑j=0mPXijn.m.
The mean intensity of the image will contribute towards the categorization of the image pixels into multiple groups.Step 2.
Assuming that, there will three categories of the pixels as pixels higher than the MI, lower than MI, and equal to the MI. Thus, this categorization can be formulated as follows:(4)K0.2←PXij>MIPXij<MIPXij=MI.
Also, the categorization is as per the formulationK[0] for pixel with higher intensity, K[1] with lower intensity, and K[2] with equal intensity.Step 3.
It is conclusive to mention that the pixels inK[0] primarily denotes the inner pixels of the image, K[1] denotes the outer pixels, and K[2] denotes the centroid pixels. Thus, the pixels from K[1] collection can be identified as edge, E[], pixels, which can be formulated as follows:(5)E←K1.Step 4.
Finally, the edge pixels can be converted to equal distance points,R. The traditional method of calculating the number of equidistance points is to find the total number, η, of pixel elements in the edge, E[], collection as follows:(6)η←fE.
Furthermore,(7)R=Iffη%R=0R⟶1.
Then,R will be considered as a set of equidistance points and at these points, the IoT devices will be deployed. Regardless, to mention that the placement is generic and has no consideration of the coverage. Furthermore, the problems with the existing method are furnished in the next section of this work.


## 4. Problem Formulation

After analysing the fundamental principle of IoT device placements in the previous section of this work, this section is dedicated to analysing the problems of the existing basic principles.The challenges identified in the existing systems are as follows:(i)
Firstly, the existing method is completely focused on the image-based analysis. Thus, the time complexity is significantly higher.Assuming that, the size of the captured image isn × m. Hence, the time complexity to analyse the complete data, T1, can be formulated as follows:(8)T1=n.m.Furthermore, categorization for the image pixels intok number of categories will demand analysing each pixel (n × m) for k number of times. Thus, the additional time complexity can be formulated as follows:(9)T1=n.m+k.n.m.Or, ask is a constant and n ≈ m,(10)T1=n.n.Furthermore,(11)T1=On2.Henceforth, it is conclusive to mention that the time complexity of this process is significantly higher.(ii)
Secondly the image acquisition and preprocessing are time-consuming, so image capturing is difficult using drones. It is evident that, during the capturing process, only one image will not be captured to increase the success rate. Assuming that,S number of images are captured and the images are stored in the IS[] image collections. Thus,(12)fIS⟶S.Furthermore, in order to understand the best captured image, it is often observed that, the histogram method is utilised. Considering the image size for each iVmage is n × m, the time complexity, T2, for generating the histogram for a single image can be formulated as follows:(13)T2=nm.However, the collected number of images are S. Thus, the final time complexity shall be as follows:(14)T2=S.nm.Assuming that, S is a constant and n ≈ m, the time complexity can be rewritten as follows:(15)T2=Onn.Thus, up to this point in time, the total complexity, T1 and T2, can be formulated as follows:(16)T1+T2=On2+Onn.Finally, due to image-based analysis of the existing methods, the additional challenge is to further map the edge pixels to the actual coordinates. Hence, in a two-dimensional space, (X, Y) the time complexity, T3, of mapping R attributes can be formulated as follows:(17)T3=RX,Y.Converting 7 in terms of n and m,(18)T3=nn.m.Again, the time complexity can be rewritten as follows:(19)T3=Onn2.Henceforth, the final time complexity of this process, T1, T2, and T3, can be formulated as follows:(20)T1+T2+T3=On2+Onn+Onn2.Furthermore, based on the principle of function maximization,(21)T1+T2+T3≈Onn2.Finally, the proposed solutions are formulated in the next section of this work.


## 5. Proposed Solutions for Detecting Cyber Attacks Using Artificial Intelligence and Optimal IoT

After analysing the parallel research outcomes in terms of enhancements to the basic principle and the basic principle for IoT node placements, this section of the work, formulate the proposed solutions. This work aims to solve the identified problems in three segments.


