REVIEW ON LOCALIZATION OF WIRELESS SENSORS

NETWORK

Bachelors of Studies in Telecommunication

Submitted By:

SYED ZAIN ALI SHAH (48526)

BILAL TANVEER (48487)

Supervised By:

MAZHAR ISLAM

Department of

Telecommunication

DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION

HAZARA UNIVERSITY MANSEHRA

2021
 FINAL APPROVAL

This is to certify that we have read the thesis titled ” REVIEW ON LOCALIZATION

OF WIRELESS SENSORS NETWORK” Submitted by following students of BS

Telecommunication, Hazara University, Mansehra.

Serial No: Name: Roll No:

1. SYED ZAIN ALI SHAH 48526

2. BILAL TANVEER 48487

It is our judgment that this project is of sufficient standard to warrant its acceptance by the

department of Telecommunication, Hazara University Mansehra for the awarded of BS

Telecommunication Degree.

ii
COMMITTEE

Supervisor:

External Examiner:

Internal Examiner:

Head of Department:

iii
 DECLARATION

We Mr. SYED ZAIN ALI SHAH and Mr. BILAL TANVEER hereby declare that we have

produced the work presented in this thesis, during the scheduled period of study. We also

declare that we have not taken any material from any source. It is further declared that we

have developed this project and the accompanied report entirely on the basis of our

personal efforts made under the sincere guidance of our supervisor. No portion of the work

presented in this report has been submitted in the support of any other degree or

qualification of this or any other University or Institute of learning, if found we shall stand

responsible.

Name: SYED ZAIN ALI

Signature:

Name: BILAL TANVEER

Signature:

iv
 DEDICATION

With profound love and respect, this work is dedicated to my loving parents and

teachers

v
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

All praises and thanks to “AL-MIGHTY ALLAH”, the source of knowledge and wisdom

endowed to mankind, who conferred me with the power of mind and capability. The

completion of this thesis is also one of the ALLAH’S innumerable blessing and

opportunities that Allah has showered upon me throughout my life. All respects are for the

most beloved “Holy prophet “MUHAMMAD (PBUH)”, who is forever a symbol of

direction and torch of guidance for humanity as whole.

I wish to express my sincere gratitude and heartiest obligation and appreciation to my

supervisor _______Department of Telecommunication Hazara University Mansehra for his

valuable guidance, suggestion and kind behavior that helped me a lot in complete of my

research.

I am proud of and indebted to my parents, who provided me all what I needed and

remembered me in their prayers. My words are failed to give them credit.

May Allah bless them all!!

SYED ZAIN ALI

BILAL TANVEER

vi
 ABSTRACT

Localization is extensively used in Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) to identify the

current location of the sensor nodes. A WSN consist of thousands of nodes that make the

installation of GPS on each sensor node expensive and moreover GPS will not provide

exact localization results in an indoor environment. Manually configuring location

reference on each sensor node isalso not possible in the case of dense network.

This gives rise to a problem where the sensor nodes must identify its current location

without using any special hardware like GPS and without the help of manual configuration.

Localization techniques make the deployment of WSNs economical. Most of the

localization techniques are carried out with the help of anchor node or beacon node, which

knows its present location. Based on the location information provided by the anchor node

or beacon node, other nodes localize themselves. In this paper we present a succinct survey

on the localization techniques used in wireless sensor networks covering its problems and

research gap.

vii
Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 11

1.1 Low Power WSN Architectures...................................................................................... 12

1.2 Centralized and Distributed Localization ....................................................................... 13

CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................................................ 16

ALGORITHMS FOR LOCALIZATION IN WSNS .......................................................... 16

sensors.Sensors ................................................................................................................. 16

2.1 Centralized Localization Algorithms .............................................................................. 16

2.2 Distributed Localization Algorithms .............................................................................. 17

CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................ 22

PHYSICAL METHODS FOR SENSOR LOCALIZATION – IMPLEMENTATIONS . 22

3.1 Interferometry-Based Methods ....................................................................................... 24

3.2 Phase Shift Analysis: ...................................................................................................... 24

3.3 AOA via RF interferometry and RF-photonic interferometry: ....................................... 25

3.4 Non-Interferometic Localization .................................................................................... 26

3.5 RF methods, Distance via RSSI: ..................................................................................... 27

3.6 RF methods, Non-RSSI, TOF Direct: ............................................................................. 28

3.7 RF Methods, Non-RSSI, TOF Indirect: .......................................................................... 31

3.8 RF Methods, TDOA: ...................................................................................................... 34

3.9 RF Methods, AOA: ......................................................................................................... 36

3.10 Ultrasound Methods, TOF Direct: ................................................................................ 37

3.11 Ultrasound Methods, TOA and TDOA:........................................................................ 38

3.12 Optical Methods, TOF Indirect and Direct, Distance from Lighthouse Method: ......... 40

3.13 Optical Methods, Triangulation, Passive: ..................................................................... 42

viii
 3.14 Optical Methods, Triangulation, Active: ...................................................................... 44

3.15 Optical Methods, AOA and FSO Spherical Antennas: ................................................. 45

3.16 Optical Methods, AOA, CCR, MRR, and Photodiode Receivers for Smart Dust Motes:
.................................................................................................................................... 47

CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................................ 51

POWER AND ACCURACY COMPARISON..................................................................... 51

CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................ 55

CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 55

SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 59

REFRENCES .......................................................................................................................... 61

ix
 Abstract

Spatial localization (co-location) of nodes in wireless sensor networks (WSNs) is an active area
of research, with many applications in sensing from distributed systems such as micro-aerial
vehicles, smart dust sensors, and mobile robotics. This paper provides a comprehensive review
and comparison of recent implementations (commercial and academic) of physical measurement
techniques used in sensor localization, and of the localization algorithms that apply these
measurement techniques. Physical methods for measuring distances and angles between WSN
nodes are reviewed, followed by a comprehensive comparison of localization accuracy,
applicable ranges, node dimensions, and power consumption of the different implementations. A
summary of advantages and disadvantages of each measurement technique is provided along
with a comparison of co-localization methods in WSNs across multiple algorithms and distance
ranges. A discussion of possible improvements to accuracy, range, and power consumption of
selected self-localization methods is included in the concluding discussion. Although the
preferred implementation depends on the application, required accuracy, and range, passive
optical triangulation is reported as the most energy efficient localization method for low-
cost/low-power miniature sensor nodes. It is capable of providing micron-level resolution,
however the applicable range (inter-node distance) is limited to single centimeters.

10
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCT

ION

WIRELESS sensor networks (WSNs) are quickly becoming an integrated part of our daily life
[1], [2]. It is predicted that within a decade, the number of sensors per person in developed
countries will exceeds one thousand [3]. Advances in low-power electronics [4], [5], [6], as well
as energy harvesting [7], [8] enable these sensors to operate for years without the need to replace
their batteries. At the same time, advances in MEMS, additive manufacturing, and printed
electronics significantly reduce the cost of deploying such sensor networks. Together, these
advances are expected to make wireless sensors ubiquitous in our daily lives. Spatial localization
(co-location) of sensors is an important aspect of wireless sensor networks, as it allows for the
reconstruction of spatially distributed sensory data. Both centralized and distributed (self-)
localization is reviewed in this paper. Self-localization is generally defined as the ability of each
sensor to estimate its own location relatively to other nodes in the network.In the litterature,
localization is also referred to as colocation, self-localization, distributed localization,
cooperative localization, position estimation, and bearing identification. Manuscript received
November 3rd, 2014. N. Iliev and I. Paprotny are with the Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, Micromechatronics Systems Laboratory (MSL), University of Illinois,
Chicago, IL, 60645, USA e-mail: paprotny@uic.edu The individual nodes in a low-power WSN
operate at fixed low power budget, and each sensor node must conserve power to extend its life-
time. Design trade-offs must be made [10], [11], for example an extended communications range
will require less hops between the individual nodes, but may consume more power per node.
Centralized message processing at a single node can make for a simple centralized localization
algorithm, however distributed message processing is more flexible, more accurate, and can be
more fault-tolerant. These choices affect the architecture of the WSN, and its operation, and have
to be tailored in each individual case [10]. Similar tradeoffs need to be made with respect to a
self-localization scheme. For example single mode of operation (RF, acoustic, or optical) enables
a simple microsensor architecture, however multi-mode operation (e.g. RF and acoustic or RF
and optical) can both cover larger distances and provide more accurate localization. A diagram

11
of a generic multi-mode WSN is shown in Figure 1. Each implementation dictates a specific
localization algorithm with inherent limitations.

1.1 Low Power WSN Architectures

Recent advances in low-power System-on-Chip (SoC) integrate an IEEE 802.15.4 compliant
radio transceiver with a microcontroller (e.g. [12]) and allow sensor node implementation
with considerable savings in battery life. In addition to the ZigBee radio transceiver, other
SoCs implement the Bluetooth radio stack [13] or the Wi-Fi WLAN IEEE 802.11
specification, such as the Atheros WLAN card with the AR5212 chipset [14] or the Prism2
and Prism54 chipsets [15] which provide robust radio links between all sensor nodes and low
power consumptions. Examples of low-power sensors based on 2.4 GHz radios are: Nordic
Semiconductor nRF24L01 transceiver [16] with consumed power from 345 µW to 2.4 mW
depending on the refresh rate of the location task, ZigBee Texas Instruments SoC CC2430
radio transceiver [12] with 10 mW to 40 mW consumption depending on implementation, RF
Telosb transceivers [17] with consumption from 35 mW to 41 mW depending on the activity

12
profile, and finally on custom radios for IEEE 802.15.4 build from digital ASIC standard
cells technology [18] with power consumption of 15.6 mW at 0 dB output power. The
communication system is used by a sensor node to perform its message-based self-
localization task as well as for broadcasting the basic data collected by the sensor.
Communication systems based on ultrasound waves have not been attempted due to the
directional dependence of acoustic signals and their dependence on air temperature and
humidity. Optical communication between sensors in WSN has been implemented recently
using low-power laser diode emitters and detectors [19], modulating Corner-Cube Reflectors
(CCR) [20], MEMS CCR arrays [21], MEMS steering mirors (gold coated, reflectivity
greater than 98% over a wide range of wavelengths) [22], MEMS actuated spherical
retroreflectors [23], and free space optics (FSO) [24], [25], and [26]. Optical communication
systems show the largest potential for low-power operation and for scaling up with large
numbers of nodes as recent research in FSO has shown [27], [28], and [29]. An important
and often overlooked aspect of a low-power distributed sensor architectures that rely on self-
localization is how distance and/or angle-of-arrival (AOA) measurements to neighboring
sensors are performed with a limited power budget. Recent advances in CMOS photodiode
pixel arrays, MEMS micro-mirrors, and CCRs, have led to potentially lowpower chip-scale
solutions for distance measurement via Timeof-Flight (TOF) [30], via TOF or Optical
Triangulation [31], and a 10 mm × 10 mm array of photodetectors for AOA measurements as
reported in [27].

