| Literature DB >> 28708093 |
Rodrigo Santos1, Javier Orozco2, Matias Micheletto3, Sergio F Ochoa4, Roc Meseguer5, Pere Millan6, And Carlos Molina7.
Abstract
Underwater sensor networks represent an important and promising field of research due to the large diversity of underwater ubiquitous applications that can be supported by these networks, e.g., systems that deliver tsunami and oil spill warnings, or monitor submarine ecosystems. Most of these monitoring and warning systems require real-time communication in wide area networks that have a low density of nodes. The underwater communication medium involved in these networks is very harsh and imposes strong restrictions to the communication process. In this scenario, the real-time transmission of information is done mainly using acoustic signals, since the network nodes are not physically close. The features of the communication scenario and the requirements of the communication process represent major challenges for designers of both, communication protocols and monitoring and warning systems. The lack of models to represent these networks is the main stumbling block for the proliferation of underwater ubiquitous systems. This paper presents a real-time communication model for underwater acoustic sensor networks (UW-ASN) that are designed to cover wide areas with a low density of nodes, using any-to-any communication. This model is analytic, considers two solution approaches for scheduling the real-time messages, and provides a time-constraint analysis for the network performance. Using this model, the designers of protocols and underwater ubiquitous systems can quickly prototype and evaluate their solutions in an evolving way, in order to determine the best solution to the problem being addressed. The suitability of the proposal is illustrated with a case study that shows the performance of a UW-ASN under several initial conditions. This is the first analytic model for representing real-time communication in this type of network, and therefore, it opens the door for the development of underwater ubiquitous systems for several application scenarios.Entities:
Keywords: MAC protocol; acoustic transmission; submarine ubiquitous applications; underwater monitoring; underwater sensor networks
Year: 2017 PMID: 28708093 PMCID: PMC5539683 DOI: 10.3390/s17071629
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Example of multipath transmission.
Model notation.
| Notation | Description |
|---|---|
| the set of nodes | |
| nodes | |
|
| the set of neighbor nodes of |
|
| the set of edges between |
|
| the slot in which node |
|
| a message from node |
|
| the transmission delay between |
|
| transmission period of message from node |
|
| deadline of message from node |
Figure 25-node network example.
Node/time slot allocation for transmission of messages.
| Node | Time Slots | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| |||
Figure 37-node network example with multipath.
Node/Slot allocation for transmission/reception of messages.
| Node | Slots | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
Worst case messages to be scheduled per node.
| Node | Messages |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Worst case response time per node.
| Message | Nodes | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 55 | 55 | 55 | 55 | 55 | 66 | |
|
| 44 | 44 | 44 | 44 | 44 | 44 | |
|
| 44 | 44 | 44 | 44 | 44 | 44 | |
|
| 44 | 44 | 44 | 44 | 44 | 44 | |
|
| 44 | 44 | 44 | 44 | 44 | 44 | |
|
| 55 | 55 | 55 | 55 | 66 | 55 | |
Worst case end-to-end delay.
| Path | Delay |
|---|---|
|
| 210 |
|
| 275 |
|
| 275 |
|
| 286 |
|
| 407 |
Genetic Algorithm and Exact Solution.
| Instance | ILP | GA | GA Reduced | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L | CT | L | CT | L | CT | |
| I | 19 | 400 | 19 | 0.43 | 14 | 0.63 |
| II | – | ∞ | 12 | 93 | 10 | 2.90 |
| III | 9 | 3100 | 9 | 1.06 | 9 | 1.40 |
| IV | 11 | 100 | 11 | 0.4 | 8 | 0.50 |
| V | 13 | 38,880 | 13 | 0.43 | 10 | 1.00 |
| VI | 14 | 2000 | 14 | 0.58 | 10 | 0.70 |
| VII | 9 | 12,000 | 9 | 2.47 | 9 | 1.08 |
| VIII | 12 | 5000 | 12 | 0.39 | 9 | 0.51 |
Figure 4Different topologies evaluated in the simulations.
Figure 5Example of end-to-end delays over time. (a) Messages from node g to node a; (b) Messages from node d to node b.
Figure 6End-to-end message delays.
Figure 7Sample of end-to-end message delays over time.
Figure 8Sample of node queue length.
Path usage.
| Message | Path | Usage (%) |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| 18% |
|
|
| 82% |
|
|
| 100% |
|
|
| 94% |
|
|
| 6% |
|
|
| 100% |
|
|
| 94% |
|
|
| 6% |
|
|
| 20% |
|
|
| 11% |
|
|
| 69% |
Figure 9End-to-end message delays.
Path usage.
| Metric | None | Uniform 10 | Uniform 2 | Pareto 10 | Pareto 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| packet delivery ratio (PDR) | 1.0 | 0.998 | 0.918 | 1.0 | 0.916 |
| network goodput ratio | 1.0 | 0.998 | 0.918 | 1.0 | 0.916 |
Path usage.
Epidemic, UWOR-based, and Shortest-Path-First (SPF) routing comparison.
| Metric | Epidemic / None | UWOR-Based / None | SPF / None |
|---|---|---|---|
| packet delivery ratio (PDR) | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| network goodput ratio | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
| packet delivery ratio (PDR) | 0.94 | 0.87 | 0.72 |
| network goodput ratio | 0.94 | 0.87 | 0.72 |
Figure 10End-to-end message delays.
Figure 11End-to-end message delays for various frame-lengths.