Autonomous Load Regulation Based Energy Balanced Routing in Rechargeable Wireless Sensor Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper proposes an autonomous load regulation mechanism based in balanced routing algorithm in rechargeable wireless sensor networks. The idea of the work is interesting but it is not well presented. The presentation of the paper, in general, is unclear and the authors used a nomenclature difficult to follow. The paper could be reconsidered after major revisions.

Comments

1)      In the abstract you repeat twice that you are proposing an autonomous load regulation mechanism…

2)      What is m? The number of cells? Please, explain it.

3)      It is not clear how do you select the anchor points and, what it is exactly an anchor point should be explained.

4)      Line 145. “where E_i and e_i is the residual energy…”

5)      Line 150. You say: “PAS(m) denote the ith element in list PAS.”

6)      Line 153. “where ace is the … and AC is the…” change the order.

7)      N_ac??

8)      Line 156, “of these cell…”

9)      Line 194. “d_is and d_js is the distance..”

10)  Line 199. “Table 1. autonomous…”

11)  Line 271. How many experiments have you performed?

12)  Line 276 “The network lifetime is increase with the increase of .. in [0,0.3]” it is not true for all cases.

13)  Line 276. The maximum is reached in 0.4 in all cases.

14)  It is not clear the difference between ALRMR and ALRMR-PROPORTION.

15)  It is not clear the difference between ALRMR and ALRMR-NRC.

16)  The conclusions and future works are poorly described.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments to the Author This paper proposed an autonomous load regulation mechanism based energy balanced routing algorithm in rechargeable Wireless Sensor Networks. To this end, the authors adopt a framework of joint wireless energy transfer and multi-hop routing, an autonomous load regulation. The simulation demonstrates the advantages of the proposed algorithm for energy balance efficiency and improving the lifetime through charging scheme and autonomous load regulation mechanism. Generally, the theoretical statement and the experimental analysis are enough. However, there exist some defects to be revised carefully before accepting the article. The comments are as follows. 1. It needs proofreading once more for a few grammatical mistakes. For example: In line 98-98, there are some syntax errors. 2. In the System model Section, why the authors define the network as a directed graph instead of the undirected graph. Can the proposed algorithm be applied to undirected graphs? I would like the authors to discuss how (and, in the affirmative case, to provide a brief remark on how this could be achieved) the proposed approach could be generalized to handle undirected communication. 3. There is a lot of research on energy-efficient routing protocol in WSNs, the authors should expand the related work with more recent arts, including rechargeable and unchangeable WSNs. Such as： [R1] Xinlu Li B K, And Fredrick Mtenzi. Energy-efficient hybrid routing protocol based on the artificial fish swarm algorithm and ant colony optimisation for WSNs[J]. Sensors, 2018, 18(10). [R2] Liu Y, Liu A, Zhang N, et al. DDC: Dynamic duty cycle for improving delay and energy efficiency in wireless sensor networks [J]. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 2019, 131: 16-27. [R3] Mostafaei, Habib. "Energy-efficient algorithm for reliable routing of wireless sensor networks." IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 66.7 (2018): 5567-5575. 4. In my opinion, adding a figure depicting at high-level the proposed routing approach would be useful to the generic reader. 5. In Performance Evaluation Section, why the authors define the network lifetime as the time of the first node dies? In the simulation setting, the node number is 100-250, the authors believe that each node is very critical? It may be possible to define the network lifetime with a certain percentage of node deaths, e.g. 20% or 50%.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After the changes performed by the authors I think that the article should be published.