1.2 Centralized and Distributed Localization

Most WSNs are designed to detect and report on local events such as e.g. temperature,
humidity or chemical content [32] [33] of the surrounding area. Each sensor node is therefore
required to measure the variables associated with the event and report the measured data to a
central processing node. In many cases the location of each sensor is vital for properly
analyzing all measured data at the central processing node and for implementing data fusion-
based improvements of the location estimate [34] [35]. For example, measured data must be
marked with its physical location to allow for energy-efficient routing of the data within the
WSN and to a gateway [36] [37], to allow for distributed source compression techniques
[38], and for position tracking and movement detection techniques [39]. Therefore, one of the
13
first steps during the power-up of a WSN is to establish the initial position for each sensor.
Typically only few nodes in a WSN have a real-time GPS capability or other approaches to
establish their own location with great precision. In this paper we refer to these nodes as
anchors or beacons. Cost, size, and energy-consumption of such precise localization methods
dictate that a WSN has a small number of anchors. The locations of the remaining non-
anchor nodes have to be estimated using centralized or distributed methods. Figure 2 shows
an example WSN in which one node (unknown location) must self-localize using two AOAs
to two known anchors R1 and R2. If the (x,y) coordinates of the anchors and the AOA values
are broadcast to the unknown node, it can compute its own location using trigonometric
relationships and a maximum-likelihood algorithm to account for noisy AOA measurements
[40]. The three nodes can co-operate to measure the AOA values φ1 and φ2. Having
localized itself, the new node broadcasts its coordinates to the rest of the network and to the
server. Alternatively, in a centralized algorithm, the unknown sensor can measure its
distances to three nearest known neighbors (anchors) and broadcast these measurements to
the server. The coordinates will be computed by the server and then relayed back to the node.

14
This project provides a comprehensive review of algorithms and physical implementations
for self-localization for WSNs, and classifies them based on the applicable distance range in
which the self-localization is performed. The localization accuracy and power consumption
of the candidate self-localization schemes is also classified for comparable WSN sizes, as
well as comparable number of anchors (beacons) if applicable. We present a taxonomy of
localization implementations. At the algorithmic level, we distinguish between centralized
and distributed (self-localizing) groups of algorithms. Each group includes range-based or
range-free implementations as well as anchor-free or anchor-based implementations. We
further classify an implementation based on the choice of physical methods (or physical
distance/angle measurement modalities): RF, ultrasound, optical, or hybrid. This taxonomy is
described in the following sections: Section II examines several recent centralized and
distributed (self-localizing) algorithms for WSNs. The mathematical models and resulting
algorithms are summarized as reported from actual implementations or simulations in the
surveyed works. Section III presents physical methods used in recent sensor architectures for
computing range(distance) and AOA metrics between pairs of sensors which are then used as
input to all localization computations. Section IV compares the accuracy of estimated node
locations 1530-437X (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but
republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more
information. This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal,
but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation
information: DOI 10.1109/JSEN.2015.2450742, IEEE Sensors Journal SUBMITTED TO
THE IEEE SENSORS JOURNAL 3 and applicable region (area) of localization algorithms
used with a physical method in an implementation. Comparisons of power consumption for
recently proposed localization techniques as reported in the literature is also presented.
Section V presents our conclusions based on the reviews of published performance results
and outline areas of future research

15
 CHAPTER 2
ALGORITHMS FOR LOCALIZATION IN WSNS

Accurate localization algorithms require extensive memory and processor resources,

especially when dealing with large number of sensors or when using complex statistical
methods to estimate distance and direction (angles of arrival, AOA) between sensors and
relative positions between pairs (or groups) of sensors.Sensors

2.1 Centralized Localization Algorithms

Centralized localization algorithms run on a server (base station) and all sensors in the WSN
must forward their measurement data to the central server. These measurements are then used
by the server to compute the location of each sensor [44],[41],[45]. In the centralized
versions of range-based and range-free algorithms, all pairwise distance (or connectivity)
data are sent to a central node for calculating position estimates, followed by the transmission
of each computed position to its corresponding sensor [46],[47],[48],[49],[50]. Such central
processing has the advantage of ample CPU and memory resources at the central node, which
allows for more complex localization algorithms. However, centralized processing has
typically high communications overhead, therefore high energy consumption. Centralized
localization also scales poorly and is not fault tolerant since all messages required for
centralized localization must flow through the gateway node. Multidimensional scaling
(MDS) is an example of such a centralized algorithm [42], [41], [43]. In particular [41] is an
important first application of MDS to sensor networks that lack anchors and therefore require
relative node localization. In addition the algorithm is range-free and based only on
connectivity information for all nodes in the network. The advantage of this centralized
approach is that one can design an algorithm that has more precision in estimating locations
and contains a comprehensive map of the entire WSN stored in one node. Some of the early
localization algorithms that employ centralized localization are [49], [50], [44], [46].

The following list classifies centralized localization depending on the type of intra-node
measurements:

16
• Convex optimization - uses connectivity constraints : range-free, AOA-free [44]
• Multidimensional scaling (MDS) - uses distances between each pair of nodes [41]
• Maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) - uses time-ofarrival (TOA) and AOA between
anchors and unknown nodes [45] ; can also use RSSI derived distance between anchors and
unknowns [46]
• Linear programming - uses 1) distance between each pair of nodes and anchors, 2)
propagation delays between nodes and anchors, 3) clock biases between nodes and anchors
[47]

• Semi-definite programming (SDP) - uses distance between each anchor-node pair and
upper and lower bounds on these distances
• Isomap - uses distances between all pairs of nodes and an Euclidean metric
• Local linear embedding (LLE) - each sensors coordinates are represented as a weighted
sum of its nearest K neighbors coordinates
• Manifold learning - each sensor records data over a known time interval and sends the data
to its K immediate neighbors. Sensors which are closest have the most similar data
• Supervised learning - uses distances between unknown sensor and K immediate known
neighbors

2.2 Distributed Localization Algorithms

in distributed localization (self-localization) each sensor node estimates its own location
using available information obtained via message passing, from neighboring nodes (eg.
range, connectivity, and AOA). The computations required for self-localization are typically
performed at the sensor node [53], [54], [55], [56]. T
he inputs to the computations are distances or angles (AOA) as measured between pairs of
neighbor sensors or between sensors and neighbor anchors. These are range-based or AOA-
based self-localization distributed algorithms [56]. When the inputs to the computations are
not distances or angles but only connectivity information about the neighbors (and their
neighbors), the algorithms are considered as range-free and distributed [55]. Both range-
based and rangefree distributed localization algorithms have variations which require three
(or mode) anchors or don’t require anchors at all (anchor free). Distributed processing
17
usually consumes much less energy than centralized processing (or cluster-based centralized
processing) because centralized schemes have to collect relevant information from all nodes
in the WSN network which implies re-transmission in a multi-hop environments. Also, once
the centralized node has computed the location estimate for each node, this information has
to be sent back to the node. Distributed localization algorithms are also called decentralized
[78], pervasive [57] , or collaborative localization algorithms [61]. Most existing WSN
implementations prefer distributed processing so that the computational load is shared, the
computation time is reduced considerably, and the communication bottle-neck is no longer a
problem [69].

2.3 Distributed localization algorithms generally fall into one of four

schemes, as shown in Figure 3.

1) Classical Multilateration:

Each sensor estimates its multihop range to three (or more) anchor nodes. These ranges
can be estimated via the shortest path between the node and the anchor. The shortest path
algorithm (Dijkstra’s of Floyd’s all pairs) has to be executed in a distributed manner
across the network. When each node has range estimates to three (or more) anchors, its
coordinates can be calculated locally via multilateration [54], [55], [56]. For best results,
the ratio of anchor nodes to the total number of nodes has to be greater than 25% and
even higher. In [55], Niculescu et al. present

18
 a seminal work on AOA-based non-Bayesian localiztion. In addition, [56] is an important
early work on non-Bayesian distributed MDS using RSSI and TOA range measurements

2) Successive Refinement:
These non-Bayesian algorithms try to find the maximum (or minimum) of a global cost
function via Least Squares (LS), Weighted LS, or Maximum Likelihood (ML). Each node
estimates its location and then transmits the location to its neighbors. Neighbors must then
recalculate their location and transmit it again, until convergence of the maximization
(minimization) process is achieved. A node starting without any coordinates can begin with
its own local coordinate system and later merge it with neighboring coordinate systems. In
[11], Savvides et al. describe important early work on distributed multilateration. It shows
that collaborating sensors can solve a large non-linear optimization problem using fully

19
distributed computation that none of the nodes can solve individually. Each node requires
distance measurements only to its one-hop neighbors. Other examples include [57] (PPE),
[58] (Bilateration), and [59] (Non-linear non-convex global optimization).

3) Belief Propagation and Particle Filtering

in Bayesian Networks: Successive refinement can be also applied in Bayesian networks to
estimate the probability density function of a node’s parameters such as location. These are
also called Bayesian algorithms for self-localization. Each node stores a conditional density
of its own coordinates based on its measurements and the conditional density of its neighbors
coordinates. Several techniques are described in [60]. Nonparametric Belief Propagation
(NBP), which generalizes particle filtering, is proposed by Ihler et al. in [61]. It uses an
arbitrary graphical model framework and a message-passing algorithm between a node and
its immediate neighbors. The messages are approximated by nonparametric density
functions. NBP estimates both sensor locations and the uncertainties in the location
estimates, for a wide variety of multimodal and nonGaussian measurement models. In [62],
Vorst et al. use distributed particle filtering (Bayesian filtering or Monte-Carlo sequential
filtering) for estimating sensor locations in presence of non-Gaussian noise and highly
imprecise RF-based measurements of TOA and RSSI to derive the required distances. In [63]
a sum-product algorithm over a wireless network, SPAWN, is proposed for Bayesian
cooperative localization with optimized message passing. A distributed message-passing
algorithm is proposed in [64]. This algorithm is particle based and uses iterative, distributed
belief propagation, combined with a likelihood consenus scheme. This enables cooperative
self-localization of sensors as well as tracking of sensors in the network without a fusion
center.

4) Information Theoretic Localization (Information Filters):

These algorithms are based on the information version of a reduced-order Kalman filter,
running on each sensor. In a Bayesian framework, this information filter (IF) is

20
essentially a Kalman filter expressed in terms of measures of information about the
parameters (state) of interest rather than direct state estimates and associated covariances.
Fisher’s definition of information [65] is used to build the IF with corresponding
information state and information matrix. Gaussian assumptions are made about the
likelihood function and the posterior conditional distribution. Example implementations
are described in [66], in [67] where an extended Kalman filter (EKF) is based on multiple
interacting models and on ultrasound-based localization, and in [68] for an optical
wireless channel. As stated previously, the main shortcoming of this approach is
assumption of Gaussian statistics. In [69], Moore et al. presents important early work on
EKF application in the Cricket Localization system based on TDOA measurements
between ultrasound and RF signals. Unlike previous algorithms, it considers the
possibility of graph flip ambiguities during trilateration due to measurement noise. A flip
ambiguity exists if a vertex can be reflected (fliped) across an edge (formed by two
neighbor nodes) without violating the distance constraints between the vertex and the two
neighbors. Robust quadrilaterals (smallest subgraphs that can be definitely be realized)
are proposed to minimize the probability of flip ambiguities. Distributed Bayesian-based
localization is chosen by most recent implementations due to its relatively low
computational complexity and ability to handle missing intra-node measurements, non-
linearities, and non-Gaussian measurement errors.

21
 CHAPTER 3
PHYSICAL METHODS FOR SENSOR LOCALIZATION –
IMPLEMENTATIONS

A sensor localization algorithm can have very different performance characteristics (for example

accuracy, convergence, coverage, or power consumption) depending on its detailed physical

implementation. This section presents several physical implementation methods used in recent

sensor architectures for computing range(distance) or AOA parameters between pairs of sensors,

which are then used as inputs to the localization algorithm.

