coverage, connectivity and mobility in wireless mobile sensor robots youn-hee han [email protected]...
TRANSCRIPT
Coverage, Connectivity and Mobility in Wireless Mobile Sensor Robots
Youn-Hee [email protected]
Korea University of Technology and EducationLaboratory of Intelligent Networks
http://link.kut.ac.kr
Introduction
2/76
Review: Sensor Node ArchitectureSystem architecture of a typical wireless sensor node
i) a computing subsystem consisting of a microprocessor or microcontroller ii) a communication subsystem consisting of a short range radio for wireless
communication iii) a sensing subsystem that links the node to the physical world and consists
of a group of sensors and actuators iv) a power supply subsystem, which houses the battery and the dc-dc
converter, and powers the rest of the node.
4/76
Mobile Sensors
Mobile Sensor Capabilities [1,2] SensingSensing CommunicationCommunication ComputationComputation LocomotionLocomotion
Self-deploy functionSelf-deploy function
Mobile Robots with Sensors
[Eight Legged Robot of LEGO mindstorm] [www.thinkbotics.com]
Static Sensor’ Capabilities
[Similar to a Tank]
5/76
Mobile Sensor Robots
Mobile Sensor Robots: Distributed Multi-Robots with Sensing
Capability
Single Sensor vs. Distributed Multiple Sensors
Single Robot vs. Distributed Multi-Robots
Issues in Distributed Multi-Robots [3] Biological Inspirations
Use of the local control rules of biological societies, such as ants, bees, and birds to the development of similar behaviors in multi-robot systems.
behavior-based robotics robot architectures are built on activity-generating
building blocks rather than on centralized representations and deductive logic.
Communication Network robotics and Inter-robot interaction How to handle non-deterministic time delays in
communications and achieve robust performance in faulty communication environment
E.g., the remote tele-operation of space exploration robots Connectivity Issues
What Issues in Mobile Robots?
6/76
Issues in Distributed Multi-Robots [3] Localization, Mapping, and Exploration
Enables robot team members to track positions of autonomously moving objects
Navigate between places of interest in an initially unknown environment
Motion Coordination Multi-robot path planning, formation generation
Reconfigurable Robotics Architecture, Task Allocation, and Control Object Transport and Manipulation
What Issues in Mobile Robots?
7/76
Then, what issues in Mobile Sensor Robots ? Environmental Robotics
the deployment of distributed sensors and supported mobile sensor robots to observe, monitor, and assess the state of complex environmental processes.
It involves many different types of distributed sensing in land, sea, and air, and the coordination of mobile sensors through adaptive redeployment and adaptive sampling of environmental phenomena.
Coverage Issues
What Issues in Mobile Sensor Robots?
8/76
[2004 WTEC ROBOTICS WORKSHOP]
Mobile Sensor Robots
9/76
[ 조선일보 2008-09-22]떼지어 군사작전 ' 로봇 ' 나왔다정찰 · 독성물질 탐지 수행… 英 내년 상용화
벌이나 개미처럼 무수한 소형로봇들이 하나의 군사작전을 수행하는 ' 로봇떼 (swarm of robots)' 가 곧 현실화한다 . 영국 국방부가 16~18 일 영국 솔즈베리에서 개최한 , 새 군사 기술의 경연대회인 ' 그랜드 챌린지 ' 에서 특히 ' 소형로봇떼 ' 개념이 떠오르는 신기술로 주목을 받았다고 BBC 방송이 보도했다 . 전체 11 개 팀 중에서 3 개 팀이 ' 로봇떼 ' 를 선보였다 . 작은 곤충로봇들이 땅에서 움직이는 ' 마인드시트(Mindsheet)', 날아다니는 비행로봇들의 집단인 ' 로커스트 (Locust)', 그리고 미니 헬리콥터 8 개가 나는 ' 아울스 (Owls)' 등이다 . 영국 국방부는 ' 아울스 ' 의 기술을 참가 팀들 중 ' 가장 혁신적인 아이디어 ' 로 선정했다 . 아울스는 8 개의 소형 헬리콥터 로봇이 한 팀이 돼 움직인다 . 로봇 1 개당 프로펠러 4 개가 달려 있고 무게는 1 ㎏ 미만 . 이 로봇떼는 다양한 각도에서 고해상도의 영상을 찍어 적의 위협을 감지한다 . 대기에 뿌려진 독성물질을 탐지할 수도 있다 . 8 개 중 일부가 파괴되거나 고장 나도 , 나머지 로봇들이 없어진 로봇들의 임무를 대신하도록 프로그램 돼 있다 . 내년에 ' 새떼 ' 의 움직임을 모방한 알고리즘까지 아울스에 내장된다 . 영국 일간지 가디언은 " 아울스는 내년쯤 상용화해 영국군에 배치될 전망 " 이라고 보도했다 . 이 밖에 , 현재 미군이 개발 중인 ' 마이크로 자동 시스템기술 (MAST)' 프로그램은 병사 1 명에게 하나의 로봇떼를 제공하는 것이 목표다 . MAST 의 로봇떼는 시가전 ( 市街戰 ) 상황에서 건물이나 모퉁이 너머로 몰래 다가가 적의 동태를 살피는 ' 정찰병 ' 역할을 수행한다 .
