Movement-Assisted Sensor Deployment and Sensor Relocation

Guiling Wang, Dr. Guohong Cao, and Dr. Tom La Porta

(guiwang, gcao, tlp@cse.psu.edu)

Motivation
• Coverage!! • Deploying more static sensors cannot • Sensor failure • New event or new interest
solve the problem due to wind or obstacles
Coverage under random deployment Coverage under clustering

Become strategic area

Solution: utilizing Mobile Sensor!

Sensor Deployment Sensor Relocation

direct the movement of sensors to increase coverage Objectives:
General idea: detecting coverage hole  move to heal the hole • Least affect to applications (topology)
• Short relocation time
Coverage Hole Detection • Energy efficient and load-balanced
Coverage hole detection:
Utilizing Voronoi diagram: Only check local Voronoi cell Solution: Discover redundant sensors  only
• Composed by the bisectors of neighbor sensors move the redundant sensors and cascading (relay)
• Each point in a Voronoi cell is closer to the sensors if needed
sensor in this cell than any other sensors
Redundant Sensor Discovery
sensing range
• If the sensor can not detect the events happened
in its Voronoi cell , no other sensors can
• Organize sensors in one grid into a cluster
• Cluster head detects redundant sensors and maintains
All the sensors are mobile the information Supply quorum

Coverage hole exists? GridQuorum system

Calculate the target location
(by VEC, VOR or Minimax) • demand quorum:
grids in a column
Move
• supply quorum:
grids in a row
VEC VOR Minimax • need sensor: search
• Motivated by the attributes of • Move towards the farthest Move to where the distance demand quorum
electrical particles Voronoi vertex to the farthest voronoi • have redundant
• Virtual force pushes sensors • Avoid moving oscillation: stop vertex is minimized sensor: notify supply
away from dense area for one round if move backwards quorum Demand quorum
M
B
N
A A
B B
B
M M M Movement Arrangement
B B
C C N
Redundant
Why cascading movement?
sensor

A mix of mobile and static sensors

Why mixed: tradeoff between coverage and sensor cost Direct movement has long relocation time and
overuses the redundant sensor
Bidding Protocol Initialization Service advertisement
• Mobile sensor: hole-healing server Strategy: make a cascading schedule  move
– Base price:the coverage hole • Static sensor: Mobile sensor: following the schedule (movement is more costly
– broadcast location • Broadcast than communication!)
generated by their leaving
• Static sensor: bidder • Mobile sensor <base price,location> Redundant
– Bids: estimated size of the detected – base price = 0 Which cascading schedule?
sensor Good!
coverage hole
Bidding
Serving Static sensor:
Mobile sensor: • Send <bid, target location> Much more energy consumption
• Choose the highest bid to the closest mobile
• Move sensor Goals:
• Base price= accepted bid • Bid > base price
• satisfy the requirement of relocation delay
• minimize the difference between total energy
Base price increases monotonically and consumption and minimum remaining energy
protocol stops naturally when no Approach:
bidding message is flying • distributed implementation of dynamic
programming
Tradeoff between Sensor Cost and Coverage
Money needed for certain Coverage • Guiling Wang, Guohong Cao, and Tom La Porta, “Movement-
Sensor needed for
(Static sensor: $1; Mobile sensor: $n)
Mobile Algorithm certain Coverage
$ for 90% coverage $ for 98% coverage
Assisted Sensor Deployment”, IEEE INFOCOM’04, March 2004.
percentage tested • Guiling Wang, Guohong Cao, and Tom La Porta, “A Bidding
All mobile VEC Protocol for Sensor Deployment”, IEEE ICNP’03, Nov., 2003.
• Guiling Wang, Guohong Cao, and Tom La Porta, “Sensor
10%~50% Bidding
Relocation in Mobile Sensor Networks”, in submission.
All static Random

Industry Day 2004 @ NET-CENTER.PSU