Performance Evaluation of WSNs-Based Link Quality Estimation Metrics for Industrial Environments

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 295)

Abstract

Industrial wireless sensor network (WSN) is operating under severe conditions of electromagnetic interference (EMI) and multi-path interferences. Few existing simulation tools have dealt fairly with modeling EMI in industry site. Therefore, most of them are unable to meet the requirements of WSN simulation experiments. In this paper, the industrial environment is firstly categorized into different topographies, and the definition based upon the specific physical characteristics of the local surroundings is given to reflect both large-scale fading and multipath interference. The propagation model is well expressed by the one-slope path-loss model. The excellent agreement with a lognormal distribution is also obtained. Then the simulation environment is set up based on the on-site data in OPNET simulator. Finally, in order to obtain the best routing metric under different industrial environments, four commonly used link-quality metrics in WSNs: ETX, Hop Count, PRR and WMEWMA are investigated. The simulation results show that ETX is the most optimal routing metric on the overall performance. To the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first work to compare the performance between these link quality based metrics with networks of different qualities under different industrial conditions.

Keywords

Routing metric LQI estimation OPNET 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (61170192), China-Canada joint research and development (R&D) projects and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2009DFA12100, No. XDJK2012C019).

References

  1. 1.
    U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (2002) Industrial wireless technology for the 21st century, Dec 2002Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akyildiz I, Su W, Sankarasubramaniam Y, Cayirci E (2002) Wireless sensor networks: a survey. Comput Netw 38(4):393–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Low KS, Win NW, M J Er (2005) Wireless sensor network for industrial environment. In: International conference on computational intelligence for modeling, control and automation, November, 2005, pp 271–266Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moon TK, Kuc TY (2004) An integrated intelligent control architecture for mobile robot navigation within sensor network environment. In: Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and system, Oct 2004, pp 565–570Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hochmuth P (2005) GM cuts the cords to cut costs. Mobility and Wireless, Article of TechworldGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Technology@Intel Magazine (2005) Expanding usage models for wireless sensor networks Aug 2005, pp 4–5Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    U. S Department of Energy (2004) Sensors and automation: Eaton wireless sensor network for advanced energy management solutions, June 2004Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aakvaag N, Mathiesen M, Thonet G (2005) Timing and power issues in wireless sensor networks—An industrial test case. In: IEEE international conference on parallel processing workshops, Jun 2005, pp 419–426Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zamalloa MZ, Krishnamachari B (2007) An analysis of unreliability and asymmetry in low-power wireless links. ACM Trans Sens Netw 3(2):7. Article ID 1240227Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhai H, Fang U (2006) Distributed flow control and medium access in multihop ad hoc networks. IEEE Trans Mobile Comput 5(11):1503–1514Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zuniga M, Krishnamachari B (2004) Analyzing the transitional region in low power wireless links. In: Proceedings of the SECON, Santa Clara, CA, USA, October 2004, pp 517–526Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gambiroza V, Sadeghi B, Knightly E (2004) End-to-End performance and fairness in multihop wireless Backhaul networks, In: ACM Mobicom, 2004Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Couto DSJ, Aguayo D, Bicket J, Morris R (2003) A high-throughput path metric for multi-hop wireless routing. In: ACM Mobicom, 2003Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Draves R, Padhye J, Zill B (2004) Comparison of routing metrics for static multi-hop wireless networks. In: ACM SIGCOMM, 2004Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Draves R, Padhye J, Zill B (2004) Routing in multi-radio, multi-hop wireless mesh networks. In: ACM Mobicom, 2004Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Seidel SY, Rapport TS (1992) 914 MHz path loss prediction model for indoor wireless communication in multi floored buildings. IEEE Trans Antennas Propag 40(2):207–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rappaport TS, Mcgillem CD (1989) UHF fading in factories. IEEE J Sel Areas in Commun 7(1):40–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    De Couto DSJ, Aguayo D, Chambers BA, Morris R (2002) Performance of multihop wireless networks: Shortest path is not enough. In: Proceedings of the first workshop on hot topics in networks (HotNets-I), Oct 2002Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Emmeric T et al (2009) Statistical validation of WLAN range calculated with propagation models for industrial environments by chipset-level received signal strength measurements. IET Sci Meas Tech 3(3):244–255Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tanghe E, Joseph W, Verloock L et al (2008) The industrial indoor channel: large-scale and temporal fading at 900, 2400, and 5200 MHz. IEEE Trans Wirel Commun 7(7):2740–2751CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer and Information ScienceSouthwest UniversityChongqingChina

Personalised recommendations