Sponsored by

IEEE Singapore
SMC, R&A, and
Control Chapters

Organized and
invited by
Professor Sam Ge,
NUS

Wireless Sensor Networks for Monitoring Machinery,

Human Biofunctions, and BCW Agents
F.L. Lewis, Assoc. Director for Research
Moncrief-O’Donnell Endowed Chair
Head, Controls, Sensors, MEMS Group
Automation & Robotics Research Institute (ARRI)
The University of Texas at Arlington
 F.L. Lewis, Assoc. Director for Research
Moncrief-O’Donnell Endowed Chair
Head, Controls, Sensors, MEMS Group
Automation & Robotics Research Institute (ARRI)
The University of Texas at Arlington

Wireless Sensor Networks

http://ARRI.uta.edu/acs
Wireless MEMS Sensor Networks Mems@uta.edu
http://mems.uta.edu
New Initiative at ARRI
$180K in ARO/ UTA/ Texas funding to set up ARRI MEMS lab
$240K in MEMS & Network related Grants from NSF and ARO

• Machinery monitoring & Condition-Based Maintenance (CBM / PHM / RUL)

• Remote site biochemical warfare (BCW) toxin monitoring
• Personnel monitoring and secure area denial
• Optical MEMS human biosensors

Machine Security Personnel and

Monitoring Vehicle Monitoring
C&C User
Interface for
wireless
Wireless Sensor networks-
Wireless
Data Collection Networks

Environmental
Monitoring
H H H
O
H
C
O h+
h+
H2O

H H H O
H
C
O
O
H
C
O
h+
h+
H2O

H
Contact
ContactFrank
FrankLewis
Lewis
Lewis@uta.edu
C C C C C C C
e-
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Lewis@uta.edu
TiO2 TiO2
e- e-
e-

Ni

Biochemical Monitoring
http://arri.uta.edu/acs
http://arri.uta.edu/acs
 Wireless Sensor Networks
Vehicle Monitoring
Animal
Machine Monitoring Medical Monitoring
Monitoring

Wireless
Data Collection Wireless Sensor
Networks
Wireless
Sensor BSC
(Base Station
Controller,
Ship Monitoring BST Preprocessing)
Management Center
Data Acquisition (Database large storage,
Network analysis)

Data Distribution
Network Roving transmitter
Online Printer
Human monitoring Server
monitor
Wireless Wireland
PDA (Wi-Fi 802.11 2.4GHz (Ethernet WLAN,
BlueTooth Optical)
Cellular Network, -
CDMA, GSM)
Any where, any
time to access

Cellular
Notebook PC
Phone
 Paul Baran, Rand Corp.
Network of Networks
Principal Problems in Army Communications

Paul Baran, Rand Corp.

 Wireless CBM Research Areas
• Sensor Technology • COTS Wireless Sensors
MEMS ? Berkeley Crossbow
• Node Technology Microstrain
DSP • Wireless Networks
Power Cellular network
RF link WLAN
• Remote Access Terminals Other short range RF networks
Wireless PDA, Wireless Laptop Multiple linked networks
Cellphone, Internet
• Data management
Sensor data storage
DSP
Data Access
• Fault & Diagnostic Decision-Making
• Alarming
 Which Technology?
Cellular Technologies
 2G Systems  Wireless LAN Technology
 2.5G Systems  • 2.4 GHz Wireless LAN 
 3G Systems • 5 GHz Wireless LAN
• Ad-hoc Mode
Other Short-range Technologies
• Infrastructure Mode
 Home RF 
 Bluetooth
Long Range Technologies
 IrDA 
 Cordless Telephony (cellphone)
 IEEE 802.11  Internet

IEEE 1451 Standard for Smart Sensor Networks

 Which Hardware?