10/50
Change of Research Issues in Sensor Networks
Hardware (2000) CPU, memory, sensors, etc.
Protocols (2002) MAC layers Routing and transport protocols
Applications (2004) Localization and positioning applications
Management (2005) Coverage and connectivity problemsCoverage and connectivity problems Power managementPower management Etc.Etc.
From Dr. Yu-Chee Tseng(Associate Dean),
College of Computer Science, National Chiao-
Tung University
From Dr. Yu-Chee Tseng(Associate Dean),
College of Computer Science, National Chiao-
Tung University
Coverage Problem In general, determine how well the sensing field is
monitored or tracked by sensors.
Objectives of the problem Determine the coverage hole (or targets) Minimize the number of sensors deployed Make the whole area covered by three or more sensors
Location determination by “Triangulation” Maximize the network lifetime
[Def.] Sensor Network Lifetime The time interval that all points (or targets) in the given area is
covered by at least one sensor node. Etc.
Study of Coverage Problem
11/50
Review: Art Gallery ProblemVictor Klee (1973)
Place the minimum number of cameras such that every point in the art gallery is monitored by at least one camera
Chvátal's art gallery theorem (1975) guards (cameras) are always sufficient
and sometimes necessary to guard
a simple polygon with vertices
3
n
n
42 vertices upper bound:42
123
12/50
Review: Power SavingMake the sensor node sleep!!! [13]
Modes
* 2Mb/s IEEE 802.11 Wireless LAN
TxRx
Idle
Sleep
En
erg
y C
on
sum
pti
on
• Rockwell’s WINS Nodes Tx Rx Idle Sleep
0.38 ~ 1 W 0.75 W 0.72 W 0.4 W
• Medusa II Nodes Tx Rx Idle Sleep
22 ~ 24 mW
22 mW 6 mW 0.02 mW
http://www.inf.ethz.ch/personal/kasten/research/bathtub/energy_consumption.html
It is highly recommended to “schedule” the wireless sensor nodes to alternate between active (Tx, Rx, Idle) and sleep mode
Review: Power SavingMake the sensor node intelligent!!! [13]
The ratio of the energy spent in sending one bit of information to the energy spent in executing one instruction.
1500~2700 for Rockwell’s WIN nodes 220~2900 for the MEDUSA II nodes 1400 for the WINS NG 2.0
So, local data processing, data fusion and data compression are highly desirable.
Algorithm Characteristics 1) Centralized 2) Distributed 3) Self-*
Self-determination free choice of one’s own acts without external
compulsion Self-organization (Self-configuration)
a process of evolution where the effect of the environment is minimal, i.e. where the development of new, complex structures takes place primarily in and through the system itself
Self-healing For example, a mobile sensor can move to an area with a
coverage hole or routing void and significantly improve network performance.
Problem Design Methodology
15/50
Coverage
16/50
Sensor Deploy Method Deterministic (planned) vs. Random
Coverage Types Area coverage vs. Target (Point) coverage
Problem Design Criteria (1/2)
17/50
6
54
3
2
1
7
8 R
S2
S1
S4S3
t3
t1
t2
Coverage Modeling Binary Model vs. Probability Model
Communication Range ( ) & Sensing Range ( ) vs. vs. Homogeneous vs. heterogeneous?
Problem Design Criteria (2/2)
18/50
Binary, unit disc sensing model Probabilistic sensing model
CR SR
C SR R C SR R C SR R
Coverage ModelingBinary Model [1]
Each sensor’s coverage area is modeled by a disk Any location within the disk is perfectly monitored by the
sensor located at the center of the disk; otherwise, it is not monitored by the sensor.
