Tutorial: Wireless Sensor Networks

November 2005
Krishna M. Sivalingam, Associate Professor
Dept. of CSEE
University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC)
Baltimore, MD 21250
krishna@umbc.edu
www.cs.umbc.edu/~krishna; dawn.cs.umbc.edu
Please do not distribute
Copyright by Prof. Sivalingam. The softcopy may be used for
personal research/academic purposes only.
 General Overview
 Introduction to Wireless Sensor Networks
 Data Dissemination and Routing Protocols
 Data Gathering
 Medium Access Control Protocols
 Locationing and Coverage
 Testbeds/Applications
 Security in Wireless Sensor Networks
 Summary & Discussion

DAWN Lab / UMBC 2

 Motivation
 GOAL: Deeply Networked Systems or Pervasive
Networking
 98% of all processors are not in traditional desktop
computer systems, but in house-hold appliances,
vehicles, and machines on factory floors
 Add reliable wireless communications and sensing
functions to the billions of physically embedded
computing devices to support ubiquitous networked
computing
 Distributed Wireless Sensor Networks is a collection
of embedded sensor devices with networking
capabilities
DAWN Lab / UMBC 3
Introduction to WSN

DAWN Lab / UMBC 4

 Background , contd.
 Sensors
 Enabled by recent
advances in MEMS
Battery CPU
technology
 Integrated Wireless
Transceiver
Wireless
Transceiver  Limited in
 Energy
Memory
 Computation
 Storage
 Transmission range
Sensing Hardware
 Bandwidth

DAWN Lab / UMBC 5

 Background, contd.

DAWN Lab / UMBC 6

 Sensor Nodes, contd.

DAWN Lab / UMBC 7

 Sensors (contd.)
 The overall architecture of a sensor
node consists of:
 The sensor node processing
subsystem running on sensor
node main CPU
 The sensor subsystem and
 The communication subsystem
 The processor and radio board
includes:
 TI MSP430 microcontroller with
10kB RAM
 16-bit RISC with 48K Program
Flash
 IEEE 802.15.4 compliant radio
Crossbow Mote
at 250 Mbps TPR2400CA-TelosB
 1MB external data flash
 Runs TinyOS 1.1.10 or higher
 Two AA batteries or USB
 1.8 mA (active); 5.1uA (sleep)

DAWN Lab / UMBC 8

Overall Architecture of a sensor
node

DAWN Lab / UMBC 9

Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN)
 Distributed collection of networked sensors

DAWN Lab / UMBC 10

 Networked vs. individual sensors
 Extended range of sensing:
 Cover a wider area of operation

 Redundancy:
 Multiple nodes close to each other increase fault
tolerance
 Improved accuracy:
 Sensor nodes collaborate and combine their data
to increase the accuracy of sensed data
 Extended functionality:
 Sensor nodes can not only perform sensing
functionality, but also provide forwarding service.
DAWN Lab / UMBC 11
 Applications of sensor networks
 Physical security for military operations
 Indoor/Outdoor Environmental monitoring
 Seismic and structural monitoring
 Industrial automation
 Bio-medical applications
 Health and Wellness Monitoring
 Inventory Location Awareness
 Future consumer applications, including smart
homes.

DAWN Lab / UMBC 12

 Applications, contd.
cooperative
processing

cooperative
SEN SING signalling

THREAT

ALERT

ALERT THREAT
ULTI-HO
M P
COMMUNICATION
Beam Formation

COMMANDLEVEL

DAWN Lab / UMBC 13

 Applications, contd.

DAWN Lab / UMBC 14

 Characteristics and challenges
 Deeply distributed architecture: localized coordination to
reach entire system goals, no infrastructure with no central
control support
 Autonomous operation: self-organization, self-configuration,
adaptation, exception-free
 TCP/IP is open, widely implemented, supports multiple
physical network, relatively efficient and light weight, but
requires manual intervention to configure and to use.
 Energy conservation: physical, MAC, link, route, application
 Scalability: scale with node density, number and kinds of
networks
 Data centric network: address free route, named data,
reinforcement-based adaptation, in-network data aggregation

DAWN Lab / UMBC 15

 Challenges, contd.
 Challenges
 Limited battery power
 Limited storage and computation
 Lower bandwidth and high error rates
 Scalability to 1000s of nodes
 Network Protocol Design Goals
 Operate in self-configured mode (no infrastructure
network support)
 Limit memory footprint of protocols
 Limit computation needs of protocols -> simple,
yet efficient protocols
 Conserve battery power in all ways possible

