Implementation of Average Consensus Protocols for Commercial Sensor Networks Platforms
In sensor networks, average consensus and gossiping algorithms, featuring only near neighbor communications, present advantages over flooding and epidemic algorithms in a number of distributed signal processing applications. This chapter looks into the implementation of average consensus algorithms within the constraints of current sensor network technology. Our event-based protocols work in the real event-based environment provided by a common Mica2 platform and use its wireless CSMA packet-switched network interface. Within this architecture our chapter derives different protocols according to an event-based software architecture that are suitable for an environment like TinyOS, the most used operating system for low-power mote platforms. Theoretical and simulation results are presented, and the main advantage over traditional routing protocols is given by the fully distributed and scalable nature this approach follows.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- D. Agrawal, A. El Abbadi, and R. C. Steinke, “Epidemic algorithms in replicated databases,” in PODS ’97: Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, New York, NY, USA, 1997, ACM Press, New York, pp. 161–172.Google Scholar
- C. Y. Chong and S. P. Kumar, “Sensor networks: evolution, opportunities, and challenges,” in Proceedings of IEEE, San Antonio, TX, August 2003, pp. 1247–1256.Google Scholar
- A. Demers, D. Greene, C. Hauser, W. Irish, J. Larson, S. Shenker, H. Sturgis, D. Swinehart, and D. Terry, ‘Epidemic algorithms for replicated database maintenance,” in PODC ’87: Proceedings of the Sixth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, New York, NY, USA, 1987, ACM Press, New York, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
- D. Ganesan, B. Krishnamachari, A. Woo, D. Culler, D. Estrin, and S. Wicker, “An empirical study of epidemic algorithms in large scale multihop wireless networks,” Tech. Rep., University of California, Los Angeles, 2002.Google Scholar
- Q. Lindsey, D. Lymberopoulos, and A. Savvides, “An empirical analysis of radio signal strength variability in IEEE 802.15.4 networks using monopole antennas,” Tech. Rep., Yale University, ENALAB, 2006.Google Scholar
- A. Mainwaring, J. Polastre, R. Szewczyk, D. Culler, and J. Anderson, “Wireless sensor networks for habitat monitoring,” in ACM WSNA, Atlanta, GA, 2002.Google Scholar
- M. Maroti, “Directed flood-routing framework for wireless sensor networks,” in Middleware ’04: Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IFIP/USENIX International Conference on Middleware, New York, NY, USA, 2004, Springer, New York, pp. 99–114.Google Scholar
- M. Maroti, B. Kusy, G. Simon, and A. Ledeczi, “The flooding time synchronization protocol,” in SenSys ’04: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, New York, NY, USA, 2004, ACM Press, New York, pp. 39–49.Google Scholar
- M. Mehyar, D. Spanos, J. Pongsajapan, S. Low, and R. Murray, “Asynchronous distributed averaging on communication networks,” IEEE Trans. Netw., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 535–547, 2007.Google Scholar
- M. Mock, R. Frings, E. Nett, and S. Trikaliotis,“Continuous clock synchronization in wireless real-tim applications,” in The 19th IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems, SRDS’00, Washington–Brussels–Tokyo, 2000, pp. 125–133.Google Scholar
- R. Olfati Saber and R. M. Murray, “Consensus protocols for networks of dynamic agents,” in American Control Conference, 2003.Google Scholar
- K. Romer, “Time synchronization in ad hoc networks,” in MobiHoc 2001, Long Beach, USA, 2001.Google Scholar
- M. L. Sichitiu and C. Veerarittiphan, “Simple, accurate time synchronization for wireless sensor networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference, WCNC’2003, New Orleans, LA, USA, 2003.Google Scholar