ipsn 2011 sean
DESCRIPTION
Is There Light at the Ends of the Tunnel? Wireless Sensor Networks for Adaptive Lighting in Road Tunnels. IPSN 2011 Sean. Outline. Goal Challenge Contribution System Architecture Hardware & Software Testbed Evaluation Conclusion. Goal. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Is There Light at the Ends of the Tunnel?Wireless Sensor Networks for Adaptive Lighting in Road
Tunnels
IPSN 2011
Sean
Outline
• Goal • Challenge• Contribution• System Architecture• Hardware & Software• Testbed• Evaluation• Conclusion
Goal• WSN-based Close-loop adaptive lighting in road tunnel
– Improve tunnel safety– Reduce power consumption
• State-of-the-art solutions– Pre-set lighting based on date and time– Relying only on external sensor
• Testbed evaluation• Real deployment
– Project TRITon– 630m, two-way, two-lane tunnel
Challenge• Peculiarities of Tunnels
– harsh environment, relatively studied on WSN– Vehicular traffic– dirt and dust accumulation– Periodic tunnel cleaning– Limited deployment & debugging– Light variation
• Need filtering
– Better connectivity• Robustness • Packet collision
o. Interference with WSN radioo. Occlusion & noise to light sensor
direct sunlight
Variation caused by vehicle
Challenge
• Real-world constraints– Extended lifetime : at least 1-year by tunnel operators– WSN cannot fail due to continuous operation– Sensed data must arrive timely– Quality of sensing– Integration with conventional, industrial-strength equipment
Contribution• Verify WSN-based solution to adaptive lighting is feasible• Understand what extent the mainstream WSN technology can
achieve• Real testbed implement• Gaining practical insight into tunnel scenario– Real-world lesson asset
System Architecture• 3 components
– An external sensor
– A grid of light sensor along the tunnel length
– A control algorithm
Measure the veil luminance
Compute error between legislated curve and actual lighting
Drive above error to zero
Determine the legislated curve
HPS in TestbedLED for project
Hardware & Software
• Collection tree– Use LQI as path cost – Periodically reconstructed every 3min
• Light Sensing– Average 4 sensor value into S(i)– Average all S(i) into S(all)– if |S(all) – S(i)| differs from S(all) by
50%, discard it– Recompute S(all)
Testbed• 40 nodes, 260m-long, two-way, two-lane tunnel• PLC relies only on first 15 node• 7-month experiments• More dense than TRITon
– 44 nodes, 630m• Light sensor sample every 5s, PLC collects data every 30s
Evaluation
• Light adaptive effect• Loss rate• Timely delivery• Resilience to gateway failures• Retransmission cost• Expected lifetime
Light adaptive effect• Artificial step response
• Node position relative to lamps bears great influence• Behavior of other node is closer to node 7 than node 4
Still follow the reference trend
Light adaptive effect• Real-world reference
Bound by the dynamic range of light actuatorOnly 150 lx maximum
Loss rateTime spent transmitting and waiting for receiver to wake up becomes significant
Timely delivery
30~60s:PLC may loss a sample in its cycle
> 60s:PLC will loss more than one sample in its cycle
Resilience to gateway failures
Retransmission cost
Expected lifetime
• Battery discharge profile– Temperature– Voltage– Discharge current
• Underestimate– Use average discharge current of
100mA– LPL-like MAC only consume a few mA
• 250ms LPL is better– Power consumed in channel check– Packet strobe time
Trade-off
Conclusion
• Reach the goal of close-loop adaptive lighting• Provide real-world insights and experience by
using WSN in road tunnel
Any Problem?