| Literature DB >> 30274276 |
Biao Zhou1, Deockhyeon Ahn2, Jungpyo Lee3, Chao Sun4, Sabbir Ahmed5, Youngok Kim6.
Abstract
Target tracking technologies in wireless sensor network (WSNs) environments fall into two categories: active and passive schemes. Unlike with the active positioning schemes, in which the targets are required to hold cooperative devices, the research on passive tracking, i.e., tracking device-free targets, has recently showed promise. In the WSN, device-free targets can be tracked by sensing radio frequency tomography (RFT) on the line-of-sight links (LOSLs). In this paper, we propose a passive tracking scheme exploiting both adaptive-networking LOSL webs and geometric constraint methodology for tracking single targets, as well as multiple targets. Regarding fundamental knowledge, we firstly explore the spatial diversity technique for RFT detection in realistic situations. Then, we analyze the power consumption of the WSN and propose an adaptive networking scheme for the purpose of energy conservation. Instead of maintaining a fixed LOSL density, the proposed scheme can adaptively adjust the networking level to save energy while guaranteeing tracking accuracy. The effectiveness of the proposed scheme is evaluated with computer simulations. According to the results, it is observed that the proposed scheme can sufficiently reduce power consumption, while providing qualified tracking performance.Entities:
Keywords: adaptive networking; geometric constraint; multiple targets; passive tracking; radio frequency tomography
Year: 2018 PMID: 30274276 PMCID: PMC6209868 DOI: 10.3390/s18103276
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Environment and sketch of RFT detection experiments.
Figure 2Diversity RSS fusion for RFT identification (RSS sampling rate: 10 Hz).
Figure 3A scenario for the CP estimation of the LOSLs according to triggering sequence and time period.
Figure 4Scenarios for two cases of two targets. For the first case, it is possible to uniquely distinguish the two trajectories separately, while predicaments will happen in the second case.
Figure 5Illustration for eliminating the fake Explanation 1 and 2 using the later triggering sequence information.
Figure 6Required power for the transmitter to guarantee RFT detection in terms of the LOSL distance.
Figure 7Three topical levels of the proposed adjustable networking scheme (N = 3, 5, 9).
Figure 8Flow chart of proposed adaptive networking scheme for tracking device-free targets.
Level classification of the WSN with 32 nodes.
| Level | Number of Active Nodes | Nodes Set |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | 8 |
|
| 4 | 12 |
|
| 5 | 16 |
|
| 6 | 20 |
|
| 7 | 24 |
|
| 8 | 28 |
|
| 9 | 32 |
|
Figure 9Tracking results under different levels.
Figure 10Error statistics under Levels 3, 5 and 9.
Passive tracking performance comparison.
| Tracking Scheme | Hardware Cost ① | Variance | Mean Error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proposed Method (Level 5) | 0.0625 nodes/m2 | 0.035 m2 | 0.199 m |
| NOOLR Method | 0.0726 nodes/m2 | 0.037 m2 | 0.214 m |
| RTI Method | 0.0726 nodes/m2 | 0.130 m2 | 0.251 m |
① Note that the performance data of NOOLR and RTI are quoted from the Ref. [16], in which the node interval is 3 m, monitored by 21-by-21 m2 area, while Level 5 of proposed method is implemented in a 16-by-16 m2 area when the node interval is 4 m.
Figure 11Root-mean-square error (RMSE) and the power consumption at each level.
Figure 12(a) A specific multitarget tracking scenario in the WSN. (b) The energy saving in the adaptive network, relative to the traditional network.