| Literature DB >> 27258270 |
Robin E Kim1, Kirill Mechitov2, Sung-Han Sim3, Billie F Spencer4, Junho Song5.
Abstract
Structural health monitoring (SHM) using wireless smart sensors (WSS) has the potential to provide rich information on the state of a structure. However, because of their distributed nature, maintaining highly robust and reliable networks can be challenging. Assessing WSS network communication quality before and after finalizing a deployment is critical to achieve a successful WSS network for SHM purposes. Early studies on WSS network reliability mostly used temporal signal indicators, composed of a smaller number of packets, to assess the network reliability. However, because the WSS networks for SHM purpose often require high data throughput, i.e., a larger number of packets are delivered within the communication, such an approach is not sufficient. Instead, in this study, a model that can assess, probabilistically, the long-term performance of the network is proposed. The proposed model is based on readily-available measured data sets that represent communication quality during high-throughput data transfer. Then, an empirical limit-state function is determined, which is further used to estimate the probability of network communication failure. Monte Carlo simulation is adopted in this paper and applied to a small and a full-bridge wireless networks. By performing the proposed analysis in complex sensor networks, an optimized sensor topology can be achieved.Entities:
Keywords: high-throughput data transfer; network communication reliability; probabilistic assessment; structural health monitoring; wireless sensor networks
Year: 2016 PMID: 27258270 PMCID: PMC4934218 DOI: 10.3390/s16060792
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Illustration of a wireless network.
Figure 2Application test under identical communication circumstances.
Radio test setup.
| Setup | Number |
|---|---|
| Number of lead nodes | 3 |
| Distance from a gateway (m) | 5 |
| Packets sent in each trial | 100 |
| Number of trials | 500 |
Figure 3Relationships among PRR, RSSI, and LQI: (a) RSSI-LQI-PRR; (b) RSSI-PRR; and (c) LQI-PRR.
Figure 4Relationships of RSSI and LQI in comparison between single and multiple packets being used in the communication.
Figure 5Regression of PRR: (a) RSSI-PRR; (b) LQI-PRR; and (c) RSSI-LQI-PRR relationship.
Figure 6Histogram and suggested PDFs: (a) RSSI; and (b) LQI.
Figure 7Small-scale test topology.
Figure 8MCS results; (a) Probability of failure (P); and (b) c.o.v. ().
MCS results.
| Distance from the Base Station (m) | |
|---|---|
| 15 | 7.712 |
| 30 | 20.130 |
| 45 | 28.551 |
Figure 9Jindo Bridge WSS networks layout.
Figure 10Illustration of the (a) Base station and (b) Wireless node.
Figure 11Sensor topology used for WSS networks reliability assessment.
MCS results.
| 0.086 | 0.135 | 0.048 | 0.436 | ||
| 0.018 | 2.956 | 0.060 | 0.285 | ||
| 0.046 | 0.458 | 0.005 | 30.596 | ||
| 0.044 | 0.478 | 0.035 | 0.009 | ||
| 0.040 | 0.653 | 0.051 | 0.075 | ||
| 0.041 | 0.569 | 0.033 | 0.009 |