1 / 24

SNA’09 -1

Distributed Resource Management and Parallel Routing for Data Acquisition in Heterogeneous Sensor Networks W. Chen, H. Miao , S. Z. Sabatto, H. A. Adas, K. Suzan Dr Wei Chen, Professor College of Engineering, Technology and Computer Science Center of Excellence for Battlefield Sensor Fusion

jakeem-barlow
Download Presentation

SNA’09 -1

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Distributed Resource Management and Parallel Routing for Data Acquisition in Heterogeneous Sensor Networks W. Chen, H. Miao, S. Z. Sabatto, H. A. Adas, K. Suzan Dr Wei Chen, Professor College of Engineering, Technology and Computer Science Center of Excellence for Battlefield Sensor Fusion Tennessee State University International Conference on Sensor Networks and Application, 2009 SNA’09 -1

  2. Presentation Outline • Introduction: Sensor network, Fusion, Resource Allocation • Problem Statement • Review of Centralized & DecentralizedMarket-based Approach for Resource Allocation • Proposed Hierarchical Market Approach for Resource Allocation • Parallel Routing in Heterogeneous Sensor Networks • Implementation and Experiment Results • Future Work SNA’09 -2

  3. Lower-level fusion sink Introduction Sensor Network & Sensor Fusion Fusion missions:Target tracks, target identification, environment monitoring … Base Station Upper-level fusion Ask for data/information Return back sensed/fused data Sensor Network SNA’09 -3

  4. Problem Statement Given a task or tasks, how to assign sensors and network resources to fulfill the task/tasks with the goal of less delay, high QoS, and long network lifetime? For example, a task of mobile target tracking can be fulfilled by a sequence of node actions: sampling, listening, transmitting, aggregation, sleeping, and each action uses some resources. What action each node should take at each timeslot to fulfill the task that best matches the above goal? SNA’09 -4

  5. Problem Statement Resource Allocation How to assign the resources for achieving the requested data with smallest delay while keeping the network alive as long as possible? SNA’09 -5

  6. Review of Market-Based Resource Allocation Base Station (Clients, Consumers) Central Sensor manager Single-platform or one-hop Sensor Network Centralized Resource Allocation (CRA) (Dr. T. Mullen and others, Penn State Univ.) • Using an auction mechanism for a single-platform or single-hop sensor network • A winner has to be decided from resource bids during each round of scheduling according to the current status of all resources and requirements of given tasks. • Computation intensive • Not suitable to a multi-hop sensor network, where communication cost of relaying data are the dominant cost. SNA’09 -6

  7. Review of Market-Based Resource Allocation Base Station (Clients, Consumers) Infrequently central control Sensor Network Individual Resource Manager IRM IRM IRM IRM IRM IRM IRM Decentralized Resource Allocation (DRA)(G. Mainland & others, Harvard Univ.) • At each timeslot, the IRM at each node locally selects an action that can maximize the utility function. • Tuning node behavior: when action is “successful,” the utility function receives a reward. Nodes can determine locally which actions were “successful”. • Central control: adjusting the price of resource infrequently • No control points, hardly achieving optimal resource allocation • Overlap on sensing, computation, and networking SNA’09 -7

  8. Base Station (Clients, Consumers) Infrequently central control Cluster head Cluster LRM IRM IRM LRM LRM IRM IRM Sensor Network Proposed Approach- Framework Underlying Network: Most sensor networks nowadays are built with a hierarchical structure by clustering that introduce efficient sensing, computing and networking, and long network lifetime. Hierarchical Resource Allocation (HRA) in Cluster-Based Sensor Networks • Local Resource Manager(LRM) at cluster-head nodes is local centralized • Individual Resource Manager (IRM) at cluster-member nodes is decentralized. • Simple central control by adjusting the price of resource infrequently • Using the routing protocols and reconfiguration functions of the underlying cluster-based sensor network • Goal: • providing promise solution of resource allocation for given tasks with less delay and high QoS; and • extending network lifetime SNA’09 -9

  9. Proposed Approach –Detail Design • Autonomous Scheduling • Rather than static scheduling, individual nodes tune their schedules over time • Cluster-heads do local optimization in their clusters • Nodes avoid wasting energy by using a payment-possibility threshold. • Using the feedback to tune node behavior: nodes receive rewards when they take useful actions • Reinforcement learning to select best actions • Action model at nodes: • Nodes select an action among a set of actions at each timeslot • Each action has an associated energy cost • When an action is “successful,” the node earns a reward • Examples of actions: Sample a sensor, Listen for incoming radio messages, Transmit a radio message, Aggregate multiple sensor readings into a single value • Each node attempts to maximize its reward • Taking an action may or may not produce a good of value to the sensor network. • The nodes can determine locally whether a given action deserves a payment. SNA’09 -11