Berkeley
Berkeley
Crossbow
Crossbow
Sensor
Sensor

Crossbow
Crossbow
transceiver
transceiver

Crossbow Berkeley Motes

 Microstrain Wireless Sensors

Microstrain
G-Sensor
Microstrain
G-Sensor

Microstrain
V-Link Microstrain
Microstrain
Microstrain
Transceiver Transceiver
Transceiver
V-Link Connect to PC
Connect to PC
Transceiver

http://www.microstrain.com/index.cfm

RFID node
 http://www.pctechguide.com/29network.htm

Network Topology

FDDI- Fibre Distributed

Data Interface specifies a
100 Mbit/s token-passing,
dual-ring LAN using fibre-
optic cable.

Self Healing Net – Dual Ring

 Network Topology

Bus Network with Backbone Interconnections Between Different Network Types

Star Network Topology Token Ring Network Topology Self-healing Ring Topology
Two rings
http://www.fiber-optics.info/articles/its-networks.htm
Moshe Zalcberg and Benny Matityaho, Tel Aviv University
http://www2.rad.com/networks/1994/networks/preface.htm

FDDI: Fiber Distributed Data Interface Ethernet LAN

100 Mbps
 Paul Baran, Rand Corp.
The Spider Web Net
 Paul Baran, Rand Corp.
Network Topology Neighbor Connectivity and Redundancy

Centralized, Decentralized, Distributed

 Paul Baran, Rand Corp.
Connectivity and Number of Links

Number of links
increases
exponentially
 Mesh Networks
Basic 4-link ring element
Two ways to interconnect two rings
Two 2-D mesh networks
New Topology Standard Manhattan
Alternating
1-way streets
Edge Binding- J.W. Smith, Rand Corp.
In any network, much of the routing power of
peripheral stations is wasted simply because
peripheral links are unused. Thus, messages
tend to reflect off the boundary into the interior
or to move parallel to the periphery.
 The Problem of Complexity

Communication Protocols in a network must be restricted and

organized to avoid Complexity problems

Think of the military chain of command

e.g. in Manufacturing
The general job shop allows part flows between all machines
The Flow Line allows part flows only along specific Paths

We have shown that the job shop is NP-complete

but the reentrant flow line is of polynomial complexity

 Hierarchical Networks Disable some links

Dual-Ring Designation of Primary

4 x 4 Mesh Net Hierarchical Clustering Hierarchical Communication Ring
Structure for level 2

Same structure--
Consistent
Hierarchy

Hierarchical Clustering of 8x8 mesh Hierarchical Clustering of 8x8 mesh

showing all four communication rings showing level 3 primary communication ring
Disable some links to reduce complexity

The disabled links can be used as backups in case of failures

Note- this dual ring structure

Is a self-healing ring
 http://www.pctechguide.com/29network.htm

Ethernet
Ethernet was developed in the mid 1970's by the Xerox Corporation, and in 1979
Digital Equipment Corporation DEC) and Intel joined forces with Xerox to
standardise the system. The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE)
released the official Ethernet standard in 1983 called the IEEE 802.3 after the name of
the working group responsible for its development, and in 1985 version 2 (IEEE
802.3a) was released. This second version is commonly known as "Thin Ethernet" or
10Base2, in this case the maximum length is 185m even though the "2" suggest that it
should be 200m.

Fast Ethernet
Fast Ethernet was officially adopted in the summer of 1995, two years after a group of
leading network companies had formed the Fast Ethernet Alliance to develop the
standard. Operating at ten times the speed of regular 10Base-T Ethernet, Fast Ethernet -
also known as 100BaseT - retains the same CSMA/CD protocol and Category 5 cabling
support as its predecessor higher bandwidth and introduces new features such as full-
duplex operation and auto-negotiation.
 http://www.pctechguide.com/29network.htm

Token Ring
In 1984, IBM introduced the 4 Mbit/s Token Ring network. Instead of the normal plug
and socket arrangement of male and female gendered connectors, the IBM data connector
(IDC) was a sort of hermaphrodite, designed to mate with itself. Although the IBM
Cabling System is to this day regarded as a very high quality and robust data
communication media, its large size and cost - coupled with the fact that with only 4 cores
it was less versatile than 8-core UTP - saw Token Ring continue fall behind Ethernet in
the popularity stakes. It remains IBM's primary LAN technology however and the
compatible and almost identical IEEE 802.5 specification continues to shadow IBM's
Token Ring development.

