| Literature DB >> 27999258 |
Ruisong Han1, Wei Yang2, Kaiming You3.
Abstract
Safety production of coalmines is a task of top priority which plays an important role in guaranteeing, supporting and promoting the continuous development of the coal industry. Since traditional wireless sensor networks (WSNs) cannot fully meet the requirements of comprehensive environment monitoring of underground coalmines, wireless multimedia sensor networks (WMSNs), enabling the retrieval of multimedia information, are introduced to realize fine-grained and precise environment surveillance. In this paper, a framework for designing underground coalmine WMSNs based on Multi-Band Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing Ultra-wide Band (MB-OFDM-UWB) is presented. The selection of MB-OFDM-UWB wireless transmission solution is based on the characteristics of underground coalmines. Network structure and design challenges are analyzed first, which is the foundation for further discussion. Then, key supporting technologies and open research areas in different layers are surveyed, and we provide a detailed literature review of the state of the art strategies, algorithms and general solutions in these issues. Finally, other research issues like localization, information processing, and network management are discussed.Entities:
Keywords: multi-band orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (MB-OFDM); network management; ultra-wide band (UWB); underground coalmine; wireless multimedia sensor networks (WMSNs)
Year: 2016 PMID: 27999258 PMCID: PMC5191138 DOI: 10.3390/s16122158
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Network structure of the monitoring system for underground coalmines.
Figure 2The components of a sensor node.
Comparison of UWB, Wi-Fi and ZigBee.
| Parameters | UWB | Wi-Fi | ZigBee |
|---|---|---|---|
| IEEE Standardization | 802.15.3a 1 | 802.11 | 802.15.4 |
| Maximum Transmission distance | Up to 10 m | 200 m | 10–100 m |
| Frequency range | 3.1–10.6 GHz | 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz | 868/915 MHz, 2.4 GHz |
| Data rate | 480 Mbps | 250 Mbps | 250 kb/s |
| Energy consumption | High | High | Low |
| Normalized energy consumption | Low | Low | High |
| Complexity | Medium-High | High | Low |
1 Unapproved draft.
Figure 3Comparison of UWB, Wi-Fi and ZigBee in normalized energy consumption by choosing four typical wireless products from [27].
Comparison summary of UWB techniques.
| Method | Name | Interference | Robustness to Multipath | Performance | Complexity | Achievable Range-Date Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multiband | MB-OFDM | +++ | ++ | +++ | + | +++ |
| IR | DS-UWB | ++ | ++ | +++ | ++ | +++ |
| IR | TH-UWB | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ |
Legend levels: Excellent: +++; Very Good: ++; Good: +.
Figure 4Main research issues for underground coalmine WMSNs.
Figure 5Effective coverage issue for WMSNs of coalmine and the directional adjustable sensing model.
Figure 6Video collaborative localization of miner’s lamp based on WMSNs: (a) localization scene; and (b) camera vision imaging model.