Probability Model [2] An event happening in the coverage of a sensor is either
detected or not detected by the sensor depending on a probability distribution
Hence even if an event is very close toa sensor, it may still by missed by the sensor.
19/50
Binary Model: K-coverage in 2-DK-coverage (only within Binary Model)
[Definition] covered A location in an area is said to be covered by if it is within 's
sensing range. [Definition] k-covered (location or area)
A location in an area is said to be k-covered if it is within at least K sensors' sensing ranges.
“k” is called coverage level
Why K>1? Fault-tolerance in case of the dismissal of some sensors Power saving and enlarge network lifetime Triangulation: getting location of a targeted object Uplift the confidence level on gathering information
20/50
Binary Model: K-coverage in 2-DProblems about K-coverage [1]
[Definition] k-NC problem Given a natural number k, the k-Non-unit-disk Coverage (k-
NC) problem is a decision problem whose goal is to determine whether all points in an area are k-covered or not.
[Definition] k-UC problem Given a natural number k, the k-Unit-disk Coverage (k-UC)
Problem is a decision problem whose goal is to determine whether all points in an area are k-covered or not, subject to the constraint that r1 = r2 = · · · = rn.
21/50k-NC (k=1) k-UC (k=1)
So this area is not 1-covered!
1-covered means
that every point in
this area is covered by at least 1 sensor
2-covered means
that every point in
this area is covered by at least 2 sensors
This region is not covered by any
sensor!
Is this area 1-covered?
This area is not only 1-covered, but also 2-
covered!
What is the coverage level of
this area?
Coverage level = k means that this area
is k-covered
Binary Model: K-coverage in 2-D
22/50
Binary Model: K-coverage in 2-DAlgorithm to determine coverage level, k, in a given sensor network? [1]
[Definition] k-perimeter-covered Consider any two sensors si and sj. A point on the perimeter of si
is perimeter-covered by sj if this point is within the sensing range of sj
[Theorem] An area A is k-covered iff
each sensor in A is k-perimeter-covered.
2 차원 문제를 1 차원 문제로 바꾸어 해결
Partially self-determination, but a central node determines the coverage level (k) finally.
23/50
Binary Model: Coverage Configuration in 2-D
Coverage Configuration Protocol (CCP) [3] 1) a coverage level (k) is allocated to all sensors 2) all sensors are deployed randomly at the target area 3) Each sensor makes itself sleep or active to achieve the
coverage level [Theorem]
A given area is “k-covered” if the following conditions are satisfied
1) All intersection points between each pair of sensors are "k-covered"
2) All intersection points between each sensor and boundary of the area are "k-covered”
24/50
Active nodes
Intersection points
Binary Model: Coverage Configuration in 2-D
Coverage Configuration Protocol (CCP) [3] A node becomes “sleep” if all intersection points inside its
coverage is already K-covered by other active nodes in its neighborhood.
A node becomes “active” if there exists an intersection point inside its sensing circle that is not K-covered by other active nodes.
25/50
Active nodes
Sleeping nodes
Intersection points
active?
Binary Model: K-coverage in 3-DK-coverage in 3-D [4]
[Definition] k-BC Problem Given a natural number k, the k-Ball-Coverage (k-BC) Problem is
a decision problem whose goal is to determine whether all points in a 3-D cuboid sensing area are k-covered or not.
How to determine k? (3D2D) Determine whether the sphere of a sensor is
sufficiently covered (2D1D) Determine whether the circle of each spherical cap of
a sensor intersected by its neighboring sensors is covered
26/50
Probability ModelWhy Probability Coverage Model? [2]
Quality of sensor surveillance may be much affected by sensing distances, signal propagation characteristics, obstacles, and environmental factors.
Probability coverage model may be more realistic!
Methodology Simple Model [5] Signal-strength-based Model [2]
27/50
임의의 센서와 가까운 지역이 특수한 요인 (장애물 ) 에 의하여 센싱이 되지 않을 수 있거나 그 센서와 먼 지역이 특수한 요인 ( 다수의 센서의 감지 ) 에 의하여 센싱이 될 수도 있다 .
