Mobile Networks and Applications

, Volume 14, Issue 5, pp 556–570 | Cite as

Optimal 3-Coverage with Minimum Separation Requirements for Ubiquitous Computing Environments

  • Jung-Eun Kim
  • Junghee Han
  • Chang-Gun LeeEmail author


Sensors have been increasingly used for many ubiquitous computing applications such as asset location monitoring, visual surveillance, and human motion tracking. In such applications, it is important to place sensors such that every point of the target area can be sensed by more than one sensor. Especially, many practical applications require 3-coverage for triangulation, 3D hull building, and etc. Also, in order to extract meaningful information from the data sensed by multiple sensors, those sensors need to be placed not too close to each other—minimum separation requirement. To address the 3-coverage problem with the minimum separation requirement, our recent work  (Kim et al. 2008) proposes two heuristic methods, so called, overlaying method and TRE-based method, which complement each other depending on the minimum separation requirement. For these two methods, we also provide mathematical analysis that can clearly guide us when to use the TRE-based method and when to use the overlaying method and also how many sensors are required. To make it self-contained, in this paper, we first revisit the two heuristic methods. Then, as an extension, we present an ILP-based optimal solution targeting for grid coverage. With this ILP-based optimal solution, we investigate how much close the two heuristic methods are to the optimal solution. Finally, this paper discusses the impacts of the proposed methods on real-deployed systems using two example sensor systems. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that systematically addresses the 3-coverage problem with the minimum separation requirement.


sensor placement 3-coverage minimum separation requirement ubiquitous computing 



This work was supported by the IT R&D program of MKE/IITA [2008-F-045-01].


  1. 1.
    Bai X, Kumar S, Yun Z, Xuan D, Lai TH (2006) Deploying wireless sensors to achieve both coverage and connectivity. In: Proceedings of ACM MobiHoc, Florence, May 2006, pp 131–142Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cardei M, Wu J, Lu M, Pervaiz MO (2005) Maximum network lifetime in wireless sensor networks with adjustable sensing ranges. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on wireless and mobile computing, networking and communications (WiMob), Montreal, August 2005Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chakrabarty K, Iyengar SS, Qi H, Cho E (2002) Grid coverage for surveillance and target location in distributed sensor networks. IEEE Trans Comput 51(12):1448–1453CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Crossbow (2004) MCS Cricket Series (MCS410).
  5. 5.
    Dhillon SS, Chakrabarty K (2003) Sensor placement for effective coverage and surveillance in distributed sensor networks. In: Proceedings of IEEE wireless communications and networking conference (WCNC), IEEE, Piscataway, pp 1609–1614Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Esteban CH, Schmitt F (2002) Multi-stereo 3D object reconstruction. In: Proceedings of the first international symposium on 3D data processing visualization and transmission (3DPVT), Padova, June 2002, pp 159–166Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garey MR, Johnson DS (1979) A guide to the theory of NP-completeness: a guide to the theory of NP-completeness. Freeman, NashvillezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hefeeda M, Bagheri M (2007) Randomized k-coverage algorithms for dense sensor networks. In: Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM. IEEE, Piscataway, pp 2376–2380Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heo N, Varshney P (2003) A distributed self spreading algorithm for mobile wireless sensor networks. In: Wireless communications and networking (WCNC), New Orleans, 16–20 March 2003Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Howard A, Mataric MJ, Sukhatme GS (2002) An incremental self-deployment algorithm for mobile sensor networks. Auton Robots 13(2):113–126zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huang CF, Tseng YC (2003) The coverage problem in a wireless sensor network. In: Proceedings of ACM workshop on wireless sensor networks and applications (WSNA), San Diego, September 2003, pp 115–121Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huang CF, Tseng YC, Lo LC (2004) The coverage problem in three-dimensional wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of IEEE GLOBECOM. IEEE, Piscataway, pp 3182–3186Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Iyengar R, Kar K, Banerjee S (2005) Low-coordination topologies for redundancy in sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM international symposium on mobile ad hoc networking and computing (MobiHoc), Urbana-Champaign, 25–28 May 2005, pp 332–342Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kershner R (1939) The number of circles covering a set. Am J Math 61(3):665–671CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim JE, Yoon MK, Han J, Lee CG (2008) Sensor placement for 3-coverage with minimum separation requirements. In: Proceedings of the 4th IEEE international conference on distributed computing in sensor systems (DCOSS), Santorini Island, 11–14 June 2008Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meguerdichian S, Koushanfar F, Potkonjak M, Srivastava M (2001) Coverage problems in wireless ad-hoc sensor networks. In: Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM. IEEE, Piscataway, pp 1380–1387Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nam MY, Al-Sabbagh MZ, Lee CG (2006) Real-time indoor human/object tracking for inexpensive technology-based assisted living. In: Proceedings of IEEE real-time systems symposium (RTSS), Rio de Janeiro, 5–8 December 2006Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nam MY, Al-Sabbagh MZ, Kim JE, Yoon MK, Lee CG, Ha EY (2008) A real-time ubiquitous system for assisted living: combined scheduling of sensing and communication for real-time tracking. IEEE Trans Comput 57(6):795–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schwager M, Slotine JJE, Rus D (2007) Decentralized, adaptive control for coverage with networked robots. In: Proceedings of international conference on robotics and automation, Rome, April 2007Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schwager M, McLurkin J, Slotine JJE, Rus D (2008) From theory to practice: distributed coverage control experiments with groups of robots. In: Proceedings of international symposium on experimental robotics, Athens, July 2008Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tian D, Georganas ND (2002) A coverage-preserving node scheduling scheme for large wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of ACM workshop on wireless sensor networks and applications (WSNA), Atlanta, September 2002, pp 32–41Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang Q, Zheng R, Tirumala A, Liu X, Sha L (2008) Lightning: a hard real-time, fast, and lightweight low-end wireless sensor election protocol for acoustic event localization. IEEE Trans Mob Comput 7(5):570–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang X, Xing G, Zhang Y, Lu C, Pless R, Gill C (2003) Integrated coverage and connectivity configuration in wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on embedded networked sensor systems (SenSys), Los Angeles, 5–7 November 2003, pp 28–39Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang YC, Hu CC, Tseng YC (2005) Efficient deployment algorithms for ensuring coverage and connectivity of wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of IEEE wireless internet conference (WICON). IEEE, Piscataway, pp 114–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Xiaochun X, Sartaj S (2007) Approximation algorithms for sensor deployment. IEEE Trans Comput 56(12):1681–1695CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yang S, Dai F, Cardei M, Wu J (2006) On connected multiple point coverage in wireless sensor networks. J Wirel Inf Netw 13(4):289–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhou Z, Das S, Gupta H (2004) Connected k-coverage problem in sensor networks. In: Proceedings of international conference on computer communications and networks (ICCCN), Chicago, 11–13 October 2004Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer Science and EngineeringSeoul National UniversitySeoulKorea
  2. 2.Samsung Electronics Co. LtdSuwonKorea

Personalised recommendations