| Literature DB >> 35161747 |
Qinghua Luo1,2,3, Chao Liu1,2, Xiaozhen Yan1,2, Yang Shao1,2, Kexin Yang1,2, Chenxu Wang1,2, Zhiquan Zhou1,2.
Abstract
In wireless sensor networks, due to the significance of the location information of mobile nodes for many applications, location services are the basis of many application scenarios. However, node state and communication uncertainty affect the distance estimation and position calculation of the range-based localization method, which makes it difficult to guarantee the localization accuracy and the system robustness of the distributed localization system. In this paper, we propose a distributed localization method based on anchor nodes selection and particle filter optimization. In this method, we first analyze the uncertainty of error propagation to the least-squares localization method. According to the proportional relation between localization error and uncertainty propagation, anchor nodes are selected optimally in real-time during the movement of mobile nodes. Then we use the ranging and position of the optimally selected anchor nodes to obtain the location information of the mobile nodes. Finally, the particle filter (PF) algorithm is utilized to gain the optimal estimation of the localization results. The experimental evaluation results verified that the proposed method effectively improves the localization accuracy and the robustness of the distributed system.Entities:
Keywords: anchor node optimization; distributed localization; particle filter; wireless sensor networks (WSNs)
Year: 2022 PMID: 35161747 PMCID: PMC8839152 DOI: 10.3390/s22031003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The framework of MSDO-PF and MEPO-PF localization method.
Figure 2The procedure of DS-TWR distance estimation.
Figure 3Anchor nodes and mobile nodes’ path.
Figure 4Procedures of the MSDO and MEPO localization method.
Complexity analysis of the localization methods.
| Methods | RS | MSDO | MEPO |
|---|---|---|---|
| Complexity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Complexity |
|
| |
Figure 5Simulation scenario.
Experimental parameters and values.
| Parameters | Value |
|---|---|
| Scene size | 120 m × 600 m |
| Anchor node number | 10 |
| Mobile node number | 2 |
| Fixed nodes | (20,100), (20,400), (100,100), (100,400) (m) |
| Random anchor nodes | randomly distributed |
| Simulation step | 30 |
| Ranging repeat times | 150 |
| Particle number | 500 |
Figure 6The trajectories of using RS, MSDO, MEPO node selection methods for path 1 and path 2.
Comparison of localization effects of different anchor nodes selection methods in path 1.
| Methods |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| RS | 2.45 | 4.87 |
| MSDO | 2.07 | 4.16 |
| MEPO | 1.18 | 1.13 |
Comparison of localization effects of different anchor nodes selection methods in path 2.
| Methods |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| RS | 2.23 | 3.85 |
| MSDO | 1.83 | 3.25 |
| MEPO | 1.08 | 0.92 |
Figure 7(a) The trajectories of MEPO localization method using PF or not (b) The trajectories of MSDO localization method using PF or not.
Figure 8(a) Localization error of Path 1 using PF or not (b) Localization error of Path 2 using PF or not.
The localization effects of using RS method and particle filter (RS-PF).
| Methods |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Path1 + PF | 0.33 | 0.12 |
| Path2 + PF | 1.34 | 0.51 |
The localization effects of using MSDO method and particle filter (MSDO-PF).
| Methods |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Path1 + PF | 0.35 | 0.13 |
| Path2 + PF | 1.26 | 0.47 |
The localization effects of using MEPO method and particle filter (MEPO-PF).
| Methods |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Path1 + PF | 0.28 | 0.05 |
| Path2 + PF | 0.05 | 0.48 |
Figure 9(a) The calculation time of MSDO using PF or not (b) The calculation time of MEPO using PF or not.
Comparison of the positioning simulation time.
| Methods | RS | MSDO | MEPO | MSDO-PF | MEPO-PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time(s) | 0.0002 | 0.0687 | 0.0688 | 0.1286 | 0.1279 |