### 5.1. Selection of the Edge Coordinates

The first phase of the proposed solutions is to start considering the complete field in terms of a graph, F, where each and every point or coordinate is considered as vertices,V[], and the connection between the coordinates are the edges, E[]. Hence, this relation can be formulated as follows:(22)F⇒V,E.Furthermore, each and every vertex is a collection of two factors as the coordinate (X, Y) and the directional vector, d⟶. Thus, for any vertex V[i], this can be formulated as follows:(23)Vi=X,Y,d.At this point in time, the first factor, that is the coordinates are considered for analysis.The primary objective of this first phase of the solution is to identify the extreme coordinates of the field. This outcome from this phase, will contribute to the start of the next phase of the solution to decide the start and end point of the analysis.Thus, the collection of the extreme vertices,VE[], can be formulated as follows:(24)VE=∏X−>min,Y−>minV,∏X−>max,Y−>minV,∏X−>min,Y−>maxV,∏X−>max,Y−>maxV.Here, the element of theVE[] collection will contain the left uppermost vertex, rightmost uppermost vertex, left bottom most vertex, and right bottom most vertex, respectively.Nonetheless, these identified vertices inVE[] must ensure a connectivity using the edge collection, E[], as follows:(25)VEi⟶VEi+1⇒∃∑i=0mEi.Furthermore, with theVE[] collection as extreme points as terminating conditions to the next phase of the solution, phase two is formulated.


### 5.2. Edge Identification Using the Curve Fitting Method

The second most important challenge of the existing method is to identify the edge locations for the irregular geometric shape.Continuing from equation (23), the directional vector can be reformulated as follows:(26)d⟶=a⟶,b⟶,c⟶,d⟶Here, these four components of the directional vector define four directional individual vectors on a two-dimensional space.It is natural to realize that, for any two vertices, if any of the directional vectors, out of four, matches, then these two vertices are falling on the same line. This logic can be formulated as follows:(27)f′Vi=f′Vi+1⇒Vi,Vi+1.Here,V[i] and V[i + 1] are conclusively connected vertices.However, the starting position and the terminating positions must be guided by the extreme vertices as follows:(28)P=∏f′Vi+1VEVi,where P is the identified and connected set of vertices on which the IoT devices can be placed.Now, the next challenge is to utilize this collectionP[] for formulating the optimal placements of the IoT devices.


### 5.3. Optimal IoT Device Placements

The most challenging problem of this research is to identify the optimal placements of the IoT devices. Assuming that each IoT device,IT, is a collection of various components as battery level, B, range of communication, R, processing capacity, C, transmission power, T, and mobility factor, M, then this can be represented for any IoT device, ITi, as follows:(29)ITi=Bi,Ri,Ci,Ti,MiFurthermore, assuming that two IoT devices have the overlapping range and within that range two edge vertices are situated, then these two edge points can be considered as optimal placements of the IoT devices as follows:(30)Ri∩Ri+1⇒Pi∪Pi+1Here,P[i] and P[i + 1] locations are identified as optimal IoT device placements points.Finally, the developed algorithms based on these proposed mathematical models are furnished in the next section of this work.


## 5.1. Selection of the Edge Coordinates

The first phase of the proposed solutions is to start considering the complete field in terms of a graph, F, where each and every point or coordinate is considered as vertices,V[], and the connection between the coordinates are the edges, E[]. Hence, this relation can be formulated as follows:(22)F⇒V,E.Furthermore, each and every vertex is a collection of two factors as the coordinate (X, Y) and the directional vector, d⟶. Thus, for any vertex V[i], this can be formulated as follows:(23)Vi=X,Y,d.At this point in time, the first factor, that is the coordinates are considered for analysis.The primary objective of this first phase of the solution is to identify the extreme coordinates of the field. This outcome from this phase, will contribute to the start of the next phase of the solution to decide the start and end point of the analysis.Thus, the collection of the extreme vertices,VE[], can be formulated as follows:(24)VE=∏X−>min,Y−>minV,∏X−>max,Y−>minV,∏X−>min,Y−>maxV,∏X−>max,Y−>maxV.Here, the element of theVE[] collection will contain the left uppermost vertex, rightmost uppermost vertex, left bottom most vertex, and right bottom most vertex, respectively.Nonetheless, these identified vertices inVE[] must ensure a connectivity using the edge collection, E[], as follows:(25)VEi⟶VEi+1⇒∃∑i=0mEi.Furthermore, with theVE[] collection as extreme points as terminating conditions to the next phase of the solution, phase two is formulated.