DAWN Lab / UMBC 16

 WSN vs. MANET
 Wireless sensor networks may be considered a
subset of Mobile Ad-hoc NETworks (MANET).
 WSN nodes have less power, computation and
communication compared to MANET nodes.
 MANETs have high degree of mobility, while sensor
networks are mostly stationary.
 Freq. node failures in WSN -> topology changes

 Routing protocols tend to be complex in MANET, but

need to be simple in sensor networks.
 Low-power operation is even more critical in WSN.
 MANET is address centric, WSN is data centric.

DAWN Lab / UMBC 17

 Why not port Ad Hoc Protocols?
 Ad Hoc networks require significant amount of
routing data storage and computation
 Sensor nodes are limited in memory and CPU

 Topology changes due to node mobility are

infrequent as in most applications sensor nodes are
stationary
 Topology changes when nodes die in the network
due to energy dissipation
 Scalability with several hundred to a few thousand
nodes not well established
 GOAL: Simple, scalable, energy-efficient protocols

DAWN Lab / UMBC 18

 Focus: Radio Transceiver Usage
 The wireless radio transceiver is typically in three modes:
 Transmit – Maximum power consumption

 Receive

 Idle

 Turned off – Least power consumption

 Sensor node exists in three modes: Active, standby, and

battery dead
 Turnaround time: Time to change from one mode to another
(esp. important is time from sleep to wakeup and vice-versa)
 Protocol design attempts to place node in these different
modes depending upon several factors
 Sample power consumption from 2 sensor nodes shown next

DAWN Lab / UMBC 19

 Rockwell Node (SA-1100 proc)
MCU Mode Sensor Mode Radio Mode Power(mW)
Active On Tx(36.3mW) 1080.5
Tx(13.8mW) 942.6
Tx(0.30mW) 773.9
Active On Rx 751.6
Active On Idle 727.5
Active On Sleep 416.3
Active On Removed 383.3
Active Removed Removed 360.0
Sleep On Removed 64.0
DAWN Lab / UMBC 20
 UCLA Medusa node (ATMEL CPU)
MCU Mode Sensor Radio(mW) Data rate Power(mW)
Active On Tx(0.74,OOK) 2.4Kbps 24.58
Tx(0.74,OOK) 19.2Kbps 25.37
Tx(0.10,OOK) 2.4Kbps 19.24
Tx(0.74,OOK) 19.2Kbps 20.05
Tx(0.74,ASK) 19.2Kbps 27.46
Tx(0.10,ASK) 2.4Kbps 21.26
Active On Rx - 22.20
Active On Idle - 22.06
Active On Off - 9.72
Idle On DAWN
OffLab / UMBC - 21
5.92
Sleep Off Off - 0.02
 Energy conservation
• Low power circuit(CMOS, ASIC) design
Physical layer • Optimum hardware/software function division
• Energy effective waveform/code design
• Adaptive RF power control

MAC sub-layer • Energy effective MAC protocol

• Collision free, reduce retransmission and transceiver on-times
• Intermittent, synchronized operation
• Rendezvous protocols
Link layer • FEC versus ARQ schemes; Link packet length adapt.

Network layer • Multi-hop route determination

• Energy aware route algorithm
• Route cache, directed diffusion
• Video applications: compression and frame-dropping
Application layer
• In-network data aggregation and fusion

See Jones, Sivalingam, Agrawal, and Chen survey article in ACM WINET, July 2001;
See Lindsey, Sivalingam, and Raghavendra book chapter in Wiley Handbook of Mobile Computing,
Ivan Stojmenovic, Editor, 2002.

DAWN Lab / UMBC 22

 Network Architectures

DAWN Lab / UMBC 23

 Network Architectures
Layered Clustered
Architecture Architecture
Base
Base Statio
Statio n
n

Layer 1

Layer 2

Layer 3

Larger Nodes denote Cluster Heads

DAWN Lab / UMBC 24

 Clustered network architecture
 Sensor nodes autonomously form a group called clusters.
 The clustering process is applied recursively to form a hierarchy of
clusters.

