190 likes | 326 Vues
Is There Light at the Ends of the Tunnel? Wireless Sensor Networks for Adaptive Lighting in Road Tunnels. IPSN 2011 Sean. Outline. Goal Challenge Contribution System Architecture Hardware & Software Testbed Evaluation Conclusion. Goal.
E N D
Is There Light at the Ends of the Tunnel?Wireless Sensor Networks for Adaptive Lighting in Road Tunnels IPSN 2011 Sean
Outline • Goal • Challenge • Contribution • System Architecture • Hardware & Software • Testbed • Evaluation • Conclusion
Goal • WSN-based Close-loop adaptive lighting in road tunnel • Improve tunnel safety • Reduce power consumption • State-of-the-art solutions • Pre-set lighting based on date and time • Relying only on external sensor • Testbed evaluation • Real deployment • Project TRITon • 630m, two-way, two-lane tunnel
Challenge • Peculiarities of Tunnels • harsh environment, relatively studied on WSN • Vehicular traffic • dirt and dust accumulation • Periodic tunnel cleaning • Limited deployment & debugging • Light variation • Need filtering • Better connectivity • Robustness • Packet collision o. Interference with WSN radio o. Occlusion &noise to light sensor direct sunlight Variation caused by vehicle
Challenge • Real-world constraints • Extended lifetime : at least 1-year by tunnel operators • WSN cannot fail due to continuous operation • Sensed data must arrive timely • Quality of sensing • Integration with conventional, industrial-strength equipment
Contribution • Verify WSN-based solution to adaptive lighting is feasible • Understand what extent the mainstream WSN technology can achieve • Real testbed implement • Gaining practical insight into tunnel scenario • Real-world lesson asset
System Architecture • 3 components • An external sensor • A grid of light sensor along the tunnel length • A control algorithm Determine the legislated curve Measure the veil luminance Compute error between legislated curve and actual lighting Drive above error to zero HPS in Testbed LED for project
Hardware & Software • Collection tree • Use LQI as path cost • Periodically reconstructed every 3min • Light Sensing • Average 4 sensor value into S(i) • Average all S(i) into S(all) • if |S(all) – S(i)| differs from S(all) by 50%, discard it • Recompute S(all)
Testbed • 40 nodes, 260m-long, two-way, two-lane tunnel • PLC relies only on first 15 node • 7-month experiments • More dense than TRITon • 44 nodes, 630m • Light sensor sample every 5s, PLC collects data every 30s
Evaluation • Light adaptive effect • Loss rate • Timely delivery • Resilience to gateway failures • Retransmission cost • Expected lifetime
Light adaptive effect Still follow the reference trend • Artificial step response • Node position relative to lamps bears great influence • Behavior of other node is closer to node 7 than node 4
Light adaptive effect • Real-world reference Bound by the dynamic range of light actuator Only 150 lx maximum
Loss rate Time spent transmitting and waiting for receiver to wake up becomes significant
Timely delivery > 60s: PLC will loss more than one sample in its cycle 30~60s: PLC may loss a sample in its cycle
Expected lifetime • Battery discharge profile • Temperature • Voltage • Discharge current • Underestimate • Use average discharge current of 100mA • LPL-like MAC only consume a few mA • 250ms LPL is better • Power consumed in channel check • Packet strobe time Trade-off
Conclusion • Reach the goal of close-loop adaptive lighting • Provide real-world insights and experience by using WSN in road tunnel