| Literature DB >> 35626606 |
Zhuwei Wang1, Zhicheng Liu1, Lihan Liu2, Chao Fang1, Meng Li1, Jingcheng Zhao3.
Abstract
With the rapid development of wireless sensor technology, recent progress in wireless sensor and actuator networks (WSANs) with energy harvesting provide the possibility for various real-time applications. Meanwhile, extensive research activities are carried out in the fields of efficient energy allocation and control strategy design. However, the joint design considering physical plant control, energy harvesting, and consumption is rarely concerned in existing works. In this paper, in order to enhance system control stability and promote quality of service for the WSAN energy efficiency, a novel three-step joint optimization algorithm is proposed through control strategy and energy management analysis. First, the optimal sampling interval can be obtained based on energy harvesting, consumption, and remaining conditions. Then, the control gain for each sampling interval is derived by using a backward iteration. Finally, the optimal control strategy is determined as a linear function of the current plant states and previous control strategies. The application of UAV formation flight system demonstrates that better system performance and control stability can be achieved by the proposed joint optimization design for all poor, sufficient, and general energy harvesting scenarios.Entities:
Keywords: UAV formation application; energy efficiency; energy harvesting controller; network-induced delay
Year: 2022 PMID: 35626606 PMCID: PMC9142046 DOI: 10.3390/e24050723
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Entropy (Basel) ISSN: 1099-4300 Impact factor: 2.738
Figure 1The architecture of WASN system with energy harvesting controller.
Figure 2Energy harvesting and consumption model for the controller.
Figure 3The UAV formation flight system with an energy harvesting controller.
Figure 4Energy level comparison between fixed and adaptive sampling intervals in the poor energy harvesting condition.
Figure 5The relative distance between the follower and the leader comparisons in the poor energy harvesting condition.
Figure 6Energy level comparison between fixed and adaptive sampling intervals in the sufficient energy harvesting condition.
Figure 7Relative distance between the follower and the leader comparisons in the sufficient energy harvesting condition.
Figure 8Energy level comparison between fixed and adaptive sampling intervals in the general energy harvesting condition.
Figure 9Relative distance between the follower and the leader comparisons in the general energy harvesting condition.