DAWN Lab / UMBC 25

Cluster architecture (contd.)
 Example - LEACH protocol
 It uses two-tier hierarchy
clustering architecture.
 It uses distributed
algorithm to organize the
sensor nodes into
clusters.
 The cluster-head nodes
create TDMA schedules.
 Nodes transmit data
during their assigned
slots.
 The energy efficiency of
the LEACH is mainly due
to data fusion.

DAWN Lab / UMBC 26

 Layered Network Architecture
 A few hundred sensor nodes
(half/full duplex)
 A single powerful base-station
 Network nodes are organized
into concentric Layers
 Layer: Set of nodes that have
the same hop-count to the
base-station
 Additional Mobile Nodes
traversing the network
 Wireless Multi-Hop
Infrastructure Network
Architecture (MINA)
A 10 node sensor network depicting cluster of node 3;
there are 2 mobile nodes

DAWN Lab / UMBC 27

 MINA, contd.
 Set of wireless sensor nodes create an
infrastructure – provide sensing and data
forwarding functionality
 Mobile soldiers with hand-held units access the
sensors for data and also to communicate with a
remote BS
 BS is data gathering, processing entity and
communication link to larger network
 Shorter-range, low-power transmissions preferred
for covert operations and to conserve power

DAWN Lab / UMBC 28

 Data Dissemination
Architectures and Protocols

DAWN Lab / UMBC 29

 Data Dissemination
 In ad hoc networks, traffic is peer-to-peer
 Multi-hop routing is used to communicate data
 In WSN, other traffic models are possible:
 Data Collection Model
 Data Diffusion Model
 Data Collection Model: Source sends data to a collection
entity (e.g. gateway): periodically or on-demand
 Data Diffusion Model:
 Source: A sensor node that generates data, based on its
sensing mechanisms’ observations
 Event: Something that needs to be reported, e.g. in target
detection; some abnormal activity
 Sink: A node, randomly located in the field, that is
interested in events and seeks such information

DAWN Lab / UMBC 30

 Data Diffusion: Concept
Sink 1

Sources

Sink 2

DAWN Lab / UMBC 32

 Diffusion: Basics
 Data-centric vs. address centric architecture
 Individual network address is not critical; Data is important
and is accessed as needed
 User can pose a specific task, that could be executed by
sensor nodes
 Concept of Named Data: (Attribute, Value) Pair
 Sink node requests data by sending “interests” for data
 Interests are propagated through the network, setting up
gradients in the network, designed to “draw” data
 Data matching the interest is then transmitted towards the
sink, over multiple paths (obtained by the gradients
 The sink can then reinforce some of these paths to optimize

DAWN Lab / UMBC 33

 Diffusion Basics, contd.
 Design Issues:
 How does a sink express its interest in one or
more events?
 How do sensor nodes keep track of existing
interests from multiple sinks?
 When an event occurs, how does data get
propagated from source(s) to sink(s)?
 Can in-network data processing (e.g. data fusion),
data aggregation and data caching help improve
performance?
 [Intanagonwiwat et. al.; ACM MobiCom 2000]

DAWN Lab / UMBC 34

 Diffusion Basics, contd
 Example Task
{Type = Animal; Interval = 20ms; Time = 10s;
Region = [-100, 100, 200, 400] }
 The above task instructs a sensor node in the
specified region to track for animals; If animal is
tracked/detected, then send observations every 20
ms for 10s
 The above task is sent via interest messages and all
sensor nodes register this task.
 When a node detects an event, it then constructs a
Data Event message

DAWN Lab / UMBC 35

 Diffusion: Basics, contd
 Data Event Example:
{Type = Animal; Instance = Tiger;
Location = [101, 201]; Intensity = 0.4;
Confidence = 0.8; Timestamp = 2:51:00}
Interests and Gradients:
 For each active task that a sink is interested in:
 Sink broadcasts interest to its neighbors
 Initially, to explore, it could set large interval (e.g 1s)
Sink refreshes each interest, using timestamps
 Each sensor node maintains an interest cache
 Interest aggregation is possible

DAWN Lab / UMBC 36

 Diffusion: Interests
 When a node receives an interest, it:
 Checks cache to see if an entry is present.

 If no entry, creates an entry with a single gradient

to neighbor who sent this interest
 Gradient specifies the direction and data rate.