An example of architectural layers for a sensor node is shown in Figure 4. The physical layer

(layer 1) is responsible for all communications to nodes which are in radio or acoustic range or in

line-of-sight and for performing all distance and angle measurements to nearby nodes or anchors.

The measurements are used by the location discovery layer (layer 2) along with any available

connectivity data for this node, for example which anchors (or neighbor nodes) with known

coordinates is the node in contact with. In cases when the node is unable to establish contact with

a single neighbor, components of layer 1 (MEMS mirrors, CCRs, photodetectors, RF receivers)

may be instructed to scan the horizon until contact with a neighbor is established. The

application layer (layer 3) ultimately uses a localization algorithm (or several algorithms) to run

at layer 2, for example multilateration [11], or triangulation [34]. In cases when anchors are not

available, layer 2 localizes the sensor-node within a local coordinate system made up of its

neighbors. This local coordinate map is passed to layer 3. Layer 3 then collaborates with other

sensor-nodes to exchange the local coordinate map and stitch a global coordinate map of the

entire network of nodes. Layer 3 typically implements all peer-to-peer protocols in distributed

22
multilateration and coordinate stitching (map reconciliation) algorithms, examples of which are

given in [53] and [69].

Physical methods (modalities) of distance and angle measurement can be classified as

interferometric and noninterferometric. The accuracy of measured parameters for each physical

method is also included in the discussion below

23
3.1 Interferometry-Based Methods
Interferometry-based physical methods provide the finest resolution of distance or angle

(AOA) measurements, with distances in the range from sub-micron to a few hundreds of

microns, and angles in the sub-degree range. Such high resolution cannot be achieved

with any other physical methods such as RF, ultrasound, optical triangulation, or time of

flight. The interferometry-based methods include the use of MEMS, MOEMS, and

CMOS devices to perform the measurements. Figure 5 shows the taxonomy of

interferometric methods for distance and AOA measurements:

In interferometry-based methods, distance between two nodes is typically determined by

phase shift analysis. Instead of measuring the distance, the Angle of Arrival (AOA),

between a target and anchor(s) can also be measured.

3.2 Phase Shift Analysis:

Distance to a target is measured via phase shift analysis and intensity analysis of the

reflected light, relative to a reference optical path, as reported in [70], where a MEMS

device, 1 mm × 1 mm in size, implements a diffraction-based interferometric distance

sensor with sub-nm to 1 micron resolution. It also requires a laser source and has a

measurement range limited to the size of the target device (another MEMS).

24
3.3 AOA via RF interferometry and RF-photonic interferometry:
Angle of Arrival (AOA), between a target and anchor(s) can be measured using a multi-

element antenna array for collecting radio or optical signals. The time difference of

arrival (TDOA) at individual elements of the array is measured and used to estimate the

corresponding AOA

A radio-interferometric technique for measuring AOA is presented in [71]. The

implementation uses Texas Instruments CC1000 radio chips (in XSM motes) to transmit

in the 433 MHz range. Three XSMs form the antenna array. The achieved accuracy of the

AOA measurements is 3 degrees, in a 20 m × 20 m sensing area.

A recent RF-optical interferometry system for AOA estimation is presented in [72]. A

spectrum analyzer based on spatial-spectral (S2) materials is used to monitor broadband

RF signals in the gigahertz range. The RF inputs of an optical Mach Zehnder

interferometer [73] are driven by the microwave signals with various time delayed
25
 components, emulating the outputs of a two-element antenna array. The S2 spectral

analyzer monitors the output of the interferometer. The optical power spectra of this

output is sensitive to the time delay of each resolvable frequency component of the input

signal and allows estimation of the emitter’s energy and direction. Using a 3.8 GHz

carrier frequency for the emitters, sub-picosecond time delays have been reported which

allows for an AOA accuracy in the sub-0.5 degree range

An approach which does not use S2 materials is presented in [74]. A two-element array

receives microwave signals at 18 GHz, and each signal modulates a dedicated electro-

optic modulator (Mach Zehnder modulator, MZM). Each MZM outputs an optical

component at the carrier wavelength with the optical power being a function of the phase

shift. A following optical spectrum analyzer is used to find the relationship between

optical power and phase shift. The accuracy in phase shift measurement is reported at +/-

2.5 degree, and the resulting AOA estimation accuracy is +/- 0.07 degree.

3.4 Non-Interferometic Localization

A variety of physical measurement methods have been implemented with non-interferometric

devices. Noninterferometric methods in general have a reduced accuracy compared to

interferometric methods, but the dynamic range

26
3.5 RF methods, Distance via RSSI:
Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) methods for estimating the distance between two

nodes (transmitter and receiver) assume a pathloss model [75], [76] between the transmitter

and the receiver. The RSSI value of the received radio packet is used with the path-loss

model to estimate the distance between sender and receiver as reported in [77]. This is easy

to implement in most radio platforms. However RSSI values are strongly affected by noise,

multipath, and line-of-sight obstructions. Fingerprinting is one method to cope with these

issues. A database of RSSI readings is set up beforehand and measured RSSI values are then

compared with database entries for possible matches and thus indicate specific distances,

[78]. The obvious issue with fingerprinting is how to establish the database, especially in ad-

hoc WSN scenarios. Another method to handle the wide fluctuations of RSSI readings is to

27
use stochastic filters [79]. When three reliable distance measurements are obtained to three

anchors, using a distributed shortest-path algorithm such as DV-distance APS, trilateration

can be applied to estimate the sensor’s position as reported in [80]. The reported accuracy is

4.1 m over an area of half-football field.

Recent advances in inertial sensors allow for fusion of inertial data with RSSI-based

localization data to provide more reliable estimates as reported in [79] and in [81]. The

reported accuracy in [81] is 1.6 m over an area of 40 m × 80 m. Localization accuracy with

RSSI measurements and centralized or distributed algorithms are typically on the order of a

few meters depending on anchor density and environment conditions. A relatively large area

can be covered from tens to hundreds of meters.

3.6 RF methods, Non-RSSI, TOF Direct:

Direct time-offlight (TOF) techniques are based on the elapsed time between the

transmission of an RF pulse and the reception, at the emitter, of an RF echo from the

unknown target. The elapsed time is for a round-trip and is divided by a factor of 2 before

being multiplied by the speed of light (wave propagation velocity). The resulting product is

the measured distance (range) between emitter and target. For accurate results, a narrow RF

beam must be formed at the emitter to concentrate the transmitted energy, the RF transducer

must be matched to the characteristics of the air medium and the receiver (target) must match

the emitter’s characteristics. The emitter is usually an anchor node with a very accurate local

clock used to record the start time of the emission and the reception time of the echo.

Measuring distances from three anchors to an unknown target enables position estimation via

trilateration. However this requires synchronization of the local clocks between the three

28
anchors and the unknown node. This is illustrated in Figure 7 below [82]. The anchors are

yellow, the unknown node is red. Time intervals tarrive − t1, tarrive − t2, and tarrive − t3 can

be measured since all nodes have synchronized clocks. Each time interval is then multiplied

by the speed of light to compute the corresponding distance. Since this method is based on a

time value, the estimated distance value is affected by the time measurement accuracy, and

therefore by the clock accuracy at the anchors. Clock offset and clock drift can corrupt the

accuracy of the time measurement and hence of the distance measurement.

In [83], several techniques are presented for mitigating the errors associated with imprecise

clock synchronization. Code modulus synchronization, (CMS), is used to reduce the effects

of noise, imprecise clock synchronization, and sampling artifacts. In CMS, full duplex

ranging is emulated using half duplex radios such as those used in low-power WSNs. The

29
anchor transmits a code and the target receives the code. Then the transceivers are switched

and the target re-transmits the code it received, synchronized to its local clock, back to the

anchor. The anchor then computes a correlation between the code it sent and the code it

received. The measured code offset is the time of flight. The correlation and code offset

estimation are not done in real time, which allows for processing the signals above Nyquist to

obtain a high resolution limited only by the noise of the system. The related implementation

in [84] is a simple, low-cost, software-defined radio node (Waldo) with off-the-shelf parts,

with accuracy from 1 m to 3 m over an area of 45 m. CMS provides good meter-level

accuracy needed for many localization problems and does not need specialized base stations,

time synchronization, UWB, or other expensive and complex equipment. The power

consumption of an Waldo node is published as 175 mW (in Radio-off mode), 1145 mW (in

Rx mode), and 1440 mW (in Tx mode, 14 dBm of output power). A recent implementation

of two-way TOF distance measurement [85] also uses standard low-cost RF narrow-band

hardware. TOF is derived from Round Trip Time (RTT) of flight. A major advantage of that

method is that no time synchronization of the communicating partners is necessary and it can

be done with standard hardware. High accuracy of RTT measurement is achieved by

carefully analyzing the error contributions of the microprocessor’s clock jitter and the RF

transceiver’s clock jitter. Accuracy is 3 m (average) over a range of 30 m. The

implementation uses a standard MSB-A2 sensor node, with an LPC2387 microcontroller and

a CC1101 radio transceiver. The microcontroller has an ARM7 core and a 72MHz clock. The

CC1101 is driven with a 26MHz clock and uses the 868MHz ISM radio band. The power

consumption of MSB-A2 sensor node is published as 75 mW in Tx mode, using 10 dBm of

output power and a sampling rate of 400 kbits/sec.

30
To avoid the need for synchronizing clocks at multiple anchors, Symmetrical Double-Sided

Two-Way ranging (SDSTWR) was proposed as part of the IEEE 802.15.4a standard. SDS-

TWR is also known as an asynchronous ranging TOF algorithm. A recent commercial

implementation, the Nanotron Protect TOF range-finder, [86], achieves accuracies from 1 m

to 3 m

In [87] a two-way TOF ranging implementation is based on the CC2430 SOC from Texas

Instruments with an IEEE802.15.4 compliant radio transceiver. The local clock frequency at

the anchor is 32 MHz. The resulting mean error in TOF distance measurements is about 1.6

m, over a 10 m2 area. This error is due to clock drift, transmitter loss of synchronization, and

constructive and destructive multi-path effects. For better accuracy, Ultra Wide Band (UWB)

systems have been proposed such as the one in [88]. The achievable time precision is in

nanoseconds, for measured times of flight of UWB pulses. This provides for distance

measurement accuracy within a few centimeters. The range of this system is 100 m indoor

and 2 km outdoor. However, although UWB transmitters are simple to implement and

extremely low power, the power consumption of UWB receivers in a TOF system is high.

3.7 RF Methods, Non-RSSI, TOF Indirect:

Instead of measuring directly the round-trip time of an emitted RF pulse and its reflection,

an alternative is to indirectly derive this time (or traveled distance) via measuring another

signal parameter, such as phase or frequency, which is changed in the reflected version of the

emitted signal. A two-way TOF ranging scheme is presented in [89] which measures the

frequency difference between the transmitted and received signals using narrowband RF. The

frequency difference is then used to obtain subclock TOF phase offset measurement and a

31
corresponding distance estimate. An implementation with a TI CC2430 development kit [90]

has achieved an accuracy of 1.7 m indoor over an area of 8 m2 . Another commercial

implementation for distance measurement via indirect TOF is described in [91], for ranging

via frequency-modulation. The BOSCH Long Range Radar (LRR), uses the beat frequency

(frequency difference between the transmitted and received RF wave) to estimate the

distance to the target. The reported distance measurement accuracy is from 0.1 m to 0.3 m

over a range of 0.5 m to 250 m. 4) RF methods, TOA: Time of Arrival (TOA) methods for

localization require accurate time synchronization between the unknown node (mote) and

one or more anchor nodes [82], [92]. This is in contrast with direct TOF which does not

require such synchronization. In Figure 8 below, anchors are yellow and the mote is red. In

2D plane, at least three anchors are required. The location of the mote is the intersection of

circles centered at each anchor. Each circle represents the radio coverage of the

corresponding node. In 3D space the location is at the intersection of spheres. The transmitter

(mote or anchor) sends a message and records the time of the transmission. The receiver

(anchor or mote) receives the message and records the time of reception. Both time values

are broadcast to a central processor or used by the anchor (distributed) to compute the

propagation delay for the message. The estimated distance is the product of propagation

delay and the speed of light. Typically, after obtaining distances to three anchors, trilateration

can be applied to derive the mote’s coordinates.