## 5.2. Edge Identification Using the Curve Fitting Method

The second most important challenge of the existing method is to identify the edge locations for the irregular geometric shape.Continuing from equation (23), the directional vector can be reformulated as follows:(26)d⟶=a⟶,b⟶,c⟶,d⟶Here, these four components of the directional vector define four directional individual vectors on a two-dimensional space.It is natural to realize that, for any two vertices, if any of the directional vectors, out of four, matches, then these two vertices are falling on the same line. This logic can be formulated as follows:(27)f′Vi=f′Vi+1⇒Vi,Vi+1.Here,V[i] and V[i + 1] are conclusively connected vertices.However, the starting position and the terminating positions must be guided by the extreme vertices as follows:(28)P=∏f′Vi+1VEVi,where P is the identified and connected set of vertices on which the IoT devices can be placed.Now, the next challenge is to utilize this collectionP[] for formulating the optimal placements of the IoT devices.


## 5.3. Optimal IoT Device Placements

The most challenging problem of this research is to identify the optimal placements of the IoT devices. Assuming that each IoT device,IT, is a collection of various components as battery level, B, range of communication, R, processing capacity, C, transmission power, T, and mobility factor, M, then this can be represented for any IoT device, ITi, as follows:(29)ITi=Bi,Ri,Ci,Ti,MiFurthermore, assuming that two IoT devices have the overlapping range and within that range two edge vertices are situated, then these two edge points can be considered as optimal placements of the IoT devices as follows:(30)Ri∩Ri+1⇒Pi∪Pi+1Here,P[i] and P[i + 1] locations are identified as optimal IoT device placements points.Finally, the developed algorithms based on these proposed mathematical models are furnished in the next section of this work.


## 6. Proposed Algorithms and Framework for Data Collection in Detecting Cyber Attacks Using Artificial Intelligence and Optimal IoT

In the previous section of this work, the proposed solutions are formulated using the mathematical models. The mathematical models are helpful in realizing the facts and principles of the proposed solutions. Nonetheless, the practical implementations of the proposed strategies demand an implementable outline in the form of an algorithm. Hence, this section of the work is dedicated to furnishing the proposed algorithms.The first proposed algorithm is intended to solve the extreme points identification and is furnished as shown in Figure1:Figure 1
Maxima-minima based extreme coordinates identification (MMECI) algorithm.The benefit of this proposed algorithm is furnished in the previous section of this work [19].The second proposed algorithm is intended to solve the connected edge point identification problem and is furnished as shown in Figure2:Figure 2
Edge Identification using curve fitting method (EICF) algorithm.The benefit of this proposed algorithm is furnished in the previous section of this work. [20].The third and final algorithms is designed to solve the problem of optimal placement on the agricultural field and is furnished as shown in Figure3:Figure 3
Optimal IoT device placements using range analysis (O-IoT-RA) algorithm.The benefit of this proposed algorithm is furnished in the previous section of this work. [21].Furthermore, the proposed framework is furnished and discussed with the proposed algorithms, as shown in Figure4.Figure 4
The proposed data management and IoT node placement automation framework.The proposed framework is designed to initially accept the field information in terms of graph-based structure. Furthermore, the first algorithm MMECI must be deployed to identify the most extreme cornered coordinates, so that the edge coordinates can be detected within finite time. Furthermore, the O-IoT-RA algorithm must be deployed to identify the optimal coordinates to place the IoT devices. [22].Once the IoT devices are placed, the data collection agents from the framework will start collecting the data and build the customizable dashboard.After the detailed analysis and discussion on the proposed algorithms, the obtained results are discussed on the next section of this work.


## 7. Results and Discussions

The obtained results from the proposed algorithms and the framework are highly satisfactory and are furnished here.The analysis of the proposed framework is carried out on various situations with 1000 nodes. However, for presentation purposes, only 25 node information has been furnished.The outcomes are discussed in five sections.


### 7.1. Coverage Analysis

The initial phase of the outcomes from the proposed framework is to test the coverage of the deployed IoT frameworks. The observed outcomes are discussed in Table1.Table 1
Coverage analysis.
Node idReceived packetsDumped packetsLost packets10002500320043005400650074008400930010500114001230013300144001540016400175001840019300203002140022400235002450025400The results are visualized graphically in Figure5.Figure 5
Coverage analysis.From the obtained data about the coverage of the deployed IoT devices, it is conclusive to mention that the placement of the devices is highly optimized as the packet-based communications are absolutely matched with the average trend of the network [3].


