1 / 53

CMPE 259

CMPE 259. Sensor Networks Katia Obraczka Winter 2005 Deployment, Organization, Localization. Announcements. Homework due on 02.14. Submission: e-mail to katia, cintia, kumarv@soe . Plain text or pdf. Final project presentations. March 15 th . from 4-7pm.

lidia
Download Presentation

CMPE 259

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. CMPE 259 Sensor Networks Katia Obraczka Winter 2005 Deployment, Organization, Localization

  2. Announcements • Homework due on 02.14. • Submission: e-mail to katia, cintia, kumarv@soe. • Plain text or pdf. • Final project presentations. • March 15th. from 4-7pm. • Venkatesh Rajendra’s MAC presentation. • Wed, Feb 16th. • Homework 2. • Exam.

  3. Node localization

  4. Node Localization • For some sensor network applications, exact location is critical. • Tracking. • Monitoring. • For most applications, having location information enhance value of information. • Also needed in geographic routing.

  5. How to determine node location? • May be trivially available if: • Satellite based GPS is feasible and available on all nodes. • All nodes are hand-placed and pre-configured with location coordinates. • Otherwise it is quite challenging (even with a fraction of known reference/beacon nodes). • Typically, one assumes some nodes have position information (e.g., through GPS), but not all.

  6. Basic Localization Approaches • Proximity: • Near/far. • Connectivity information. • Lateration/ranging (based on distance estimate): • Received signal strength. • Time difference of arrival. • Time of arrival. • Angulation. • Location service.

  7. Ad Hoc Positioning System

  8. APS • Provides (approximate) location information for all nodes given location information from subset of nodes. • Positioning mechanism requirements: • Distributed. • Energy-efficient. • Minimize communication and processing. • Robustness. • In the face of partitions.

  9. APS basics • Employ same principles as GPS for computing positions. • I.e., triangulation. • Landmarks: nodes that know their position. • Distance to landmarks propagate hop-by-hop. • Distance vector approach. • Once node has distance to 3 landmarks, it can compute its position.

  10. Hop-by-hop propagation • DV-hop. • DV-distance. • Euclidean.

  11. DV-Hop • Nodes get distance in hops to landmarks. • Landmarks compute distance of a hop. • Landmarks get distance to other landmarks in hops. • Landmarks know euclidean distance to other landmarks. • Landmark broadcasts hop distance. • Controlled flooding. • Once nodes gets and forwards hop distance, it will drop subsequent ones. • Nodes use triangulation to compute their position based on the position of the landmarks.

  12. DV-distance • Distances measured using received signal strength.

  13. Euclidean propagation • Euclidean distance to landmark is propagated. • Node needs at least 2 neighbors with known estimates to landmark. • Also need distance from node to these neighbors and distance between neighbors.

  14. Evaluation • Simulations using ns-2. • 100 nodes. • 2 topologies: isotropic and anisotropic. • Metrics: • Location error. • Coverage. • Overhead. • Use of APS-estimated locations in routing.

  15. Results • From paper… • DV-based perform relatively well with low overhead. • Euclidean-based exhibits better accuracy at the expense of signaling.

  16. Organization

  17. Tracking • Given a sensor network, use the sensors to determine the motion of one or more targets • Typically requires more cooperation among entities than other examples we have seen • Compare: “is there an elephant out there?” vs. “where has that particular elephant been?”

  18. Tracking challenges • Data dissemination and storage • Resource allocation and control • Operating under uncertainty • Real-time constraints • Data fusion (measurement interpretation) • Multiple target disambiguation • Track modeling, continuity and prediction • Target identification and classification

  19. Tracking domains • Appropriate strategy depends on the sensors’ capabilities, domain goals and environment • Requires multiple measurements? • Bounded communication? • Target movement characteristics? • No single solution for all problems • For example… • Limited bandwidth encourages local processing • Limited sensors requires cooperation

  20. Why not centralized? • Scale! • Data processing combinatorics • Resource bottleneck (communication, processing) • Single point of failure • Ignores benefits of locality

  21. Why not (fully) distributed? (i.e. everyone tracks) • Redundant information and computation • Can increase uncertainty • Lack of unified view • High communication costs • (exception: overhearing [Fitzpatrick 2003])

  22. Organization-based tracking • Use structure, roles to control data and action flow • Can be static, or dynamically evolved • [Brooks 2003]: Spontaneous coalition formation • [Horling 2003]: Partitions, mediated clustering • [Li 2002]: Hierarchical information fusion • [Yadgar 2003]: Hierarchical teams • [Wang 2003]: Roles and group formation • [Zhao 2002]: Geographic groups