32
TOA algorithms require strict time synchronization. In wireless environments, the cost of

time synchronization is very high, and precise synchronization is difficult to achieve. The

desired precision is influenced by the propagation time of the radio signal (message), which

is affected by multi-path interference, fading, and other radio-frequency disturbances. Recent

solutions to these problems are based on Chirp Spread Spectrum (CSS) as reported in [93].

The use of chirp signals in communication has been used in commercial range-finding

products by Nanotron Technologies; the precision of their Protect product is 1 m - 3 m [86].

This implementation is based on CSS technology and Symmetric Double-sided Twoway

Ranging, (SDS-TWR). SDS-TWR enables asynchronous ranging and synchronization of

clocks between anchors and target nodes is not required. The distance range is 30 m with an

output power of +10 dBm. Localization of over 30 targets creates heavy communications

33
traffic with a resulting increase in power consumption.

3.8 RF Methods, TDOA:

Time difference of arrival (TDOA) relaxes the timing synchronization requirement between a

mote and the nearest line-of-sight anchors. In TDOA only the anchors have to be

synchronized in time. The node to be localized transmits the signal, and the mote’s

transmission arrives at different anchors at different times. Each anchor records it’s time of

reception. This information is forwarded to a location engine, which calculates the received

signals time difference between each of the anchors. This difference in reception times at the

anchors is typically used in a nonlinear least squares objective function which also includes

the mote’s coordinates. The minimization of the objective function can be done via the

Levenberg-Marquardt (LM) algorithm [59]. The result of the minimization is the best choice

for the mote’s coordinates given the noisy time difference measurements. Mathematically,

the mote is located at the intersection of 3 hyperbolas in a 2D plane, while the mote is located

at the intersection of 3 hyperboloids in 3D space. Figure 9 shows that the center mote is

located at the intersection of 3 hyperbolas in 2D plane, one centered at each anchor. The

corresponding times of arrival are t1, t2, and t3 at anchor 1, anchor 2, and anchor 3.

The transmitter node emits an ultrasonic signal at a given time for a duration of 1 ms. The

receiving node detects the signal and performs the TOF estimation using the known time of

emission. Experimental results using this implementation

34
Whereas TOA records the time that a transmitter sends a signal to the receivers (anchors),

TDOA requires that the receivers record when the signals were received. Similar to the TOA

method, TDOA requires the clocks of each of the anchor nodes to be synchronized, which

leads to higher cost. But the mote (transmitter) is not synchronized with the anchors, and this

results in simpler hardware than TOA. The precision of the localization result is correlated to

the accuracy of the clocks used in the anchors. TDOA is also affected by multipath

propagation, noise and interference. Using UWB and CSS techniques together with error

correction algorithms can improve the precision of the algorithms, as proposed by [94].

A constrainted least-squares algorithm for solving the objective function was proposed in

35
[95] to further improve the precision. Recent commercial implementations of the TDOA

method include Nanotron [86] which is CSS based with an accuracy of 1 m to 3 m . The

Ubisense Series 7000B [96] is based on a UWB physical layer with an accuracy of 30 cm to

60 cm.

A multi-modal solution, Ubisense Series 7000C, implements both AOA and TDOA methods

and UWB RF signaling, and achieves an accuracy of 15 cm - 30 cm.

3.9 RF Methods, AOA:

The AOA of an emitted wave from an anchor to a target can be used for localizing the target.

Figure 10 below from [82] illustrates the basic AOA measurements needed for localizing the

target node (M) given the locations of two anchors (x1,y1,z1) and (x2,y2,z2). For localization

in a 2D plane AOA angles β1 and β2 have to be measured. This is also shown in Figure 2 in

Sec. I-B above. For localization in 3D space additional angles γ1 and γ2 have to be

measured. Two commercial implementations have been reported in recent literature :

1) Ultra-Wideband RF AOA sensors, Ubisense Series 7000A and 7000C, are described in

[82]. The achievable location accuracy is quoted as 30 cm - 2 m (for Series 7000A) and

15 cm - 30 cm (for Series 7000C), the later supplements AOA with TDOA measurements

to achieve better accuracy. The accuracy of the AOA measurements is not listed, only the

resulting location accuracy. Power consumption and applicable ranges are not listed.

2) RSSI is used to estimate AOA angles in [97] using directional antennas such as the

MD24-12 antenna. The angle measurement accuracy is from 0.5 to 3 degrees. The

resulting location accuracy is from 0.7 m to 2.8 m, in a 15-sensor network, in a 100 m2

36
3.10 Ultrasound Methods, TOF Direct:
A direct TOF distance measurement system based on the ultrasonic TELIAMADE node

architecture is reported by [98]. Each node implements the ZigBee protocol (CC2420 radio

chip) for exchanging messages and synchronizing transmission and reception events between

two nodes. Synchronization is based on TDMA scheduled frames between pairs of nodes.

Each TELIAMADE node is also equipped with two low-cost ceramic ultrasonic transducers

(400ST/R120) with a center frequency of 40 KHz.

show that up to distances of 2 m, the standard deviation of the TOF estimated is 0.92 µsec,

which translates to standard deviation of distance measurements of 0.31 mm. The assumed

speed of sound is 340 m/s. For distances between 2 m and 6 m, the distance measurement has

a standard deviation of 0.64 mm. This sub-cm and sub-mm precision of distance

measurement is valid only for distances below 6 m. Using an average consumption of 25 mA

for the ZigBee module, and a 5 mA for the additional hardware, a total consumption of 30

mA is reported for the TELEMADE node in normal (non-sleep) operation. In sleep mode

37
(not performing measurements) the consumption is reduced to 1.7 mA.

3.11 Ultrasound Methods, TOA and TDOA:

Ultrasonic TOAbased distance measurements between nodes is reported by [66] using the

MICAz (MPR2400) board from Crossbow Technology. Nodes exchange messages via an

IEEE 802.15.4 ZigBee radio. Ranging between two nodes consists of the first node sending

an RF packet and emitting an acoustic signal (4 KHz fixed frequency piezoelectric resonator

MICAz MTS300 and MTS310 boards), at the same time, to the second node. When the

second node receives the RF packet, a timer is triggered. When the second node receives the

acoustic signal, it is used to stop the timer. Using the elapsed time and the known

propagation velocity of the acoustic signal, the second node can compute its distance to the

first node. The propagation delay of the RF packet is assumed to be almost instantaneous. A

precision of 3 cm to 8 cm has been reported in computed distances. The applicable ranges

vary from 20 cm to 2.5 m. Power consumption has not been reported but is assumed to be in

the 25 mW to 50 mW range with an average consumption of 25 mA for the ZigBee module

alone [66].

Localization and tracking of mobile nodes using TDOA measurements has been reported by

[67]. An ultrasound localization system estimates the distance between a fixed receiver and a

mobile transmitter. An MSP430 microcontroller generates a 1 ms acoustic impulse, every

300 ms, at an ultrasound frequency of 40 KHz. The receiver has a fixed position around the

localization area. The receiver detects the arrival timestamp of the ultrasonic signal and

estimates the distance. A time-synchronization precision, between two nodes, better than 0.1

ms has been achieved using a 802.11 b/g Wi-Fi connection. The resulting maximum error of

distance measurement is 3.46 cm. The applicable rectangular area for measurements is 1.75

38
m by 3.86 m. Power consumption is not reported but is on the order of 10 to 40 mW

depending on the MSP430’s low-power modes and the ultrasound transducers used at each

end. An ultrasound-based TOA measurement system described in [99] uses the derived

distances to localize passive RFID tags. The custom passive RFID tag called a WISP node

implements an 25 KHz acoustic tone detector that receives and multiplies ultrasound signals.

An ultrasound transmitter with known position (beacon) emits a pulse to the WISP node and

the time delay is used to compute the distance. The RFID protocol between transmitter and

receiver (tag) provides the required synchronization. The achieved accuracy of distance

measurement is 1.5 cm, over a 0.6 m to 2.2 m testing range.

The power consumption of this system is very low since the passive tag implements energy

harvesting from the RFID RF communications link between it and the RFID Reader. The

reported power in [99] is on the order of 100 µW and is sufficient to power the acoustic tone

detector built into the WISP tag

1) Ultrasound Methods, AOA: Phased microphone arrays have been used to measure the

angle of arrival, from the direction of the target, via beam forming techniques, as

described in [100] and in [101]. These arrays can be used to estimate AOA parameters

via algorithms such as MUSIC and ESPRIT, [102].

A novel AOA measurement system based on wideband spread spectrum ultrasound,

(WSSU), signaling is reported in [103]. Three beacons with known locations transmit WSSU

signals to the receiving, unknown-location, node. The receiving node consists of an

ultrasonic receiver array, associated analog-to-digital converters, and a processor. The array

consists of three receivers placed in a triangle, which allows 2D AOA measurements.

SPM0204 ultrasonic sensors (microphones based on CMUT technology) are used for the

39
receivers. Three such sensors are fixed in a triangle configuration with a distance of 2.1 cm

between each pair of sensors. The resulting accuracy of the angle measurements is 0.2

degrees (bias), and a standard deviation of 2 degrees. This translates to location accuracy of

14 cm. Better accuracy can be achieved by combining the AOA data with TOF data. This

hybrid algorithm then can achieve an location accuracy of 7.8 cm. The system is unique since

it does not require a global timing reference signal, either wired or RF-derived. Power

consumption has not been published.

3.12 Optical Methods, TOF Indirect and Direct, Distance from Lighthouse
Method:
Distance-based optical methods are based on time-of-flight, (TOF), measurements between a

source beam and a reflected beam of light. They can also be based on the time the node

spends in the anchor’s illuminating beam path, the so-called lighthouse method. TOF

measurements, direct or indirect, and the lighthouse method. Indirect TOF measurements

detect a phase shift, usually via correlation, between the reference and reflected optical

signals. The optical signal source (reference signal) is usually a collimated laser with an eye-

safety-limited illumination power of 1 mW. The reflected optical signal has a power level

typically in the nW range. A phototransistor is used to capture the reflected optical signal, as

reported in [104], and [105]. The error in distance measurements is from 0.15 mm to 2 mm

depending on the amount of background light intensity and on the optical input power. The

applicable range is 1.2 m to 3.2 m. Power consumption of the phototransistor chip alone is

1.5 µW, with an additional 2 mW to 5 mW required by the correlation circuits and processor.

The light source in indirect TOF optical methods can be a diffused-light LED [106] with a

Single-Photon Avalanche Diode (SPAD) detector, for image depth sensors, or a scanned

laser source (collimated laser) using polygonal mirrors [107], [108], or MEMS mirrors [109].

40
The error in distance measurement, for the four references above (image depth sensors), is

between 0.5 cm and 15 cm, over a range from 1 m to 100 m.

