| Literature DB >> 35111906 |
Pratap S Malik1, Mohamed Abouhawwash2,3, Abdulwahab Almutairi4, Rishi Pal Singh1, Yudhvir Singh5.
Abstract
A large range of applications have been identified based upon the communication of underground sensors deeply buried in the soil. The classical electromagnetic wave (EM) approach, which works well for terrestrial communication in air medium, when applied for this underground communication, suffers from significant challenges attributing to signal absorption by rocks, soil, or water contents, highly varying channel condition caused by soil characteristics, and requirement of big antennas. As a strong alternative of EM, various magnetic induction (MI) techniques have been introduced. These techniques basically depend upon the magnetic induction between two coupled coils associated with transceiver sensor nodes. This paper elaborates on three basic MI communication mechanisms i.e. direct MI transmission, MI waveguide transmission, and 3D coil MI communication with detailed discussion of their working mechanism, advantages and limitations. The comparative analysis of these MI techniques with each other as well as with EM wave method will facilitate the users in choosing the best method to offer enhanced transmission range (upto 250 m), reduced path loss (<100 dB), channel reliability, working bandwidth (1-2 kHz), & omni-directional coverage to realize the promising MI-based wireless underground sensor network (WUSN) applications.Entities:
Keywords: Electromagnetic wave; Magnetic induction; Path loss; Waveguide; Wireless underground sensor networks
Year: 2022 PMID: 35111906 PMCID: PMC8771792 DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.789
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ Comput Sci ISSN: 2376-5992
Figure 1Usage of MI-WUSNs for detection of leakage of water or oil (Sun & Akyildiz, 2012a).
Figure 2Usage of MI-WUSNs for border security applications (Vuran & Akyildiz, 2010).
Figure 3Basic structure of direct MI communication (Tan, Sun & Akyildiz, 2015).
Figure 4Analogy of direct MI communication with a transformer (Sun & Akyildiz, 2010b).
Figure 5Basic structure of MI waveguide technique (Tan, Sun & Akyildiz, 2015).
Figure 6Analogy of MI waveguide technique with transformer (Sun & Akyildiz, 2010b).
Figure 7Basic structure of MI waveguide with 3D coils (Tan, Sun & Akyildiz, 2015).
Comparative analysis of EM wave, direct MI, MI waveguide and 3-D coil MI waveguide communication methods.
| Sr. No | Parameter | EM wave communication | Direct MI communication | MI waveguide | MI waveguide with 3-D coils | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Transmission range | up to 10 m | up to 10 m | up to 250 m | up to 250 m | |
| 2 | Path loss (on low operating frequency, <900 MHz) | Lower (<100 dB) (2nd order function of transmission range) | Higher (>100 dB) (6th order function of transmission range) | Lower (<100 dB even for 250 m distance) | Same as MI waveguide | |
| 3 | Path loss (on high operating frequency, > = 900 MHz) | Increases | Decreases | Decreases | Decreases | |
| 4 | Effect of increasing VWC (by 25 %) on Path Loss | Path loss Increases by 40 dB | Unaffected | Unaffected | Unaffected | |
| 5 | Bandwidth | Higher (In MHz) | Lower (1–2 kHz) | Lower (1–2 kHz) | Lower (1–2 kHz) | |
| 6 | Antenna size | Large | Small (coil of radius <0.1 m) | Same as Direct MI | Same as Direct MI | |
| 7 | Required transmission power | Higher | Higher | Lower (less than 50% of EM and Direct MI) | Same as MI waveguide |
|
| 8 | Channel condition | Unstable | Stable | Stable | Stable |
|
| 9 | Omni directional coverage | No | No | No | Yes |
|