| Literature DB >> 32485923 |
Roddy A R Antayhua1,2, Maicon D Pereira1,3, Nestor C Fernandes4, Fernando Rangel de Sousa1.
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a methodology to use the received signal strength indicator (RSSI) available by the protocol stack of an installed Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) at an electric-power-system environment (EPS) as a tool for obtaining the characteristic of its communication channel. Thereby, it is possible to optimize the settings and configuration of the network after its deployment, which is usually run empirically without any previous knowledge of the channel. A study case of a hydroelectric power plant is presented, where measurements recorded over a two-month period were analyzed and treated to obtain the large-scale characteristics of the radiofrequency channel at 2.4 GHz. In addition, we showed that instantaneous RSSI data can also be used to detect specific issues in the network, such as repetitive patterns in the transmitted power level of the nodes, and information about its environment, such as the presence of external sources of electromagnetic interference. As a result, we demonstrate the practical use of the RSSI long-term data generated by the WSN for its own performance optimization and the detection of particular events in an EPS or any similar industrial environment.Entities:
Keywords: EMI; IIoT; RF channel model; RSSI; WSN; power plants
Year: 2020 PMID: 32485923 PMCID: PMC7308897 DOI: 10.3390/s20113076
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) installed in a hydroelectric power plant.
Description of the nodes in the WSN.
| Radio | Function | Location |
|---|---|---|
| RC | Coordinator | Office room at the central building |
| R1 | Relay | Barrage |
| R2 | Transformer temperature monitor | Transformer |
| R3 | Relay | Central building |
| R4 | Relay | Barrage |
| R5 | Barrage water-level monitor | Barrage |
| R6 | Well water-level monitor | Central building |
Distance (in meters) between the radios installed in the power plant.
| RC | R1 | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 | R6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RC | - | 63.8 | 62.3 | 28.9 | 32.9 | 104 | 29.6 |
| R1 | 63.8 | - | 48.7 | 51.6 | 33.7 | 44.1 | 53.6 |
| R2 | 62.3 | 48.7 | - | 33.5 | 58.9 | 77.9 | 35.7 |
| R3 | 28.9 | 51.6 | 33.5 | - | 40.2 | 90.1 | 5.1 |
| R4 | 32.9 | 33.7 | 58.9 | 40.2 | - | 74.9 | 43.1 |
| R5 | 104 | 44.1 | 77.9 | 90.1 | 74.9 | - | 90.8 |
| R6 | 29.6 | 53.6 | 35.7 | 5.1 | 43.1 | 90.8 | - |
Figure 2Channel modeling methodology. RSSI = received signal strength indicator; LOS = line-of-sight; NLOS = non-line-of-sight.
Figure 3Instantaneous RSSI from the neighbors reported by each radio in a week period.
Figure 4The topology of the mesh network extracted from RSSI measurements shown in Figure 3.
Figure 5RSSI data corresponding to each radio as seen by its neighbors.
Figure 6Path loss measurements points over distance of the radio pairs and linear regression fittings during different weeks over the first month of measurements.
Figure 7Daily variation of the path-loss coefficient (n) over two months of measurements.
Path loss and shadowing deviation results obtained from the RSSI data.
| Month 1 | Month 2 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Week 4 | Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Week 4 | |
|
| 4.06 | 3.09 | 3.11 | 2.91 | 5.1 | 5.9 | 6.03 | 7.03 |
| 4.79 | 5.28 | 4.22 | 2.92 | 4.33 | 3.85 | 4.56 | 5.2 | |
Averaged cross-correlation coefficients obtained for all radios, as described by Equation (6).
| Radios | RC | R1 | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 | R6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.74 | 0.4 | 0.24 | 0.25 | 0.3 | 0.09 | 0.43 |
Figure 8Curves showing the relation between the temperature response of one of the transformers (black line for interpolation and crosses for measurements) in the plant registered by radio R2 and the envelope (blue line) of the instantaneous RSSI of radio R6 registered by radio R4 (pink line).