1 / 35

Monitoring Volcanic Eruptions with a Wireless Sensor Networks

Monitoring Volcanic Eruptions with a Wireless Sensor Networks. Geoffrey Werner-Allen, Jeff Johnson, Mario Ruiz, Jonathan Lees, and Matt Welsh Harvard University EWSN ’ 05 Presented by Tim. Outline. Introduction Background System Design

wayde
Télécharger la présentation

Monitoring Volcanic Eruptions with a Wireless Sensor Networks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Monitoring Volcanic Eruptions with a Wireless Sensor Networks Geoffrey Werner-Allen, Jeff Johnson, Mario Ruiz, Jonathan Lees, and Matt Welsh Harvard University EWSN’05 Presented by Tim

  2. Outline • Introduction • Background • System Design • Deployment • Distributed Event Detection • Evaluation • Conclusion

  3. Introduction • Volcanic monitoring has a wide range of goals, related to both scientific studies and hazard monitoring. • Volcanologists currently use wired arrays of sensors to monitor volcanic eruptions. • Wireless sensor networks have the potential to greatly benefit studies of volcanic activity.

  4. Background • Infrasound (Infrasonic wave) • Sound with very low frequency (1~50Hz) • Very high amplitude but not audible • Seismic wave • Wave travels through the Earth, often as the result of an earthquake or explosion

  5. Volcanic Monitoring

  6. Challenges and Issues • Existing data loggers store data locally • e.g., 1 or 2 Gb microdrives, store about 15 days' worth of data • Must trek up to the station to retrieve the data • Usually very inaccessible: can take several hours to drive/hike in • Very high power consumption • Two car batteries plus solar panels to recharge • Very expensive • Individual data logger costs thousands of $$$ • Still need PCs/laptops to process and store data permanently • Hard to deploy large number of stations • Size, cost, power requirements,...

  7. Opportunities for wireless sensor networks • Data sampling rates of ~100 Hz • Very small, low power, easy to deploy • Can put out a larger number of sensors in an area • Can customize software on the motes for capture, preprocessing, etc.

  8. Outline • Introduction • Background • System Design • Deployment • Distributed Event Detection • Evaluation • Conclusion

  9. System Architecture

  10. Infrasound Node • Sample data continuously at 102.4Hz • A set of 25 consecutive samples is packed into a 32-byte packet and transmitted at approximately 4 Hz. • The aggregator will send acknowledgement back. If source node does not receive ack, it’ll retransmit up to 5 times.

  11. Aggregator Node

  12. GPS Receiver Node • Motes record sample # and GPS time seq # in message • Can be used to align samples from each mote

  13. Time Regression • Uncertainties • The sampling rate of individual note may vary slightly over time, due to changes in temperature and battery voltage. • The log do not record the precise time. • Apply a linear regression to the data log stream and map individual sample to a “true ” time.

  14. Physical Packaging

  15. Outline • Introduction • Background • System Design • Deployment • Distributed Event Detection • Evaluation • Conclusion

  16. Volcano Tungurahua • Active volcano in central Ecuador – 5018 m • Site of much ongoing seismological research

  17. Deployment • Three infrasound nodes, one central aggregator node and a GPS receiver. • The GPS receiver and FreeWave modem were powered by a 12 V car battery. All other nodes were powered by 2 AA batteries. • The distance between sensors and observatory is about 9km. • The deployment was active from July 20–22, 2004 and collected over 54 hours of infrasonic signals.

  18. Deployment

  19. Deployment

  20. Deployment

  21. Data Analysis- Loss Rate • Weather conditions (e.g., rain) affected radio transmission. • Mote 4 experienced very low loss, due to its position with line-of-sight to the receiver. • Mote 3 experienced higher loss, probably due to antenna orientation.

  22. Data Analysis- Correlation • The result of wireless sensor array shows high correlation with wired station.

  23. Outline • Introduction • Background • System Design • Deployment • Distributed Event Detection • Evaluation • Conclusion

  24. Distributed Event Detection • The initial deployment is not feasible for larger arrays deployed over long period of time. • To save bandwidth and energy, it is desired to avoid transmitting signals when the volcano is quiescent.

  25. Mechanism • Each node samples data continuously at 102.4 Hz. • When the local event detector triggers, the node broadcasts a vote message. • If any node receives enough votes from its neighbor nodes, it initiates global data collection by flooding a message to all nodes in the network. • Token-based scheme for scheduling transmissions. • The order depends on node ID.

  26. Local Detector Design • Threshold-based detector • Exponentially weighted moving average based detector

  27. Local Detector Design • Threshold-based detector • Triggered whenever a signal rises above Thi and falls below another Tlo during some time window W. • Because it relies on absolute thresholds, it is sensitive to particular microphone gain on each node.

  28. Local Detector Design • Exponentially weighted moving average based detector • For each sample, calculate two moving averages with different gain parameters, αshort ,αlong ,and compare the ratio of the two averages. • e.g., (αshort = 0.05,αlong =0.002) • If the ratio exceeds some threshold T (i.e., the short-term average exceeds the long-term average by a significant amount), the detector is triggered.

  29. Outline • Introduction • Background • System Design • Deployment • Distributed Event Detection • Evaluation • Conclusion

  30. Evaluation • Use 8 mica2 nodes in the lab, but only 4 nodes with infrasound sensor board. • The infrasound signals were produced by closing the lab door. • Three parts • Energy usage • Bandwidth usage • Detector accuracy

  31. Energy usage • Each node exhibits a baseline current draw of about 18mA and supply voltage is 3 V. • Assuming that nodes detect a correlated signal every ½ hours, and locally vote at twice this rate.

  32. Bandwidth usage • Continuous sampling scheme consumes nx4x32 bytes/sec of bandwidth • (n:# of nodes, each node transmit one pkt every ¼ sec, size of pkt :32bytes) • Because of the low frequency of eruptions, distributed event detection uses less bandwidth.

  33. Detector Accuracy • Fed the detectors with the complete trace of data recorded on Tungurahua.

  34. Future Work & Conclusion • Seismology presents many exciting opportunities for wireless sensor networks. • To expand the number of sensors in the array and distribute them over a wider aperture. • The long-term plans are to provide a permanent, reprogrammable sensor array on Tungurahua.

  35. My Comments • The idea is simple but it’s hard work to deploy the motes in such a place. • To do research needs lots of passion. • The first mote-based application to volcanic monitoring! • Provide a wealth of experience to develop more sophisticated tools.

More Related