Power consumption is not published but the 0.18 µm CMOS SPAD detector chip consumes

about 2 mW alone. Methods for direct measurement of travel time of light, direct TOF, are

presented in [110]. These methods are based on time-to-digital CMOS converter circuits and

can achieve picosecond resolution for a single TOF measurement, [111]. The error in

distance measurement can range from 1 cm to 4 cm, over a range of 2.5 m to 1500 m. Power

consumption is listed for a complete 3D depth-sensor camera system (120 × 120 to 320 ×

240 pixels), and not for the TOF sub-system alone. A recent chip from STMicroelectoronics

[30], the FlightSense VL6181, performs a direct TOF measurement using an infrared light

emitter and a SPAD photon detector. These methods have yet to be implemented for self-

localization in WSNs. The lighthouse method, first proposed and implemented in [112], was

devised to allow smart dust motes, (SDMs), to self-localize in 2D or 3D space using two or

three rotating anchors (lighthouses) only in one-hop topologies (direct line of sight between

each SDM and the anchors). Each anchor illuminates the SDM with a collimated rotating

laser beam. Once illuminated, the SDM measures the amount of time it remains in the

beam’s path. An SDM closer to an anchor spends more time in the beam’s path than an SDM

further away from the anchor. Figure 11 below illustrates this method: w is the constant

width of the rotating beam, angle β is computed from the sweep time and rotation time of the

beam, and distance d is derived from β and w. The time measurements, known beam width,

known rotation rate, and known anchor locations are used by each SDM to estimate its own

location. Range (distance between anchor and SDM) is from 1 m to 10 m (room-size) and the

41
accuracy is about 2% of the range 2 cm to 20 cm. This accuracy has been validated with data

collected from an implementation of a 2D topology with 2 lighthouses (anchors) and a linux

laptop (emulating an SDM), using off-the-shelf parts. This method is also called cylindrical

lateration, in contrast to spherical lateration [42]. It does not have a wide baseline

requirement (distances between anchors should be comparable to distances between SDMs

and anchors) to achieve this accuracy. The accuracy may be improved by using deflecting

MEMS mirrors in the anchors to build a truly parallel illuminating beam and by

implementing a more precise in-beam-path time measurement in the SDM. The desired

accuracy should be on the order of 1 mm - 2 mm in order to distinguish 1 mm3 SDMs in

dense concentrations of SDM sensors. Power consumption for the 650 nm semiconductor

laser in each lighthouse is 1 mW alone. The SDM power consumption is not listed since it’s

emulated by a laptop.

3.13 Optical Methods, Triangulation, Passive:

Optical triangulation has also been used to measure distances. This method determines the

location of an unknown point within a triangle by means of a known optical basis and the

related side angles pointing to the unknown point. A popular method for 2D applications is

optical parallax implemented in may commercial sensors, such as [113], [114], [115]. Figure

12 below illustrates the basic measurements used in this method. The value h is a fixed

known distance between the center points of the laser diode and the camera. When

the distance to the target object D changes, so do both the angle θ and the value for PFC

(pixels from center of camera axis). Note that PFC measures the vertical distance from the

focal plane center to the reflected laser spot (blob) formed on the focal plane. Image

processing in the camera is used to detect the reflected blob (spot) and determines the PFC

42
value. From PFC, angle θ can be extrapolated (via table lookup) and then distance D can be

computed. The design uses a laser diode and a CMOS camera and calculates distance to a

target using simple trigonometry between the centroid of laser light, camera, and object. For

[113] the error in distance measurement is 0.45 cm to 3.66 cm over a range of 15 cm to 122

cm. Power consumption is 150 mA at 5 V DC.

43
A two-dimensional localization system, based only on optical triangulation was presented in

[116]. Coordinates are computed by low-power analog image processing circuits and

transmitted to a basestation via an RF link. The reported accuracy of planar (x,y) coordinates

is 0.5 cm to 1 cm over a 5 m × 6 m range. Power consumption is listed at 60 mW. An

improved implementation has been disclosed in [117], using only low-cost off-the-shelf

components. The accuracy in localizing static x and y coordinates is 0.1 mm to 1.7 mm over

an area of 1.8 m (x) and 1.2 m (y). The unknown mote has a rotating laser transmitter which

illuminates three arrays of photodetectors fixed at known positions. The currents generated in

the illuminated photodetector arrays are used to compute the angles to the unknown mote and

derive the distances and its (x,y) coordinates.

3.14 Optical Methods, Triangulation, Active:

An optical triangulation method for 3D applications, active triangulation with structured

44
illumination, is presented in [118]. A setup analogous to stereo cameras is used, with one

camera replaced by a binary-modulated light source. The modulator uses a binary signal to

temporally modulate the radiant flux of the lighting beam. The application is 3-D imaging

and depthrecovery via projection of a series of fringe patterns with different wavelengths. A

3D localization system for a robotic drill-fastener is described in [119]. The system uses

active illumination beacons (three rotating laser sources) and four photodetectors embedded

in the unknown target. This is similar to the system described in [120] where two active

illumination beacons are used and the target has a CCR with three photodiodes. In [119] a

triangulation algorithm is used to measure the angles between the beacons and the target. At

least one of the photodetectors in the target is always in line of sight of the rotating lasers.

The system achieves sub-millimeter precision in localizing the target’s 3D coordinates. The

range for localization is from 25 cm to 1 m. These are typical dimensions for the inside of a

small aircraft wing. In this application, the robotic drill-fastener performs tasks inside the

aircraft wing and has to be localized in 3D space. A recent 134-pixel CMOS sensor is

described in [31] with a dual-mode architecture for optical triangulation or TOF. For short

ranges, 0.4 m to 1.0 m, optical triangulation is used to measure the distance, with a precision

of 2 mm to 9 mm. For longer ranges, 0.8 m to 3 m, the TOF mode is used.

3.15 Optical Methods, AOA and FSO Spherical Antennas:

Multi-element Free Space Optical (FSO) antennas or spherical retro-reflectors embedded in

sensors are proposed in [24] to compute the sensor’s optical AOA parameters and derived

coordinates in three dimensions using two anchors. This method can be applied to two

dimensions as well. Architectures for similar optical antennas and spherical retroreflectors

45
are described in [23] and [121]. Using a spherical retro-reflector gives a constant optical

power over a large range of incidence angles (AOAs) when compared to using CCRs.

Tessellated spherical optical antennas have been proposed in [26] for both localization and

data communication in 3D ad-hoc optical wireless networks. Figure 13 below shows two

anchors ( #1 and #2 ) and a third unknown node #3 which is localized. Each node has a

spherical optical antenna, and localization can be done via triangulation using the anchor’s

known positions and measured angles φ13, φ23, φ31, θ13, θ31, and θ23. Each hexagonal

panel has a laser LED source and a photo-detector to maximize angular diversity and

maintain constant optical power in any direction. However, the reported localization

accuracy of prototype implementations is low, from 2 m to 10 m of average localization error

per node. A recently reported indoor localization system, [22], uses free-space optics (FSO)

to localize a subscriber unit using a centralized laser transceiver. Both the subscriber unit and

transceiver have MEMS steering mirrors, lenses, and uplink - downlink optical

communication capabilities. The optical receiver has a compound parabolic concentrator

(CPC), fiber collimator, and pigtailed photodiode. The optical transmitter has VCSEL laser,

lens, and a steering MEMS mirror. The localization accuracy is 5.26 cm to 8.58 cm, over a 1

m to 2 m range. The optical link is based on on-off-keying (OOK) at a bit rate of 50 Mbps.

The transmission power is 5 mW.

46
3.16 Optical Methods, AOA, CCR, MRR, and Photodiode Receivers for
Smart Dust Motes:
A recent photosensor has been reported in [27]. It consists of three photodiodes, each one

embedded in one side of a corner-cube reflector, CCR. The photosensor can estimate the

optical AOA of light emitted by an optical beacon given a direct line-of-sigh. The inherent

measurement error is less than +/- 5 degrees in either azimuthal or polar angles. A complete

sensor localization system has been built using this type of photosensor, as reported in [120].

Figure 14 below illustrates the 3D localization of a node equipped with this photosensor and

using location data from two known anchors (beacons A and B). Triangulation is used to

compute the node’s coordinates based on the measured AOA data. The reported localization

accuracy is 1.67 cm , over an area of 1 m2

47
A Modulated Retro-Reflector, (MRR), has been proposed and implemented in [122]. The

main application is not localization of the unknown sensor or Smart Dust Mote, (SDM), but

optical wireless communication between the SDM and the anchor (base station) node. The

SDM includes an MRR, while the anchor has the laser source, the beam steering controls,

and a CMOS image sensor for target SDM acquisition. Figure 15 below illustrates the one-

hop, direct line-of-sight topology of the WSN. The anchor actually has to locate (acquire and

track) the SDM before communicating with it. This centralized SDM localization is done at

the anchor using image processing algorithms and data from the CMOS imaging camera. The

48
communications link supports up to 32 bits/sec (uplink) and 100 bits/sec (downlink) over a

range of 30 m. The total power consumption of the SDM is 40 nW which is the lowest

achieved value in our survey. This is achieved thanks to builtin energy harvesting of the

optical signal received from the anchor, using two photodiodes in series. The application of

an MRR-based architecture to the localization problem should achieve the desired low power

consumption since optical wireless can be used for both data communications and for

localization via distance and AOA measurements. Distributed localization can be achieved if

each SDM has the ability to compute its own AOA relative to two anchors as shown in

Figure 15.

49
MRR-based optical communications and the lighthouse method for localization are the least

researched methods for distributed self-localization, since they represent relatively new

advances in FSO transceivers and structured (parallel) illumination beams. A multimodal

localization architecture, combining multi-element FSO antennas and MRR structures for

optical communications, capable of SDM-based AOA measurements, with lighthouse-based

cylindrical lateration to improve distance estimates using the AOA data, may represent a

novel low-power approach to distributed localization of SDMs. As sensor node dimensions

approach the millimeter scale, optical methods for localization are able to deliver the precise

distance and angle measurements required by the higher layer algorithms of Section II.

50
 CHAPTER 4
POWER AND ACCURACY COMPARISON

The relative distribution of localization accuracy between the nodes, achieved with

combinations of mathematical algorithms and physical methods, described previously in

Sec. II and Sec. III, is shown in Figure 16 below. The data presented in Figure 16 has been

compiled from published implementation results. Each point represents an

implementation’s maximum and minimum distance estimation capability in one dimension.

If an implementation can estimate distances in 2D and 3D, the dimension with the best

resolution is shown. A star next to a reference indicates a hybrid implementations (eg.

triangulation and TOF via active optics, TOF via RF and ultrasound signaling, etc.). Range-

free and angle-free methods [41], [16], [44] can be less accurate than range-/angle-based

methods [56], [53], [69]. Note that millimeter and sub-millimeter precision has been

achieved with mostly optical methods and with an ultrasonic method in one case [98].

Triangulation using TOF or AOA derived distances is used in all cases and the scale of the

unknown node is also typically in the millimeter range [124], which includes smart dust

nodes [123].

Theoretical analysis and experimental results from [31],[124], and [120] indicate that

AOA-based optical triangulation has the highest precision at shorter distances, while TOF

maintains highest precision at longer distances as shown by [31], [98], [83], and [105].

