Skip to main content
Log in

Sum-rate maximization and data delivery for wireless seismic acquisition

  • Published:
Wireless Networks Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Traditional seismic acquisition systems suffer from a number of difficulties related to telemetry cables that are used as a means of data transmission. Transforming the traditional seismic acquisition system to a wireless system has been considered as a potential solution to most of these difficulties . Wireless seismic acquisition systems have to serve a huge aggregate data rate requirement, as is usually the case in a large wireless sensor network. This paper considers a novel wireless acquisition system with a generalized tree topology, and studies the maximum achievable transmission data rates from the geophones to the wireless gateways, where successive interference cancellation decoding is used at the gateway nodes. We consider the problem of sum-rate maximization by optimizing the decoding set at each gateway, i.e. which group of geophones will be decoded at each gateway. Various integer programming algorithms are proposed for solving this maximization problem. These optimization algorithms are simulated and compared, where it is shown that the ant system algorithm achieves the highest sum-rate, with up to \(82\%\) increase compared to the case of no optimization, and a relatively low computational complexity compared to other algorithms, e.g., it may take the ant system algorithm only \(19\%\) of the time consumed by the angle-modulated particle swarm optimization. Furthermore, the data delivery from the gateways to the data center is also considered. In this stage, two cases, with different buffer sizes at the gateways, are studied. For small-size buffers, two optimization problems are identified and solved. The first problem considers the minimization of the total power of the gateways, and the second problem considers power fairness between the gateways. It is demonstrated that the first problem reduces the total power of the gateways by \(43\%\) compared to the second problem. For large-size buffers, the problem of maximizing the weighted sum rate of the gateways is shown to be convex, and the globally optimal solution is obtained efficiently.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Savazzi, S., Spagnolini, U., Goratti, L., Molteni, D., Latva-Aho, M., & Nicoli, M. (2013). Ultra-wide band sensor networks in oil and gas explorations. IEEE Communications Magazine, 51(4), 150–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Freed, D. (2008). Cable-free nodes: The next generation land seismic system. The Leading Edge, 27, 878–881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ellis, R. (2014). Current cabled and cable-free seismic acquisition systems each have their own advantages and disadvantages—Is it possible to combine the two? First Break, 32(1), 91–96.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Reddy, V. A., Stuber, G. L., & Al-Dharrab, S. I. (2018) Energy efficient network architecture for seismic data acquisition via wireless geophones. In 2018 IEEE international conference on communications (ICC) (pp. 1–5).

  5. Hodge, V. J., Keefe, S. O., Weeks, M., & Moulds, A. (2015). Wireless sensor networks for condition monitoring in the railway industry: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 16(3), 1088–1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Yang, X., Deng, D., & Liu, M. (2015) An overview of routing protocols on wireless sensor network. In 4th international conference on computer science and network technology (pp. 1000–1003).

  7. Park, P., Ergen, S. C., Fischione, C., Lu, C., & Johansson, K. H. (2018). Wireless network design for control systems: A survey. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, 20(2), 978–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sharma, D., Verma, S., & Sharma, K. (2013) Network topologies in wireless sensor networks: A review. International Journal of Electronics and Communication Technology, 4(3).

  9. Reina, D. G., Toral, S. L., Barrero, F., Bessis, N., & Asimakopoulou, E. (2013). The role of ad hoc networks in the internet of things: A case scenario for the role of ad hoc networks in the internet of things : A case scenario for smart. In N. Bessis, F. Xhafa, D. Varvarigou, R. Hill, & M. Li (Eds.), Internet of things and inter-cooperative computational technologies for collective intelligence (pp. 89–113). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Design, T. A., Design, T. A., & Design, T. A. (2018). Optimal design of wireless sensor network topology structure based on smart home. In CICT (pp. 2018–2021).

  11. Misra, S., Mondal, A., & Mondal, A. (2019). DATUM: Dynamic topology control for underwater wireless multimedia sensor networks. In WCNC (pp. 1–6). IEEE.