Probability ModelSimple Model [5]
: the probability that a sensor can sense a event happened at a location
: the detection probability contributed by the sensors
28/50
kisiPr
5, 3er r
NPr
Coverage and Scheduling
29/76
SchedulingBasic Policy
Sensor should be active or sleep? Scheduling (related to the coverage issue)
An interval: is active Another interval: is active So, the battery power can be saved
6S
7S
30/76
7S
SchedulingScheduling Type
Centralized1) All sensors send “their location information” to the
centralized sink node.2) The sink node performs “its scheduling algorithm” for the
sensors3) The sink node broadcasts “the scheduling information” to
all sensor nodes4) Each sensor becomes active or sleep according to the
information
Distributed Each sensor self-determies its scheduling time # of messages reduced
31/76
Centralized SchedulingMDSC (Maximum Disjoint Set Covers) [9]
32/76
[Definition] Maximum Disjoint Set Covers Problem
Centralized SchedulingMDSC (Maximum Disjoint Set Covers) [9]
For example, C={S1, S2, S3, S4}, TARGETS={t1, t2, t3} A sensor’s battery lifetime: 1 Network Lifetime without any scheduling: 1 By MDSC Scheduling
Two Set Covers, C1 and C2 C1={S1, S2} with active time=1 C1={S3, S4} with active time=1
So that, network lifetime: 2
33/76
s2
s1
s4s3
t3
t1
t2
s1
s2
s3
s4 t3
t2
t1
Centralized SchedulingMSC (Maximum Set Covers) [10]
MDSC
MSC
MDSC problem is a special case of MSC problem.!
34/76
[Definition] Maximum Set Covers Problem
removed!
Centralized SchedulingMSC (Maximum Set Covers) [10]
For Example, By MSC Scheduling
Network Lifetime: 2.5
35/76active time=0.5 active time=0.5 active time=0.5 active time=1
s2
s1
s4s3
t3
t1
t2
Centralized SchedulingMSC (Maximum Set Covers) [10, 11]
Existing Algorithms Linear Programming [10] Greedy [10]
(Complexity: ) Branch-and-Bound [11]
2( )O im n i: # of set covers, m: # of targets, n: # of sensors
36/76
Centralized SchedulingMSC (Maximum Set Covers) [10, 11]
Existing Algorithms Linear Programming [10] Greedy [10]
(Complexity: ) Branch-and-Bound [11]
2( )O im n
37/76
i: # of set covers, m: # of targets, n: # of sensors
Distributed Scheduling1-Coverage Preserving Scheduling (1-CP) [12]
For Example
The set of intersection points within ‘s area
The set of sensorscovering the target p
Trnd=20
Ref1=2, Ref2=9, Ref3=11
Init Phase: 1) Each sensor exchange its location and Ref. value 2) Each sensor get its schedule (active) time
38/76
is
Distributed Scheduling1-Coverage Preserving Scheduling (1-CP) [12]
2
911
5.5
16.5
39/76
Connectivity
40/76
ConnectivityWhy Connectivity?
Any sensing data should be sent to gateway (sink, base station) node
Multi-hop routing
Base Station
Sink
41/76
K-ConnectivityConnected Graph of Sensor Networks
Vertex: each sensor nodes Edge: direct communication path for pairs of sensors
there exists an edge between two vertices iff the distance between them is less or equal to the transmission range r.
42/76
K-Connectivity[Definition] k-connectivity
The network will remain connected after removing any arbitrary k-1 sensors from network.
It is also called “vertex k-connectivity” (not “edge k-connectivity”)
k-connected: any pair of nodes are connected by k indep. paths
Independent paths:
43/76
K-ConnectivityExamples
44/76
2-connected
4-connected
K-Edge-Connectivity[Definition] k-edge-connectivity
The network will remain connected after removing any arbitrary k-1 edges from network.
k-edge-connected: any pair of nodes are connected by k disjoint paths
disjoint paths:
45/76
Min-Power Connectivity ProblemConnectivity & Transmission Power
Nodes in the network correspond to transmitters More power larger transmission range More Edges
More Connectivity transmitting to distance r requires r power
Battery operated power conservation critical
[Definition] Min-Power Connectivity Problems Find min-power range assignment so that the resulting
communication network satisfies prescribed properties (k-connectivity)
46/76
Min-Power Connectivity Problem
47/76
b
a
c
d
g
f
e
a
b
d
g
f
e
c
Range assignment Communication network
K-Connectivity & K-CoverageRelation between K-Coverage and K-Connectivity [3]
Communication Range: Sensing Range:
[Theorem] If the given region is continuous and ,
“The region is k-covered” means “The region is k-connected”
For example, k=1 Assume that the requested coverage level, k, is one and If The sensors covers the whole region completely, then Any sensing data produced by a sensor can be delivered to
the sink node.