Optical triangulation (active or passive) and image processing based algorithms for

localization [122] continue to deliver the most accurate results in the sub-millimeter to

several centimeters range. Accuracy in the sub-centimeter to several meters range is

achieved by various ultrasonic [98], RF narrowband [85], and RF ultra-wideband (UWB)

51
[96] methods using distances derived by TOF, TOA, and TDOA measurements. The most

common among these are RF narrow-band TOF ranging implementations, due to the simple

design and available low-cost hardware. Standard off-the-shelf solutions such as [84] and

[85] provide meter-level accuracy without the need for specialized base-stations or UWB.

The theoretical precision of TDOA methods can be enhanced by a constrained least-squares

algorithm as shown in [95] and by interacting multiple-model estimators as mathematically

derived in [67].

The least accurate localization methods use RF RSSI, however these methods are

applicable in a wide sub-meter to tens of meters range (up to 10 m in the reported work),

and can extend beyond that range depending on the signal strength of the transmitter.

Theoretical analysis presented in [80] and [77] shows that even complex non-linear RSSI

models based on hundreds of measurements can generate large errors in the estimated

distance. This is especially true in an ad-hoc RF environment in which path-loss has never

been measured and characterized, ie. without a training phase.. The relative average power

consumed by each node while running all or most of its sub-systems required for

localization is shown in Figure 17 below.

The data in this figure has been compiled from published implementation results. If the

power needed explicitly to perform the specific localization task is published, the reference

is marked with a star, otherwise the total published power consumption of the node is

listed. Total power consumption includes localization as well as nonlocalization tasks. At

the ultra-low power end, 40 nW is the smart dust millimeter-cubed node from [122] which

harvests optical power for all of its circuits and is capable of two-way free space optical

communication. Range-free and RF-ID methods with RF energy-harvesting [15], [16], [22],

52
 [68], [99], [104], and [105] fall in the 1 µW to 10 mW range as well as a solar-powered

node from [123]. Ultrasonic and laser range-.

Fig. 16. Localization range for different implementations of different colocation hardware methods. Grey

inset shows the applicable distance ranges for each of the physical implementation methods (optical,

ultrasound, and RF) described in the surveyed papers. A star next to a reference indicates a hybrid

implementations (eg. triangulation and TOF via active optics, TOF via RF and ultrasound signaling, etc.)

Finder methods [17], [18], [67], [98], and [113] fall in the 10 mW to 100 mW category. The most power,

in the 100 mW to 1 W category, is consumed by methods based on RF RSSI and commercial protocols

such as IEEE802.15.4, Bluetooth, and Wi-Fi WLAN [112], [13], [14], and [124]. This is due to the fact

that commercial RF protocols typically cover a large geographical area without repeaters and make use of

retransmissions in order to maintain an acceptable bit-error rate at high data rates. The use of MIMO,

relaying, and diversity techniques by these protocols also results in a high duty-cycle operation of the

53
power-hungry RF transceivers. Active (laserdiode) optical localization systems can also consume power

in the 100 mW range, as reported in [124]. The implementation, MEMS-Eye, is a LOS (one-hop) 3D

localization system. It’s based on a centralized, optical-triangulation algorithm with two anchors, each

equipped with a laser diode source, a MEMS mirror, and a photo-detector. The target contains a CCR for

passively retro-reflecting the illuminating beams to the anchors. The reported distance accuracy is 1 mm

or better in each of the 3 dimensions over a volume of 1 m3 . The operating power for the MEMS mirrors

is very low, less than 1 mW, however the amplifier circuits alone consume 50 mW - 100 mW in each

anchor. Note that power consumption numbers have been published only for a subset of the

implementations listed in Figure 16.

54
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

This paper presents a comprehensive overview of available approaches to node localization in

WSNs. A detailed review of the algorithms and physical implementations of node localization

methods is presented. With the onset of lowpower wireless sensor networks, this paper also

classifies the localization algorithms (both centralized and distributed) in terms of power usage.

A self-localization algorithm can have very different performance characteristics (accuracy,

convergence, coverage, latency in computing a node’s location, or power consumption)

depending on its detailed physical implementation. Consequently, it is important to match the

desired applicable rangeand desired accuracy of localization with the proper physical method for

obtaining the required intra-node measurements (distance or angle). For example, optical

interferometric physical methods allow for nanometer accuracy but only over a range of a few

hundreds of microns [70]. Non-interferometric physical methods such as optical triangulation

provide for accuracies from microns to millimeters, over a much larger range spanning

centimeters to a few meters [113], [114], [115]. Ultrasound techniques provide accuracy of a few

centimeters, over an applicable range of a few meters [98]. Radio frequency techniques have

even lower accuracy, from tens of centimeters to meters, however providing a much larger

applicable range from tens to hundreds of meters, depending on the power levels of the

transceivers [86]. The coverage of a WSN can be extended by implementing a multi-hop

network and by increasing the number of nodes. The advantages and disadvantages of the three

main physical implementations of distance measurement techniques (RF, optical, and ultrasound)

are summarized in Figures A.18 - A.20 in the Appendix. For small-sized SDM type WSNs, the

stacked-die smartdust sensor platform such as the one reported in [123] may be applicable as the

55
backbone of the self-localization hardware. A distributed self-localization algorithm can be

implemented with this platform since it contains a processor, DSP, and memory resources of it

own. Based on the accuracy and power data from Sec. IV, passive optical triangulation is the

preferred method for distance or AOA measurements to neighboring nodes and anchors. Free

space optical communications, as implemented by nodes in [122], should be used as much as

possible with neighboring nodes when implementing some of the distributed message-passing

algorithms from Sec. II. When combined with optical energy harvesting, the resulting power

consumption of a self-localizing SDM network covering a few squared meters outperforms any

ultrasound or RF-based implementation in the surveyed literature. This represents a promising

area for future research into multi-hop very lowpower optical methods for self-localization of

micro-sensors. Combining different measurement methods (or multi-mode measurements), for

example RF RSSI and RF TOF or ultrasound AOA and ultrasound TOF, can significantly

improve the localization accuracy of the multi-mode implementation and increase the effective

range, when compared to a single-mode implementation. At the same time the multi-mode

implementation can reduce the power required for the localization task when compared to the

single-mode implementation. For example, RSSI alone has low power (few message exchanges)

but low accuracy in mutli-path interference environments with non line-of-sight (NLOS)

conditions. When combined with RF TOF, as proposed in [87], localization accuracy can be

improved. Power can be reduced since some nodes are localized only by RSSI and others by

TOF. Localization of all nodes by TOF alone would require higher power since two-way TOF

results in a large amount of messages between nodes and consumes a large amount of channel

capacity. A combined ultrasound AOA and ultrasound TOF localization architeture has been

reported in [103]. It achieves significant accuracy improvement over an AOA-only

56
implementation. Improved timing synchronization between all nodes can improve the accuracy

of TOF measurements and resulting localization. One strategy to achieve this could be to use

synchronous CDMA instead of TDMA at each node. Optical triangulation (OT) can achieve

micron-level resolution in ranges typically from millimeters to a few centimeters. Precision is

lost at ranges typically longer than tens of cm, and TOF-based distance measurement can be used

in this case. A combined optical triangulation and optical TOF measurement architecture has

been implemented in [31]. This multi-mode implementation increases the effective range of

accurate localization from 40 cm to 5 m. The accuracy of the OT mode can be further improved

by enhanced algorithms for finding the reflected laser spot on the receiver’s pixel array and by

compensating for the background illumination.

Fig. 17. Power consumption for different implementations of co-location hardware methods. If

the power needed to perform the specific localization task is published, the reference is marked
57
with a star, otherwise the total published power consumption of the node is listed. Total power

consumption includes localization as well as non-localization tasks.

58

Summary of advantages and disadvantages of using RF, acoustic, and optical physical co-location
methods are listed in Figs. A.18, A.19, and A.20.
Physical method
(technology)
RF , Distance via RSSI
RF, Distance via TOF
(direct)
RF, Distance via TOF
(indirect)
RF, Distance via TOA
RF, Distance via TDOA
RF, angle (bearing) via
AOA
SUMMARY
Advantages Disadvantages
Low-cost, simple, standard hardware; RSSI based on a path-loss
model; strongly affected by
multipath and line-of-sight
Low-cost,standard narrow-band RF affected by multipath and line-
hardware; CMS, RTT, SDS-TWR of-sight obstructions ; UWB
avoid clock synchronization receivers are high power
Low-cost, standard narrow-band RF Phase or frequency measurments
hardware ; meter-level accuracy; affected by multipath and line-
sub- of-sight obstructions;
meter accuracy
Can use existing global network Requires accurate clock
timing (if available);standard WLAN synchronization between
hardware; centimeter-level accuracy unknown target and one or more
beacons
Requires timing synchronization only Requires accurate clock
between the receiving anchors; synchronization between several
standard WLAN hardware; anchors (beacons); measurement
centimeter- level accuracy via CSS accuracy affected by multipath
and UWB and fading
Avoids direct distance measurement Requires sets of between 4 and
and synchronization between 12 antenna arrays situated in a
transmitter and receiver; standard horizontal line at several anchor
WLAN hardware with MIMO (array site locations; multipath; LOS
of 4 or more monopole antennas)
59
Fig. A.18. Summary of advantages and disadvantages of RF physical methods.

Physical method Advantages Disadvantages

(technology)
Ultrasound, distance via Can use standard ZigBee protocol
TOF (direct) with low-cost RF transceiver and
ultrasonic transducers; millimeter and ultrasound transmission; the
sub- millimeter accuracy;
Ultrasound, distance via Can use message timestamps for
TOA and TDOA synchronizing transmitters and
receivers in standard ZigBee
networks and in 802.11 b/g Wi-Fi
networks; use of standard CMUT
ultrasound transducers and RF
transceivers
Ultrasound, angle via AOA Does not require a global timing
reference, either wired or RF-
derived; passive architecture scales
well: uses standard CMUT array of
microphones; centimeter-level
accuracy
The ultrasound receiver needs
to know the time of the
speed of sound in the air varies
with temperature
and pressure; directivity issues
Speed of sound in the air varies
with temperature and pressure;
this affects accuracy as do
multipath propagation and
directivity of the transducers;
need CDMA-like protocol for
multiple simultaneous emitters
Simultaneous ultrasonic
transmissions from beacons
requires use of Wideband
Spread Spectrum Ultrasonic,
(WSSU), signaling to achieve
beacon
separation

Fig. A.19. Summary of advantages and disadvantages of ultrasound physical methods.

60
 REFRENCES

[1] S. Specknet, “Specknet centre for speckled computing and sensors ,

www.specknet.org , accessed aug 2014,” Tech. Rep.

[2] B. Warneke, M. Last, B. Liebowitz, and K. Pister, “Smart dust : Communicating

with a cubic-millimeter computer,” in Computer vol 34, pp 44-51 ,, Jan 2001.

[3] I. GlobalSpec. GlobalSpec NewsLetter , vol 5 , Issue 9, Aug 18 2010.

[4] TexasInstruments, MSP430 Microcontroller, http://www.ti.com/.

[5] FreescaleSemiconductor, Kinetis K60 Microprocessor,

http://www.freescale.com.

[6] Atmel, AVR188 Microcontroller, http://www.atmel.com.

[7] I. Paprotny, Q. Xu, W.W.Chan, R. White, and P. Wright, “Electromechanical

energy scavenging from current-carrying conductors,” IEEE Sensors J., vol. 13, no.

1, pp. 190–201, 2013.

[8] K. Roundy, V. Sundararajan, J. Baker, E. Carleton, E. Reilly, B. Otis, J. Rabaey,

and P. Wright, AmIware: Hardware Technology Drivers of Ambient Intelligence.

