4.7 Article

Collision Tolerant and Collision Free Packet Scheduling for Underwater Acoustic Localization

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS
Volume 14, Issue 5, Pages 2584-2595

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TWC.2015.2389220

Keywords

Underwater acoustic networks; localization; packet scheduling; collision

Funding

  1. European Commission FP7-ICT Cognitive Systems, Interaction, and Robotics [270180]
  2. NSF [CNS-1212999]
  3. ONR [N00014-09-1-0700]
  4. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr
  5. Division Of Computer and Network Systems [1212999] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article considers the joint problem of packet scheduling and self-localization in an underwater acoustic sensor network with randomly distributed nodes. In terms of packet scheduling, our goal is to minimize the localization time, and to do so we consider two packet transmission schemes, namely a collision-free scheme (CFS), and a collision-tolerant scheme (CTS). The required localization time is formulated for these schemes, and through analytical results and numerical examples their performances are shown to be dependent on the circumstances. When the packet duration is short (as is the case for a localization packet), the operating area is large (above 3 km in at least one dimension), and the average probability of packet-loss is not close to zero, the collision-tolerant scheme is found to require a shorter localization time. At the same time, its implementation complexity is lower than that of the collision-free scheme, because in CTS, the anchors work independently. CTS consumes slightly more energy to make up for packet collisions, but it is shown to provide a better localization accuracy. An iterative Gauss-Newton algorithm is employed by each sensor node for self-localization, and the Cramer Rao lower bound is evaluated as a benchmark.

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