  10. G. Mainland’s algorithm:An energy budget is used for each fixed period. Nodes take the actions that can maximize the utility function even the profit is very small when he budget allowed. Utility function Proposed Approach –Design Details Algorithm of the IRM at a node r for each timeslot (scheduling cycle) do (1) with 1-ε probabilityselect an action a from the available action set which has largest utility value; (2) withε probability randomly select an action a from the action set //exploring action space to avoid falling to local minima// (3) if β(a) < payment-possibility threshold then node r goes to sleep //saving energy// else begin node r takes action a; if action a receives a payment thenβ(a) =α+(1- α)β(a) //estimated probability of success gets larger // else β(a) =(1- α)β(a); //estimated probability of success gets smaller // end; (4) if node r runs out of the energy then call the network reconfiguration functions; SNA’09 -12

  11. Proposed Approach –Design Details Algorithm of the LRM at a cluster-head for each timeslot (scheduling cycle) do begin (1) collect status of each member node in the cluster; (2)determine the optimal resource allocation according to the current status in the cluster and the given tasks; (3) inform the decision to the cluster member nodes; (4) if the head runs out of the energy then call the network reconfiguration functions; end; • Price Selection and Adjustment at the Central Controller • Prices are propagated to sensor nodes from the GRM through data dissemination algorithm. • The client can adjust prices to affect coarse changes in system activity. Routing Protocols Broadcast protocol and data gathering protocol for the underlying cluster-based sensor network are used. Reconfigurable Function When a node runs out of battery, the network will be self-reconfigured. SNA’09 -13

  12. Implementation Application: Tracking Mobile Targets Field: 105m×105m Nodes: 800 MICA2/Crossbow motes Resource: (1) Radio: member – 15 m, head – 30 m; (2) Magnet sensor: sensing range – 11m; Buffer: 2 buffers (2256 byte) with totally 14 packages Sample reading:29 byte (one buffer can save 17 samples) Moving target:one or two with speed 1.5 m/s or 3 m/s moving on random straight routes Packet size:35 byte (payload 29 byte with header 6 byte) Data rate:38.4 kbps Timeslot for an action: 0.25 second Initial energy at each node: e = 3.88 J (energy in an Nickel Cadmium AA battery = 4320 J) MAC protocol: CAMA/CA Local optimization at LRM: cluster-head select the best radio messages (most accurate message) when it receives multiple overlap messages from its member nodes Routing protocols: data dissemination – broadcast protocol by using the backbone tree, message collection – data gathering protocol which relays data back to the base station from sensor nodes by using the backbone tree from children to the parent Energy consumption for actions at each time slot Action 1: Sending, 2.33 mJ, Action 2: Listening, 6.56 mJ, Action 3: Sampling, 84.1 uJ Action 4: Aggregation, 84.1 mJ, (Action 5): sleeping, 12 uJ SNA’09 -14

  13. Experimental Results Flat Sensor Network sink SNA’09 -15

  14. Experimental Results Cluster-based Sensor Networks sink SNA’09 -16

  15. Experimental Results Latency (one mobile target) In 20 seconds, DRA received 77 messages, HRA received 119 messages DRA (Without Local Optimization) HRA (With Local Optimization) Test field Test field SNA’09 -17

  16. Experimental Results After tracking a mobile target 200 seconds SNA’09 -18

  17. Experimental Results Observation: change the price of sending only may not work well. SNA’09 -19

  18. Parallel Routing for Heterogeneous Sensor Networks Recently deployed sensor networks are increasingly following heterogeneous designs. For example, a sensor network can include large number of small MICA sensors with a few of more powerful Garcia micro robotic nodes. In order to solve the performance bottleneck for data acquisition we consider a parallel routing architecture induced from the high-end nodes. SNA’09 -20

  19. Formation of Parallel Routing Architecture Heterogeneous Sensor Network:Suppose there are k high-end nodes and n L-nodes in the heterogeneous sensor network, where k << n. • Formation of the Parallel Routing Architecture • with k H-nodes (PRA(k)) • For each H-node u,u broadcasts its ID at different timeslot. • For each L-node v, if v receives the IDs from at least one H-node, it assigns itself to the closest H-node. If v doesn’t receive the ID from any H-node, it assigns itself to a group called as temp. • Each group forms a cluster-based routing tree structure with the H-node as its root (for group temp, the root can be any low-cost node) by using any existing algorithms. • Merge temp to another group. • H-nodes (the roots of all groups) form a tree structure with the sink as the root. Each group forwards data to the H-node using a cluster-based routing tree; the H-nodes forward data back to the sink using the backbone tree SNA’09 -21

  20. Experimental Results Parallel routing architecture induced by 4 high-end nodes (PRA(4)) SNA’09 -22

  21. Experimental Results Tracking a mobile target by HRA scheme (left), and by PRA(4) scheme (right), where white, yellow, dark blue, red, green, and orange dots are the locations that the vehicle is detected and reported back to the sink in 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 and 60 seconds, respectively. SNA’09 -23

  22. Experimental Results SNA’09 -24

  23. Experimental Results SNA’09 -25

  24. Conclusion and Future Work • Hierarchical resource allocation (HRA) scheme can largely improve latency, QoS and network lifetime. • Parallel resource allocation (PRA) induced from high-end nodes in heterogeneous sensor network can relay back more qualified data before data overflowing from buffers. • Future work: resource allocation for multiple customers and multiple tasks. SNA’09 -26

More Related