| Literature DB >> 25769049 |
Mónica Vallejo1, Joaquín Recas2, José L Ayala3.
Abstract
In wireless body sensor network (WBSNs), the human body has an important effect on the performance of the communication due to the temporal variations caused and the attenuation and fluctuation of the path loss. This fact suggests that the transmission power must adapt to the current state of the link in a way that it ensures a balance between energy consumption and packet loss. In this paper, we validate our two transmission power level policies (reactive and predictive approaches) using the Castalia simulator. The integration of our experimental measurements in the simulator allows us to easily evaluate complex scenarios, avoiding the difficulties associated with a practical realization. Our results show that both schemes perform satisfactorily, providing overall energy savings of 24% and 22% for a case of study, as compared to the maximum transmission power mode.Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25769049 PMCID: PMC4435113 DOI: 10.3390/s150305914
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Node location and anthropometric measurements.
Descriptive statistics of anthropometric and body composition variables.
| Upper Arm Length (UAL) (cm) | 28 | 31 | 33 | 35 | 38 | 4 | 0.09 | 2.18 |
| Lower Arm Length (LAL) (cm) | 22 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 30 | 2 | 0.06 | 2.67 |
| Upper Leg Length (ULL) (cm) | 44 | 48 | 53 | 54 | 63 | 6 | 0.27 | 2.74 |
| Lower Leg Length (LLL) (cm) | 37 | 40.5 | 43 | 45 | 51 | 4.5 | 0.33 | 2.27 |
| Mid-upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) (cm) | 23 | 28 | 30 | 32 | 37 | 4 | 0.04 | 2.62 |
| Lower Arm Circumference (LAC) (cm) | 22 | 25 | 27 | 28 | 33 | 3 | 0.42 | 2.98 |
| Thigh Circumference (TC) (cm) | 35 | 39 | 41 | 44 | 50 | 5 | 0.25 | 2.97 |
| Muscle Mass (MM) (kg) | 34 | 44.5 | 57.2 | 61.6 | 77.8 | 17 | −0.18 | 2.10 |
| Bone Mass (BM) (kg) | 1.9 | 2.4 | 3 | 3.22 | 4 | 0.8 | −0.20 | 2.02 |
| Body Fat Mass (BFM) (%) | 5.8 | 16.6 | 23.9 | 29.7 | 42.2 | 13 | 0.095 | 2.67 |
| Body Fat Mass of Arm (BFMA) (%) | 5.1 | 14.9 | 20.4 | 30.2 | 45.4 | 15.3 | 0.302 | 2.33 |
| Body Fat Mass of Leg (BFML) (%) | 6.2 | 13.4 | 19.6 | 30.6 | 45.3 | 17.1 | 0.434 | 2.12 |
| Muscle Mass of Arm (MMA) (kg) | 1.4 | 2.1 | 3.2 | 3.7 | 4.5 | 1.6 | −0.38 | 1.89 |
| Muscle Mass of Leg (MML) (kg) | 6 | 7.6 | 10.2 | 11.1 | 13.6 | 3.5 | −0.27 | 1.97 |
| Body Mass Index (BMI) (kg/m2) | 19.7 | 22.2 | 23.8 | 28.5 | 33.1 | 6.3 | 0.514 | 2.12 |
| Total Body Water (TBW) (%) | 43.5 | 51.7 | 55.4 | 59.5 | 67.6 | 7.7 | 0.115 | 2.59 |
| Visceral Fat Level (VFL) | 1 | 1.75 | 4 | 7 | 13 | 5.2 | 0.807 | 2.65 |
Correlations between anthropometric and body composition variables: weak correlation; moderate correlation; strong correlation.
| 0.25 | |||||||||||
| 0.13 | |||||||||||
| 0.77 | 0.23 | ||||||||||
| 0.00 | 0.18 | ||||||||||
| 0.56 | 0.80 | 0.49 | |||||||||
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||||
| −0.34 | −0.00 | −0.22 | −0.13 | ||||||||
| 0.04 | 1.00 | 0.20 | 0.45 | ||||||||
| −0.37 | −0.16 | −0.22 | −0.24 | 0.96 | |||||||
| 0.02 | 0.34 | 0.20 | 0.16 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 0.64 | 0.63 | 0.43 | 0.77 | −0.45 | −0.55 | ||||||
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 0.63 | 0.63 | 0.42 | 0.77 | −0.45 | −0.54 | 1.00 | |||||
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 0.23 | −0.11 | 0.09 | −0.02 | 0.97 | −0.92 | 0.30 | 0.29 | ||||
| 0.18 | 0.52 | 0.61 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.08 | ||||
| 0.12 | 0.54 | 0.07 | 0.50 | 0.30 | 0.15 | 0.38 | 0.36 | −0.35 | |||
| 0.49 | 0.00 | 0.70 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.39 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.03 | |||
| 0.02 | 0.69 | 0.06 | 0.54 | 0.40 | 0.26 | 0.45 | 0.45 | −0.53 | 0.65 | ||
| 0.91 | 0.00 | 0.72 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.12 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||
| 0.59 | 0.64 | 0.40 | 0.75 | −0.54 | −0.65 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.40 | 0.31 | 0.40 | |
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.02 |
Link quality estimator models based on ANFIS (Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System) (A-LQE) for both links with the training dataset.
| L1 | Ptx /BPosition /BFM/MUAC | 5.38 | 0.84 | 4.21 |
| L2 | Ptx/BPosition/LLL | 4.66 | 0.85 | 3.6 |
Figure 2.Reactive algorithm for the transmission power control.
Figure 3.RSSI prediction-based transmission power control approach for Link 1.
Simulation parameters.
| 52 s | CC2420 | 2.4 GHz | MAC 802.15.4 | 25 bytes | 3 | Node 0 | Throughput test |
Figure 4.RSSI behavior using the path loss default file of Castalia vs. the path loss file from the experimental dataset.
Simulation results for the reactive algorithm in the best case. PER, packet error rate. Transmission Power Levels (TPL) , node 1 (n1) and node 2 (n2).
| Optimal | −5 dBm | −15 dBm | −78 dBm | −70 dBm | 29% | 5.6% | 1.4% |
| Not Optimal | −2 dBm | −15 dBm | −74 dBm | −70 dBm | 23% | 5.5% | 1.4% |
Figure 5.Energy savings and packet error rate for the case study.
Simulation results for the case study. Transmission Power Levels (TPL) , node 1 (n1) and node 2 (n2).
| Reactive Optimal | −5 dBm | −10 dBm | −71 dBm | −74 dBm | 24% | 5.1% | 3.3% |
| Predictive | −3 dBm | −11 dBm | −71 dBm | −73 dBm | 22% | 3.7% | 3.2% |
Figure 6.Transmission power and associated RSSI under maximal, reactive and predictive schemes.