### 7.2. Connectivity Analysis

The connectivity analysis for any IoT network will ensure the device distributions over any area, which are placed.The connectivity analysis is carried out in Table2.Table 2
Connectivity analysis.
Node idNumber of hopsExtra time (ms)100.0211.0311.1421.0531.3621.5721.0824.8931.21021.01141.01251.11331.11441.01531.21641.11731.51841.11951.22041.92151.22260.62350.82451.42564.8The results are visualized graphically in Figure6.Figure 6
Connectivity analysis.After the detailed analysis of the number of hops, it is highly evident that, the number of hops between any two nodes are similar to the average of the hops for the entire network. Thus, this also ensures and confirms the optimal placements of the IoT devices. Also, due to various factors, some of the instances are demonstrating lower bandwidth on few challenges. However, this cannot be considered as benchmark as the extra-time requirement is appearing only in few cases [23].


### 7.3. Responsiveness Analysis

Apart from the connectivity and coverage, the responsiveness is also one of the most important parameter for analysing the performance of any deployed network. Hence the response time analysis is performed in Table3.Table 3
Responsiveness analysis.
Node idResponse time10.028.238.5416.0556.0619.6717.3876.3926.71016.61134.51246.01326.01469.51526.31634.51727.61835.81943.72047.02153.322280.523187.42471.62587.8The results are visualized graphically in Figure7.Figure 7
Responsiveness analysis.After the analysis of the results for this section, it is noteworthy to focus on the fact that, the response time is fairly moderate and few of the instance is highly responsive. In few of the situations, it is evident that sudden increase for response time can be observed, which is due to the natural causes such as low light or low wind, which causes higher time for data capturing.


### 7.4. Repositioning Analysis

Once the network is deployed, the framework need not to reposition or redeploy itself. The analysis parameters such as number of churns and number of reboots will demonstrate the stability of the network. The result is furnished in Table4.Table 4
Repositioning analysis.
Node idNumber of churnsBeacon interval (ms)Number ofreboots1000201024000309600004013866605228000060928000709600008082000090693330100140800011074000012164000013069333014058000015080000016096000017083200018084000019014933302006400002108800002218800002319600002401088000250730000The results are visualized graphically in Figure8.Figure 8
Repositioning analysis.The lower churn rates, almost zero reboots, and higher beacon frequency are highly evident of a very stable deployment of the network.


### 7.5. Power Awareness Analysis

The final claim of this work is to justify the sustainability of the deployed framework. Thus, the power consumption analysis is carried out in Table5.Table 5
Power aware analysis.
Node idCPU powerLPM powerListen powerTransmitpower10.390.150.440.2120.440.150.740.1830.410.150.610.1940.380.150.510.1650.380.150.450.1860.370.150.440.1270.420.150.660.1980.410.150.520.2890.380.150.470.20100.390.150.610.12110.430.150.530.23120.370.150.460.18130.380.150.460.17140.420.150.660.25150.450.150.740.25160.370.150.410.13170.420.150.600.28180.370.150.440.14190.360.150.500.12200.400.150.600.20210.390.150.440.21220.400.150.440.52230.380.150.400.18240.370.150.420.12250.380.150.450.21The results are visualized graphically in Figure9.Figure 9
Power awareness analysis.Furthermore, the comparative analysis is carried out in the next section of this work.


## 7.1. Coverage Analysis

The initial phase of the outcomes from the proposed framework is to test the coverage of the deployed IoT frameworks. The observed outcomes are discussed in Table1.Table 1
Coverage analysis.
Node idReceived packetsDumped packetsLost packets10002500320043005400650074008400930010500114001230013300144001540016400175001840019300203002140022400235002450025400The results are visualized graphically in Figure5.Figure 5
Coverage analysis.From the obtained data about the coverage of the deployed IoT devices, it is conclusive to mention that the placement of the devices is highly optimized as the packet-based communications are absolutely matched with the average trend of the network [3].


## 7.2. Connectivity Analysis

The connectivity analysis for any IoT network will ensure the device distributions over any area, which are placed.The connectivity analysis is carried out in Table2.Table 2
Connectivity analysis.
Node idNumber of hopsExtra time (ms)100.0211.0311.1421.0531.3621.5721.0824.8931.21021.01141.01251.11331.11441.01531.21641.11731.51841.11951.22041.92151.22260.62350.82451.42564.8The results are visualized graphically in Figure6.Figure 6
Connectivity analysis.After the detailed analysis of the number of hops, it is highly evident that, the number of hops between any two nodes are similar to the average of the hops for the entire network. Thus, this also ensures and confirms the optimal placements of the IoT devices. Also, due to various factors, some of the instances are demonstrating lower bandwidth on few challenges. However, this cannot be considered as benchmark as the extra-time requirement is appearing only in few cases [23].