 Resend interest to a subset of its neighbors

 This is essentially flooding-based approach

 Other probabilistic, location-based and other

intelligent forwarding approaches possible
 Similar to multicast tree formation, at sink instead of
at source
DAWN Lab / UMBC 37
Diffusion: Interest Propagation
Sink 1

Sources

Sink 2

DAWN Lab / UMBC 38

 Diffusion: Data Propagation
 When a sensor node detects a target, it:
 Searches interest cache for matching entry

 If found, computes highest requested event rate

among its gradients
 Instructs sensor sub-system to generate data at
this rate
 Sends data to neighbors on its gradient list

 Intermediate nodes maintain a data cache

 Caches recently received events

 Forwards event data to neighbors on its gradient

list, at original rate or reduced rate (intelligently)
DAWN Lab / UMBC 39
 Diffusion: Reinforcement
 When sink gets an event notification, it:
 Picks a suitable set of neighbor(s) (best link, low
delay, etc.) and sends a refresh interest message,
with higher notification rate (e.g. every 10 ms
instead of every 1s)
 This will prune some of its neighbors (since interests in
a node’s cache will expire)
Each selected neighbor forwards this new interest

to a subset of its neighbors; selecting a smaller
set of paths
 Negative reinforcement also necessary to de-select
weaker paths if a better path found.
DAWN Lab / UMBC 40
 Part III: Data Gathering
Algorithms

DAWN Lab / UMBC 41

 Problem Definition
 Objective: Transmit sensed data from each sensor node to a base station
 One round = BS collecting data from all nodes

 Goal is to maximize the number of rounds of communication before

nodes die and network is inoperable
 Minimize energy AND reduce delay
 Conflicting requirements

Sensor Nodes

Base station

DAWN Lab / UMBC 42

 Energy*Delay metric
 Why energy * delay metric?
 Find optimal balance to gather data quickly but in
an energy efficient manner
 Energy = Energy consumed per round

 Delay = Delay per round (I.e. for all nodes to send

packet to BS)
 Why is this metric important?
 Time critical applications

DAWN Lab / UMBC 43

 Direct Transmission
 Direct Transmission
 All nodes transmit to the base station (BS)
 Very expensive since BS may be located very far
away and nodes need more energy to transmit
over longer distances
 Farther the distance, greater the propagation losses,
and hence higher the transmission power
 All nodes must take turns transmitting to the BS
so delay is high (N units for a N-node network)
 Better scheme is to have fewer nodes transmit
this far distance to lower energy costs and more
simultaneous transmissions to lower delay

DAWN Lab / UMBC 44

 LEACH
 Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy
 Two-level hierarchy
Base
Station

Larger Nodes denote Cluster Heads

DAWN Lab / UMBC 45

 Scheme #1: PEGASIS
 Goals of PEGASIS (Power-Efficient GAthering for
Sensor Information Systems)
 Minimize distance nodes must transmit

 Minimize number of leaders that transmit to BS

 Minimize broadcasting overhead

 Minimize number or messages leader needs to

receive
 Distribute work more equally among all nodes

DAWN Lab / UMBC 46

 PEGASIS
 Greedy Chain Algorithm
 Start with node furthest away from BS

 Add to chain closest neighbor to this node that

has not been visited
 Repeat until all nodes have been added to chain

 Constructed before 1st round of communication

and then reconstructed when nodes di
 Data fusion at each node (except end nodes)
 Only one message is passed at every node

 Delay calculation: N units for an N-node network

 Sequential transmission is assumed

DAWN Lab / UMBC 47

 PEGASIS

End

Start

DAWN Lab / UMBC 48

 Scheme #2: Binary Scheme
 Chain-based as described in PEGASIS
 At each level node only transmits to another node
 All nodes receiving at any level rise to the next level
 Delay: O(log2 N)

Step 4: c3  BS
Step 3: c3 c7
Step 2: c1 c3 c5 c7
Step 1: c0c1 c2c3 c4c5 c6c7

DAWN Lab / UMBC 50

 MAC Protocols for WSN

DAWN Lab / UMBC 51

 MAC Protocols
 What is fundamentally different for MAC Protocol
design in WSN?
 Low-power operation is even more critical
 Reduced coordination and synchronization is
beneficial
 Resilience to frequent node failures
 Suitably blend with the network architecture
 Probably application dependent
 Scalability to support large number of nodes
 Thousands of nodes likely
 Limited bandwidth availability
 Would the 802.11 family of protocols work?

