4.7 Article

Maintaining Quality of Sensing with Actors in Wireless Sensor Networks

Journal

Publisher

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1109/TPDS.2012.100

Keywords

Quality of sensing; sensor allocation; sensor relocation; distributed algorithms

Funding

  1. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China [2011AA040101]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of China [61061130563, 60974122, 61004060]
  3. Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of China [20100101110066]
  4. Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province [R1100324]
  5. [SUTD-ZJU/RES/03/2011]
  6. Division Of Computer and Network Systems
  7. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr [0845994] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this paper, we consider using actors to maintain the quality of sensing in the wireless sensor networks. Due to factors such as battery drainage or physical malfunctions, the number of available sensors normally decreases over time after initial deployment, resulting in performance degradation. To maintain the quality of sensing in the network, actors can be used to allocate spare sensors to sensor-deficient regions (sensor allocation) or to relocate sensors from sensor-abundant regions to sensor-deficient regions (sensor relocation). We first focus on the sensor allocation problem. We introduce a baseline centralized greedy algorithm (GA) for sensor allocation, where global sensor information is communicated to obtain the optimal solution. As GA is only efficient for small networks, we proceed to design a distributed patrolling algorithm for achieving global optimization (DPAG) by using only local information. We then extend our work to the application scenario of sensor relocation by proposing a modified GA and DPAG (M-GA and M-DPAG), respectively. Extensive simulation results are provided to demonstrate the performance of the proposed algorithms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available