1 / 55

Localization protocols for wireless sensor networks

Localization protocols for wireless sensor networks. Stefan Dulman Email: s.o.dulman@utwente.nl. Presentation Overview. Introduction and motivation Lateration – a simple approach Classification Centralized methods One hop positioning Distributed methods Relative positioning

yakov
Download Presentation

Localization protocols for wireless sensor networks

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. Localization protocols for wirelesssensor networks Stefan DulmanEmail: s.o.dulman@utwente.nl

  2. Presentation Overview • Introduction and motivation • Lateration – a simple approach • Classification • Centralized methods • One hop positioning • Distributed methods • Relative positioning • Mobility schemes • Conclusions

  3. Wireless Sensor Networks • Nodes with VERY limited resources • 16 bit processor, 2KB RAM, 60KB FLASH • Low data-rate radio (115.200 bits/sec) • Limited energy available (1-2 small batteries) • Small physical size • Networks characteristics • Distributed network, mobile unreliable nodes • Deployed in a harsh environment • Self-organizing and self-healing

  4. Ideal Sensor Networks • “Smart Dust” • Tens of thousands of sensor nodes • Node lifetime longer than 2 years • Node size smaller than 1 mm3 • Node price smaller than 5 cents

  5. Typical Applications • A broad range of applications, all possibilities definitely not explored yet! • Environment and wildlife monitoring • Remote study of the birds on Great Duck Island • Zebra monitoring in Kenya • … and even more monitoring • Industry • Agriculture • Disaster control • Surveillance and security systems

  6. Is positioning necessary? • YES! • Can be the mean or the goal of a WSN application • Application examples: • Meteorological and environmental monitoring • Data has no meaning if not stamped with time + location • Package tracking • Library archiving • Position tracking (e.g. military applications) • Is used as building block in: • Routing protocols • Data dissemination protocols • Localization as application of WSN

  7. Example: geographic routing • Allows development of algorithms with better scalability • Position centric addressing first proposed in 1970’s • Recent growing interest for it • Nodes are addressed by their location instead of ID • No additional job required to support routing • State of the packet (position) and destination position are sufficient • Simplest algorithm: Cartesian routing • Stojmenovic (IEEE Commun.Magazine 2002) presents several strategies for geographical routing

  8. Problem statement • Regular assumptions for WSN protocol test scenarios: • Large number of nodes • Random deployment in a (known shape) given area • Known (identical) transmission range for all nodes • Static/not very dynamic networks • Question: • What are the geographical positions of the nodes? • Absolute positioning • Relative positioning

  9. A possible solution? • Usage of Global Positioning System (GPS) devices • Not a feasible solution for WSN: • High cost of the device (value/energy/computation power/space) • Unavailability/poor precision of the service in special environments (indoors, underground, etc.) • Conclusion: other approaches need to be developed and deployed

  10. Lateration - A simple solution

  11. Lateration description • Example: 2D space • Given: • Three points with known positions • Distances to all three of them • Position can be determined by intersecting three circle centered in the points with radius the known distances

  12. Lateration as localization technique

  13. Lateration’ • The concept can be easily applied to multihop networks • The method as such is not too useful: • Imprecise position information • Imprecise distance estimates • The three circles usually do not intersect in a point (or at all!) • Several algorithms developed on this simple idea (e.g. APS schemes)

  14. Classification

  15. Classification • Different aspects of localization studied in vision, robotics, signal processing, networking, etc. • Solutions can be classified in several manners: • One-hop or multi-hop schemes • Range free or range based schemes • Absolute, relative or local coordinates • Centralized, distributed or localized algorithms

  16. Centralized methods

  17. Centralized methods • All the data is collected at a central point and a global map is computed at once • Advantages: • High quality solutions (in terms of the average distance error) • Global maps available • Disadvantages: • Data needs to travel to a central point • High computation power required • Methods usually do not scale with the network size

  18. Centralized methods • Convex optimization • One of the first schemes available • Treats the localization problem from the point of view of linear programming and semi-definite programming • Various constraints are represented as linear matrix inequalities

  19. Convex optimization’ • Advantages: • It is simple to model the distance and angle information • The solutions provided are optimal • Efficient computational methods have already been developed • Disadvantages: • All the disadvantages of the centralized methods class • Computation complexities: • Linear programming is quadratic in the number of connections • Semi-definite is cubic in the number of connections

  20. Convex optimization’ • Conclusions: • Increase in connectivity results in increase in accuracy^2 but also traffic overhead • Precision of distance and angle information have a direct influence on the output • Bad data (missing/false connections) leads to algorithm failure

  21. Centralized methods • Multidimensional scaling • MDS-MAP method, makes use of connectivity information (and also distance information) to compute a relative (global) map • Finds an embedding in a lower dimensional space for a set of objects characterized by pair-wise distances between them • Recently the centralized method has been extended to a localized algorithm