FDDI
Developed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards committee in
the mid-1980s - at a time when high-speed engineering workstations were beginning to tax
the bandwidth of existing LANs based on Ethernet and Token Ring - the Fibre Distributed
Data Interface (FDDI) specifies a 100 Mbit/s token-passing, dual-ring LAN using fibre-
optic cable.
 http://www.pctechguide.com/29network.htm

Gigabit Ethernet
The next step in Ethernet's evolution was driven by the Gigabit Ethernet Alliance,
formed in 1996. The ratification of associated Gigabit Ethernet standards was
completed in the summer of 1999, specifying a physical layer that uses a mixture of
proven technologies from the original Ethernet Specification and the ANSI X3T11
Fibre Channel Specification:

Use of the same variable-length (64- to 1514-byte packets) IEEE 802.3 frame format
found in Ethernet and Fast Ethernet is key to the ease with which existing lower-speed
Ethernet devices can be connected to Gigabit Ethernet devices, using LAN switches or
routers to adapt one physical line speed to the other.
Client-Server
Client-server networking architectures became popular in the late 1980s and early
1990s as many applications were migrated from centralised minicomputers and
mainframes to networks of personal computers. The design of applications for a
distributed computing environment required that they effectively be divided into two
parts: client (front end) and server (back end). The network architecture on which
they were implemented mirrored this client-server model, with a user's PC (the client)
typically acting as the requesting machine and a more powerful server machine - to
which it was connected via either a LAN or a WAN - acting as the supplying
machine.
Peer-to-peer
In a Peer-to-peer networking architecture each computer (workstation) has equivalent
capabilities and responsibilities. There is no server, and computers simply connect with
each other in a workgroup to share files, printers, and Internet access. It is practical for
workgroups of a dozen or less computers, making it common in many SOHO
environments, where each PC acts as an independent workstation that stores data on its
own hard drive but which can share it with all other PCs on the network.

P2P computing
By early 2000 a revolution was underway in an entirely new form of peer-to-peer
computing. Sparked by the phenomenal success of a number of highly publicised
applications, "P2P computing" - as it is commonly referred to - heralded a new
computing model for the Internet age and had achieved considerable traction with
mainstream computer users and members of the PC industry in a very short space of
time.

The Napster MP3 music file sharing application went live in September 1999, and
attracted more than 20 million users by mid-2000
IEEE 802.11
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) ratified the original
802.11 specification in 1997 as the standard for WLANs. That version of 802.11
provided for 1 Mbit/s and 2 Mbit/s data rates and a set of fundamental signalling
methods and other services. The data rates supported by the original 802.11 standard
were too slow to support most general business requirements with and did little to
encourage the adoption of WLANs. Recognising the critical need to support higher
data-transmission rates, the autumn of 1999 saw the IEEE ratify the 802.11b standard
(also known as 802.11 High Rate) for transmissions of up to 11 Mbit/s.
 http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gorry/course/intro-pages/osi-example.html

OSI-
Open Systems
Interconnection

The OSI reference model specifies standards for describing "Open Systems
Interconnection" with the term 'open' chosen to emphasise the fact that by using
these international standards, a system may be defined which is open to all other
systems obeying the same standards throughout the world. The definition of a
common technical language has been a major catalyst to the standardisation of
communications protocols and the functions of a protocol layer.
http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/User/O.F.Rana/data-comms/comms-lec1.pdf
 http://ieee1451.nist.gov/intro.htm

IEEE 1451 Standard for Smart Sensor Networks

Problem
Transducers, defined here as sensors or actuators, serve a wide variety of industry's
needs- manufacturing, industrial control, automotive, aerospace, building, and
biomedicine are but a few. Many sensor control networks or fieldbus implementations
are currently available.

A problem for transducer manufacturers is the large number of networks on the market
today. Currently, it is too costly for transducer manufacturers to make unique smart
transducers for each network on the market. Therefore a universally accepted
transducer interface standard, the IEEE P1451 standard, is proposed to be developed to
address these issues.