CR
SR
2C SR R
2C SR R
48/76
Sensing and Communication RangesReal Products’ Ranges [7]
49/76
Self-deployment I
50/76
Self-deploy using Potential Field [4] Problem Definition
How to maximize the sensor coverage in a model-free environment
Assumption each node is equipped with a sensor that allows it to
determine the range and bearing of both nearby nodes and obstacles
sensors can be constructed using “scanning laser range-finder”, “supersonic” or “omni-camera”.
Procedure Summary
Potential Field-based Strategy
51/76
Determine “the virtual forces” from nodes and obstacles
convert “the virtual forces” into a control vector to be sent to its motors.
Deploy the sensor nodes randomly
Potential Fields and Forces [4]
Potential Fields generated by Obstacles and Boundary [5]
Potential Field
52/76
The force vectors in the potential field generated by “AvoidObstacle” behavior
Force Vectors Force Vector due to obstacles
: coordinate of the current sensor node : coordinate of obstacle : distance from obstacle and the node : constant describing the strength of the field
Force Vector due to other sensors : coordinate of other sensor : distance from sensor and the node : constant describing the strength of the field
The compound force vector by the two components
Force Vectors from Potential Field
53/76
0 2
1 i
oi i i
o nF k
r r
iioir
n
ok
2
1 i
s si i i
s nF k
r r
i
iisiir
sk
o sF F F
From Force Vectors to next location Next Acceleration
: mass of the node : friction force ( 마찰력 )
: viscosity coefficient : current velocity of node
Next Velocity : unit time
Next Location
: current location of the node
How to determine the next position?
54/76
currentDnext
F vF Fa
m m
m
DF
D currentF v currentv
next current nextv v a t t
21
2next current next nextl l v t a t
currentl
Example
Example
55/76
j i(2,0) (9/2,0)
Performance Evaluation
56/76
Proto-typical deployment experiment for a 100-node network.
(a)Initial network configuration. (b)Final configuration after 300
seconds.(c) Occupancy grid generated for the
final configuration; visible space is marked in black (occupied) or white (free); unseen space is marked in gray.
Performance Evaluation
57/76
Performance
Self-deployment II
58/76
Self-deploy using Coverage Hole [7] Problem Definition
How to maximize the sensor coverage with minimal time and minimal movement distance in an obstacle-less model-free and finite environment
Procedure Summary
Coverage hole-based Strategy
59/76
Discover the coverage hole (the area not covered by any sensor)
Calculate the target positions of the moving sensors
Deploy the sensor nodes randomly
Voronoi DiagramVoronoi polygon
: Voronoi polygon of sensor node O is the set of Voronoi vertices of O is the set of Voronoi edges of O
: the set of Voronoi neighbors of O
example
All positions inside are closer to the node O than to any other nodes
60/76
Voronoi DiagramWhy Voronoi diagram?
All positions inside a Voronoi partition are closer to the generating node than to any other nodes
So, each sensor is responsible for the sensing task only within its Voronoi partition
One partition is small area to be monitored by one sensor Each sensor just examine the coverage hole locally
61/76
Coverage holeHow to find the coverage hole?
After constructing the Voronoi polygons, each sensor intersects it with the sensing circle of the containing sensor.
If it is found, next? If any coverage hole exists in its Voronoi partition, the
generating sensor decide where to move to eliminate it or reduce its size.
62/76
Movement protocolsThree movement protocols
VEC (VECtor-based) pushes sensors away from a densely covered area
VOR (VORonoi-based) pulls sensors to the sparsely covered area
Minimax moves sensors to their local center area
Features Distributed Self-deployment protocols
63/76
VEC (VECtor-based)Strategy
To find the overall virtual force as the vector summation of virtual forces from the boundary and all Voronoi neighbors.
The virtual force will push sensors from the densely covered area to the sparsely covered area.