  23. Using and Maintaining Organization in a Large-Scale Sensor Network

  24. Problem Domain • Fixed doppler radars • Requires multiple, coordinated measurements • Multiple targets • Shared 8-channel RF communication

  25. Sensor Characteristics • Hardware • Fixed location, orientation • Three 120° radar heads • Agent controller • Doppler radar • Amplitude and frequency data • One (asynchronous) measurement at a time

  26. Organizational Control • Use organization to address scaling issues • Environment is partitioned • Constrains information propagation • Reduces information load • Exploits locality • Agents take on one or more roles • Limits sources of information • Facilitates data retrieval • Other techniques also built into negotiation protocol and individual role behaviors

  27. Typical Node Layout • Nodes are arranged or scattered, and have varied orientations. • One agent is assigned to each node.

  28. Partitioning of nodes • The environment is first partitioned into sectors. • Sector managers are then assigned.

  29. Sector manager • Generate scanning plans. • Assign track managers. • Keep local sensor information.

  30. Distribution of scan schedule • Sector members send their capabilities to their managers. • Each manager then generates and disseminates a scan schedule.

  31. Track Manager Selection • Nodes in the scan schedule perform scanning actions. • Detections reported to manager, and a track manager selected.

  32. Track manager • Organizes tracking task. • Discovers sensors capable of tracking target. • Determines track schedule. • When to perform scan. • Fidelity, timeliness, etc.

  33. Managing limited resources • Track manager discovers and coordinates with tracking nodes. • New tracking tasks may conflict with existing tasks at the node.

  34. Data fusion (track generation) • Tracking data sent to an agent which performs the fusion. • Results sent back to track manager for path prediction.

  35. Sector size • Sector manager load. • Smaller sector –› smaller manager directory. • Larger sector –› better sector coverage. • Track manager actions. • Smaller sector –› fewer update messages. • Larger sector –› fewer directory queries. • Depends on sensor density, sensor range, target speed, etc. • Empirical evaluation of how sector size affects performance.

  36. Experimental setup • Radsim simulator • 36 sensors • 1-36 equal sized sectors • 4 mobile targets • 10 runs per configuration • Hypothesis: sector size of 6-10 agents is best

  37. Communication characteristics • Larger sectors with more agents leads to less messaging overall.

  38. Load disparity • Large sectors increase SM comm. Load. • Greater disparity in activity load.

  39. Domain metrics • Communication distance increases with larger sectors • Track migration triggered by boundaries • …but better accuracy. • More measurements due to lower control overhead

  40. What’s best? • This would vary, depending on sensor and environmental characteristics • Find inflection point in graphs’ intersection • Empirical evidence supports sector size from 5-10 sensors

  41. Conclusions • Specific results are domain-specific. • However, this demonstrates that organizational controls can affect performance.

  42. Deployment

  43. Deployment • Depend application. • Two main classes: • Structured placement. • Random deployment. • In both classes the two main goals are network connectivity and sensor coverage. • Costs have to do primarily with equipment and energy.

  44. Network connectivity R • Idealized* geometric model for wireless links: perfect connectivity within radio range R. • Network graph G formed by nodes as vertices and these links as edges. • Basic notion of connectivity: there exists at least one multihop path between any pair of nodes in the network; could be generalized to k-connectivity, existence of Hamiltonian cycle, etc. *Caveat: Perhaps good for preliminary analysis, but known to be unrealistic

  45. Random deployment • E.g., scattered from an aircraft/robot, mixed into concrete. • Issues of average density and range settings are important. • Connectivity issues can be explored using the Theory of Random Graphs and Percolation Theory.

  46. Random graphs • Bernoulli Random Graphs G(n,p): edge between any pair of the n nodes independently with probability p. • Geometric Random Graphs G(n,R): n nodes placed with a uniform random distribution in a finite region; edge between any pair of nodes within range R.

  47. Sensor coverage • Application specific. • Some possible notions of coverage: • Density of placement (average/max distance between nodes). • Percentage of desired (known a-priori) measurement points covered. • Percentage of the operational area that is covered with “k” sensors: k-coverage. • Others?

  48. Sensor Placement for Effective Coverage

  49. Goals • Minimum number of sensors for adequate coverage. • Adequate coverage: every grid point is covered with minimum confidence level.

  50. Sensor placement • Greedy approach. • Place one sensor at a time. • Algorithm terminates when: • No more sensors or • Sufficient coverage achieved.

More Related