DAWN Lab / UMBC 52

 TDM-Based MAC
 Considered for Clustered architecture
 Nodes are organized into clusters

 Each cluster has a clusterhead, that

communicates directly with gateway or BS node
 TDMA MAC
 The cluster head knows its members’ IDs

 Creates a simple TDM schedule, allocating time

slots to members
 Broadcasts schedule to members

 Schedule may be periodically updated

 Rotating cluster heads possible

DAWN Lab / UMBC 53

 TDM-Based MAC, contd.
 Advantages:
 Simple to coordinate within cluster
 No collisions
 Can be more energy-efficient: members wake up
only when they have to send/receive data
 Disadvantages:
 Adjoining clusters need to coordinate to operate in
different channels (or frequencies)
 TDM is not very scalable to large number of
nodes: high delays possible
 Nodes need to be synchronized within each
cluster

DAWN Lab / UMBC 54

 S-MAC [Ye et. Al. 2002]
 Sensor-MAC Protocol proposed in 2002
 Assumptions
 Network consists of several small nodes,
deployed in an ad hoc manner
 Nodes dedicated to a single or few collaborative
applications: Per-node fairness is not critical
 In-network processing assumed: e.g. data fusion,
data aggregation, collab signal processing
 Long idle periods and occasional burst of data:
higher latency may be tolerated

DAWN Lab / UMBC 55

 S-MAC details, contd.
 Periodic Listen and Sleep
Mode of operation
 Each node sleeps for a
while; wakes up and then
communicates with its
neighbors, as necessary.
 Periodic synch among
neighbors to reduce drift
 Pair-wise or group-wise
node synch
 Nodes exchange
schedule by broadcast
 MAC is still needed to
avoid collisions

DAWN Lab / UMBC 56

Localization (Location Discovery)
Algorithms

DAWN Lab / UMBC 57

 Location Information
 It is essential, in some applications, for each node to
know its location
 Sensed data coupled with loc. data and sent

 We need a cheap, low-power, low-weight, low form-

factor, and reasonably accurate mechanism
 Global Positioning Sys (GPS) is not always feasible
 GPS cannot work indoors, in dense foliage, etc.

 GPS power consumption is very high

 Size of GPS receiver and antenna will increase

node form factor

DAWN Lab / UMBC 58

 Indoor Localization
 Use a fixed infrastructure
 Beacon nodes are strategically placed
 Nodes receive beacon signals and measure:
 Signal Strength
 Signal Pattern
 Time of arrival; Time difference of arrival
 Angle of arrival
 Nodes use measurements from multiple beacons
and use different multi-lateration techniques to
estimate locations
 Accuracy of estimate depends on correlation
between measured entity and distance
DAWN Lab / UMBC 59
 Indoor Localization
 Examples of Indoor Loc. Systems
 RADAR (MSR), Cricket (MIT), BAT (AT&T), etc.

 Some approaches require a priori signal

measurement and characterization and database
creation
 Node obtains distance estimate by using
database
 Not always practical to have database loaded in
the individual node; only some nodes (e.g.
gateway) might carry it.

DAWN Lab / UMBC 60

 Sensor Net. Localization
 No fixed infrastructure available
 Prior measurements are not always possible
 Basic idea:
 Have a few sensor nodes who have known
location information
 These nodes sent periodic beacon signals

 Other nodes use beacon measurements and

triangulation, multi-lateration, etc. to estimate
distance
 Following mechanisms presented in Savvides et. al.
in ACM MobiCom 2001

DAWN Lab / UMBC 61

 Sensor Net. Localization, contd.
 Receiver Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) was used to
determine correlation to distance
 Suitable for RF signals only

 Very sensitive to obstacles, multi-path fading, environment

factors (rain, etc.)
 Was not found to have good experimental correlation

 RF signal had good range, few 10metres

 RF and Ultrasound signals

 The beacon node transmits an RF and an ultrasound
signal to receiver
 The time difference of arrival between 2 signals is used to
measure distance
 Range of up to 3 m, with 2cm accuracy

DAWN Lab / UMBC 62

 Localization algorithms
 Based on the time diff. of arrival
 Atomic Multi-lateration:
 If a node receives 3 becaons, it can determine its
location (similar to GPS)
 Iterative ML:
 Some nodes not in direct range of beacons
 Once an unknown node estimates its location, will
send out a beacon
 Multi-hop approach; Errors propagated
 Collaborative ML:
 When 2+ nodes cannot receive 3 beacons (but
can receive say 2), they collaborate
DAWN Lab / UMBC 63