Terms : the distance between two sensors ( , ) : the distance between a sensor and boundary : the average distance between two sensors
when the sensors are evenly distributed in the target area It should be calculated beforehand
avgd
avgd
avgdavgd
/ 2avgd Final goalInitial
Deployment
64/76
VEC (VECtor-based)E.g.) Vector Summation of the sensor s1
3 12 1 1
1
1 21 3 1
1 2 1 3 1
( )( ) ( )( , )( , ) ( )
2 ( , ) ( , ) 2 ( , )s ss s s bavg avgnext
s avg b
l ll l l ld d s s dl d d s s d s
d s s d s s d s b
1s
2s3s
센서 s1 과 s2 모두 자신의 Voronoi Partition 을 Cover 하고 있지 못하므로 둘 다 전체 평균 거리에 그들 사이의 거리를 뺀 것에 대해 절반의 거리씩 이동
센서 s3 는 자신의 Voronoi Partition 을 Cover 하고 있으므로 센서 s3 는 이동하지 않고 센서 s1 만 전체 평균 거리에서 그들 사이의 거리를 뺀 거리를 이동
Boundary b
Boundary 로 부터 센서 s1까지의 거리는 전체 센서들의 평균 거리의 절반으로 유지해야 한다 .
65/76
VEC (VECtor-based)The execution of VEC
35 sensors / 50m x 50m / random deployment Coverage : 75.7% -> 92.2% -> 94.7%
66/76
VOR (VORonoi-based)Strategy
Pull sensors to their local maximum coverage holes Sensors move toward its farthest Voronoi vertex ( )
In the above figure, Sensor si’s target location is B is equal to the sensing range
It is a greedy algorithm
farV
farV
( , )d A B
67/76
VOR (VORonoi-based)The execution of VOR
Coverage : 75.7% -> 89.2% -> 95.6%
68/76
MinimaxStrategy
Choose the target location as the point inside the Voronoi polygon whose distance to the farthest Voronoi vertex ( ) is minimized
The target location is called “Minimax point ( )” It reduces the variance of the distances to the Voronoi
vertices, resulting in a more regular shaped Voronoi polygon
It considers distances to all the Voronoi vertices, rather than only to the farthest vertex.
farV
mo
farVVOR
Minimax mo
Circumcircle of 3 Voronoi vertices
69/76
Minimax
VOR vs. Minimax
Si
u
v
Sa
Sb
Sc
Sd
Se
(a) VOR strategy
Si
u
v
(b) Minimax strategy
| | suv r Minimax point.
So, how to find it?
최소 크기를 가지는 외접원의 중심
70/76
MinimaxTerms
: Minimax point (target point) : Minimax circle centered at the minimax point ,
with radius
: Circumcircle of three points : Circumcircle of three points
Algorithm 1) Find all the circumcircles of any 2 and any 3 Voronoi
vertices. 2) Among these circles, select the one having the minimum
radius and covers all the vertices as the Minimax circle for that polygon.
3) The center of the selected circle is the Minimax point
mO
( , )m m mC O r mO( , )m m farr d O V
( , , )m u v wC V V V , ,u v wV V V
( , )m u vC V V ,u vV V
71/76
MinimaxThe execution of Minimax
Coverage : 75.7% -> 92.7% -> 96.5%
72/76
Performance EvaluationCoverage
Minimax performs best, VEC the worst. Minimax fully utilizes the Voronoi polygon VEC does not consider holes nor Voronoi polygon structure
when choosing target location Minimax better than VOR
since it considers more information.
73/76
Performance EvaluationCoverage vs. Communication Range
Performance is reduced when communication range is reduced.
This is because most sensors do not know all the neighbors, thus construct inaccurate Voronoi polygons.
Consequently get incorrect coverage holes and target locations. VEC is least affected, since it does not use the Voronoi polygon
to determine target location.
74/76
Performance EvaluationMoving Distance
Minimax moves longer distance than VOR, since not only fixes holes but tries to reach more regular shaped polygons.
For VEC, moving distance is similar under different sensor densities.
75/76
Innercenter vs. Circumcenter vs. Centroid
[Centroid vs. Center of Gravity]- 도심 (Centroid) 와 무게중심 (Center of Gravity) 은 일반적으로 동의어로 쓰인다 . - 하지만 , 도심의 계산은 기하학적인 모양에만 관련이 된다 .- 만약 물체가 균질하다면 (homogeneous) 즉 , 일정한 밀도를 가졌다면 무게중심과 도심은 일치한다 .