  12. Kim, H., & Han, S.-W. (2015). An efficient sensor deployment scheme for large-scale wireless sensor networks. IEEE Communications Letters, 19(1), 98–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhang, L., Qu, J., & Fan, J. (2016) Topology evolution Based on the complex networks of heterogeneous wireless sensor network. In ISCID. IEEE.

  14. Meena, S. S., & Manikandan, J. (2017) Study and evaluation of different topologies in wireless sensor network. In WiSPNET (pp. 107–111).

  15. Reddy, V. A., Stuber, G. L., & Al-Dharrab, S. I. (2018) High-speed seismic data acquisition over mm-wave channels. In IEEE 88th vehicular technology conference (pp. 18–22). IEEE.

  16. Reddy, V. A., Stuber, G. L., & Al-Dharrab, S. I. (2018). Energy efficient network architecture for seismic data acquisition via wireless geophones. In IEEE international conference on communications (pp. 1–5).

  17. Reddy, V. R., Stüber, G. L., Al-dharrab, S., Mesbah, W., & Muqaibel, A. H. (2019). A wireless geophone network architecture using IEEE 802.11af with power saving schemes. IEEE Transaction on Wireless Communications, 18(12), 5967–5982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Iqbal, N., Al-Dharrab, S., Muqaibel, A., Mesbah, W., & Stüber, G. (2018). Analysis of wireless seismic data acquisition networks using Markov chain models. In 2018 IEEE 29th annual international symposium on personal, indoor and mobile radio communications (PIMRC), (Bologna) (pp. 1–5).

  19. Othman, A., Mesbah, W., Iqbal, N., Al-Dharrab, S., Muqaibel, A., & Stüber, G. (2018). Sum-rate maximization for wireless seismic data acquisition systems (pp. 181–185). Tulsa: Society of Exploration Geophysicists.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Nake, N. (2016). A review on hierarchical routing methods in sink based wireless sensor networks. In AEEICB (pp. 16–19). IEEE.

  21. Akpakwu, G. A., & Hancke, G. P. (2016). Packets distribution in a tree-based topology wireless sensor networks. In INDIN (pp. 1181–1184). IEEE.

  22. El Gamal, A., & Kim, Y.-H. (2011). Network information theory (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Vermeer, G. J. O. (2012). 3D seismic survey design (2nd ed.). Tulsa: Society of Exploration Geophysicists.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Boussaïd, I., Lepagnot, J., & Siarry, P. (2013). A survey on optimization metaheuristics. Information Sciences, 237, 82–117.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Iqbal, N., Zerguine, A., & Al-Dhahir, N. (2015). Decision feedback equalization using particle swarm optimization. Signal Processing, 108, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Marini, F., & Walczak, B. (2015). Particle swarm optimization (PSO): A tutorial. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 149, 153–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rezaee Jordehi, A., & Jasni, J. (2012). Particle swarm optimisation for discrete optimisation problems: A review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 43(2), 243–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kaur, T., & Kumar, D. (2018). Particle swarm optimization-based unequal and fault tolerant clustering protocol for wireless sensor networks. IEEE Sensors Journal, 18(11), 4614–4622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Yan, L., Zhu, R., Liu, Y., & Mo, N. (2018). TrAdaBoost based on improved particle swarm optimization for cross-domain scene classification with limited samples. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 11(9), 3235–3251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Iqbal, N., Zerguine, A., & Al-Dhahir, N. (2014). Adaptive equalisation using particle swarm optimisation for uplink SC-FDMA. Electronic Letters, 50(6), 469–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Yavuz, G., & Aydin, D. (2016). Angle modulated artificial bee colony algorithms for feature selection. Applied Computational Intelligence and Soft Computing, 2016, 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yang, Z. L., Wu, A., & Min, H. Q. (2016). Deployment of wireless sensor networks for oilfield monitoring by multiobjective discrete binary particle swarm optimization. Journal of Sensors.