Springer, 2006, ch. Energy Scavenging in Support of Ambient Intelligence:

Techniques, Challenges, and Future Directions.

[9] Q. Xu, I. Paprotny, R. M. White, and P. K. Wright, “Electric current

reconstruction from magnetic field measurements : Theories and applications.” IEEE

Transactions of Signal Processing, to be submitted 2014.

[10] F. Burghardt, A. Waterbury, I. Paprotny, L. Miller, P. Minor, R. Send, Q. Xu,

R. White, and P. Wright, “A design methodology for energy harvesting: With a case

study on the structured development of a system to power a condition monitoring

61
unit,” in Energy Harvesting and Systems: Materials, Mechanisms, Circuits and

Storage. DOI 2013- 0001 In Press, 2014.

[11] A. Savvides, H. Park, and M. Srivastava, “The bits and flops of the nhop

multilateration primitive for node localization problems,” in WSNA. ACM,

September 2002.

[12] L. Bras, M. Oliveira, N. B. de Carvalho, and P. Pinho, “Low power location

protocol based on zigbee wireless sensor networks.” IEEE, International Conference

on Indoor Positioning and Indoor Navigation ( IPIN ) , Zurich, Switzerland,

September 2010.

[13] Bluetooth, Special, Interest, and Group, “Bluetooth adopted specifications,”

www.bluetooth.org, Tech. Rep., 2013.

[14] Atheros, Chipset, and Documentation, “Qualcom atheros chipset,” Qualcom,

Tech. Rep., 2013.

[15] Conexant and Corp, “Prism chipset solutions from conexant,” Conexant, Tech.

Rep., 2013.

[16] V. Kaseva, T. D. Hamalainen, and M. Hannikainen, “Range-free algorithm for

energy-efficient indoor localization in wireless sensor networks.” IEEE Conference

WCOM, 2009.

[17] D. Larios, “Localization method for low-power wireless sensor networks,”

Journal of Networks, vol. 8, no. 1, January 2013.

[18] R. Su, “Towards a synthesizable standard-cell radio,” Ph.D. dissertation,

University of California at Berkeley, December 2013.

[19] M. Davidovic, “Time-of-filight range finding sensor using an integrated pnp pin

62
phototransistor in 180 nm cmos,” Institute of Electrodynamics, Microwave and

Circuit Engineering, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria. IEEE

ESSCIRC Conference, 2012.

[20] K. Pister and L. Zhour, “Corner-cube retroreflectors based on structureassisted

assembly for free-space optical communication.” Journal of Microelectromechanical

Systems, vol. 12, pp.233-242 , June 2003.

[21] J. Jeon, H. Jeon, and C. Park, “Theoretical analysis of reflection process using

mems ccr array for the localization of optics-based sensor node.” 13th International

Conference on Control, Automation and Systems ICCAS 2013 , Oct. 20-23, 2013,

Korea.

[22] K. Wang, A. Nirmalathas, C. Lim, and E. Skafidas, “Experimental

demonstration of a centralized optical wireless indoor localization system for high-

speed communications in personal areas.” 18th OptoElectronics and

Communications Conference OECC/IPS 2013.

[23] C. Jenkins, W. Johnstone, D. Uttamchandani, V. Handerek, and S. Radcliffe,

“Mems actuated spherical retroreflector for free-space optical communications.”

Electronics Letters, vol. 41, pp. 1278-79 , 2005.

[24] S. Kumar, “Localization in wireless sensor networks using directional

information,” Dept. of CSE, ABES Engineering College, Ghaziabad , India. IEEE

Conference.

[25] J. Akella, M. Yuksel, and S. Kalyanaraman, “A relative ad hoc localization

scheme using optical wireless.” IFIP IEEE International Conference on Wireless and

Optical Communications Networks (WOCN) , p.164-168, 2007.

63
[26] M. Bilgi, M. Yuksel, and N. Pala, “3-d optical wireless localization.” IEEE

Globecom 2010 Workshop on Optical Wireless Communications.

[27] X. Jin and J. Holzman, “Differential retro-detection for remote sensing

applications.” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 10 , no. 12, pp.1887-83 , Dec 2010.

[28] M. Afzal, W. Mahmmod, S. Sajid, and S. Seoyong, “Optical wireless

communication and recharging mechanism of wireless sensor network by using

ccrs.” International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, vol. 13, Dec

2009.

[29] S. Sivathasan and D. C. O’Brien, “Rf/fso wireless sensor networks: A

performance study.” IEEE GLOBECOM Proceedings 2008.

[30] STMicroelectronics, FlightSense TOF Proximity Sensor for Smartphones , Feb.

2013, www.st.com.

[31] O. Sgrott, D. Mosconi, M. Saiani, D. Stoppa, G. Pedretti, M. Perenzoni, and L.

Gonzo, “A 134-pixel cmos sensor for combined time-of-flight and optical

triangulation 3-d imaging.” IEEE Journal of Solid State Circuits, vol. 44 , Dec. 2009.

[32] S. DeVito, “Wireless sensor networks for distributed chemical sensing:

Addressing power consumption limits with on-board intelligence.” IEEE Sensors

Journal, vol 11 2011 , pp. 947-955.

[33] N. Barrocaa, L. M. Borgesa, and al., “Wireless sensor networks for temperature

and humidity monitoring within concrete structures.” Coonstruction and Building

Materials Jounal , Elsevier, vol 40, March 2013, pp.1156-1166.

[34] L. Yu, Z. Can-bin, F. Xin-xi, and L. Bin-bin, “Triangulation location fusion

algorithm for 2d.” IEEE 2011 International Conference on Computer Science and

64
Network Technology.

[35] P. Hebert, N. Hudson, J. Ma, and J. Burdick, “Fusion of stereo vision, force-

torque, and joint sensors for estimation of in-hand object location.” IEEE 2011

Internationl Conference on Robotics and Automation, Shanghai China, May 9-13

2011.

[36] U. Iqbal and M. Rahmatullah, “Energy-efficient routing based on geolocation

for heterogeneous sensor networks.” IEEE 2013 International Conference on

Broadband and Wireless Computing, Communication and Applications, pp. 512–

517.

[37] B. Peng, A. Kemp, and H. Maheshwari, “Impact of location errors on energy-

efficient geographic routing in wireless sensor networks.” IEEE Communications,

2009. APCC 2009. 15th Asia-Pacific Conference on, pp. 830–833.

[38] F. Oldewurtel, J. Riihijarvi, and P. Mahonen, “Impact of correlation in node

locations on the performance of distributed compression.” IEEE Wireless On-

Demand Network Systems and Services, 2009. WONS 2009. Sixth International

Conference on, pp. 135–142.

[39] K. Premkumar, “Distributed detection and localization of events in large ad hoc

wireless sensor networks.” IEEE Forty-Seventh Annual Allerton Conference ,

Allerton House, UIUC, Illinois, USA , September 30 - October 2, 2009.

[40] M. Gavish and A. J. Weiss, “Performance analysis of bearing-only target

location algorithms.” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol

28, no. 3, pp. 817-828 July 1992.

[41] Y. Shang, W. Ruml, Y. Zhang, and M. Fromherz, “Localization from mere

65
connectivity - mds-map.” ACM Proceeedings of the 4th ACM International

Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc networking and computing, 2003 pp. 201-212.

[42] T. Cox and M. Cox, Multidimensional Scaling. Chapman and Hall , London,

1994.

[43] X. Ji and H. Zha, “Sensor positioning in wireless ad-hoc sensor networks using

multidimensional scaling.” IEEE INFOCOM vol.4 , pp. 2662-2672 , March 2004.

[44] L. Doherty, K. Pister, and L. E. Ghaoui, “Convex position estimation in wireless

sensor networks.” IEEE INFOCOM 2001, pp.1655-1663.

[45] R. Moses, D. Krishnamurthy, and R. Patterson, “An autocalibration method for

unattended ground sensors.” ICASSP vol. 3 , May 2002 , pp.2941-2944.

[46] N. Patwari, R. O’Dea, and Y. Wang, “Relative location in wireless networks.”

IEEE VTC , vol. 2 , May 2001 , pp.1149-1153.

[47] E. Larsson, “Cramer-rao bound analysis of distributed positioning in sensor

networks.” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 11 , no.3 , pp.334-337 , March 2004.

[48] P. Biswas and Y. Ye, “Semidefinite programming for ad hoc wireless sensor

network localization,” Stanford University , Dept. of Computer Science, Tech. Rep.,

Sept 2003.

[49] J. Tenenbaum, V. Silva, and J. Langford, “A global geometric framework for

nonlinear dimensionality reduction.” Science, vol. 290 , pp.2319-2323 , Dec 2000.

[50] S. Roweis and L. Saul, “Nonlinear dimensionality reduction by local linear

embedding.” Science, vol. 290 , pp.2323-2326 , Dec 2000.

[51] N. Patwari and A. Hero, “Manifold learning algorithms for localization in

wireless sensor networks.” IEEE ICASSP , May 2004.

66
[52] S. Simic, “A learning theory approach to sensor networks,” University of

California at Berkeley, Tech. Rep., July 2003.

[53] L. Meertens and S. Fitzpatrick, “The distributed construction of a global

coordinate system in a network of static computational nodes from inter-node

distances,” Kestrel Institute Technical Report, Kestrel Institute, 3260 Hillview Ave.

Palo Alto, CA 94394 , USA, Tech. Rep. KES U 04 04, 2004.

[54] D. J. Torrieri, “Statistical theory of passive location systems.” IEEE

Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems ,vol 20 (2) (1984) 183-198.

[55] D. Niculescu and B. Nath, “Ad hoc positioning system (aps).” IEEE Global

Telecommunications Conference, vol 5 (2001) 2926-2931.

[56] J. Costa, N. Patwari, and A. Hero, “Distributed weightedmultidimensional

scaling for node localization in sensor networks.” ACM vol V , No. N , June 2005

pages 1-26.

[57] V. Dang, V. Le, Y. Lee, and S. Lee, “Distributed push-pull estimation for node

localization in wireless sensor networks.” Journal of Parallel Distributed

Computation, vol 71 (2011) , 471-484.

[58] E. S. Juan Cota-Ruiz, Jose-Gerardo Rosile and P. Rivas-Perea, “A

lowcomplexity geometric bilateration method for localization in wireless sensor

networks and its comparison with least-squares methods.”

www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors Sensors 2012, 12, 839-862 ISSN 1424- 8220.

[59] J.-G. R. Juan Cota-Ruiz and P. Rivas-Perea, “A distributed localization

algorithm for wireless sensor networks based on the solutions of spatially-

constrained local problems.” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 13 , no. 6 , June 2013.

67
[60] S. Basagni and M. Conti, “Mobile ad-hoc networking.” IEEE Press , Wiley

Interscience 2004.

[61] A. Ihler, J. Fisher, R. Moses, and A. Willsky, “Nonparametric belief

propagation for self-localization of sensor networks.” IEEE Journal On Selected

Areas in Communications, vol. 23, no. 4, April 2005.

[62] P. Vorst, “Indoor positioning via three different rf technologies.” European

Workshop on RFID Systems and Technologies, 2009 , Tubingen, Germany.

[63] J. Lien, U. J. Ferner, W. Srichavengsup, H. Wymeersch, and M. Z. Win, “A

comparison of parametric and sample-based message representation in cooperative

localization.” International Journal of Navigation and Observation, vol. 2012, article

ID 281592.