76/76
References1. C.-F. Huang and Y.-C. Tseng, The Coverage Problem in a Wireless Sensor Network, In ACM
International Workshop on Wireless Sensor Networks and Applications (WSNA), pp. 115–121, 2003.
2. N. Ahmed, S. S. Kanhere and S. Jha, Probabilistic Coverage in Wireless Sensor Networks, in Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Wireless Local Networks (WLN, in conjunction with LCN 2005) , Sydney, Australia, pp. 672-679, November 2005.
3. X. Wang, G. Xing, Y. Zhang, C. Lu, R. Pless, and C. Gill, Integrated coverage and connectivity configuration in wireless sensor networks, In ACM International Conf. on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys), pp. 28–39, 2003.
4. C.-F. Huang, Y.-C. Tseng, and L.-C. Lo, The Coverage Problem in Three-Dimensional Wireless Sensor Networks, Journal of Interconnection Networks, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 209-227. Sep. 2007.
5. Y. Zou and K. Chakrabarty, "Sensor deployment and target localization based on virtual forces," in Proceedings of INFOCOM 2003, March 2003.
6. S.-P. Kuo, Y.-C. Tseng, F.-J. Wu, and C.-Y. Lin, A Probabilistic Signal-Strength-Based Evaluation Methodology for Sensor Network Deployment, International Journal of Ad Hoc and Ubiquitous Computing, Vol. 1, No. 1-2, pp. 3-12, 2005
77/76
References7. Honghai Zhang and Jennifer C. Hou, ``On deriving the upper bound of a-lifetime for large
sensor networks,'' Proc. ACM Mobihoc 2004, June 2004
8. S. Megerian, F. Koushanfar, G. Qu, G. Veltri, M. Potkonjak. "Exposure In Wireless Sensor Networks: Theory And Practical Solutions," Journal of Wireless Networks, Vol. 8, No. 5, ACM Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 443-454, September 2002
9. M. Cardei and D.-Z. Du, "Improving Wireless Sensor Network Lifetime through Power Aware Organization," ACM Wireless Networks, Vol. 11, pp. 333-340, 2005.
10. M. Cardei, M. T. Thai, Y. Li, and W. Wu, "Energy-efficient Target Coverage in Wireless Sensor Networks," In IEEE Infocom 2005, vol. 3, pp. 1976-1984, 2005.
11. 김용환 , 이헌종 , 한연희 , " 무선 센서 네트워크 수명 연장을 위한 에너지 인지적 스케줄링 알고리즘 ," 한국정보과학회 학술발표논문집 2008 년도 가을 , 2008 년 10 월
12. C.-F. Huang, L.-C. Lo, Y.-C. Tseng, and W.-T. Chen Decentralized Energy-Conserving and Coverage-Preserving Protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks, ACM Trans. on Sensor Networks, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 182-187, 2006.
13. V. Raghunathan, C. Schurgers, S. Park, and M. B. Srivastava, Energy-Aware Wireless Microsensor Networks, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 19 (2002), pp 40-50.
78/76
References14. A. Howard, M. J. Mataric, and G. S. Sukhatme, “An incremental self-deployment algorithm for mobile
sensor networks, Autonomous Robots,” Special Issue on Intelligent Embedded Systems, vol. 13(2), pp. 113–126, Sep 2002.
15. A. Howard, M. J. Mataric, and G. S. Sukhatme, “Mobile sensor network deployment using potential fields: A distributed, scalable solution to the area coverage problem,” The 6th International Symposium on Distributed Autonomous Robotics Systems (DARS02), June 2002.
16. T. Arai, E. Pagello, L. E. Parker, “Editorial: Advances in Multi-Robot systems,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 655- 661, Oct 2002.
17. Michael A. Goodrich, “Potential Fields Tutorial,” http://www.ee.byu.edu/ugrad/srprojects/robotsoccer/papers/goodrich_potential_fields.pdf
18. A. Howard, M. J. Mataric, and G. S. Sukhatme, “Mobile sensor network deployment using potential fields:A distributed, scalable solution to the area coverage problem,” The 6th International Symposium on Distributed Autonomous Robotics Systems (DARS02), June 2002.
19. S. Poduri and G. S. Sukhatme, Constrained coverage for mobile sensor networks, IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 165–172, May 2004.
20. G. Wang, G. Cao and T. L. Porta, “Movement-assisted Sensor Deployment,” IEEE INFOCOM 2004, Vol. 4, pp. 2469-2479, March 2004.
79/76