Objective of IEEE 1451

The objective of this project is to develop a smart transducer interface standard IEEE
1451. This standard is to make it easier for transducer manufacturers to develop smart
devices and to interface those devices to networks, systems, and instruments by
incorporating existing and emerging sensor- and networking technologies.
 http://ieee1451.nist.gov/intro.htm

History of IEEE-1451
In September 1993, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)'s Technical Committee on
Sensor Technology of the Instrumentation and Measurement Society co-sponsored a
meeting to discuss smart sensor communication interfaces and the possibility of creating
a standard interface. The response was to establish a common communication interface
for smart transducers. Four technical working groups have been formed to address
different aspects of the interface standard.

 P1451.1 working group aims at defining a common object model for smart
transducers along with interface specifications for the components of the model.
 P1451.2 working group aims at defining a smart transducer interface module
(STIM), a transducer electronic data sheet (TEDS), and a digital interface to access
the data.
 P1451.3 working group aims at defining a digital communication interface for
distributed multidrop systems.
 P1451.4 working group aims at defining a mixed-mode communication protocol
for smart transducers.
 The working groups created the concept of smart sensors to control networks
interoperability and to ease the connectivity of sensors and actuators into a device or
field network.
 Hardware interface

Network Independent
 Conway & Heffernan, Univ. Limerick
http://wwww.ul.ie/~pei

IEEE 1451 Standard for Smart Sensor Networks

 Node Relative Positioning & Localization
Ad hoc network- scattered nodes
Nodes must self organize

Calibrated network-
Each node knows its relative position

T frame

I R P extra repeat next

TDMA frame
Net Startup Neighbor Dist. (x,y) Hier.
Entry- Node coords. routing
info to
invite ID nr. and nr.
Neigh-
response Origin
bors
ponter Node ID

Comm link mesh info Position grid info

TDMA frame for both communication protocols

and relative positioning
Integrating new nodes into relative positioning grid
y y
3
y3
d13 d23
213 x23
O1 d12 2 x O 1 d12 x3 2 x

a. Two nodes- define x & y axes b. 3 node closed kinematic chain-

compute (x3, y3)

One can write the relative location in frame O of the new point 3 in two ways. The
triangle shown in the figure is a closed kinematic chain of the sort studied in [Liu
and Lewis 1993, 1994]. The solution is obtained by requiring that the two maps T13
and T123 be exact at point 3.
y’
A34 4
3
Kinematics
A13
transformation A24
R pi  A14 A23
Ai   i
0 1  TOO’
O’ 1 A12 2 x’
y

O x

Recursive closed-kinematic chain procedure for integrating new nodes

 UWB
Ultra Wideband Sensor Web

s (t )   w(t  jT f  c j Tc   d  j / N s  )
j

where w(t) is the basic pulse of duration approx. 1ns, often a wavelet or a Gaussian
monocycle, and Tf is the frame or pulse repetition time. In a multi-node environment,
catastrophic collisions are avoided by using a pseudorandom sequence cj to shift
pulses within the frame to different compartments, and the compartment size is Tc
sec. Data is transmitted using digital pulse position modulation (PPM), where if the
data bit is 0 the pulse is not shifted, and if the data bit is 1 the pulse is shifted by d.
The same data bit is transmitted Ns times, allowing for very reliable communications
with low probability of error.
Precise time of flight measurement is possible.
Use UWB for all three:
 Communications
 Node Relative positioning
 Target localization
Multi-Static Radar Target Localization
Uses time of flight
y
y
T T
d3 y’ x’
d3
d 3 d 3
d2 d2
213

1 2 x 1 2 x

a. Target, transmitter node, and 2 receiving nodes b. Ellipsoid solution for multi-static target localizing

Intersection of two ellipses with semimajor and semiminor axes

a  (d  d 2 ) / 2, s  d12 / 2, b  a 2  s 2
Simultaneous solution of two quadratic equations, one for each ellipse
X T AX  1
X T BX  1
gives position of target.