[64] O. H. Florian Meyer, Erwin Riegler and F. Hlawatsch, “Simultaneous

distributed sensor self-localization and target tracking using belief propagation and

likelihood consensus.” IEEE Asilomar 2012.

[65] T. Cover and J. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory. Wiley, 1991.

[66] A. Gasparri and F. Pascucci, “An interlaced extended information filter for self-

localization in sensor networks.” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 9 ,

no. 10. Oct. 2010.

[67] R. Zhang and F. Hoflinger, “Tdoa-based localization using interacting multiple

model estimator and ultrasonic transmmitter/receiver.” IEEE Transactions on

Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 62, no.8 , Aug. 2013.

[68] C. Raez and A. Taparugssanagorn, “A hexagonal coverage led-id indoor

positioning based on tdoa with extended kalman filter.” IEEE 37th Annual Computer

68
Software and Applications Conference, COMPSAC 2013.

[69] D. Moore, J. Leonard, D. Rus, and S. Teller, “Robust distributed network

localization with noisy range measurements.” Baltimore, MD pp.50-61: Proceedins

of the Second ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems

(SenSys’04), November 2004.

[70] B. Kim, “Miniaturized diffraction based interferometric distance measurement

sensor,” Ph.D. dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, July 2004.

[71] I. Amundson, J. Sallai, X. Koutsoukos, and A. Ledeczi, “Radio interferometric

angle of arrival estimation.” International Journal of Ad Hoc and Ubiquitous

Computing 4(1) 2009.

[72] R. K. Mohan, C. Harrington, T. Sharpe, Z. Barber, and W. Babbitt, “Broadband

multi-emitter signal analysis and direction finding using a dual-port interferometric

photonic spectrum analyzer based on spatialspectral materials.” J. Luminescence ,

vol 133 , 2013.

[73] J. Russell and R. Cohn, Mach Zehnder Interferometer. Bookvika, 2012.

[74] X. Zou, W. Li, W. Pan, B. Luo, L. Yan, and J. Yai, “Photonic approach to the

measurement of time-difference-of-arrigal and angle-of-arrival of a microwave

signal.” Optics Letters, vol. 37, no.4 , Feb 2012.

[75] J. Schmid, M. Volker, T. Gadeke, P. Weber, W. Stork, and K. D. MullerGlaser,

“An approach to infrastructure-independent person localization with an ieee 802.15.4

wsn.” Proc. Int. Indoor Positioning and Indoor Navigation (IPIN) Conference 2010.

[76] H. Liu, H. Darabi, P. Banerjee, and J. Liu, “Survey of wireless indoor

positioning techniques and systems.” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man , and

69
Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews vol.37 2007.

[77] X. Li, “Rss-based location estimation with unknown pathloss model.” Wireless

Communications, IEEE Transactions on, 2006.

[78] K. Lorincz and M. Welsh, “Motetrack a robust, decentralized approach to rf-

based location tracking.” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, vol.11, no. 6, pp489-

503, 2007.

[79] A. Paul and E. Wan, “Rssi-based indoor localization and tracking using sigma-

pointt kalman smoothers.” Selected Topics in Signal Processing, IEEE Journal of ,

vol.3 , no. 5, pp. 860-873, 2009.

[80] K. Whitehouse, C. Karlof, and D. Culler, “A practical evaluation of radio signal

strength for ranging-based localization.” ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and

Communications Review, 2007.

[81] J. Schmid, T. Gaedeke, W. Stork, and K. D. Mueller-Glaser, “On the fusion of

inertial data for signal strength localization.” Proc of the 8th Workshop on

Positioning, Navigation and Communication, 2011.

[82] J. Liu, Q. Wang, J. Wan, and J. Xiong, “Towards real-time indoor localization

in wireless sensor networks.” IEEE 12th International Conference on Computer and

Information Technology, 2012.

[83] S. Lanzisera, “Rf ranging for location awareness,” Ph.D. dissertation, University

of California at Berkeley, May 2009.

[84] S. Lanzisera, D. Zats, and K. Pister, “Radio frequency time-of-flight distance

measurement for low-cost wireless sensor localization.” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol

11, no.3, March 2011.

70
[85] H. Will, S. Pfeiffer, S. Adler, T. Hillebrandt, and J. Schiller, “Distance

measurement in wireless sensor networks with low cost components.” International

Conference on Indoor Positioning and Indoor Navigation (IPIN), September 2011.

[86] N. Corp., “Nanotron company website http://www.nanotron.com,” 2013.

[87] T. Gadeke, “A bi-modal ad-hoc localization scheme for wireless network based

on rss and tof fusion,” ITIV Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany. IEEE

Conference, 2013.

[88] R. Fontana, E. Richley, and J. Barney, “Commercialization of an ultra wideband

precision asset location system.” Proc. of IEEE Conference on Ultra Wideband

Systems and Technologies, Nov. 2003.

[89] B. Thorbjornsen, N. White, A. Brown, and J. S. Reeve, “Radio frequency (rf)

time-of-flight ranging for wireless sensor networks.” IEEE Conference 2009.

[90] T. Instruments, “Cc2430dk texas instruments development kit,”

www.tedss.com, Tech. Rep., 2014, website accessed in August 2014.

[91] B. Engineering, Long Range Radar LRR3 EN V05 Final Report, Bosch Corp.,

www.bosch-engineering.de, 2014.

[92] I. Amundson, “Spatio-temporal awareness in mobile wireless sensor networks,”

Ph.D. dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Graduate School, 2010.

[93] IEEE, “Css technology white paper ieeep802.15.” IEEE 802.15 Working Group

for Wireless Personal Area Networks, 2003.

[94] Y. Chan and K. Ho, “A simple and efficient estimate for hyperbolic location.”

IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 42, no. 8, pp.1905-1915, 1994.

[95] Y. Chao, J. Fang, and X. Luo, “Constrained least-squares and wireless location

71
based on tdoa measurements.” Chinese Journal of Radio Science, vol. 23, no.5 ,

pp.841-846 , 2008.

[96] U. Corp, “Ubisense company website www.ubisense.net,” 2010.

[97] J. Ash and L. Potter, “Sensor network localization via received signal strength

measurements with directional antennas.” Monticello, IL Sept 2004: Proc. 42nd

Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing, 2004.

[98] C. Medina, “A synchronous tdma ultrasonic tof measurement system for low-

power wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and

Measurement, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 599 – 611, March 2013.

[99] Y. Zhao and J. Smith, “A battery-free rfid-based indoor acoustic localization

platform.” IEEE Interfnational Confeence on RFID 2013.

[100] H. C. Chen, A.M.Ali, “Design and testing of robust acoustic arrays for

localization and enhancement of several bird sources.” Proc. Information Processing

in Sensor Networks, pp.268-275 , 2006.

[101] J. Chen, K. Yao, and R. Hudson, “Source localization and beamforming.”

IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol 19(2):30-39 , 2002.

[102] P. Stoica and R. Moses, Spectral Analysis of Signals. Prentice Hall, 2005.

[103] M. Saad and C. Bleakley, “High-accuracy reference-free ultrasonic location

estimation.” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , vol. 61 , no.

6, June 2012.

[104] J. Seiter, M. Hofbauer, M. Davidovic, and H. Zimmermann, “Fpga based time-

of-flight 3d camera characterization system.” IEEE Sensors Conference 2013

[105] M. Davidovic and J. Seiter, “A background light resistant tof range finder with

72
integrated pin photodiode in 0.35 um cmos.” SPIE Opt. Metr. 2013 , 13-16 , May

2013.

[106] C. Niclass, C. Favi, T. Kluter, F. Monnier, and E. Charbon, “Singlephoton

synchronous detection.” IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits, vol. 44 , no. 7 , July 2009.

[107] C. Niclass, M. Soga, H. Matsubara, M. Ogawa, and M. Kagami, “A 0.18 um

cmos soc for a 100m-range 10fps 200x96-pixel time-offlight depth sensor.” IEEE

2013 International Solid-State Circuits Conference.

[108] C. Niclass, M. Soga, H. Matsubara, and S. Kato, “A 100m-range 10- frame/s

340x96-pixel time-of-flight depth sensor in 0.18 um cmos.” IEEE ESSCIRC , pp.

107-110, Sept. 2011.

[109] C. Niclass, K. Ito, M. Soga, H. Matsubara, I. Aoyagi, S. Kato, and M. Kagami,

“Design and characterization of a 256x64-pixel singlephoton imager in cmos for a

mems-based laser scanning time-of-flight sensor.” Opt. Express, vol. 20, pp.11863-

11881, 2012.

[110] D. Piatti, “Time-of-flight cameras : tests , calibration and multi-frame

registration for automatic 3d object reconstruction,” Ph.D. dissertation, Politecnico

di Torino, 2010.

[111] C. Veerappan, “A 160x128 single-photon image sensor with on-pixel 55ps 10b

time-to-digital converter.” ISSCC Digest of Technical papers, 2011.

[112] K. Romer, “The lighthouse location system for smart dust.” MobiSys

Conference 2003, San Francisco, USA, May 2003.

[113] P. Inc., Laser Range Finder 28044 ; Laser Diode and CMOS camera (detector),

Parallax Inc., 2012.

73
[114] S. Inc., OD Mini Prime Laser Distance Sensor product datasheet, SICK

Sensors - Short Range Distance Sensors, http://www.sick.com, 2014.

[115] H. Inc., UTM-30LX laser range detector product datasheet,

http://www.hokuyo-aut.jp accessed on Oct. 26 2014 , Hokuyo Robotics.

[116] R. Salomon, M. Schneider, and D. Wehden, “Low-cost optical indoor

localization system for mobile objects without image processing.” IEEE Conference

Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation, ETFA 2006.

[117] C. W. Bac, T. E. Grift, and G. Menezes, “Development of a tabletop guidance

system for educational robots.” American Society of Agricultural and Biological

Engineers, vol. 27 (5) pp.829-838, 2011.

[118] B. Jahne, Digital Image Processing, Springer, Ed. Springer, 2005.

[119] S. Linga, “An optical external localization system and applications to indoor

tracking.” IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robotics and Systems ,

Nice, France, Sept 22-26 2008, 2008.

[120] M. Islam and R. Klukas, “Indoor positioning through integration of optical

angles or arrival with an inertial measurement unit.” IEEE GNSS Conference 2012.

[121] D. O’Brien, W. W. Yuan, J. J. Liu, G. E. Faulkner, S. J. Elston, S. Collins, and

L. A. Parry-Jones, “Optical wireless communications for micromachines.” Proc.

SPIE Free-Space Laser Communications, VI , vol. 6304 , pp 63041 A1 - A8 , 2006.

[122] D. O’Brien, J. Liu, G. Faulkner, S. Sivathasan, W. Yuan, S. Collins, and S.

Elston, “Design and implementation of optical wireless communications with

optically powered smart dust motes,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in

Communications, vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 1646–1653, Dec 2009.

74
[123] Y. Lee, S. Bang, I. Lee, Y. Kim, G. Kim, M. H. Ghaed, P. Pannuto, P. Dutta,

D. Sylvester, and D. Blaauw, “A modular 1 mm3 die-stacked sensing platform with

low power i2c inter-die communication and multi-modal energy harvesing.” IEEE

Journal of Solid-State Circuites, vol 48 , no. 1, Jan 2013.

[124] V. Milanovic, A. Kasturi, N. Siu, M. Radojicic, and Y.Su, “Memseye for

optical 3d tracking and imaging applications.” IEEE Transducers Conference, June

5-9, 2011, Beijing, China

75