## 7.3. Responsiveness Analysis

Apart from the connectivity and coverage, the responsiveness is also one of the most important parameter for analysing the performance of any deployed network. Hence the response time analysis is performed in Table3.Table 3
Responsiveness analysis.
Node idResponse time10.028.238.5416.0556.0619.6717.3876.3926.71016.61134.51246.01326.01469.51526.31634.51727.61835.81943.72047.02153.322280.523187.42471.62587.8The results are visualized graphically in Figure7.Figure 7
Responsiveness analysis.After the analysis of the results for this section, it is noteworthy to focus on the fact that, the response time is fairly moderate and few of the instance is highly responsive. In few of the situations, it is evident that sudden increase for response time can be observed, which is due to the natural causes such as low light or low wind, which causes higher time for data capturing.


## 7.4. Repositioning Analysis

Once the network is deployed, the framework need not to reposition or redeploy itself. The analysis parameters such as number of churns and number of reboots will demonstrate the stability of the network. The result is furnished in Table4.Table 4
Repositioning analysis.
Node idNumber of churnsBeacon interval (ms)Number ofreboots1000201024000309600004013866605228000060928000709600008082000090693330100140800011074000012164000013069333014058000015080000016096000017083200018084000019014933302006400002108800002218800002319600002401088000250730000The results are visualized graphically in Figure8.Figure 8
Repositioning analysis.The lower churn rates, almost zero reboots, and higher beacon frequency are highly evident of a very stable deployment of the network.


## 7.5. Power Awareness Analysis

The final claim of this work is to justify the sustainability of the deployed framework. Thus, the power consumption analysis is carried out in Table5.Table 5
Power aware analysis.
Node idCPU powerLPM powerListen powerTransmitpower10.390.150.440.2120.440.150.740.1830.410.150.610.1940.380.150.510.1650.380.150.450.1860.370.150.440.1270.420.150.660.1980.410.150.520.2890.380.150.470.20100.390.150.610.12110.430.150.530.23120.370.150.460.18130.380.150.460.17140.420.150.660.25150.450.150.740.25160.370.150.410.13170.420.150.600.28180.370.150.440.14190.360.150.500.12200.400.150.600.20210.390.150.440.21220.400.150.440.52230.380.150.400.18240.370.150.420.12250.380.150.450.21The results are visualized graphically in Figure9.Figure 9
Power awareness analysis.Furthermore, the comparative analysis is carried out in the next section of this work.


## 8. Comparative Analysis

After the detailed analysis of the obtained outcomes from the proposed framework, in this section, is compared with the parallel research outcomes, as shown in Table6.Table 6
Comparative analysis.
Author, yearProposed modelAverage response time (ms)Average churnModelcomplexityYousefpour et al., 2019 [10]Framework for energy optimization200.507Onn2Tomar and Shukla, 2019 [11]Service based optimization172.316Onn2Al-Salim et al., 2018 [13]Service distribution387.626Onn2Janarthanan et al., 2021 [16]Priority routing257.767Onn2Proposed framework, 2021Extreme coordinates identification, edge identification and optimal IoT device placements52.701OnHenceforth, it is natural to observe that, the proposed framework has outperformed the parallel research outcomes. The proposed framework has improved response time by 15% and the average churn rates by nearly 20% compared to the parallel research outcomes. Finally, the calculated model complexity isO(n), which is again much lesser than that of the other parallel works.Figure10 represents the comparison of existing work with proposed work which concludes that the proposed work have less error rate.Figure 10
Comparison from existing works.


## 9. Conclusion

The effective support from technology to improve the agricultural situation is evident, and this work also contributes towards the same improvement objectives. This proposed framework is a combination of a wide variant of benefits, such as complete automation in IoT device placement optimization, data management framework, and improved power consumptions, and all these benefits are obtained using low model complexity. This work formulates the algorithms for identification of extreme boundary conditions to reduce multiple iterations for edge detection and indirectly reduces the time complexity. Furthermore, the second algorithm ensures that the detected edges have connectivity in terms of physical reachability in order to optimize the range finding process for the IoT devices. Finally, the IoT devices are placed with the optimal process based on range analysis, which is again automated by another proposed algorithm. Finally, this work demonstrates good improvements over the parallel research outcomes and must be considered as one of the benchmarked application in this domain of research.



---

*Source: 8024518-2022-07-20.xml*