  22. Multidimensional scaling • Disadvantages • The regular ones for centralized methods • Advantages • It is a quite precise method (one of the best so far) • Can work only with connectivity (and distance) information • Only 3 anchors are needed for a global map (in 2D) • Theoretical bound on the complexity of the method(SVD is cubic in the number of nodes) • A recent paper describes a localized scheme based on MDS • Can deal with topologies containing holes • Eases the complexity of the computation

  23. One hop positioning

  24. One hop positioning • Nodes can directly contact the landmarks (e.g. GPS) • Advantages • Elegant solutions with precise results • Disadvantages • Line of sight is needed between the nodes and the landmarks • Landmarks need to be powerful devices

  25. One hop positioning’ • The lighthouse system • Positioning of an entire field of sensors may be achieved with only a single lighthouse device capable of “seeing” all the nodes • This device is able to collect all the data and at the same time help nodes localize themselves • The system requires each node to be equipped with a photo detector and a clock

  26. Light House System’ • Advantages: • Simple theoretical method • The prototype used a single lighthouse device • For the 2D experiments: nodes situated at 14 meters positioned themselves with a relative accuracy of 2.2% and relative standard deviation of 0.68%. • Disadvantages: • The line of sight assumption is a very strong one • Solution specific to the hardware

  27. Distributed methods

  28. Distributed methods • These methods allow nodes to compute their position by communicating to their neighbors only • Advantages: • No need of global knowledge • Simple methods, majority of algorithms fit the hardware • Lower communication overhead • Disadvantages • High number of anchors needed • Not all the nodes can compute their position • The resulting positions are less precise

  29. Distributed methods • Ad hoc localization system (AhLOS) • Defines and combines several types of multilateration • Its main strong point is that it is a completely distributed protocol • Its weakest point is that the number of needed anchors should be large for a good result

  30. AhLOS’ • Initial phase • Some nodes can compute their position directly using lateration • These nodes behave as anchors for all the others, algorithms goes on iteratively • The position precisions degrade with the number of steps • Additional phases • Some nodes cannot find the position Collaboration groups are identified • Position is identified in a collaborative manner

  31. AhLOS’ • Algorithm might not have a convergence point • In general it fails for collaboration groups different than the presented one

  32. AhLOS’ • Advantages: • AhLOS may produce very good results if accurate distance measurement hardware is present • Major disadvantage: very large number of beacons is required • Example: av. connectivity ~6.28 • 90% of regular nodes positions to be resolved • 45% landmarks required

  33. Distributed methods • Ad-Hoc positioning systems (APS or DV…) • It is a combination between two major ideas: • Distance vector routing (DV)(information is forwarded hop by hop from each anchor in the network) • Global positioning system (GPS)(eventually each node will compute its position based on anchors positions and distance estimates) • The schemes adapt connectivity, distance, angle of arrival and compass information(6 possible combinations make sense and were studied)

  34. APS’ • DVHop • The simplest protocol available • Makes use only of connectivity information • Basic ideas: • Number of hops between anchors and nodes are computed • Average hop distance is estimated • Position is computed via lateration - (W)LS method

  35. DVHop practice - theory

  36. APS’ • DVDistance • Identical with DVHop, but shortest path distance is propagated instead of hopcount • A new parameter has to be taken into consideration: the time to live (TTL) of the messages • There is a close connection between TTL and the final precision

  37. APS’ • Euclidean • If accurate distance measurements are available, nodes can estimate exact distance to anchors • DVBearing • Angle estimates are used in order to determine the relative positions • In both methods, lateration is applied as the last step independently at each node

  38. APS conclusions • Advantages: • Distributed and localized protocols • Support some limited mobility (periodic schemes) • Can deal with various combinations of connectivity, distance estimates, angle estimates, compass information • Disadvantages • Uniform distribution of anchors required • The DV component will ask for a high cost in case mobile scenarios

  39. Relative positioning

  40. Relative positioning • Relative positioning schemes generate a relative map, in a local coordinate system • Obtained positions are coherent all over the network (position based services are able to work)

  41. Relative positioning’ • The self positioning algorithm (SPA) • The coordinate system is determined by a location reference group (LRG) • Nodes exchange info with neighbors to determine second neighborhood information (connectivity + distances) • Local maps are constructed • LRG helps orienting all the maps by aligning all the coordinate systems

  42. SPA’ • The approach is quite similar to the distributed version of multidimensional scaling algorithm • Advantages: • Network-wide coherence is provided • No landmarks (anchors) are needed • Disadvantages: • Existence of a location reference group is expensive if mobility is taken into account (even limited mobility and even if particular conditions apply)

  43. Mobility schemes

  44. Localization and mobility • All the presented schemes might work in presence of limited mobility • The basic mechanism would be to run periodically the algorithms • The computed positions will almost never reflect reality (computation takes time) but trajectories could be estimated, etc.

  45. Distinct approach • Sequential Monte Carlo localization (Mobicom 2004) • Adaptation of Monte Carlo localization used in robotics • Discrete time model • Posterior distributions are computed based on a set of weighted samples • Each step is divided in two: • Prediction phase (new position estimates are computed) • Filtering phase (position estimates are filtered and space is resampled) • SMC already applied to target tracking, robot localization and computer vision

More Related