  33. Dorigo, M., & Stützle, T. (2019). Ant colony optimization: Overview and recent advances (pp. 311–351). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Marzband, M., Yousefnejad, E., Sumper, A., & Domínguez-García, J. L. (2016). Real time experimental implementation of optimum energy management system in standalone microgrid by using multi-layer ant colony optimization. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems, 75, 265–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Zhang, J., Huang, H., Liu, T., & Zhang, C. (2018). Multiscale fractures characterization based on ant colony optimization and two-dimensional variational mode decomposition. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 11(7), 2562–2570.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Mafarja, M. M., & Mirjalili, S. (2017). Hybrid whale optimization algorithm with simulated annealing for feature selection. Neurocomputing, 260, 302–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pampara, G., Franken, N., & Engelbrecht, A. P. (2005). Combining particle swarm optimisation with angle modulation to solve binary problems. In Congress on evolutionary computation (pp. 89–96).

  38. Krynicki, K., Houle, M. E., & Jaen, J. (2016). A non-hybrid ant colony optimization heuristic for convergence quality. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics, SMC 2015 (pp. 1706–1713).

  39. Zhu, Q., & Wang, L. (2007). The analysis of the convergence of ant colony optimization algorithm. Frontiers of Electrical and Electronic Engineering in China, 2(3), 268–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the Center for Energy and Geo-Processing (CeGP) at King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM) and Georgia Institute of Technology, under grant number GTEC1601.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wessam Mesbah.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

A preliminary version of this work appears in Proc. 2018 Society Exploration Geophysicists annual meeting.

Appendix

Appendix

Consider the last constraint on the sum of rates in (4), i.e. \(\sum _{i=1}^{N}Q_i \le \log _2 \left( 1+\frac{\sum _{i=1}^{N}P_i |g_i|^2}{N_0}\right)\). It is obvious that, at optimality, this constraint must hold with equality for minimum total power. Assume the channel gains \(g_i,\forall i\in \{1,\ldots ,N\}\) are ordered in a descending order, and assume \(P_{N,{\text {min}}}\) is the power required to decode the signal of GPN at the end without interference. Now, if the DC decides not to decode GPN at the end and exchanges its order with another GP; assume without loss of generalization GP1, then GPN will suffer from more interference, while GP1 will suffer from less interference. Therefore, we will have to increase the power of GPN and we can decrease the power of GP1 in order to keep the constraint satisfied for each individual GP. However, in order for the sum rate constraint to hold with equality, the following summation must remain constant

$$\begin{aligned} A = P_1 |g_1|^2 + \cdots + P_{N-1} |g_{N-1}|^2 + P_{N,{\text {min}}} |g_{N-1}|^2, \end{aligned}$$
(15)

and is equal to \(A =N_0(2^{\sum _{i=1}^{N}Q_i}-1)\). Now, assume that we will increase \(P_{N,{\text {min}}}\) by \(\Delta _N\) and decrease \(P_1\) by \(\Delta _1\). Then in order to keep A constant, then we must have: \(\Delta _N |g_N|^2 = \Delta _1 |g_1|^2\), and hence, \(\Delta _1 = \Delta _N \frac{|g_N|^2}{|g_1|^2}<\Delta _N\). The total power in this case is,

$$\begin{aligned} P_{\text {Total}}&= P_1-\Delta _1 +\cdots +P_{N-1}+P_{N,{\text {min}}}+\Delta _N \nonumber \\&= P_1 + \cdots +P_{N-1}+P_{N,{\text {min}}}+ (\Delta _N - \Delta _1) \nonumber \\&> P_1+\cdots +P_{N-1}+P_{N,{\text {min}}}. \end{aligned}$$
(16)

Since \(\Delta _N - \Delta _1\) is a positive term, then the total power will be larger than the case where the DC decodes GPN last. By repeating the same procedure for \(P_{N-1}\) up to \(P_{1}\), it is found that the decoding order should follow the decreasing order of the channel gain values in order to have the minimum total power.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Othman, A., Mesbah, W., Iqbal, N. et al. Sum-rate maximization and data delivery for wireless seismic acquisition. Wireless Netw 26, 6095–6110 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11276-020-02427-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11276-020-02427-8

Keywords

Navigation