1 / 24

Dynamic Fine-Grained Localization in Ad-Hoc Networks of Sensors

Dynamic Fine-Grained Localization in Ad-Hoc Networks of Sensors. Savvides, C. C. Han, M. B. Srivastava Networked and Embedded Systems Lab University of California, Los Angeles {asavvide, simonhan, mbs}@ee.ucla.edu. Localization in Sensor Networks. Context awareness in applications

Download Presentation

Dynamic Fine-Grained Localization in Ad-Hoc Networks of Sensors

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. Dynamic Fine-Grained Localization in Ad-Hoc Networks of Sensors Savvides, C. C. Han, M. B. Srivastava Networked and Embedded Systems Lab University of California, Los Angeles {asavvide, simonhan, mbs}@ee.ucla.edu

  2. Localization in Sensor Networks • Context awareness in applications • Network coverage analysis • Report origins of events • Temperature at a specific part of the room • Locate/track objects, people, robots • Assist with routing • Why not GPS? • Costly, power hungry, requires line-of-sight, large form factor, accuracy

  3. Problem Statement Iterative Multilateration • Estimate node locations in an ad-hoc network of nodes • Uniformly deployed nodes on a flat plane • Ad-Hoc Localization System(AHLoS) • Every node contributes to process • Small fraction of nodes (beacons) are initially aware of their locations • Distributed • Robust to surrounding environment changes and node failures • Energy Efficient • Scalable • Inter-node ranging uses(RSSI, ultrasound) Collaborative Multilateration

  4. Ranging • Localization relies on the ability of nodes to measure distances • Physical layer effects may bias ranging => empirical study • RF Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) • RF + Ultrasound Time-of-Arrival(ToA) Measurement 1 Position Estimate Multilateration or other Measurement 2 Measurement n

  5. Target Platforms Rockwell WINS Node (RSSI) Medusa Experimental Node (ToA) • Atmel AVR 8535 MCU • RFM Radio • 40KHz Ultrasound • 200MHz StrongARM • DECT Radio from Connexant

  6. Platform Characterization Ultrasound ToA RSSI in football field Max range 3m, accuracy 2cm Max range 20m, accuracy 7m

  7. Beacon Unknown Localization Algorithms • Atomic Multilateration (base case) • Solution similar to GPS • Formulated as a least squares problem • Requires 3 beacons (if more than 3 beacons are available, the ultrasound propagation speed is also estimated) • May not work if beacons are badly aligned

  8. 2 1 0 4 3 Atomic Multilateration Minimize over all This can be linearized to the form where MMSE Solution:

  9. Iterative Multilateration • Each node that calculates its location it becomes a beacon that can help other nodes to calculate their locations • Allows Distributed Operation • Problem: • Error accumulation • Reasonable results can be achieved for small networks since ultrasonic distance measurement is accurate • Error accumulation can be limited using weights

  10. Iterative Multilateration • Each node that calculates its location it becomes a beacon that can help other nodes to calculate their locations • Allows Distributed Operation • Problem: • Error accumulation • Reasonable results can be achieved for small networks since ultrasonic distance measurement is accurate • Error accumulation can be limited using weights

  11. Iterative Multilateration • Each node that calculates its location it becomes a beacon that can help other nodes to calculate their locations • Allows Distributed Operation • Problem: • Error accumulation • Reasonable results can be achieved for small networks since ultrasonic distance measurement is accurate • Error accumulation can be limited using weights

  12. Iterative Multilateration Accuracy 50 Nodes, 20x20 room, range=3m, 10% beacons 20mm white gaussian ranging error

  13. Collaborative Multilateration • Considers location information over multiple hops • More than one unknown node positions are estimated simultaneously • Set of nodes considered MUST have a unique solution

  14. Collaborative Multilateration Results

  15. Node and Beacon Placement • Nodes are assumed to have a uniform distribution • The success of the iterative multilateration process depends on node connectivity and beacon availability Node range = 10m

  16. Node vs. Initial Beacon Densities % Resolved Nodes Total Nodes % Initial Beacons Uniformly distributed deployment in a field 100x100. Node range = 10 Results include only iterative multilateration

  17. Experimental Setup • Initially Simulated in ns-2 on top of DSDV • Testbed Implementation • Ultrasound transmitted simultaneously with RF • Distributed Computation

  18. Centralized or Distributed? • Where should the computation for location estimation take place? • At a central node? • Inside the network? • How does this decision facilitate • Scalability • Robustness • Energy efficiency

  19. Centralized Cons A route to a central point Time synchronization High latencies for location updates Central node requires preplanning More traffic => higher power consumption Centralized Pros Can solve more accurately Distributed Pros More robust to node failure Less traffic => less power Better handling of local environment variations Speed of ultrasound Radio path loss Rapid updates upon topology changes No time synch. required Centralized vs. Distributed Localization

  20. Energy Characterization • Ultrasound penalty is the same for both cases so we did not characterize it • Measured AVR MCU and RFM radio • Total Power - 20mW

  21. Localization Energy Cost Node range 10m, 20% beacons Central node at the center of the network

  22. Related Work • Centralized • RADAR [Bahl et. al] • Active BAT [Harter et. al] • Proximity • Cricket System [Priyantha et. al] • Ad-Hoc Distributed Proximity • GPS Less Localization [Bulusu et. al] • Ad-Hoc Centralized • Convex Optimization Methods [Doherty et. al]

  23. Conclusions and Future Work • Initial results are encouraging (20 cm accuracy) • A distributed implementation is desirable • This is only the beginning! • Medusa II Node under development • 20 meter ultrasound range • More computation power • New 3D test bed • Collaborative Multilateration is promising and should be further explored • Many new applications are emerging!

  24. AHLoS Website http://nesl.ee.ucla.edu/projects/ahlos

More Related